I overshoot production numbers A LOT. As I expected my sports car was more of a weird experiment that didn’t earn that much. I guess I should stick to more reasonable cars. BTW Der Bayer are you making changes to mid sport segment?
As for front wing, what Reaper said, it’s cheap sportiness boost. Frankly top speed should have bigger impact on prestige score so you don’t see sub 200 km/h “super cars” like mine (it just plain makes sense too, no one cared that top speed in old Lamborghini’s or in Veyron isn’t practical to achieve or indeed useful for anything, it’s all about begin able to say that your car can do 300, 400 km/h). “Weird” stuff like that should be reserved for purely track-day cars.
Actually if we’re talking about prestige I feel, interior option should have bigger impact on it and make less difference for comfort (after all having panels out of real wood doesn’t make the car more comfortable, just nicer to look at and more expensive, yes there are seats, question is just how much of a difference that makes?). Imho the bulk of comfort should come from suspension and entertainment options since that’s where all that extra stuff that can break is, like heated seats or climate control. Just my 2 cents.
im so shocked that my 305kmh supercar 50k supercar did not turn a profit. My little El ViVa though pulled back my losses and gave me a bit on the side.
For me it went completly the other way… I had expected my Hothatch to sell big and the GT to be just for shows, but the GT actualy sold OK and the HH was a total bust.
I was expecting something more from the Znopresk and something less from the BMMS… but…
I was very close to don’t cover the costs with the Zap, but the Salmon was perfect. I nailed the perfect price and every single car was sold and I suppose that even I had 50k more car to sell I woulnd’t be able to sell it.
ZM Automobili had a good profit after all.
[quote=“Janekk”]As for front wing, what Reaper said, it’s cheap sportiness boost. Frankly top speed should have bigger impact on prestige score so you don’t see sub 200 km/h “super cars” like mine (it just plain makes sense too, no one cared that top speed in old Lamborghini’s or in Veyron isn’t practical to achieve or indeed useful for anything, it’s all about begin able to say that your car can do 300, 400 km/h). “Weird” stuff like that should be reserved for purely track-day cars.
[/quote]
It was actually aimed at the trackday market, but happened to do quite well in the supercar market as well
Well the funny thing is, I got more sportiness when I put it on the roof than in the front. And it looks better
I still probably put off a lot of customers by those centralised front lights
Here are the promised unofficial results with the new calculation featuring soft limits and adjusted balancing. These limits scale with the weight on the respective stat. For the main car stats, the limits scale with how much money the buyer can spend (i.e. they are higher in the more exclusive groups) and with the game year (higher in more modern times).
Some cars suffer a lot because they didn’t meet the limits. Please check out if your car met the new limits before saying that the new calculations are shit. It’s all about if you think the new system works better than the old one and if some things should be rebalanced or not. If everything is alright, we can start the next round soon. I’m looking forward to your feedback.
I like, the markets my cars sold best were the markets I aimed them at with little spillage into unrelated areas. So they make sense.
Still didn’t sell out but gained some sales
Well that was a boon for Ardent. May have taken a bit of a hit to the high-volume Piper, but the added sales for the higher margin Olympic more than made up for it. Netting another 200mill total, all said and done.
Interestingly, I was aiming the Olympic at the GT market. My sales there shriveled up, but it looks like I picked up quite a bit in MS.
Looking forward to CTC 5 with these changes implemented!
Both of my cars came top in the categories they were aimed at, so I’m all for the new scoring system . Its very surprising to see my sports car doing well in the GT class though because I always thought GT cars (Grand Tourers) were supposed to be sporty and comfy.
Also, I must not have noticed it before, but its nice not to be the only person with a spoiler on the front of the car
My BMMS is now more focused on the market I was aiming for, and the Zap! sell a bit less, but it was stronger in the C$ compact I aimed for.
I like this new calculation.
I got better market share for my serious car. But I am not sure I like this better, I like the idea of performing unexpectedly well in markets I did not design for. I don’t consider that to be a bad thing, unexpected maybe, but not bad. If we go for realism a real market is generally not quite as inflexible and people will buy things that have features they may not have been looking for at the time but found while looking. Granted this would stop the billionaire looking for a super car from buying a little mini crap car but I would blame that on the spouse of the individual who might want something cute or just be angry that day.
So while my car performed better in terms of market share I am not a big fan of the change. I like the mystery and the unexpected more.
[quote=“Der Bayer”]Alternative Results - New Calculations
(…)For the main car stats, the limits scale with how much money the buyer can spend (…).[/quote]
I think the new method is interesting.
(…)For the main car stats, the limits scale with how much money the buyer can spend (…).
It means that we could offer a more cheap car, with low stats, and sell the same quantities as a more expensive car with higher stats, in the same group, but without being competitors? Just aiming for a sub-group?
No, you misunderstood that. All customers within one group have the same amount of money. But luxury buyers have more money than cheap compact buyers. 10 percent weight on one stat will result in a higher limit for that stat in the expensive groups than in the cheap groups. Because expectations are higher when you invest more money.
[quote=“GenJeFT”]I got better market share for my serious car. But I am not sure I like this better, I like the idea of performing unexpectedly well in markets I did not design for. I don’t consider that to be a bad thing, unexpected maybe, but not bad. If we go for realism a real market is generally not quite as inflexible and people will buy things that have features they may not have been looking for at the time but found while looking. Granted this would stop the billionaire looking for a super car from buying a little mini crap car but I would blame that on the spouse of the individual who might want something cute or just be angry that day.
So while my car performed better in terms of market share I am not a big fan of the change. I like the mystery and the unexpected more.[/quote]
That has much more to do with what cars opponents make rather than scoring system.
My car hit the alternate markets better which was a good thing for me, and now it was mildly profitable. I did notice I had an error in my submission, I had put in the submission that I had 1 level of quality in aspiration, and its naturally aspirated, I dont know if the scripts were able to see that and calculate correctly.
) entry!
