ios-personmd-notifications md-help-circle

Profile

  • Guest
    medal 0
  • Posts: 21
  • Post Likes: 3765

Notifications

  • No Unread Notifications

Forums > Global Forums (English) > Help & Support

Solved
Players HIGH vs LOW level

ios-checkmark-circle
This thread is closed because it is solved.
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right
Carlos Santangelo medal 5858
26 days ago (Last edited by Carlos Santangelo 26 days ago) Translate
Hi Jack, 
Do you think it's normal for higher-level players (38,39,40) to lose against lower-level players(15/20/23/24)? I don't think it's fair... We should have a greater advantage over them since our headquarters should be higher than theirs...
Could you look into what's happening? Since the update, I've noticed these kinds of differences, and I don't think they're normal... What do you think? Could it be investigated and  restore the competitiveness of high-level players compared to low-level players?
md-quotelink
Carlos Santangelo medal 5858
26 days ago (Last edited by Carlos Santangelo 26 days ago) Translate
@ Jack, I’d like to understand this better from your perspective.

Do you think it is normal that a Level 10–15 team can consistently beat a Level 40 team under the current system?

I understand the explanation about percentages and relative efficiency, but the issue I’m trying to highlight is the impact on competitiveness at championship level. Even if a lower-level team is technically “100% efficient” in some areas, a Level 40 team should, in theory, have accumulated long-term structural advantages that make it harder for significantly lower-level teams to interfere at the top of the standings. this advantage is not enough if low-level players can still interfere in the standings and the fight for the championship, they are refeere in a championship.

At the moment, it feels like the 40 DP advantage and long-term development of higher-level teams are not translating into meaningful competitive protection. This leads to situations where newer or mid-level teams can directly compete for wins and championships, which seems to reduce the value of long-term progression.

I’m not saying lower-level teams shouldn’t be competitive — but I’m questioning whether the balance is currently too flat, to the point where level progression loses strategic weight.

Could you clarify if this is the intended design after the update, or if the balance is still being adjusted? From a competitive integrity perspective, it feels like something might be off.
md-quotelink
Carlos Santangelo medal 5858
25 days ago Translate
Hi Jack, any news on this?
md-quotelink
Aldux Leclerc medal 5604
25 days ago Translate

Carlos
@ Jack, I’d like to understand this better from your perspective.

Do you think it is normal that a Level 10–15 team can consistently beat a Level 40 team under the current system?

I understand the explanation about percentages and relative efficiency, but the issue I’m trying to highlight is the impact on competitiveness at championship level. Even if a lower-level team is technically “100% efficient” in some areas, a Level 40 team should, in theory, have accumulated long-term structural advantages that make it harder for significantly lower-level teams to interfere at the top of the standings. this advantage is not enough if low-level players can still interfere in the standings and the fight for the championship, they are refeere in a championship.

At the moment, it feels like the 40 DP advantage and long-term development of higher-level teams are not translating into meaningful competitive protection. This leads to situations where newer or mid-level teams can directly compete for wins and championships, which seems to reduce the value of long-term progression.

I’m not saying lower-level teams shouldn’t be competitive — but I’m questioning whether the balance is currently too flat, to the point where level progression loses strategic weight.

Could you clarify if this is the intended design after the update, or if the balance is still being adjusted? From a competitive integrity perspective, it feels like something might be off.



I consider myself a good player and I have an account which is level 20 and I can’t keep up with high level players because they have much more development points. How do I know it’s not me? Because in the first races of the season I fight for the win and I start lacking behind when the design points gaps grows.


So I feel like if you lose consistently it’s because you do something wrong, like developing the car. 
md-quotelink
Sandy Carr medal 5443
24 days ago
Hello all, 

I’d just like to add to this thread.

We have a similar situation in our league, where level 16/20 players are keeping up and sometimes beating the lvl 25/35 players.

I believe there was a “levelling” up in the updates, but I also have a couple of lvl 25/30 players whom are getting frustrated as they are falling down the order?
I know a lot depends on HQ,staff, engine ( supplier or customer) etc al, it just feels to me like an imbalanced platform currently.
Yes I want it to be closer racing and for ALL levels to be able to “joust” in the races, as if your being lapped, every race then there is very little incentive to play.
As asked previously an explanation or guidance into an answer would be most appreciated.
Thank you.
md-quotelink
Frank Thomas Moderator medal 5195
24 days ago (Last edited by Frank Thomas 24 days ago)
To answer the question if it's normal, or wanted, that low level teams can challenge high level ones: Yes, it is. As the time to level up grew way too long for players to endure to stick around to finally get into a position to start playing for real, and shorten it would make teams reach the end of the level ladder way too soon, the game underwent a shift. From grinding slowly towards competitiveness towards maintaining it during transition. 

The players are given the tools to fight for wins and championships pretty much from start, what needs to grow is their experience and ability as a player to do so. However the team starts in a position of reliance and reacting, they need to find and buy a good chassis and engine from others, they need to react to the development dynamics in the league to optimize gain as their design points come from research.

They level and start into transition and things get harder, research breaks away slightly quicker than HQ points grow, at level 20 and 30 comes the decision to start an own engine and chassis, doing so hits initially hard though, not doing it means imposing a handicap on the team later.

Towards the end of the transition the team relies on its own resources, it generates most DP with HQ, is now one of the drivers to shape the development strategy, secured its own chassis and engine with self chosen strength and weakness.

However there's one point slightly out of balance. The research advantage, if played right, can be too strong, without chassis even stronger than 40 DP from HQ. The research bonus from chassis levels the field and could even shift the scales towards level 40 (needs some numbers grinding), but high levels could still use a little bit of boost, both for a little bit of advantage and keep the research game more relevant for a little bit of an extra edge for those playing it well.

Also the performance 'hole' (more like a dent) around level 30 feels a bit too deep, and wrong, to me, especially as deciding to go for own chassis and engine hit hard on their own there.
md-quotelink
Slo Bro medal 5880
24 days ago

Frank
To answer the question if it's normal, or wanted, that low level teams can challenge high level ones: Yes, it is. As the time to level up grew way too long for players to endure to stick around to finally get into a position to start playing for real, and shorten it would make teams reach the end of the level ladder way too soon, the game underwent a shift. From grinding slowly towards competitiveness towards maintaining it during transition. 

The players are given the tools to fight for wins and championships pretty much from start, what needs to grow is their experience and ability as a player to do so. However the team starts in a position of reliance and reacting, they need to find and buy a good chassis and engine from others, they need to react to the development dynamics in the league to optimize gain as their design points come from research.

They level and start into transition and things get harder, research breaks away slightly quicker than HQ points grow, at level 20 and 30 comes the decision to start an own engine and chassis, doing so hits initially hard though, not doing it means imposing a handicap on the team later.

Towards the end of the transition the team relies on its own resources, it generates most DP with HQ, is now one of the drivers to shape the development strategy, secured its own chassis and engine with self chosen strength and weakness.

However there's one point slightly out of balance. The research advantage, if played right, can be too strong, without chassis even stronger than 40 DP from HQ. The research bonus from chassis levels the field and could even shift the scales towards level 40 (needs some numbers grinding), but high levels could still use a little bit of boost, both for a little bit of advantage and keep the research game more relevant for a little bit of an extra edge for those playing it well.

Also the performance 'hole' (more like a dent) around level 30 feels a bit too deep, and wrong, to me, especially as deciding to go for own chassis and engine hit hard on their own there.


That actually is a very good summary, well done, sir.
md-quotelink
VIP Jack Basford CEO & CTO medal 5531
24 days ago
Frank pretty much covered it. Our position on this changed over the years. It used to be that there was an inherent, baked-in advantage for playing for a long time. Now it's just down to performance on race day. It's all about managing your team, keeping everything up to date, and doing the right strategy.
md-quotelink
Carlos Santangelo medal 5858
24 days ago Translate
Hi Jack,
I’d like to raise a concern regarding the current competitive balance in the game.
From my perspective, it seems that higher-level teams are no longer gaining a meaningful advantage from their progression. To draw a comparison, it would be similar to a scenario in Formula 1 where a team like Alpine consistently competes on equal terms with Mercedes for the championship. That kind of parity doesn’t reflect the expected impact of long-term investment and development.
At the moment, despite having invested in chassis, engine, and overall team development, I still frequently find myself fighting for wins against significantly lower-level teams (around level 15–20). This raises an important question about the purpose and value of progressing to higher levels if the competitive edge is not clearly reflected on track.
Previously, the grid felt more structured and intuitive, with a clear distinction between top, midfield, and lower-tier teams. That structure made progression feel rewarding and competition more engaging. Now, with performance appearing much more uniform across the grid, the racing experience feels less differentiated and, to some extent, less motivating.
Could you please clarify whether this is an intended design direction, or if there are plans to address the balance between team level and on-track performance?
Thank you for your time, and I appreciate any insight you can provide.
md-quotelink
VIP Jack Basford CEO & CTO medal 5531
24 days ago
I understand your concerns, but at the end of the day this is a game that has to be fun for people to play; it's not real life. I think the time scales involved as well are completely different to an offline manager game, where baking in that kind of advantage is fine if you can run through multiple seasons in a day or two. That's not the case in iGP. It can take years to reach the top levels, and there's no game where you have to play for four years before you can be competitive if you are talented.

We've tried to strike a balance where what is rewarded is activity, maintaining your team at the top level and doing the right strategies.
md-quotelink
angle-double-left ios-arrow-back 1 ios-arrow-forward angle-double-right

You must be logged in to post a reply.