Stunts Forum

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The essence of Stunts, the iconic racing game by Broderbund, lies in its blend of precision, strategy, and skill. It challenges players to master the art of driving, balancing speed with control, and navigating complex tracks with finesse. However, the integrity of this experience is undermined when pilots exploit the game's mechanics by spending excessive time off the track, transforming what should be a test of driving prowess into a loophole-driven shortcut to victory.

1. Preserving the Spirit of Competition
Stunts is, at its core, a racing game. The thrill of competition is rooted in the ability to outmaneuver opponents on the track, not in finding ways to bypass it. Allowing pilots to leave the track for more than 50% of the replay time distorts the game's intended challenge. It shifts the focus from skillful driving to exploiting glitches or unintended mechanics, eroding the fairness that defines competitive play. By limiting off-track time to 50%, we ensure that victory is earned through mastery of the game's design, not by circumventing it.

2. Encouraging Skill Development
When pilots are restricted to spending no more than half their time off the track, they are incentivized to hone their driving skills. Players must learn to navigate obstacles, optimize their racing lines, and make split-second decisions—skills that are central to the game's appeal. This rule fosters a community of players who value improvement and innovation within the boundaries of the game, rather than those who seek to exploit its limitations.

3. Enhancing Replay Value
Replays in Stunts are not just a record of a race; they are a testament to a player's ability to conquer the track. Excessive off-track driving turns replays into chaotic, unintended spectacles, detracting from the satisfaction of a well-executed race. By enforcing a 50% limit, replays become a true reflection of skill, strategy, and creativity, making them more enjoyable to watch and share.

4. Promoting Fair Play
Fairness is the cornerstone of any competitive environment. Unrestricted off-track driving creates an uneven playing field, where some players gain an unfair advantage by abusing mechanics that were never intended to be part of the core gameplay (PG? "it's a bug", said Kevin Pickell himself, Stunts lead programmer). A 50% limit levels the field, ensuring that all players compete under the same constraints and that success is determined by talent and practice, not by who can best exploit the game's quirks.

5. Respecting the Game's Legacy
Stunts is a classic, beloved for its innovative gameplay and challenging tracks. Allowing pilots to spend the majority of their time off the track undermines the legacy of the game, reducing it to a contest of who can break the rules most effectively. By upholding a 50% limit, we honor the game's original vision and maintain its status as a timeless test of driving skill.

6. Community Consensus
The Stunts community thrives on shared standards and mutual respect. Most players agree that excessive off-track driving detracts from the game's enjoyment and fairness. Implementing a 50% limit aligns with the values of the community, fostering a more positive and competitive environment for everyone.

Conclusion
To preserve the integrity, skill, and spirit of Stunts, it is essential to limit off-track driving to no more than 50% of the replay time. This rule upholds the game's intended challenge, promotes fair play, and ensures that Stunts remains a celebration of driving mastery. Let us commit to this standard, so that every race is a true test of skill—and every victory, a genuine achievement.

Thank you.

On a not-totally-unrelated note: It's rude to show AI output to people (https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/)

I'm serious: we only have a limited time to spend on this planet. Most of the ZakStunts participants are probably in or near the second half of their lives. Why submitting a page of machine-generated slop(e) to make a point that could have been made in 1/3 of the words and with much more persuasive force if it were written by a human?

(I also disagree on the merit of the proposal, but that's another discourse).

I advocate for 50% not by time but by length/distance traveled on the route. It can be based on the tile count, just like the game does: "you can skip two tiles, not three." Here it would mean a new rule like: "you can skip only 50% of the pavement tiles." or "Max off-road gap: no off-road segment longer than x consecutive tiles." "consider the beginning of off-road as soon as the last pixel of the car is not on/above the road"... Let's talk!

I hope our generation, with the gracious and divine help of AI, will use its precious time to think more and blow less hot air.

Winning with shortcuts and a PG car, it must feel like using an AI to write forum posts!

I'll be less rude to you, @HerrNove, by including TL;DR parts in bold characters (just read that in the future, don't dig please) empty of cheating persuasive force but full of thoughts!

Here's more revelations!

STUNTS ICEBERG: WHY CHEATERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO WIN
An investigative, dramatic look at how we got here — and how 2026 could be the year we turn it around.

======================================================================

TL;DR
Stunts competition has long rewarded "breaking the game" more than "driving the track." Replay handling, hidden shortcuts, and physics exploits created an elite oligarchy. Parallel OWOOT efforts proved fairer racing is possible. If ZakStunts wants to grow again in 2026, we need a clearer, more inclusive ruleset — or at least a parallel scoreboard — that values driving skill as much as glitch-craft. I repeat: advocate with us for 50% not by time but by length/distance traveled on the route. Make the meta great again, with OWOOT replays able to challenge shortcut replays like never before.

ICEBERG MAP
________ (Surface)

/ Common
 Knowledge

/ Veterans known only

/ Deep & Controversial

/ Philosophical \
  (Bottom)


SURFACE LEVEL (VISIBLE TO EVERYONE)

"Shortcutting is part of the meta."
Stunts doesn't fence you in. Off-road lines, barrier jumps, and giant skips are normal — and fast. The culture grew around that freedom.

"Replays are the gospel."
If your .RPL plays back and crosses the finish, it's valid. No invisible walls, no auto-DQ for creativity. Proof = replay, period.

JUST BELOW THE SURFACE (COMMON KNOWLEDGE)

"Creativity beats intended lines."
Unlike modern pipsqueaks that punish cuts, Stunts rewards the person who treats the track like a puzzle.

"Replay Handling (RH) rules the ladder."
Save, retry, splice perfect segments. RH is widely accepted, producing hyper-optimized laps few can do in one take.

MID-LEVEL (KNOWN BY VETERANS)

"The Shortcut Era."
Icons became legendary not for tidy apexes but for turning physics inside out. Huge winning gaps were engineered routes, not flukes.

"Team secrecy & quiet days."
Elite teams often hid discoveries until late in the month. Podiums sometimes went to drivers who executed a teammate's hidden route rather than discovered it.

"Meta-skills > pedal-skills."
The lasting champions mastered three things: (1) spotting abusable geometry, (2) chaining RH-perfect segments, (3) choosing cars/lines that trigger quirks (powergear, flighty landings, wall-clips).

DEEP (CONTROVERSIAL BUT ACCEPTED)

"No-track victories."
Some celebrated replays spend minimal time on the paved road. The stopwatch can't tell "clever exploit" from "clean lap," and the community mostly shrugged.

"Copy-paste crowns."
Hard truth: some podiums came from copying unrevealed routes found by others. The replay is yours — the idea wasn't. We rarely said that part out loud.

"The unwritten rule."
If the game doesn't stop you, it's legal. One sentence shaped two decades of winners.

BOTTOM OF THE ICEBERG (PHILOSOPHICAL / EXISTENTIAL)

"Stunts is a game about breaking games."
The engine's quirks aren't bugs to avoid — they're the canvas. Glitch-literacy, not race-craft, became the highest form of play.

"No patches, so it became canon."
With no fixes from the devs, norms filled the vacuum. "Anything goes" felt authentic... until it started shrinking the field.

"The emperor is naked."
Many victors weren't the best drivers; they were the best exploiters — or the best-connected. Some wore crowns stitched from teammates' hidden lines.

90s VS 2000s/2010s — AND THE RECENT ZAKSTUNTS REALITY

90s spirit: wild freedom, few rules, lots of wonder.

2000s/2010s: optimization arms race. RH standard; secret lines decide months. Huge gaps become "normal."

Recently: participation swings. Newcomers bounce off a meta where discovery networks matter more than seat time.

A quiet consensus: brilliant sandbox, brittle competition.

THE COUNTER-MOVEMENT: OWOOT AND FAIR PLAY

Credit where it's due: Pershing II, Mingva, Ruepel, and Juank23 pushed OWOOT ("One Wheel On the Track") and clearer rules to preserve racing as a skill.

OWOOT proved you can keep Stunts' spirit and still reward classic craft: lines, braking, car control.

Smaller fields, but more inclusive; fewer "magic" gaps, more battles on the road. A path forward: freedom without oligarchy with the same pipsqueaks winning everything, every time.

IF WE WANT STUNTS TO LIVE: A 2026 PROPOSAL FOR ZAKSTUNTS

Dual scoreboards (same track, two leaderboards)

Classic: anything goes (the historic meta lives on).

OWOOT: one-wheel-on-track, clearly defined.

Clear, short rules people can remember and unambiguously refer to

Define "on track," allowed surfaces, and forbidden geometry abuse in 10 lines max.

Publish a one-page "OWOOT Quick Guide" with simple examples.

Track design that resists trivial breakage

Use scenery/altitude wisely to discourage single-jump skips (@ShoegazingLeo's track was perfect).

Include optional "OWOOT bonus gates" so fair lines stay competitive.

Anti-oligarchy hygiene

Blind replays until deadline.

Mandatory post-race route notes from podium: short description of the winning line.

Optional "Solo Discovery" medal for unique routes disclosed after the race.

Onboarding & inclusiveness

Monthly Rookie Cup + Midfield Cup (same track, separate awards).

Transparency over mystique

Celebrate clean-lap brilliance alongside trick artistry (two "Driver of the Month" badges: Classic & OWOOT).

CONCLUSION: THE ICEBERG IS REVEALED
We built a throne for exploiters and called them kings. It was fun and made Stunts unique, but it also made the summit reachable mostly by the few with the right tricks or the right friends. If we want 2026 to be more inclusive, less oligarchic, and less discriminatory, we don't need to tear down the sandbox — we just need to add a lane where driving skill matters as much as glitch skill, and let both lanes shine.

The emperor is naked. Time to tailor a fair suit — together.

— Posted for discussion. Respect the people; critique the systems. Share counter-examples, design ideas, and preferred metagame definitions below.

Quote from: Alain il professore on Yesterday at 09:35:06 AMThe engine's quirks aren't bugs to avoid

Stunts doesn't have bugs. Some people say it haz bugs, like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qQvx6LgiEg):

[edit] Picture attached but it wasn't displayed here, so the forum has some bugs. [/edit]

Beg pardon, like this:

Quote from: https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Bugs#Collision_bugsTherefore, it happens that some bugs happen during collisions, like the car going up straight to the sky

That is not a bug:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFjuCGiHTVI

Quote from: 2:28Toto, we're flying, we're going up!

@Alain il professore, I also have to say that when I see a wall of generated text I feel disengaged, and don't apply myself to properly understand the point behind it.

To have a productive discussion about difficult topics, we need to write simple clear points. It would also help if it were a discussion between people, not some kind of manifesto or in-character speech.

I fully subscribe to the "wall of text" argument, but we have to remember that most of us aren't native speakers. Some of us are better at writing in English than others.

I think that it is good practice to write the text yourself and then ask the AI to improve the language (fix errors, make it more clear). That way, the quantity of text that everybody has to read stays manageable as well.

Quote from: Argammon on Yesterday at 11:27:07 AMI fully subscribe to the "wall of text" argument, but we have to remember that most of us aren't native speakers. Some of us are better at writing in English than others.

I think that it is good practice to write the text yourself and then ask the AI to improve the language (fix errors, make it more clear). That way, the quantity of text that everybody has to read stays manageable as well.

Alternatively, you write it in your native language and ask the AI to translate it. They tend to be very good at that.

Both methods respect the social pact that writing should take more effort than reading.

Quote from: HerrNove on Yesterday at 11:47:08 AMask the AI to translate it. They tend to be very good at that.

I never used AI, only translate.*****.com which doesn't translate well from Kazakh language (https://matei.one/invidious.php?v=owjcn76dAHU).

QuoteКөңіл бейне бала салған сайран-ай.
Өтер үнсіз ғана күндер қайран-ай жай байқалмай.

Can someone with AI translate this?...

I spent some time interpreting the above, and I'll try to summarise here:

Your point is that ZakStunts' freestyle rules create a steep learning curve, and are against the spirit of Stunts as a racing game. You advocate for a secondary scoreboard with stricter rules which reward driving skills over shortcut-finding and complex tricks.

Please correct me if I am mis-representing your original posts, @Alain!

Thanks for taking the time to read, reflect and react, @dreadnaut, this is fondly appreciated!

Here's the thing I don't want to miss:

50% replay distance traveled on the route.

I honestly feel for the guys losing behind the leader like they raced a different game on the free (no OWOOT) scoreboard. They send their personal best every month, pushing hard, but they're not using the same weapons. Denied a well deserved victory, month after month, after month. That's just unfair.

One way half year winning streaks should question the game meta. Yet everyone remain silent.

So why not change the rules, track design (water and building here and there should prevent too much 4 seconds gap shortcuts), challenge the shortcut finders a little more and equalize the game for skilled drivers a little more and make it a splendid, more balanced race? One where shortcut hunters (lawnmowing the grass is fun and should stay allowed) can shine, but also where skilled tarmac drivers (maximizing the apexes lap after lap) get the reward they deserve.

Thank you.

Quote from: Alain il professore on Yesterday at 02:48:22 PM(...) I honestly feel for the guys losing behind the leader like they raced a different game on the free (no OWOOT) scoreboard. They send their personal best every month, pushing hard, but they're not using the same weapons. Denied a well deserved victory, month after month, after month. That's just unfair.

One way half year winning streaks should question the game meta. Yet everyone remain silent. (...)

It's fine to suggest rule changes — everyone can share their view. But the above quote doesn't, in my opinion, help the discussion.

"(...) not using the same weapons (...)"

This is vague. The real issue is "power‑gear surprises." Out of nine tracks, I won two this way. For example, on ZCT285 several pipsqueaks used the GTO so this was not a pg surprise.

"Denied a well deserved victory, month after month"

This is overstated — it happened in two of nine months. And even then, it's impossible to know who would have won without power‑gear cars.

Quote from: Alain il professore on Yesterday at 02:48:22 PM(...) One where shortcut hunters (lawnmowing the grass is fun and should stay allowed) can shine, but also where skilled tarmac drivers (maximizing the apexes lap after lap) get the reward they deserve.

Thank you.

After over 20 years of racing I finally got the idea for a suitable Zakstunts avatar. Thank you! ;D

The plaidoyer (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plaidoyer) in the opening post is questionable in various ways, several of them no doubt having to do with the one @HerrNove mentioned. Very briefly:

Firstly, creative exploration of the outer limits of the game mechanics is an integral part of the essence of competitive Stunts. Since we are in a ZakStunts subforum, it is worth underlining in particular that adding a restriction on shortcuts to the premier free rules RH competition would utterly change its character.

(Intermezzo: Another integral part of the essence of competitive Stunts -- the flip side of the coin, if you will -- is the freedom of the players to establish collectively agreed rules within the loose framework of the game mechanics as actually implemented by the software. If anyone feels like starting a new competition to explore this 50% rule as a possible compromise between free rules and OWOOT, more power to them. However, there's something else which would be wise to take into account...)

Secondly, enforcement of the 50% rule would be a hassle. Verification of non-obvious situations would require tabulating OWOOT and off-road intervals on each replay, or developing and deploying specialised tooling to automate that. Drivers with laps near the 50% threshold would also have to monitor compliance all along, which I can't imagine being much fun either.

Quote from: Alain il professore on Yesterday at 02:48:22 PMOne way half year winning streaks should question the game meta. Yet everyone remain silent.

None of this is novel or surprising in any way with respect to the meta. The one recent rule change (around the beginning of the current ZakStunts era) with relevant metagame consequences was the 2019 bonus system revision, which brought the coefficients closer to each other, leading as a side effect to PG cars getting wins somewhat more often than the 4/16 chance odds (that is a very well known issue that has been amply discussed -- for evidence, see the pre-season rule discussion threads of the last several years). Even that has precedents in earlier ZakStunts history, in particular the famous 2008 season.

Quote from: Alain il professore on Yesterday at 09:35:06 AMRespect the people; critique the systems.

A good start with respect to that would be not trying to frame pipsqueaks as cheaters for driving valid replays following the communally accepted rules.

Appreciate the input from everyone. Adding some thoughts here, but keen to hear more voices.

ZakStunts is a freestyle competition on purpose: it fills a niche, and leaves as much space as possible for other competitions to exist, evolve, and grow. OWOOT, GAR and NoRH are 'side scoreboards' without yearly trophies because that is not the focus of the competition. While we have tried all three style since 2016, they are not what ZakStunts is about.

You can race monthly OWOOT, GAR, NoRH competitions today: Race For Kicks (https://raceforkicks.com/), DOSReloaded (https://dosreloaded.de/forum/board/44-gamecontest/), DOS Game Club (https://www.dosgameclub.com/stunts-leaderboard/). Occasionally there's a Stunts CCC (http://ccc.mystunts.net/), Stunts NTT (http://ntt.mystunts.net/), or Live Race (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?board=103.0) event. Alain has just restarted France Stunts (//http://).

None of those are freestyle events, only ZakStunts. So a proposal to change or expand the ZakStunts rules into the space covered by other competitions seems, in my mind, to dilute what makes the competition itself.

ZakStunts, I dare say, is also as healthy as it has been (https://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=quarterly-stats) in the past 10 years. There's been plenty of new pipsqueaks at the top, new winners, and new champions. Old champions too, coming back strong and motivated by the vibrant community. And new cars, new exciting developments.

Reading about "cheaters", "kings", "oligarchy", "collusion" is very much against my experience as a mid-scoreboard pipsqueak in the past years, with so many people chipping in and building something cool as a community. And some of this proposal and other suggestions seem to lack the historical context of 10-15 years of ZakStunts. A few things I need to highlight:

QuoteBut a simple solution is to use more unjumpable waterwalls my friends. ❤️

That's common practice when designing and reviewing a competition track. The most common tweaks are more water, less accessible loops-to-PG, and fixing dual-way switching troubles. And yet it cannot prevent all PG routes.

QuoteThere is a simple fix to that collusion possibility: competition managers must -at least- change the first tiles of the map they receive. 🌞

We did that for a while, and might still in certain cases, but as Duplode explained on a different thread it ruins most tracks for the little value it brings.

Quotethere is a wonderful program Replay Analyser (RA) by Robert Riebisch it can be used to determine the presence of RH for each pipsqueak based on the statistics of the keys pressed

It has existed and not worked for that purpose for 27 years, longer than ZakStunts! As Argammon explained on a different thread, replay handling is not detectable, technically. You can suspect if a lap is "too good", but maybe you've never seen Marco or Seeker1982 driving.


Lastly, I am concerned with the use of generated text (or generated anything, to be honest) as part of important and complex discussions. In particular when it ends up using words that don't seem to fit, and of which the "prompter" might not understand the connotations. The "critical vulnerabilities" post was a load of nonsense (from a technical point of view, but still a useful discussion) and the opening post of this thread could have been two paragraphs of precise and not-offensive words.

So let's try being awesome to each other, communicate clearly, and think before posting a blurb like the one I've just written 😅

Do note that this is not a "dreadnaut is against X and has decided Y". I'm trying to add context to a discussion that's still in progress, so keep those comments coming!

Quote from: dreadnaut on Yesterday at 08:45:26 PMZakStunts is a freestyle competition on purpose: it fills a niche, and leaves as much space as possible for other competitions to exist, evolve, and grow. OWOOT, GAR and NoRH are 'side scoreboards' without yearly trophies because that is not the focus of the competition. While we have tried all three style since 2016, they are not what ZakStunts is about.

This is why I love ZakStunts. You really keep this competition's soul alive. Thank you @dreadnaut

I think whatever I could write would be just a copy-paste of the points that Duplode and Dreadnaut have made. I'll only add I appreciate a lot their (and Argammon's) calm responses. I hope shoutbox and forum continue to have the atmosphere of friendliness and collaboration I have witnessed in my few months here.

QuoteNone of this is novel or surprising in any way with respect to the meta. The one recent rule change (around the beginning of the current ZakStunts era) with relevant metagame consequences was the 2019 bonus system revision, which brought the coefficients closer to each other, leading as a side effect to PG cars getting wins somewhat more often than the 4/16 chance odds (that is a very well known issue that has been amply discussed -- for evidence, see the pre-season rule discussion threads of the last several years). Even that has precedents in earlier ZakStunts history, in particular the famous 2008 season.

I wonder why they brought the coefficients closer together? Wouldn't it be easier to return them to how they were before the rapprochement? Or is it boring without grass?

Hello again my friends,

Since the 2019 changes, the current meta hasn't worked as intended. The reduction of negative bonuses for PG cars was even admitted to benefit shortcut finders by @Duplode. It's time to revert to the pre-2019 coefficients and the 50% bonus rule, which were fairer and more balanced. Let's discuss this and push for a community vote to make it happen.

Thank you for your precious time reading me!

PG and off-road driving may look similar concepts but aren't synonyms.
Look this breath taking lap by Renato Biker. No PG at all still an off-road madness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y_0gaMOaTg


The community had excellent OWOOT Indy competitions and it was PG all the time without grass.
Look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPHYQGddUCM

Quote from: Victor Narl on Yesterday at 10:19:04 PMI wonder why they brought the coefficients closer together? Wouldn't it be easier to return them to how they were before the rapprochement?

The motivation for the change was that far apart coefficients make it very difficult for multiple cars to be competitive in a single race. The end result was that you'd get the downsides of the multi-car system (not being able to set the car in advance and tailor the track to it) without the upsides (the strategic richness and fun afforded by having multiple competitive cars). This issue has come up in previous pre-season threads as well, and the consensus so far has been to keep the bonuses close and look for other ways of managing any side effects.

Quote from: alanrotoi on Yesterday at 10:36:13 PMPG and off-road driving may look similar concepts but aren't synonyms.
Look this breath taking lap by Renato Biker. No RH at all still an off-road madness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y_0gaMOaTg


The community had excellent OWOOT Indy competitions and it was PG all the time without grass.
Look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPHYQGddUCM

ZCT 139 was a very good example of a fair and balanced meta, let's work on what did change in 2025 from this perfect race in 2013. (https://imgur.com/GPmE8X1.jpg)

(https://imgur.com/X9Md4zf.jpg)

Those charts are actually from ZCT139, the following race. ZCT138 was famously decided by two late plot twists, in which a quartet of Vettes demoted Renato's lap (perhaps the strongest Audi replay ever) and everyone else to 5th and below.

In any case, to compare the pre-2019 and post-2019 systems you shouldn't look at isolated races, but rather at the bonus evolution and succession of car choices across the months.

QuoteThe motivation for the change was that far apart coefficients make it very difficult for multiple cars to be competitive in a single race. The end result was that you'd get the downsides of the multi-car system (not being able to set the car in advance and tailor the track to it) without the upsides (the strategic richness and fun afforded by having multiple competitive cars). This issue has came up in previous pre-season threads as well, and the consensus so far has been to keep the bonuses close and look for other ways of managing any side effects.

since there were no clear advantages, it makes sense to return to the previous system of coefficients that gave more of a sporting struggle, therefore I propose to put to a fair vote the return of the old coefficients

Quote from: Duplode on Yesterday at 11:02:48 PM

Quote from: Alain il professore on Yesterday at 10:48:32 PMZCT 138 was a very good example of a fair and balanced meta, let's work on what did change in 2025 from this perfect race in 2013.

Sorry for that my friend, I edited it later.

QuoteThose charts are actually from ZCT139, the following race. ZCT138 was famously decided by two late plot twists, in which a quartet of Vettes demoted Renato's lap (perhaps the strongest Audi replay ever) and everyone else to 5th and below.

In any case, to compare the pre-2019 and post-2019 systems you shouldn't look at isolated races, but rather at the bonus evolution and succession of car choices across the months.

Let's just do that!

Quote from: Victor Narl on Yesterday at 11:05:35 PM

QuoteThe motivation for the change was that far apart coefficients make it very difficult for multiple cars to be competitive in a single race. The end result was that you'd get the downsides of the multi-car system (not being able to set the car in advance and tailor the track to it) without the upsides (the strategic richness and fun afforded by having multiple competitive cars). This issue has came up in previous pre-season threads as well, and the consensus so far has been to keep the bonuses close and look for other ways of managing any side effects.

since there were no clear advantages, it makes sense to return to the previous system of coefficients that gave more of a sporting struggle, therefore I propose to put to a fair vote the return of the old coefficients

What Duplode said is that the system that gave "no clear advantages" was the previous one. If you want the sporting struggle (which, I take from Alain's screenshot, means no surprises at the end, no creative car choices, races decided by better micro-optimizations) the best way is to use a fixed car. And then you end up with yet another copy of Race For Kicks, DOSReloaded and now FranceStunts. No thanks: I greatly enjoyed downloading the latest replays in ZCT289 and discovering all the multiple approaches taken, and I have seen nothing similar in the other tournaments. I do not want changes, and I say this as someone who still cannot drive PG and has chosen to not join a team, so theoretically as one whom the rules you propose should benefit.

Aside: entering a tournament halfways and immediately requesting to change its long-standing rules which everybody else seems to be liking might be not the best way of making friends and influencing people, but this is just my opinion.

QuoteAside: entering a tournament halfways and immediately requesting to change its long-standing rules which everybody else seems to be liking might be not the best way of making friends and influencing people, but this is just my opinion.

It will be a surprise for you to hear that to be honest I didn't want to come here at all, never.. I don't like coefficients in general (any) and their introduction was the biggest mistake. I prefer a competition on a fixed by the organizer car with fair rules, it's just that I have been persistently agitated for half a year to register here. But I didn't come here to be slandered and mixed with shit! And I can leave at any time, it's not difficult for me. P.S. Also I will NEVER drive more than 50% on grass even if it's faster, I consider such a victory cheating, but I'm not a cheater and this is absolutely unacceptable to me! Good Luck

https://matei.one/invidious.php?v=DSGuRv3hINc

QuoteСил во мне так много,
я создаю сама себе свою дорогу.
Хватит с вас уроков,
и я бегу в даль сломав столбы упрёков.

I'm not interested in races, btw, as I already mentioned a few times.

We are now in 2025, in a biased race where:

Every two month in average, the PG cars has an unbeatable advantage. The rest of the year, the non PG car can win.

Of course non PG cars still can win, but it's not making up for all the months when non PG cars have no realistic chance to win!

The admins see that, the pipsqueaks see that, and let it go. I cannot remain silent noticing this pattern only a few pipsqueaks has understood yet.

That is biasing the race in favor of pipsqueaks better at using PG cars, which is unfair. All other competitions use OWOOT to prevent PG cars use from their disgraceful advantage. Disgraceful, and history will judge as a probabilistic impossibility the past and future unstoppable winning streaks by the same PG cars, happening too often, and say: "What have they done... Were they blind?"

I have many solutions. They are written for the records in the marble of those zakstunts forum topics I wrote in august 2025. I am waiting.

to ensure equal healthy competition I propose to discuss the following: for all 4 cars with PG (Indy, Acura, Corvette, Ferrari) use the corrected versions from Daniel3D (NoPG versions), this is a regular amateur patch that fixes a bug in the original cars, patches are used in almost all games