- 6,838
- Europe
- GTP_Slim
- PzR Slim
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.
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.
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.
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.
How well did the system work when you played GT Sport?
. Outside of the Opinions and Current Events Forum I don't read most posts longer than a couple of paragraphs myself and I'm pretty sure most other people don't either.
