The pure 426 engine about 490lbs. Fully dressed the difference between F20C and 426 "dramatically" (couldn't think of a better word) increases.
And with that post you just dropped your own credibility to a ridiculously low level. Can't really take a guy serious who thinks swapping jet engines on cars is a good idea for GT.
Would it be in general more helpful and less arbitrary to have no restrictions at all?
That's an understatement.
Not really, don't try to deflect.
There's even less reason to allow it. Basically what you want is a huge sandbox where you can do whatever you want. BUT BE AWARE!!! Many people don't like it if you destroy their sandcastle!
Compared to pointless restrictions? Yes. Compared to reasonable restrictions? No.
Since the question was to have none at all, it's the latter. And pointless? I have more than enough points.
Oh really?
I'm speachless... Do you seriously think I'd be talking to you if we had no conflict on interest?
It already does and the latter will preferably be avoided of course. You don't really get what I mean with fly?
I'd like to avoid another split in the online community.
Just bad that tuned Ford GT's and Vipers can have even more power. Oh and we'd also need 1000hp civics, golfs, evos, etc because it's possible irl. A BMW 2002 Turbo with 1400hp would be needed too, because BMW tuned that engine to over 1400hp back in the sixties! 950hp per litre say hello!
Just bad that tuned Ford GT's and Vipers can have even more power. Oh and we'd also need 1000hp civics, golfs, evos, etc because it's possible irl. A BMW 2002 Turbo with 1400hp would be needed too, because BMW tuned that engine to over 1400hp back in the sixties! 950hp per litre say hello!
No bias in that at all.
Just bad that tuned Ford GT's and Vipers can have even more power. Oh and we'd also need 1000hp civics, golfs, evos, etc because it's possible irl. A BMW 2002 Turbo with 1400hp would be needed too, because BMW tuned that engine to over 1400hp back in the sixties! 950hp per litre say hello!
I'm hardly ever trolling. Break down is pretty much impossible in my case, although it might seem otherwise. But you'd have to personally know me to understand this. The way you see me posting, is just the way I talk or better write (talking in real and posting on forums is quite different).
The only funny thing is that he limits the wishes on supras. Basically saying that when the supra is able to hit 1200hp in GT it will be pretty much the best drag car in its range, completely ignoring the fact that if you spend the same tuning effort in other cars, they'd again kill the supra. So from a neutral standpoint I'm not that much using sarcasm to show what an "idiot" (your words) he is (I don't say he's an idiot, dan don't feel offended now), I'm more showing how limited (perhaps shortsighted is the better word) he thought in that single particular moment. Actually a "But if, then..." situation.
Fine with me, reasonable restrictions don't bother me. But I would rather have free reign and let everyone sort it out then have some completely random rules forced on everyone.
Well maybe I should put it like this: Allowing free reign on engine swaps isn't going to cause WWIII between GT fans [unless PD does something ridiculous]. If you're referring to the modding thing before, the problem was it was unregulated. Engine swapping could be. The whole outcry against it would be gone.
Well if you want to be clear, stop speaking in metaphors.
Where would this split come from? Should PD just not add features in order to solidify the community, even if it's not what the community wants? If online was RS tires only, it would be a lot easier finding a room right?
And you keep acting as if this is a problem.
In this case we also wouldn't have this conversation now. I don't expect a war, but fear another split. I don't know if you can imagine how many purists play GT5 and would hate to see modifications in such an extreme way which is pretty far away from the original.
PP is not perfect, never was. Adding more and more elements into the PP calculation could end messy, a bit like it was with the tyre compounds back in the old spec 1 days.
But it's a wonderful stylistic element of speach.
It would indeed be easier, but tyres are a crucial factor and play a huge role, which is in no way compareable to what we're discussing here. You can call it a necessity, something I wouldn't say about this topic. Also, if there are any "exploits" in the PP system, which I can almost guarantee, people you'd be "forced" to do the same swap to have a chance, including people who have an aversion for it.
I see you'd like it. It's like all the (admittedly many) people who like to play open world/sandbox games (maybe you see now why I was talking about sandboxes?). But others (also many) don't like it, they really don't. Now, GT gives you much freedom to do things, but it's still guided. A game concept hardly works if you just put a tons of stuff in it and then do nohing really with it and think the others will surely know what to do. Yes, I really dislike the idea of free engine swaps, I could at most agree with a system as in Shift 2 or Forza. You see I'm not generally against it, but I simply think everything has to have its limits and in my opinion these limits should be at a way different place than you'd want them to be.
Huh? Read my post above where I gave Tor(o)nado some answers.
To be quite honest, the biggest difference in the context of engine swapping would be that you wouldn't be limited to a handful of cars when looking at the top performance vehicles. That's it. The game isn't changing drastically. And if it bothered you still, you can just ignore it.
Do you use it or not?
There isn't much to add, it anything at all. HP, weight, balance, chassis, all play a part in the calculation. That's basically all engine swapping will change. We've even seen PP handle engine swapping already when modders tried doing it.
It's exactly the same. No, different tire compounds aren't necessary. Not in GT. Every car can be driven on RS tires. So PD could make it so that RS was the only tire choice, and now all those people who go around making rooms for CS tire racing are forced to go RS. It sounds pretty stupid to me. Just like making it impossible to have a 500 hp spec Civic series because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea.
Or you could just banish it. Or PD could just fix it. What happened when people found that races cars beat road cars? Did they all go race car driving? No, they made road car rooms.
You can have these limits while I don't, so everyone can win. Go online, tick "no engine swap". Go offline, don't engine swap. Or maybe if PD gives us more freedom and options, you'll have a "no engine swap" tickbox for offline too. A customizable GT Mode.
How I doubt it (And from experience too). You can't get better than that. But even better than that is that for all those people who don't agree, they don't have to deal with it. Options give everyone what they want.
No, I can't ignore it if others get an advantage through this then, even if it were only a matter of a couple tenths.
You're sure that most people want an unlimited engine swap option and I'm sure that most people don't want an unlimited engine swap option. We both are just assuming, not more, not less.
Simply because one uses it, doesn't make it better. Sure they'll give us again tons of patches as they did with GT5. But how often did they again change the PP system in GT5? And how often did people complain and how often did they have to go a step back? You know the answer.
PP does change. I'm not denying this, but how can you explain it that the time trials got messed up by hybrid users if your highly praised PP system worked that great? Because it didn't. Certain people managed to gain times in the seconds range by using hybrids. Ask the fair guys who drove the seasonals with regular cars whether the PP system worked or not.
You know why? Because it is.Balancing!
).Basically the same trial and error principle the did with many of the GT5 updates.
Due to the circumstance that people most of the time do not host race car versus street car rooms, because that are two different worlds in the eyes of the majority (I don't even have to assume here), your point isn't relevant.
You were asking me why I was talking about the fear of another split. You just answered it by yourself, congrats!
Success history of games tells otherwise, with certain exceptions of course (as usual), but they exist on both sides.
Not if it starts to indirectly, for that person, negatively affect one's experience.
No, you're not really losing out, you simply don't get more than others.
If you keep reading stuff word by word, then not. Try to see the message/sense behind it.
Clearly shows how he limits the current message to one car, the supra. Stating his opinion about 1000-1200hp Supras.CallmeDan
Guess what? That's actually my point. Not sure how you could miss that...
I said thought, respectively only in that moment. It's nowhere close to meaning that you generally do so. I gave you reasons why it was limited, I showed you what you didn't take into account. You can take it as an offense if you want, although it surely wasn't intended from my side. Everybody forgets sometimes to take all necessary things into consideration, me not excluded.
That's alright, I'm fine with this, I actually never questionated this in any way.
That's great.
Basically all cars, isn't it? Otherwise you would be thinking very biased and wouldn't give equal chances to all cars.
As you can imagine I disagree with the term "whatever car"
. I'd like to replace it with predefined car selection, as example same manufacturer or same car class or veeeeery similar engine type.Good
Good
Huge dislike
I'm fine with this one though.
It's a good suggestion.
If we let the hidden parts out of play I agree. The main reason is that with increasing values the differences between factors increases and important nuances play a smaller role because they start to be overshadowed by them, following slowly losing significance.
This is crazy. You just said PP isn't balanced already, so someone is already gaining a couple of tenths on you, at least. Yet it doesn't bother you. However, if the couple tenths (and by the way the existence of this advantage is completely hypothetical) comes from an engine swap it's bad?
Actually, I assumed nothing. I asked how many wanted one thing vs another. Then I said that it was possible to satisfy both sides at once.
But if you use it, then the balance isn't so bad as to make it useless.
And none of that has to happen again. And if you think this is guaranteed to happen, then swaps don't matter. The game won't be balanced or complete at any point ever, so you might as well add the swaps.
Ask the people about TT before modding. "The 2J is so unfair." That's what I gather from that period. After modding, replace 2J with modded cars. Now, why were the modded cars faster? They used stats that went beyond what the PP system could account for (which would not happen with realistic limits to power or a tuned PP system). This could have been fixed with a simple HP rules added to the TT's, even without touching PP or the modded cars. So again, this is completely unlike the modding thing.
I addressed this in this post, and in previous posts. It's not about balancing. How on Earth is a 500 hp Civic different from any other 500 hp car? It's not. The balancing argument simply does not exist.
What? What group? Not a group of 500 hp Civics. Do you think it will break one make races or something? That's nothing new since GT's manufacturer and one make races have often had no rules at all. Who is going to win the Ferrari race, the Enzo or the 512? And you're worried about 500 hp Civics?
OK, and this isn't changed. In fact I don't know why you brought this up. It's unrelated to this thread.
It's OK, because you can't achieve this with arbitrary limits to tuning. You achieve this with race rules (PP, hp, weight, year of manufacture, drive train type, etc).They should be aiming for a homogenous balance of power (or relative strength? Don't know what the better term is, my poor english again
Trial and error where exactly? It is how rooms work right now. If the host doesn't like it, he doesn't let it in.
It is relevant. You're agreeing with me. If people don't like something, they will just avoid it.
Where is the split? People can tick and untick the boxes at will. You're not stuck on one side. Beyond that, would you call the RS tire thing a split in the community? Or the SRF tickbox? Do you seriously expect everyone to have the same universal standards on everything and all play exactly the same? That's not realistic at all.You were asking me why I was talking about the fear of another split. You just answered it by yourself, congrats!
Don't see it. I've played tons of games that have sold well while giving the user the ability to do whatever. They're typically the best games to play. And like I said, you can have both, so it's a null point.
The person who is worried whether or not the car next to his has an engine swap that in no meaningful way changes his experience of the game simply can't be helped. He just has to deal with it.
No, you're losing out. The second part of sentence does not make sense. It implies that with engine swaps, someone will get more than someone else. Clearly false.
So your preferred solution is to tend to one side only and completely ignore the other side? That does not sound better.
Sounds like assumption to me.
Oh, then engine swapping is fine?Guess what? That's actually my point. Not sure how you could miss that...
. I'm currently fiddling with a Suzuki Cervo with the GSXR engine 
Even more crazy is to believe that adding more influences into a complex system, such as the PP system is, doesn't affect it in any way or at least not into a negative direction. But the latter can only be the case if you systematically let cars with engine swaps have slightly overrated PP levels. If that's the case I wouldn't be that mad about having it, but very ill-humoured.
Ok, go ahead! Satisfy me! C'mon! What are you waiting for?
I didn't say it's useless, I said it's far away from perfect. But tell me, what else should I use in open (free choice) street car rooms? Power and weight limit doesn't work then. For race car rooms power/weight limit often works and if it does, I'll surely prefer it.
Would it help to make already not great things worse?
It is very much unlike, yes. The difference is while in case of the 2J you only have one car to look after, it's in case of unlimited engine swaps several hundred possible constellations.
An engine swap is a modification, thus you modificate something. Following it's called modding. Modding can be done from either side.
Sure thing if by far the most were only trying to do some crazy stuff or only cared about having fancy cars. Only a few tried to gain advantage.
As soon as a civic beats an eclipse as example. Balanced is if you tune all cars to about the same degree, so that none of them gets privileged.
Not worried, but upset. If we have 500 civics, why don't we have 700hp eclipses then? Why don't we have this? Why don't we have that? Why don't we have... etc etc etc.
You started with calling 500hp civics.
I didn't say I'm completely against engine swaps. The difference is that I want limits/regulations and you don't. I'm only totally against free unlimited engine swaps. You're confusing something.
What if a car has such a big performance increase from tuning that it can run in classes it actually should never land?
Huh? I was talking about updates, not sure how you misunderstood that.
No it's not, I'm not agreeing with you and you're missing the point.
I'd remove srf whenever I could. I would be stuck on one side then, just as you'd be on the other. Just as I'm taking quite an opposite position now as you do, whithout any readiness to make a step onto the other side.
Which results in?
I didn't reduce it to 0. In your opinion they're typically the best games to play. If you compare the amount of sandbox games with linear games, what would be the only logic conclusion?
How can you guarantee that it doesn't affect his experience?
Clearly true if you're by hook or crook not willing to lose it. It's a preference of you deepest personality, you can't just jump over that. As less as you can move closer to my standpoint, isn't it?
The prefered solution is to tend to the majority. Yet we don't know if more people want unrestricted absolutely free engine swap possibilities (as you do) or if more people want engine swaps in a limited and controled way to keep it predictable and manageable (as I do). Therefore I simply tend to my side because I'm absolutely convinced that this mirrors more peoples preferences than yours, although you may think the exact opposite and defend your point.
Can you speak? Did you know that language is more than just lining up word by word? How would indirect speach work without? Irony, sarcasm, etc, how could we use that stuff if we do not interpret the language? I'm wondering.
I really don't know if you do this on purpose or not.
There's your answer:
But you're not adding anything. All the things that engine swaps or even chassis swaps influence are taken into account. Beyond that, there are probably quite a few parameters that PD could implement in future games to increase realism. I don't think it would be reasonable to hinder realism just because it would require reworking of the PP system. On top of that a very simple solution exists to patching holes in PP: Allow us to use more than PP when setting room limits.
It's hard to see how you aren't satisfied since my proposal lets you completely avoid engine swapping. In other words, you could play the game as if it does not even exist.
You did not say it was pointless, I agree with this. The point was that it's not so bad that using it is hopeless. Engine swapping isn't going to make things any worse, and even if PP went completely unchanged, more hosting options from PD completely removes any new problems that may come up.
Can they not be made better?
And those combinations are all handled with a single tickbox. It's a one to one thing. Simple as that.
This is fine. The imperfect PP system is good enough to generate close races. Adding engine swaps won't make it any worse, and PD can give us more options to counter the few weaknesses PP has.
Modding in a game context refers specifically to players changing the game themselves, not devs. That is what I meant by modding.
And they would be in the system I propose. Anything possible in real life goes. The host can then narrow what is acceptable further if it is desired. So any player can put any engine in any car, but they won't be able to use those cars whenever they wanted because the room host might outlaw them.
Engine swapping isn't about gaining an advantage. It will be regulated just like all other tuning.
This makes no sense. Why can't a tuned Civic beat an Eclipse? This should be expected to happen. If the room allows the Civic to be tuned to that degree, the Eclipse driver had better tune his car as well. Or he can go to another room that won't allow tuned Civics.
We have what's realistic. There you go. Now you can answer any question.
500 hp Civics is not the problem. You brought up cars in similar classes, which engine swapping in no way hampers or removes. That is what I don't understand being brought up. Engine swapping won't get in the way of what you want to do.
You can set as many limits as you want in your room or your room search criteria.
This can't happen, firstly because there are no car classes to voilate. Again, you're point something out, but failing to show me a problem.
Good. This should be in the game, it gives us more to do. There is not a single thing wrong with it.
Well in that case, PD can just do a better job next time.
Well that's a non issue. You won't be forced to do anything.
Actually no, you can easily put road and race cars together. There is no fundamental separation between them. It is just hard to balance using PP alone. The latter is the reason why people separate them. Now moving on to the case of engine swaps, in the extremely unlikely event that it creates some huge advantage, people can do the exact same thing. Keep engine swapped cars in one place, and standard engines in another. It is exactly the same.
It's exactly the same. All you need is the tickbox.
Yet you defend different tire choices which is not different at all.
This isn't true. You would be on one side yes, but I could freely move between. So could anyone else would want to.
People being able to enjoy the game, rather than having a game with one race, that allows only one car, in one configuration. Anyone can change their preference at any time, and the ability to partake in any part of the game is open to anyone. There is no split.
That the analysis done was very simplistic.
He never has to so much as see it.
Still doesn't make sense. You either enter a room allowing swaps on don't. In fact even if every room allowed swaps, the people who did not swap still would not be at disadvantage since they can simply get up to the required performance level with other tuning options.
No, this is only valid in a conflict of interest. Since there isn't one, the preferred solution is to add the feature and let people use it as they see fit.
So basically you have no reason to defend your side. You just said you have no idea what the numbers are.
Well here is my interpretation:
And here are those limits: The host sets the rules. So you get to have them. What is the problem?
