PL11 Car Corrections Discussion

1234568

Comments

  • Ivo_KamburovIvo_Kamburov Posts: 821 ✭✭✭✭
    Sorry if it's already been posted, but apparently this one has 1 seat only 😂😂


  • mikesmikes Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mikes said:
    HeissRod said:
    mals said:
    HeissRod said:
    binner said:
    Additional Car Stat change added to the post:
    • Jaguar XJR-15 1990  - Top Speed updated to 191mph

    Ouch 😖
    **** cut
    To be honest, it's correct.  The car was gearing limited to 191.

    Yes, it could be that the data of this car was incorrect, but what a coincidence that it has been fixed now, now that new jaguars have been added. Casuality? 

    The situation is quite clear. And this car isnt in my garage, i have a jaguar xj220 prize car, so the change is good for me, but its unfair for the owners what spent epics to improve it.


    ...Or it could be a coincidence that they have improved their team, in order to get car corrections done.  

    P.S.  This car was my best Jaguar.  Possibly still is.

    Lol mate lol!!! oh you are serious about that sorry
    Maybe you should wait for PL 11.1
    ;)
    • Jaguar XJR-15 (1990) has had 0-60 improved from 3.9 to 3.3, MRA has been improved, handling has been increased from 87 to 88
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,251 ✭✭✭✭✭
    mikes said:
    mikes said:
    HeissRod said:
    mals said:
    HeissRod said:
    binner said:
    Additional Car Stat change added to the post:
    • Jaguar XJR-15 1990  - Top Speed updated to 191mph

    Ouch 😖
    **** cut
    To be honest, it's correct.  The car was gearing limited to 191.

    Yes, it could be that the data of this car was incorrect, but what a coincidence that it has been fixed now, now that new jaguars have been added. Casuality? 

    The situation is quite clear. And this car isnt in my garage, i have a jaguar xj220 prize car, so the change is good for me, but its unfair for the owners what spent epics to improve it.


    ...Or it could be a coincidence that they have improved their team, in order to get car corrections done.  

    P.S.  This car was my best Jaguar.  Possibly still is.

    Lol mate lol!!! oh you are serious about that sorry
    Maybe you should wait for PL 11.1
    ;)
    • Jaguar XJR-15 (1990) has had 0-60 improved from 3.9 to 3.3, MRA has been improved, handling has been increased from 87 to 88
    I wonder how competitive it will be versus the R390?  I doubt it will beat it now, but it'd be nice if it was close.
  • RWareRWare Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12
    This is a genuine question, and I'm not looking for ''another bad angle''

    But is there any reason you chose to move 8 Epics to Legends, rather than to rise their RQ like you have in the past for the ZL1?

    Much like the Audi's which breach past RQ26 but remain Epic.
    The outlook is of course, food.
  • Sherby90Sherby90 Posts: 333 ✭✭✭
    edited February 12
    Sry, wrong thread
  • TopDrives40778TopDrives40778 Posts: 2,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RWare said:
    This is a genuine question, and I'm not looking for ''another bad angle''

    But is there any reason you chose to move 8 Epics to Legends, rather than to rise their RQ like you have in the past for the ZL1?

    Much like the Audi's which breach past RQ26 but remain Epic.
    The outlook is of course, food.
    The ZL1 was a Prize Car
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,251 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12
    RWare said:
    This is a genuine question, and I'm not looking for ''another bad angle''

    But is there any reason you chose to move 8 Epics to Legends, rather than to rise their RQ like you have in the past for the ZL1?

    Much like the Audi's which breach past RQ26 but remain Epic.
    The outlook is of course, food.
    Yeah, I was hoping for the 911 Turbo to remain epic, but increase in RQ.  Alas.... :(
  • RWareRWare Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So the reason is they're not prize cars?

    That's fair enough. Could it be considered in the future not to jump them rarities?
  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 12
    Can someone from the corrections team confirm if the Mra drop was intended? Seems a bit harsh.
    Different tunes here, first is 699 pre update, 2nd is 996 post pl11.1.

  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,251 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • LittleEnosBurdetteLittleEnosBurdette Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    So if we are taking manufacturers figures as gospel why does it get absolutely nowhere near it’s top speed on the rolling test bowl?
  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 7,251 ✭✭✭✭✭
    HeissRod said:
    So if we are taking manufacturers figures as gospel why does it get absolutely nowhere near it’s top speed on the rolling test bowl?
    Sounds like a tech question for Hutch?  The top speed is obviously entered and on the card.
  • LittleEnosBurdetteLittleEnosBurdette Posts: 3,120 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Hutch_Tim and @Hutch_Robin can you answer the above? If we are continually seeing cars from previous updates being nerfed due to manufacturers figures or reputable sources why are they getting nowhere near their top speeds on rolling test bowl? If you are nerfing cars to make IG performance accurate to real life, what gives?
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete Posts: 968 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ruf RK Coupe (2006) handling reduced from 87 to 85
    What's the reason behind this nerf?
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete Posts: 968 ✭✭✭✭✭
    What a fantastic MRA boost

    I get the feeling that all of the "MRA boosts" are in fact no boost at all...
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 793 ✭✭✭✭
    MRA dropped from about 100 all the way down to 80 with the two nerfs. F to the diablo.
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 793 ✭✭✭✭
    @Karhgath Unfortunately, I would say the 911 turbo actually is intentional and not a mistake, as I believe the changes to the car were based off this: https://forums.hutchgames.com/discussion/7291/1995-porsche-911-turbo

    The proposed MRA was 64.91 in that road test.
  • RWareRWare Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Patch notes did quote improved 0-60 and improved MRA

    Based off this, I and many others raced to throw UR's into the soon-to-be-Legend.

    I can't comment if it's faster/slower on circuits, but over 1 Mile for it to be slower than before is a bit of a kick in the teeth when we were informed otherwise.
  • PlantedZebraPlantedZebra Posts: 793 ✭✭✭✭
    Yeah, I don't know what's with that. I guess we now know that "0-60 time buff" and "MRA buff" cannot exist in the same sentence on the patch notes from now on, most of the time.
  • RWareRWare Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I feel like it should though. It feels like one stat is changed and the thought process for the knock on effect of what this will change is not considered.
  • JackyQuJackyQu Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 13
    Db11 testing




  • OzzmanOzzman Posts: 1,778 ✭✭✭✭✭
    JackyQu said:
    Db11 testing
    Is that 699 or 969?
  • ManUtdTobbeManUtdTobbe Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One more thing, I assume you never actually intended to improve the MRA on these cars but that you just wanted a similar acceleration curve from before but with a lower 0-60, correct me if i’m wrong?

    if that’s the case then don’t write ”MRA buff” in the patch notes because that implies the MRA number we use with 0-60 and 0-100 times is improved.... 
  • KarhgathKarhgath Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    From the correction notes they posted:

    N.B. Changes to MRA (mid range acceleration) can be changes around time to reach ¼ mile, 0-100 or other thresholds that exceed the 0-60 displayed on the card.

    Very misleading. Hutch, you should only consider that the MRA increased above 0-100. Since it is a curve, of course the 60-100 part of the curve will increase if the 0-60 increased! If not, it means the curve flattened incredibly after 60mph and MRA is nerfed beyond belief.

    Please hutch, find another way to describe MRA changes as right now it does not make any sense.

    This has nothing to do with the way we use 0-100 to calculate some MRA indicator, it's just simple math.

Sign In or Register to comment.