Plaidoyer: Maintaining Fairness and Skill in Stunts

[Alain il professore]

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.

[HerrNove]

On a not-totally-unrelated note: It's 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).

[Alain il professore]

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.

[Matei]

The engine's quirks aren't bugs to avoid

Stunts doesn't have bugs. Some people say it haz bugs, like this:

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

Beg pardon, like this:

Therefore, 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

Toto, we're flying, we're going up!

[dreadnaut]

@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.

[Argammon]

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.

[HerrNove]

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.

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.

[Matei]

ask 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.

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

Can someone with AI translate this?...

[dreadnaut]

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!

[Alain il professore]

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.

[Argammon]

(...) 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.

[Argammon]

(...) 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!

[Duplode]

The 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.

One 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.

Respect 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.

[dreadnaut]

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, DOSReloaded, DOS Game Club. Occasionally there's a Stunts CCC, Stunts NTT, or Live Race event. Alain has just restarted France Stunts.

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 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:

But 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.

There 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.

there 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!

[alanrotoi]

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.

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