| Pengarang |
Topik: Suggestions |
5783 balasan
|
|
|
|
#61 dikirim Mac 28 2013, 14:47:34 (terakhir disunting Mac 28 2013, 14:47:54 oleh George Bixby)
|
Sebut
|
I know it's not F1 and all that but, I would like one of these two things to happen.
A) Either have the option of another tyre for Quali 2 and make your choice for the race or
B) Have random tyres that you must choose for the race. You would be given two types of tyre randomly for each race i.e for one race a Hard and medium, for the next race a choice of ES and medium and so on and so on.
Just a thought,
Please don't shout at me, very delicate lol
|
|
|
|
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,14:47:34 )
A) Either have the option of another tyre for Quali 2 and make your choice for the race
Don't really see why you would need to use two different tyre compounds in qualifying so you can pick one for the race.
Well, besides the fact that you would have two choices of tyre compounds for the race and you get to pick one ... but do you really need two choices?
Plus it's rather obvious that you would pick Extras for either Q1 or Q2, why would you pick any other compound for your second option?
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,14:47:34 ) B) You would be given two types of tyre randomly for each race i.e for one race a Hard and medium, for the next race a choice of ES and medium and so on and so on.
Mmm ... Maybe we want different tyre compounds than those given. It's not quite right to be restricted in your tyre options.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,14:47:34 ) Just a thought,
Even just a thought should have some reasoning behind it, don't you think ?
So would you mind providing some tangible reasons
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,14:47:34 ) A) Either have the option of another tyre for Quali 2 and make your choice for the race or
What would be the point of this ?
everyone would just pick extrasoft for Q1 and for Q2 they would pick the tyre they are would use in the current format
This wouldn't really improve anything, it might in fact make things worse by reducing strategies
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,14:47:34 ) B) Have random tyres that you must choose for the race.
1) this would again reduce available strategies, which generally is not a good thing
2) What purpose would adding randomness serve ?
In management randomness is rarely a good thing.
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,14:47:34 ) Please don't shout at me, very delicate lol
ofc. not :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mikko Heikkinen @ March 28th 2013,15:00:42 ) Even just a thought should have some reasoning behind it, don't you think ?
So would you mind providing some tangible reasons
The thinking behind it was that we all have data on tracks and tyre wear etc; and are in some sort of comfort zone knowing we are in the general area. But if we were give random 2 types of tyre to choose from you would then have to use your judgement to get the best strategy, or it could fall right for you that one of the tyre choices is perfect for you, as I said just a thought. A fantastic game though, I love it.
|
|
|
|
|
Must get out of the idea that this is not a F1 management game. I am too fond of thinking along those lines where the tyre company chooses the compound for the race (randomness) and my other point about having the option of having 2 types of tyre for qualifying may mean you use extras for quali but you could have the rule that you must start the race with the tyres you posted your fastest time on. But having said all that I am admitting defeat and going to crawl back to the little hole from whence I came lol. But thank you all for taking the time to read and reply, great debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 dikirim Mac 28 2013, 15:49:33 (terakhir disunting Mac 28 2013, 15:50:09 oleh Sion Francis)
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( George Bixby @ March 28th 2013,15:23:52 ) But if we were give random 2 types of tyre to choose from you would then have to use your judgement to get the best strategy
...as opposed to using your best judgement between 4 types of tyre?
It is usually true to say that the two most viable alternatives, strategy wise, involve two tyre compounds that are "next" to each other. It's extremely rare under the current system that you're choosing on strategies between tyres two compounds apart, and if you are the one in the middle is usually viable as well.
Consequently, resounding no from me.
|
|
|
|
|
As I said Sion in my previous post I admit defeat and respect everybody's opinion and realise that what I suggested was probably not good for the game. But just to add loosely a bit more to the debate I must admit to getting a little frustrated that once you have qualified and got your grid position you are helpless to do any more. It would be great if we could call the stops in game but i suppose the global subscription to the game makes this impossible, but that would be fun.
|
|
|
|
I dont know what you guys think, it could make for better racing and closer racing and add a bit more complexity to strategy.
What do you guys think about having different strategy options for different stints ?
Push at the start to get in the lead, reduce risks in stint 2, or push near the end when guys are reducing.
I dont even know if its possible and the full implications of it for programming either but I think it might make races closer.... often the result can be a foregone conclusion and this might make strategy choice a bit more interesting.... not that its not complex enough as it is :P
What does anybody think....?? Its only a suggestion... that is the topic title of the board. If you want to shoot it down in flames.... Do it nicely !! :)
|
|
|
|
|
cos everyone would just go balls to the wall in the first stint or two to get the lead, and then 0 risk the last stint to save the parts from smoking. Then all you have is a procession for 20 or more laps - basically like how F1 was 10 years ago. So, are you sure it will make it more exciting? it's more exciting watching someone on 90CT smoke.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ March 31st 2013,18:27:09 )
What does anybody think....?
If it ain't broke...
|
|
|
|
|
I would prefere the 2 tyre choice as addition. A softer tyre and a harder one.
|
|
|
|
|
and you would prefer that because.....you like good strategies going up in smoke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 dikirim Mac 31 2013, 19:10:05 (terakhir disunting Mac 31 2013, 19:11:05 oleh Jimmy De Roy)
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,19:07:25 ) and you would prefer that because.....you like good strategies going up in smoke?
Nope because it would make the game more interesting but i won't say another thing as instead of saying they don't agree there are IDIOTS that prefer the thumbs down.
Why would that screw up your strategy?
|
|
|
|
I think it was pretty obvious I didn't agree without the thumb to be honest, but whatever dude.
Maybe I gave you the thumb in case you were'nt clever enough to realise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 dikirim Mac 31 2013, 19:14:14 (terakhir disunting Mac 31 2013, 19:15:15 oleh Jimmy De Roy)
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,19:12:05 ) I think it was pretty obvious I didn't agree without the thumb to be honest, but whatever dude.
That is why i was not talking about you, i prefer the discussion instead of the anonymous reaction.
So why do you think a good strategy would go up in smoke? especially if you know from before that you need to use 2 sort of tyres?
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,19:12:05 ) Maybe I gave you the thumb in case you were'nt clever enough to realise.
Are you an arse or do you only pretend to be one?
|
|
|
|
|
The only suggestion I'd support is a revised weather system and intermediate tyres! But I know that the admins would need a lot of time to make that change.
For the rest, I think there is enough to play with. Why add something when you don't fully master what is already available? ;)
|
|
|
|
tyre compound differences mainly, especially in low temperatures. in the lower levels (where most of the players are playing) it's a fairly major advantage to know where you have an edge over the rest. That's pretty much my reason against it. 5 tenths is a lot to lose for someone else to be able to jump on, especially if you were on low risks, you'd not really be able to respond if you'd planned a given tactic for the whole race.
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody needs to use them so planning does not really change much.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Thomas Wesker @ March 31st 2013,19:14:52 ) The only suggestion I'd support is a revised weather system and intermediate tyres! But I know that the admins would need a lot of time to make that change.
Yeah I think it would make a big difference, but having the option of intermediates and the track getting wet/dry possibly according to temperature would be very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Dave Berrisford @ March 31st 2013,19:23:01 ) Yeah I think it would make a big difference, but having the option of intermediates and the track getting wet/dry possibly according to temperature would be very interesting.
Yes. We have temperature, humidity, weather, we could have different "slippery" levels when it's raining.
But that would need a lot of re-programming.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Thomas Wesker @ March 31st 2013,19:14:52 ) The only suggestion I'd support is a revised weather system and intermediate tyres! But I know that the admins would need a lot of time to make that change.
Weather system is fine, its random. Take away the randomness when there's potential for rain, and it becomes no different than a full dry race, or full wet race.
Quote ( Thomas Wesker @ March 31st 2013,19:14:52 ) I think there is enough to play with. Why add something when you don't fully master what is already available? ;)
agree
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jimmy De Roy @ March 31st 2013,19:14:14 ) Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,19:12:05 )
That is why i was not talking about you, i prefer the discussion instead of the anonymous reaction.
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,19:12:05 )
Maybe I gave you the thumb in case you were'nt clever enough to realise.
Are you an arse or do you only pretend to be one?
I thought your comment was aimed at me, before you made that point, so I take it back ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Thomas Wesker @ March 31st 2013,19:28:15 ) But that would need a lot of re-programming.
And that is the problem as the source codes are a mess, i was told ;)
But intermediate tyres would be a very good addition
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,19:34:03 ) I thought your comment was aimed at me, before you made that point, so I take it back ;)
Fair enough
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ March 31st 2013,18:40:01 ) cos everyone would just go balls to the wall in the first stint or two to get the lead, and then 0 risk the last stint to save the parts from smoking. Then all you have is a procession for 20 or more laps - basically like how F1 was 10 years ago. So, are you sure it will make it more exciting? it's more exciting watching someone on 90CT smoke.
If everyone goes balls to the walls at the start as you put it then that surely opens up different strategies for other guys. We all know you have to manage strategy and CT risks due to part wear so this has to come into play.
Why would it mean a processon unless guys were running high risk throughout the race....which they do now anyway ? If yo are pushing at the end they could well get back that time.
As I said though, each is entitled to their opinion and responses like "if it aint broke dont fix it" was what I was expecting ! Pathetic response and lazy too.
What is the point for suggestions on the forum when guys cant be bothered to write any pros or cons of the suggestions. It just makes you realise there is no real point posting when condascending guys shoot down any ideas or suggestions in flames... without any back up or useful comments.
I was quite happy to put it out there for discussion yay or nay ,... but you can tell the more mature guys at least have an opinion on it and are willing to back that opinion up after thinking about the implications. I have respect for those guys.... otherwise dont bother posting is what I say :)
Fair enough, I fully realise there are flaws in it, didnt Webber reduce risks the other week turning his engine down ?? Now that was an interesting race.... But thats just my opinion, right or wrong lol
I wont get involved in a character assassination as that was not my intention when I posted so dont bother putting your opinion on me on here, just post it on what my idea was. That at the end of the day is what this thread was..... It might be like finding a needle in a haystack trawling through posts, but once in a while you come across a gem of an idea. Not saying mine was that "gem" but at least I bothered to put it onto this for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ March 31st 2013,20:13:35 ) If everyone goes balls to the walls at the start as you put it then that surely opens up different strategies for other guys. We all know you have to manage strategy and CT risks due to part wear so this has to come into play.
Why would it mean a processon unless guys were running high risk throughout the race....which they do now anyway ? If yo are pushing at the end they could well get back that time.
As I said though, each is entitled to their opinion and responses like "if it aint broke dont fix it" was what I was expecting ! Pathetic response and lazy too.
What is the point for suggestions on the forum when guys cant be bothered to write any pros or cons of the suggestions. It just makes you realise there is no real point posting when condascending guys shoot down any ideas or suggestions in flames... without any back up or useful comments.
I was quite happy to put it out there for discussion yay or nay ,... but you can tell the more mature guys at least have an opinion on it and are willing to back that opinion up after thinking about the implications. I have respect for those guys.... otherwise dont bother posting is what I say :)
Fair enough, I fully realise there are flaws in it, didnt Webber reduce risks the other week turning his engine down ?? Now that was an interesting race.... But thats just my opinion, right or wrong lol
I wont get involved in a character assassination as that was not my intention when I posted so dont bother putting your opinion on me on here, just post it on what my idea was. That at the end of the day is what this thread was..... It might be like finding a needle in a haystack trawling through posts, but once in a while you come across a gem of an idea. Not saying mine was that "gem" but at least I bothered to put it onto this for discussion.
well said Rob good point well put
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ March 31st 2013,20:13:35 ) As I said though, each is entitled to their opinion and responses like "if it aint broke dont fix it" was what I was expecting ! Pathetic response and lazy too.
And you'd expect people to write you a novel (short story) about why this would make no difference at all, or why it would not be such a good idea
When clearly you're the lazy one not bothering to check out if there has been the same suggestion before and how the discussion has gone.
IF you'd like some other kind of responses, why not check the earlier discussion and address the issues which come with "your" suggestion.
Quite pompous of you to blame others of being lazy. Why would people have to write over and over again pointing out the flaws in the same suggestion which comes around every once in a while ?
/gb/forum/Search.asp
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Thomas Wesker @ March 31st 2013,19:14:52 ) The only suggestion I'd support is a revised weather system and intermediate tyres! But I know that the admins would need a lot of time to make that change.
I would prefer racing in indoor tracks where rain is not possible.
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ March 31st 2013,20:13:35 ) If everyone goes balls to the walls at the start as you put it then that surely opens up different strategies for other guys.
Nope because of ovetaking being not possible.
|
|
|
|
How is if it ain't broke don't fix it any contribution at all.
How much trawling through all the forums do you expect ? I hadn't ever read of the idea so fair dos there are lots of places to find it and you clearly knew where to look.
No I don't expect a short novel, I would expect guys to make their point or don't bother posting at all. That would be more sensible.
Clearly you do bother to get on the point every other guys make and it is guys like you that make it unworthy of even bothering to post at all. So what happens to any ideas guys think up ?... Ostriches with head in the sand, keep it the way it is. And because ideas are shot down in flames immediately. In fact they can't make a point because they are accused of being lazy and not checking up all the forums previously.
I haven't heard of any valid point against it until I read Daneks, but why should defend risks be kept the same as they are now ? In Grand Prix defend risks do add to the strategy as you can only defend once I believe. But I do get the idea of pushing to the front then using astronomical defend risks..... In fact it was one of the flaws I had thought of before posting. But there we go ;) I thought other more intelligent managers than me might have some ideas how that could be adapted, as to whether it should be adapted is still a very key question.
I didn't suggest this was my suggestion either, it was something I thought of, I hadn't read the idea anywhere, so posted it for discussion. If you have read it before somewhere and it had been discounted then that is all fine. But any ideas I have In future i will not trawl through all the possible places on the forum in case it has already been suggested...... Come to think of it I probably won't bother to post at all thanks to guys such as yourself :(. Then you succeed in quelling any ideas at all.
Mind you if I got up to elite, I think I might want to keep everything the same imperpetuity too .... Clearly "if it aint broke don't change it" for guys that have already "made it " ! Personally gpro is for all abilities and experiences and any improvements need to be for the majority and for the game of gpro itself, not just for the elite guys.
Hope the ostriches stay happy Though while gpro stagnates in the long term.
This game is not perfect, guys have left because of the flaws in it. If you douse the flames too much then any fresh ideas get squashed. Please feel free to stay on here permanently, meanwhile most of us have a life outside of policing the forum like some self appointed security man.
No progress has ever been made keeping things the way they are..... Otherwise the world would still be flat !
Is that response " lazy" enough for you ?
Please post via pm if you wish to discuss this further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert, take a chill-pill, no need to stress about it. Yes it's correct that the game has room for improvement (every game does), it would be ignorant to think otherwise, so keep the suggestions coming. But people don't leave it because of it's flaws; rather because they can't work it out and get around them. Or because it becomes too time-consuming to dig dipper.
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ April 1st 2013,00:11:46 ) Mind you if I got up to elite, I think I might want to keep everything the same imperpetuity too .... Clearly "if it aint broke don't change it" for guys that have already "made it " !
Nothing could be further from the truth here, Robert. It's quite the opposite. The top managers can work out any changes made to the game quicker than those who still are working out some of the more intricate parts. If you know how the system works it's easy to work out any changes that are brought upon by some alterations. In fact stability is what makes it easier for new players to "catch up" in understanding the game and it's strategies. A major change adds another spectrum and that's why probably we don't get them too often, just to make the system more stable for the newbies.
btw, I think you were a little unfair in your reply to Mikko. Yes, he has a dry way of addressing forum posts, but that's the way he is (he's from Finland, think "Raikkonen"). All he tried to do is to point you in the right direction, so that you can find out if your idea was valid and see if someone already has thought of it before.
btw 2,
Quote ( Robert Kearney @ March 31st 2013,20:13:35 ) As I said though, each is entitled to their opinion and responses like "if it aint broke dont fix it" was what I was expecting ! Pathetic response and lazy too.
Don't you think you're being a bit confronting here yourself? No matter how proverbial, this is a valid response too. Just saying. ;)
As for the suggestion of choosing different risks, those who are pushing for points will go with the highest risks they can anyway. If someone wants to save parts, they'll run slightly lower risk, and that's why we have 101 possible CT adjustments. What would make it more interesting is combining this idea with the running 2 separate compounds in the race. You can choose to pop a softer compound on for a stint or 2 and reduce the risk at the same time. Now that would throw a proverbial cat among the pigeons. Can you guys imagine the number of different strategies we could use? Mind-blowing! :D
Regards, Mick.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Dansk
Pirate
