Anyone else feel ripped off?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LVracerGT
  • 744 comments
  • 51,668 views
Can you explain a bit further. Car classes are "SuperGT" "FormulaGT" it's not like if it has the same PP it's in the same class. At least not in the rest of the World outside PD logic.
So, I've been online in a GT3 only room. I'm sure SuperGT and Formula GT rooms are perfectly possible. How does that not make a good grid?

This also has to be taken into consideration and this is what I've aimed at:
What's the point of 1200 cars if you can't make a good grid out of it?
What's a good grid? A variety of cars with more or less the same performance. A game with car classes (A to E, R and S) or a PP rating both do that. Of course, the performance is always in favor of some cars over others, but that's with there with both systems. So is it possible to produce good grids in GT6? Hell yes. So the logic in your sig is very questionable to me.
 
Well, then that's good to know that you stop posting gut feelings and bold them to misleadingly point them out as facts.

Well sure, but convincing you is not in my interest, as I have no share in PD whatsoever. But hey, make up your own opinion, as it's much more valued than just hearing others'. And in the meanwhile, just try to keep the opinion an opinion and don't overexaggeratedly promote it into a fact or try to make things looks worse than they are, and you're on your right way.
I'm ok if convincing me is not your interest, but until someone will prove me wrong I think GT6 AI is, yes, extremely boring and I consider it a fact, if we compare GT6 AI to other racing games which are something tangible and not a mere opinion.
So, I've been online in a GT3 only room. I'm sure SuperGT and Formula GT rooms are perfectly possible. How does that not make a good grid?

This also has to be taken into consideration and this is what I've aimed at:

What's a good grid? A variety of cars with more or less the same performance. A game with car classes (A to E, R and S) or a PP rating both do that. Of course, the performance is always in favor of some cars over others, but that's with there with both systems. So is it possible to produce good grids in GT6? Hell yes. So the logic in your sig is very questionable to me.
No your logic is questionable, because you start from the point that a "good grid" is a variety of cars.

A good grid for the rest of the World outside GT logic is, if you enter a SuperGT race the game is supposed to give you other SuperGT cars as opponent, not other random cars with similar PP.

Again, we have facts on other racing games doing what I'm saying. ;)
 
A good grid for the rest of the World outside GT logic is, if you enter a SuperGT race the game is supposed to give you other SuperGT cars as opponent, not other random cars with similar PP.

Again, we have facts on other racing games doing what I'm saying. ;)
But in your sig, it says 'What's the point of 1200 cars if you can't make a good grid out of it?', explicitely saying that you're making the grid yourself...i.e. I was thinking of online. It's perfectly possible to make your own grid, so how is my logic questionable? The last sentence in your sig at the moment is just false.

But since you're not replying to what you're saying in your sig but rather something else: the game does have a GT3 championship with GT3 cars (and a lost E92 M3 GT) in the career mode. And take a look at this: a Super GT500 championship with only Super GT500 cars:


How delightful the 'GT logic' is, isn't it? :dopey:
 
Last edited:
But in your sig, it says 'What's the point of 1200 cars if you can't make a good grid out of it?', explicitely saying that you're making the grid yourself...i.e. I was thinking of online.
I was thinking of offline.

And if you want to know, what I'm refereing to in my signature is Arcade Mode, where slightly decent AI is supposed to be found but now they brilliantly removed those features we had in GT5 and didn't allow AI cars selection as it was possible with a *drumroll*... Secret Menu.
Breaking news: The rest of the World don't think a secret manu is necessary for such feature, the just give the option, or they just use common sense when they select AI cars on given events.

Look this is the actual situation explained with a meme.
View attachment 86740
And take a look at this: a Super GT500 championship with only Super GT500 cars:
Can you do that in Arcade Mode? (Yes, were decently AI is supposed to be, etc etc.)
 
Even though the game lacks in many, many areas, I still think it's worth the cash. Entertainment value/time is way longer than on most games, despite all the obvious flaws.

I guess people are mostly frustrated/feel ripped off, because it's obvious of what the game could have been at launch date if PD reorganized priorities. I understand perfectly that people get ticked off when PD choose to implement an astronomy sim instead of let's say adding community features that have been standard issue on other games for the last decade, fixing physics issues (yes, I'm looking at you FF cars!) or making the AI more competitive/have actual racing in career, etc. etc.
 
There are usually 12 - 16 cars in these races. Can you explain to me where you are pulling these numbers from, and why you think they apply to every race?
Are you seriously going to pretend you don't understand the logic behind starting a 3 lap race with a 25 secs headstart of the leader?

I haven't played GT6 yet, so maybe the arcadey rubberbanding makes for closer racing (at the expense of realism), but rubberbanding nullifies the point of forcing yourself in a slower car.
 
I was thinking of offline.

And if you want to know, what I'm refereing to in my signature is Arcade Mode, where slightly decent AI is supposed to be found but now they brilliantly removed those features we had in GT5 and didn't allow AI cars selection as it was possible with a *drumroll*... Secret Menu.
Breaking news: The rest of the World don't think a secret manu is necessary for such feature, the just give the option, or they just use common sense when they select AI cars on given events.

Look this is the actual situation explained with a meme.
View attachment 86740

Can you do that in Arcade Mode? (Yes, were decently AI is supposed to be, etc etc.)
All right, I see then. In Arcade Mode you're having a point there. The performance of the opponents' cars will be close when choosing a Super GT car, but there's no option to choose a grid of only Super GT cars at the moment. That's a shame, really.. (there's about 4 out of 12 that are)
 
All right, I see then. In Arcade Mode you're having a point there. The performance of the opponents' cars will be close when choosing a Super GT car, but there's no option to choose a grid of only Super GT cars at the moment. That's a shame, really.. (there's about 4 out of 12 that are)
I'm glad you understand it. Kudos on you really. You deserve a :gtplanet: Medal of Honor for actually realizing an issue after all these posts. Doesn't happen often 'round here really.

With some other users, well, it just does not happen at all. :rolleyes:
 
I do not find it boring at all and as for the AI letting you win, I am not seeing that. I have had races where the Ai car was a bit faster than mine, I managed to get the lead and got passed right at the line by the Ai car, I have saw the AI slow down after a spin but unless that spin happened early or I was driving an overpowered car the slow down did not effect the race outcome.

I think most of the people who keep complaining about the AI doing this are driving stronger cars than they should and not driving them very well. In this case if you spin out on the first lap the AI will slow and then that overpowered car can easily catch up and win possibly with more than one mistake. If however you are using a weaker car and drive well you can get some very good races out of them. They will also drive slower if you drive a slow car but not slow enough to let you win, they will just make you think you have a chance with that slow car but as soon as you shave a second or two off your race time so do they until at some point you can turn a time that is faster than they can turn then you can win.

I ran several tests in one of the Novice races over the course of testing the slowest total race time out of the AI was 3:28 and the fastest total race time was 3:15. I started with a car that was turning a 4:09 and then started tuning it little by little and running again and again as I got faster so did the AI up to the 3:15 mark. I did not win a single race until I was able to turn a low 3:15 and then I could win them all. If I set the car to go faster like 3:05 the AI still did not go above a 3:15

Also note that is one of the easiest races. Now if I did as the game allows and used a 450PP car which would be overpowered then I could easily crash 2 or 3 times and win anyway as the AI slow down and then my overpowered car would easily pass them once I caught up.

So if you drive the right car and drive it well this so called horrible AI is actually not bad, worst part about them is that they will hit you and often do not seem to know you are there.
 
Last edited:
From a standpoint of a somewhat technical person. Or there are even other reasons that could be of influence. We all can only guess, but stating that it was deliberate, is a bridge too far. Don't just assume things and then boldly shouting them out without actually knowing if those are true, please...

To be fair, everything in a game is deliberate. If something is there, it's by design. If something is not there, it's by design.

We know that PD chose not to put a difficulty selector in the career mode. We don't know why, but we can't pretend that they just missed it out by accident.
 
To be fair, everything in a game is deliberate. If something is there, it's by design. If something is not there, it's by design.
In software design, it doesn't work that way. If it's there, then it's a deliberate choice, because code, graphics, etc. must be placed there to make it happen (e.g. AI doing a brake check, or FF physics/weight transfer being off). If it's not there, it may very well be an oversight or something that's not considered at all. Doesn't have to be deliberate at all.
 
I'm glad you understand it. Kudos on you really. You deserve a :gtplanet: Medal of Honor for actually realizing an issue after all these posts. Doesn't happen often 'round here really.

With some other users, well, it just does not happen at all. :rolleyes:
Well sure, if what you're pointing out is reasonable and true, then I can only agree with it. No point in trying to jump through hoops to get my point made, even if it is wrong after all.

It's just something I've been noticing on these forums as well (while it is almost absent on other forums I am talking about Gran Turismo): here it almost seems like everyone is divided into two camps: one all in favor of GT and the rest fully against it. Be in either camp and it's almost certain to get ridiculous debates by members of the 'other side', even getting personal, as I've encountered by a fellow member...

Truth is, that there is also a middle ground and I'm such a user: I've purchased the game and enjoy most of it, but also acknowledge its faults, as nothing is perfect. Discussing things is great for getting new insights and see other people's opinion too. However, it gets bad when it's become a mud fight where people are not listening and are only trying to impose their opinion on others, so let's all just avoid that.

To be fair, everything in a game is deliberate. If something is there, it's by design. If something is not there, it's by design.

We know that PD chose not to put a difficulty selector in the career mode. We don't know why, but we can't pretend that they just missed it out by accident.
If you interpret that literally, then I can sort of agree with what you say. What I'm also implicitely trying to say is that PD's not trying to troll us players by leaving it out, which is what was implied (or what I was reading between the lines). It's just the result of a compromise and yes, it's unfortunate for the players.
 
In software design, it doesn't work that way. If it's there, then it's a deliberate choice, because code, graphics, etc. must be placed there to make it happen (e.g. AI doing a brake check, or FF physics/weight transfer being off). If it's not there, it may very well be an oversight or something that's not considered at all. Doesn't have to be deliberate at all.
Not really, it is possible to intend one thing and get unexpected results
 
In software design, it doesn't work that way. If it's there, then it's a deliberate choice, because code, graphics, etc. must be placed there to make it happen (e.g. AI doing a brake check, or FF physics/weight transfer being off). If it's not there, it may very well be an oversight or something that's not considered at all. Doesn't have to be deliberate at all.

I sort of see where you're going, but when you have a feature in one mode and not in another, I'd say the omission is deliberate. On the other hand, it's probably not deliberate that you can't drive a European Swallow in game, I doubt they even thought about it. ;)

If you interpret that literally, then I can sort of agree with what you say. What I'm also implicitely trying to say is that PD's not trying to troll us players by leaving it out, which is what was implied (or what I was reading between the lines). It's just the result of a compromise and yes, it's unfortunate for the players.

Yes, fair enough. I certainly don't think that PD is trying to piss people off. For whatever reason, they thought this way would be better.

I do wonder sometimes if they have a playtesting group or something that they bounce ideas off before they put serious effort into developing them. I imagine it'd be easy as a developer to get attached to an idea and not necessarily see all the consequences.
 
Not really, it is possible to intend one thing and get unexpected results
True, but you can't have a bug or unintended behavior without coding something first. Something not being there however, is perfectly possible because you didn't do anything.

I sort of see where you're going, but when you have a feature in one mode and not in another, I'd say the omission is deliberate. On the other hand, it's probably not deliberate that you can't drive a European Swallow in game, I doubt they even thought about it. ;)
That's definitely an option, but it can also be a matter of just different (sub)teams implementing each feature. It's at least what I have always assumed to be the cause of the wild differences between offline and online in GT5, both in physics and UI (assumption from me of course).
 
I love GT the series as much as anyone. Never missed a release from GT1 until now. The current game (GT6) is still a beta in my eyes. PD and GTPlanet has already confirmed that update are being made on a regular basis.
The game is still evolving as we speak. Some things have been removed from the previous game, some things have been streamlined. I do have some things that I would like to see changed/put in place that I feel would make the game better for everyone. I am sure that others have their own idea of what they want, and what would make the game better just like I do.

For starters PD needs to lockdown the filters in on-line racing. The room owner needs much more control over what mods are allowed. By that I mean each piece of equipment you add to the engine, chassis plus the breaks should be in a menu that the room owner can choose to allow or dis-allow when tuning your car.
That way mods can be restricted and rooms will be more or less even as far as performance is concerned. I did not mention weight because I think PD does a good job in that department.

To create the proper "grid" PD needs to create the proper categories and put the proper cars in each category.
FIA GT1,2 and 3. American Lemans, LMP, Touring Cars, Super/Hyper Cars and sports cars. The room owner must be able to control the amount of tuning allowed, or allow no tuning at all. It all starts with PD creating and enforcing various classes of cars. The do a pretty good job, but they need to get better.

That same thing must happen in off-line racing. No way a tuned RX-7 can defeat Veyron's, Ferraris and Lambo's on a high speed banked course. It's so absurd as to be funny. Being funny/silly/stupid is not the idea of a simulator.
In the Arcade mode, go for it. Do what you will. But in Simulation lets be real and no insult the intelligence of paying loyal fans. The best of the game is when you race against cars that are close in performance, and the difference should be the driver and the way he/she deals with the track and mother nature. That's fun and that's racing.

The tire thing has good and bad. Some drivers prefer to see what they can do in a car that is too powerful for the tires they have mounted. Nothing wrong with that for teaching yourself how to find grip. I just know that "most" of us who find themselves the proud owner of a Ferrari, Lamborghini or Corvette would not rush out and replace the speed rated tires with those of a 1990 Honda Civic. In fact I feel PD should make sure that high performance cars can not be outfitted with comfort tire compounds. In the same way that putting racing slicks on that same Honda should not be allowed unless that Honda has been modified in the GT Auto and the wheels upgraded 1 or two inches.
If you want to take a Pagani to GT auto and install less than the stock wheel size. Be my guest. But the car should and must drive like crap at speed. I suspect the torque form the Huayra would literally tear those type of tires completely off the undersized rims you would have to mount them on. That's real too. Just my opinion I am sure the game will continue to grow and get better with or without my suggestions.
 
To be fair, everything in a game is deliberate. If something is there, it's by design. If something is not there, it's by design, it will be added in a future update.

No offense, just kidding.

Although I don’t think that something not being there is the sole result of a deliberate omission. Any real-world project at a given time is likely to be confronted to choices and compromises. And for PD organizing their priorities there is no absolute answer either. There may be common sense ruling, but that implies we have all the facts and data in our hands. I have no problem admitting I haven’t. The only thing that bugs me with the new Day to Night transition is that it is so gorgeous it's 🤬 distracting.
 
No offense, just kidding.

Although I don’t think that something not being there is the sole result of a deliberate omission. Any real-world project at a given time is likely to be confronted to choices and compromises. And for PD organizing their priorities there is no absolute answer either. There may be common sense ruling, but that implies we have all the facts and data in our hands. I have no problem admitting I haven’t. The only thing that bugs me with the new Day to Night transition is that it is so gorgeous it's 🤬 distracting.
If PD is making "choices and comprimises" on certain features, by definition it's deliberate omission is it not? Not having a difficulty slider in offline career mode is a deliberate omission without a doubt since it is in another part of the game. Why they would choose to do this is anyone's guess, but it sort of tells me they think the offline career is for real beginners and the only real challenge is choosing a car fast enough to catch the rabbit.
 
True, but you can't have a bug or unintended behavior without coding something first. Something not being there however, is perfectly possible because you didn't do anything.
Well yes naturally if you do not do anything it will not be there but just because we do not see it does not mean it is not there, there could be several features that are actually there but were not quite 100% yet and where disabled before release. I have did this a few times with my own software when there was a deadline to meet and something not essential was not quite working properly or not quite complete.
 
If PD is making "choices and comprimises" on certain features, by definition it's deliberate omission is it not?

Really depends on the reasons they have to. Not everything is motivated by sole will, hence why I don't consider it "by design". If the difficulty slider was just a matter of copy/pasting it surely(IMO) would have appeared in A-spec.
 
There is a difficulty level in A-Spec it is which car you choose and which tires you choose. If you want harder use a lower PP car and/or a step down on tires if you want easy use the strongest thing it will allow
 
There is a difficulty level in A-Spec it is which car you choose and which tires you choose. If you want harder use a lower PP car and/or a step down on tires if you want easy use the strongest thing it will allow
ee9073fc50c7b0f472ded37f92b23807.gif


Even though this is what I've been doing since DAY 1.
Real life equivalent of that would be showing up to a V8 SuperCars race in a road going Commodore or Falcon. That's just not right.
 
If PD is making "choices and comprimises" on certain features, by definition it's deliberate omission is it not? Not having a difficulty slider in offline career mode is a deliberate omission without a doubt since it is in another part of the game.
Not necessarily if they have one team of developers working on feature X and another on feature Y. Which is a common way of working, given any modern software development method (agile, scrum, kanban), which means a team of developers working on a single feature is no more than a handful. GT5 especially shows this, where large pieces of functionality were duplicated for both online and offline, yet both implemented differently.
 
Really depends on the reasons they have to. Not everything is motivated by sole will, hence why I don't consider it "by design". If the difficulty slider was just a matter of copy/pasting it surely(IMO) would have appeared in A-spec.
Their motivation we will probably never know for sure, we can only speculate, but I'm still fairly confident they left it out as a deliberate design choice, to dumb down the offline career mode to make it easy for the casual player. PD has issues with allowing people to make choices, and often chooses a path for us. Look at SRF forced on in TT's for example. You'd think TT's would be the ultimate driving test for everyone around the world, and yet they often force on the most noobish of driving aids.

And it really should be a "copy and paste" thing shouldn't it? There is no significant difference between Arcade Races and any other race offline that would rule out copying an pasting in a difficulty slider.

Not necessarily if they have one team of developers working on feature X and another on feature Y. Which is a common way of working, given any modern software development method (agile, scrum, kanban), which means a team of developers working on a single feature is no more than a handful. GT5 especially shows this, where large pieces of functionality were duplicated for both online and offline, yet both implemented differently.

Sorry, not buying it. While teams might work on thing independently, there is still someone above them coordinating the whole thing making sure the parts integrate together. These teams aren't rogue elements working in closed rooms, they are part of an overall coordinated effort. Missing a wheel option or add on part to a car might be an oversight, but anything left out of any significance is purposeful.
 
Sorry, not buying it. While teams might work on thing independently, there is still someone above them coordinating the whole thing making sure the parts integrate together.
And this is exactly where a lot of product development teams fail. It's one of the classical pitfalls of modern (agile) software development. And the software shows it (incoherency, common features being present in one part, not in the other), though GT6 a bit less so than GT5, so PD is definitely improving.
 
And this is exactly where a lot of product development teams fail. It's one of the classical pitfalls of modern (agile) software development. And the software shows it (incoherency, common features being present in one part, not in the other), though GT6 a bit less so than GT5, so PD is definitely improving.
They removed tyre wear and damages from the only interesting offline part, called Arcade mode which was more realistic than GT mode. I don't exactly call it an improvement.
 
They removed tyre wear and damages from the only interesting offline part, called Arcade mode which was more realistic than GT mode. I don't exactly call it an improvement.
I'm certainly not suggesting they are where they should be, but GT6 as a whole feels more consistent than GT5. But yes, a lot of features are missing. To me it's a lack of what Johnnypenso mentioned, combined with putting priorities on completely the wrong things.
 
Their motivation we will probably never know for sure, we can only speculate, but I'm still fairly confident they left it out as a deliberate design choice, to dumb down the offline career mode to make it easy for the casual player. PD has issues with allowing people to make choices, and often chooses a path for us. Look at SRF forced on in TT's for example. You'd think TT's would be the ultimate driving test for everyone around the world, and yet they often force on the most noobish of driving aids.

And it really should be a "copy and paste" thing shouldn't it? There is no significant difference between Arcade Races and any other race offline that would rule out copying an pasting in a difficulty slider.

The wide game audience certainly implies the integration of conflicting objectives for sure. And the way PD try to address them is certainly debatable. I have close to zero knowledge in programming wether from physics or Artificial Intelligence points of view, so wild guesses is all I have. However my ignorance on these things allow me to elaborate this rather universal solutions for the game:

- mandatory qualifying lap (so the game knows your actual pace)
- speed/difficulty slider (makes you start from pole to end of field)
- spread of field slider (from chase the rabbit to close battle option)

It really should be that simple shouldn’t it?
 
Back