As has been mentioned by several other users, a ranked server is not supposed to be the place where people practice. Single player mode and the non-ranked servers offer more than enough opportunity to practice track and car knowledge. Regarding determining the culprit in a car-to-car collision: This incident and ranking system has been in testing for quite some time and we have experimented with several versions that attempted to penalise the driver who caused a collision and spare the victim from receiving incident points. Sadly there were always way too many special cases and exceptions, situations that just couldn't be judged accurately by the code. All the devs and testers really would love to have a system that differentiated between wrecker and victim, but if it can't be done precisely and reliably, if there is a chance that the culprit gets away without any penalty while the victim receives incident points, it would be irresponsible to try and push this. It is no coincidence that iracing also doesn't have such a system, and I'm sure they've also tried. In the end, penalising all involved in a car-to-car collision equally is the fairest solution for this conundrum, at least until we can create an AI that is capable of judging all possible scenarios reliably. Personally I'm not a huge fan of this approach either, but I also can't see a better way to fare with this atm, so I can accept that this is better than nothing or a system that has a chance of making wrong calls.
Well, I still stand by my point. I've seen things, you know... People exploiting mechanics in ways I never thought something like this existed. And in the end the outrage will be even bigger when the well thought mechanics get exploited. Time and money will have been spent on development without real success. And your thought that a wrecker cares about damage on his own car or his his race position is a misconception imho. If a wrecker cared for such things he wouldn't wreck in the first place. What I mean is, it's not only exploiting for your own benefit from a racing standpoint, but from a total jerks standpoint. TBH I would love to agree with you, but my experience with "gamers" just doesn't let me. People are so ingenious in being pricks, it's way beyond my imagination. Please don't ask me why. Only one example: false starts in multiplayer were pulled right after this feature was implemented, just because people were immediately abusing this to cause havoc on servers. Of course this didn't gain them any advantage in the race, as they got penalised. But gaining an advantage wasn't the point.
Hello everybody, so far I am very amazed with the ranking system and I really like it! But actually, I just had an experience which frustrates me all the way. I was on a pretty amazing 4 lap battle, we had a rough but still clean fight. I manage to overtake the guy, but a couple of corners later I lose my nerves from the pressure and hit the walls. As a consequence the incidence counter goes up drastically. So far, so fair I think. Then I actually did not want to quit the race out of two reasons: 1. I thought it might effect my rating heavily, wich I would like to know if it's really the case? 2. I saw the chance of still being able to finish the race somewhere in the back of the field, since the gap was big enoug. So as I limp home, I actually lose control of the car quite often again because I had a flat tyre. In the end I hit the wall again and get disqualified. Still, I think this is fair. To make a long story short: How much does quitting the race impact your rating? Because the lesson I have learned from this is, that I rather quit the game next time, than finish it in order not to influence my rating that much. I risked beeing disqualified, because I think finishing the race is a huge part of sportsmanship and I think this is something the rating system should promote. Beeing disqualified, I got demotet by 800 (EIGHT HUNDRED!) places in the ranking. Does this mean I should hav quit the race?! Doesnt this encourage rage quitting in general? In my opinion this doesn't reflect motorsports in its real form, to be honest. Hopefully somebody can give me some infos on this, it actually bugs me a little too much than I would have liked No offence everybody, keep up those amazing races! Cheers and thanks!
A dnf due to rage quit and a dsq due to accumulated incident points are about as bad as each other. I'm not sure of the exact calculations as they are being kept secret for now. The best thing to do in that situation is to pit, repair and finish. Given that there are likely to be others that don't finish this tactic would mean that you would finish above those people and so any fall in rating would be much lower. Generally I see about a quarter of the field dnf in any given race.
Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to do, pit and repair. But I just didn't get to the garage before beeing disqualified. Or did you mean pressing escape and go back to the garage? Well, whatever, lesson learned! Thanks!
Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to do, pit and repair. But I just didn't get to the garage before beeing disqualified. Or did you mean pressing escape and go back to the garage? Well, whatever, lesson learned! Thanks!
Crazy that two cars going into the braking zone at very simillar speeds have the very slightest of touches and get penalised the same as someone that cant control his car spins off spins back on and takes another car out, surely a complete off track and resulting 180 or 360 is recognised by the system, if not why not, and why after that is the car taken out penalised the same number of points that the car that completely left the track and re entered causing damage?
I´ve been trying the system out a lot more and it seems to have potential but the main issue apart from collision detection being too sensitive is that the 30 point system is quite strict on smaller track with fuller grids. I think the system should be dynamic and take into account the type of track and number of cars on track. As mentioned above, the intensity of the collision should also be taken into account on a sliding scale e.g. 1 point for a light touch not resulting in damage to either car or an off track excursion, 4 points for collision causing damage or pushing one or more of the cars off the track. Brands, Norisring and the like should really get a higher coefficient rating and when there are more than 15 cars at the start there should also be a slightly higher threshold before DSQ. It´s Ok if you start from the front and are fast and don´t make mistakes but even then you risk losing points from colliding with backmarkers if they spin in front of you.
I had a sideways moment in Frx90. Which penalised me 2 incident points. On the "Virage de Bendor" corner at paul ricard. This needs looking at imho. My rear tyres were going off but it was'nt even half a spin. The car did have the 'spinning out' feeling for what was maybe a micro second. Seemed like sliding from rear brake bias on worn tyres can cause false flags in Frx90.
It happened in Qualifying which doesnt have replays saved im afraid. It's a pretty easy corner to hang the back end out on though. After the incident point i just tidied up my driving through that corner and never repeated it. I'll try reproduce the slide in my next session.
As this has been mentioned at least twice, I'd like to ask for video evidence here as well. The "slightest of touches" should not result in any incident points and it didn't during our testing. Admittedly, I voted for raising the impact force threshold a little bit because to me the system seemed a tad too sensitive at the time, but gentle rubbing and paint exchange did not result in any points whatsoever, as it is intended. Also seen comments like this several times and I'd just like to add that, in my opinion, viewing incident points as a penalty might be a wrong approach to the whole idea of a ranking system. An incident point is not a penalty, it is a record of what happened on track. Incidents happen, minor and major ones, in real life just as in sim-racing. In the long run, luck and misfortune will balance out and nobody can expect a personal ranking that always and forever improves.
If you get 30 incident points you are kicked from the server. In what world is that not a penalty even if you don´t care about rating? For me, the system works on wide permanent circuits with not too many cars but on stuff like Norisring you can have an early bath after a couple of laps due to the high possibility of first corner pile ups, spin outs at the chicane and kissing the wall after the chicane. I don´t own Macau but I imagine that would be another tricky circuit.
It does, but creating a video is too much effort when in reality im not too bothered about my own rating. I just had a race at Nords driving the Capri, got an incident point for getting the car sideways, no other vehicles around me car was at 35-45 degrees caught it and carried on. Shouldnt have counted as incident.
I drove the 2 hour Bathurst event, including coming through slow traffic and only got 7 points. I'm not a particularly talented driver either. 30 is more than enough.
The main goal of this system is to avoid contacts between users. To do that you just need to be cautious...
Its racing, why should we need to be cautious, avoiding contact, apart from single seaters this isnt really a thing is it, the majority of real races have contact and unless it is overly aggressive or outright dangerous the stewards just let it go. Force everyone to be cautious and the fun dissapears from the race event, there is no real racing. People shouldnt be hung up on the rating and just get on with racing, incidents do happen but the majority arnt deliberate or with malice but simple racing incidents that are an every day occurance in every races everywhere. Bumper to bumper shouldnt be penalised, two wheels on the grass for a split second the same, it isnt the same as penalising for track limit violations where advantage may be gained. I can see where it is going and why, but think the implementation is still a way off.
No, the system dosnt force drivers to be cautious, they shoulndt need to be. But you are advising people to be, wheres the difference?