Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

  • Thread starter Formidable
  • 47,123 comments
  • 4,537,402 views
@7HO Just for fun, why don't you try and say what you want in, say, 2 lines maximum.
No harm in trying, eh, buddy?
What if I have 4 different things to say?

What if the person who responded to me has 5 different points to address?

My posts length is dictated by what needs to be said. Look below for an example of what happens when the post is made more readable and then go up and read the 2 posts in question, the first post that was considered too long had the answer to his question, the shorter post that is still much longer than 2 lines doesn't have enough information.

Not sure where you got that notion for thinking, but ok.
And that right there is why the longer post is the better post because it has the explanations for those points. Thank you for demonstrating that.

What an arrogant way to put it. You evaluate people based on their decision whether they are willing to read your posts or not. Point is, most people are simply not willing for very simple reasons, and in no way does it differentiate people in separate groups from which you'd be able to evaluate their credibility.
There were four types of people I listed, logic dictates I am unable to judge those who do not reply to me because they didn't read my post so logically your assumption is incorrect. However a person that doesn't read my post but responds based on what he thinks I said is a person who can't be trusted because they rely on their imagination instead of evidence. I'll let you guess what type of person feels the need to let everyone know they didn't read the post because it was too long.

I thought this was a discussion page about GTS not about how you interpret people based on how they reply to you.

Posting in long paragraphs which can be compiled into a small sentence isn't hard.

Unfortunately this thread has degenerated into off topic posts about my longer posts and here I am writing an off topic reply that explains why it is necessary.

My thoughts exactly. I think the lack of news is getting to some people now to the point the discussion isn't related to GTS anymore. I'll help us get back on track. :D

Will people be able to drive this car? Be cool as a unlockable. :)

GranTurismoSport-14.jpg


Anyone else remember how, I think, the GT6 discussion thread was locked until we got actual news?

You would hope so as it is part of the pace car pack for preorders, could you imagine if that's what you got with your preorder because they didn't have the other pack you wanted and you couldn't drive it?

A few things:
  • I'm the Editor. I'm not misled, I'm simply wondering aloud about some of the aspects of the system that have yet to be explained. And yes, that's going from any and all info taking during the interview.
  • That is all one sentence. One!
  • You should read this article on writing. Tying into what @Brend said, writing incomprehensible walls of text should not be a badge of honour; on the contrary, it says that you don't know how to make your point concisely. If you want people to read what you have to say, readability is key. An easy exercise: can you provide a single sentence overview of your massive paragraph (starting with "The Driver Class")?
  • Speaking of readability, this site is a godsend. I plugged this post of yours into it, and it returned some pretty shocking scores. A 37.5 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale, and an average grade level of 18.1 makes it about as readable as an academic paper.



It's not clear at all, since we've yet to see the program in action.

If you look above you will see I've quoted a person who demonstrates exactly what I said.
  • You stated there is far more to decrease it than increase it, I simply pointed out that the point form of the article is misleading and there is not far more to decrease it than increase it according to the information in that article.
  • Still on that point, that's because the race length far outweighs the points that reduce it.
  • But something the article didn't point out is the individula can change the race length by rage quitting.
  • That is why you never rage quit.

As for what I said about Kaz. I thought I added the supporting information in that first post. I can tell Kaz has been doing his homework and has addressed the issues because of what is in the article. If it works or not does not change what research he has done and is irrelevant. The reason I can tell Kaz did his homework is because not only does the system mimic those on iRacing, it also addresses some of the flaws and major complaints made on the iRacing forums. Including factors such as race category and qualifying to name just 2 address key issues iRacing members complain about on a regular basis, actually I think these address what might be the 2 biggest ongoing debates that plague the iRacing forums and I am not saying they will be effective solutions but they are evidence that he is aware of the flaws of the iRacing system and is trying to address them.

One more thing, when you say this "I'm also curious about the speed-based classing, and how its determined." and then this "I'm the Editor. I'm not misled, I'm simply wondering aloud about some of the aspects of the system that have yet to be explained. And yes, that's going from any and all info taking during the interview.", they do not sit well together. That first quote demonstrates that you are not aware of everything in the article and it was statements like that which prompted my to clarify those things because just 2 paragraphs below "Driver Class will represent the overall speed of the player and how well they perform in races." in that article was the answer to your curiosity when it said "Driver Class ratings will be grouped and organized by letter (S-A-B-C-D-R), though this letter rating will presumably be determined by some underlying numerical value. Class ratings will be calculated based upon qualifying results, race results, and the average rating of the drivers you’re racing against." so the article you edited tells you how speed based classing is calculated, if you are looking for more information than that I'd advise not to hold your breath because the little bit I shared with you in that post about iRating is pretty much everything iRacing have revealed about how their system works.
 
Last edited:
I believe it is. I seen a safety car in one of the builds, either London or E3 in a video, but can't remember which car (think it was the M4). I believe the two are available to drive and use, and probably for purchase.


The PS Store Digital Deluxe edition (as of today) states these bonuses;

-Livery Sticker Pack
-Japan Theme Pack
-America Theme Pack
-Europe Theme Pack
-Chrome Racing Helmet
-1,000,000 Credits

-500,000 (Pre-Order Bonus)
-Pace Car Theme Pack (Pre-Order Bonus)

So, it seems that if you want the Pace Cars, as well as 9 other cars, then Pre-Order the Deluxe Edition from PS Store. But I also assume that they will be available to purchase in-game after release as these bonuses seem like 'Kick-Starters' more than 'Game-Changers'

Reference: https://store.playstation.com/#!/en...tion/cid=EP9001-CUSA02168_00-GTSPDLXPSNPREORD


Funnily enough, this is the edition I'm getting, and Pre-Ordering it too.

Hope this all helps. :cheers:
The Deluxe edition seems more worth the money than even the Collectors. 👍
That thing was so damn fast that it was at times a challenge for the others to shake it off!
Typical GT-Rs. Just playin'. :lol: That's what made the lobbies fun. :)
 
Typical GT-Rs. Just playin'. :lol: That's what made the lobbies fun. :)
And now that there are different pace cars this time, perhaps people can establish a sort of police force, haha. Now that would be a challenge!

7HO
And that right there is why the longer post is the better post because it has the explanations for those points. Thank you for demonstrating that.
Black-Guy-Meme-Question-Marks-Que-02.jpg


What is it with these kinds of posts? The last time I think I saw someone make some crazy-a philosophies regarding posting was a troll in the NFS forum...
 
7HO
You would hope so as it is part of the pace car pack for preorders, could you imagine if that's what you got with your preorder because they didn't have the other pack you wanted and you couldn't drive it?
Yep. That would suck big time. :ill:
 
The Deluxe edition seems more worth the money than even the Collectors. 👍
That depends on what value you put on the missing items. For example if you price 1.5 million credits in the Playstation store and then there is the Model, the Apex book and the cool packaging which I'm sure is very desirable to a good number of people. I must admit I find the Collectors very tempting but I'm waiting to see if there is a box set with the Thrustmaster wheel.
 
7HO
And that right there is why the longer post is the better post because it has the explanations for those points. Thank you for demonstrating that.
Only problem being is that you seemed to misunderstand his post.

For explanations and details you need to read that post and that is why it is longer, I'm sure if I posted like this some people might prefer it but it would ultimately lead to arguments by people who think I'm making it up or don't understand how I came to that conclusion. For more reasons why I don't post like this read below.
Not sure where you got that notion for thinking, but ok.
It's not that he was confused as to what you're saying because you didn't post enough information, but more so, you seemed to make up a situation that just doesn't exist. To me, it looks like it was in reply to the bold part. Weird how I was able to understand his point, with him writing just one sentence.

7HO
There were four types of people I listed, logic dictates I am unable to judge those who do not reply to me because they didn't read my post so logically your assumption is incorrect. However a person that doesn't read my post but responds based on what he thinks I said is a person who can't be trusted because they rely on their imagination instead of evidence. I'll let you guess what type of person feels the need to let everyone know they didn't read the post because it was too long.
The problem with the length is that you have a very, very hard time getting to the point. It's odd that you would even pretend like people would argue with you if you post less, even though people have been functioning on this forum for years with direct, to the point, posts.

7HO
Unfortunately this thread has degenerated into off topic posts about my longer posts and here I am writing an off topic reply that explains why it is necessary.
It's really not. Sure you can do it, and likely no ones going to stop you, but necessary for every post? No.

7HO
  • You stated there is far more to decrease it than increase it, I simply pointed out that the point form of the article is misleading and there is not far more to decrease it than increase it according to the information in that article. Still on that point, that's because the race length far outweighs the points that reduce it

  • But something the article didn't point out is the individula can change the race length by rage quitting. That is why you never rage quit.

Combined your points, because like your posts, you make everything unnecessarily longer than it has to be.

There is quite literally far more to decrease it. Lets have a look.

Factors For Increase

  • Race distance
  • Course difficulty
  • Race category
Ok, so, a long, difficult race, with a car likely being higher in the PP index(race cars, rally cars, etc..) will net you increased points. So during a whole race, that is all that will help you increase it? Wheres clean passes? close proximity racing without contact? Hitting Apex'? There is nothing that happens within the race that will increase it so far. Going off that, it would imply that actually just completing the race is the way to get points.

Now, lets take a look at what decreases it.

Factors For Decrease

  • Driving off-track
  • Wall contact
  • Entering restricted zones
  • Ignoring flags
  • Ignoring speed limits
  • Pushing other cars off the track
  • Collisions with other cars
All of these are instances that all happen during the race, unlike the factors for increase which seem to be a result from finishing a race. Resulting in far more ability to lose than gain. This needs to be evened out.
 
Does anybody else hear a loud whooshing sound?

7HO
If you look above you will see I've quoted a person who demonstrates exactly what I said.
  • You stated there is far more to decrease it than increase it, I simply pointed out that the point form of the article is misleading and there is not far more to decrease it than increase it according to the information in that article.
  • Still on that point, that's because the race length far outweighs the points that reduce it.
  • But something the article didn't point out is the individula can change the race length by rage quitting.
  • That is why you never rage quit.

There is far more to decrease the score than increase. It's seven against three. Which is why I specifically mentioned I'm curious about how they're weighted. I don't know how each bullet point will be weighted, and neither do you. Yet only one of us is making statements as if we do.

One more thing, when you say this "I'm also curious about the speed-based classing, and how its determined." and then this "I'm the Editor. I'm not misled, I'm simply wondering aloud about some of the aspects of the system that have yet to be explained. And yes, that's going from any and all info taking during the interview.", they do not sit well together. That first quote demonstrates that you are not aware of everything in the article and it was statements like that which prompted my to clarify those things because just 2 paragraphs below "Driver Class will represent the overall speed of the player and how well they perform in races." in that article was the answer to your curiosity when it said "Driver Class ratings will be grouped and organized by letter (S-A-B-C-D-R), though this letter rating will presumably be determined by some underlying numerical value. Class ratings will be calculated based upon qualifying results, race results, and the average rating of the drivers you’re racing against." so the article you edited tells you how speed based classing is calculated, if you are looking for more information than that I'd advise not to hold your breath because the little bit I shared with you in that post about iRating is pretty much everything iRacing have revealed about how their system works.

Another point thoroughly missed. Read the rest of the post you're quoting:

I'm also curious about the speed-based classing, and how its determined. It'd require a lot more work, but I hope it's dynamic, taking into account all players, and shuffling on something like a weekly/monthly basis. I don't want to be locked into a higher class after doing a few good races, only to then be outclassed once all the aliens settle in.

In FM6, because I had pre-release access for review purposes, my lap times put me near the top of the Leagues, which meant I started the game in the top of four divisions (Pinnacle). Unfortunately, at least in my case, there's no moving down in speed classes, only up. I'm a fairly quick racer, but I was consistently finishing in the bottom third of races back in my first few Leagues. I was never moved down to a class where I would've been more competitive; it was only months later, when I decided to take a serious swing at being competitive, that I improved instead.

I'm well aware of what the game will take into consideration for Driver Class. What isn't clear is how often it does so, and how much movement it will allow, both up and down.
 
7HO
I noticed you didn't answer my first question Johnnypenso.



I mention it below because I wrote that first but it seems like you have been a little confused by the online system. Maybe not but I'll just point out that there is an Online system that is similar to GT6 and there is the Sport mode which is a separate online racing service. Yes the focus is the Sport mode, PD have said so and I'm not debating that. But if you think about GT6 as having a online system and a offline campaign what GTS is doing is keeping the online system but replacing the offline campaign with a shorter offline campaign that leads into an online career, the progression of these 2 combined is deeper than the offline campaign of previous titles and I can see a number of people are having trouble understanding that but if you think of the way offline racing used to work it had a path set out and sure you didn't have to 100% and you could stick with what you enjoy most but the events determined what you raced where. So in this game you will start in a similar way for 117 events which hopefully will prepare you better than the old license tests but this time they seem to be different to those of old and look like an improvement. So they will prepare you and rate you as you go and when you finish then you will start your progression through your online career in Sport which replaces the offline racing in GT6. So Sport doesn't replace Online, Online is still there, Sport replaces the old offline races and in that regard I don't see the big issue other than sometimes you might not like the track they are racing your favourite car at. But the thing with the old game is you didn't really get much say in that either all the time, in the old offline you also sometimes raced cars you were not particularly interested in at tracks you didn't care much for. Now you can pick a favourite class or race them all and if you like cars in each class then you have a choice of tracks if all you want to do is jump in and race. And if that is all you ever do the racing will be great if the matchmaking system works. The big thing I've been trying to point out is in offline you were racing against moving road blocks in the old game and now you are really racing real people. That is why I said it is an improvement. And while I kind of get that people want an offline racing experience against AI with some kind of path to follow and a reward system I do think about how Kaz said he didn't want to compete with other sims and there are other sims that are just doing this aspect so much better than GT was. The way I see it if GTS delivers they will be the benchmark on console and although they will not match iRacing in certain features they look like in a number of important ways they will have iRacing beat for an online racing service. There is still an offline component to this game and I earlier I was responding because I was under the impression you said there was no offline but there is still both campaign with 117 events and arcade and although we only know of racing and TT's in arcade at the moment I'd be surprised if we didn't see more later.

As far as the in game economy goes I don't see how we can complain about something we know nothing about but as far as the things you can do in game I just don't see it as being as barren as people are making out. And we could still see things like a track path editor announced closer to release. There will no doubt be special events, they will be online sure and I get that people don't like how much of this is online but as long as playing online is accessible there will be plenty to do and there still is a very decent offline game as well, I'm pretty sure if the physics in GTS turn out to be as good as AC I'll probably never play it after GTS comes out as everything I actually do in AC I will still be able to do in GTS.

I must say I'm a little surprised by many of the complaints here, I thought most people primarily used sims for hotlapping these days, I guess people here are a little more serious than those.


You do realise that GTS will still have exactly the same online experience as GT6 and that the Sport mode is extra, another service in addition to the online lobby system?

I know you have read about the ratings systems now so you now know the performance level and that drivers will be only driving against drivers with the same Sportmanship level, I saw a post where someone mentioned that is a lot of levels but I wonder if they realised just how many possible grouping that might be. I'm wondering how they will use Sportsmanship Points to divide drivers, say if a driver is on 1.3 would he only drive against 1.3 drivers or 1.x drivers? And how many levels are there? And at what point does performance come into it? Because if drivers are first groups by SR and then secondary grouped by Driver Class and we already know there is 6 driver classes even if SR only split drivers into 4 groups that is already 24 groups. 6 SR groups would result in 36 groups, what if groupings were done in finer increments and there were 40 SR groups? That would make 240 total groups. Time will tell but clearly the system described is already more complex than iRacings and that's a good thing if they deliver but it should start to be easy to see how you could potentially bump into the same guys in races. The top guys will especially be bumping into each other and you can be sure since Kaz has announced that the ratings of other drivers will effect your own rating that because the system is similar to iRacing drivers will organise strength of field time slots.

Of course all the interview really says is that people will be split based on SR but I doubt it will end there because that would not work at all, surely SR first splits the drivers and they are split again by DC as required. Maybe they will use qualifying? I've got no idea but surely you can see how it is possible to bump into drivers repeatedly with the same speed and rating as you especially if you tend to race at the same times. So I don't think I'm dreaming but I admit that it really comes down to the splitting system.

I get what you are saying, in the official races the group of people you race against will be different each race, yes of course that is correct. I was only suggesting that you may bump into certain rivals in those races but on a whole the group will be different and that is what makes each race unique. And yes I imagine in official races that if you do back to back races in the same class you will be racing the same track each time and I'm not sure of the frequency of rotation in daily races. It should be that way so you can practice for a race before you enter, many will not want to practice and just jump into a race but the system works well on iRacing.

What you need to understand is you still have the GT6 system, this is an additional mode and I've already seen some people getting confused and I suspect that you have been and I'm not sure if you have worked that out yet but the combination of Campaign mode and Sport mode is what replaces the traditional career and the online mode is unchanged and carried over from GT6, well it may be improved, I don't know. So if you like the old online service you will still like it and I'm sure people will still use it, hosted sessions are always more popular than official racing on iRacing. You will not lose that social aspect. And the social features in GTS also look to be an improvement so that is another way I think GTS will be more social. I know you think that racing against random people in official races is too impersonal but the way these ratings systems will work people will be racing against like minded people (hopefully) and yes emotions run high in races and sometimes people don't get along but on iRacing after the race people usually stick around for a bit, congratulate each other and have a quick chat before moving on and after a race it isn't uncommon to get a friend request from someone you raced against so that is where the advanced social functions will be a very nice addition. I have made a number of friends on Facebook from racing on iRacing so I'm sure that having something like Facebook on Sport will work very well. I'm also sure there will be plenty of teams form ranging from just social right through to the most serious.

I can see you are concerned and think it will not be good but I wouldn't be surprised if you completely change your mind once you start playing it.



I'm not talking about open public lobbies, I'm talking about racing services like iRacing and SRS. Name one other racing service that doesn't care if you cheat or intentional crash into people? The others ban you because you spoil the experience for others, GTS is welcoming them and rather than punishing them GTS will just put them with like minded people. I know people have drawn the comparison between matchmaking on iRacing and in GTS but from what Kaz has already described this is a unique improved matchmaking system that could actually succeed in making this a game for anyone.



Again I think this comment stems from a misunderstanding of the 2 different online experiences Sport will provide. in Sport mode clean drivers will be placed with clean drivers, it is a whole different thing and revenge contact will hurt the other guy as much as you. But unless you are a bad driver yourself you shouldn't be in races with people of that mindset in Sport mode and like I said you don't have to listen to anyone, just turn chat off and it will sound the same as offline.







Yes this is what will happen, it is the same no fault system iRacing uses.




The way it works is it averages over time. This system will literally drive people crazy when the game is first released because everyone will be a noob to it and if iRacing has taught us anything it is that noobs take a while to understand it, some never do and a annoying percentage of new members complain about it due to their lack of understanding.

Here is the first tip and this is one of the reasons it works well, never rage quit. The system works on a score of incident per corners in iRacing and GTS has already said race length is a factor so the system will be similar to iRacing in the way it counts. What this means in iRacing is if you take damage instead of rage quitting after you take your pit stop you continue the race to reduce the impact. This is good because one of the issues with online racing is rage quitting which leaves a race barren, this system encourages people to take repairs and continue racing if they can like in real life because if they quit the effect on their rating will be worse.

It also works because it is an average of your incidents over time. Sure when you start out you haven't done many laps so early incidents can be fairly nasty but after you have been racing a while your incidents do average out and your actual score is a genuine indication of how clean you are. Yes there are some crashes that just aren't your fault but the vast majority each party can take some of the responsibility, it really comes down to situational awareness and race craft and when you have been racing for a bit you start to work out when it might be better to just back out of a fight and let the other guy go to avoid him hitting you. The thing is if you are a good driver and you don't rage quit the guy who hit you will make many more mistakes and you wont so your score will still go up and his will go down, soon you wont be racing with guys like that because they will be too busy playing crash up derbies with each other and you will be with the good guys.

You will find the no fault system is an intelligence test that in addition to weeding out the worst drivers also exposes those who are not so bright since they will go crazy complaining how terrible and unfair it is. The vast majority of people realise how the system actually works and have no issue with it, it does take a little persistence at first but once you step above the ranks the way PD are saying they will implement it seems like the best implementation we will see of such a system.

The good thing about GTS to keep in mind is you will be scored before your first race so as long as you stay clean during the campaign you should be in good company. The negative is all a wrecker has to do is stay clean during the campaign and be in your race. Hopefully those 117 events take long enough to act as a deterrent to this, and another deterrent would be to limit account resets or perhaps never allow them but that wont stop griefers creating new accounts and the campaign needs to be long enough to act as a deterrent.
Dude, as much as you over-saturate your points, I generally don't understand what the diddly-squat you even are saying right now.
 
7HO
If it works or not does not change what research he has done and is irrelevant.

I am guessing english isn't your first language? I know that feeling bro! but I have to disagree with you there, it doesn't matter how much research they've done if they are not able to succesfuly implement their ideas into the game, and we yet have to see the system in action to really judge it. GT5/6 showed us that PD is great at advertising their games as a gift sent from the heavens, otherwise GT6 should have been presented in a way similar to this: "here is Gran Turismo 6! an okay game with average AI, sound, damage! expect missing features to be implemented in a future update!" You should take everything Kaz says with a grain of salt at this point.
 
This is my new favourite toy.

Well done btw, you scored 75 :D

I know, right? Up until recently, it had no daily limit either, so it's been my go-to whenever I'm working on something difficult. That article about readability and Hemingway is also eye-opening. Both were shown to me by Jordan himself. 👍

I mean, not everything should live or die by it, but it's amazing the impact a few small changes can have on lengthy text. People read differently on the Internet, and you can either accommodate that, or be ignored. Literally!
 
I took it upon myself to try to find where the thread derailed, crashed into a wall and died. I've reached page 585 and gave up, it's a shame there are some funny posts buried in here! I should feel bad for laughing at this one!

(Off-Topic) My comment was pun intended
Iu7GZjQ.jpg



Oh come on, i'm just being sarcastic.


Yeah, especially that kid called "pony_destroyer xboxwon" (Im TheGamersTrailer)
 
It's odd that you would even pretend like people would argue with you if you post less, even though people have been functioning on this forum for years with direct, to the point, posts.

Ah but that isn't true and just reading through this thread or many others will demonstrate that misunderstandings that lead to conflict happen all the time. I prefer to attempt not to be the cause by adding supporting information and I think people should do that. Then if people do misunderstand me only because they failed to read my post that is not my fault.

All of these are instances that all happen during the race, unlike the factors for increase which seem to be a result from finishing a race. Resulting in far more ability to lose than gain. This needs to be evened out.
See right here you have proved my points to both you and @SlipZtrEm because you both did the same thing. And I said to him not to be misled by the number of items in this list and explained why. And he had a go at me for doing it. And I explained why. And here we are with you doing the exact same thing after the post you quoted also explained these things.

There is far more to decrease the score than increase. It's seven against three. Which is why I specifically mentioned I'm curious about how they're weighted. I don't know how each bullet point will be weighted, and neither do you. Yet only one of us is making statements as if we do.

So before you got up me for something you didn't even read.

It is exactly that I was addressing. I said don't be misled by the number of items, you told me you were not because you are the editor. I explained why I thought so and before you told me that I misread you you proved me correct by confirming I was right the first time. It is astonishing that you have quoted that in the same post you confirmed both your misunderstanding and the very thing you quoted. You do perceive the 7 to 3 instead of the content. My whole point of explaining iRacing to you is to show that regardless of how it is weighted the fact that it mentions race distance is what really matters.

The article contains all the information that is required but you seem to be struggling to put it together. In this system you are put against drivers who have been scored the same as you. In that regard it is nothing like iRacing. What this means is the weight of those 7 things mean nothing because they are weighed the same for everyone. What is more important are the 3 factors which are the actual deciding factors because simply driving longer without incident will offset the damage done.

But now due to your misunderstanding you have got up me for something I didn't do. I'm not saying I know how they are weighed as you just accused me, I'm saying the 7 are not as significant as just 1 of the 3 no matter how they a weighed because the 7 are the same for all but the 3 are variable and the 1 I mentioned is the most significant.

Another point thoroughly missed. Read the rest of the post you're quoting:
I wish you'd take your own advice and we wouldn't be having this back and forth since I addressed all this and it was the main reason I included the iRacing references and the remarks about Kaz are also relevant because I understood you. So since the iRacing references were not enough I will add another reference, driver grades in FIA racing go down.

Everything points to a fluid and adaptable rating system, there has been nothing to remotely suggest you will attain a level and be stuck there. All of the supporting evidence I provided leads to a system like iRacing except with fundamental improvements over the biggest issues. The system can't work as described if once you receive an A class you get to hold it forever. The A is just there so people don't see a score they feel they need to focus on. Like I said the similarities to iRacing combined with the way the flaws have been addressed (and I should have said 3 biggest issues) are beyond coincidence. Kaz has clearly done his homework, this is an improved iRacing system and I know that remains to be seen but I'm 100% confident it is, it is just the implementation that can break it and that isn't weight, it is how loosely the matchmaking is applied.
 
I am guessing english isn't your first language? I know that feeling bro! but I have to disagree with you there, it doesn't matter how much research they've done if they are not able to succesfuly implement their ideas into the game, and we yet have to see the system in action to really judge it. GT5/6 showed us that PD is great at advertising their games as a gift sent from the heavens, otherwise GT6 should have been presented in a way similar to this: "here is Gran Turismo 6! an okay game with average AI, sound, damage! expect missing features to be implemented in a future update!" You should take everything Kaz says with a grain of salt at this point.
No you missed my point. If jack did his homework his result in irrelevant in the debate about whether or not he did his homework. We don't need to wait to find out what grade Jack gets. He either did his homework or he didn't, the grade only tells us if what he submitted was correct.
 
7HO
Ah but that isn't true and just reading through this thread or many others will demonstrate that misunderstandings that lead to conflict happen all the time. I prefer to attempt not to be the cause by adding supporting information and I think people should do that. Then if people do misunderstand me only because they failed to read my post that is not my fault.
So in short it just seems like you're trying to eliminate discussion by trying to cover every little bit and every little corner of information so that way they'll have nothing to reply. That's why this isn't working, and that's why everyone is voicing out about it. It really just seems like you're trying to kill discussion.

For the majority of people that get into these discussions often, it's normal for them to get to the point. It works, whether you believe it or not. There will always be someone who just doesn't understand, but you're lengthy posts don't help that.

And would you look at that. I didn't write a book and you understood what I was saying. So....
7HO
Thank you for demonstrating that.

7HO
See right here you have proved my points to both you and @SlipZtrEm because you both did the same thing. And I said to him not to be misled by the number of items in this list and explained why. And he had a go at me for doing it. And I explained why. And here we are with you doing the exact same thing after the post you quoted also explained these things.
You explained what you made up on your own that you think might be it, what we're doing is going off what has been told and what we actually know. Because we didn't go along with your hypotheticals doesn't mean anything other than we just aren't making up situations to try to prove our point.

Whatever you want to make up to try to support your opinion, its quite clear that if there was instances between the race that would cause increase, than it would be displayed just as the decrease is. Maybe it will change, maybe it won't so we'll discuss what is actually fact, for now. The increase, so far, just looks like it's talking about full races, rather than what happens within the race. Meanwhile, the decrease talks about race craft and everything inbetween a start/finish of a race that would cause it. It's odd how you made such an assumption. Either way, it would have been nice if you actually addressed my point.
 
Last edited:
Okay, it's clear there's some reading comprehension issues at play here.

7HO
So before you got up me for something you didn't even read.

Don't presume to know what I have or haven't done.

It is exactly that I was addressing. I said don't be misled by the number of items, you told me you were not because you are the editor. I explained why I thought so and before you told me that I misread you you proved me correct by confirming I was right the first time. It is astonishing that you have quoted that in the same post you confirmed both your misunderstanding and the very thing you quoted. You do perceive the 7 to 3 instead of the content. My whole point of explaining iRacing to you is to show that regardless of how it is weighted the fact that it mentions race distance is what really matters.

Despite resembling iRacing's system, this isn't iRacing. Referencing that system is irrelevant, as we only know the broad-strokes similarities, not the nitty-gritty of how it functions.

The article contains all the information that is required but you seem to be struggling to put it together. In this system you are put against drivers who have been scored the same as you. In that regard it is nothing like iRacing. What this means is the weight of those 7 things mean nothing because they are weighed the same for everyone. What is more important are the 3 factors which are the actual deciding factors because simply driving longer without incident will offset the damage done.

But now due to your misunderstanding you have got up me for something I didn't do. I'm not saying I know how they are weighed as you just accused me, I'm saying the 7 are not as significant as just 1 of the 3 no matter how they a weighed because the 7 are the same for all but the 3 are variable and the 1 I mentioned is the most significant.

"I'm not saying I know how they are weighted, I'm saying just 1 of the 3 is weighted more than any of the 7."

Everything points to a fluid and adaptable rating system, there has been nothing to remotely suggest you will attain a level and be stuck there.

Point me to the quote confirming this. How often will drivers be re-evaluated, again?

All of the supporting evidence I provided leads to a system like iRacing except with fundamental improvements over the biggest issues.

Point me to this supporting evidence. Stuff straight from PD/Kaz, not things you've simply made up.

The system can't work as described if once you receive an A class you get to hold it forever.

Sure it could. I've just provided an example.

Like I said the similarities to iRacing combined with the way the flaws have been addressed (and I should have said 3 biggest issues) are beyond coincidence.

When you extrapolate based on your own desires, sure.

Kaz has clearly done his homework, this is an improved iRacing system and I know that remains to be seen but I'm 100% confident it is, it is just the implementation that can break it and that isn't weight, it is how loosely the matchmaking is applied.

Again: you're stating it's an improved system, and in the very same sentence, admitting we've yet to see if it is or not.

There's way more than just matchmaking that can make or break this system.
 
Back