Track design for ZakStunts

[alanrotoi]

Do we need some kind of manual? There are some demands this competition has on this topic. For example there lenght of the track should be between 30 seconds and 2 minutes. Should we list some tips and/or must?

This is a fragment of a conversation we had @Duplode and me about it.

(19:44:55) alanrotoi: This year wasn't a good one for tracks in my opinion. We failed trying to restrict the power gear and we restricted also the fun
(19:45:47) Duplode: I get what you mean. There were some very good tracks, but several of them felt quite similar to each other
(19:47:48) alanrotoi: Maybe to write a kind of manual for zakstunts tracks. Let's forget this year for a while, there are some unwritten rules for the tracks in zakstunts that this year we seem to forgot.
(19:48:06) alanrotoi: Maybe because some of the classic builders left, like CTG or Akoss
(19:48:34) alanrotoi: and of course Zak. The Hungarian track building school
(19:48:58) Duplode: Oh, great point! I do miss their tracks
(19:49:55) Duplode: Akoss' uncompromising tracks were always among my favourites
(19:50:38) Duplode: And there's a decent case for CTG's 233 as the best track of the decade so far

[dreadnaut]

Happy to delegate the whole track selection and review!

Let's make this the thread to collect "track design principles" for ZakStunts though. Let's start with:

1. Thou shall not have a road splits too close to either side of the finish line,
that they allow cutting most of the track.

[Duplode]

My take here looks somewhat different than what I gather from Alan's opening post, though part of that could be just a matter of emphasis. In particular, I don't think we've had issues with basic reasonableness of tracks. With respect to length, for instance, there was a bit of testing the boundaries, but they never were truly crossed. Even ZCT271, which seemed really long when it started, eventually had a winning lap under 2:00. I feel it goes similarly for other fundamental attributes.

When I talked about tracks feeling "quite similar to each other" in that chat snippet, I was mainly thinking about how between ZCT271 and ZCT278 most tracks might be described as some combination of "flooded", "rally-like", and "OWOOT-like". I should stress that is not meant as criticism of the individual tracks, and indeed there were many good ones during that run, with some of them even being quite innovative. My point is that the feeling I get when considering the whole ensemble is that our collective palette this year has been a bit smaller than it could have been.

In any case, I do think a guide for track builders can help with track diversity, too! By distilling our collective knowledge, that could be an useful resource when exploring the design space. From that perspective, the emphasis would be not so much with tightening norms and making reviews stricter, but rather with empowering designers to make bolder moves.

(Side note: I believe this theme is also relevant to bonus tweaks, with increased knowledge about car balance granting designers more confidence to make adjustments. I hope to be able to share a contribution on that topic in the near future.)

Lastly, this thread should indeed be a nice place to gather ideas for the guide -- and, once it takes shape, I think its natural home will be the Wiki.

[alanrotoi]

Completely agree with both. Also we could add some key questions a designer could ask/observe before and after building the track, like:
Before building, what kind of track I want:
- fast, slow, hard, easy, tricky, almost free elements, rally-like, flooded, for offroad cars, for street cars, for racing cars, short, long, single way, dual-way, multiple-way, fantasy elements, PG, shortcuts, jumpy, long straights...
You can choose more than one of these aspects.

Also, after building, we could ask depending on the objectives if we reached them and:
Is it fun?
Is it too long/short?
Is the PG properly disabled? (if wanted)
What I can add/sustract?