Is GT6 too easy?

[Neddo]

GT5 Prologue missions were very hard but races were a joke

 

[Nooboogering]

GT5 Prologue missions were very hard but races were a joke

GT5 Prologue online had beginner, intermediate and expert rooms.

Never bought that game to do offline racing.

Online racing was my goal.

 

[BrodieBoi94]

I "memer" in GT3 there was the license test at Seattle Circuit which put you behind the wheel of a "Catfish" Camaro.

It was really just a right turn, but It was the toughest test for me to finish (mystery as to why).

GT6's tests are pretty easy, but now since they have the times from your friends as well, that's the gold I go for.

I still do miss the O.G Gran Turismo tests.
PD were pretty gangster back then with the tests and all, IDK what happened.

I hope they bring back some of the tough testing.

 

[Neddo]

Maybe a platinium award just for pure satisfaction

 

[gamermaniac55]

One of the most difficult events i found was the gt world championship. Good gosh, was that difficult, until i found the right car. @shmogt has a peugeot 908 TDi FAP Base Model tune that totally blew me away. Only downside is car + upgrades = 2,000,000+. Around 2.1 mil.

 

[G_Parrilla]

Yesterday I saw a friend struggling to get a bronze in the licenses and challenges with SRF on. That made me think:
GT3 was the hardest GT for me (and the first one I played). Since then I found the next installments to be progressively easier.
But after seeing that dude yesterday I concluded that it's not only the game that is slightly easier, but us, the people that has been playing GT for 10 or 15 years, somehow learned something about the game (I'm not saying we're the next GT Academy winners, but after many years of GT I learned a million things about car control, tuning and history sitting in my bedroom)
It's just a personal analysis, take it as you like it.

 

[Shahar]

. That made me think:
GT3 was the hardest GT for me (and the first one I played).Since then I found the next installments to be progressively easier.
But after seeing that dude yesterday I concluded that it's not only the game that is slightly easier, but us, the people that has been playing GT for 10 or 15 years, somehow learned something about the game (I'm not saying we're the next GT Academy winners, but after many years of GT I learned a million things about car control, tuning and history sitting in my bedroom)
It's just a personal analysis, take it as you like it.

Yeah , I agree with every word.
With no real car license me as an 8 year old playing GT3 with the DS2 ! I learned so much about apex , racing line , oversteer, understeer, weight transfer and so much more!
And without knowing I memorized every inch of the Monaco GP circuit.
And 8 year old me didn't understood english at all!
That was the power of the classic Gran turismo game mainly GT3.

Quote "The nation is full of 11 years old's saying 'Wow dad ,I wish you were good as I am'" (Jeremy Clarkson , Top gear season 7 playing Gran Turismo 4).
GT6 doesn't have that effect.

Generally GT6 is ok , but PD knows better.

 

[GTPVenomZombie]

GT6 has been the easiest GT game so far, its took me 2 days to complete! I`ve had GT4 for 10 years now, and I still haven't completed that yet. Now that says something because its an older game. This was also the first GT where I golded all the Missions and Licences on my first attempt. I also managed to Platinum GT6 as well. But there is one hard thing about this game which is very annoying, and that is the Stockyard. Its hard to see what cars you need to buy when you have like 850 cars. Its frustrating. And I know its because its too speed up the loading times but still.. I`ve not gave up faith in PD yet, as a lifetime GT fan ever since I was 3 I`ve played GT. But overall, GT6 was very easy. But that was just my opinion. (Sorry if I got some words mixed up if I did, bit stressed lately)

 

[ZBAT]

GT6 has been the easiest GT game so far, its took me 2 days to complete! I`ve had GT4 for 10 years now, and I still haven't completed that yet. Now that says something because its an older game. This was also the first GT where I golded all the Missions and Licences on my first attempt. I also managed to Platinum GT6 as well. But there is one hard thing about this game which is very annoying, and that is the Stockyard. Its hard to see what cars you need to buy when you have like 850 cars. Its frustrating. And I know its because its too speed up the loading times but still.. I`ve not gave up faith in PD yet, as a lifetime GT fan ever since I was 3 I`ve played GT. But overall, GT6 was very easy. But that was just my opinion. (Sorry if I got some words mixed up if I did, bit stressed lately)

I'm not sure how you completed every license and every race in two days, but hopefully that in itself is just me being unafraid to show imperfections. This brings up a good point however... where do you draw the line between ease and enjoyment? Personally, I enjoy the process of the game as opposed to the difficulty. Perhaps it's age, but earning credits, using the progression system as it was meant to be used, enjoying the intricacies of graphics and sounds (such as different engine notes caused by different mufflers), and perfecting tunes have brought this game to a top notch level on my belt. Perhaps a difficulty setting would be the best option for the next GRan Turism0... You'll have people who simply will never be as good racers as others due to tuning, reflexes, or the mechanics of racing (with the last being an inexcusable offense due to the amount of training provided ... amount of FORCED training provided in the license tests). I assume this idea is already in place with the different difficulty level seasonal races. For me, the Online Racing aspect is the main reason for playing the game, so the A spec difficulty isn't too concerning and the difficulty is always changing. Unfortunately the most challenging aspect of the game at this point though is keeping up with the physics changes. I suppose it's better than digging trenches, however.

 

[GTPVenomZombie]

I'm not sure how you completed every license and every race in two days, but hopefully that in itself is just me being unafraid to show imperfections. This brings up a good point however... where do you draw the line between ease and enjoyment? Personally, I enjoy the process of the game as opposed to the difficulty. Perhaps it's age, but earning credits, using the progression system as it was meant to be used, enjoying the intricacies of graphics and sounds (such as different engine notes caused by different mufflers), and perfecting tunes have brought this game to a top notch level on my belt. Perhaps a difficulty setting would be the best option for the next GRan Turism0... You'll have people who simply will never be as good racers as others due to tuning, reflexes, or the mechanics of racing (with the last being an inexcusable offense due to the amount of training provided ... amount of FORCED training provided in the license tests). I assume this idea is already in place with the different difficulty level seasonal races. For me, the Online Racing aspect is the main reason for playing the game, so the A spec difficulty isn't too concerning and the difficulty is always changing. Unfortunately the most challenging aspect of the game at this point though is keeping up with the physics changes. I suppose it's better than digging trenches, however.

Yes. I did complete it all in 2 days. I got the game December 6th, 10:05am in the morning at Game. (still got the receipt) I completed most of the game on the first day I got it, then on the second I finished off what I had left to do! (stayed up ridiculous times in the morning to play it like 3am) And yeah, it is enjoyable but its too easy. Its a good game too test speed (even if it is unrealistic lol) and tune cars in my opinion, plus yea online is also good. But I mainly use online for just cruising around, and testing my cars out. And too me, maybe if GT6 got rid of the stockyard and we had course maker, endurance races, used dealership all back it would be a hell of a lot better than GT5 was. And too me, GT5 was better but then again its just my opinion so I`m not one too tell anybody that GT6 is a bad game. Its really enjoyable, but in all honesty its too short. Fastest GT I`ve ever completed.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I've said it before in the other threads on this very topic, easy is relative.

My 20 year old daughter can't get around 1 lap without crashing. My 10 year old step son is just getting to the point where he can win the Sunday cup level races.

This GT has been quicker to complete because they didn't have the endurance races, and they didn't have endurance races because they didn't have b-spec. They didn't have b-spec because they wanted to sell credits (terrible idea btw) It's not a stretch to think that most people didn't even participate in the endurance races in GT5, so this time they chose to go shorter. Is Call of Duty easy? I can kill WAY more people in single player than I get killed. Winning is the whole point of single player. It's not meant to a massive challenge to win. People already call the rubber band AI cheap and they just threaten to beat you.

For every person that thinks the game is "easy", go join an online race. I guarantee that winning won't be a forgone conclusion.

 

[FS7]

I've said it before in the other threads on this very topic, easy is relative.

My 20 year old daughter can't get around 1 lap without crashing. My 10 year old step son is just getting to the point where he can win the Sunday cup level races.

This GT has been quicker to complete because they didn't have the endurance races, and they didn't have endurance races because they didn't have b-spec. They didn't have b-spec because they wanted to sell credits (terrible idea btw) It's not a stretch to think that most people didn't even participate in the endurance races in GT5, so this time they chose to go shorter. Is Call of Duty easy? I can kill WAY more people in single player than I get killed. Winning is the whole point of single player. It's not meant to a massive challenge to win. People already call the rubber band AI cheap and they just threaten to beat you.

For every person that thinks the game is "easy", go join an online race. I guarantee that winning won't be a forgone conclusion.

You're looking at this the wrong way.

People don't want GT to be insanely difficulty, what we want is for GT to have multiple difficulty options like other games do (including COD games), that would make the game enjoyable for more people.
Having the option to adjust AI difficulty means that your kids could choose a lower difficulty level and play GT6's career races using the same cars the AI is using and be able to win races and have fun, while advanced players could choose a higher difficulty level and play GT6's career races using the same cars the AI uses and have fun challenging races. It's a win-win situation.
If GT6 had the option to adjust AI difficulty it would cater to everybody, the way it is right now it caters only to casual players.

Other racing games have had the option to adjust AI difficulty for years, it makes no sense why GT series doesn't include that option. The recent inclusion of b-spec is clear proof that the hardware can handle it and is something that PD could include in the game if they wanted to.

 

[Voodoovaj]

You're looking at this the wrong way.

People don't want GT to be insanely difficulty, what we want is for GT to have multiple difficulty options like other games do (including COD games), that would make the game enjoyable for more people.
Having the option to adjust AI difficulty means that your kids could choose a lower difficulty level and play GT6's career races using the same cars the AI is using and be able to win races and have fun, while advanced players could choose a higher difficulty level and play GT6's career races using the same cars the AI uses and have fun challenging races. It's a win-win situation.
If GT6 had the option to adjust AI difficulty it would cater to everybody, the way it is right now it caters only to casual players.

Other racing games have had the option to adjust AI difficulty for years, it makes no sense why GT series doesn't include that option. The recent inclusion of b-spec is clear proof that the hardware can handle it and is something that PD could include in the game if they wanted to.

No, I don't think I am. I think that people who simply want to play single player over and over to infinity consider themselves to be a larger portion of the public than they truly are. The idea that adjusting the AI caters to "everybody" is misguided. It applies to everybody who only cares about offline. That's a very small subset. I would wager far smaller than the players who pretty much disregard the single player in favour of online.

I for one have never done a single player race more than once unless I needed credits for something, and then I just do the RedBull stuff. Once I get gold, I am finished. There is nothing more to be achieved. So, an adjustable difficulty, for someone like me, would be a completely useless feature that I would complain about in this forum. I applaud b-spec because it saves me the trouble of having to deal with single player at all. In my opinion, SP is fake racing. Everything about it is fake.

In general, driving AI can be perfect (in that it can be set to make no mistakes). It can do the perfect lap every time. It can even be setup to be ULTRA perfect. It could do laps that exceed the possible. So, if AI loses to a human, it's because it has been programmed to do so. I don't care how well done the AI is, if I beat it, it's a hollow victory because I was given a win by the computer.

Contrast that to the Quick Match (for example). There are hundreds of thousands of races happening at any one time. Each one of those races is far more interesting than any single player match. If you find a group too easy, exit and enter another room. I love that I am actually beating other people with a desire to win. I know that it was my skill (and maybe some luck) that got me the win. Nothing was given to me.

 

[dddsprayshop]

What can i say, it is kinda easy now for me, but in the beginning it was frustrating as hell.
Practice made me a bit better, but i will not call GT6 too easy.

Was it GT5 were you could enter a redbull in a Sunday Cup?
I had fun with a GT-R schulze N24 at sunday cup, talking about too easy.


\edit: Why did i react here? Kinda old topic.....UGH.

 

[kilesa4568]

If it's too easy, you're using the wrong car for your skill level, even if it's right for the race. You don't have to use the pp limit as there's plenty of room below it.

I still do a few of the career events but I choose cars that run at a similar or slower pace to the pack. I usually need every lap they give me to get close to or into the lead. It doesn't matter if I don't win either. As long as I enjoy the race.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, I don't think I am. I think that people who simply want to play single player over and over to infinity consider themselves to be a larger portion of the public than they truly are. The idea that adjusting the AI caters to "everybody" is misguided. It applies to everybody who only cares about offline. That's a very small subset. I would wager far smaller than the players who pretty much disregard the single player in favour of online.

http://psnprofiles.com/trophies/2305-Gran-Turismo-6
GT is far, far away from being an online dominant game. Before QM it was normal to find around 100 open lobbies on any mid-week evening in North America, indicating only several hundred people online, and the majority of those in cruise/drag/cops lobbies. On the other hand, the GT6 trophy summary, a survey of over 82,000 game owners, indicates that millions of people go deep into the offline career.

But you are correct that adjusting AI only applies to everyone who cares about offline, but that's the point of it isn't it?

I for one have never done a single player race more than once unless I needed credits for something, and then I just do the RedBull stuff. Once I get gold, I am finished. There is nothing more to be achieved. So, an adjustable difficulty, for someone like me, would be a completely useless feature that I would complain about in this forum. I applaud b-spec because it saves me the trouble of having to deal with single player at all. In my opinion, SP is fake racing. Everything about it is fake.

Then it's not for you, doesn't mean millions of others can't benefit.

In general, driving AI can be perfect (in that it can be set to make no mistakes). It can do the perfect lap every time. It can even be setup to be ULTRA perfect. It could do laps that exceed the possible. So, if AI loses to a human, it's because it has been programmed to do so. I don't care how well done the AI is, if I beat it, it's a hollow victory because I was given a win by the computer.

True, but again irrelevant to those that like offline racing.

Contrast that to the Quick Match (for example). There are hundreds of thousands of races happening at any one time. Each one of those races is far more interesting than any single player match. If you find a group too easy, exit and enter another room. I love that I am actually beating other people with a desire to win. I know that it was my skill (and maybe some luck) that got me the win. Nothing was given to me.

And you can compete against people that have absolutely no respect for fairplay and the races are more about survival than anything else. For anyone looking for a realistic racing experience, QM is not the place to find it. It's about as arcade as it gets. If it weren't for the high payouts, QM would be a ghost town, given the overall quality of competition.

If it's too easy, you're using the wrong car for your skill level, even if it's right for the race. You don't have to use the pp limit as there's plenty of room below it.

I still do a few of the career events but I choose cars that run at a similar or slower pace to the pack. I usually need every lap they give me to get close to or into the lead. It doesn't matter if I don't win either. As long as I enjoy the race.

Difficulty sliders, pretty standard concept in gaming since, oh I don't know, the invention of gaming? You shouldn't have to make small adjustments to your car nor choose a substantially underpowered car to find a competitive race offline. When I picked up Grid Autosport, I just set the AI level after one or two experimental races and never changed it in hundreds of races. My friends that played chose a level that suited their skill level and just left it there as well. Was it perfect? No. At city courses for example I tended to do better than circuits, but overall it provided a very rewarding racing experience without having to tinker with my car after every race, which to me, really breaks the immersion because you're essentially just nerfing your car until it's the same speed.

 

[Imari]

In general, driving AI can be perfect (in that it can be set to make no mistakes). It can do the perfect lap every time. It can even be setup to be ULTRA perfect. It could do laps that exceed the possible. So, if AI loses to a human, it's because it has been programmed to do so. I don't care how well done the AI is, if I beat it, it's a hollow victory because I was given a win by the computer.

That's not true at all. There are many games, and racing is one, where there isn't a strictly dominant strategy.

Assuming that the AI isn't cheating the physics and that you're competent to keep up with the AI's level of car control, you have the ability to out-racecraft them. That isn't the AI giving you the win, that's you putting yourself in a position where the AI only has options which are bad for it.

Doing a perfect lap isn't enough to win, if your opponent is diving the inside and shoving you wide, picking you on backmarkers, and holding strong defensive lines.

AI is good to practise against while you're still mastering the basics of car control. Good AI is good to practise against while you're still mastering the basics of racecraft. While it's nice to race against humans, sometimes people just want to jump in and have a fairly clean game against an opponent that they know will give them a certain level of competition. Sometimes, it's less fun to spend an hour surfing rooms only to find nothing suitable than it is to just go and race against a solid AI pack.

If it's too easy, you're using the wrong car for your skill level, even if it's right for the race. You don't have to use the pp limit as there's plenty of room below it.

There's a big difference in how pack racing works when you're in a slower car. It means that you'll constantly fall behind on straights, and you'll constantly be making big dives up beside cars in corners. It's not really how most race categories work these days.

Real difficulty levels mean that the AI is in equal or near-equal machinery and you're racing neck and neck. It means that you can go side by side down the straight and try and outbrake each other into a corner, just like real racers do. It means it's a more exciting and realistic representation of racing.

Close racing is not just finishing at the same time, it's all the battling that you do to get there. People who nerf their PP to give a "close" race are really just tuning their overall time to be similar to the AI, which turns the race into little more than hotlapping, or at least severely minimises the impact that strong racecraft can have on a race.

What is really wanted is AI that can take equal machinery and give the player a challenge. GT doesn't have that.

 

[Voodoovaj]

http://psnprofiles.com/trophies/2305-Gran-Turismo-6
GT is far, far away from being an online dominant game. Before QM it was normal to find around 100 open lobbies on any mid-week evening in North America, indicating only several hundred people online, and the majority of those in cruise/drag/cops lobbies. On the other hand, the GT6 trophy summary, a survey of over 82,000 game owners, indicates that millions of people go deep into the offline career.

But you are correct that adjusting AI only applies to everyone who cares about offline, but that's the point of it isn't it?

Sure, plenty of people go deep into the career mode. Myself included. I have all the trophies. The question is, how often do those people repeat that process? I'd wager not many in the grand scheme of things. Just look at how the percentage drops to under 30% for the international A trophy. Less than thirty percent did that at least one time, let alone multiple times.

Can additional levels of difficulty be done (because they do exist, you simply cannot change them)? Absolutely it can, but asking a fan forum for a game, populated by the cream of the crop of the entire playing community, if they find the game "too easy" is most likely the wrong group to ask. Of course it's too easy for us.

I have a very close friend that adores this game. He has to try several times to win the expert difficulty races. So, to him, this game can be too hard. It's all perspective.

Also, don't forget to toss into the mix, that the AI in this game is using the base tune for every car. We are all using upgraded cars with tunes that, in some cases, have taken weeks to perfect and yield gains in the order of seconds per lap.

That's not true at all. There are many games, and racing is one, where there isn't a strictly dominant strategy.

Assuming that the AI isn't cheating the physics and that you're competent to keep up with the AI's level of car control, you have the ability to out-racecraft them. That isn't the AI giving you the win, that's you putting yourself in a position where the AI only has options which are bad for it.

On this point, I can assure you, I am 100% correct. Driving game AI does not use game theory strategy for choices. It just follows a spline. AI can do everything to absolute perfection if the designer sets it up to do that. 100% of the time. Without fault. No "cheating" what-so-ever. If you put 10 of these perfect AI cars together, you'll get some interesting result, but then they would still all be MASSIVELY better than a human. You, as a human being, will make mistakes because we are not perfect.

in the EXACT SAME CAR, AI cannot be defeated without dumbing it down. It has to be tuned to not be as good as a human so the human can win.

Just look at the current 500 pp seasonal. The current leading time is in the 1:14's (nearly 1:13's). I am current leading in my friends group, but I'm in the 1:17's. Assuming the AI had access to this exact same setup, how would I ever "out race craft" the CPU with that kind of pace?

Well, obviously, the AI will need to be set up to be slow enough so that it matches my pace, so 1:17's to 1:18's (if this were adjustable, this would the expert setting one would have to assume). However, just by looking at the times, this AI has 4-5 seconds per lap of extra pace in it's ability. If I get 5 seconds ahead, and the AI then is told by the game to catch me, it sure would seem super cheap and that it was cheating, because in 1 lap of Midfield, that AI would have caught me and then in the next lap, scamper off into the distance. Then, it will have be told to slow down again so that I can catch up.

This is how rubber band car AI works. Doesn't that above scenario sound a lot like what is already happening in the game? The cars seem to "cheat" and magically close the gap with a pace that is inconceivable. I read the complaints about it all the time on this forum.

GT has always been set up so that you govern the difficulty through car choice. If you want more difficulty, take a slower car. That's the challenge and it has always been like that.

If I turn the power of my 700pp car down to 600pp and enter the expert level races, say 700pp, what happens now that adjustable AI would change?

What is really wanted is AI that can take equal machinery and give the player a challenge. GT doesn't have that.

Agreed, because the AI cannot access "equal machinery" at the moment, except for B-spec, where it get's to use your cars with the tunes on them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sure, plenty of people go deep into the career mode. Myself included. I have all the trophies. The question is, how often do those people repeat that process? I'd wager not many in the grand scheme of things. Just look at how the percentage drops to under 30% for the international A trophy. Less than thirty percent did that at least one time, let alone multiple times.

30% of approximately 4 millions games sold (and that assumes only 1 player per unit sold) is 1.2 million people.

Can additional levels of difficulty be done (because they do exist, you simply cannot change them)? Absolutely it can, but asking a fan forum for a game, populated by the cream of the crop of the entire playing community, if they find the game "too easy" is most likely the wrong group to ask. Of course it's too easy for us.

I'm starting to think you don't understand the point of difficulty sliders. No one wants the entire game to be harder for everyone. We want it to be harder for ourselves, and whatever difficulty floats your boat for you or anyone else. Standard practice in just about any game and just about every racing game ever invented. I want to race GT500 cars vs. GT500 cars, not pull out a tuned Vitz in order to have a competitive race...unless that's what I want to do and the difficulty slider can make that happen as well. See how it works is that difficulty sliders make all the options and all the combinations work for just about everyone.

On this point, I can assure you, I am 100% correct. Driving game AI does not use game theory strategy for choices. It just follows a spline. AI can do everything to absolute perfection if the designer sets it up to do that. 100% of the time. Without fault. No "cheating" what-so-ever. If you put 10 of these perfect AI cars together, you'll get some interesting result, but then they would still all be MASSIVELY better than a human. You, as a human being, will make mistakes because we are not perfect.

in the EXACT SAME CAR, AI is cannot be defeated without dumbing it down. It has to be tuned to not be as good as a human so the human can win.

I don't believe this is true, but let's stipulate it is for the sake of argument. So what? How does that change the fact that I would like the AI tuned to drive at my 1:15 lap and you'd like it to drive at your 1:17 lap and someone else would like it to drive at their 1:21 lap? Well programmed AI does this by simulating what a real driver does. Slower in the corners, more mistakes. Not braking 3 times entering a corner, and once on exit and then blasting past me on the next straightaway because I have 150 less hp. Other games can do this and do it well, there's no reason why GT can't do the same.

This is how rubber band car AI works. Doesn't that above scenario sound a lot like what is already happening in the game? The cars seem to "cheat" and magically close the gap with a pace that is inconceivable. I read the complaints about it all the time on this forum.

Rubberbanding needs to go in favour of difficulty sliders.

GT has always been set up so that you govern the difficulty through car choice. If you want more difficulty, take a slower car. That's the challenge and it has always been like that.

Which is not what everyone wants. Some of us want to race the same cars, on the same pace as the AI. It's called, "racing simulation"

 

[Imari]

On this point, I can assure you, I am 100% correct. Driving game AI does not use game theory strategy for choices. It just follows a spline. AI can do everything to absolute perfection if the designer sets it up to do that. 100% of the time. Without fault. No "cheating" what-so-ever. If you put 10 of these perfect AI cars together, you'll get some interesting result, but then they would still all be MASSIVELY better than a human. You, as a human being, will make mistakes because we are not perfect.

You're missing what I'm saying.

While a computer may be able to perform any given action with perfect accuracy, in racing there is no strictly dominant strategy. Or at least not that I'm aware of. There isn't a Nash equilibrium, if Player 1 is going to use Strategy A to approach a corner, and Player 2 is going to use Strategy B to attempt to pass then Player 1 is potentially going to want to alter their strategy to try and counter Strategy B.

This isn't about technical control. It's assuming that both players already have perfect technical control of their vehicles, the outcome is still not a given because there's room for superior strategic decisions to dominate.

in the EXACT SAME CAR, AI cannot be defeated without dumbing it down. It has to be tuned to not be as good as a human so the human can win.

Purely from a hotlapping perspective, you're right. But that's true of real racing as well. You don't put 13 year olds up against Sebastian Vettel, you put them up against opposition with a relatively similar skill level.

Just because Sebastian Vettel exists, doesn't mean that 13 year olds racing each other in karts on a Saturday morning is pointless. Likewise, the existence of your super-perfect AI driver does not make driving against any lesser AI pointless.

If anything, driving against a non-perfect AI is a better simulation of real racing than your hypothetical perfect AI. If you go to a track day or a club race, you'll be up against drivers who are not perfect.

Just look at the current 500 pp seasonal. The current leading time is in the 1:14's (nearly 1:13's). I am current leading in my friends group, but I'm in the 1:17's. Assuming the AI had access to this exact same setup, how would I ever "out race craft" the CPU with that kind of pace?

Well, obviously, the AI will need to be set up to be slow enough so that it matches my pace, so 1:17's to 1:18's (if this were adjustable, this would the expert setting one would have to assume). However, just by looking at the times, this AI has 4-5 seconds per lap of extra pace in it's ability. If I get 5 seconds ahead, and the AI then is told by the game to catch me, it sure would seem super cheap and that it was cheating, because in 1 lap of Midfield, that AI would have caught me and then in the next lap, scamper off into the distance. Then, it will have be told to slow down again so that I can catch up.

This is how rubber band car AI works. Doesn't that above scenario sound a lot like what is already happening in the game? The cars seem to "cheat" and magically close the gap with a pace that is inconceivable. I read the complaints about it all the time on this forum.

You're creating a strawman to argue against. I'm not advocating rubberband AI, because it's awful for all the reasons you say and more.

I'm advocating AI the emulates what a driver of similar skill to the player is capable of. As there are many difference levels of player skill, I think it's fine to offer a range of AI drivers of varying skills to compete against, from "what does the pedal on the right do again?" through to "reincarnation of Ayrton Senna".

GT has always been set up so that you govern the difficulty through car choice. If you want more difficulty, take a slower car. That's the challenge and it has always been like that.

"It's always been like that" is a terrible argument. I'm sure you can think of any number of things that were considered standard practise for generations, but are now considered unacceptable.

It was like that on PS1, and it was a reasonable solution for the time. We now have better ones, by pretty much any measure you care to make, and it seems sensible to use them instead of sticking with what worked 15+ years ago because tradition.

The point is to make a good game, not to remake Gran Turismo 1 every three years. GT7 should be the best parts of all GTs to date, with improvements where possible. That includes the AI.

Agreed, because the AI cannot access "equal machinery" at the moment, except for B-spec, where it get's to use your cars with the tunes on them.

It's assumed that the PP system works sufficiently to make cars of similar PP relatively equal. If it doesn't, then that's a problem with the PP system, not the AI.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I'm advocating AI the emulates what a driver of similar skill to the player is capable of. As there are many difference levels of player skill, I think it's fine to offer a range of AI drivers of varying skills to compete against, from "what does the pedal on the right do again?" through to "reincarnation of Ayrton Senna".

As with many game tweaks, what gets asked for and what is actually needed are two separate things. Adding "sliders" will still not give any SP fan what they really want.

I always maintain that the "better" AI that is desired, is actually (technically) worse AI. It SHOULD cheat. It should be tuned for a WORSE SP experience. In other words, set it to NOT keep the player in the hunt. It should just go for it if the player is ahead of it.

A first, easy step, would be to allow AI to use cars/tunes from the player's garage when possible. Bspec does it, so all the AI can do it.

Second, boost should be on for all SP races, but for the AI only. This gives it the ability to cheat like crazy and increase PP (grip, hp, and top speed) on the fly, so that it always maintains a very small distance to the player. This hides the rubber band.

Then, get rid of the AI's self sorting. This is where the AI settles into positions after the first lap or two and when you pass them. Keep them all closer to the player. Let them all go all out throughout the race.

These should be a fairly easy changes to implement (like maybe 2man/days of work and maybe a couple days of tweaking).

Why hasn't this been done before? I don't know. It's probably just not near the top of the priority list.


As for difficulty, I just went and checked the game. I grabbed the Bandai Direzza SC430 and entered the IA GT500 championship races (just the first one). I made sure that I was even with the AI by doing absolutely NOTHING to the car. It took all 5 laps for me to pass the lead car and win. So, that's an advanced player in equal machinery requiring all five laps to win. That would be about right on the money in terms of challenge level.

If the changes I suggested above were implemented, those second and third place cars would have over taken me in the last section, which sounds like exactly what people are asking for.

 

[kilesa4568]

I know where you're coming from with the option of higher difficulty. I loved the first Grid game myself and it was a wicked challenge on the PC using a keyboard and the savage level. I just try to make the most of what I've got with the GT games as I have to set my own difficulty with the absence of the difficulty slider.

Not the best solution but the only one possible with GT6 as I don't think there's enough power in the PS3 to up the speed of the AI without them brain farting. I think they're dumbed down to where they are so they at least stay on the track.

I'm pinning my hopes on GT7 and the PS4 to even the field. I've only got GT6 for now though so I'm making the best of a bad job. At least there's enough quantity over quality to find something reasonably competitive for a race.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Not the best solution but the only one possible with GT6 as I don't think there's enough power in the PS3 to up the speed of the AI without them brain farting. I think they're dumbed down to where they are so they at least stay on the track.

I'm pinning my hopes on GT7 and the PS4 to even the field. I've only got GT6 for now though so I'm making the best of a bad job. At least there's enough quantity over quality to find something reasonably competitive for a race.

The processing power has little to do with the GT AI. All the PS4 can do for the AI is allow more of it. Driving game AI has been around for a while and the best practices are pretty wrote at this point. The GT AI just follows the directions given by the driving line system. The reason the frame rate suffers is because the driving line takes the car's vector and predicts where the car will go given the car's stats. This is how it changes colour based on your speed. The more AI, the more prediction is happening.

It going off track is half intentional, to make it more life like, and half random due to collisions or path finding around other cars.

 

[Imari]

As with many game tweaks, what gets asked for and what is actually needed are two separate things. Adding "sliders" will still not give any SP fan what they really want.

I always maintain that the "better" AI that is desired, is actually (technically) worse AI. It SHOULD cheat. It should be tuned for a WORSE SP experience. In other words, set it to NOT keep the player in the hunt. It should just go for it if the player is ahead of it.

Are you like, intentionally arguing against things that I haven't said or what?

Where did I say it should be tuned to keep the player in the hunt? That's rubber banding, which I specifically said was bad.

You should be able to choose an AI that is roughly your own pace, but if you go off at the first corner the AI should not change their driving at all. Just like a real person. You can then either catch up on your own, or lose. Just like a real race.

The point is to make racing the AI as much like racing against real people of your own skill level as possible. Real people don't stop and wait, they want to win just as much as you do.

Second, boost should be on for all SP races, but for the AI only. This gives it the ability to cheat like crazy and increase PP (grip, hp, and top speed) on the fly, so that it always maintains a very small distance to the player. This hides the rubber band.

No, that is the rubber band.

That's exactly what makes it not feel rewarding to win a race. If you can't build a gap through good driving, then where's the reward for driving well?

If I race in another game with good AI, I can spend ten laps going back and forth fighting with one car over third position. If I feel that I fought hard and well then I can be very happy with my third. I feel that I earned it through my own skill and hard work against an opponent that could have beaten me had I driven a little worse.

That is what's exciting. The chance to do well and the chance to do poorly, and the player using their skill to get the outcome they want. It's not fun if you can't lose, and it's not fun if you can't win either.

Nor is it terribly fun if you're so much faster than all the other drivers that the only reason you didn't catch them is that they had a 30 second head start. Or that they had an extra 100 horses, or super sticky tyres. That's not fair and equal racing.

As for difficulty, I just went and checked the game. I grabbed the Bandai Direzza SC430 and entered the IA GT500 championship races (just the first one). I made sure that I was even with the AI by doing absolutely NOTHING to the car. It took all 5 laps for me to pass the lead car and win. So, that's an advanced player in equal machinery requiring all five laps to win. That would be about right on the money in terms of challenge level.

You passed 15 cars in 5 laps?

I don't think you understand what it is that some people, like myself, want from a challenging race. See above.

Please repeat after me: A challenging race is not simply crossing the line within 3 seconds of the leading/second-placed car.

No doubt some people would find that race to be just right for them, even as I described it before. The AI is maybe just right for their skill level as they are now. But the point is that there's no way to adapt the difficulty so that it's just right for everyone else. While it's never going to be right for everyone, it's possible to cover a lot more of the gaming population than it does right now.

It should also be noted that the way GT6 races are set up is such that it's largely impossible for the game to provide a reasonable challenge AND for the player to win the race. 3-5 lap sprints with rolling starts from the back of the field with the fastest at the front make it very difficult. It could be done if the field were put in reverse order, with the fastest cars at the back and the slowest at the front, so that the aim is to have the field at it's most compact at the very end of the race, but Polyphony chooses not to order it's grids in this way.

That is a separate problem of game design, that is not related to the AI. As such, your test really doesn't do anything to refute the idea that the AI could be better with adjustable levels.

If the changes I suggested above were implemented, those second and third place cars would have over taken me in the last section, which sounds like exactly what people are asking for.

Nope.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Are you like, intentionally arguing against things that I haven't said or what?

No, just 20 years of game development and working with complex AI gives me the insight to know that what you are asking for is a rabbit hole that you don't want to go down. It's also one of the reasons I don't care about single player beyond the trophies. There's no mystery for me.

Rubber band AI is the most like a real person. I can't think of a racing game that goes without some degree of rubber banding. If a person is in the lead, they protect that lead, if they fall behind they push the pace. Rubber band.

You can disguise the rubber band, but it needs to be there. Simply having the AI "match your pace" is a rubber band approach.

Now, take the race I participated in: It had a PP limit of 650pp. Remember, the AI can only access cars from the dealership. So, the AI cars will all be under 600PP. If I took a 650 pp car, fully tuned, into that race. How is the AI going to match my pace without "cheating"?

Other games can get away with a better overall experience because the range of possibility in car tuning is much smaller.

Believe it or not, forum posts get read and actionable items get a look to see if they can be implemented. Asking for something that will not (or cannot) be implemented is a waste. So, I am trying to direct the discussion to what can actually be changed to make what exists a better experience.

You passed 15 cars in 5 laps?

Yup

If I race in another game with good AI, I can spend ten laps going back and forth fighting with one car over third position. If I feel that I fought hard and well then I can be very happy with my third. I feel that I earned it through my own skill and hard work against an opponent that could have beaten me had I driven a little worse.

That is what's exciting. The chance to do well and the chance to do poorly, and the player using their skill to get the outcome they want. It's not fun if you can't lose, and it's not fun if you can't win either.

You're totally right. Right now, GT is setup so that a podium is nearly guaranteed. Just removing the lock on a podium would help.

I say, post suggestions of games that have done it better. Maybe someone will have a look at them and make adjustments.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, just 20 years of game development and working with complex AI gives me the insight to know that what you are asking for is a rabbit hole that you don't want to go down. It's also one of the reasons I don't care about single player beyond the trophies. There's no mystery for me.

Rubber band AI is the most like a real person. I can't think of a racing game that goes without some degree of rubber banding. If a person is in the lead, they protect that lead, if they fall behind they push the pace. Rubber band.

You can disguise the rubber band, but it needs to be there. Simply having the AI "match your pace" is a rubber band approach.

AI match your pace isn't rubber banding. Rubber banding is having the AI speed up or slow down within a race to allow you to win. Which is the opposite of setting the AI skill level very close to your own to provide a challenging, exciting race, simulating a real race.

Now, take the race I participated in: It had a PP limit of 650pp. Remember, the AI can only access cars from the dealership. So, the AI cars will all be under 600PP. If I took a 650 pp car, fully tuned, into that race. How is the AI going to match my pace without "cheating"?

It will require some work and some forethought on PD's part to create fields of cars that are roughly equal and/or create events that have fields of cars that are naturally equal like GT300, GT500, LMP, etc. This is as opposed to the, "just stick any car in the field, who cares, it's not really a race anyway" strategy.

Other games can get away with a better overall experience because the range of possibility in car tuning is much smaller.

True but see above. Just means it requires more forethought on PD's part to create a competitive race. Like how about sticking a kid in the office and doing some thorough testing with AI only driving cars, to put together competitive fields of cars?

Believe it or not, forum posts get read and actionable items get a look to see if they can be implemented. Asking for something that will not (or cannot) be implemented is a waste. So, I am trying to direct the discussion to what can actually be changed to make what exists a better experience.

Sounds an awful lot to me like you're arguing against everything that works in most every other racing game ever.

I say, post suggestions of games that have done it better. Maybe someone will have a look at them and make adjustments

Without a doubt Grid Autosport. Door to door competitive racing from beginning to end, as difficult or as easy as you want to make it. Take out the obviously dialed up aggression of the Ravenwest Team and you have near perfect console AI and the best I've seen on the PS3.

 

[Voodoovaj]

I can't get this topic out of my head. I keep trying, but it's got me inspired now. I keep stepping away from my current project to come here

So, I'm thinking back to Ayrton Senna Super Monaco GP II ()

In that game, you didn't need to win, you needed to beat your teammate/rival.

In GT, first, require some sort of qualifying again for championship series races. The AI can get a range of pace from 80% to say 60%. Then, at race start, the game can set two or three of the field to be "rivals" that will actually try to stay in front of you. These guys will have to move through the field to try and get to you.

That could work.

 

[Voodoovaj]

AI match your pace isn't rubber banding. Rubber banding is having the AI speed up or slow down within a race to allow you to win. Which is the opposite of setting the AI skill level very close to your own to provide a challenging, exciting race, simulating a real race.

Except for the "letting you win part", any attempt to "match the player's pace" requires the AI to either speed up or slow down". Rubber band. Right now, GT really does let the player win. Once past, I have rarely seen the AI try to retake a position for more than a few seconds. Remember, the AI does not know your pace in advance of the race. It must determine it on the fly.

True but see above. Just means it requires more forethought on PD's part to create a competitive race. Like how about sticking a kid in the office and doing some thorough testing with AI only driving cars, to put together competitive fields of cars?

Totally agreed.

Sounds an awful lot to me like you're arguing against everything that works in most every other racing game ever.

Not at all. I just have worked with AI programmers and saying "better AI" means "more features". More features aren't going to get added to the GT6 to do list.

What people really want though is a better experience, which if we really think about it, might mean the removal of features. For instance, it's a feature that the AI does not try to overtake you and it let's you win. We want that
"feature" removed, correct? Or, at the very least, hidden far better than it currently is. That will mean that "kid" you mentioned can do it rather that sucking up an AI coder's time. GT6 might not even have an AI coder assigned to it anymore. I strongly doubt there is, so an AI feature will most like never be get added.

Adjusted though? or removed? That can happen.

Just trying to be real about how the industry works.

Al these features have been added because people were not completing the game. That's why the long endurance races are gone too. I think it's a terrible choice, but it got made. With constructive suggestions that are actionable, it can get updated.

Without a doubt Grid Autosport. Door to door competitive racing from beginning to end, as difficult or as easy as you want to make it. Take out the obviously dialed up aggression of the Ravenwest Team and you have near perfect console AI and the best I've seen on the PS3.

Perfect. That's what I mean. Now, someone in the office can check this game out and tell the rest of the folks "hey, these guys are doing this and it's really cool" That might end up in some action.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Except for the "letting you win part", any attempt to "match the player's pace" requires the AI to either speed up or slow down". Rubber band. Right now, GT really does let the player win. Once past, I have rarely seen the AI try to retake a position for more than a few seconds. Remember, the AI does not know your pace in advance of the race. It must determine it on the fly.

Determining your pace on the fly and responding to it is rubber banding. Having a preset difficulty level and the AI conforming roughly to that pace is not rubber banding it's adjusting the game difficulty to suit your own. Rubber banding is active response to changing conditions, not presets.

What people really want though is a better experience, which if we really think about it, might mean the removal of features. For instance, it's a feature that the AI does not try to overtake you and it let's you win. We want that
"feature" removed, correct? Or, at the very least, hidden far better than it currently is. That will mean that "kid" you mentioned can do it rather that sucking up an AI coder's time.

Why would it suck up an AI coders time? Coder programs good AI behaviour as part of the game development. Once done, the kid sits down in front of a screen and Kaz says, "Hey kid, we want a 500PP race at Tsukuba with 90's Japanese Sports Cars", get to work. Kid knows the game well so he pulls out some Skylines, some RX7's etc. and makes some adjustments to their PP levels to roughly equate them, throws them around the track using AI programming and compares lap times. Throws them into a race and adjusts difficulty levels to compare how they perform at various levels. A few hours or couple of days later, voila, competitive field of 90's Japanese Sports Cars.

The coder need not be involved in the process at all once the initial coding of the AI is complete, although obviously he's going to be around providing input.

 

[Imari]

Rubber band AI is the most like a real person.

No, it isn't.

You can incorporate a small amount of it, but I find the rubber banding effect in real racers to be relatively small. The difference between me pushing for a pass and me cruising is about half a second a lap. With some people it's less, others more, but I don't feel like I normally see people more than a second off their pushing pace unless there's something wrong.

You could take that effect out and it would make little difference to the overall result in most cases. It's nice to have it there, but it's not necessary and it's certainly not the basis of the system. Fundamentally, drivers have a pace that they drive to and they vary very little from that, because it throws them off rhythm. When you've trained for dozens of laps, rhythm is what lets you consistently hit those fast laps again and again.

Of course, this is me racing online with people around my own skill level. Maybe people who are worse vary more, but I suspect the time differentials from crashes and mistakes will be orders of magnitude greater than any effect from trying to push or protect a position.

Simply having the AI "match your pace" is a rubber band approach.

For the love of all that's holy and for the third time now, I am not asking for AI that matches the players pace.

I am asking for a range of AI drivers of varying skills, and for the player to be able to pick one to race against that roughly matches their own skill. Just as in real life you might choose to race in a category with other drivers of similar skill to yourself.

Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso don't slow down so that Max Chilton can feel like he's having a good race, and neither should the AI. The AI player should not change their skill level within a race, because a player cannot. The player should be placed in a race with AI who are of an appropriately challenging skill level.

Now, take the race I participated in: It had a PP limit of 650pp. Remember, the AI can only access cars from the dealership. So, the AI cars will all be under 600PP. If I took a 650 pp car, fully tuned, into that race. How is the AI going to match my pace without "cheating"?

Again, arguing against things that I haven't said. 🤬 stop it.

I have very, VERY clearly said that the AI and the player should be in equal or near equal machinery. That the game doesn't enforce that now has nothing to do with it.

Believe it or not, forum posts get read and actionable items get a look to see if they can be implemented. Asking for something that will not (or cannot) be implemented is a waste. So, I am trying to direct the discussion to what can actually be changed to make what exists a better experience.

Difficulty levels cannot be implemented?

May I present as examples games that have difficulty levels implemented:
-Forza Motorsport (2-5 at least, I haven't played FM1).
-Forza Horizon 1 and 2.
-Grid: Autosport, Grid 2 and Grid.
-The Codies F1 games, all of them.
-Dirt 3 (and probably the rest of the Dirt series, I can't remember).
-Shift 1 and 2.
-Project CARS.
-Game Stock Car.
-GTR2.
-GTL.
-Race '07.
-Assetto Corsa.

So, it turns out pretty much every other racing game I own that doesn't start with the words "Gran Turismo".

Tell me again how difficulty levels can't be implemented.

No, just 20 years of game development and working with complex AI gives me the insight to know that what you are asking for is a rabbit hole that you don't want to go down. It's also one of the reasons I don't care about single player beyond the trophies. There's no mystery for me.

I have no idea what your experience of game development is, but your knowledge of the current state of racing games appears not to be great.

How about you go out and play a few non-Gran Turismo racing games, and then you come back and tell us how all these things can't be done. You may be surprised at some of the things developers of racing games have achieved over the last ten years.

I don't pretend to know how they do this stuff, but when you tell me that something can't be done and I've played it already in multiple other games, I've got to question how relevant your experience really is.

I say, post suggestions of games that have done it better. Maybe someone will have a look at them and make adjustments.

Boy, it sure would be good if someone had already written a long post about other games AI and how well they matched up to an online race full of rookies.

Remember, the AI does not know your pace in advance of the race. It must determine it on the fly.

No, it doesn't have to do that.

The player can just tell it what their own pace is. That's why we have difficulty levels.

When you go to start playing Uncharted, you choose a difficulty level that sets how difficult the combat is. That's you telling the computer how good you are at 3rd person cover-based shooters.

Explain to me why this concept doesn't work for racing games.

Not at all. I just have worked with AI programmers and saying "better AI" means "more features". More features aren't going to get added to the GT6 to do list.

No, it doesn't.

GT6's AI is reasonably competent at racecraft.
The extreme rubber banding has shown that the AI is capable of driving at a range of speeds.

What if, instead of letting the AI vary it's own skill between 1 and 10 according to how close it is to the player, you simply added an option to lock the AI at one of the ten values?

Little Timmy the seven year old can always drive again level 1 AI, and maybe that provides him with a good challenge.

I can maybe drive against level 8 AI, and that gives me a challenge. If I start getting really good and winning a lot, I might turn it up to level 9.

Everything that is needed to do this properly already exists in Gran Turismo 6. The only problem is the way that it has been implemented, which is to take all agency away from the player and assume that the computer knows better what they player wants than they do.

I'm not saying it would be perfect, there are still a lot more things that could be improved about the GT6 AI. But with no major changes to the AI code itself, it would be possible to get the vast majority of what I'm asking for.