ios-personmd-notifications md-help-circle

Profile

  • Guest
    medal 0
  • Posts: 21
  • Post Likes: 3765

Notifications

  • No Unread Notifications

Rejected
Fewer engine replacements

warning
This thread is closed. Threads older than 6 weeks are closed automatically. To continue this discussion, create a new thread.
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right
medal 5000
2 years 144 days ago
My suggestion is to set a restriction on replacing the engine. This would contribute to the competition and makes is it more fun from a strategic point of view. If you can only replace the engine every 4/5 races cooling becomes instantly more important in maintaining performance. Furthermore it gives newer/weaker/less whealty teams an opportunity to be competitive more often.
md-quotelink
medal 5005
2 years 143 days ago

Michel
My suggestion is to set a restriction on replacing the engine. This would contribute to the competition and makes is it more fun from a strategic point of view. If you can only replace the engine every 4/5 races cooling becomes instantly more important in maintaining performance. Furthermore it gives newer/weaker/less whealty teams an opportunity to be competitive more often.

Not a bad idea, it would change the dynamics and tactics although I believe the strong teams will find a way to not become weaker.  If lower level teams would be given somewhat more engines, it would be an option to consider.


Ps: no offence but Vaillant was French

md-quotelink
medal 4961
2 years 143 days ago
I’m afraid this would give a big advantage to whom buys token with real money against ones that don’t.
In other words, would be a pay-per-win game.
md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago (Last edited by Michel Vaillant 2 years 143 days ago)
Antonio

Michel
My suggestion is to set a restriction on replacing the engine. This would contribute to the competition and makes is it more fun from a strategic point of view. If you can only replace the engine every 4/5 races cooling becomes instantly more important in maintaining performance. Furthermore it gives newer/weaker/less whealty teams an opportunity to be competitive more often.


Ps: no offence but Vaillant was French


Well the Netherlands where once under Frenchrule and the country flags have the same colours. 😊

Sorry Jimmy, I don’t understand. I’m suggesting that you can only replace an engine every 4/5 competitionraces. This has nothing to do with tokens.
md-quotelink
medal 5005
2 years 143 days ago

Jimmy
I’m afraid this would give a big advantage to whom buys token with real money against ones that don’t.
In other words, would be a pay-per-win game.


As I understand it, you’d have a fix amount of engines to use in a season, regardless of tokens

md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago
Antonio

Jimmy
I’m afraid this would give a big advantage to whom buys token with real money against ones that don’t.
In other words, would be a pay-per-win game.


As I understand it, you’d have a fix amount of engines to use in a season, regardless of tokens



For this reason it wouldn’t work as reducing an income source to the game

md-quotelink
medal 5005
2 years 143 days ago

M
Antonio

Jimmy
I’m afraid this would give a big advantage to whom buys token with real money against ones that don’t.
In other words, would be a pay-per-win game.


As I understand it, you’d have a fix amount of engines to use in a season, regardless of tokens



For this reason it wouldn’t work as reducing an income source to the game


That’s true.


Btw Michel, Holland was under French rule so you should carry French flag not other way round 😊

md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago

M
Antonio

Jimmy
I’m afraid this would give a big advantage to whom buys token with real money against ones that don’t.
In other words, would be a pay-per-win game.


As I understand it, you’d have a fix amount of engines to use in a season, regardless of tokens



For this reason it wouldn’t work as reducing an income source to the game



Not necessarily you can avoid this by excluding the engines used in leagueraces from the engines you use in other races.

md-quotelink
medal 5105
2 years 143 days ago
Michel

M
Antonio

Jimmy
I’m afraid this would give a big advantage to whom buys token with real money against ones that don’t.
In other words, would be a pay-per-win game.


As I understand it, you’d have a fix amount of engines to use in a season, regardless of tokens



For this reason it wouldn’t work as reducing an income source to the game



Not necessarily you can avoid this by excluding the engines used in leagueraces from the engines you use in other races.



Most ppl only race in league races?  QR are only good for working out tyre temps so once you have this recorded there is no need to repeat.

md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago
thats a great idea wich i also have since a long time. my idea was to set amacimum amount of engines per season. for example: 20, or 16 or 10 engines per season, regardless when you change an engine. this would give a completely new strategy option and use of push level. Jack, would it be possible? ☺️
md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago

Michel
My suggestion is to set a restriction on replacing the engine. This would contribute to the competition and makes is it more fun from a strategic point of view. If you can only replace the engine every 4/5 races cooling becomes instantly more important in maintaining performance. Furthermore it gives newer/weaker/less whealty teams an opportunity to be competitive more often.



That would be very interesting, but like all suggestions, it should be optional in the league settings.
In addition to an option to turn off this engine change limitation, an engine change window option must also be placed, varying between 2 and 5 runs.
As for the reduction of IGP billing, it is enough to increase the recharging time of the engines by suppliers:

change every
2 races - 30 races
3 races - 35 races
4 races - 40 races
5 races - 45 races

It's even a way to increase earnings and set a use for spare tokens!

md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea
md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago

Dortmund
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea

It wouldn't actually change much for developing teams, after all, everyone would have the same rule.
In fact, this could even be a performance gain when we talk about the Pro and Recruit divisions, after all, in them we have Ballast!



md-quotelink
medal 5105
2 years 143 days ago

Pedro

Dortmund
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea

It wouldn't actually change much for developing teams, after all, everyone would have the same rule.
In fact, this could even be a performance gain when we talk about the Pro and Recruit divisions, after all, in them we have Ballast!





I don’t think it would change anything for anyone.  Managers would all change their engines at the same time (there would be no reason not to).  It certainly wouldn’t make races more competitive

md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 143 days ago

Mitchell

Pedro

Dortmund
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea

It wouldn't actually change much for developing teams, after all, everyone would have the same rule.
In fact, this could even be a performance gain when we talk about the Pro and Recruit divisions, after all, in them we have Ballast!





I don’t think it would change anything for anyone.  Managers would all change their engines at the same time (there would be no reason not to).  It certainly wouldn’t make races more competitive



Not really, I could postpone a race and change the engine one race later, that way I'd have a car in better condition for the next races.


md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 142 days ago

Mitchell

Pedro

Dortmund
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea

It wouldn't actually change much for developing teams, after all, everyone would have the same rule.
In fact, this could even be a performance gain when we talk about the Pro and Recruit divisions, after all, in them we have Ballast!





I don’t think it would change anything for anyone.  Managers would all change their engines at the same time (there would be no reason not to).  It certainly wouldn’t make races more competitive



not sure about that. if i know a top team changes engine before monza, my strategy could be the opposite and win other races. might be interesting. in 10 races i could have the advantage of a fresh engine

md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 142 days ago
I don’t think it’s strategy it’s just how far you’ve been able to develop you car and team to have high cooling and lots of tokens so I disagree
md-quotelink
medal 5105
2 years 141 days ago
Gion

Mitchell

Pedro

Dortmund
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea

It wouldn't actually change much for developing teams, after all, everyone would have the same rule.
In fact, this could even be a performance gain when we talk about the Pro and Recruit divisions, after all, in them we have Ballast!





I don’t think it would change anything for anyone.  Managers would all change their engines at the same time (there would be no reason not to).  It certainly wouldn’t make races more competitive



not sure about that. if i know a top team changes engine before monza, my strategy could be the opposite and win other races. might be interesting. in 10 races i could have the advantage

The likelihood is that over time the best managers would just work out what the optimal engine strategy would be.  Eventually this would filter down to the rest (bar a few).  You might think you could do something different, but the  chances of you being unique in thinking that is low so eventually the status quo would be maintained
md-quotelink
medal 5000
2 years 137 days ago

Mitchell
Gion

Mitchell

Pedro

Dortmund
I think it would be unfair for lower teams, who are trying to catch up in performance to the top teams, to then be nerfed with more engine wear, while the top teams who have maxed out performance develop the cooling stats. Therefore I am against this idea

It wouldn't actually change much for developing teams, after all, everyone would have the same rule.
In fact, this could even be a performance gain when we talk about the Pro and Recruit divisions, after all, in them we have Ballast!





I don’t think it would change anything for anyone.  Managers would all change their engines at the same time (there would be no reason not to).  It certainly wouldn’t make races more competitive



not sure about that. if i know a top team changes engine before monza, my strategy could be the opposite and win other races. might be interesting. in 10 races i could have the advantage

The likelihood is that over time the best managers would just work out what the optimal engine strategy would be.  Eventually this would filter down to the rest (bar a few).  You might think you could do something different, but the  chances of you being unique in thinking that is low so eventually the status quo would be maintained



But that will happen with any rules or changes implemented in the game.
At some point the best managers will always dominate change and make it normal in the game.
However, if the Host can change the deadline for changing engines from one season to the next, it makes this automation you are referring to more difficult.
The big problem with the IGP, in my view today, is that the seasons are always the same and this makes the game dull, causing many managers to abandon their teams.

md-quotelink
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right

You must be logged in to post a reply.