| Author |
Topic: Bugs and possible bugs |
5907 replies
|
|
|
Bug :
1. In race Analysis, I have a driver mistake and a car problem in the same lap it is written : "Driver mistakeCar problem"
instead of "Driver mistake & Car problem"
Questions : (not bugs :D)
2. In race summary, isn't it a bit confusing to display nb of laps covered while we had to race all the laps anyway ?
Those who finished 8 laps behind have covered all the laps anyway.
And someone who drop lap 67 should be ranked ahead someone who finished the race lap 64. Here it's not the case as it is average speed that count.
3. Shouldn't the managers above 90% be displayed also above "not classified" line ?
4. About tyre length, I thought there could have small difference according to driver, the car and race setup but when I see all Extra Soft guys pitting the same lap (15, 30, 45, etc...) it is a bit weird, no? why the risk does not influence more on tyres ? (more risk = less distance, less risk = more distance)
|
|
|
|
|
#2 posted Mar 25th 2006, 10:31:23
|
Quote
|
|
well i havnt had time to analyse my data yet but it could be that everyone used the same risk you dont know that for sure but i do agree to a certain extent because being able to predict exactly when the tyres will be worn out is a very good skill to have in a game like this , it may not win every race but can be a difference if you pit when you plan to and not 3 or 4 laps later
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Mar 25th 2006, 15:59:45
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Christophe Jauffret @ March 25th 2006,09:46:28 )
Bug :
1. In race Analysis, I have a driver mistake and a car problem in the same lap it is written : "Driver mistakeCar problem"
instead of "Driver mistake & Car problem"
It should be fixed now and the events will be separated with "," instead.
Quote ( Christophe Jauffret @ March 25th 2006,09:46:28 )
Questions : (not bugs :D)
2. In race summary, isn't it a bit confusing to display nb of laps covered while we had to race all the laps anyway ?
Yep, this is something that I have to work on as soon as possible.
Quote ( Christophe Jauffret @ March 25th 2006,09:46:28 )
And someone who drop lap 67 should be ranked ahead someone who finished the race lap 64. Here it's not the case as it is average speed that count.
Actually that was a bug. It should show the correct info now.
Quote ( Christophe Jauffret @ March 25th 2006,09:46:28 )
3. Shouldn't the managers above 90% be displayed also above "not classified" line ?
Managers who didn't cover 90% are displayed below the line. Or were you asking something else?
Quote ( Christophe Jauffret @ March 25th 2006,09:46:28 )
why the risk does not influence more on tyres ?
Since most of you have similar drivers and cars the tyres get worn in the same lap most of the time. However risk do not currently affect tyre wear. If everyone else thinks it is a good idea I can add some influence to the tyre wear from the driver risks as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 posted Mar 25th 2006, 16:27:18
|
Quote
|
|
i support that tyre wear influence from risk! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 posted Mar 25th 2006, 17:12:22
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Marcelo Michelini @ March 25th 2006,16:27:18 )
i support that tyre wear influence from risk! :)
yep, me too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 posted Mar 25th 2006, 18:14:17
|
Quote
|
|
yeah i do too, it is a very very good idea
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Mar 25th 2006, 18:25:28
|
Quote
|
|
Me too, it will be more real!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 posted Mar 25th 2006, 19:38:43
|
Quote
|
|
but in combination with the drivers attributes, a experienced talented driver uses his tyres less when pudhing the nan unexperienced one with less talent
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 posted Mar 25th 2006, 21:05:32
|
Quote
|
|
Good point Jimmy. ALso, maybe in combination with agressiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 posted Mar 26th 2006, 12:45:06
|
Quote
|
I think it's totally wrong to implement a change like this...
Just my opinion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 posted Mar 26th 2006, 13:25:14
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Gianluca Marchese @ March 26th 2006,12:45:06 )
I think it's totally wrong to implement a change like this...
Could you say why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 posted Mar 26th 2006, 17:50:32
|
Quote
|
Sure! :)
What I can see here is a lot of numbers and factors. Maybe too many numbers and factors.
In another topic I was talking about playability. In F1REM I did my way to G1 all by myself (or nearly) and I didn't get a real help (by only one person, Jon Payton of course) until the start of my second season in G1.
That was a great part of the game, if you think well.
All here are assuming that everyone can count on a group of managers (the famous national forum, for example), but that's not quite right. There are also solo players who should be rewarded in some ways and the playability of the game is maybe the only one.
A too complicated game does not mean a good game. At least not always.
I think there are too many data to collect for solo players and also too much expenses in term of money. A forum player can save money because he can have a lot of help from many others. A solo player must do everything on his own and so the differences are two times bigger (data and costs).
That's not funny and many managers could decide to go away.
I also have some idea on how we could change something easily without changing the game as it is now.
Obviously I am a newbie now and I have to learn a lot, so my thoughts can be totally wrong.
Btw, at the moment it's exactly what I think.
And other differences between tyres are only in favor of forum players. They can easily learn everything in 5/10 races while it could took some seasons to a solo player. And after those season he still will be in G4!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 posted Mar 26th 2006, 22:35:37
|
Quote
|
I see your point Gianluca but we should not limit us to what we had in F1Rem in terms of different factors playing some role during a race.
It seems quite realistic to me if a driver, not pushing his car at all, can run a few laps longer with the same set of tyres as another who is pushing his car on the limit every lap.
So in this case I do think we should go for more realistic game formulas which can give a variety of winning strategies to the managers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 posted Mar 27th 2006, 10:03:34
|
Quote
|
yep, I agree with Vlad.
And its not like the margin to play with will be huge. E.g., xsoft tyres will not hold 2 times as long, but just a few laps...
On the other hand, if we put in too much factors in too much different thing, then it will be a lottery to find out what affects what, so their will be no way to actualy determine a winning strategy!
AND if we put in too much factors, the outcome will be a sort of 'regression to the mean', meaning that the combined sum of all the factors will not make much of a difference and only when you have a few extreme values on factors, a noticable difference will appear.
For that reason I do feel we need to limit our selfs to the number of factors we would like to influence (in this case) tyre wear (or we need to be prepared to widen the margin to play with and accept indeed that the differences in wear can be much more then 2 laps)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 posted Mar 27th 2006, 10:41:11
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Vladimir Alexandrov @ March 25th 2006,15:59:45 )
Quote ( Christophe Jauffret @ March 25th 2006,09:46:28 )
3. Shouldn't the managers above 90% be displayed also above "not classified" line ?
Managers who didn't cover 90% are displayed below the line. Or were you asking something else?
When I posted this message, there was managers with average speed <90% winner average speed that were ahead the line, seems it was corrected now, so I'm very happy with all answers and corrections.
Thanks :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 posted Mar 27th 2006, 12:56:01
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Hans Barf @ March 27th 2006,10:03:34 )
AND if we put in too much factors, the outcome will be a sort of 'regression to the mean', meaning that the combined sum of all the factors will not make much of a difference and only when you have a few extreme values on factors, a noticable difference will appear.
I agree on that with Hans. Also I like the idea of having tyre wear dependant on risk, fuel dependant on car and driver, chance of smoke etc. etc. whatever is related to car and driver.
My first impression after 3 races about other important parts of a game:
I believe there's too realistic model and too many different facilities that need upgrades, too many staff characteristics, and too complex testing-R&D-engineering-car points conversion process (with decay of a time).
I hope to understand the importance of all that stuff after few seasons.
IMHO if there were only one Facility complex to upgrade and spending money on testing would improve the car immediately after the race, then it would be more fun and still leave some hard decisions on what to spend money for. Also I think just testing pit crew, upgrading Facility complex and having TD that affects everything related to a car, staff or facility would be more that enough for a variety of strategies.
And all current things that in the end influence car speed need a lot of money, and reason of spending money on that is not obvious for a newbie like me.
Imagine, if there are 10 objects to spend money for and all lead at a certain degree to a faster car or best race time, and if 3 of these object require obligatory money spending, and other 7 are not so important, then after few seasons you will see that ppl spend most of their money only on 3 obligatory and 2-3 supplimentary objects out of 10 available to achieve best results.
So in my view making some game aspects a bit simplified would make the game more fun and still require a lot of math and strategic skills for progress.
I'm not insisting on changing anything. I'm sure this is a result of a consistent testing and trying to make the game more realistic.
Just a thoughts after first 3 races in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 posted Mar 27th 2006, 15:49:16
|
Quote
|
I'm all in favour of hi risk = higher tyre wear.
As for the facilities Hans, you already know my opinion ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 posted Mar 27th 2006, 21:33:56
|
Quote
|
|
Ok tyre usage will be dependent on driver risk from tommorow's race. Also I have changed a bit the way the TD's pit coordination skill affects the pit times since the TD's effect was too little in the first 3 races...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 posted Mar 27th 2006, 22:48:06
|
Quote
|
"I see your point Gianluca but we should not limit us to what we had in F1Rem in terms of different factors playing some role during a race."
Yes, but I agree with you on that. this is another game, so it's right to play another game. In fact I wrote "I also have some idea on how we could change something easily without changing the game as it is now". Firstly because you did a very good job and I like it and then for respecting that job and the thoughts of the managers
But why, and this is only my first idea, do we not change the testing part making it easier? In my opinion this is a very good part of the game and it can help a lot solo managers. Obviously only if that was easier to play. At the moment it costs too much in term of parts wear and money: another advantage for forum players...as the qualify system as it is now: stronger players (so, above all, forum players) have double advantage at the moment (btw, I know that this can be a bit more complicated to change).
---
"It seems quite realistic to me if a driver, not pushing his car at all, can run a few laps longer with the same set of tyres as another who is pushing his car on the limit every lap."
The realistic point is very very difficult to achieve. I think we should base eventual changes on the game (whinch is already quite realistic) as it is now, because it's the experience here that counts and not real F1.
---
"So in this case I do think we should go for more realistic game formulas which can give a variety of winning strategies to the managers..."
A variety? How many? If there are two winning strategies could be ok, but not more.
---
"Ok tyre usage will be dependent on driver risk from tommorow's race."
I disagree. Already explained why. But if this is the general feeling it's not a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 posted Mar 28th 2006, 16:53:16
|
Quote
|
|
Current balance: $-5.819.521
from race analysis... i cant read my current balance as it has an orange background! horrible! :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 posted Mar 28th 2006, 17:46:38
|
Quote
|
Gianluca,
I have expressed so many time the same feeling but it looks like the answers are always the same:
1. Learn it the hard away
2. Join some other managers
3. collect data over season and enhance your skills.
To me a manager game is not a group game, you should be able to play on your own and be able to beat anybody in the game.
The information from the game should be feedback to everybody in the same way and not like it will be, where people will group data to be able to understand more quickly than another group the program behaviour by croschecking their results.
In such a game the solo player will never be able to beat a group.
It would be just like you would play football alone against a team of 11 players!
This game should NOT be about being able to do reverse enginering, which consist at underdstanding the source code from the data.
No this game is about winning a race with the tool at your disposition, A pilot , a car, a technical team and some facilities.
So Gianluca,
what you and I propose does not fit the game phylosophy.
It look like people are affraid of giving the same chances to everybody.
That wil only make this game a difficult game to play and a very time consumming one, but not sure we all will enjoy it.
All games I like to play and which are lasting for ages, are simple games.
Easy to play and were you can see the result of your actions as well as your opponent actions.
Those games are succesful overtime because they are easy to learn, easy to play but difficult to master.
While wit a reverse enginering approach, once you have cracked the code you just play by the rules and get easy victories.
That is when people start to get bored and ask for changes in the game.
All in all it's a choice from the webmaster and GPRO will be a REVERSE ENGINERING GAME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 posted Mar 28th 2006, 18:04:26
|
Quote
|
Turi, you're kidding, arent you? :s
Quote ( Salvatore Difficile  @ March 28th 2006,17:46:38 ) It look like people are affraid of giving the same chances to everybody.
People is generally speaking. Be more specific next time because if you meant Vlad under 'people' then could you explain why and what would his profit be from not letting solo players succeeding as well as if they were in a group?!
Also, it looks like you are all against the new team system!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 posted Mar 28th 2006, 19:52:20
|
Quote
|
For forum players I don't mean teams. Also, the forum players have the same advantage without spending any money to make a team!
The team system can be good, but maybe 10 managers are really too much. Btw, I don't mind about it. What make me think is why nobody thought about a different system that kill the matter: a manager could have two or even three cars...so it would be that ONE manager is ONE team! With the gap between forum and solo players reduced. But, again, this is another thing.
What Turi said is not so wrong, I think. The game, as it is now, it's only, or nearly, for forum players. No chance for solo managers at all. My F1portal way to G1 would be impossible here.
I repeat: why don't we rethink the testing part and some other thing without changing nearly anything in the game (which is good)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 posted Mar 28th 2006, 20:30:03
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Gianluca Marchese @ March 28th 2006,19:52:20 )
a manager could have two or even three cars...so it would be that ONE manager is ONE team!
Letting one maganer have 2/3 cars would reduce the overall number of managers in game alot. Instead of having 2000 there would be 1000 and even less in the worst case. But yet, it does NOT garantee you the "solo player" game you are asking for ... Sharing data one way or another is NOT forbidden at all. Im not talking only about F1REM or GPRO but as a whole. It's impossible to be stopped in any way, sorry ...
And what makes you think that having 2 cars would prevent the managers from sharing data? As far as I know, pitwall is based on 2 main drivers + test driver. It will only double your work/time on the game. Would make the game even worse because ppl will get advantage of it and use their weaker driver to find good setup and with the 2nd one to get even better one. Is that what you want? If yes then we can double # of practice laps and let you have perfect setup every single race till the end of you solo career.
.. and I still dont get it what is so wrong with Testing session?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 posted Mar 28th 2006, 21:50:19
|
Quote
|
"Letting one maganer have 2/3 cars would reduce the overall number of managers in game alot. Instead of having 2000 there would be 1000 and even less in the worst case."
Oh no, if you use the other car only for testing...
---
"But yet, it does NOT garantee you the "solo player" game you are asking for..."
I'm not asking a solo player game...
---
"Sharing data one way or another is NOT forbidden"
Exactly, that's why I'm only asking to reduce the gap between solo and forum players. Only that, because I know that forum managers will always be advantaged. So, the problem is the gap, not the player's kind...
---
"It's impossible to be stopped in any way, sorry"
As said, totally agree...in fact I don't want to stop anything...
---
"And what makes you think that having 2 cars would prevent the managers from sharing data? As far as I know, pitwall is based on 2 main drivers + test driver. It will only double your work/time on the game. Would make the game even worse because ppl will get advantage of it and use their weaker driver to find good setup and with the 2nd one to get even better one. Is that what you want? If yes then we can double # of practice laps and let you have perfect setup every single race till the end of you solo career."
Already answered...
---
".. and I still dont get it what is so wrong with Testing session?!"
Nothing. I repeat: the game is good as it is. But imagine a second car for testing...or free testing and without part wear problems...
And only one qualify...
And wing considered as one part in wear (so the parts would be reduced of one unit permitting a bit easier management, also about money)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 posted Mar 28th 2006, 22:01:00
|
Quote
|
Gianluca!! please!! use the quote feature! :D its easier to read and also to write it
although i would really like a second car for testing... i think it will become too easy
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 posted Mar 28th 2006, 22:08:15
|
Quote
|
OK to make your life easier when quoting, select some of the text and press the QUOTE button in the corner on your right ...
Now on topic:
The effect of testing will be way too important for a couple of seasons ahead so we cannot afford letting it be for free. You'll get your 1st results (final & added to the car character) after the 4th race (assuming you started testing since the begining of the season) and then it will continue improving your car after each race (5th, 6th, 7th and so on till the end) So dont tell me you want testing for free and not only for free but w/o any wear on the parts. 1 mil is not that much for Elite group, considering the fact that the income of the race will be increased very soon. The price would be decreased by 250K for each lover group since 1 mil is alot for amateurs ...
About wings, as I said before, it's more like the feedback we get for them, cosidered as one part but in fact they are 2 different ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 posted Mar 29th 2006, 09:50:17
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Kiril Nikolov Mitov @ March 28th 2006,18:04:26 ) People is generally speaking. Be more specific next time
Kiril, Do not see in my comments any personal attack .
What I 'm against is the phylosophy of the game which is supported by many people in the Original beta tester group.
As I'm a minority with a diffrent game phylosophy I will have to take it the way it is or stop playing.
Which I will not do because I Like the comunity of people and I want to be part of it.
Which does not disallow me to express once again my feelings about the game playability.
Which I can summarise as follow:
"GPRO will be mastered by group of people playing together against other groups of people, Because the phylodophy of the game is based on REVERSE ENGINERING"
"REVERSE ENGINERING: which consist at underdstanding the source code from a collection of data.
off course bigger the data collection is an sooner you get the results.
As such a solo player will not be able to compete fearly.
Giving detailed feedback would not make the game easier to play nor less interesting to play.
On the contrary it will make it more difficult to play as it will require very good gamming strategy.
And it would give fair chances to everybody to win it.
In 2 years from now with this "REVERSE ENGINERING" way of playing a new commer will never be able to play and enjoy this game unless he get in a nepotism attitude and bow in front of the elected few part of the inteligencia of the game.
As such the Elite group will be composed season over season by 95% of the same usual players while the other 5% will do the back and forth between the master group and the elite group.
So why bothering having more than 40 players in such a game?
We would be better of at playing with the group we are and each season open a few spot for newbies if one of us would retire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 posted Mar 30th 2006, 21:23:13
|
Quote
|
Sorry for the quote...it seemed to me that it was my firewall! Thanks Kiril to have explained. :)
Quote ( Kiril Nikolov Mitov @ March 28th 2006,22:08:15 ) The effect of testing will be way too important for a couple of seasons ahead so we cannot afford letting it be for free.
Yes, I agree. But if you devide the development part for your "race" car (paying) and the setup part for your "testing" car (for free)...
Forum players pay one million but, in reality, they have more than 100 laps and 10 feedback...a lot more, depending on how much players are on that forum (or team)...while solo players, well, do I have to say more? At least they could have the possibility to understand a bit better how the system works for the "setup-tyres/temp" part (and without any advantage for the development part of their "race" car and only on one track, so they must practice for races anyway, and always more than forum players)...
Quote ( Kiril Nikolov Mitov @ March 28th 2006,22:08:15 ) About wings, as I said before, it's more like the feedback we get for them, cosidered as one part but in fact they are 2 different ones
Yes, two part for setup and one for wear...in my opinion is quite realistic. It could be a way to help with the money part of the game, which you and many others are not happy about...
Quote ( Salvatore Difficile @ March 29th 2006,09:50:17 ) Giving detailed feedback would not make the game easier to play nor less interesting to play.
On the contrary it will make it more difficult to play as it will require very good gamming strategy.
And it would give fair chances to everybody to win it.
Exactly. At least solo players would have a chance (only one anyway...) that don't have right now.
Vlad, are we discussing without possibilities or are you making some thoughts about these thoughts (I don't mean the ideas that came to my mind, I mean in general, because we could find other solutions off course)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 posted Mar 30th 2006, 22:39:01
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Gianluca Marchese @ March 30th 2006,21:23:13 )
Vlad, are we discussing without possibilities or are you making some thoughts about these thoughts (I don't mean the ideas that came to my mind, I mean in general, because we could find other solutions off course)?
Right now the development team (Hans, me and partly Tommy) behind the testing part of the game is happy with what has been done. My opinion is that we can't judge its effects after just 4 races. The minimum will be 3 consecutive seasons without any resets...then we can discuss it again and make some changes to it if we come to the conclusion that it is necessary.
|
|
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
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
