- 823
- Planet Earth
- silz616
I believe you can just drive in a circle on the start finish line now. Result!
Track Limit Abuse by most Top 10 Drivers
- Thread starter FUNanywhere
- 819 comments
- 49,853 views
I believe you can just drive in a circle on the start finish line now. Result!
- 278
- Luxembourg
- blabla_
No race situation, more an identical situation like qualifying. Doing hot laps to get the best laptime.
Love it how the driver uses every space of the track to maintain speed.
Edit: If you look at my profile picture / avatar, you know what my opinion is. Racing is about pushing and challenging the limits of the drivers, the cars and the racetracks. As already mentioned, the track limits ('playing rules') are always discussed and 'renegotiated' and should be respected.
Love it how the driver uses every space of the track to maintain speed.
Edit: If you look at my profile picture / avatar, you know what my opinion is. Racing is about pushing and challenging the limits of the drivers, the cars and the racetracks. As already mentioned, the track limits ('playing rules') are always discussed and 'renegotiated' and should be respected.
Last edited:
- 528
- United Kingdom
- PD_ApexPredator
^ that's fine, but it's not comparable to the turn 4 corner cut the OP posted. A better example would be the exit of eau rouge at Spa, or Jochen Rindt at Redbull Ring - you're explicitly not allowed to abuse the run-off at those corners IRL, and nor should you be able to abuse the limit of turn 4 at Maggiore.
That being said, don't hate on the drivers for maximising lap time - just need an update to track abuse penalty detection in the areas being abused.
- 6,764
- Ontario
- SvennoJ
- SvenZ
I wonder if we get to jump the Monza chicane. Lots of time to be saved there.
- 4,962
- Nelson, England
- GTP_ASH32
Like always you'll be able to cut a bit but cut too much and it will be a penalty.
- 1,068
- Raleigh, NC
- booch16
I'm not sure what your opinion is based on the avatar? all i know is that 90% of the curbing on the 'ring will upset your car and make you crash if you attempt to ride it like your avatar.
From an article: http://www.tflcar.com/2017/05/top-5-things-to-know-before-you-drive-the-nurburgring-top-5/
BONUS TIP: WATCH OUT FOR THE CRAZY HIGH CURBS
The curbs’ heights — some nearly a foot high — on the ‘Ring shock many first-timers, myself included. Hit one and you upset the car’s balance, which can easily cause a crash (see Tip 2). My instructors told me that there are only four curbs among the track’s 73 corners that they will drive over. The other 69 can easily cause serious damage to a vehicle.
- 278
- Luxembourg
- blabla_
Haha someone who says it!
I just wanted to say that professional racing drivers use every legal possibility they get to have an advantage in order to go faster.For the curbs at the 'Ring: I've done 2017 over 360 laps (yeah I'm not lying, I had a Jahreskarte for tourist drives) and I never use a curb, because it's not worth it and 'normal' aftermarket coilovers can't properly handle most curbs. As you were told by the instructor, there are some curbs you can use even in a normal street car, like for example on the left exiting Fuchsröhre or Wippermann section (although I don't recommend it if you don't have high-end quality dampers with external reservoirs). In Gran Turismo I never use curbs because they feel unrealistic most of the time...
But for all other tracks you can use the flat curbs.
Oh and this can happen in Hatzenbach even in a well set-up GT3 car when you take the curb and you're unlucky and the car unsettles on the camber change of the track:
- 13,737
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Asking you to provide reasoning for why your opinion takes precedence over the developer's is arguing for the sake of arguing? It's the heart of your argument, and you refuse to even attempt to address it.
I think you're realising that you've dug yourself a hole, and now you're trying to misdirect by belittling me by accusing me of being emotional, having aneurysms, calling me slick, or kid. You'll note from our profiles that I'm older than you, not that age really matters when having a rational discussion.
If you don't want to explain then I can't make you, but "nuh uh, I'm right because I said so" seems more childlike to me than asking someone to explain the basis of their opinion. Also, calling people names. Classy.
- 54
- Melbourne
- not_dyl
You could have fooled me. I thought you were in your teens the way you present an argument.
Either way, I'm done with you.
I've lost interest, and I'm tired of felling bullied into submission for having an opinion.
If that gives you the dopamine rush you so desperately crave by trying to constantly one-up someone on an internet forum, then so be it. At the end of the day, I'm the one getting PMs from others stating that having any kind of rationale conversation with you is next to impossible.
Last edited:
- 54
- Melbourne
- not_dyl
You forgot the "I don't know how to navigate through 26 pages of comments where they were discussed in detail" part.
Forgive me If I've completely lost interest in the subject.
- 13,737
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Wow, good comeback. Wrong, but good. I see you're sticking with the belittling angle.
What bullying? What submission? Since when is asking for a legitimate reason why your opinion one-ups the developers either of those things?
If you're feeling bullied, it's because deep down you know that you don't actually have a justification for the authority that you claim. There's an easy way out of that, just admit that you were wrong.
If you're done, be done. But I think you want to be able to justify your argument. Which is why it puzzles me that you go to such lengths to avoid doing so.
I think you have me mistaken for some kind of troll. I'm trying to extract the essence of your argument. I wouldn't bother if I didn't think that there was a possibility that you might have a point, although from what you've presented so far it seems unlikely.
If nothing else, there's a non-trivial amount of people who seem to have come to the same conclusion as you. Since you seem to be the most vocal and one of the better spoken I rather thought you might be the best chance for actually defining exactly how you came to that conclusion, instead of the "real world white lines that's the rules" bollocks that most respond with.
Yes, well. There's many people that get annoyed at having to engage in actual reasoned conversation. See the reaction you're having to me, and yet you haven't actually tried to have a rational conversation. You're yet to present your argument in full. It's impossible to have a rational conversation if one side won't present their reasoning, and you're the one holding that up at the moment.
I can be difficult, but largely because I don't accept people who appeal to their own authority. That can be very confronting if you're unaccustomed to it or if you're not confident enough in your own position to be able to stand and discuss it in detail.
But nothing I've said has shut down the conversation, I'm asking you questions about your position. Questions you apparently don't feel comfortable answering. It's impossible to have a rational conversation if you refuse to engage. I will answer any question you like about my position on the rules of the game. The same cannot be said of you.
- 54
- Melbourne
- not_dyl
I'm not going to go through 26 pages of comments to single anybody out, but if you're willing to, then go for it. There's plenty of commenters here that have been pretty oppressive towards others in this thread (you included), and some of those people are being talked down to by people that have been here for years. Granted there's been heated comments from both sides of the argument, it's probably not fair to say that every newcomer is innocent. And it's probably fair to say i started the whole thing. I admit, I could of held back more in my approach in my original comment.
I'm merely pointing out here that somebody new to the site that felt like they wanted to join in on the conversation might be feeling pretty underwhelmed now. Myself included... Whether that's my own doing or not.
I actually thought Walkinshaw's comment was the best of the entire thread on page 20. The whole thing could have been wrapped up after that.
Or is it that you're trying to publicly shame me into admitting that you're right and I'm wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about. That comment right there is so transparent of the fact that you're not open to discussion. You're trying to get some kind of childish win out of this. The fact of the matter is that I have no interest in continuing the conversation, because as I previously mentioned, I feel like this thread is going absolutely nowhere and any attempt to push a point across results in condescending comments like "Keep coming up with the dumb analogies, you are keeping me entertained" or "I'll take that as your complete and utter admission of defeat, that you can't make a reply without contradicting yourself within three sentences".
The thing is, you're not trying to learn anything from this. You're merely trying win an argument - an argument that's not winnable by either side.
That's where you're wrong. I'm done justifying my argument. But I won't sit here and be bullied into being told why I'm leaving it. You think I'm still replying because I have an argument that I don't know how to explain. But the reality is that I was done arguing it ages ago. I'm merely defending the reason why I'm leaving it - considering we're in a public forum.
If this were a PM, I would've stopped replying ages ago.
If you legitimately want to see my point, then read my previous comments. If you don't see a point, then stop arguing for one. I don't get a sense of accomplishment neither here nor there. You either agree.... or you don't.
Clearly! There is no "this is the right way". The community is obviously divided on the subject, so take as "you drive your way, and I'll drive mine". That's the only thing that can be taken away from all this.
Yes you have. You've belittled people and been condescending, whether that was your intention or not. It's hardly an ingredient for a stimulating conversation.
No you haven't. I gave you an example about 4 comments ago where I gave you a hypothetical scenario. You didn't address any of it...
Not that it matters now, because I've lost interest and I honestly have no intention to argue anymore, unless you're going to further speculate on some other aspect of why I'm not debating with you.
Last edited:
- 13,737
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I was talking about you. You said that you felt bullied into submission, presumably by me. I was asking specifically about that, not for a general recount of all the bullying in the thread. I can't control other people.
I'd like to see people being more intellectually honest. As presented, you argument lacks any substance, and as such presenting it as an absolute truth is at best misleading.
Like all humans, I like to be right. I would be lying to say that wasn't so. But I'll count it as a win if you can clearly describe your position on the subject, and establish that it doesn't contain any logical flaws or emotionally driven assumptions. At that point, even if I don't agree I will be forced to admit the strength of your argument. Of course, at the moment I feel that my opinion is correct because I haven't been shown any reason to think otherwise. You could change that, or not.
You continue to try to label me as a child. Actually, I'm trying to show you the path to a more adult form of communication. One where the parties clearly define their own opinions and how they arose, and then discuss them as reasonable adults. This is quite important if you want to adopt any position in life where you interact with many people. You need to be able to communicate clearly, ask the right questions so that you understand other people completely, and then evaluate them fairly.
I'm asking the question. You're unable (or unwilling) to communicate clearly.
Yet you're still here.
I'll apologise for attempting to bait you into replying with justifications. Obviously it didn't work, and obviously you took it personally. On the internet, you'd be surprised how often that rhetorical tactic is successful in getting people to expose the reasoning behind their opinions. As such, I've taken to engaging you directly. It's not exactly being more successful.
What is a win for you? I defined what a win is for me above, and it's absolutely winnable in those terms.
You never started. You've stated your opinion, but you've provided no credible reasoning for why it should be true.
See, and you still consider this bullying instead of discussion. Why?
I know what your "point" is. What I haven't seen is justification for it. You're deflecting again.
No. In terms of the way the game was meant to be played, there's only the way that the developers made it. If you run your own league you can make up whatever rules you see fit and enforce them as you choose. But when talking about the fundamental rules of what the game allows you to do, there's an absolute answer to that.
OK. I apologise. It was an error. It was not my intention to stifle the conversation.
You've hardly been sunshine and rainbows yourself. How about we call a truce on trying to make each other angry?
Huh? You mean this? Three pages and seven posts ago. You say that you won't reply to me because I'm bullying you, but you expect me to answer questions in the face of abuse. I took exception to the abuse first, to be honest.
But sure, I'll answer.
First, let's back up. The penalty line doesn't have "margin for error". It's a line, and if you cross it you get a penalty.
So yes, if the line is an extra 2m out, then you can use that 2m. If the developers don't want people to cross it, they can move it in. If they want to allow irregular breaches without penalty, say one a race, then they can code for that.
If you can bump and run without penalty, then that's a legitimate tactic too. Note that I don't say whether I approve of either of these tactics, nor do I voice my opinion on whether I think the game is better with or without them. Simply that in a game that allows them they're a legitimate tactic.
As far as wall riding, if this was Polyphony's first game I'd be inclined to say that it was an unintended consequence of poorly written wall collision code. Given that we're on game 7 and all of them have had the same behaviour, I'd say that at this point Polyphony intends to allow it. I will voice my opinion on this one, I think it's terrible game design. But still, if the game allows it then it's legit. It just means it's not a very good game.
As far as who gets to decide, I've said all along that the developers are the ones that define the rules. The game is their product, and they set it up the way they want. If there's a reasonable argument for considering something a bug (like say, the wall glitches in GT5) then one could say that it's not part of the intended rule set. But with track "cuts", impact penalties and wall riding they have a library of games based on the same design that says this is how they want their game to be.
I think it could be a better game with different design choices, but I'm not going to put my opinion above the developers. They worked on it, their choices stand. That's what I think you seem to be misinterpreting. You see this as your opinion against mine. I've only rarely voiced exactly what would make the best game in my opinion, what I've actually been saying is that the developers rules are what stand, no matter how poor they might be for gameplay.
If those design choices lead to the death of GTS as a multiplayer sport, that would be a shame. I'm not the biggest fan of GTS, but I think it has potential with the updates it's getting and I'm interested to see what it looks like in Jan 2019. But if the developers want to leave in rules that destroy the fun of multiplayer in their own game that's their choice and I don't believe that you or I have the right to try and say otherwise.
Perhaps I've poorly explained this in the past, but this is what I've been trying to say all along. And unless you can provide me with a reasoned argument otherwise, I will say that any opinion on the game rules that differs from "whatever Polyphony says is the rules" is wrong.
Last edited:
- 68
- Wales
- normanself
- 93
- New Zealand
I've never understood why - given how harsh the penalties are for running wide on certain corners with grass or sand run offs that slow you right down - you can use the entire width and length of the concrete run off on turn 4 at Maggiore without penalty when you actually gain an advantage by doing so.
- 171
- United Kingdom
As an FYI some of the corners on Monza are harsh! The fast chicanes / Della Rogia and Ascari are plyable to an extent, T1 is not forgiving at all - must have received five penalties outs of ten attempts at a hotlap! Also, why has the Mustang suddenly become the car to drive, it's a yank tank! Need to get consistent with it quickly as my optimal time is top 10, my actual time is half a second off pace!
- 3,016
- Louisville Ky
- RlNSKY I is an L
I only drive the Mustang so please tell me this is not going to be the next car all the noobs flock to.
- 4,962
- Nelson, England
- GTP_ASH32
Yes it's harsh and it has to be otherwise they'd be more cutting than ever, we will (in fact most people from what I've seen) just have to get better to stop getting those penalties.
I've managed a 1'47.7 in the Merc AMG 16, so in the right hands it could make the top ten but it's basically a Mustang only race.
Sorry, the entire top ten is it plus more than half the field so the noobs will use it.
- 171
- United Kingdom
