Future ZakStunts says hello 😎
I'm back! I've just travelled to the future to see what 2024 will bring us, and I can confirm: there will be ZakStunts! It will have new tracks and cars and small rule changes. Use this thread to guess what they'll be, next year we can check if you got it right!
While the game stays the same, the Competition is open to rule changes. This thread is here to collect and discuss suggestions, and also to decide which custom cars will be allowed for the coming season.
See also: Cars and rules for 2023 (http://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=4043.0)
(Opening this thread earlier than usual because I will be away for three weeks late this November)
I would suggest an LTB points system for the amateur league.
Quote from: Erik Barros on September 19, 2023, 04:57:24 PMI would suggest an LTB points system for the amateur league.
Excellent idea. I have two radical proposals:
- What's about LTB points only for the amateur league? Let the new and innovative drivers do the scouting! 8)
- Alternatively, pro drivers can get leading time but only if they post their replays as public. ;)
Quote from: Erik Barros on September 19, 2023, 04:57:24 PMI would suggest an LTB points system for the amateur league.
Agree a separated earning LTB point system for amateur league.
Maybe adding up points to the overall, we should test if it would be an excessive advantage over the bottom of the pro list.
I would like to offer few cars. -> https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Alan_Rotoi
Also you can pick from the cars under development. ;)
Quote from: alanrotoi on September 23, 2023, 12:19:30 AMI would like to offer few cars. -> https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Alan_Rotoi
Which
one car would you put ahead of the rest?
Any of these would be cool! All were already used in competitions and/or live events but Plymouth Superbird.
done.png
Chevrolet Silverado Monster Truck (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado_Monster_Truck)
Lola Cosworth INDY (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Lola_Cosworth_Indy)
Plymouth Superbird (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Plymouth_Superbird)
IKA Torino (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/IKA_Torino_GS)
Ford Thunderbird (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird)
I chose these because they are quiet different each other and they could fill most of the speed/acceleration spectrum.
Lola and Torino are good ideas.
Quote from: Shoegazing Leo on September 26, 2023, 02:47:53 AMLola and Torino are good ideas.
Yeah thanks! Torino maybe has my most realistic dashboard. We had a lot of fun racing it at the live event ---> https://youtu.be/_DGesv9YnCw?si=pvjfi9mvEvHfCS5z
About the rules for 2024, what about a different car coefficient for PG cars when they win/podium?
If an original car wins twice in a season always is a PG car. Only once in 2011 a non pg did it. Then for custom cars it happened two times in 2019 and I think it was because a high initial bonus and also different rules.
PG cars are way too protagonists in this competition. We could balance them giving a higher amount when they finish in a podium position. Now it's: winning 50%, second 30% and third 20%. We could add an extra 10% for them: winning 60%, second 40% and third 30%.
The goal is to reduce the quantity of pg races and / or pg surprises, from 41% and 33% (4 or 5 races, depending on the year) to a 25% (3 pg races per year).
On bonuses and PG, I'd still (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=88021) highlight that the root cause of there being so many PG surprises and intrusions is the 2019 rule change, which lowered bonus gains per car from +3% to +1%, thus making bonuses much closer to each other. This closeness makes it much easier for PG cars to jump ahead of the rest when the track gives them even a slight leeway. Then there's the flip side of other cars getting stuck for many races waiting for their chance, appearing competitive but getting overtaken later in the races (the LM002 and the Carrera, for instance, seem particularly vulnerable to that).
Since the base bonus changes after a race have to add up to zero, the simplest way to tackle that would be raising gains per car to +2%, thus doubling the maximum exchanged points from 15% to 30%. That, however, would likely make multi-car races a lot rarer. Having more races with multiple competitive cars was the main point of the 2019 rule change, and it has been pretty successful in that regard, so I guess we don't want to throw the baby with the bathwater.
All tings considered, I believe it would be worth trying to increase the amount of exchanged points without having to do it in very coarse steps of 15%. One way of achieving that is increasing the points gained only for cars whose last victory was many months ago. A mild way of doing it might be giving +2% instead of +1% for cars with no victories over the previous 12 races. That would increase the exchanged points (and thus the points removed from podium cars) by a minimum of 4%, plus one point for each repeat winner in the past 12 rounds. It would also make it easier for cars that have been in the queue for a whole season to catch up, thus adding an element of self-correction to the system. Cars (re)introduced at the beginning of the season might as well get +2%: that would increase the exchanged points a bit further early on, and also give new cars better odds for their first victories.
My suggestion is a fairly conservative one that doesn't target PG cars specifically. I don't expect it to make a difference in situations in which both track and bonuses strongly favour some or all PG cars (e.g. GTO in ZCT260, or Acura in ZCT266) -- the goal, after all, isn't banning PG cars. However, such a tweak to the system might be just enough to keep PG at bay in more evenly matched scenarios (e.g. Vette in ZCT261, or Indy in ZCT265). Furthermore, if a more pronounced effect is desired, the number of months in waiting needed to get +2% can be lowered (for instance, to 9 instead of 12, which would ensure a further 3% increase in the exchanged points). It's all a matter of finding the right balance between separating bonuses a bit further while keeping reasonable odds for multi-car races.
I agree that the 2019 changes were generally successful, so I support amendments that do not imply undoing (even partially) what was done back then. I've already said before that I don't have this aversion towards PG that many have, but I guess the point is we all enjoy the race. One could simply disallow PG on races in which the track creator so chooses. Of course, this would mean verification would become very important in those races, but... to give an example, not reporting a penalty time also results in a replay that's invalid and only will be detected if somebody verifies it and we don't seem to have a problem with that. Usually, only competitive replays get verified in ZakStunts, I think. If something looks unlikely, all eyes fall on it. It seems to me this could work in a similar fashion. This way, you don't need to ban the car, but just PG-runs. How to define a PG-run? Well, that's another story. I'm sure we can agree on something.
A very simple and easy to understand solution is to ban a power-gear car after a win. That way, we limit the power-gear wins to a maximum of 4 per season which seems the right amount to me.
Quote from: Duplode on September 29, 2023, 04:44:19 PMAll tings considered, I believe it would be worth trying to increase the amount of exchanged points
Beyond the speed of movement, I wonder if the
amount of points in the system has anything to do with its behaviour. Right now we have a 160 (10 × 16 cars) points which move around. But what if we had... zero, pushing more cars into the negative, or a higher number, letting slow cars reach +50%.
Does anyone feel like kicking the tires of a championship simulator?
Quote from: dreadnaut on October 11, 2023, 09:57:56 PMBeyond the speed of movement, I wonder if the amount of points in the system has anything to do with its behaviour. Right now we have a 160 (10 × 16 cars) points which move around. But what if we had... zero, pushing more cars into the negative, or a higher number, letting slow cars reach +50%.
That's interesting to think about... since a change of 1% is relatively larger at higher bonuses (e.g. it is 0.01 upon an 1.00 multiplier at 0% bonus, and 0.01 upon 0.80 at +20%), increasing the total amount of points should have a similar effect to making the differences larger, though I'd expect the effect to be fairly mild.
And yeah, a simulator should be useful. Not sure I'll get to work on such things this weekend, but I'll try to look into it. It will also be somewhat of an exercise of imagination when it comes to making up imaginary histories of how the season would have gone with different bonuses :D
I don't have time for a simulation, but here is a back of the envelope calculation on the immediate effect of a bonus point deduction from the carpool.
1) We are at the beginning of a new season and Car X starts with a X% > 0 bonus and Car Y starts with a Y% > 0 bonus.
For Car X to beat Car Y it must hold that
t^x < t^y*(100-Y)/(100-X), where t^x are the driven times of cars X and Y, respectively.
Example: X=27, Y=5, and t^y = 60, think of the LM and the P962. Then Car X must drive t^x = 78.08 or faster to beat car Y.
2) The admins decide to remove p bonus points from each car in competition (to reduces the number of points in the system). For simplicity, we assume X-P and Y-P are positive. Then for Car X to beat Car Y it must hold that
t^x < t^y*(100-Y+P)/(100-X+P)
Example: X=27, Y=5, t^y = 60 and p=4. Hence Car X must drive t^x = 77.14 to beat Car Y, meaning the LM suffers from the change.
3) More generally, we can compare the thresholds: t^y*(100-Y)/(100-X) > t^y*(100-Y+P)/(100-X+P) holds for any X in (0,100) when X>Y>0 and p>0.
Mmmh, so decreasing the overall "mass" of points shrinks the range? Need an envelope myself to check what happens to negative coefficients, the ones most likely to be applied to the Indy 🤔
New Example (Indy vs P962): X=-25, Y=5, t^y=60
p=0 -> t^x = 45.6
p=4 -> t^x = 46.05 (all numbers rounded to two decimals, that also applies to my previous examples)
So, the Indy would benefit from the point deduction. :)
Here is a plot showing how much faster/slower the Indy would have to drive than 45.6 to beat a 60 second lap of the P962. p=0 is the current situation in which 160 points move around, p=10 means 10 points are being deducted from all the cars etc.
Plot.jpg
Let's restart this discussion :)
After looking at various ways to adapt the bonus set, I'm starting to think that large bonus changes or veto rules on PG cars would create a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we push them low enough, they will only win by surprising everyone with an unexpected powergear lap. They will only ever be PG cars, no more driving the Indy on a flat fast track, or enjoying the Vette on a tricky twisty road.
So, a thought experiment. Assume we couldn't decrease bonus further, nor ban PG cars from a race, what other options to avoid unexpected PG wins can you think of?
Side question: when is PG win welcome?
Maybe track builders can choose between a switch "PG cars on"/ "PG cars off" or +10/-10 but not both systems?
Maybe if there is any kind of car ban a secondary list of cars is allowed for that month to keep the number of cars per race?
Yeah, I think that'd be the best option. Or else, we have to actually verify replays and subjectively decide whether they are PG-replays and ban only PG-replays for certain tracks.
Even today, with the current system, PG-cars like the Indy are almost never used unless it is for a PG-run of the whole track, so they are already significantly affected.
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 23, 2023, 10:44:18 PMLet's restart this discussion :)
After looking at various ways to adapt the bonus set, I'm starting to think that large bonus changes or veto rules on PG cars would create a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we push them low enough, they will only win by surprising everyone with an unexpected powergear lap. They will only ever be PG cars, no more driving the Indy on a flat fast track, or enjoying the Vette on a tricky twisty road.
So, a thought experiment. Assume we couldn't decrease bonus further, nor ban PG cars from a race, what other options to avoid unexpected PG wins can you think of?
Side question: when is PG win welcome?
That was the reason for my anti PG track at the start of the season. It was a to Compact track for the fun mentioned above. For that I had the genie in the bottle track on CCC earlier.
Quote from: Cas on November 24, 2023, 04:52:48 PMYeah, I think that'd be the best option.
What were you referring to with "that" ?
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 24, 2023, 07:49:36 PMQuote from: Cas on November 24, 2023, 04:52:48 PMYeah, I think that'd be the best option.
What were you referring to with "that" ?
Quote from: alanrotoi on November 24, 2023, 12:58:49 AMMaybe track builders can choose between a switch "PG cars on"/ "PG cars off" or +10/-10 but not both systems?
QuoteSide question: when is PG win welcome?
A PG lap is sometimes beautiful to watch. But I personally don't like them.
I can also see the skill and determination that goes into a PG win.
They are a part of ZakStunts and a part of what stunts makes unique.
So I think a PG win should stay possible.
I also think ZakStunts should have a detailed track building page with tips and tricks about bug prevention, PG breakers and tricks.
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 23, 2023, 10:44:18 PMAfter looking at various ways to adapt the bonus set, I'm starting to think that large bonus changes or veto rules on PG cars would create a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we push them low enough, they will only win by surprising everyone with an unexpected powergear lap. They will only ever be PG cars, no more driving the Indy on a flat fast track, or enjoying the Vette on a tricky twisty road.
I share this skepticism about measures that directly target PG cars. That's part of the reason why my earlier suggestion (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=91058) was PG-agnostic: spreading the bonuses a bit further all over, while also boosting cars that spend too many races without a win.
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 23, 2023, 10:44:18 PMSide question: when is PG win welcome?
I think ZCT260 is a good example of a successful PG race: it was obvious from early on that it would be a GTO PG race, so everyone had plenty of time to focus on the car, practice the lines, watch public replays, and so forth. In contrast, ZCT261 wasn't as satisfying: a PG surprise in which the PG line, though requiring a touch of ingenuity, was not as interesting as the non-PG lines with Carrera/Challenger/Countach that were worked upon for most of the month. A PG late switch or surprise can be enjoyable if the PG line is exciting enough (if nothing else, we get some eye candy at the end of the month :)). It goes without saying that, track designer decisions aside, we don't have a lot of control over car-track combinations and the quality of PG lines. Global adjustments to the system are better suited to affect the bulk frequency of PG wins, which IMO are the key concern here. (In particular, I don't think PG surprises are inherently bad, but if they happen every other race they are hardly worthy of being called surprises anymore.)
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 23, 2023, 10:44:18 PMThey will only ever be PG cars, no more driving the Indy on a flat fast track, or enjoying the Vette on a tricky twisty road.
When was the last time these PG cars won without PG? I think never, maybe once in 2001 the first season. They always were and will be PG cars unless you successfully prepare a special track to avoid PG.
Quote from: Daniel3D on November 24, 2023, 08:06:35 PMQuote from: dreadnaut on November 24, 2023, 07:49:36 PMQuote from: Cas on November 24, 2023, 04:52:48 PMYeah, I think that'd be the best option.
What were you referring to with "that" ?
Quote from: alanrotoi on November 24, 2023, 12:58:49 AMMaybe track builders can choose between a switch "PG cars on"/ "PG cars off" or +10/-10 but not both systems?
Well, it only adds to my confusion if Daniel answer a question I wrote for Cas ;D
But again. It is possible to make fast anti-pg tracks. But in the current ZakStunts system they don't fit. And I don't think we should change the system just for this.
We can more actively use the other (mine are unfortunately dormant at the moment, but will be reactivated) competitions to accommodate this experience.
Alan (or anyone), do you have "Genie in the bottle" at hand somewhere?, I can't access. But it's a very nice track to take PG cars for a Non-PG spin.. 8)
Quote from: alanrotoi on November 25, 2023, 01:52:35 AMWhen was the last time these PG cars won without PG? I think never, maybe once in 2001 the first season. They always were and will be PG cars unless you successfully prepare a special track to avoid PG.
I believe ZCT230 is the only example in the recent past. A long long time ago, there was also ZCT080, and arguably ZCT084 and ZCT087 as well (those two have significant PG sections, but they don't take most of the lap). I guess many Acura races would also count, but I'm not looking at them since the Acura is a different beast to the other three, as the lack of PG slides means partial PG lines are much more common.
Quote from: alanrotoi on November 25, 2023, 01:52:35 AMQuote from: dreadnaut on November 23, 2023, 10:44:18 PMThey will only ever be PG cars, no more driving the Indy on a flat fast track, or enjoying the Vette on a tricky twisty road.
When was the last time these PG cars won without PG? I think never, maybe once in 2001 the first season. They always were and will be PG cars unless you successfully prepare a special track to avoid PG.
I don't think there is any use to
"prepare a special track to avoid PG" because PG car's are either competitive with PG or not at all. Before
"a special track to avoid PG" becomes an option they have already won with PG.
I see (besides exceptional circumstances) no stable way to avoid PG-cars being anything but a PG-car in ZakStunts.
Quote from: Daniel3D on November 25, 2023, 03:07:13 PMI don't think there is any use to "prepare a special track to avoid PG" because PG car's are either competitive with PG or not at all. Before "a special track to avoid PG" becomes an option they have already won with PG.
Makes sense 🤔 Then all tracks need to be designed, or reviewed, to take PG into account. We'll do that then, and leave the bonus as they are 👍 As mentioned above, we can prepare guidelines to help: there are obvious PG triggers such as loops, and usable counters like water. A better
editorial approach will decrease the likelyhood of PG, without artificial blocks and rules, and reopen the door to non-PG use of powergear cars.
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 25, 2023, 03:56:25 PMQuote from: Daniel3D on November 25, 2023, 03:07:13 PMI don't think there is any use to "prepare a special track to avoid PG" because PG car's are either competitive with PG or not at all. Before "a special track to avoid PG" becomes an option they have already won with PG.
Makes sense 🤔 Then all tracks need to be designed, or reviewed, to take PG into account. We'll do that then, and leave the bonus as they are 👍 As mentioned above, we can prepare guidelines to help: there are obvious PG triggers such as loops, and usable counters like water. A better editorial approach will decrease the likelyhood of PG, without artificial blocks and rules, and reopen the door to non-PG use of powergear cars.
That is possible but requires a lot of compromises and places heavy restrictions on track building with little room for error. (Take crazy eight for example, the PG part was in the water section) you can't force builders to accommodate for this.
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 25, 2023, 03:56:25 PMQuote from: Daniel3D on November 25, 2023, 03:07:13 PMI don't think there is any use to "prepare a special track to avoid PG" because PG car's are either competitive with PG or not at all. Before "a special track to avoid PG" becomes an option they have already won with PG.
Makes sense 🤔 Then all tracks need to be designed, or reviewed, to take PG into account. We'll do that then, and leave the bonus as they are 👍 As mentioned above, we can prepare guidelines to help: there are obvious PG triggers such as loops, and usable counters like water. A better editorial approach will decrease the likelyhood of PG, without artificial blocks and rules, and reopen the door to non-PG use of powergear cars.
This is the healthiest (?) Way but probably nobody will care or take the time.
Quote from: dreadnaut on November 24, 2023, 07:49:36 PMQuote from: Cas on November 24, 2023, 04:52:48 PMYeah, I think that'd be the best option.
What were you referring to with "that" ?
Yeah, it was not clear, sorry. I meant the "PG-cars on/PG-cars off" switch Alan proposed
About ryoma's cars I vote for Diablo or Testarossa.
Quote from: alanrotoi on December 15, 2023, 05:16:59 AMAbout ryoma's cars I vote for Diablo or Testarossa.
I must admit that I am troubled by ryoma.
Firstly, I love his cars, although made with precision they do not always have the feeling that matches the image of the car. That has partly to do with game limitations and I think they would maybe feel more realistic if they technically were less 'correct'.
Secondly, I can't get a reading on ryoma. He is very skilled and quite smart considering the production of his many cars. On the other hand he acts immature and is sensitive. I understand that he cares about his work and that he wishes his cars shine in competition.
But the honour of a car being selected to be part of the season, is not enough.
That people drive and tryout his car in several races , is not enough.
That his car dominates a race and fills the scoreboard (but not 1st) I , is not enough.
No, he wants ensuring that his car wins over all others..
Like a 4 year old boy that only wants to play a game if he can win..
That's not how a fair competition works,
So on that basis I rather not use a car from ryoma in ZakStunts and save ourselves the drama.
@ryoma, I know that you can read this. And I don't mean to hurt you or be disrespectful. Even though I feel hurt and disrespected by you. I still care about you and the amazing collection of cars.. vehicles you created. I hope that one day you can let them be free so they can shine in their own way when they are ready.
There are a lot of things to take into account, but right now I'd be happy with having one of Ryoma's cars on the 2024 list. My suggestion might be one among the Diablo VT (cc
@alanrotoi ), the LC1, the 456 and the Stratos, mainly depending on what makes the full list more balanced.
I would agree that PG is part of what makes Stunts the game it is. I think that in recent races PG solutions have been creative and fun to watch, something to aspire to, rather than being boring. Exploiting quirks of original game is part of what makes ZakStunts in particular so fascinating. I could see how boring solutions could happen though, but I don't see it much of a threat to the quality of races that I've seen. For instance. Duplode/Argammon's reverse corkscrew slingshot in ZCT266 was a work of genius and was a pleasure to lose to! XD
I'd be interested in any changes to amateur league rules, as I plan to be heavily involved in this area of the scoreboard next year!
My main hope is that we see a refresh in the list of cars. The current list is great, but some new wheels would be fun, and a new challenge!
Top of my wishlist would be Zapper's F40!!! I know it doesn't have many driving quirks like some other cars, but it's fast, beautiful and I love seeing it and driving it....just because ;)
What was the reason for it being removed from the ZakStunts races?
Vote F40!!!
The F40 was replaced for fresh cars.. because the original 11 are always on the list there is little room for the others. (That is why I started the CCC competition after the explosion of cars in recent years).
I do hope more people try the noPG versions. And voice their opinion. Maybe it is a flavour that we can serve more often.
@Spoonboy The F40 is a very nice car indeed! At one point it was high on my wish list for 2023, but there were lots of things we wanted to try with this year's list, and so we ran out of room. In any case, I do think it's a solid candidate for 2024!
In order to keep the new people involved, is it possible to set up the limit of teams to 5 members?
Quote from: alanrotoi on December 22, 2023, 01:21:24 PMIn order to keep the new people involved, is it possible to set up the limit of teams to 5 members?
And maybe split points. Top 2 of the race for the team like now.
The others collect for a beta listing. So that every participant in a team adds to a team score.
I think it would have been more an incentive to race in the 2022 season.
It looks good to me.
It's probably a good time to begin looking at our options and thinking about the balance of the car list. Here go a few scattered thoughts:
- Zapper's F40 is a popular car that has been away for a good while. I'd enjoy having it back, and I know I'm not the only one -- cc @Spoonboy :)
- Are we going to stick with having a non-PG alternative to the Indy? If so, we might rotate the McLaren for either the Lola or the Penske (I slightly favour the Lola).
- Are we bringing one of Ryoma's cars in? Among them, the Diablo VT (cc @alanrotoi ) could easily be pick -- the only caveat is that its niche is not too far from the F40. For the sake of a more diverse list, and specially if we don't pick the Lola or the Penske, one might prefer stepping into the race car range and give the Lancia LC1 a shot.
- Going in the opposite direction, another nice idea that has been floated is having a proper slow car (cc @Argammon ). To me, the obvious candidate here is the Ford Thunderbird (the other 50's pack cars are of course also in contention; it's just I haven't played enough with them yet). There are also good alternatives by Ryoma (for instance, the Citröen XM, or, stepping into the rally car range, bringing back the Stratos).
- Will there be room to give any of the 2023 cars one further season? In particular, I'd still like to see the Mercedes find its place in the sun, and the Pantera didn't quite get a full scoreboard for itself yet.
- It doesn't end here, far from it! From giving my ZR1 GT3 a second shot ten years on, to going for something completely different with the Siluro Turbo, to any of the several new cars by Alan I haven't properly tried yet... Once more, we're spoiled for choice! :D
There are so many custom cars and choices, it's really difficult to choose. I like the F40 idea and also, it'd be interesting to have the Lola or Penske instead of the McLaren. The McLaren is a very unique case and I wouldn't like it to be absent for more than one year in a row, though. No replacement for it.
What's about the Porsche 959? If realistic, it should be in between the IMSA cars and the original "slow" cars. Regarding the Pantera, I feel it had its place in the spotlight already and can take a break from the action. :)
Quote from: Argammon on January 05, 2024, 10:24:12 PMWhat's about the Porsche 959? If realistic, it should be in between the IMSA cars and the original "slow" cars.
Good idea -- time for some testing (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=91992)! The updated 959 is a nice enough car, though it's actually slightly closer to Zapper's F40 than the Diablo VT. Note, though, that after driving the cars again I now realise I have exaggerated my case by suggesting the Diablo VT was close enough to the F40 for it to be an issue.
(Default NoRH times with the three cars, driven today: 1:19.55 for the F40; 1:24.05 for the 959; 1:25.60 for the Diablo VT. The difference between the 959 and the Diablo VT might look small on paper, but it's definitely noticeable in terms of driving feel.)
I've enjoyed the Lola in the past, and I think it deserves to hit the ZakStunts tarmac 👍
I also like the idea of bringing back the F40, paired with a new car. Both 959 and Diablo sound interesting, haven't tried either though, so I'll let you argue which would be a better companion for the Ferrari. More contrast? Or close behaviour for more uncertainty?
Two more 🤔 Stratos and... Ford Ranger? Monster Truck? Interceptor?
Regarding rules: with new cars, there will be a reshuffling of points. I might make a mess, but it might also work. With that will come some more editorial oversight on the track. Get your tracks ready early so we have time to discuss any changes ;D
We might also see a more liberal use of "this can is not available on this track" exceptions.
Quote from: dreadnaut on December 17, 2023, 12:29:03 PMNote: tracks must be submitted at least one week before the race starts, to leave time to review them for common issues and unwanted cheap powergear lines.
@alanrotoi, just a few hours left!
Do I send it to you by email?
I still don't have in-depth knowledge about balancing between cars, but a car that I really enjoyed driving was the Lotus Esprit.
Quote from: alanrotoi on December 22, 2023, 01:21:24 PMIn order to keep the new people involved, is it possible to set up the limit of teams to 5 members?
Being part of a team helped me a lot last season, it would be a cool idea for teams to be able to adopt a new member.
I remember that irl the 959 was seen as a competitor/stablemate to the F40. I'd take the F40, as you know!
Sounds like the Diablo is more of a contrast than the 959, would be excited to try either though.
Quote from: Spoonboy on January 08, 2024, 12:18:57 PMI remember that irl the 959 was seen as a competitor/stablemate to the F40. I'd take the F40, as you know!
Sounds like the Diablo is more of a contrast than the 959, would be excited to try either though.
In Stunts, Duplode's tests revealed that the F40 is quite a bit superior to the 959. The Ferrari has a grip of 436 compared to the Porsche's 256, which is surely roots back to the two cars having different authors.
However, the Porsche's average grip is not only a disadvantage. Several sliding stunts are more difficult or even impossible with high grip cars, so I feel the 959 fills a nice gap that the F40 does not. The Diabolo is quite similar to the 959 but a bit slower.
At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to see the 959! 8)
Quote from: Argammon on September 30, 2023, 07:51:03 PMA very simple and easy to understand solution is to ban a power-gear car after a win. That way, we limit the power-gear wins to a maximum of 4 per season which seems the right amount to me.
The players that can do PG wins are relatively few. Maybe replace the PG car with its Non-PG Brother after a win or at Creators request?
(for professional drivers mandatory, not the amateur league to stay in line with Zak his wish that all original cars are available so new players can always join without the need for special downloads)
That would keep the car available without the PG..
Quote from: Argammon on January 08, 2024, 05:30:21 PMThe Ferrari has a grip of 436 compared to the Porsche's 256, which is surely roots back to the two cars having different authors.
Nitpick: the F40 has a non-standard asphalt grip modifier (210 versus 256), which means its effective grip is 358. That's still higher, but not quite as much (436 would be getting close to the IMSA cars already).
Anyway, that's a good analysis. I'm beginning to suspect the closest thing to a stablemate for the 959 might actually be the CERV III, though some extra testing with the 959 would be needed to confirm that feeling.
Ok guys, I am brainstorming again so my idea may be silly, but here it is.
My idea is to make the current leading time system apply only to the amateur league, and to replace it with a checkpoint system for the general classification. The checkpoint system works like this: Whoever has the best time halfway through the month gets a full point and whoever has the second-best time gets 0.5 points. To make that work a single quiet day is introduced in the middle of the month.
Reason: The last couple of years only very few pipsqueaks had a chance to compete for leading time points and hence mostly ignored it. I would find it exciting to watch the amateurs battle it out for the leading time in the first two weeks. Moreover, in the beginning of the race the amateurs would have to work on finding tricks and shortcuts themselves instead of just copying them from the top pipsqueaks. However, they would still get access to the professionals' tricks and shortcuts halfway through the race.
Thoughts? :)
Quote from: Argammon on January 09, 2024, 03:13:39 PMOk guys, I am brainstorming again so my idea may be silly, but here it is.
I like this line of thought, let's pull it in a strange direction:
- LTB applies only to amateurs, but gives
global scoreboard points
- LTB gives one point every 100 hours (up to 6 per race, most likely 5)
(alternatively, LTB gives 3 points every 240 hours, again up to 6 per race)
What happens? ;D
I like the idea of limiting the LTB system to the amateur league for the reasons that
@Argammon mentioned. My understanding is that leading time would be awarded for first place on the amateur league scoreboard, otherwise it's not likely that anyone would accrue many leading hours.
@dreadnaut's scoring system sounds good, but I think it may be a little too generous.
I agree with Argammon in general. It's true that most of us just ignore LTB altogether so it's a feature that's not fully exploited. On the other hand, just like Argammon's original proposition or what Dreadnaut suggests, there could be many ways to implement this, so it's probably best to discuss it and mix ideas to get something optimal. I have never experienced LTB myself, so I might not be the best one to throw suggestions, though ;D
A couple of years ago we discused about Pole Position. Maybe we can resume the discussion:
Quote from: Overdrijf on November 23, 2021, 11:57:16 PMQuote from: alanrotoi on November 07, 2021, 03:37:19 PMLTB is a very enjoyable fight. Sometimes it is a duel and sometimes it's a 3 or 4 pipsqueaks fight. I think we should extend this "side game" to more positions.
For example every position has a value the closer to the 1st place the better. It should encourage pipsqueaks to keep the best position possible and not only the 1st place.
That... could actually work. Maybe like some kind of separate scoring systems that hands out like 10 "pole points" for each 24 hours in first place, 8 for each 24 hours in second place etc or something someting, and at the end of the season the leading time bonuses are distributed in one big swoop, either by dividing your total pole points by some big number and rounding the result down (or up, or just the regular way) or by giving the person with the highest number of pole points 12 LTB points, the next person 11 or whatever etc.
The biggest downside of this concept is that like anything I kind of like it's overly complex, which makes it hard to see what it does for you, and that makes it easy not to care.
I do like the idea of more motivation to race before the silent days though. I could use that.
I'm not particularly fond of the current LTB system either, and will probably be happy with any take on reforming it as long as it doesn't increase the overall weight of LTB on the season scoreboard. On the alternatives to LTB suggested here:
- I really like @Argammon 's checkpoints idea. It's worth mentioning that it already had a pilot implementation years ago, in Mark L. Rivers' SDR -- a successful one, as far as I remember. There would be some details to consider (for instance: is there room for two checkpoints within the month?), but I guess we can figure them as we go along.
- @alanrotoi 's extended pole points suggestion has potential as well. The system is similar in spirit to podium time bonuses, which were used without incident in late-period USC. The main choice is how far down the scoreboard do the bonuses extend -- I guess it comes down to balancing reach and complexity of the system.
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 09, 2024, 04:57:32 PMI like this line of thought, let's pull it in a strange direction:
- LTB applies only to amateurs, but gives global scoreboard points
- LTB gives one point every 100 hours (up to 6 per race, most likely 5)
(alternatively, LTB gives 3 points every 240 hours, again up to 6 per race)
What happens? ;D
I broadly like the idea of this Amateur League LTB system. Two notes for now:
- If there's no replacement for LTB outside of the Amateur League, we don't know how much more hiding there will be from pipsqueaks who would otherwise be fighting for LTB. Maybe that's one of those things we gotta try once to see what happens, though.
- As @KyLiE suggests, 5-6 points per race is too much. Over the last couple of years, the median number of points obtained by the Amateur race winner was 6.5, so sharing such a large amount of LTB per race could easily unbalance the season scoreboard midfield fights. If the goal is making the LTB awarding more granular, we could just use fractional points, now that they have been normalised by the 2023 scoring changes: half a point for each 120 hours sounds like a reasonable starting figure to me.
Two things that come to mind.
The public replays are a treasure to less experienced player.
So what about a whole ltb point at the end of public days for most leading hours to have some incentive to share secrets.
Then two 7day checkpoints of 0.5 points.
Coming at a total of 2 point to divide.
For the checkpoints. In the last 24 hours before the checkpoint the option to hide your time to keep it fair, just like the end of the race.
I think that this would take the pressure down.
But still ensure 'busy' public days
Thanks everyone for your feedback.
@Daniel3D: I think there is little difference between your system and the status quo. During the public days the "pros" would still create unbeatable replays again resulting in only the "pros" getting leading time points. Two checkpoints in the second half would give the pros a bit of rest but not much. I still doubt anyone but the pros would be able to gain these checkpoint points. I understand your concern that "the public replays are a treasure to less experienced player". Under my system, the less experienced players could learn from the pros after the first checkpoint.
@dreadnaut: I am bad at reading between the lines and am not sure whether your suggestion was serious. That being said, I strongly prefer it to the status quo. My preferences aside, it would make it far too easy for strong amateurs to beat intermediate pros.
@Overdrijf mentioned on telegram that he would like to gain bonus points too which indeed is a weakness of my system. It makes it easier for new players to get bonus points, but the intermediate players still have it tough. I think we should work on that aspect.
As an amateur aiming for success and promotion, points are often on my mind, though individual race success is probably my main motivation.
I tend to build my technique for any given track quite gradually, so I've never considered ltb points very much. I'm probably more able to refine my best lap method sooner in the race than I used to be, but the proposed changes would certainly require a change in the way I approach things.
Not necessarily a bad thing; I welcome any change that attempts to improve our ZakStunts experience. As long the bonus points for this don't outweigh too much the other point sources I aim for, for instance +1 for finishing in top 6. It still needs to be worth the effort for those not on the top step.
Ok. After reading the comments above and some of the sentiments on telegram I've thought about the following.
Three checkpoints for 1 LTB.
- First week for top divers but not excluding anyone (to invite sharing tricks, can hide replay until week ends).
- Second week (excluding seasonal top 6) (replays are made public. Can Opt out)
- Third week only amateur league.
That would make it theoretically possible for an amateur to get all three points. But that's not likely to happen.
If it does he should gain 2xp 😉
EDIT:: returned my proposal to top 6 because I feel more comfortable with that.
It looks good. Anyway top 4 would be unfair for 3rd and/or 4th places since only top 2 are earning more than 90% of the ltb. Maybe the division would be a superpodium of top 2 and then a top 3 podium of 3rd, 4th and 5th positions.
Last year the superpodium was args and dups. Before of that it was dups and me and before it was ctg and dups. You cover the las 4 years with that. Last year kylie and me stole what ltb we could but only that. The same for 2022: kylie and frieshansen. There is a pattern we can take advantage of: the system adapted to our behaviour.
Quote from: Daniel3D on January 12, 2024, 01:00:20 PMOk. After reading the comments above and some of the sentiments on telegram I've thought about the following.
Three checkpoints for 1 LTB.
- First week for top divers but not excluding anyone (to invite sharing tricks, can hide replay until week ends).
- Second week (excluding seasonal top 4) (replays are made public. Can Opt out)
- Third week only amateur league.
That would make it theoretically possible for an amateur to get all three points. But that's not likely to happen.
If it does he should gain 2xp 😉
I like your proposal. However, I would suggest changing the order of checkpoints. I think the first week should be the amateur week so that the amateurs have some time to discover tricks by their own. Finding tricks and shortcuts is half of the fun of Zakstunts. :) Under the current system, the amateurs miss out on that since they just copy from the professionals.
They are only revealed after the first week. So the amateurs are free to stumble in the dark that time.
And I learned most from watching replays. In 30 years fumbling on my own I didn't discover much. I like looking for them. But it very nice to have a cheat sheet available.
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 07, 2024, 10:20:41 PM[...] and... Ford Ranger? Monster Truck? Interceptor?
Out of those options, I think I'd go with the Monster Truck. Alternatively, we could bring in the Ford Thunderbird for the "proper slow car" role. The Interceptor is a fun car, but it can do much faster lap times than the alternatives mentioned for this slot.
Quote from: alanrotoi on January 12, 2024, 01:47:23 PMIt looks good. Anyway top 4 would be unfair for 3rd and/or 4th places since only top 2 are earning more than 90% of the ltb. Maybe the division would be a superpodium of top 2 and then a top 3 podium of 3rd, 4th and 5th positions.
More broadly, I feel stratifying according to the top X on the (previous?) season scoreboard has a moderate to high chance of missing the mark. For instance, one possible failure mode is that if Renato shows up for 2024 we'll probably regard one of those bonus bans as having been wasted.
Quote from: alanrotoi on January 12, 2024, 01:47:23 PMIt looks good. Anyway top 4 would be unfair for 3rd and/or 4th places since only top 2 are earning more than 90% of the ltb. Maybe the division would be a superpodium of top 2 and then a top 3 podium of 3rd, 4th and 5th positions.
The reason I originally chose top 6 is to split the LTB points between 'top' 'midfield' and 'amateur'
The top 6 was chosen out of the amateur xp rules. A top 6 gives xp, so I followed that line.
A LTB battle midfield could be interesting. Just like one for the amateur league.
Those in position 3-6 may not benefit from this. But neither do the pro drivers at position 9 and lower. You can't please everyone. No solution will be fair to all.
Quote from: Duplode on January 13, 2024, 07:32:47 PMOut of those options, I think I'd go with the Monster Truck. Alternatively, we could bring in the Ford Thunderbird for the "proper slow car" role. The Interceptor is a fun car, but it can do much faster lap times than the alternatives mentioned for this slot.
I agree. If we need to fill the "slow cars" tier Monster Truck or Thunderbird are good. Also Lola if you want an INDY no PG being around.
Almost final car list:
- Unless @Ryoma is against it, the Lancia Stratos (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Lancia_Stratos) returns to the tracks
- We all miss Zapper's Ferrari F40 (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Ferrari_F40), back for a season or two
- Alan's Lola Cosworth Indy (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Lola_Cosworth_Indy) to replace the McLaren MP4, and...
- his Ford Thunderbird (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird)
One slot still uncertain, but I'd like to bring one more designer to the competition
- Keep Overdrijf's Mercedes from last year
- ZR1-GT3 by Duplode
- Siluro for something very different?
It'll be tricky to set the bonuses right 😅
The Stratos deserves another chance regardless of personal sentiment. Maybe it can re-enter at the bonus it left with?
Zapper's Ferrari F40, Alan's Lola Cosworth Indy and his Ford Thunderbird are also good choices.
I'd vote for ZR1-GT3 by Duplode to complete the pack.
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 01:35:12 PMOne slot still uncertain, but I'd like to bring one more designer to the competition
- Keep Overdrijf's Mercedes from last year
- ZR1-GT3 by Duplode
- Siluro for something very different?
For different reasons, I like all three of those options :) Worth noting the Siluro Turbo (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=91192) does not feel much like a DTM car or, say, the Caterham -- handling can get tricky in fast tracks, in a way that actually reminds me a bit of the GT3.
Let me know the start bonuses to set the +10 -10 for the cars ;)
Let's go for the ZR1-GT3 — it has not been around (https://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=car-podiums) for a decade!
To put them all together:
- Ferrari F40 (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Ferrari_F40)
- Ford Thunderbird (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird)
- Lancia Stratos (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Lancia_Stratos)
- Lola Cosworth Indy (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Lola_Cosworth_Indy)
- LWT-ZR1 GT3 (https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/LWT-ZR1_GT3_Mark_II)
First stab at points. Yes, I am bringing the Indy much closer on purpose, to go with the new year's focus on track design that makes powergear less likely.
| Car | 2023 | 2024 |
| Ford Thunderbird | ➡️ | 30 |
| LM002 | 31 | 24 |
| Challenger | 13 | ✖️ |
| Carrera | 29 | 24 |
| Lancia Stratos | ➡️ | 24 |
| Lambo | 24 | 20 |
| Lancia | 24 | 16 |
| Audi | 16 | 15 |
| Pantera | 16 | ✖️ |
| CERV III | 15 | ✖️ |
| ZR1-GT3 | ➡️ | 10 |
| Vette | 12 | 10 |
| Ferrari F40 | ➡️ | 6 |
| Acura | 8 | 5 |
| Mercedes DTM | 7 | ✖️ |
| Ferrari GTO | 7 | 0 |
| Jaguar | 7 | 0 |
| P962 | 4 | 0 |
| McLaren MP4 | -17 | ✖️ |
| Lola Cosworth Indy | ➡️ | -10 |
| Indy | -36 | -12 |
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 04:03:25 PMFirst stab at points. Yes, I am bringing the Indy much closer on purpose, to go with the new year's focus on track design that makes powergear less likely.
You place a lot of responsibility for that at the designers. But maybe I missed it, but I don't remember a solid checklist or cheat sheet for designers to aid in doing it.
Actually, I place a lot of responsibility on myself to get tracks in time for review, and to review the properly :o
A checklist would be helpful, could you start one with what comes to your mind?
Personally, I think this whole rebalancing is a bad approach.
The cars are rebalanced automatically, but very slowly. You're taking cars that have been patiently waiting for their chance and setting them back another half a year of waiting or more, and you're taking other cars that have dominated this season to the point that people got sick of them and you're goving them 2 entire full years (!) of extra bonus, which ensures that they will be even more massively dominant this year, different track design or not. The principle of every car getting their chance to shine every year or so is kind of being thrown out the window with these huge start of year tweaks. I think the Mercedes' run last year showed that we shouldn't try too hard to rebalance and predict these things. Its bonus was set too low, we all knew it would just be dead weight for the entire season, and it was. My preference would be to not actively try and do that to as many cars as possible.
If you want to personally manually change the coefficients like this every year my vote would be to at least move back to the +3% system rather than the +1% system. The +1% only works if the cars are allowed to find their natural spot in the order over the years, and brings the cars closer to their natural sweet spot than the 3% does. But if we just randomly hand out huge bonuses to cars that were already overused the system is going to need the bigger jumps to at least get back to near those sweet spots faster.
And I don't think having all the tracks flooded and shortcut-less is going to fix that. People have been getting better at using powergear, that means we have more powergear races until we reach the point where they've naturally dropped far enough to be fair again. At best we could overcompensate a bit and lower their bonuses, not raise them.
Quote from: Overdrijf on January 14, 2024, 04:53:17 PMPersonally, I think this whole rebalancing is a bad approach.
One of the topics in this thread has been how powergear cars have such low coefficients that have become useless, except for powergear laps. The point of bringing the Indy closer is to give it the chance to be a normal car, while we try to avoid powergear with a different process. One Indy victory sends it back in the minus-twenties, but people might actually
enjoy driving it on a non powergear track.
If you think reducing the other cars coeffiecients is also a problem, I'm open to suggestions to the table above. There is also the option to move from 160 to 180 points. Which cars do you think would deserve those 20 points?
To those kind folks who help me every year: could you prepare side pictures for the Thunderbird and Lola? 🙏
Please with lola (black and light blue) and thunderbird (pink) use first painjobs for each ;D
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 05:06:02 PMThe point of bringing the Indy closer is to give it the chance to be a normal car, while we try to avoid powergear with a different process. One Indy victory sends it back in the minus-twenties, but people might actually enjoy driving it on a non powergear track.
Even if we succeed in blocking full PG lines, PG in a specific track sector or two might give the Indy a significant advantage. Furthermore, even if the Indy were to stay most of the year out of contention due to low bonuses, we'll still have the Lola as a no-PG alternative this season.
I tend to agree with
@Overdrijf in that we don't need a full rebalancing of bonuses, and that letting they mostly carry over from last season could be easier for everyone to deal with. What about starting from the after-ZCT269 values, finding sensible places for the new cars and maybe adding a few localised tweaks on the top? (No pencil or spreadsheet at hand right now, but I'll try to post suggestions as soon as I can.)
Rules: there are a number of options discussed in this thread which look very promising, but nothing that felt solid enough to be put into practice — while at the same time not requiring a month of development.
I will leave rules as they are for this year, as we keep an eye on problems and prepare the ground for the next season. I might open the "Rules for 2025" thread much earlier ;D
A couple of thoughts so I don't forget them:
- an incentive to race throughout the month for the Amateur League is definitely missing
- checkpoints feel to me like artificial splits, which require spikes of activity: miss the spike and that's it; LTB (or variants) leave pipsqueaks with more flexibility around racing
- simple rules make a competition accessible
Quote from: Argammon on January 11, 2024, 06:52:04 PM@dreadnaut: I am bad at reading between the lines and am not sure whether your suggestion was serious. That being said, I strongly prefer it to the status quo. My preferences aside, it would make it far too easy for strong amateurs to beat intermediate pros.
It was serious, but not deeply considered. My aim was actually to threaten
all pros, not just the intermediate ones. Thinking more than a second about it, however, it is clearly a bad idea as everyone pointed out ;D
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 05:21:19 PMTo those kind folks who help me every year: could you prepare side pictures for the Thunderbird and Lola? 🙏
it fits?
Thank you
@Erik Barros. Almost there:
- Could angle them a bit "up", to show a bit of the roof and hood? See Mercedes (https://zak.stunts.hu/pics/side/DMCB.gif)
- A slightly larger version if you can, > 100px tall would be perfect.
🙇
I agree
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 05:45:37 PM- an incentive to race throughout the month for the Amateur League is definitely missing
- checkpoints feel to me like artificial splits, which require spikes of activity: miss the spike and that's it; LTB (or variants) leave pipsqueaks with more flexibility around racing
- simple rules make a competition accessible
The idea was to take the constant strain off the LTB, and shift the focus point to a different group each time.
It may create spikes, but that has already been the case.
If the checkpoints are on Saturday night, it would sort of create an incentive to check out the competition every weekend. That could benefit participation in general.
By having the first one to grab in the first week, pro drivers who want it have to be strong that week. (Only chance) That would potentially give stronger than usual replays that benefit the less experienced players.
Same goes for the second, it excludes the top drivers but the replays from the others will help the less experienced.
I believe it's simple enough. It doesn't place pressure on just a few and a lot of players benefit from this.
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 06:56:42 PMThank you @Erik Barros. Almost there:
- Could angle them a bit "up", to show a bit of the roof and hood? See Mercedes (https://zak.stunts.hu/pics/side/DMCB.gif)
- A slightly larger version if you can, > 100px tall would be perfect.
🙇
This way? If you need any adjustments, you can ask please
Quote from: Duplode on January 14, 2024, 05:32:25 PMWhat about starting from the after-ZCT269 values, finding sensible places for the new cars and maybe adding a few localised tweaks on the top? (No pencil or spreadsheet at hand right now, but I'll try to post suggestions as soon as I can.)
Okay, here's a first take on this, drafted with the help of the good folks at the Telegram:
Screenshot_2024-01-14_16-41-27.png
How it was done: take the base bonuses as they would have been after ZCT269, then guess neutral-to-somewhat-favourable bonuses for the new cars. Total goes up to 199, so subtract three from each car to get it to 151, and add 9 to the Indy to not keep it too far away and bring the total to 160.
Thank you Duplode, that table makes sense. I am sticking to the plan of bringing the Indy up though, which in this scale means -15. Should we remove 15 points from the other cars, or add 1 and go for 16*11 = 176?
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 09:00:37 PMShould we remove 15 points from the other cars, or add 1 and go for 16*11 = 176?
Between those two options, I'd go with -14 and 176 total.
Edit: attached a spreadsheet for the calculations described above.
Okay, I've cooled off a bit. Maybe my language was a bit harsh.
We've been conqlebuggling a bit in the little Telegram group to work out the proposal Duplode was talking about before. Crowdsourcing the estimations of the newly added cars, so to speak, trying to take your views into consideration as well. So that might turn out as something worth considering.
EDIT: I'm an idiot, I refreshed the page but failed to go to the next page. 8)
And yes, that was a made-up word.
Coefficients are up, and so are Erik's new card portraits! Thank you all!
@alanrotoi Could you double check if you are still OK with the track bonuses? I'm here if you want to make any updates.
Quote from: Overdrijf on January 14, 2024, 09:34:33 PMWe've been conqlebuggling a bit in the little Telegram group to work out the proposal Duplode was talking about before.
Is the conqlebuggling worth saving for the future? (e.g., grabbing a log out of Telegram and archiving it here?)
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 09:56:52 PMQuote from: Overdrijf on January 14, 2024, 09:34:33 PMWe've been conqlebuggling a bit in the little Telegram group to work out the proposal Duplode was talking about before.
Is the conqlebuggling worth saving for the future? (e.g., grabbing a log out of Telegram and archiving it here?)
Not really. A little bit of talking about bonuses in relation to eachother, like that I had done a recent test in which the F40 was about 2.5% faster than the CERV and the GT3 +-5.5% slower, how we felt you probably got a pretty good number on the Lola, comparing it to the MP4, how the Thunderbird was probably slower than the LM02 on most tracks but we felt like it wasn't too bad to start it off a little lower and a little about how it was fair to give the Indy a little bit of a bonus because you liked the idea so much. And a bunch of chat bringing bonuses up and down a bit when we thought of something, like whether the car we were comparing it to was currently at a low point or a high point in its range.
So, that, basically.
Quote from: Overdrijf on January 14, 2024, 10:44:20 PMSo, that, basically.
Neat summary, thank you! Hope you'll enjoy driving the Indy as a normal car, for the first time in a while.
Quote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 10:48:06 PMHope you'll enjoy driving the Indy as a normal car, for the first time in a while.
We just did the Indy as a normal car, in the PG-less race. Now it's back to the regular programming. I think someone will find at least one more PG section in this track. I have absolutely no idea where and how, but it feels like that would fit the flow.
I just hope we'll see a little less LM02 this year, maybe it can finally win something convincingly. But if not the at least two Indy races (including power gear sections) within the first half year might balance out the slowness of the LM02 a bit.
Quote from: Overdrijf on January 15, 2024, 12:25:38 AMQuote from: dreadnaut on January 14, 2024, 10:48:06 PMHope you'll enjoy driving the Indy as a normal car, for the first time in a while.
We just did the Indy as a normal car, in the PG-less race.
Yeah, to bad you missed it. (I missed it myself as well unfortunately).
Quote from: Daniel3D on January 15, 2024, 08:04:45 AMYeah, to bad you missed it. (I missed it myself as well unfortunately).
I know, I was quite disappointed :( Not having holidays over Christmas managed to ruin a number of plans, lesson learnt.
I began with my new job in October, so no vacations for some time. Yet, this company gives me a whole month of paid holidays per year! That's crazy good for an Argentine! I've never had anything like that before
Minor rule tweak (it's not actually in the rules, and it's more like fixing a bug)
Until last year, the team scoreboard would ignore fractional points, as they were meant as a "ordering" rather than "scoring". Starting in 2024, following last year's scoring changes, we'll assign fractional points to teams — the top two pipsqueaks of a team will always bring points!
Cool! Sounds fair!
Thanks go to
@Duplode for spotting this, and for the actual code change!
Also the seasonal activity needs some atention.
atte.png
I know, I know 😅