Banned from AC forums, anyone have experienced this?

[Rui Santos]

< Mod Edit: Please be advised that it is in breach of RD ToS to use insulting or derogatory terms. Post cleaned.>

Hello all, i'm banned from AC forum for more than one month now. As an active member since the beggining and with more than 1000 messages i feel shocked with that kind of attitude from them. <snip>

Has this happened to anyone? I agree maybe that they should permanently ban you if you were kind of disrespectful or insult anyone, which was not the case. I got banned until now just because people were asking on forum for MP improvements (more than acceptable) and all i've done was quote a message <snip> and used a funny ironic image related to what he was saying THAT WAS CLEARLY A LIE!! From that moment on, as it was admitted by Lord Kunos himself, he went on a ban strike and several people were banned... until now.

Well, maybe i would accept a week suspension because now i know AC forums staff can't accept critics anymore (they're rich now) and became a dictatorial regime that can only be populated by fanboys or "yes" sheeps...

The image was this...

 

[Will Mazeo]

Having said that, all games have their flaws. rFactor 2 for example has an issue where you're likely to be disconnected during driver swaps in race mode, so all endurance races need to take place in practice sessions. No sim is free of flaws.

You can just reconnect if that happens

 

[Rui Santos]

Anyway, just making my opinions clear, of course I could be nicer but It's quite hard to do when there's 10 fan boys defending everything as soon as you critic something. Plus French Canadian genes prevent me to be nicer than a certain percentage

Exactly, most of times you get banned or cricified by just pointing some things you dislike or think that could be better and suddenly you find yourself in a war against 3 or 4 fanboys which are so happy with the game that it couldn't be any better than it is now, lol. Who is helping the most? Guess who's the one who's gonna be banned?

 

[Andy_J]

Exactly, most of times you get banned or cricified by just pointing some things you dislike or think that could be better and suddenly you find yourself in a war against 3 or 4 fanboys which are so happy with the game that it couldn't be any better than it is now, lol. Who is helping the most? Guess who's the one who's gonna be banned?

That is exactly what happened with the Pcars forum. So many investors/fanboys would round on anyone who had anything negative to say on just about any Pcars subject. It's terrible to see and even worse to be on the receiving end. Disgusting behaviour. This subject will ring a few bells for some of the readers here I'm sure.

 

[Brandon Wright]

Wow, this thread is a case study in cognitive bias, cognitive dissonance, and any number of logical fallacies (strawman, cherrypicking, moving the goal posts, begging the question, shifting the blame/burden, begging the question........)

I find AC to be a disappointment in some ways, but lately I've still been rushing home after work to fire it up and turn some laps, and I enjoy it quite a bit. I've lost a lot of faith in Kunos due to the continued lack of basic features and some of their words/comments/open letters, but I still support them and rarely complain about it (publicly). It's entirely possible to have some disappointment about a product but still enjoy it. What's not possible (so far as I've seen) is to change any of these things by arguing with strangers on the internet. Some people here defend AC/KS no matter what, others trash AC/KS no matter what, the rational people are somewhere in the middle.

 

[Radu Oros]

but basic features that were in games in the early 2000's should be expected. It's not entitlement. You are owed that when you purchase something. If I buy a loaf of bread I expect the whole loaf, not the ends and the plastic wraping.

That's not a good comparison, but it is at the same time for a type of customer. Which is they buy things ignoring, totally or partially, what they see advertised and accept whatever the store/person gives them by closing their eyes and complaining after they get home.
Of course you expect a whole leaf of bread, but was that what the store said is a whole leaf of bread or you wanted that to be what you wanted it to be? And secondly, if is not what you expected, why did you accept the bread ends with the plastic wrapping? Because you said "You are owned that when you purchase something". You aren't owned X when the store sells Y.

All I've said here can be easily translated in AC examples. "I didn't expect so many road cars but much more race cars because they said this is a racing simulator". The store detailed what you could expect, by going to steam store page or their website http://www.assettocorsa.net, where they detailed the cars that would make it in the base game. Why did you ignore how many road cars and race cars there were going to be, when they put with images and info about the cars for 1.0?

Another example. "I expect a racing simulator to have rain, 24h cycle, driver swaps, endurance racing, rolling starts, warm up laps, safety cars, motorsport regulations and penalties etc. and etc."
Why did you buy this racing simulator if you saw it didn't have nor advertised that?
Again... if you expect X but the store sells Y, that is 100% your problem and not what the store sells, because they told you what they sell, and you ignored it and made assumptions of what else could possibly be in the game or in the future.

Of course when you arrive home, or a year later, the game will be a disappointment, but isn't you who created that disappointment for yourself? If I see that what I'm about to buy isn't the whole leaf of bread I want, but the store only gives me the bread ends with the plastic wrapping, I simply don't buy it instead of taking the bread ends home and later complain that what I bought is a disappointment and not what I expected. So yeah, I'm going to sue the store now.

 

[Brandon Wright]

And now we've added circular reasoning to the list of logical fallacies. It's perfectly reasonable for people to expect "your racing simulator" to have pitstops even if it doesn't explicitly say so on the package. To claim otherwise takes some serious mental gymnastics.

 

[Radu Oros]

And now we've added circular reasoning to the list of logical fallacies. It's perfectly reasonable for people to expect "your racing simulator" to have pitstops even if it doesn't explicitly say so on the package. To claim otherwise takes some serious mental gymnastics.

I know about pitstops is already an established preconceived idea that is a must in racing games. But is still a thin line. But everything else I said in my post still applies, even if we exclude pitstops, because we know people didn't only complain about pistops (even though we got them at 1.0 for multiplayer and not for offline racing). So we or you can't affirm that people only complained about lack of pitstops and about nothing else of what I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[William Levesque]

Brandon, aren't your "neutral pseudo-mature" responses a fallacy in itself ?

 

[Radu Oros]

Though I have a doubt, aren't pitstops only used in endurance racing and not in sprint racing? Or even if the series only has races of 15 laps, pitstops can still be used?

 

[Stereo]

RF2's got no career and no multiplayer so I never play it.

 

[Brandon Wright]

I know about pitstops is already an established preconceived idea that is a must in racing games. But is still a thin line.

Thin line? Pitstops are almost as essential an element in a racing sim as race cars and race tracks. Finding select examples of race formats that don't use pitstops and claiming that's a perfectly acceptable reason to leave them out of a "next gen" "racing simulator" is politician-level cherry-picking. I mean, some racing series use cars that have automatic transmissions, so therefore should we find it acceptable for AC2 to not have manual shifting, and to only find out about this exclusion after we've invested in the early access program where we reasonably assumed they would be added at some point? Every movie I've been to in a theater had popcorn on offer, it's reasonable for me to assume that there will be popcorn available at the next one I attend. I'm sure you could find a couple theaters that don't offer popcorn, but it's understandable that I would be a bit disappointed if I encountered a popcorn-less theater.

You keep saying that we had the chance to read the package before buying and know exactly what was and wasn't included. Many of us bought into AC during early access with the reasonable assumption that at least some basic elements would be added at some point, with no way of knowing that nearly a year after "full release" they would still be AWOL. Had we known that before plunking our coin down I'm sure some of us would have thought twice about purchasing.

Brandon, aren't your "neutral pseudo-mature" responses a fallacy in itself ?

They also have a high dose of irony and sarcasm. The whole argument is senseless, some people are perfectly fine with AC's short-comings, some people are disappointed by them, both opinions are perfectly acceptable. But to argue that AC doesn't come up short in a lot of areas is quite a stretch. And to constantly badger people who have a less than rosey opinion of your favorite sim doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[Radu Oros]

Brandon, is a fallacy as well picking on the easier point (pitstops) to counter argument my whole argument, from what I said in the post #205 from this thread, and implying all my analysis is wrong and doesn't apply to AC and certain types of customers that complain now; about the whole loaf of bread comparison I quoted from dewcrew88.

Many of us bought into AC during early access with the reasonable assumption that at least some basic elements would be added at some point, with no way of knowing that nearly a year after "full release" they would still be AWOL.

Which are those basic elements missing that are stopping you and everyone else from racing in multi or single player, and from enjoying the game for what it is?
Or with "basic elements" you mean extra elements?

 

[Brandon Wright]

Brandon, is a fallacy as well picking on the easier point (pitstops) to counter argument my whole argument, from what I said in the post #205 from this thread, and implying all my analysis is wrong and doesn't apply to AC and certain types of customers that complain now; about the whole loaf of bread comparison I quoted from dewcrew88.
Which are those basic elements missing that are stopping you and everyone else from racing in multi or single player, and from enjoying the game for what it is?
Or with "basic elements" you mean extra elements?

Where did I say anything was preventing me from playing or enjoying the game? In fact, in post 204 from this thread I clearly stated that lately I've been enjoying it and rushing home from work to get some laps in. Hell, I'm even hosting a holiday race with friends on Saturday.

My point was that in 2014/2015 it's perfectly reasonable for us to expect a "next gen" sim billed as "your racing simulator" to have such basic elements as pitstops in single player mode (which Kunos themselves claims is the only mode the overwhelming majority ever play) since the majority of preceding examples have had it. And it's perfectly reasonable for some of us to be disappointed to find such a basic thing missing.

No point in discussing it further as you'll no doubt find yet another way to explain why I'm wrong and everything is just fine in AC.

Happy Holidays.

 

[Blimey]

Which are those basic elements missing that are stopping you and everyone else from racing in multi or single player, and from enjoying the game for what it is?
Or with "basic elements" you mean extra elements?

What if all the world leaders would say "oil? no more! We're fighting the global warming, stopping all the oil companies from drilling and producing fuel, we're moving over to electric engines only" - we probably wouldn't be able to create electric engines capable of running 24 hours at Le Mans or Spa or Nordschleife in a few years, PRO drivers would have to migrate over to the virtual world along with all the spectators, but now we would have another problem, NO BASIC FEATURES... RIP Motorsport.

Its just a fun example, don't get too out of hand.

 

[PhilS13]

I'm always surprised at how simracers have trouble seeing what they represent in the bigger picture. Let's just face it...If you want brake fade, pitstops, hell even proper physics you are a minority in the big sea of users that potentially buy racing games. For a developer with limited resources, IMO giving hardcore simracers what they want is suicide.

 

[jimortality]

RF2's got no career and no multiplayer so I never play it.

Lol I thought I read that RF2 has no career (Correct) or multiplayer (Really?)

 

[mclarenf1papa]

To be fair, taking quotes out of a context will always make things look far worse than it really is.

First three were on a thread where people thought it was impossible to lock up over 100kph in real life, so there I was defending the game... Since you know, cars don't have drum brakes anymore. Moreover, the creator of the thread went on saying that "most users are kids who don't even own a car" and that "he could never lock up over 100kph in every cars he owned". Ok then, lol...

About the Gallardo, it was just way too frustrating, considering that Kunos pulled the same thing with the GTR for example, barely modelling any details (infos) on the dashboard screen and having paper gauges, despite bragging about their car models. But hey, moar content !

And the online, well, just stating my opinion about it, as the threads were about. And I'm not wrong so you know... If they want to ban people for saying that the online (features) sucks then go for it I guess.

Anyway, just making my opinions clear, of course I could be nicer but It's quite hard to do when there's 10 fan boys defending everything as soon as you critic something. Plus French Canadian genes prevent me to be nicer than a certain percentage

And you definitely helped that conversation along by posting things like that...out of context or not, what you said wasn't helping.

 

[Will Mazeo]

IMO giving hardcore simracers what they want is suicide.

There is no such thing as "hardcore sim racer". Simulation is simulation, if a developer is not even trying (using this hardcore bs excuse) then he is going arcade.
A week after I bought AC in early access I saw Kunos using this same excuse, I knew things wouldn't go well...

 

[Fernando Deutsch]

I'm always surprised at how simracers have trouble seeing what they represent in the bigger picture. Let's just face it...If you want brake fade, pitstops, hell even proper physics you are a minority in the big sea of users that potentially buy racing games. For a developer with limited resources, IMO giving hardcore simracers what they want is suicide.

Up to a point I think. While I agree adding some real hardcore options, like brake fade will be welcome for some, it will absolutely generate issues to people that are not familiar with the concept and will take it as an issue with the sim. Even iRacing, as far as I remember, has not implemented tyre wear and I think neither brake wear too.

I understand your point, but I think there is a thin line on what can add more immersion to the driving experience and what will generate a lot of complains.

 

[Fernando Deutsch]

There is no such thing as "hardcore sim racer". Simulation is simulation, if a developer is not even trying (using this hardcore bs excuse) then he is going arcade.

Wow, or is it black or is it white. Then iRacing is arcade, placing it at the same level as Forza, and Grand Turismo.