Messages

I haven't read nearly everyone's posts yet. But I would like to offer my perspective here:

There are multiple running Stunts competitions. All but one have some sort of limitation on going off-track and a way to prevent PG surprises in the form of limited car choice. The exception is Zakstunts, which focusus on freestyle driving, allowing crazy improvized stunts and powergear and offroad driving and car picking. That competition is the most popular one. Presumably the people racing there race there because they like this style.

So I guess my question is: if people want a competition with the rules proposed in this thread, and they clearly do given the length of this thread, is Zakstunts really the place to make that happen?

I think the reason is that even those who do not like the rules understand that Zakstunts is by far the most prestigious Stunts competition. Winning a Zakstunts race (the main scoreboard not GAR) cannot be compared to anything else in that regards.

@Matei I think @KyLiE said 6.5 hours in the 28 days of competition so it's less than 1% of the month. Don't make it personal. The worst arrogancy is when a pipsqueak says i.e. "I did it in half an hour" when you clearly know (after many years in the game and the community) that it was a work of many hours. Somehow some pipsqueaks (and not pipsqueaks too I can see now) feels better saying they invests almost no time racing.  That attitude deserves some insults but you only get from me a "poor guy".

I saw the same attitude or speech in other gamer communities where you build the expertise playing and playing. These kind of arrogant commentaries aren't welcome. Let him spend his time as he wishes.

I don't think anybody here claims to be able to do a top replay in like 30 minutes. How much time it really takes to do a good replay varies though. Sometimes you get a useful magic carpet after a few minutes and other times you can try forever and it just does not happen. That is Stunts. 

Also curious about Mazda 787B, Lada Niva and Citroën XM. I have not tried any but I feel they'd be nice novelties.

I'd love to see the Citroën XM in competition! It's a well-balanced car that could be a good representative of the "proper slow car" tier (example stablemates: Trueno, Thunderbird).

Idea: all cars available and no rules.

There is a way to make all cars available: set a fixed -100% coefficient to anything outside the 16-car list for the year. I'm not really joking: this might actually be a useful way to keep cars away from the competition proper while still allowing people to drive for fun with them.

Is a fixed -100% coefficient sufficient to keep all the "cheat cars" at bay? I haven't tested them much so I am unsure how fast they really are.

I don't believe we should discuss the rules for 2026 in this thread.

However, I made a detailed post in the "Cars and rules for 2026" thread. It goes without saying that I cannot misuse  the rules discussion as a tool to burry the hatched between us.

Hence, I've tried to analyze the PG problem as objectively as possible. Though no one is ever totally objective. 

This post was an attempt at an objective analysis of the interplay between car coefficients and power-gear cars.

Since those pipsqueaks who raised the issue left the competition the analysis seems obsolete.

[If the community agrees that PG wins should be limited, here's my proposal:]

If the community agrees that PG wins should be limited, here's my proposal:

Once a car wins a race, it becomes unavailable for the rest of the season.

We can then discuss whether a pool of 16 cars remains sufficient under this rule.

your proposal looks fresh as a compromise measure, in general I support it. but it is even better to use patched versions from Daniel3D, then you won't have to change anything at all

Thank you for bringing the discussion back to a mature level — I truly appreciate it. 🙂

Please allow me to share how I see the situation. I openly acknowledge that the combination of PG cars and the car coefficient system gives me an advantage. My strongest skill in stunts is, without question, the ability to manage a PG lap where others cannot — which explains the high number of unexpected PG surprises.

Now, let's address the question of whether we should introduce rules to limit or even ban PG cars. From my perspective, pipsqueaks have different preferences:

• Some enjoy driving PG laps — I'm one of them. I'm fascinated by the strategic side of stunts: a great stunts map is full of inventive tricks, and I love discovering them and finding the best car–track combination.
  
• Others simply enjoy watching PG laps because they're spectacular — my ZCT 284 Corvette lap is a good example.
  
• Many casual competitors are indifferent to PG cars.
  
• And finally, there are pipsqueaks who actively dislike their presence — you and Alain fall into this group.
  

I respect all of these viewpoints. As humans, we all have different preferences. What matters less to me is Kevin Pickell's original intention over 35 years ago. If what began as a bug now provides enjoyment to several of us, its technical origin doesn't necessarily mean it should be removed. What matters most is what the community thinks — and that's difficult to gauge, given the limited participation in this discussion.

We also shouldn't overlook an important point raised by @dreadnaut: Zakstunts is currently the only active competition that features both free rules and power-gear laps. Those who prefer OWOOT driving already have several other competitions available. This is a key consideration.

Putting aside the fact that I personally benefit from the current format, I believe that in an ideal scenario, all cars should have an equal chance of winning. If we agree that's a worthwhile goal, the next challenge is figuring out how to get there. @HerrNove mentioned some justified concerns regarding my proposal so we should keep the brainstorming going.

It's not working properly on my end. It's working in slow motion. Thank you for the effort.

I have a simpler solution! Download the .trk (qr coded with buildings on the terrain for each pipsqueak) from a PHP website, upload the replay on the website before a countdown ends. The times are automatically updated on a result page. What do you think of that?

I am not available in september for a live event. But I'll manage a live race project proof of concept aiming for the upcoming Stunts UNiversal Timezone Series during the holidays in october! from the 18th of october to the 3rd of november. This is a community project any Stunts pipsqueak interested at can take part, see the existing topic on France Stunts subforum.

https://youtu.be/QKI2mqj_tIU

Unfortunately your method does not work. A pipsqueak with bad intentions could prepare a lap in advance and then exchange the track part in the replay file. Consequently, you may as well make the race trust based and avoid the hassle.

[a single, straightforward line of reasoning]

@Alain il professore:

This thread contains quite a lot of text for what is essentially a single, straightforward line of reasoning:

• Observation: Argammon wins a higher share of PG races than most other top pipsqueaks.
• Fact: Alain does not like Argammon.
• (2+3) --> Develop arguments suggesting: Winning PG races does not demonstrate skill --> Therefore, Argammon's championship has little value.
• (2+3) --> Develop arguments suggesting: Winning with a PG car is detrimental to the community (e.g., creates perceived unfairness, may discourage newcomers).

If framed this way, the discussion would be more concise and transparent.

I'd also note that "spotting patterns" is only useful if those patterns are interpreted correctly. In this case, the percentage of PG wins in a season depends not only on tracks, but also on the car coefficients and the mix of participating drivers.

• Example – ZCT 288: @KyLiE showed that a Corvette PG lap was possible, but its coefficient was too low compared to the Oxia. --> Had the Corvette's coefficient been slightly higher, we might have seen another PG win.

[If the community agrees that PG wins should be limited, here's my proposal:]

1) It's entirely reasonable that @Victor Narl (and Alain) prefer cars to stay on the tarmac rather than spending excessive time on the grass. It's also perfectly valid to propose rule changes to address this concern.

What I find—speaking as neutrally as possible—unhelpful is blending the discussion of potential rule changes with accusations of cheating. As long as pipsqueaks comply with the current ZakStunts rules, they are not cheating. That may sound obvious, but it's worth stating clearly.

2) It's important to understand the majority view. Do we have a genuine consensus? We should be careful not to assume that the loudest voices automatically represent the majority. That may or may not be the case.

3) I agree that pipsqueaks skilled with PG cars currently have an advantage—myself included. For a balanced distribution of wins, PG cars should ideally win around 4 out of 16 tracks.

If the community agrees that PG wins should be limited, here's my proposal:

Once a car wins a race, it becomes unavailable for the rest of the season.

We can then discuss whether a pool of 16 cars remains sufficient under this rule.



PS:

For instance, https://imgur.com/ajg8k3L.png in 2003, I found all the PG shortcuts and shared them with my 5 team members. It was one of the few races with a power gear of the whole year and everyone in the scoreboard used it. It was fair competition. Now in 2025 it's 6 months on PG and 3% of pipsqueaks using it take all the wins.

I remember that differently, but it is not important regarding the current discussion.

[so we can test]

Sorry, but I don't think that conclusion holds.

Replay Analyser (RA) is excellent for spotting sustained RH patterns, but it can't reliably prove or disprove a single, targeted rewind used only for crash recovery. Consider this concrete case:

Start: Driver X begins a NORH attempt.

Crash: In the final corner, they lose control.

Rewind: They rewind to the previous straight where the car runs steady and only "accelerate" is pressed.

Finish: On the second try, they take the corner cleanly and finish.

What RA signal would reveal RH here? On the straight, key‑press statistics are indistinguishable from a normal clean run. Key-count distributions alone won't expose this kind of targeted rewind. If you believe it can, please outline a step‑by‑step method.

This isn't a defense of using RH in NORH—quite the opposite. It's about aligning on what is and isn't detectable so we focus on real problems, rather than speculative ones (for example drivers downloading hidden replays). If there's a robust, reproducible procedure, please share it so we can test and adopt it.

Usually, RH can always be distinguished from NoRH with careful viewing and it is not really possible to cheat here.

for example:
The RH replay clearly shows that it has all the hallmarks of a replay-processed race, such as overly smooth corners and more near-runs than you might expect.
these are not my words, but the words of Overdrijf https://dosreloaded.de/forum/thread/7264-4d-sports-driving-stunts-jahrescontest-2024/?pageNo=4

Sorry, but this is not correct. Even if a pipsqueak only uses RH for "crash recovery" they get a massive advantage in NORH racing. Using it only for crash recovery is undetectable.

For example, when I am trying to get a top NORH time i am driving so risky that I only finish 5%-10% of all runs. (The 90-95% of non-finished runs also include runs in which I violated the ruleset, for example OWOOT).

If I were to continue racing after a crash, I would be able to finish many more strong runs than I would be able to do otherwise. And of course, finishing 40 strong runs likely gives a better time than finishing 2-4.

(...) 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!

[same weapons]

(...) 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.

[However, there is one point I find puzzling:]

I believe it would be a good idea to introduce a GAR season scoreboard. The cleanest way to implement this would be to start in 2026, since GAR was only added as a "test" partway through the current season.

However, there is one point I find puzzling:

On the one hand, members of the Hyperion team have expressed concerns about cheating in RH competitions. Examples they've mentioned include:

-Track authors sharing tracks in advance with certain pipsqueaks

-pipsqueaks downloading non-public replays

-pipsqueaks modifying replays via hex editing

-Admins viewing the times of hidden replays

To their credit, they have also proposed measures to address some of these issues.

On the other hand, they actively support NORH competitions (such as GAR and Dosreloaded), arguing that the experience is much closer to "real driving." Yet here lies the elephant in the room: cheating in NORH competitions is arguably much easier, since using RH cannot be detected. Why, then, is there no apparent concern about this type of cheating? I would appreciate some clarification.

To help address this, I propose that all NORH racing be conducted on a (ZakStunts?) server using @Daniel3D's NORH version of Stunts. Hopefully, it will not be too difficult to ensure that the server version runs smoothly on most of our systems.

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.