Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Good track overall.
Best idea I've got is a two-pronged rating out of 5, from "very easy" to "very hard": "How hard is it to learn?" (based on the layout and obstacles on track; basically "how hard is it to just get a clean lap at speed?") and "how hard is it to master?" (based on how difficult it is to optimize laptimes once one has learned the track and how tough it is to keep consistency)
Something like, say, Shiva's Dance's firmly in a 1/5 "very easy" in both. Conversely, something like Annapurna would be a 5/5 "very hard" in both. An example of an "easy layout, hard to master" would be Druidia. You're not gonna have a hard time getting around it, but getting around it *quickly* is another matter because those pipes provide a lot of options. "Hard layout, easy to master" would be something like Pretoria Stadium. Once you've got the trick, that track's a piece of cake.
Hard tracks would be like Tupu Inca and Sovereign. I considered it, but you can airbrake your way out of this one. This does mean there's a huge gap between average and good players, but average players don't automatically suck eggs like on those tracks.
I need a more scientific classification system.