Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[The87Dodge]

Personally I've always thought there was a huge flaw with endurance races in a game like GT. Everybody wants to win. In the real world, drivers and teams enter endurance races knowing no matter how well they race they're extremely unlikely to win their class, and would be very happy with a top 10 position or even just finishing is an achievement. In a game though, what percentage of players would be happy with that? Not many, I'd wager. Most people see it almost as a chore, and they do not under any circumstances want to do it more than once. That means most people enter the events in a car they are sure is good enough to win, and combined with GTs lack of damage there is no real challenge to an endurance event. It's literally just x hours of driving, several laps ahead of the AI for most people, making them rather pointless.

Ask yourself, how many times in the GT history have you entered a long endurance event looking forward to the challenge of trying to win the race? I can't think of any time I have, except the very first one in GT2 where I thought even finishing last would net me decent money. That was only ~45 minutes though. Otherwise though you always enter them knowing you'll win, and it's just the challenge of having to drive for so many laps.

What doesn't help is the way GT and many games are set up in that they practically force you to win events, it's 1st or nothing for a variety of reasons. If the game was structured in a way where finishing 6th at Le Mans 24 Hours is still valuable, and combined with mechanical damage, they might be more fun to approach.

This is exactly why I do not participate in endurance races.

 

[Scaff]

Personally I've always thought there was a huge flaw with endurance races in a game like GT. Everybody wants to win. In the real world, drivers and teams enter endurance races knowing no matter how well they race they're extremely unlikely to win their class, and would be very happy with a top 10 position or even just finishing is an achievement. In a game though, what percentage of players would be happy with that? Not many, I'd wager. Most people see it almost as a chore, and they do not under any circumstances want to do it more than once. That means most people enter the events in a car they are sure is good enough to win, and combined with GTs lack of damage there is no real challenge to an endurance event. It's literally just x hours of driving, several laps ahead of the AI for most people, making them rather pointless.

Ask yourself, how many times in the GT history have you entered a long endurance event looking forward to the challenge of trying to win the race? I can't think of any time I have, except the very first one in GT2 where I thought even finishing last would net me decent money. That was only ~45 minutes though. Otherwise though you always enter them knowing you'll win, and it's just the challenge of having to drive for so many laps.

What doesn't help is the way GT and many games are set up in that they practically force you to win events, it's 1st or nothing for a variety of reasons. If the game was structured in a way where finishing 6th at Le Mans 24 Hours is still valuable, and combined with mechanical damage, they might be more fun to approach.

Which is again an area that the competition is ahead of GT on, making waves enjoyable and memorable almost regardless of finishing position. I finished a 15k stage in Dirt tonight in fourth place, yet it ranked as one of the most intense pieces of racing I've had in a long time.

It's this that is one of the key area for me that PD are not understanding, not everyone wants to play first place wins the new car in a Pokemon collectable style.

 

[Samus]

Which is again an area that the competition is ahead of GT on, making waves enjoyable and memorable almost regardless of finishing position. I finished a 15k stage in Dirt tonight in fourth place, yet it ranked as one of the most intense pieces of racing I've had in a long time.

It's this that is one of the key area for me that PD are not understanding, not everyone wants to play first place wins the new car in a Pokemon collectable style.

Indeed, GT is certainly not the only culprit here though. Far too many games invite you to time travel and re-do races over and over to get all 1st places for some benefit. "Win all races in a series to unlock X" and so on. Of course you're not forced to do it but it tells the player that they expect you to win everything if you want to get everything out of the game.

What I've been wanting to see for years is to follow reality whilst keeping things 'gamey' enough. You don't finish a season in FIFA and then go back to replay the matches you didn't win. You finish the season, and move onto the next. So you would do the same in a racing game, progressing through events with no ability to return to the exact one again and fix your results but of course then you need a solid race/event generator for players to do whatever event they want at any time.

That is the other issue really, being asked to re-do and re-win EVERY event to earn X, rather than just re-entering the series you enjoyed and want to do again, for fun, and a benefit. GT has always asked you to complete all of their pre-determined events to unlock and 'complete' everything, whether you want to or not. If you want the exclusive car that a certain event rewards you with, you have to do it.

Instead you should receive those rewards whichever event you choose. I want the option to do Event A and Event B to be rewarded with X, or do Event B twice as I enjoy it, and receive the same X reward. I believe the Forza games did do this to a degree (not played one since 3) but I believe it also still had the "go back and win every event" feature.

Player Freedom. That's what I want in a nutshell.

 

[Tornado]

I can't think of a "serious" game that let you get by without blowing out everyone in every race since Sports Car GT (Test Drive Le Mans?). Even the NASCAR games I've played that start you off as some backmarker to work your way up to a top team tend to ram "IF YOU AIN'T FIRST YOU'RE LAST" down your throat.

 

[05XR8]

When you go back to ToCA 1. What, 26-28 races? You had to race hard each round and complete the whole championship. Didn't matter finishing 1st or last. Forza6 doesn't let me advance if I finish 4th.

Crazy that such basic game structure, gets lost through development.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If the, "if you're not first, you're last" attitude sells 75 million games, what incentive do you have to change the concept?

 

[Tornado]

So are you just going to trot that out every time anyone says anything about what they would like to see improved? Because we could probably just shut down the entire forum in that case; and quite frankly the argument in general is bizarre coming from you.


That's the kind of attempt at discussion squashing that Tenacious D always tried to pull.

 

[Robbks]

It's this that is one of the key area for me that PD are not understanding, not everyone wants to play first place wins the new car in a Pokemon collectable style.

^^ Exactly,
it's the same in the seasonal events,
Lets roll out the 2J, ZZII, Tank Car, or that Suzuki GSXR4 and win by a mile in a car that is far far faster than anything else in the same (flawed) PP class.

Personally, I'd rather grab my 450pp BRZ/ GT86 for the drifts, my 2009 STi for the 4WD events and some form of real life AMG or Audi GT3 car to run the 600pp "expert" events.

I use to love those original GT Endurance races,, Go and grab a relatively Stock AE86, MX-5 or '95 WRX, give it a mild power boost, better suspension and go racing against the super-cars.

 

[cutmeamango]

I think will see better AI implementation when there's an attempt to change the "if you ain't first, you're last" design philosophy.

Have the game know your current limits in a car/track and by comparative curves and set appropriate goals.
So if you put slow laps in say 'Like the Wind' Daytona in a 787B with an used up engine, and you qualify in 10th-13th (which matches your overall performance through the game), adapt the goal to getting 5th or 6th in a 10 lap race.

This frees the concern of having a "falsely" competitive AI (which sadly ends up satisfying only the mean) and allows then to just program random performance AI through out (which you could have quartile variances as well, that is races with just top 25% AI performances for exemple).

Which in turn would help push an understanding that there is glory in meeting or surpassing expectations outside of podium photos.

I'd say the accessibility starts with the short race format even, 3 to 10 laps. Actually, the problem lies with the "if you ain't first you are last" goal setting but I'm repeating myself here.
The adversary pace keeps the scaling challenge (I think if I search this very forum I'll find people asking which car to use for Like the Wind).

This is an aspect where I agree they could offer a less rigid proposal to users.
Allow from the start to set lap numbers and average pace (with the minimal set by them), like PCars does. Or just judge performance in a better way.

There was another post on it but I couldn't remember a keyword.

I guess this one is relevant too.

Put staircases.
No, elevators.
Put both!
ESCALATORS!
Scratch that, just make it one large floor and if people want a view, they can find another building!
No, no, no: 3 large floors, that way we get to have staircases and elevators and escalators and flat walking distances.

I just hope that for whatever constraints and objectives they have, their design plan and functions are apparent.
(And I'm partial on the doubling down on "ownership" in their design semantics.)

 

[Samus]

If the, "if you're not first, you're last" attitude sells 75 million games, what incentive do you have to change the concept?

As you've said yourself Johnny, it was complacency like that which all but sunk the likes of Blackberry and Kodak. At some point you have to recognise the flaws and make changes.

 

[gtracedriver1]

One could also say that a livery editor was a standard feature, as most games have at least something. But some don't. Why? Constraints.

Dynamic time and weather are common features these days, but they're not necessary for a racing game to function in the same way as a physics engine is. A game can be made without them if necessary, and it can be just fine if the rest of the game is good enough.

Assetto Corsa and iRacing are arguably the two top PC simulations, and neither of them have dynamic time or weather (iRacing kinda sorta does, but it's nothing like in Gran Turismo). They have the ability to set the time to a certain hour of daylight (or on some tracks, night), but that's it. On the other hand, they both have dynamic tracks which rubber in, which is arguably a much more important feature for realism, although it's not as graphically flashy.

Both F1 and pCARS fail to maintain 60fps. Dirt Rally as far as I'm aware doesn't have dynamic weather or lighting, although it does (I'm told) maintain 60fps on console. I've only got it on PC, where it maintains whatever framerate I tell it to.

So there you are, two devs who made sacrifices to lighting and weather and maintained 60fps, and two who didn't and didn't. It seems a pretty solid statement based on those games that if you want lighting and weather in a PS4/X1 quality game at a solid 60fps, then something else is going to have to give.

Turn 10 and Codemasters decided that variable lighting and weather was less core to the racing experience than other aspects that they might have cut. If Polyphony chooses to keep the variable lighting and weather, what do they cut to make that possible? Car count? Track detail? AI? Sound? Physics fidelity? All of the above?

Assume for a moment that Polyphony isn't magic and that they can't just make a game where you have everything and the kitchen sink. What sacrifice do they make to allow variable lighting and weather?

Pcars and F1 are good benchmarks and have done a great job in implementing. Most people cannot tells the framerate and it does not affect the gameplay. I do not think there any review or people complaining about this. Polyphony can do much better than them as they are really good to get best out of the box. They can have an option to have no rain or time of day for those who do not want Moreover PSVR since 60fps in minimum they can also have this option in the menu which simply does not allow the game to run at 60fps at anytime
http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PS-VR-Framerate.jpg

It is "bells and whistles" if you want your game to run at a locked 60fps in this fast approaching VR era. There's no weather in AC and I've never missed it and while it is mentioned here and there on the very active AC forums, it's most definitely a tiny, tiny minority of players that seem really concerned about it. It's more of a bonus feature to me and, it seems, to many others, rather than a core element.

A true beta is a game still in development that actively solicits feedback from the beta playing fanbase. That's a far different thing from a demo which is more of a near finalized but smaller version of the release candidate and does not solicit or plan to use player feedback for development purposes in the way a beta does.

Other games will have it too. They are probably working on it

 

[Imari]

Pcars and F1 are good benchmarks and have done a great job in implementing. Most people cannot tells the framerate and it does not affect the gameplay. I do not think there any review or people complaining about this.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-project-cars-launch-performance-analysis

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-f1-2015-performance-analysis

If those are the benchmarks, we're all screwed.

IMO, this is the benchmark. A solid 1080/60fps in all situations. Additional features to be added if and only if they do not compromise the graphical experience.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-vs-forza-motorsport-6

Polyphony can do much better than them as they are really good to get best out of the box.

Maybe. It remains to be seen as they really haven't demonstrated exceptional ability to extract performance for some time. They have demonstrated exceptional ability at over-stressing hardware though, much like pCARS and F1 2015 linked above.

Moreover PSVR since 60fps in minimum they can also have this option in the menu which simply does not allow the game to run at 60fps at anytime
http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PS-VR-Framerate.jpg

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Can you explain it a different way?

 

[andyparks]

A bit of vr news about gt sport but nothing we don't already know
https://www.vrfocus.com/2016/04/gra...ease-to-include-playstation-vr-compatibility/

 

[jm79]

Indeed, GT is certainly not the only culprit here though. Far too many games invite you to time travel and re-do races over and over to get all 1st places for some benefit. "Win all races in a series to unlock X" and so on. Of course you're not forced to do it but it tells the player that they expect you to win everything if you want to get everything out of the game.

What I've been wanting to see for years is to follow reality whilst keeping things 'gamey' enough. You don't finish a season in FIFA and then go back to replay the matches you didn't win. You finish the season, and move onto the next. So you would do the same in a racing game, progressing through events with no ability to return to the exact one again and fix your results but of course then you need a solid race/event generator for players to do whatever event they want at any time.

That is the other issue really, being asked to re-do and re-win EVERY event to earn X, rather than just re-entering the series you enjoyed and want to do again, for fun, and a benefit. GT has always asked you to complete all of their pre-determined events to unlock and 'complete' everything, whether you want to or not. If you want the exclusive car that a certain event rewards you with, you have to do it.

Instead you should receive those rewards whichever event you choose. I want the option to do Event A and Event B to be rewarded with X, or do Event B twice as I enjoy it, and receive the same X reward. I believe the Forza games did do this to a degree (not played one since 3) but I believe it also still had the "go back and win every event" feature.

Player Freedom. That's what I want in a nutshell.

Player freedom. That's it, really.

In that vein, I quite like the ability, unlike FIFA, to endlessly replay. Driving is precision stuff and demands a lot more second-to-second attention than other games. If I mess a lap up because of some minor distraction, it's often disastrous, and so being given the option of retrying is giving freedom to the player in a demanding task, and not punishing them for not being, you know, a fully committed racing driver.

Driveclub's 'replay a round' feature in a multi-round championship was brilliant in this respect, because it allowed me to mess up. Go open the door, speak to someone in real life, answer the phone. Don't worry, you can always try again, because the fun is in the driving.

These examples you mention, the endurance stuff specifically, take the fun away from the experience. Any game requiring an XP-grind of any kind is simply badly designed.

But then, I've long thought that driving games, other than the arcadey stuff like NFS, should abandon any attempt at 'gameplay'. I'm interested in Motorsport, and as I've mentioned before, the only gameplay real life racers have is the points table. The closer virtual driving can get to that experience, the better.

The reason I'm sticking around on this forum, excitedly awaiting any GTS announcement, is that everything I've seen of the game, seems to indicate that this is pretty much what they're going for. I really hope so.

 

[Soundtrack]

The "industrial requirement" is stating 60FPS@1080p in the box.

In practice almost no resource demanding AAA game today achieves this on current and past generation consoles. They run almost always at 50FPS territory rather than at 60 (or in GT5's case with dips to 20 FPS in raining conditions), and with upscaling (GT5 runs at 1280x1080).

What I mean is, the requirement is to advertise the game as such. Nothing more. What sells resource heavy games are the graphics, alike having rain effects, but not how smoothly they actually run.

Some weeks ago I posted here a Digital Foundry video of DriveClub vs Project Cars on the PS4. DriveClub runs at perfectly steady 30FPS, and that is the first time I've seen a racing game run as steadily on consoles since maybe Super Mario Kart.
edit: as posted below, Forza on Xbox One already achieves this too.

Isn’t that exactly the problem? Fluctuating 40-60 frames/sec will not do if the PSVR info we got is correct. With Sony just dropping the most likely racing game alternative for the virtual headset it becomes more likely GT is going to showcase that feature, as the game is officially announced VR compatible. So unless it’s a dedicated on side experience with a limited amount of optimised assets and gameplay, this compatibility could in theory affect or worse compromise other more important aspects of the software.

A steady 30fps is, in my opinion, a rather sensible approach for a console racing game with visually intensive/demanding feature, but is this still going to be a viable alternative for PD? I doubt they can compromise much on the spatial resolution as native 1920x1080 could become critical for smooth UHD upscaling, right another of Sony’s vested interest. Eventually Sony could of course shoehorn some umpf in a console revision...

Anyway, trying to remain positive, this convoluted situation could offer the perfect opportunity for PD to bring a comprehensive option panel under the game preference tab.

 

[GTEFGHA]

I am genuinely concerned over not only the sport of racing but racing games too. Here in the US, racing (outside of NASCAR) is unheard of unless you are enthusiast. And like you stated, racing comes of as boring.

You are totally right of racing coming off as boring... I don't watch anything except rallycross. Why? Well F1 you have so much strategy that you don't see that much action(ussually) but rallycross, they go flat out as fast as they can for 6 laps and the most strategy you're gonna see is taking the joker lap. However that doesn't mean you should be concerned about racing.

The one thing that stands out to me on your suggestion is the demolition derby mode. That could appeal to a ton of people. Great job Johnnypenso.

People are interested in demo derby yes, but it doesn't really fit into GT unless you make GT: Eve of destruction, I guess they could give us a flat surface to crash around which we already kinda have in Willow springs

 

[queleuleu]

If someone sees Kaz at the Nurburgring, please ask him what is the definition of "early"? I can't believe gtsport is not even a full game after three years...

 

[jm79]

If someone sees Kaz at the Nurburgring, please ask him what is the definition of "early"? I can't believe gtsport is not even a full game after three years...

He's got better things to do than make games!

I mean, I'd rather be whizzing round the nürburgring rather than sitting in an office.

 

[super_gt]

If someone sees Kaz at the Nurburgring, please ask him what is the definition of "early"?

 

[jm79]

 

[Scaff]

Player freedom. That's it, really.

In that vein, I quite like the ability, unlike FIFA, to endlessly replay. Driving is precision stuff and demands a lot more second-to-second attention than other games. If I mess a lap up because of some minor distraction, it's often disastrous, and so being given the option of retrying is giving freedom to the player in a demanding task, and not punishing them for not being, you know, a fully committed racing driver.

Yes, but no racing driver (no matter how fully committed) is going to win every race they ever enter. some of the best races I have ever had in other titles have been around fighting back after a mistake or a messed-up pit-stop, even though I have never manged to win in these circumstances and at best would get on the lower step of the podium or just outside.

Driveclub's 'replay a round' feature in a multi-round championship was brilliant in this respect, because it allowed me to mess up. Go open the door, speak to someone in real life, answer the phone. Don't worry, you can always try again, because the fun is in the driving.

No issue with this as it becomes an option for the individual to chose to use or not, what I dislike is when it becomes essential because if you don't finish first you can't progress.

These examples you mention, the endurance stuff specifically, take the fun away from the experience. Any game requiring an XP-grind of any kind is simply badly designed.

Scale-able race distance takes care of that in endurance races, however XP or cash grinds have no place in racing titles for me.

But then, I've long thought that driving games, other than the arcadey stuff like NFS, should abandon any attempt at 'gameplay'. I'm interested in Motorsport, and as I've mentioned before, the only gameplay real life racers have is the points table. The closer virtual driving can get to that experience, the better.

This.

Now while I understand that the everything open from the start approach in PCars might not appeal to everyone, it is more than possible to implement this kind of approach. Dirt: Rally is a good example for how to do this well, you need to buy the cars, but its not a grind to get them and you need to finish a season in the top three to move to the next higher 'tier' of events. However you are free to pick what class to race in for any season (and the opposition will match in terms of class) and should you need to repeat a tier it randomizes the stages, time of day and weather. as such you don't need to win every sector, of every stage, of every rally to progress.

As it stands now GT's progression model is, for me, simply broken.

The reason I'm sticking around on this forum, excitedly awaiting any GTS announcement, is that everything I've seen of the game, seems to indicate that this is pretty much what they're going for. I really hope so.

I have to confess to being a lot less confident in that regard.

 

[jm79]

Yes, but no racing driver (no matter how fully committed) is going to win every race they ever enter. some of the best races I have ever had in other titles have been around fighting back after a mistake or a messed-up pit-stop, even though I have never manged to win in these circumstances and at best would get on the lower step of the podium or just outside.

I agree totally, often the most interesting drama in a race is well away from the leader. However a piece of software is always going to struggle to recognise these mid-field heroics. I don't see a way around this. PCars' 'recovery from a last lap spin' achievement was something, but doesn't really cover it.

Dirt: Rally is a good example for how to do this well... you don't need to win every sector, of every stage, of every rally to progress.

Agreed, the more flexibility in this respect is great.
Again though, I'm super intrigued as to how they structure GTS in this respect. I'm over-optimistic perhaps, but this will be a significant change from previous GT's, going by the press blurb so far released.

The 'gamey' structure will more likely be repeated in some fashion in GT7, with GTS being the more serious, sim approach.

 

[Scaff]

I agree totally, often the most interesting drama in a race is well away from the leader. However a piece of software is always going to struggle to recognise these mid-field heroics. I don't see a way around this. PCars' 'recovery from a last lap spin' achievement was something, but doesn't really cover it.

Not really that difficult in concept and not really the software but rather the structural design of the career mode, don't tie the reward structure to just coming first in each race, ensure the AI is actually intelligent and competitive and don't force a grind into the reward structure. Plenty of recent titles have managed it (PCars, SLR Evo and Dirt have all done so).

Agreed, the more flexibility in this respect is great.
Again though, I'm super intrigued as to how they structure GTS in this respect. I'm over-optimistic perhaps, but this will be a significant change from previous GT's, going by the press blurb so far released.

For me the press blurb that has come out so far hasn't gone into anything like the detail needed to confirm or even hint at this at all

The 'gamey' structure will more likely be repeated in some fashion in GT7, with GTS being the more serious, sim approach.

I would rather it was abandoned in both.

 

[azidahaka]

Personally I've always thought there was a huge flaw with endurance races in a game like GT. Everybody wants to win. In the real world, drivers and teams enter endurance races knowing no matter how well they race they're extremely unlikely to win their class, and would be very happy with a top 10 position or even just finishing is an achievement. In a game though, what percentage of players would be happy with that? Not many, I'd wager. Most people see it almost as a chore, and they do not under any circumstances want to do it more than once. That means most people enter the events in a car they are sure is good enough to win, and combined with GTs lack of damage there is no real challenge to an endurance event. It's literally just x hours of driving, several laps ahead of the AI for most people, making them rather pointless.

Ask yourself, how many times in the GT history have you entered a long endurance event looking forward to the challenge of trying to win the race? I can't think of any time I have, except the very first one in GT2 where I thought even finishing last would net me decent money. That was only ~45 minutes though. Otherwise though you always enter them knowing you'll win, and it's just the challenge of having to drive for so many laps.

What doesn't help is the way GT and many games are set up in that they practically force you to win events, it's 1st or nothing for a variety of reasons. If the game was structured in a way where finishing 6th at Le Mans 24 Hours is still valuable, and combined with mechanical damage, they might be more fun to approach.

Indeed, GT is certainly not the only culprit here though. Far too many games invite you to time travel and re-do races over and over to get all 1st places for some benefit. "Win all races in a series to unlock X" and so on. Of course you're not forced to do it but it tells the player that they expect you to win everything if you want to get everything out of the game.

What I've been wanting to see for years is to follow reality whilst keeping things 'gamey' enough. You don't finish a season in FIFA and then go back to replay the matches you didn't win. You finish the season, and move onto the next. So you would do the same in a racing game, progressing through events with no ability to return to the exact one again and fix your results but of course then you need a solid race/event generator for players to do whatever event they want at any time.

That is the other issue really, being asked to re-do and re-win EVERY event to earn X, rather than just re-entering the series you enjoyed and want to do again, for fun, and a benefit. GT has always asked you to complete all of their pre-determined events to unlock and 'complete' everything, whether you want to or not. If you want the exclusive car that a certain event rewards you with, you have to do it.

Instead you should receive those rewards whichever event you choose. I want the option to do Event A and Event B to be rewarded with X, or do Event B twice as I enjoy it, and receive the same X reward. I believe the Forza games did do this to a degree (not played one since 3) but I believe it also still had the "go back and win every event" feature.

Player Freedom. That's what I want in a nutshell.

This is the reason I love project cars... It's the kind of game where winning is not the best part of the game... I had great races where I finished 6th after 2 hours of battling the same 2 Ai for 90 minutes....

I would race a 24h endurance race on pcars with drivers swaps and would cheer up finishing it along with my team.

Those that race only if they think are going to win are sad people imho.

Hope gtsport that will be released soon (yeah lol like in 2017) will allow for drivers swap and very long races.

And please no bs like car soccer, coffee breaks, demolition derbies etc etc.

I hated even that stupid moon event.

I'm her for racing cars and tune with weird parts the old 90s ones like an idiot if I feel silly.

But the essence of gt is race. Reason I do not bother with the "career" in gt games anymore.

 

[pikes_peak]

Some serious thread stats \s
We are on the way to reach 5000 posts with only one trailer
March '16 was by far the "best month" with 2359 posts and we managed that with literally no news (2nd February '16: 576, 3rd: January '16: 547, 4th: December '15: 333)

 

[Samus]

I agree totally, often the most interesting drama in a race is well away from the leader. However a piece of software is always going to struggle to recognise these mid-field heroics. I don't see a way around this. PCars' 'recovery from a last lap spin' achievement was something, but doesn't really cover it.

In my UI designs I'm doing I was working on a game concept where money is not required to move up the ladder, performance is. So just like in reality to enter the next series you may only need experience of another series beforehand. Without looking up the real requirements for example you could enter the FIA Formula 4 championship and a requirement for Formula 3 may just be a years experience in F4 without too many penalties or incidents. That would mean your results in F4 wouldn't matter so much, you're just gaining the necessary experience for the next tier. If you do perform well it just means you may be able to jump higher in the ladder sooner.

When it gets to higher tiers you do need success as well as just experience but it's very rarely 1st or nothing. So it could be ten top 10 finishes in X series is a requirement to enter Y series.

 

[AKps3]

Beta Early 2016?

 

[dipsetab]

Beta Early 2016?
View attachment 536641

dank meme

 

[Scaff]

In my UI designs I'm doing I was working on a game concept where money is not required to move up the ladder, performance is. So just like in reality to enter the next series you may only need experience of another series beforehand. Without looking up the real requirements for example you could enter the FIA Formula 4 championship and a requirement for Formula 3 may just be a years experience in F4 without too many penalties or incidents. That would mean your results in F4 wouldn't matter so much, you're just gaining the necessary experience for the next tier. If you do perform well it just means you may be able to jump higher in the ladder sooner.

When it gets to higher tiers you do need success as well as just experience but it's very rarely 1st or nothing. So it could be ten top 10 finishes in X series is a requirement to enter Y series.

That's pretty much how Pcars contract system works.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

If the, "if you're not first, you're last" attitude sells 75 million games, what incentive do you have to change the concept?

You are 100% correct. It's why I suggest they don't change that concept at all. Just add to it, specifically your aforementioned "GT Fun mode".

People are interested in demo derby yes, but it doesn't really fit into GT unless you make GT: Eve of destruction, I guess they could give us a flat surface to crash around which we already kinda have in Willow springs

See above.