ZCT296 - Soul to Squeeze

[Duplode]

As not uncommonly happens in this genre of track, there are some cheap "two tile" dual-way lines possible on ZCT296. (IIRC the last similar case was in ZCT259; see the discussion we had back then.) Two demo replays are attached to show what I mean. Should we add a special rule for this race to prevent such boring lines? (I feel we should: while it's not a given this sort of thing will dominate the race in three weeks time, better safe than sorry IMO.)

My suggestion for a rule, if we add one, is something simple to follow and no more restrictive than necessary: after the dual-way split, it is not allowed to turn around and go back past the bridge, across the yellow line in the map below. (This would be similar in spirit to what we did for ZCT256).



Cc @dreadnaut and @Erik Barros

[alanrotoi]

I think we should add a special rule for this track and case closed.

Anyway for a future track we could set the difference between solution 1 (replay 1) and solution 2 (replay 2). The p962 replay (which the fastest way is going a lot of time in wrong way) I think we could add a special rule every time it shows up. But in the Indy replay we could check if it's necesary or not.

[Cas]

Wow!  I rarely see these tricks coming. I'm too naïve at Stunts. One very curious thing about Stunts tournaments is that the spectacular tricks and the weirdness that fascinated us when we first got to know Stunts and that made us choose this game in the first place end up being the things we ultimately have to reject in order to have a functioning competition. The more predictable and natural replays are, the more well-behaved and accepted a race is, even if that can make it a little more boring, that is, more like other car games. If Stunts were like those games, would it have been able to compete?

Anyway, I'm not saying we should just let this happen. I agree there has to be a rule to prevent it. I just can't help thinking there should be a way to balance things so that we would occasionally (not all the time) come across the things that make Stunts unique. We haven't been able to achieve this with PG alone, so I guess it must be super hard to do it in general. What I mean with PG is our attempts to prevent PG being always there have caused the Indy to almost never be there and has forced it to only be there when PG is possible, two things that are quite opposite from what we wanted. For DWS, I guess the easy solution is to just not provide two paths when creating tracks. Sad... ha, ha.

[Victor Narl]

All we need to do here is bring back the "Dual-way switching is not allowed for this track" rule, like in the December race, for example.

[Alain il professore]

Hello my friends,

I found the fastest way first, I would advise admins to provide proof because I sent a replay for review to https://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=rplinfo AKA rplinfo online earlier this week. You can check it!

I want my guinness :beer:

Have a nice race!

[HerrNove]

I think I uploaded (but not published) a DWS replay on Tuesday, just after my GAR. If so many people saw that path I guess there's not much credit to claim.

Disallowing DWS means for me that a week's worth of work goes to waste. But it was a risk I was aware of when I decided to bet on this line. Since we are in the first week, and there is precedent, I guess the track's author should decide.

[Duplode]

Anyway for a future track we could set the difference between solution 1 (replay 1) and solution 2 (replay 2). The p962 replay (which the fastest way is going a lot of time in wrong way) I think we could add a special rule every time it shows up. But in the Indy replay we could check if it's necesary or not.

It is indeed tempting to look for a general rule to deal with "solution 1". I remember @afullo made some interesting suggestions about that in the past. Something I once considered was "It is not allowed to drive in the wrong way while doing a dual-way switch", but I'm not super comfortable with making it a general rule because there are interpretation subtleties. (For instance, does cutting through grass for a few frames in the wrong direction count as wrong way driving?)

All we need to do here is bring back the "Dual-way switching is not allowed for this track" rule, like in the December race, for example.

ZCT296 was intended as a dual-way track, and, as @HerrNove highlights, by now there must be plenty of dual-way switching replays on other lines. The issue is that on tracks with long dual-way sectors it's hard to, without special rules, prevent shortcuts that oversimplify the track and destroy its intended concept. In these cases, historically we have tried to only restrict as much as necessary to avoid making the track trivial. Sometimes fully forbidding DWS will be the only way (see ZCT293 or, for an example further in the past, ZCT127), but in other cases we can get away with less intervention -- after all, as @Cas notes, DWS is part of the game!

I think I uploaded (but not published) a DWS replay on Tuesday, just after my GAR. If so many people saw that path I guess there's not much credit to claim.

Disallowing DWS means for me that a week's worth of work goes to waste. But it was a risk I was aware of when I decided to bet on this line. Since we are in the first week, and there is precedent, I guess the track's author should decide.

Does your replay cross the yellow line twice, as the demo ones I posted, or does it use some other kind of DWS line? (As mentioned above, I don't think we need a full ban of DWS on this track.)

I found the fastest way first, I would advise admins to provide proof because I sent a replay for review to https://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=rplinfo AKA rplinfo online earlier this week. You can check it!

I want my guinness :beer:

The site doesn't keep logs of RPLInfo checks -- but no need to, anyway, I believe you Cheers! 🍻

[MiDiaN]

I think we should add a special rule for this track and case closed.

+1

[Alain il professore]

Hello again my friends,

Food for thoughts:

A design oversight has made an overly easy shortcut possible on this month's track.

As the line is legal under free rules, we shouldn't invalidate existing results or retroactively alter PTB. To restore fairness, we did a good thing making the shortcut public to everyone immediately. The official race will continue unchanged, and we will also open a parallel unofficial patched challenge for those who want to race the intended concept of the track.

Nine months of the season count, one missed month is thought of by design.

The admins wrote that in the DNA of zakstunts it's okay finding shortcuts originally unintended by the track designer, well meet Z296.

Back in time I raced on Z49. But it was another era.

Yours, Alain il Professore.

[HerrNove]

@Duplode I cannot watch your replays right now but my lap crosses the yellow line twice and drives a long segment in the wrong way. So it is the kind of intention-breaking trajectory we are discussing here.

Update: yes, my replay's concept resembles TWOTILE

[alanrotoi]

Hello again my friends,

Food for thoughts:

A design oversight has made an overly easy shortcut possible on this month's track.

As the line is legal under free rules, we shouldn't invalidate existing results or retroactively alter PTB. To restore fairness, we did a good thing making the shortcut public to everyone immediately. The official race will continue unchanged, and we will also open a parallel unofficial patched challenge for those who want to race the intended concept of the track.

Nine months of the season count, one missed month is thought of by design.

The admins wrote that in the DNA of zakstunts it's okay finding shortcuts originally unintended by the track designer, well meet Z296.

Back in time I raced on Z49. But it was another era.

Yours, Alain il Professore.

Every time these kind of fixing rules appears the results goes back to the previous status, before the shortcut/trick/dualway is done. It's a pitty for those who raced and found that way (and frustrating in some way) but I don't think replays with this shortcut should stay and count the ptb. Furthermore, it was denunced before.

It happened to me before, more than once, and I know it could be frustrating.

[dreadnaut]

Happy to follow @Duplode's suggestion from the first post: a track-only rule to prevent the specific cut 👍

[Victor Narl]

Happy to follow @Duplode's suggestion from the first post: a track-only rule to prevent the specific cut 👍

Six months ago you wrote something completely different about the "restrictions" for Free - you are deviating from your own concept
https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=98353

[alanrotoi]

Happy to follow @Duplode's suggestion from the first post: a track-only rule to prevent the specific cut 👍

Six months ago you wrote something completely different about the "restrictions" for Free - you are deviating from your own concept
https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=98353

But you miss the particular circumstances of this race and the other when it happened. I see coherence in the discourse.

[Victor Narl]

Happy to follow @Duplode's suggestion from the first post: a track-only rule to prevent the specific cut 👍

Six months ago you wrote something completely different about the "restrictions" for Free - you are deviating from your own concept
https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=98353

But you miss the particular circumstances of this race and the other when it happened. I see coherence in the discourse.

I see you've also "changed your shoes"? You wrote something completely different in that discussion too https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=98355 Is your "integrity of reasoning" based on variability?