Passing way to easily on single lap - Driver is one stopping and is only 2.5 to 3 seconds slower then the quick approaching two stoppers but since they are all 1.5 seconds faster then said above 1 stopper the blow by like he wasn't even on the track going from a nice 5th place to 14th in a single lap. Driver would have defended his position but yes would have been a sitting duck but passed 9 times in a single lap is a bit much and didn't even hold up the pack at all.
Racescript bugs 1. Pit stop for wrong tires at start of race seen 10 second stop with 56 lost due to pit entry and exit yet next lap the scrip drops the 56 seconds meaning the lost time was effectively only 10 seconds allowing team to stay with the leading pack and cost them next to no time.
2. Safety Car - comes out on Lap 40 and a few cars manage to pit during this time, lose track position due to timing of pit stop but should make it up due to other stopping. Lap 41 a few more cars stop only 20 seconds a head of the other cars that stopped a lap earlier losing 24 seconds for the stop thus should have re-enter the track behind the rest of the non stopping car but they held station instead giving them a free pit stop and no loss of track position. It looks like the scrip took the times gaps from the previous lap Lap 40 as they only lost 24-26 seconds from those time slotting them a head instead of taking the gap times from the lap that they pitted. Thus the safety car had no effect so bug or not; I am not sure. Could simply mean they caught the safety car just at the right moment.
Overtaking character of a track - Easy to over take or Hard to over take allowing different strategies due to difficulty passing
I would like suppliers negotiations to actually work both ways similar to the drivers contracts.
Would also like to see a loyalty aspect added for reduced rates if signed x numbers of seasons with such supplier. 5% for 5 season, 10% for 10 season & 20% for more then 10 season (max)
#83 by Rob Bouchard Would also like to see a loyalty aspect added for reduced rates if signed x numbers of seasons with such supplier. 5% for 5 season, 10% for 10 season & 20% for more then 10 season (max)
Like the idea of loyalty, but I would change it to reduced rates, if you sign suppliers for multiple seasons. So a brand new team can also profit of being loyal, not only the old, established teams.
I had to go look at what you were talking about with iGP Manager and I agree this is a very well made live viewer but still favors managers that can be on-line too much for my liking.
I would also like to see some tires favored as different tracks: Ultra Softs & Super Softs at tight tracks aka Monaco Softs & Mediums at Monza or Maybe even Hards. This would force us to test tires each week to find which tires work best for races track and also add more strategy since different combo would be in play each weekend by each team.
Look at this weeks race as an example: We have 53 laps and I have my tires Wear rate so that my hard tires won't even last 10 laps and my softs are not even worth racing. So I know majority are going to be forced into either a 3 or 4 stop race simple due to tire wear and majority will also run hards.
Where if we had different tire options then I could look to find the right quick tire that also off sets wear rates at this track. Ie. most likely running Mediums or Hard versus the current Super Soft & Softs that are tire are.
Also tire speed between compounds I have calculated to be currently around 1 second between soft & hards. This could be increased to cover the new spec of tires so that we need to look at the off set of tires speed comparatively versus wear rates due to track temps, tire temps & track design. I am not going to give numbers since I would rather want to be able to find out the data but for example:
Ultra Softs =< .500 compared to Super Softs Super Softs =< .500 compared to Softs Softs =< .500 compared to Mediums Mediums =< .500 compared to Hards
This would give 2.5 seconds difference in optimal conditions between the compounds but add tire temps and you could flex this by a degree of say max of .250. meaning the gap might drop to 1.250 seconds between the compounds or increase to 3.750 second between compounds. (These numbers are not right)
Then consider the wear rates of a given track and track temps possible effects and we have completely mixed up strategy not including the different tire manufactures we have in the game with their own wear rates.
Also Hide the tire compounds during Qualifying since I used this today on a wet track to see that inters were the best tire versus the Wets when I was think that Wets would have been the best. So I had a huge advantage of qualifying last or after others.
Switch to live Qualifying event - Everyone sets the qualifying strategy prior to set time Saturday night and have all the cars run in random order setting their laps. This would allow an interest aspect of watch qualifying live (with added new compounds, tire temps & track temps it would be very interesting to watch)
Not Sure if this has already been mentioned but must run qualified tires in first stint of the race and must run at least two different compounds.
as said there are parts that could be used in sense of live interaction - BUT with a scripting language to allow to set a dynamic strategy in case you are offline during the race to compensate the advantage of beeing online (and make major mistakes)
Remove Morale, Motivation, Team Discipline and Team Synergy changes that are caused by Team Fit and Team Discipline. Only DNFs, wins, amount of pay and major position changes should have an impact on these. Additionally, not all position changes are bad so if this element remains, there should be the potential for a positive outcome as well.
If Team Fit and discipline are to stay, then remove the Rating stars from Scout reports and replace them with an accurate estimation of Team Fit and Team Discipline that enables the player to decide whether to approach or not. This would be far more useful than some random collection of stars.
There needs to be advantages and disadvantages for having a particular size HQ. For example, a 3 Star HQ designs parts faster but with less gain per iteration than a 5 Star HQ. Otherwise development is just a race to build a 5 Star HQ. But above all solve the bugs that have been highlighted so far.
