GT Sport Update Brings Huge Mid-Season Balance of Performance Changes

(Edit: see this post for an updated table following the discussion in this thread:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...rformance-changes.393993/page-2#post-13112741 )

I found it hard to see the effect of the BoP changes from PD's list, so have been producing a single number for each Gr.4 car, where each 1% of improved weight scores +2, and each 1% of improved power scores +1. I don't know how accurately this will reflect the actual performance impact, but the idea is that weight costs more because it reduces cornering speed, and increases tyre wear and fuel consumption for the same power to weight ratio.

So a positive number means the car has been improved, negative means it has been made worse. The more negative numbers have been moved left, the more positive moved right. In relative terms, even +1 is a nerf, really.

Biggest winners:
+5 Chevrolet Corvette
+4 AM Vantage
+4 Dodge Viper
+4 Hyundai Genesis
+4 Jaguar F Type
+4 Lexus RC F

Biggest losers:
-23 Alfa 4C
-11 Renault Megane Trophy
-11 Toyota 86

It seems a bit strange for the Jag and Lexus to be buffed when they were already strong. And the hits to the biggest losers seem quite large. Any ideas for a better way to compare the changes than 2 x weight + 1 x power? If I look at e.g. 4C vs Vantage, then it's 328bhp vs 387bhp = 15.2% less power and 1285kg vs 1404kg = 8.5% less weight, so that does roughly match the idea that weight has twice as much effect as power.

gts bop gr4 22052020.jpg
 
Last edited:
breeminator
I found it hard to see the effect of the BoP changes from PD's list, so have been producing a single number for each Gr.4 car, where each 1% of improved weight scores +2, and each 1% of improved power scores +1. I don't know how accurately this will reflect the actual performance impact, but the idea is that weight costs more because it reduces cornering speed, and increases tyre wear and fuel consumption for the same power to weight ratio.

So a positive number means the car has been improved, negative means it has been made worse. The more negative numbers have been moved left, the more positive moved right. In relative terms, even +1 is a nerf, really.

Biggest winners:
+5 Chevrolet Corvette
+4 AM Vantage
+4 Dodge Viper
+4 Hyundai Genesis
+4 Jaguar F Type
+4 Lexus RC F

Biggest losers:
-23 Alfa 4C
-11 Renault Megane Trophy
-11 Toyota 86

It seems a bit strange for the Jag and Lexus to be buffed when they were already strong. And the hits to the biggest losers seem quite large. Any ideas for a better way to compare the changes than 2 x weight + 1 x power? If I look at e.g. 4C vs Vantage, then it's 328bhp vs 387bhp = 15.2% less power and 1285kg vs 1404kg = 8.5% less weight, so that does roughly match the idea that weight has twice as much effect as power.

View attachment 922952
Click to expand...
Thanks, I don't see the prior BoP values for all cars when I look thru the GTS site... do you know where to find the old Gr3 data for comparison or did you also prep one? Wondering if they clipped the 911 RSR a bit like the Cayman.

Nice to see the Corvette get a bump. I wonder how much 'persuasion' by the car makers is involved? I suspect with the new C8 coming up, that they want to see their car do well in the game, and I also wonder if we have one nice new car to add to the game before the updates come to a stop, with the C8 and/or GT3 C8.R... I would love that! Fingers crossed that it's the poster car for the new game, and that includes that us GTS players get the car in the old game (not likely, I understand).
 
Famine
These are the changes:
https://www.gran-turismo.com/gb/gtsport/news/00_5224155.html

If there's no change listed for a car, they haven't changed it.

These are how they were in February.
Click to expand...
thanks, I didn't see that when I looked. The GTS news and sporting mode web pages tend to be a labyrinth of information. Appreciate the tip.

Alfa people complaining about changes that include a +7% in HP for Gr4 car, which was already pretty handy... sure!
 
Last edited:
The Gr. 3 GTR needed a power drop. It also got its much needed weight loss. Maybe it won't thunder by you on the straightaways, but it will keep up with you in the corners better now.
 
Last edited:
I did a quick test for top speeds at Tokyo with the new changes. A 1% power bump roughly gives 1-2 km/h extra top end (and vice versa for power drop). The only exception is the Gr.2 cars, which seemed unchanged even with massive power drops :odd: It looks like a lot of Gr.4 cars get a power buff but last BOP update these cars got a massive power drop, so what happens is these cars just got "returned" to how it was previously. No doubt to compensate for the extra power of FF rockets now that tyre wear has been reduced. The clear losers are the tyre savers (Alfa, GT86, Megane Trophy), because they have been saddled with so much ballast now and the power increase is probably not enough to compensate. But on the whole, it looks like all the cars have been brought closer together with no more clear "metas" due to certain track/tyre multipliers.

Weight is a bit more tricky to quantify and I didn't have time to test, but on average an extra 100kg usually equates to 1 second slower laptime on an average 1.5 mins track.
 
If they tried to nerf the RCZ, they failed miserably. In Daily Race A is even quicker. I put my ghost with the old BoP and I didn't lose any speed at the main straight and the cornering was better. The only thing I think Audi TT is better is at the start. If you defend your position in the 1st and 2nd corner, is almost guaranteed you won't lose it unless you mess up or someone divebombs you, which 95% of times will result in an offtrack and some penalties.
 
OOOOOOOOOOoooohhh finally another thread where people get to say 'nerf' and 'buff'! Been awhile! Buff nerf nerfbuff buff nerf buffnerf nerf nerf buff buff! Whee!

Those terms (plus 'hoon', for some reason) make me want to gouge my eyes out.

I know it's just me, I'm getting old. Carry on.
 
I Want inform problem:
(My game stay with portuguese*)
The section of NOSTALGIC 1979,aceept cars classics for race, here go one list permitied, only no appear of Shelby Cobra Daytona of image.
My problem is one: Ford GT40 1966 no is inclued for this type pf race. It's normal?
 

Attachments

  • 20200523_123710.jpg
    20200523_123710.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 30
Improvements to the 'Vette are certainly noticeable. But, it's still towards the bottom of the Gr.4 hierarchy.
 
Overnight
I Want inform problem:
(My game stay with portuguese*)
The section of NOSTALGIC 1979,aceept cars classics for race, here go one list permitied, only no appear of Shelby Cobra Daytona of image.
My problem is one: Ford GT40 1966 no is inclued for this type pf race. It's normal?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Ford GT40 is a road car. This event is for race cars.
 
I'm honestly wondering if PD have made a mistake with the changes to the Megane Trophy, 4C and 86.

As I noted, in general, weight has twice the effect of power, very approximately. These are the changes:
4C weight 15% worse, power 7% better
Megane Trophy and 86 weight 7% worse, power 3% better

Note how the weight % is approximately double the power %, but this is the wrong way round to bring these cars more into line with the rest, while keeping performance roughly the same. They should have changed the power by double the weight, not the weight by double the power.

I just tested the 4C on Fuji against the Jag and Ford, and the Jag and Ford perform very similarly, but the 4C is insanely slow, it has no chance, it's something like a second a lap slower.

So I think it's a mistake and they intended the changes to be fairly performance neutral, while making them more similar to the other cars, but they've accidentally got the %s the wrong way round and totally nerfed them.
 
superwally
OOOOOOOOOOoooohhh finally another thread where people get to say 'nerf' and 'buff'! Been awhile! Buff nerf nerfbuff buff nerf buffnerf nerf nerf buff buff! Whee!

Those terms (plus 'hoon', for some reason) make me want to gouge my eyes out.

I know it's just me, I'm getting old. Carry on.
Click to expand...

i mean thats what they call it for any video game. guns/cars get buffed and nerfed. been like that for years.

hoon however i am not on board with.
 
Overnight
You see apeear of Ford GT40 this list? For me stay on fault.
I believe of Kaz forget of include for game.
Click to expand...
No, the Ford GT40 won't appear on the list because it is an N-class road car, not a race car. Only race cars are eligible for this race - and this is not relevant to this topic.
 
breeminator
I found it hard to see the effect of the BoP changes from PD's list, so have been producing a single number for each Gr.4 car, where each 1% of improved weight scores +2, and each 1% of improved power scores +1. I don't know how accurately this will reflect the actual performance impact, but the idea is that weight costs more because it reduces cornering speed, and increases tyre wear and fuel consumption for the same power to weight ratio.

So a positive number means the car has been improved, negative means it has been made worse. The more negative numbers have been moved left, the more positive moved right. In relative terms, even +1 is a nerf, really.

Biggest winners:
+5 Chevrolet Corvette
+4 AM Vantage
+4 Dodge Viper
+4 Hyundai Genesis
+4 Jaguar F Type
+4 Lexus RC F

Biggest losers:
-23 Alfa 4C
-11 Renault Megane Trophy
-11 Toyota 86

It seems a bit strange for the Jag and Lexus to be buffed when they were already strong. And the hits to the biggest losers seem quite large. Any ideas for a better way to compare the changes than 2 x weight + 1 x power? If I look at e.g. 4C vs Vantage, then it's 328bhp vs 387bhp = 15.2% less power and 1285kg vs 1404kg = 8.5% less weight, so that does roughly match the idea that weight has twice as much effect as power.

View attachment 922952
Click to expand...
The up arrow in the weight column actually indicates a decrease... Whilst the up arrow in the power column indicates an increase. Strange.
 
CLowndes888
The up arrow in the weight column actually indicates a decrease... Whilst the up arrow in the power column indicates an increase. Strange.
Click to expand...

The arrow signifies a performance improvement, so a power increase/weight decrease will have an up arrow. I agree it can be confusing at first glance.
 
breeminator
I'm honestly wondering if PD have made a mistake with the changes to the Megane Trophy, 4C and 86.

As I noted, in general, weight has twice the effect of power, very approximately. These are the changes:
4C weight 15% worse, power 7% better
Megane Trophy and 86 weight 7% worse, power 3% better

Note how the weight % is approximately double the power %, but this is the wrong way round to bring these cars more into line with the rest, while keeping performance roughly the same. They should have changed the power by double the weight, not the weight by double the power.

I just tested the 4C on Fuji against the Jag and Ford, and the Jag and Ford perform very similarly, but the 4C is insanely slow, it has no chance, it's something like a second a lap slower.

So I think it's a mistake and they intended the changes to be fairly performance neutral, while making them more similar to the other cars, but they've accidentally got the %s the wrong way round and totally nerfed them.
Click to expand...
The GR4 Alfa is not competitive at all after the bop changes. In yesterday’s manufacturers race I qualified and finished last, there was nothing I could do to keep with the rest on the straights. It might have needed a slight nerf, but this is ridiculous.
i haven’t tried the GR3 yet, I hope that’s not ruined too.
 
Leggacy
The GR4 Alfa is not competitive at all after the bop changes. In yesterday’s manufacturers race I qualified and finished last
Click to expand...
I heard about another forum member coming last yesterday with the Gr.4 Alfa as well. I also asked @pantherjag to try the same test on Fuji that I did, and he found a similar margin between the Jag and Alfa to me. I'm convinced it's a mistake and the power and weight % changes are the opposite way round to what was intended.
 
breeminator
I heard about another forum member coming last yesterday with the Gr.4 Alfa as well. I also asked @pantherjag to try the same test on Fuji that I did, and he found a similar margin between the Jag and Alfa to me. I'm convinced it's a mistake and the power and weight % changes are the opposite way round to what was intended.
Click to expand...

Not sure if that was me, but if not then you can add another DFL finisher. I appreciate the car was overpowered in certain circumstances but they've taken a sledge hammer to it. It's utterly useless now.
 
It's thought that reducing 1% power is more of a nerf than reducing 1% weight. I'm not sure how some people have come to the conclusion that reducing weight is twice as effective as reducing power.

For those testing at Fuji, a power track, yeah that's definitely not the best place to benchmark a handling car like the 4C.

The best handling Gr4s all had the best tyre wear so the added weight was to bring that in line too.

It's definitely a step in the right direction.
 
Adam41
It's thought that reducing 1% power is more of a nerf than reducing 1% weight. I'm not sure how some people have come to the conclusion that reducing weight is twice as effective as reducing power.

For those testing at Fuji, a power track, yeah that's definitely not the best place to benchmark a handling car like the 4C.
Click to expand...
I'll do some more tests, but I've seen the Megane Trophy be competitive at Fuji in the past. Compare the Megane Trophy against the 4C before and after these changes:

Before:
MT 327bhp 1146kg
4C 307bhp 1132kg
So the 4C had 20bhp less power, but 14kg less weight. Lighter and less powerful, makes perfect sense.

After:
MT 338bhp 1212kg
4C 328bhp 1285kg
The 4C now has 10bhp less power, but 73kg more weight. This makes absolutely no sense at all.
 

Latest Posts

Back