General Discussion

PL9.0 - German Renaissance Discussion Thread

17891012

Comments

  • TGPDTGPD ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 5,365 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Basil said:
    baest said:
    TD01055 said:
    Basil said:
    Personally, I would like that you can update your car with every car there is (max.9 upgrades). But there are different classes in upgrade. What I mean is, when you want to upgrade your grip, you need to upgrade with a car with the same tyres AND the grip of the car you use has to be higher than the car you want to update. In that way you are open to use all the cars you have.
    To be sure that you understand what I mean I will give another example: When you have a car with max.speed 197 km/h and you want to upgrade this car, you will have to use a car with at least 198km/h. Personally, I would find this more interesting and still easy to understand.
    Sweet holy mackerel that’s a terrible idea 😆. So how would you upgrade Bugatti’s? You’d need to sacrifice a car with 99 grip to get the final fuse on a Furai? No thanks
    What happens when you want to upgrade the highest grip cars in the game? lmao.

    You wait for the next PL and buy a lot of CF's with cars that have higher grip :-) (I'm sure that I have found the interest of Hutch now :-) :-) ). => You don't upgrade them. Why should you? They have the highest grip already. And before you say: then everybody has the same grip on this car, well look at the events. Everybody uses the same upgraded Furai,... They are also all the same.
    I hope you are joking
  • BasilBasil ✭✭✭ Member Posts: 224 ✭✭✭
    End of discussion. I just gave my point of view because RobGripes suggested a new way of updating. I notice that my discussion does not go further than 'disagree' - 'I hope you are joking' and even some people get a headache ,....
  • LEGENDNADALEGENDNADA ✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 936 ✭✭✭✭
    Basil said:
    End of discussion. I just gave my point of view because RobGripes suggested a new way of updating. I notice that my discussion does not go further than 'disagree' - 'I hope you are joking' and even some people get a headache ,....
    I'm sure Hutch will consider your suggestion..

    as a joke of course, I'm sorry basil but we are already helpless for what hutch did about cash so it shouldn't be upgrades too :)
  • LEGENDNADALEGENDNADA ✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 936 ✭✭✭✭
    Hutch_Tim said:
    After working on this game for a long time, I do enjoy reading Basil's ideas because they are always just so different to anything we considered before! 

    Still, completely redesigning the fusion system would be too drastic at this stage. My favoured idea is for the first 2 (or 3? or 1?) Fusions on a bottom-of-rarity car to be done with lower-rarity food (perhaps just for Epics and Legendaries). So you could Fuse your RQ27 with 3 Ultra-rares instead of 3 Epics initially. Then RQ27's could be competitive with RQ28's. Then you have to use Epics for the remaining Fusions if you really want to max your RQ27. Something like that - just a slight variation from what we already have.

    Then there's a more complicated version of the same idea, where we rescale RQ such that there are 5 for each rarity tier (Commons would be RQ 3,4,5,6,7; Uncommons 8,9,10,11,12, Rares 13,14,15,16,17 and so on), and each incremental RQ is the number of Fusions that require a higher rarity car (so lowest RQ S 5 fusions might require 3B, 3B, 3B, 3A, 3A; next RQ up S requires 3B, 3B, 3A, 3A, 3A and so on; top RQ Legendaries might require Legendaries for their final Fuses). But even just reading that you can see it's probably too complicated, and still too much of a change.
    Second choice is great except for the top RQ Legendary line
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete ✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 372 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2
    Hutch_Tim said:
    After working on this game for a long time, I do enjoy reading Basil's ideas because they are always just so different to anything we considered before! 

    Still, completely redesigning the fusion system would be too drastic at this stage. My favoured idea is for the first 2 (or 3? or 1?) Fusions on a bottom-of-rarity car to be done with lower-rarity food (perhaps just for Epics and Legendaries). So you could Fuse your RQ27 with 3 Ultra-rares instead of 3 Epics initially. Then RQ27's could be competitive with RQ28's. Then you have to use Epics for the remaining Fusions if you really want to max your RQ27. Something like that - just a slight variation from what we already have.

    Then there's a more complicated version of the same idea, where we rescale RQ such that there are 5 for each rarity tier (Commons would be RQ 3,4,5,6,7; Uncommons 8,9,10,11,12, Rares 13,14,15,16,17 and so on), and each incremental RQ is the number of Fusions that require a higher rarity car (so lowest RQ S 5 fusions might require 3B, 3B, 3B, 3A, 3A; next RQ up S requires 3B, 3B, 3A, 3A, 3A and so on; top RQ Legendaries might require Legendaries for their final Fuses). But even just reading that you can see it's probably too complicated, and still too much of a change.
    I prefer your first option. Please don't try to rescale your whole rarity scheme. I played tons of multiplayer games where the devs did this and it was always worse than before.
    Post edited by Mrpiratepete on
  • 43MK443MK4 ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hutch_Tim said:
    After working on this game for a long time, I do enjoy reading Basil's ideas because they are always just so different to anything we considered before! 

    Still, completely redesigning the fusion system would be too drastic at this stage. My favoured idea is for the first 2 (or 3? or 1?) Fusions on a bottom-of-rarity car to be done with lower-rarity food (perhaps just for Epics and Legendaries). So you could Fuse your RQ27 with 3 Ultra-rares instead of 3 Epics initially. Then RQ27's could be competitive with RQ28's. Then you have to use Epics for the remaining Fusions if you really want to max your RQ27. Something like that - just a slight variation from what we already have.

    Then there's a more complicated version of the same idea, where we rescale RQ such that there are 5 for each rarity tier (Commons would be RQ 3,4,5,6,7; Uncommons 8,9,10,11,12, Rares 13,14,15,16,17 and so on), and each incremental RQ is the number of Fusions that require a higher rarity car (so lowest RQ S 5 fusions might require 3B, 3B, 3B, 3A, 3A; next RQ up S requires 3B, 3B, 3A, 3A, 3A and so on; top RQ Legendaries might require Legendaries for their final Fuses). But even just reading that you can see it's probably too complicated, and still too much of a change.
    I prefer your first option. Please don't try to rescale your whole rarity scheme. I played tons of multiplayer games where the devs did this and it was always for worse than before.
    We already had one rescaling of RQ system in TD and I think it worked out very well. I dont recall any complaints about that and cant imagine going back to prevous RQ 3-25 system.
  • bscavalcantibscavalcanti Member Posts: 10
    There are many players with 300~400 days with just 1 or 2 legendaries (including 12C). 3S for final fuses its completely impractical for 99.99% players. Please, don't do this!

    But still about fuses and upgrades, two another ideas for your consideration @Hutch_Tim.

    1. The Three Fuse cars will must fullfill a fixed value together. 
    i.e. To upgrade an S27 we will need 67 points (A23 + B22 + B22 or A26 + B22 + B19 or S30 + S30 + E7).
    This will be default for each class (67 points for S Class, 58 points to A class, etc) or could be progressive, like this:
    S27 need 67 points
    S28 need 68 points
    S29 need 69 points 
    S30 need 70 points (A24 + A23 + A23 for example)

    This solution its not so hard to implement i believe. 

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Maybe use a B19 to upgrade an S27 be impractical, but if you create a range this makes the situation a little more acceptable. For example:

    To upgrade a S27 car, i need 3 cars between (RQ 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22) - (range of 6).
    For a S28, i will need 3 cars between (RQ 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23)
    For a S29, (RQ 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24)
    and for a S30 we need to use three cars (RQ 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25)

    The range could be 7 instead 6, to make it easier or 5 for harder,  i don't know. This is up to you.

    This solution is maybe a little mor harder to implement than other one, but think is viable also.






  • bscavalcantibscavalcanti Member Posts: 10
    There are many players with 300~400 days with just 1 or 2 legendaries (including 12C). 3S for final fuses its completely impractical for 99.99% players. Please, don't do this!

    But still about fuses and upgrades, two another ideas for your consideration @Hutch_Tim.

    1. The Three Fuse cars will must fullfill a fixed value together. 
    i.e. To upgrade an S27 we will need 67 points (A23 + B22 + B22 or A26 + B22 + B19 or S30 + S30 + E7).
    This will be default for each class (67 points for S Class, 58 points to A class, etc) or could be progressive, like this:
    S27 need 67 points
    S28 need 68 points
    S29 need 69 points 
    S30 need 70 points (A24 + A23 + A23 for example)

    This solution its not so hard to implement i believe. 

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Maybe use a B19 to upgrade an S27 be impractical, but if you create a range this makes the situation a little more acceptable. For example:

    To upgrade a S27 car, i need 3 cars between (RQ 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22) - (range of 6).
    For a S28, i will need 3 cars between (RQ 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23)
    For a S29, (RQ 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24)
    and for a S30 we need to use three cars (RQ 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25)

    The range could be 7 instead 6, to make it easier or 5 for harder,  i don't know. This is up to you.

    This solution is maybe a little mor harder to implement than other one, but think is viable also.
  • TimButTimBut ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 960 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Please dont change upgrade system and cars height. 
  • sinnersinner ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Does anyone think the RUF R56.11 behaves  like it has traction control?

  • 0171801718 ✭✭✭ Member Posts: 101 ✭✭✭
    sinner said:
    Does anyone think the RUF R56.11 behaves  like it has traction control?

    I was thinking the very same yesterday, however, it is very light which might be a different explanation. Still I was mad every time, where a 82 handling ruf without ABS and TCS killed 83+ BMW with both.

    On the other hand i thought the whole idea of that car was to have a modern basis with an old body...so I was surprised again, that it didn't have TCS...
  • O__VERO__VER ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Honestly I don't think TCS or ABS do anything in this game. I've never really noticed a difference in the performance of similar cars where one has them and one doesn't. Wouldn't surprise me if they're just there for show.
  • 0171801718 ✭✭✭ Member Posts: 101 ✭✭✭
    O__VER said:
    Honestly I don't think TCS or ABS do anything in this game. I've never really noticed a difference in the performance of similar cars where one has them and one doesn't. Wouldn't surprise me if they're just there for show.
    Well, we can test this.

    In Monaco 5 there is a wet 0-100-0 race with a BMW M5 RQ26. The Car has a 3.7s 0-60 and 82 MRA.

    I put an RS200 (969, no TCS/ABS) with 4wd against it. The RS200 starts better (4wd), the M5 overtakes at about 70 mph, but it is a very close race.

    I made a video and noted the speed of both cars as well as the time. There is no frame, where a car reaches 100 mph, just two frames with 99 mph of which the first frame shows the end of acceleration and the second shows the beginning of the deceleration.

    The RS200 takes 9,01s to get to 99 mph and the M5 takes 8,61s (d = 0,4s).
    0 mph is reached again after 15,96s (RS200) and 14,76s (M5). The braking time is 6,82s for the RS and 6,02s for the M5. Hence the M5 brakes better on wet surface.



    Limitations and Discussion:
    1) I tested a straight, ABS comes into play where a car has to turn while braking. You could observe that on some wet tokio tracks with the Ruf R56.11.
    2) The frame based displays of Top Drives dont allow for a precise measurement (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem ). However, the 0,4s and the 0,8s add up to the 1,2s the RS200 actually loses on the M5 in this race, so there is no fundamental problem with that. If someone has a 996 RS200, he could repeat my experiment. Also, there are some other tracks where we could do testing, feel free to contribute.
    3) The M5 is about 50% heavier than the RS200 which should be a huge disadvantage for braking.
    4) The post-race report states that missing TCS is the reason why the RS lost. That is ridiculous.
    5) There is no way we actually know how braking works. Perhaps it is just a made up value for each car and having ABS checked or not does not affect this value. Every Car might have like "100" and cars without ABS like "80" and that's it. There will be some kind of formula, which includes surface and tires, this braking value and maybe weight.
    6) Personally I watch out for missing TCS/ABS in races with twists and even more when the surface is slippery. I feel in snowy races older cars lose to newer cars who have TCS/ABS even if their handling/acceleration values are better.







  • 43MK443MK4 ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭✭✭
    01718 said:
    O__VER said:
    Honestly I don't think TCS or ABS do anything in this game. I've never really noticed a difference in the performance of similar cars where one has them and one doesn't. Wouldn't surprise me if they're just there for show.
    Well, we can test this.

    In Monaco 5 there is a wet 0-100-0 race with a BMW M5 RQ26. The Car has a 3.7s 0-60 and 82 MRA.

    I put an RS200 (969, no TCS/ABS) with 4wd against it. The RS200 starts better (4wd), the M5 overtakes at about 70 mph, but it is a very close race.

    I made a video and noted the speed of both cars as well as the time. There is no frame, where a car reaches 100 mph, just two frames with 99 mph of which the first frame shows the end of acceleration and the second shows the beginning of the deceleration.

    The RS200 takes 9,01s to get to 99 mph and the M5 takes 8,61s (d = 0,4s).
    0 mph is reached again after 15,96s (RS200) and 14,76s (M5). The braking time is 6,82s for the RS and 6,02s for the M5. Hence the M5 brakes better on wet surface.



    Limitations and Discussion:
    1) I tested a straight, ABS comes into play where a car has to turn while braking. You could observe that on some wet tokio tracks with the Ruf R56.11.
    2) The frame based displays of Top Drives dont allow for a precise measurement (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem ). However, the 0,4s and the 0,8s add up to the 1,2s the RS200 actually loses on the M5 in this race, so there is no fundamental problem with that. If someone has a 996 RS200, he could repeat my experiment. Also, there are some other tracks where we could do testing, feel free to contribute.
    3) The M5 is about 50% heavier than the RS200 which should be a huge disadvantage for braking.
    4) The post-race report states that missing TCS is the reason why the RS lost. That is ridiculous.
    5) There is no way we actually know how braking works. Perhaps it is just a made up value for each car and having ABS checked or not does not affect this value. Every Car might have like "100" and cars without ABS like "80" and that's it. There will be some kind of formula, which includes surface and tires, this braking value and maybe weight.
    6) Personally I watch out for missing TCS/ABS in races with twists and even more when the surface is slippery. I feel in snowy races older cars lose to newer cars who have TCS/ABS even if their handling/acceleration values are better.







    Regarding 5) I think braking is a hidden stat for each car.
    i recall seeing some old version of TD where each car had a braking value visible. Since then it’s been removed from front page of the card.
  • 43MK443MK4 ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I actually got pictures showing the braking values for a bunch of cars, but some reason I can’t post any pictures now on the forum.

  • David_FookDavid_Fook ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thinking about it, traction control shouldn’t work. Doesn’t the AI always drive perfectly right on the traction limit anyway? It’s probably just a fudge increasing traction a little bit
  • kaje73kaje73 ✭✭✭ Member Posts: 182 ✭✭✭
    BoxtaS said:
    BoxtaS said:
    MSteeL said:
    I dont believe you! 
    It wasn’t yesterday and I was highly critical, but it’s been fine this afternoon. 
    When it works it’s actually quite good 
    Ok it’s broken again in the daily for me today 👎
    Yep me too.
    When the autosave works it is fantastic. But when it doesn't and you have to change your hand for every single race it is quite possibly the most annoying thing since Joe Dolce denied Ultravox the Christmas Number 1.
    Showing your age mate!
  • REALAISREALAIS ✭✭✭ Member Posts: 187 ✭✭✭
    RWare said:
    To say something positive:
    Now that the autofill hand bug is gone, the feature is actually quite good and useful.
    I have no resolution for the auto hand bug
    What device do you have?

    Have you cleared data yet (if Android)?
    iOS and not linked through Facebook, uninstall (deleting all my data) is not an option
    Cant create new/fake Facebook account and link with that?
  • sinnersinner ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭✭✭
    sinner said:
    sinner said:
    Funny thing is I would of put £25 worth of gold onto my account for this new offer but you know what hutch? I'm not going to. It's a joke 
    And BTW I've spent more on this game than I have spent on ANY game on ANY platform and I've been gaming for 25 odd years. The player base told you we needed to be able to earn cash daily, to keep the game interesting and actually playable. Why you don't listen is beyond me 
    I did. We had a discussion on this forum and I suggested a compromise to bring back Daily Events but to rebalance prize boards and prize tiers. At the time, I said a reduction of 40% in prize boards, it was around 38% for 150 RQ players. I said we would want more progressive tiers, with lower tiers increasing more as a percentage, they tripled, while the upper tiers doubled. I said I'd take the opportunity to add more cars to prize boards. I did that too.

    Players pointed out how important earning cars and cash was. I suggested a compromise in advance. Then I worked to bring back the events you wanted. Since this conversation was had earlier this month, I have increased car drops and increased cash earnings.
    Nobody suggested a reduction in how much we earn from prize boards, I can guarantee that. We wanted more ways to earn cash like @sinner said and you gave us that but why are you taking away earnings from prize boards? 
    I think it was discussed that the daily be brought back, with a reduction in the prize boards, in addition to the club events (I think that was the suggested compromise). But hutch has reduced all prize boards in ALL events, cash and gold?!

    Great, we now get an extra 10k cash for T2, after two days of competition 👎


  • Twinkie_8iTwinkie_8i ✭✭ Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
    greddy said:
    We have a thread for wrong car names, pictures, specs... why dont you put it there?
    Because nobody looks in it. 🤷🏻‍♂️
    Hutch (maybe) does...

    But heres another one... i dont get why the z4m coupe has 85 handling and the sdrive only 77
    85 handling is almost what the 2015 type r got - and the type r has way better road holding than the z4m coupe
    You cant compare M division against civil versions of BMW. 
    But i can compare it to the 2015 civic type r... which should have couple more handling points 
  • Blue2moroBlue2moro ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 1,746 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 10
    Tuesdays are soooo boring. Please remind me again why there are no events ending in Tuesday and Saturday.
    Internal policies. Oh oh & inflation.
  • REALAISREALAIS ✭✭✭ Member Posts: 187 ✭✭✭
    So you have full on farming Wednesdays and Sundays
  • MrpiratepeteMrpiratepete ✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 372 ✭✭✭✭
    Blue2moro said:
    Tuesdays are soooo boring. Please remind me again why there are no events ending in Tuesday and Saturday.
    Internal policies. Oh oh & inflation.
    As funny as it is, for real now, what are Hutchs real arguments for the lack of event endings on those two days?
  • AndreasSimmerAndreasSimmer ✭✭✭✭✭ Member Posts: 819 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Blue2moro said:
    Tuesdays are soooo boring. Please remind me again why there are no events ending in Tuesday and Saturday.
    Internal policies. Oh oh & inflation.
    As funny as it is, for real now, what are Hutchs real arguments for the lack of event endings on those two days?
    The argument is inflation. they cancelled those events when they brought back dailys and nerfed the prizeboards.
    @Hutch_Tim,how about an eight hour event on these days, to keep us from logging out?!
Sign In or Register to comment.