In progress

10% research for all levels

What did you try to do?
Hi Jack, I heard you say it wasn't your intention to give everyone (with a 5 star research crew) a research power of just 10%. I hope you are about to fix this, because not only is it very low: the better research power was the one compensating advantage left for the smaller teams against the mighty level 30's. And now even that is gone.

What happened instead?
I understand you have a lot going on right now. Most importantly, I can imagine, the lethal decision of making everyone pay for a league that's not 7d/week. What a mess. I do believe however the 2nd most important issue is, more than ever now: the endless struggle of the smaller teams not being able to compete, giving up and abandoning the game after trailing behind hopelessly for years. I hope these 2 problems will be addressed, and this should be the easy one.

Did the problem happen while using wi-fi, mobile data, or both?
Both

Did the bug happen in the app, on PC, or both?
Both

What is the model of your device?
doesn't matter

What is the operating system?
iOS

What is the version number of the operating system?
doesn't matter

What operating system is your PC?
doesn't matter

Which browser did you experience the problem in?
doesn't matter

Can the bug be reproduced?
yes unfortunately

Additional comments:

Thanks for your personal engagement Jack!  If anything, I personally would make the gaps in % gains between levels even bigger than it was.  The ideal path of car research during a season: it was a lost art.  Many great managers of the past will agree, you could compete with a smaller team and punch above it's weight after a slow season start, gain in leaps and in the end being reigned in again by the mighty teams on pure design power. That was fun.  You could choose to wait one more race, and one more, saving up design points for a great second half of the season at least.  Now if everyone has the same %, there's even less narrative during a season, and less possibilities for us garagistas. I'd say gaps of at least 4% between each level! With level 30 at 15% and so level 20 at 55%.
This, assuming that higher level teams still have better technology and more designpoints obviously.  It's just too easy to just apply design points on the most important car parts from the get go, irrespective of what anyone else does.  And remember, the level 30 perk of choosing the negative engine aspect is a big advantage in itself. And they probably have multiple TD's and what not. They can do with a lot less research. I have a level 30 too so I know from both sides.

As a manager below 30 before the update ( I just reached 26 ), the research we had before is what enabled me to finally be competitive with the level 30 managers in my league. However I do think that it may have been too powerful. I’d say it should be less than what the previous level was, but definitely more than the 10% it currently is. Somewhere in the middle ground would be fair IMO

So level 1 would start at 131%, catching up the full gap and then a nice amount on top. Level 40 gets -25%, so loose points if researching a gap and gain points for researching attributes they're the leading team in. Sounds kind of curiously interesting, but I doubt to find the slightest resemblance of balance.

It’s closed the gap for the moment because our season has just started ( race 2 was today ). However, as the level 30+ managers are still receiving 30 development points every race while I receive 25, and we have the same research percentage, in a few races I or anyone else lower level will fall behind. Equal boost/drs only leveled the playing field in those particular aspects. It didn’t change anything with my drivers ( I had a T29 and T30 via the academy and were mostly developed ). And if 5 star staff only nets you the same research % as higher level teams, what benefit do they really have?


 With the previous version of IGP, the lower level teams would have a slower start to the season but have enough development that around the halfway mark of the season, they’re able to be competitive with the higher level managers. I suspect that what you’ve done here is leveled the playing field at the start of the season but ultimately ensures a gap that will widen in favor of the higher manager as the season progresses. So, in conclusion I don’t think the research % needs to go all the way back to what it was, but does need to be higher than it currently is if the goal is to maintain a mostly level playing field 

This sounds much better than what we currently have imo. 10% was a pain it took me over 2 years to get to know the game and be competitive and even then I wasn’t even lvl 30. Think I joined leyendas 2 with lvl 28-29 and was kinda competitive but it was obvious I lacked sometimes. Even more so when I got into the real PL. 


Luckily for me the 30% research came rather quickly and it was much more enjoyable than the previous gameplay. People even asked for 300dp right? 

Haven’t heard anyone say they want 400 hehe

Hello, I have a question: do the Chief Designers improve research like before?”

Hi Guys, here's another view on the matter.

Please don't take the numbers I quote literally, they are merely used to illustrate a point.

1. I have worked myself up through various changes in the system, from Rookie, through Pro to Elite. It gave me great satisfaction to progress through the levels, and through the league(s) as I leveled up. Worked my way up from finishing in p28 or thereabouts (level 18) in Elite races to level 30, where I now actually win the occasional race. Most enjoyable journey!
2. From what i read in this blog, it appears that nowadays, everyone HAS to be competitive at every level of the race, eg. allowing a level 20 manager to compete with a level 30 manager: eg. everybody has to have the same DRS and boost. Why? At your technology facility you can still level up both as before, so what is the point of that?
3. If I remember correctly, at the lower levels you would be able to earn a high (80, 90?) percentage of research points per race, which gradually reduced to 10% at level 30. The automatically earned design points rose by 1 for each level. A well balanced system (in my opinion).
4. Then, with the previous big update, the research % was reworked to afford level 30 managers a 30% research advantage. This was hailed to be more fair to all at the time(?).
5. Now research has been levelled for all at 10%. WHY? The lower level managers  don't seem to have a chance now to ever becoming competitive over the course of 1 season, especially a 15 race season, although the opposite seems to be the intention. Everyone sees it differently....
6. It seems as though the whole well balanced system has been turned upside down. Maybe it needs a careful rethink, starting from how it was initially, and what the problems were that precipitated this radical upheaval (I would be very surprised if you hadn't done that to start off with) , and then adjusting each aspect in small increments over a period of a year or so, taking the observed effects into account with every subsequent small adjustment. This will certainly result in a much more equitable solution to the problem (If there was one in the first place...)
7. The same argument goes for some of the other changes as well, although I shall not belabour the point I am trying to make.

To summarise what I was trying to point out above by example is: 
   The current approach of revamping "everything" at once for a year (with little or no feedback), and then dumping it on the community in one major update, with the resultant overall largely negative response, is clearly not the best way of going about. The community, having had almost no insight into what was happening behind the scenes, is clearly upset, and you and your team have a multitude of complaints and bug-fixes to attend to, all at once.
   Instead it would be, and seen to be, a more systematic approach to take one problematic aspect of the game at a time, address it, get feedback from the players, hone it to perfection, and then move on to the next. This would be much less stressful for both sides; you would keep a constant dialog open with the players (the lack of which has recently been touched upon by Jack), who in turn shall feel intimately involved in the process and much more amenable to the eventual result/solution arrived at. 

All in all, it is and remains a great game to play and I, for one, would not like to see it becoming shipwrecked. So, please see this as the constructive input it is meant to be, rather than just another moan among many.

Keep up the good work, and thank you for the game!

Hi Red, how’s everything going?

I am 100% in favor of keeping research as limited as possible, so that the main reward goes to the manager who builds the best car using their own points, with research acting only as a small, secondary bonus.

From my point of view, the system should also be as simple as possible. It is essential that new players are not overwhelmed by calculations, formulas, or too many variables, as that goes against the accessible nature of the game.

Regarding the following:





I am completely against this. I believe it introduces too many variables to keep track of and breaks the simplicity of both the game and the research system. In addition, tying research to driver level will encourage some managers to skip racing in certain events to gain more research, which I find absurd and contrary to the competitive spirit.

On the other hand, regarding this:



I think this is a very good idea. It allows accounts with more balanced headquarters relative to their level to receive a small bonus. This is something I would approve.

So far, I like the idea of a 10% base value for everyone, plus an additional 5% from facilities. That gives us a total of 15%, which I think is reasonable and well balanced.

However, I would add something that really puts strong pressure on the system and adds an extra layer on top of that 15%.


TURBO RESEARCH

This is an idea I suggested one or two years ago (I don’t remember exactly when). The core concept is that during the season, each manager has 3 opportunities to gain an additional research percentage, and they can choose when to use them.

The Turbo could even be activated after qualifying, in order to avoid collusion or “mafias” against a specific manager.

Each Turbo activation would grant an extra 10% research. This would introduce a new strategic element within the season, adding excitement, tactical decision-making, and increased competitiveness.


---

The following is related to the same topic, but focuses on design points, and I believe it could lead to serious conflict within the community.

Less than 24 hours ago I learned that an account can save design points for the next season. In other words, if you leave headquarters design points “unclaimed,” they carry over to the next season, allowing managers to start the new season with an advantage. I consider this one of the worst things that could happen to the game, and I sincerely hope it is a bug and gets fixed as soon as possible.

On top of that, if the design building is under construction, you cannot repair the headquarters, and as races go by you earn fewer and fewer design points. I want to believe this is also a bug, because the negative impact is very significant.

To finish, I would like to share one final idea inspired by Formula 1. In the top category, there are always upgrade packages for specific circuits or performance areas. This concept could be implemented in iGP without issues and would help break the monotony of some seasons.

The idea is that during the season, a manager could purchase an extra design points package, focused on specific car attributes.

For example:

Cornering Pack: +15 points in aerodynamics and +15 points in handling.

Speed Pack: +15 points in acceleration and +15 points in braking.


The point values are purely illustrative, just to explain the idea. There could be many different types of packs, but each manager would be limited to using a maximum of three packs per season.

In short, I believe there are many ways to improve the game, and the positive thing is that there is still room to make it deeper, more competitive, and more engaging without losing its core identity.

Dear all, I understand that now there's no difference in levels but in stars, and I think that's great to level things out a bit and keep new managers from getting bored. But progress should also have a reward. Otherwise, as an experienced manager, I could create a new account and, by setting everything to 5 stars, compete on equal footing with someone who's been doing this for a long time, and that doesn't seem fair to me.

The fact that research has dropped to 10% isn't bad, but it could also be modified with other things that I think would be more beneficial, which I will now detail:

1- That more emphasis be placed on other areas. Currently, we know about the four fundamental areas; we could add fuel if the league is non-refueling, but the rest are irrelevant. It would be good if tires were given more importance, as well as reliability and cooling; this would lead to more varied car designs.
Those of us with experience know that, while maintaining a certain balance between the different areas, the most important is acceleration, followed by handling, braking, and aerodynamics.
To put it simply, more importance should be given to the other areas.

2- The previous research system, being so strong, benefited those who saved up design points over several races and then pooled them all together. This, combined with the high research power, made it very difficult to compete in the second half of the season.
I think the solution would be, for example, to limit the number of points accumulated to 80, preventing players from overpowering their designs.

I think these two simple things would be very beneficial for everyone.

Thanks as always for reading the comments, best regards.

   
Hi Red, thank you for responding to my post.

Obviously you have a far better understanding of the system than I do – I only have experience of the leagues that I have participated in, and that is what my comments were based on. I am glad that the 10% across the board turned out to be a mistake, and that you guys are in the process of rectifying it.
If the system you propose will make things more equitable, I am all for it.

However, I did not propose any particular changes to the game as such; merely mentioned points 1) to 7) to lay the foundation for my proposal which followed:

"To summarise what I was trying to point out above by example is: 
   The current approach of revamping "everything" at once for a year (with little or no feedback), and then dumping it on the community in one major update, with the resultant overall largely negative response, is clearly not the best way of going about. The community, having had almost no insight into what was happening behind the scenes, is clearly upset, and you and your team have a multitude of complaints and bug-fixes to attend to, all at once.
   Instead it would be, and seen to be, a more systematic approach to take one problematic aspect of the game at a time, address it, get feedback from the players, hone it to perfection, and then move on to the next. This would be much less stressful for both sides; you would keep a constant dialog open with the players (the lack of which has recently been touched upon by Jack), who in turn shall feel intimately involved in the process and much more amenable to the eventual result/solution arrived at."


In other words, I am proposing a more gradual approach to keeping the game updated, and changes implemented, rather than the “all-at-once” approach that has prevailed thus far: Keep things as simple as possible, tackle one change at a time, tell the players what you are working on, and aiming to achieve, on a regular basis (maybe a Developer Update at regular intervals?), so that you can start getting feedback early on in the process. Then, by the time the change is implemented, everybody is more or less on the same page and knows what to expect.


Btw. There seems to be something left out in your last sentence: “However I personally am absolutely positive that either of the previous systems would hand [???] I'd be interested to hear your input on the system I proposed above.”

Hi Jack!


My note on this topic:

First of all its a big step forward that drivers and staff are scaled now, this has of course reduced the gap and give newcomers more long term motivation.

But the higher level manager still has the advantages of more DPs per race, more boost and DRS and more motor DPs´

So i would suggest that you should start with maybe 50% research for level 1 and then reduce 1% for each next level or something like this, but at least the only advantage of a lower level was the better research and of course you should return to that logic.

Have a nice evening!

BR

Marcus