| Автор |
Тема: PHA or something else? |
288 одговори
|
|
|
I always found it illogical that upgrading/replacing an engine on a track which favors Handling would make you quicker. I always believed that downgrading a part to better match the track characteristic should make you quicker.
And that was before joining a good team and getting told that that was not the case.
Designing your car to match the track character felt the way to go, even if it includes buying lower lvl parts or downgrading.
Parts do interact and in real life engines are often "downgraded" for specific tracks (via software settings you limit available power to increase "driveability").
The only issue here is that nominal PHA values are shown, which is confusing at first.
|
|
|
|
Joachim, regarding this topic it is really doesn’t matter if gpro realistically reflects what happens in real life or not.
Gpro can have it’s own set of rules, play it’s own game and it will be fine and we all will have to adapt to that accordingly.
What really matters is the clarity of rules, stability of changes and certainty of perspective.
If half of players find the current way of how PHA matching works illogical, but game admins says that this is the game feature and it is final and it will work like this from now on, then fine, everybody will try to adapt and will be happy that it doesn’t change every season.
That’s my point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure where the uncertainty comes in Jukka's comments, but I am happy with the PHA change and consider that it does not need any further tweaking. So you can be sure it won't be changed back or tweaked in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad this is good news, bur what about spacious PHA that is far from the real car balance? What you want achieve giving players wrong information?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcin Skrzypiec @ January 1st 2019,10:43:19 ) Vlad this is good news, bur what about spacious PHA that is far from the real car balance? What you want achieve giving players wrong information?
This is no new feature, the effective PHA (after part wear effects, etc) was never shown even before this change. It has been like this since Season 1. The information given is not wrong, as long as you know what it means and how to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
In past seasons it wasn't so important, since it changed It affects lap time so much, many of us feel that's need a little bit of clarification of how it works.
|
|
|
|
@Maxim I agree, GPRO does not need to reflect real life.
I just wanted to point out that for me as a noob it does not feel illogical that upgrading a part might make you slower in specific circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 29th 2018,20:18:36 ) The thing is that I can't think of a system, where PHA x+1,y,z would always be better than x,y,z with any track PHA, and which would still give even a decent amount of PHA matching advantage compared to the old one, where it was almost inexistent in most tracks. The form of the function and the size of the effect are of course debatable, but better part sometimes making you slower effect is not going away.
Jukka, you (and all admins) have my respect so I apologize in advance for this rant if I am rude:
[rant]
You are clearly very competent programmer but poor in algorithm design. I myself can think of elegant algorithm for this problem so what you say is not true. There is such formula. You just felt need to change something and wanted result quickly (to beat your procrastination problem as you explained). You implemented something that you know is illogical to put it mildly, total bollocks is right word. Wear effect on speed was always there, don't know why did you have to make it affect also PHA matching. If you design algorithm that makes worn car part faster than new (same level assumed) then clearly algorithm is wrong and should never be implemented. Plain and simple. It's like being faster with more fuel (guess you agree that would be stupid yet you try to defend similar solution).
I know GPRO is not real life but basic logic has to apply to it otherwise GPRO will generate frustration in players. Guess what happens next...
[/rant]
Happy New Year :)
|
|
|
|
I'm with you Martin.
Total illogical to have worn parts faster than newer parts. Stupidity.
However when has gpro ever been logical. It's the most backwards game at times.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Vladimir Alexandrov @ January 1st 2019,10:36:07 ) I am not sure where the uncertainty comes in Jukka's comments, but I am happy with the PHA change and consider that it does not need any further tweaking. So you can be sure it won't be changed back or tweaked in the foreseeable future.
Thank you, Vlad! We can close this topic now:)
|
|
|
|
I think there is a degree of logic to it actually. Logic is not important anyway, the important thing is game stability. If GPRO decides +x P/H/A value onto car part does not =y gain then it is fine as long as it is consistent in that approach. If GPRO decides there is some kind of curve at any place....well, this is fine by me. We already have some other types of curves related to the game and most people are well aware of those. Nobody cries too much about one in particular being somewhat illogical as such. So, I think it is fine how that is. Only difference is that one is related to an increase in level, whereas this one is impacted with same level.
Sometimes in life, when something is brand new it does not work at best performance until it had a chance to bed in. My turntable took several weeks to bed in. A new car needs a period of mileage before it is considered to be at peak performance. But regardless of these 'other world' examples, there are already other examples in this game where there is curve type properties. I don't see a point to question that logic Martin...when in the first instance the critical factor is the consistency of a formula for a game feature....but in the second, if a same level of part has curve type tendancies attached, it is not different to some others present on the game.
The important thing is everybody is aware this is how it is and we deal with it. Thanks to Vlad for confirmation. I do think it was needed, Jukka did leave eough ambiguity in some replies about making adjustments. But as long as none of those will impact on the basic principle then we have no reason to complain, and every reason to crack on and figure things out. Cheers :)
|
|
|
|
|
You can give examples from real life but because it's F1 background game , using wear parts should never make you go faster. Teams using worn parts on certain tracks just for limitations of loss not for gaining advantage. For example is better to fit worn engine in Monco that in Monza but still if there was no limits teams would fit new parts every grand prix. So situation that used part compared to same lvl new part should never be faster.
|
|
|
|
|
What bothers me is following. Let's imagine track with 15/1/1 PHA (i.e. oval). It seems that faster car for this track is with 150/10/10 characteristics rather than with 150/150/150 (all parts same wear) just because 1st car has better ratios. I don;t understand why better car parts should make us slower. If anything these car parts should have very small positive effect on pace but definitely not negative.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Martin Rosina @ January 1st 2019,14:03:47 ) If you design algorithm that makes worn car part faster than new (same level assumed) then clearly algorithm is wrong and should never be implemented. Quote ( Michael Keeney @ January 1st 2019,14:43:03 ) Total illogical to have worn parts faster than newer parts. Stupidity. Quote ( Marcin Skrzypiec @ January 1st 2019,15:28:16 ) You can give examples from real life but because it's F1 background game , using wear parts should never make you go faster
Wait what? F1 is precisely the sport where it can make you go faster :)
https://streamable.com/hmr2j
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, find something more stupid cos this is even not funny. Things like that can happen once in 10yrs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And GPRO isn't F1. That's why it will happen here more often ;-)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Martin Rosina @ January 1st 2019,16:06:10 ) Let's imagine track with 15/1/1 PHA (i.e. oval). It seems that faster car for this track is with 150/10/10 characteristics rather than with 150/150/150 (all parts same wear) just because 1st car has better ratios...
Are you sure that track characteristics 15/1/1 is perfect for 150/10/10 and not for example 115/101/101?
...or maybe something third..?
Quote ( Marcin Skrzypiec @ January 1st 2019,15:28:16 ) So situation that used part compared to same lvl new part should never be faster.
This is 100% true in real life, there is no question about it.
But as Tomek said, GPRO isn't F1 :)
Happy new year to you all,..a lot of money and as little randoms as it is possible :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments such as new engines being slower in real life than a bit worn ones open a big can of worms because these kind of arguments directly collide with the "GPRO isn't F1" ones, and neither add anything to the actual discussion. Plus they aren't even consistent, because most of the times new engines ARE faster in GPRO and most stuff in the game is consistent with real life racing (such as better cars or drivers being faster).
The real substance here is if the change was good for gameplay purposes. In my case, I'm not too fan of a mechanic that makes it so having way more worn or worse brakes in an Oval is good for your pace because they may improve the Power balance of the car. That from a realism and logic perspective. However, as Ioannis said, the purpose of the change is maybe to reduce the relevance of other parts of the package that became overpowered. Including even less realistic stuff such as aggro boosting with tremendously bad seasons in Elite in order to prepare the driver for a future championship. Like, yeah, GPRO isn't F1, but I can't find any logic in that, and there are simpler fixes for that, such as just removing aggro changes produced by performance.
The PHA matching becoming more relevant definitely favors more planning. You can't argue otherwise. But then again, I think nobody has argued the change disfavored planning, so that kind of argument is a non sequitur. There are literally infinite gameplay rules that would reward planning, mathematics skills, economy management, data grabbing/parsing/analysis, you name it. That, however, doesn't necessarily mean the rule is good. With that I don't mean I'm convinced it's bad either. I'm not sure yet. But the developers could be less stubborn and wait and see before casting it in stone when it seems an important fraction of the community, including some very skilled managers, is still skeptical about the change. Especially when, again in my opinion, it seems some recent gameplay changes haven't worked as intended either (such as the promo sponsor, whose effect had to be attenuated with yet another change: the sponsor cap rule).
|
|
|
|
Edvin and others!
The right engine (= PHA) on a given track, one turn - net time ~ how much slower? (If slower?)
Are we talking about a 0,001 seconds?
No practical significance at. Am I wrong?
Tiny logical error can fit.
|
|
|
|
Just for the record. I think PHA balance is a good thing. In fact it could be one of the best changes in recent seasons. Finally having the PHA CCP balance to track actually work like I imagine a lot thought it did.
However worn parts being faster is completely 100% illogical in this type of game.
I mean it's just another dynamic to work with but lets be honest, We've had the ninja bug, exp bug, testing bug etc list goes on and on tbh. However they have never been classed as bugs but features, mainly due to the developers not understanding the impact. So instead of holding their hands up and admitting they got something wrong they class it as a feature lol. I'll let you lot decide. I'm sure whoever abused these things in the past will call it a feature.
|
|
|
|
|
The error = error. The error is not virtue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friend of mine just done car update for the Baku with total 4 new parts. 2 of them replaced with identical level, 2 increased level.Net time is now worse by 0,3s. Nothing else changed. This is so ridiculous. I play this game for about 11 years but without any doubt this is the worst change to the game ever introduced
|
|
|
|
Did he drive lap with the same setup or did he change setup according to the new parts/weare?
Maybe stupid question but 0.3s slower with "better" ccp...too much...just too much!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ January 2nd 2019,18:28:24 ) worn parts being faster is completely 100% illogical
Quote ( Martin Rosina @ January 2nd 2019,19:08:24 ) This is so ridiculous.
Completely disagree... If car update moves car to track compatibility further apart,, then it makes perfect logical sense to me.
Quote ( Martin Rosina @ January 2nd 2019,19:08:24 ) Friend of mine just done car update for the Baku with total 4 new parts. 2 of them replaced with identical level, 2 increased level.Net time is now worse by 0,3s.
It seems probable to me, that your friend could of made better choices with those parts(car update), if he intended to improve his car's pace.
Love the change GPRO =D
x
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Martin Rosina @ January 2nd 2019,19:31:18 ) Setup adjusted ofcourse
Are you sure?
Did you consider the possibility that your setup calculator doesn't work properly anymore?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Dusan Sevarlic @ January 2nd 2019,20:57:33 ) Are you sure?
Did you consider the possibility that your setup calculator doesn't work properly anymore?
Yes I am 100% sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Settings are rarely changed.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Dusan Sevarlic @ January 2nd 2019,20:57:33 ) Are you sure?
I'm. That's something I have learnt during this 10 years in GPRO.
Quote ( James Berriman @ January 2nd 2019,20:35:55 ) It seems probable to me, that your friend could of made better choices with those parts(car update), if he intended to improve his car's pace.
For sure. Now when I know, I should have probably downgraded to stage 4 parts instead of upgrading to stage 6 or 7 and I would have been faster in this race. But I'm still learning from my mistakes.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
