Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

CSR78 - Succeeding the Wankel


#23

Can you please give us a reason why no mods?


#24

One more thing; could it be a 2015 because the family is a 2015 and I reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaally don’t want to make a brand new model?


#25

That may be true, but why have that as a rule? If someone wants to enter a car that has 167kW of power and weighs 1000kg, then it would be disqualified, yet someone entering a car with 169kW of power and weighing much more is not.


#26

Well part of the reason that rule doesn’t work well is because the max 0-100 time is too high, so those rules don’t work together to force certain types of cars (sooo van meta?). The only reason I see that that rule is in place is to keep a loose theme to the challenge. (but none of the other rules really keep to that theme as strong as the min power rule)


#27

It would be better to scrap most of these requirements and only keep the fundamental ones - this way it gives more freedom (and less rule checking) to design what you want. If it doesn’t meet the basic challenge goal (RX replacement), then it gets cut in shortlisting anyway…

I’d recommend only keeping the following:

Cost/Engineering Restrictions:
-Trim year must be 2014
-Max cost $20,000 @0%
-Max Production Units is 140, including both engine and trim
-Max Engineering Time is 50 for engine, 50 for trim

Road Legal Restrictions:
-No semi slick tires
-Engines need a catalytic converter and less than 50 loudness
-Min Safety 50
-Suspension must be >99mm ride height


#28


#29

Your not being scored by markets other than a small bonus if it does really well in a lot of them even internationally… the markets limitation is to prevent a car purpose built for one low budget customer… this needs to be something a company would already be selling at a profit, and 110 at launch year with 0% market seemed a achievable bar to control that. Like a lot of these rules, I won’t sweat it if your car is 109.x or simlar. I feel creativity would be greatly hampered if I selected the markets, but as is there are many possible demographics in game around this customer. Current entries are already diverse, even ignoring the ones that are shitposts in more than looks.

Min power is firstly for market balance, secondly to reflect Autostraylias muscle car thinking that puts >300kw into any of the slightly sporty sedans\utes\suv’s without much regard to total weight (which notice, is not scored beyond markets, and thirdly as a show of one upping the car the client original wanted, but can’t have.

Min speed and 0-100 on the other hand prevent exploits I’ve seen, as did camber rules.
Limited\ No Mass production flags address down-force under-bodies, glued aluminum or spaceframes… this is a fairly affordable production sports car, and such flags would normally entail higher markup requirements to remain profitable… which is outside the limited scope of this CSR currently, but I can write a penalty clause for it instead (like rules\judging at 10 or 20 % instead of 0) if enough people want, and current entrants agree to allow it.

Min ride height is the laws of Auto-straylia (actually its 100mm, but automations height steps are pretty coarse so I have a bit of wiggle)… if its lower you can’t drive it on public roads, which the buyer wants to do.

2 seats, and payload\cargo for 2 people, fuel and max allowable checked& carry on luggage is again a buyers need, he won’t consider anything else, and again its a pretty low bar to meet in 2014.

I didn’t have an issue meeting 50 safety my test cars (it took standard option in entertainment and saftey equipment on semi-spaceframe without any body morphs), but I will happily lower that if again lots of people are hitting limits and the current entrants agree on it… and it was supposed to represent the ridiculous laws of Auto-stralya… as a nation it modifies almost all import cars in some way to meet its safety specs, like side intrusion bars ect… only a couple of years after this CSR, they will mandate ESC for any car of a production run more than 10 thats sold locally. The good news is loose emmissions laws (only needs a cat), and the buyer doesn’t care, so go nuts in that regard.


#30

As I have just posted recently, these rules are too restrictive, especially for me. Requiring a very high competitiveness level in three specific markets is unnecessary for the reasons you have pointed out. As it stands right now, I will not enter this round unless a more reasonable rule set is put in place - or if I can find a workaround.


#31

And thats absolutely cool to do, these competitions rounds are only present for those that will find it fun to do, no judgement from here if you’d rather wait for a more open specification. I’ve simply written something I think would be interesting to do, it won’t (and probably can’t) suit all preferences.

In fact to address this exact concerns, I’m thinking of opening another polar opposite (non-CSR, but CSR style) competition that ends sooner to suit some of the people this doesn’t in the mean while… current plan is a half baked idea, but something Eco concept car… max fuel consumption 4L\100km, points equally out of 10 for creativity, looks, and how believable it would be in whatever market it would serve (eg if its luxury it can be more expensive but comfortable and prestigious… if its fun it needs to be sportier… but being a concept it can shoot a little high on everything it shows). This would be frustrating to me as an entrant because its so subjective, but it’d be super quick to judge and appeal to the people this restricted CSR does not, so keen for your thoughts.


#32

@SheepInACart


#33

Firstly because of balance… there is no standard for setting things like production units vs stats ect for mod bodies. Some are more powerful, some are weaker, and I’m not talking only about the few overtly massively broken ones that would be easy to blacklist.

Secondly because you require the mod in question to use a mod body… yes its a little lazy but with probably half of the stock bodies in a decade that can fit the rules I don’t feel it would really be needed in this. On the other hand if it where say a supercar CSR, then absolutely there are few great choices in any decade, and it would be very bland without them. Its just a limitation of scope on this.

The second challenge mentioned above will be up soon hopefully, and will allow mods, and have unrestricitve rules if this suits you better…


#34

:roll_eyes:

See, the problem here is your attitude to this.

Not much more.

You need to realise something very, very obvious you seem to be missing.

No-one likes your restrictive rules. Simplfy and fix them.

Don’t run a 2nd challenge, just fix this one.


#35

You don’t seem to understand what mod bodies actually affect. Production unit will only change based on the size of the body, and even then it’s minimal. There’s no “powerful” or “weak” bodies, that makes no sense. In short: there’s no valid reason to prevent mod bodies from being used, it’s easy to just blacklist the 1-2 broken mods that have issues.

I also support what pretty much everyone else is saying about the market scores not making sense for the challenge. As I explained several hours ago, the market scores require factory tooling to be used as a good barometer of whether or not a car is good and sandbox mode does not provide that. The markets are also not the best thing to reference in terms of making cars that would realistically sell.
I’ve managed to make a car fit that section of the rules, and guess what? It makes no sense as something to be sold. Premium interior, basic infotainment, standard 00s safety, 7-speed DCT with launch control. How is that not a car made to please only a single individual?

Lastly, making a secondary competition to run alongside CSR to try and satisfy all those who are displeased with the ruleset is in very bad form.


#36

First off the obvious point.
This is creative challenge, the more creative freedom the better the round will be.

You are unnecessarily limiting both the challenge and the entry list by being so stubborn.
And the 2nd point

“yes its a little lazy”

I’m sorry but this is not good enough. If I can pull the stick out my ass to fix WST, which is now way bigger than I could have dreamed of, you can fix this challenge. Accept your rules aren’t as good as they first seemed (Again something I have had to see) and better both the challenge and your own experience.


#37

Why run a 2nd challenge appealing to all our suggestions rather than just adjusting this one?


#38

So why make it even a set rule? If it is only “a small bonus” it doesnt need to be an entry rule.

I dont think thats how any of this works. If you are looking for already existing vehicles this would be a lore challenge. And yet again see point 1. Also you have to remember than when you say the market has to be 110 on THREE categories you basicly say the third market has to be over 110 and that already requires min-maxxing. Exspecially with other set rules.

Funny enough you achived the exact oppisite. Saying “Hey it has to sell at least 80 points in Sport” is less restrictive than your rule.

First you throw out every light Sports car with that, second that reflecting doesnt work. You try to reflect “Autostraylias” values on a japanese car? If you would want to make a successor to holden commodore SS or something maybe.

Which exploits? If you get a car which you think is to slow, bin it.

This not even about “It doesnt suit people”. This is wrong on many levels.
Like how are we supposed to give you a successor to a rotary car, when there are no rotary ingame?
Pull a Mitsubishi and give you a Turbo I4 Crossover?

Also this sounds like you did a rushjob.

No. You will not be able to host 2 comps at the same time and deal with all the diffrent entries you will get.
It takes people days to only compile one CSR.

They why did you not blacklist them

So because you couldn’t be bothered nobody is allowed to use them. Ookie Dookie

Why not do this here


#39

I’m only going to address one thing here which will only echo what everyone else is saying:

It makes zero sense by all conceivable rational thought to insist on running the current ruleset here and then say you’ll open another challenge with a less restrictive ruleset. As it stands these rules will fail.

You have two options:

  • Fix these rules as per the rather valid concerns everybody has
  • Abdicate your position as round host

I honestly don’t care which option you pick, but just note that creating another challenge and leaving this one as it is is not one of them.


#40

Hold off on making submissions for now, rule change in effect within 1 hrs.


#41

Rules now updated… if you have already submitted I recommend updating your cars, you can likely do a lot more things under the new rules, but keep in mind the new restriction “sportiness 30 or more”.


#42

Okay that seems much better, thanks.

Final queries:

Some bodies have a bit of a wonky ride height set. They’re not often below 100mm but one or two may cause surprises.

When you say 350kg load do you mean the overall stat in the summary tabs?