| Autorius |
Tema: Negative CT risk |
32 atsakymų
|
|
|
|
I would like to use negative CT risk sometimes to conserve wear at the cost of speed.
|
|
|
|
lol, that would be funny :p
you can smoke it out ;)
( equivalent to negative ct ;) )
|
|
|
|
|
How can you take less than no risks at all?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure my driver already thinks the risks I'm giving him are negative..
|
|
|
|
|
Sleeping in the car is not allowed ;)
|
|
|
|
Oh cool me too \o/
Buuuuut......why dont you just smoke?
|
|
|
|
|
#7 parašyta 2013-Spa-10, 12:24:45 (paskutinis taisymas 2013-Spa-10, 12:26:20, taisė Peter Wilson)
|
Cituoti
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ October 10th 2013,12:20:23 ) u take less than no risks at all?
Well, there is an opposite of risk, which is driving carefully to preserve the car. Which is the nub of the suggestion. Using negative risk seems a fairly simple programming change which would not require a new engine.
You may say 50ct is equivalent to 'no risk' and driving carefully = 0CT , I accept that, but actually I am proposing an extension of the range to allow you to race more carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the fact you can't possibly take fewer risks than none, this is a management game and tracks have a minimum wear level. It is your job as a manager to plan your wear and parts around that.
|
|
|
|
|
loooooooool....negative CT! incredible idea :P
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ October 10th 2013,12:26:11 ) fewer risks than none You could rename the variable to something other than risk.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ October 10th 2013,12:20:23 ) How can you take less than no risks at all?
Miss the race.
|
|
|
|
|
Why!!! ? F1 is about being competitive and trying to win not just cruisin round , chillin out and enjoying the view !!!
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Shersh Khandelwal @ October 10th 2013,12:20:20 ) lol, that would be funny :p
you can smoke it out ;)
( equivalent to negative ct ;) )
Yes, but I opened this because of your blocking idea.
|
|
|
|
|
A tick box for going on a Sunday drive? Maybe get the driver to wear a trilby :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 parašyta 2013-Spa-10, 12:33:53 (paskutinis taisymas 2013-Spa-10, 12:34:27, taisė Mark Wright)
|
Cituoti
|
|
Driving the car carefully is 0CT. You can't expect to get less wear than the minimum that will be gained at the relevant track. At some tracks that might actually result in your wear decreasing on some parts which is clearly not going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Peter Wilson @ October 10th 2013,12:31:45 ) Quote ( Shersh Khandelwal @ October 10th 2013,12:20:20 )
lol, that would be funny :p
you can smoke it out ;)
( equivalent to negative ct ;) )
Yes, but I opened this because of your blocking idea.
What has it to do with it ??? :-/
A poll here would have been interesting ;)
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't want parts to wear - don't start. As simple as that :-)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mark Wright @ October 10th 2013,12:33:53 ) Driving the car carefully is 0CT. You can't expect to get less wear than the minimum that will be gained at the relevant track. At some tracks that might actually result in your wear decreasing on some parts which is clearly not going to happen. Thought so. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
After further review...reopened.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, this thread deserved further discussion :-)
|
|
|
|
There exists a range for CT risks which is currently arbitrarily defined as being between 0 and 100. you could call it -100 to +100 or cows to dogs via monkeys and it wouldn't make much difference.
But, the game designers spend more time than you'd imagine calculating the costs per season and control it quite well. There's no particular reason for them to want to allow people to save more car wear than they already can. It is not in the game's interest to give people a method to generate even more essentially free money.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mike Becnel @ October 10th 2013,17:47:01 ) After further review...reopened.
Are you and Raffa playing good cop and bad cop? :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind much, but it really doesn't make any sense. You can't take it even more easier than just cruising and not pushing with CT0.
|
|
|
|
|
Negative CT? That sounds so..logical
|
|
|
|
|
If it's possible to use less than no risks, can it also be possible to have less than no wear? My car Engine could improve as the race the went on..
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Peter Wilson @ October 10th 2013,12:19:11 ) I would like to use negative CT risk sometimes to conserve wear at the cost of speed. And the prize goes to PETER WILSON! Congratz Peter, this is definitely worse than the blocking skill suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like that, if i can get my parts to repair during the race and get negative wear, when i use negative risk.
|
|
|
|
|
yes negative risks lvls is great idea and it makes sense. Yes zero risks mean you do not risk anything but allowing the negative risk level simply means not only are you taking no risks but you are conciously taking extra care. Lets implement it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 parašyta 2013-Spa-10, 19:06:59 (paskutinis taisymas 2013-Spa-10, 19:20:47, taisė Virgis Lyss)
|
Cituoti
|
|
I like the idea. Extending it, the further the risk is from highest +100 mark the lower the wears, there should appear a break point, after it wear should become negative. Then I could drive with ct -5000 and repair my car without spending hard earned cash... oh yeah, I like it :D
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sion Francis @ October 10th 2013,17:51:30 ) There exists a range for CT risks which is currently arbitrarily defined as being between 0 and 100. you could call it -100 to +100 or cows to dogs via monkeys and it wouldn't make much difference.
But, the game designers spend more time than you'd imagine calculating the costs per season and control it quite well. There's no particular reason for them to want to allow people to save more car wear than they already can. It is not in the game's interest to give people a method to generate even more essentially free money.
Pretty much what I wrote when I pressed "post reply" and founf yhe thread closed :)
If you prefer, imagine 50ct is 0 so you can go -50 to +50 with your risks. There os still a minimum, regardless of what number it is defined at, but 0 seems pretty sensible :)
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
