Renaming the I/O Car Classes

What's happening?
User avatar
URV
Site Admin
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:36 pm
Discord: URV#9830
Location: /home/marv

Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by URV » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:02 pm

Recently, it has been brought up that there is a lot of confusion regarding our custom car classes, and the main reason behind that is because they do not match the in-game car ratings. For instance: in-game, Phenom is part of the Rookie rating, whereas on our website it is listed in the Advanced class. Another example would be AMW, a Pro stock car, which has been moved to the Semi-Pro class in our events for balancing purposes.

Unfortunately, altering the in-game car ratings is not an option due to a variety of reasons; mainly the fact that altering the parameters of both stock and custom cars has been previously frowned upon, and version mismatches would also result in CHT tags, which could be an issue if -autokick is enabled. As a result, after some thorough discussion, we have decided that the best course of action would be to simply rename the car classes.

To help us decide how to rename them, please fill out this form.

► My personal thoughts on the matter
User avatar
svito
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:48 pm
Location: Ukraine

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by svito » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:15 am

Could be a server-client thing, where server gives list of valid cars for client, no?

Then client only shows those cars for the selection.

What you suggest still requires low quality conversations, when actual problem is with game itself.
User avatar
URV
Site Admin
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:36 pm
Discord: URV#9830
Location: /home/marv

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by URV » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:16 am

I actually proposed this very same idea with creating a third-party launcher which, upon joining an I/O event, it would reorganize the cars folder to only include the cars that the player is actually allowed to use. Unfortunately, while I intend to develop that launcher either way, it seems like it might not be enough to resolve the issue. To quote from Discord:
Alexander wrote:It still won't stop confusion that happens outside of the game like what sparked this very round of discussion. [...] This very conversation started because of a mixup of the ingame rookie class and the io one. No launcher will avoid that.
I wrote:[...] How come, if in-game it'll only show the I/O rookies?
Alexander wrote:because this has nothing to do with ingame
Shara wrote:[...] the launcher will, at least, remove the issues of people selecting the wrong cars during I/O sessions.

but, it wont resolve the confusion outside of playing the game, such as discussions and stuff.
this includes general discussion about the games and people thinking which cars are 'this and that'.
examples are Elven's posts above and Turbo's opinion on Bumblebee's rating in I/O classification.

The beginning of this conversation can be read on Discord here. If the link doesn't work, try searching for "Can I use Bumblebee today? I think its Rookie not Amateur."
User avatar
607
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by 607 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:22 am

I'll be looking for suggestions before sumitting my entry!
At this point all ratings (except Super Pro) should be renamed, right? It used to be the case that there was no difference between Stock and I/O Rookies, but I think Bendor changed this, and of course all Pros were allowed for Pros, but now there is also Super Pro, so this also isn't so anymore.
User avatar
URV
Site Admin
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:36 pm
Discord: URV#9830
Location: /home/marv

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by URV » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:32 am

Yeah. In the past, we had Rookies and Pros, which matched the in-game ratings, alongside Slugs and Pro Slugs, which were both a mixture of Amateur, Advanced and Semi-Pro cars. This eventually changed when I renamed Pro Slugs to Semi-Pros and later split the Slugs class into Amateur and Advanced—but the in-game ratings continued to be all over the place. To add to that, rebalancing was done in time and, eventually, Rookies and Pros began suffering from the same issue.

So, at the moment, yes, Super Pros are the only cars that are all supposed to be Super Pro in-game too, although unfortunately they are listed as Pro in-game and it is unknown if that limitation will be surpassed anytime soon. It would probably be good to change their name on the website either way, at least to match the theme of whatever names we decide on for the other classes.
User avatar
Turbo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Turbo » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:25 am

I want to throw in a complete other idea: Every car has a defined rating because the creator (Acclaim or a Custom Creator) decided the car to be in this specific class. Why not keep this ratings, kick out cars which does not fit to the rating at all (Phenom, Bendor) and live with not ultra-balanced classes? As URV said: Re-Volt is not Forza Motorsport. I also had pretty fun races where cars from different classes raced against each other. Whitedoom is also doing things like this in his races and it works quite well. Some guys choose RC Bandit in Advanced races, and can reach top 10. Some not so good players can choose Aquasonic in Amateur races, and enough other people will beat them with other Amateur cars. Why make this changes in car classes in a fun-racer like Re-Volt? It could be so easy, without the need to rename anything. ;)
さよなら! ターボ :re-volt:
User avatar
Turbo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Turbo » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:07 am

I just had an in-depth look. For the standard Re-Volt cars, this would mean the following:

Rookies:
  • RC Phink (Amateur) UP
Amateurs:
  • Evil Weasel (Advanced) UP
  • Groovster (Advanced) UP
  • NY 54 (Advanced) UP
  • RV Loco (Semi-Pro) UP
  • Splat (Advanced) UP
Advanced:
  • Aquasonic (Amateur) DOWN
  • Fulon X (Pro) UP
  • Matra XL (Amateur) DOWN
  • Pest Control (Semi-Pro) UP
  • Pole Poz (Semi-Pro) UP
  • RC San (Amateur) DOWN
  • Rotor (Semi-Pro) UP
Semi-Pros:
  • AMW (Pro) UP
Pros:
  • NONE
All the cars with UP are not that big issue. Maybe they will be choosen less often than now. The cars marked with DOWN are maybe OP in their class, and will be maybe choosen more often. And we are only speaking of 3 Amateur cars here.

For the custom cars I see the whole thing not that bad. If a car really doesn't fit at all in it's class, it just can be removed from the pack. There are enough other good cars (for example in the bonus pack) which could be added instead. And for future pack updates, a car with a "wrong" rating just shouldn't be considered. It's part of the creators work, to balance the cars right. Maybe this sounds rude, but it would be the most easiest and less confusion solution, IMHO. Think about it.
Last edited by Turbo on Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
さよなら! ターボ :re-volt:
User avatar
r6te
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:59 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by r6te » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:11 am

A short reply:

A solution could be as well to incorporate IO classes and make RVGL support it. When a lobby selects an IO class, the players could see that as a prompt/option/text, if possible. It shouldn't be too hard to implement.

What do you think?
User avatar
607
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by 607 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:58 am

r6te wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:11 am
A short reply:

A solution could be as well to incorporate IO classes and make RVGL support it. When a lobby selects an IO class, the players could see that as a prompt/option/text, if possible. It shouldn't be too hard to implement.

What do you think?
I think RVGL shouldn't become I/O-specific, but a discussion about that would require a different thread. If something like this was made possible by a general new feature, great. If I/O support was hardcoded, bad (as I see it).
User avatar
ZipperZbieracz
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:38 pm
Discord: ZipperZbieracz#9343

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by ZipperZbieracz » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:04 pm

This was a problem ever since the I/O car classes started shifting away from the original car classes, this happened many years ago and persists to this day, no surprise.

Modifying RVGL in order to make it compatible with the fickle and subjective I/O classes would be an affront to the game: RVGL and Re-Volt. One day you want this, another you will want to change something or redefine something else. There is also no need to add another layer of complexity to something so simple as 5 car classes (maybe Super Pro could be added to distinguish it from actual Pros… they would not mix themselves up in Pro single-player races with regular Pros, while being not a major modification to the game, but I'm not sure about it either)

Modifying the stock car classes is not an option, it's modifying core assets (stock cars, tracks etc.) to someone's will.

It's true that some cars are not balanced (for example: AMW vs the other 4 Pros, Toyeca being too good overall, Pest Control and Pole Poz vs Adeon and Zipper, some other examples on lower classes as well…), but to be honest it was always this way. I would prefer if the cars were "kinda" balanced, where all stock cars from a specific class could compete with each other on the same track while being different from each other thus having advantage on different types or parts of tracks, but that how life is and we have to cope with it. The best way to cope with it is to stick to the stock car classes and treat cars in these classes as benchmarks: the weakest and the strongest cars in a specific class would be a benchmark for custom cars: customs in a specific class should never be weaker (but can be as weak or similarly weak) than the weakest car in the class, for fast cars in their classes they should be also comparably strong (not stronger or too strong) to the best car in their dedicated class.

But the above isn't the case, as the dedicated car class for custom cars sometimes does not match it's competitive strength, usually the car being too strong for it's dedicated class (for example Advanced being OP in Advanced class, but average in Semi-Pro races).

Years ago I offered a radical solution for that, which would fix both the problem of the I/O car classes bringing confusion for players and it would not require modifying an entire game to address one community's will. Of course it was torpedoed and I lost any interest in I/O car packs since then. One (maybe serious) problem it brings back is that some cars will be strongly preferable to others in certain class races, degrading diversity in races. But players can always pick worse cars for an extra challenge, it's up to them… If they pick the best car, complaining about it being picked too often is kinda hypocritical. [And also the cool "Prugs" name would come out of use. Maybe rename Advanced to Prug? Rather definitely don't think so.]

My (old and current) suggested solution is to:
1. Strictly stick to the in-game class ratings: Pro is Pro, so AMW can't be used in Semi-Pro races, Pole Poz and Pest Control can't be used in Advanced races etc. Of course you can do the reverse and use for example a Semi-Pro in Pro races, but it's up to hosts whether it's allowed and how big can the class difference be, whether an Advanced or Amateur or Rookie could be used in Pro etc.
2. Completely redo the I/O car pack, so that it would contain 5 (6 with Super Pro) car classes that would perfectly match it's stock class counterparts, both in name (not as important, but having different name for a car class list that contains cars that match stock classes would be pointless) and in competitiveness (very important). This would require removing cars from the track pack that are classified to a different class in the pack class list compared to the assigned cars' parameters class. This would also require removing cars from the pack that are too strong or too weak compared to the rest of stock+custom cars within their class. Many cars would face removal, but why authors made them uncompetitive (too strong or too weak) in their class? It's up to them to update the cars or leave them be, having the car outside of the pack.

In summary, very similar to Turbo's first post in the topic.

Just an opinion of an I/O expat, it's not like any changes to I/O packs influences me or my cars/tracks folders, just sharing an opinion on a topic which consequences do not affect me…
Off Topic
While writing this comment it came to my mind that actually "car classes" [actually called "Rating | Skill level (rookie, amateur, ...)" in parameters.txt and in-game] in their names do not refer to the cars themselves (their competitiveness, speed etc), but rather the skill that player is supposed to have while progressing in the game, the better he is the better cars he can drive and are dedicated for the player to use. Like: car can be a "Slug", but the player/user of the car is a "Rookie", as he just started playing. When he progresses, he gets better, he is an Amateur, an Advanced player, a Semi-professional and a Professional player, but a car can be a "Pro" or a "Prug" car. Or/and this refers to the skill required to use a specific car, as slower cars are easier to control and drive, at least in general. But treating car "Rating" as something that divides cars into separate speed/competitiveness groups (classes) is obviously the way to go and should be treated accordingly, as it is.
User avatar
Turbo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Turbo » Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:21 pm

Thanks for your very detailed description Zipper. It describes my idea from earlier today much better as I ever would have been able to describe it.

I'm pretty glad to hear that there seems to be other people with the same thoughts I have. We discussed my idea in Discord today, and I got immediately torpedoed. ("I don't know what I am talking about", "There is nothing to discuss", "Your view is silly", "Your suggestion doesn't make any sense", "Have you even played this game?" - This are all sentences I pasted 1:1 out of Discord, and they were written by a guy called Shion. But as well all the other people who also joined the discussion said, that there is no chance, that the original Re-Volt car-ratings will be used for I/O races. In the end I understood what the community (or let's say the I/O people?) are aimining for, and I also understood "their" view. I was just shocked, how fast this amount of reactions were dropping in in Discord, and how bad and aggressive the mood was. God bless this good old forum, where it's possible to discuss in a good manner, without getting bashed immediately.

However, I'm still waiting for an "official" reply here in this thread, and I hope that also Zippers opinion will be considered.
さよなら! ターボ :re-volt:
User avatar
Alex
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 5:56 pm
Discord: Alexander#5109
Location: Germany

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Alex » Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:39 pm

One big issue of your suggestions is that a significant amount of perfectly fine cars would be dropped for something incredibly minor. In the end the rating is a single line on the car select screen and doesn't affect the cars quality. Figuring out which car should belong in exactly which rating isn't exactly the simplest thing also as the ratings themselves are fairly arbitrary. Even the stock rating aren't balanced with some cars performance like Aquasonic and RC San being way above it's class and even more way below it. And even if they were it would still be an issue as cars performance relative to it's peers differs from both mode to mode and track to track. The i/o class system has been a solid way of alleviating these issues for it's purpose of online races and the systems biggest flaw is frequent confusion between it and the stock one which a simple change of the i/o names would fix. Merging the two simply isn't feasible as they are not compatible. Abandoning it would be taking many steps backwards to sidestep an issue whose solution has already been found.
User avatar
VaidX47
Site Admin
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:52 pm
Discord: VaidX47#4043
Location: 333

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by VaidX47 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:39 pm

I never liked the idea (especially for someone who isn't very familiar with custom content packs) to look at the list of cars you are allowed to choose for the session, since quite a few of them don't match what the game says, it's kinda bothersome. And usually (for me) it ends up with opening some external list, finding a "cool" sounding car or "oh, it seems I'm actually allowed to pick this stock car for this race", and finally choosing it in the game. It's also an issue if you have so many cars installed and don't remember the name of the specific car you liked or remember picking it once or twice and so you need to look at the list again to make sure it's the one or double check if you're allowed to use the specific car in a current session.
Obviously, if you're a frequent player of those sessions, you will very likely be familiar with most cars, hence watching the list as often won't be necessary.
Staying with original car ratings would help that, sure.

As previously mentioned, my described problem would get easily solved with server/local content white/black lists. What you see in game is what you can pick and that's it, there's nothing to worry about. Ability to change car without quitting the session makes it easier in case you've made a wrong choice (unless auto kick is there, then yikes), or having a separate game folder with only those specific cars installed completely solves it, but that's not a flexible method.

I see what I/O is trying do by balancing and why they're doing it. Some of the cars are very underpowered or overpowered for their defined ratings and so the overall race gets more likely fluctuated (or perhaps makes a clearer line between good and bad cars during the race or in the results screen, by showing large time gaps in player placements), unless there are players with varied skill levels and they're picking more appropriate cars for them, like an experienced player goes with difficult to control/slower, while a newbie easy to handle/faster car, but from my past experience, it very rarely happened, most racers prefer what's overall better for them. If we decrease the possible variable between the max and min in overall car performance per rating, in a way this can decrease a chance for people from choosing the same (popular) car, because there's a better variety with more similar specifications (or dares player to try something else, to some extend; still depends on the final choice list). It can also make less used cars, such as AMW have a higher chance to be picked in lower rating races than its originally given Pro. Hence why there's a reason for balancing to exist.
To me, original Re-Volt races and I/O sessions were always two different things, the latter is using custom (not original) rating system that was brought by a specific group of people from the community, it's better in a competitive sense (with variety). But it seems like I/O sessions overwhelms the original ones, by making it look like the standard, thus some people who prefer the original methods do not get the same kind of treatment or attention as I/O scheduled ones. And those who don't agree want to change the existing (the one that is mostly organized, prepared and played). Perhaps I'm wrong, I haven't followed the online race scene for some time.

If I understand correctly, certain people want more sessions with original, untouched car rating system (for stocks, how Acclaim/Probe made, and for customs how original creators intended). Makes sense.
Removing cars from the pack just because their performance don't match what original author gave them "on paper" would be quite unfortunate though.
aka Vaid; >[MediaFire Stuff]<
User avatar
ZipperZbieracz
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:38 pm
Discord: ZipperZbieracz#9343

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by ZipperZbieracz » Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:37 pm

So if not what I wrote then the other best option is to leave the game cars as it is, mayybe change the I/O car lists' names to distinguish them from the stock and in-game car ratings and mayyybe add a feature I described here, but I'm not for adding it, not too against it as well, up to the Dev whether to add it and if this is possible in the first place.

Also Novice and Beginner as Rookie and/or Amateur "I/O equivalents" would be turbo confusing, at least for me.
Also, why I/O Rookies are so different from the in-game ratings that the "Rookie" I/O list name needs a change? Isn't Rookie class so balanced that the customs also should be in line with them, thus making the car list not confusing? I understand the Amateur-Advanced-Semi-Pro-AMW mess, but Rookie? Is it some custom Amateurs being too slow that they actually better fit Rookies? This adds another question about what is put in the pack and whether it really should be. I haven't touched the car pack for a long time already, just having a thought…
User avatar
Alex
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 5:56 pm
Discord: Alexander#5109
Location: Germany

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Alex » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:53 am

Leaving the game cars as is and changing the i/o car list names is the plan. Regarding the feature you described URV is planning a launcher that would be able to shuffle the cars folder around before launch. I don't know the specifics on that but if implemented it would certainly streamline things a bit.

Also while I do agree stock and i/o Rookie are near identical I still think that classes i/o equivalent should be renamed for both consistencies sake and futureproofing for custom content. Some custom car with a stock amateur rating may better fit in i/o rookies but I don't think a number in the parameters being 1 instead of 0 that merely affects frontend display changes the cars overall quality.

As for the current batch of name suggestions being too similar: That's a big reason why this form exists. We've strayed away from the need to thematically align with the stock rating names because of that so we're open for more out there suggestions.
User avatar
607
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by 607 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:18 pm

ZipperZbieracz wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:04 pm
but why authors made them uncompetitive (too strong or too weak) in their class? It's up to them to update the cars or leave them be, having the car outside of the pack.
I am uncomfortable with this, as I fear that the I/O pack will get too much of an influence on what people will create. This is of course not entirely justified, as people will always keep making joke cars and tracks, and there will be people that know their content isn't suitable for the I/O pack anyway, but creators that do keep possible I/O inclusion in mind will have something else to conform to.
Turbo wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:21 pm
("I don't know what I am talking about", "There is nothing to discuss", "Your view is silly", "Your suggestion doesn't make any sense", "Have you even played this game?" - This are all sentences I pasted 1:1 out of Discord, and they were written by a guy called Shion.
This is untrue. I did a Discord search through all Shion's messages, and he has never said "I don't know what I am talking about".
User avatar
Turbo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Turbo » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:33 pm

607 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:18 pm
Turbo wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:21 pm
("I don't know what I am talking about", "There is nothing to discuss", "Your view is silly", "Your suggestion doesn't make any sense", "Have you even played this game?" - This are all sentences I pasted 1:1 out of Discord, and they were written by a guy called Shion.
This is untrue. I did a Discord search through all Shion's messages, and he has never said "I don't know what I am talking about".
The topic is solved already, both Shion and me appologized. But I also want to clarify, that you don't have searched good enough regarding the phrases. So please don't tell in public, that I have told the untruth. I must confess, that the first phrase was not a 1:1 copy, as I replaced the "you" to an "I", but I am sure you understand that this made more sense in the context of the posted list of phrases.

Image

However, please let's quit this topic now, as we both (Shion and me) agreed that we made mistakes during the last days. ;)
さよなら! ターボ :re-volt:
User avatar
607
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by 607 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:19 am

Turbo wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:33 pm
However, please let's quit this topic now, as we both (Shion and me) agreed that we made mistakes during the last days. ;)
Okay, cool. :)
User avatar
Turbo
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:38 pm

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by Turbo » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:07 am

Are there any news regarding the topic? How long will the survey run?
さよなら! ターボ :re-volt:
User avatar
URV
Site Admin
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:36 pm
Discord: URV#9830
Location: /home/marv

Re: Renaming the I/O Car Classes

Unread post by URV » Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:55 pm

Hey there, sorry for the silence. I'll prepare a proper response to the discussion above later this week, and the survey will end on Sunday.

Edit: I had to prioritize a few other matters this weekend, sorry for that. I should be able to get around to it this week if nothing else comes up.
Last edited by URV on Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Update
Post Reply