So this is molded bumpers (inside the oval)?
I don’t understand why my car got classified as upscale.
Midsize cars don’t get much more basic than mine tbh.
IIRC you had at least one premium interior component selected.
@Aaron.W - Most if not all of the models in this era of the game have integrated bumpers and don’t need a separate fixture to be added. The requirement is in case someone is using a throwback body that doesn’t have one.
As you can clearly see, it’s standard/standard with 5 seats.
Could you please re-run the round and put my car in the correct category this time?
Will I reload your car and take another peek at it? Sure. Will I apologize if I misread it? Sure. Will I rerun the math? Absolutely not. Because it’s not just changing a few numbers in a spreadsheet for just your car, it affects the curving of scores both in the category you move to and you move from. It requires completely redoing the math for the round, which takes me 12+ hours in one sitting.
PS - if I moved you, I can probably tell you based on the comments I made on your car, that you’d actually do WORSE in the category you think you want to be in.
The Erin Berlose launched in 1983, becoming the company’s first ever proper full-sized saloon. Offered with a range of I6 engines and an infamous V8 option later, the car’s smooth ride and comfort quickly established its place in the market, and made it a household name in premium saloons by the end of the decade.
It probably would. But it’s the category it was conceived to be in.
I absolutely don’t understand why it takes you so long to process a round, there is no computational method that I can think of that takes this long. And if this is the best you’ve got, maybe you should ask for help, as I can think of at least three people who are good with spreadsheets, me included, who have better systems, which would save you time each round.
Meanwhile, I’m not sure I am interested in this any longer, with all the issues the challenge has, like the arbitrary categories and their scoring, all the unfair/not lore friendly entries, it’s become far from fun to me.
I’m afraid I’ll withdraw my entry and no longer submit cars for future rounds.
I think you’re a bit rude now actually. Most of us have a real life that is coming in the way all the time and is only running automation and hosting competitions on a hobby basis. IMO, spreadsheets aren’t everything either, I don’t know how Vic is counting but finding the best overall package in a class needs some thinking sometimes. As an example, having the sportiness reaching silly levels on a cargo van should never be able to compensate for the cargo room being cramped since that’s not what the customer want. Sure, it could be weighted differently but that would mean that even sillier levels could be used for compensating etc…
When you are buying a car IRL, do you let a spreadsheet choose the right one for you then?
That’s because each car’s score is reliant on the stats of every other car, not just a simple “who has the highest number” scoring system like you’re used to. When you have as many entrants as Vic has, in varying categories from year to year, the calculation for who has done best is going to take time.
Nice series of assumptions you’ve made there… You have no idea whether Vic is or isn’t using a spreadsheet to collect data in, nor can you reasonably assume that you or your unnamed “3 others” would be able to do a more efficient job. Also time spent calculating figures doesn’t equal quality of figures produced. You may build a quicker system but miss a vital connection that makes your system less balanced or unfairly weighted towards a certain playstyle.
Translation; “I’m not dominating so I’m quitting”. All categories are arbitrary. The only reason you think some make more sense than others is because you’re either used to them or you made them up, thus they match your logic. Ask for a clarification from Vic on what categories there are and how they’re formulated before throwing around terms like “arbitrary”.
As for unfair or non-lore friendly, there has been no violation that I’m aware of. We don’t have all the pressures and thought processes that the IRL companies had so our “Generations” reality isn’t going to look exactly the same as the IRL one. Vic has included relevant lighting regulations and has introduced safety minimums when appropriate so I don’t see your problem. Maybe you should wait until this competition has ended then make suggestions on how another round could be improved/clarified.
This is Vic’s first effort of a very ambitious challenge. We’re doing great to get where we are now and I believe that no-one else would have pulled this competition off as successfully as Vic. So roll with the punches and save the nit-picking for post-competition, where it’s most appropriate.
Your loss buddy, don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
I know this is going to sound weird coming from the guy who just won the last round but this just sounds like you’re not taking it in stride. Your investing your worth into whether or not you win which is not a healthy atitude towards any competition. Because every competition has unfair competitors and arbitrary rules; some more so than others, but it is a universal fact.
If anything, the “unfair” competitiont, and yes there is some of that…
You know what fuck it. I ADMIT to being part of that problem since my company was not established past about 1975 when started this thing. But you know what my early cars taught me because most of them scored only average at best?
My designs WERE BAD!
This competition has been a great opportunity for me to rethink how I was building cars. Because the way I was building cars before was making sure it passed the sniff test for what I wanted it to be and then moved on. Well, turns out, because I wasn’t thinking about well-rounded vehicles, the reliability scores would be shit, or the handling would be off, or the expense would be absolutely insane, or the comfort would be horribad, or any of a bunch of problems that real manufacturers have to face and mitigate.
And its not like real manufacturers know an advance what they or their competition are going to do too. So you have to be ready for somebody throw in something that totally changes the game, however “unfair” it might be.
So if anything, the “unfair” competition should be an chance for you to revisit your designs and go “Hmm that was a pretty boneheaded move”.
And role play it, because real manufacturers also make boneheaded decisions that they then have to try and fix with whatever tools they realistically have available. I doubt that you have no leeway within your established canon to tune up an old design and make it better or or worse, especially in the name of matching what it was supposed to be.
For my own example, 1979 posed an interesting problem because FHL didn’t have anything that I had even planned for yet that would have been new. I mean NOW I have 1979 cars, but at the time of the competition, the only thing that was even established to exist was the Bellevue. So what did I do? Give up? No, I role played it and tried to turn a malaise garbage pile into something that maybe might possibly have a shred of a nonexistent chance of being competitive and tried my best to do so in a historically accurate manner (V6 engine). And did it work? Well, not to the extent of standing a chance of winning, but it was also not last.
I could not say it better myself.
If Vic let spreadsheets and formulas make all the decisions, then I probably should not have won the last round, because the Takemi Ascera was virtually matched but costed less than the Fenton ET. That means by strict formula, its better. But people can judge context in a way the computers often can’t. Computers are just extremely fast idiots. They do what you tell them. Nothing more. Often less.
Subjective judgement is key in these kinds of competitions. Because in real life, people make choices that defy mathematical intuition all the time, and yet they are still the logical choices to make. That might not be obvious until years down the road though because quality can’t always be assessed in terms of numbers and charts.
Leo - I pulled it back up and did indeed place it in the wrong category. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry. I must have had the wrong tab in my sheet open when I started recording your entry. That said, taking a quick look at your entry vs. the others in the entry category, my mistake most definitely acted in your favor. Your entry would have been SLAUGHTERED in the “correct” category. It would have been category worst (or close to it) in at least 4 different IMPORTANT stats for an entry car. Your saving grace would have been drivability. I accept your withdrawal and wish you the best in the future.
Knug, Blaine, HOL - Thank you for your words. I appreciate your voiced perspective in this matter as participants (all of whom have had successes and failures throughout the rounds). I can also see the design evolution as various companies win or struggle. There’s one person in particular who had a really rough go early on, but their designs are getting markedly better. I know they’ve consulted others for help, and they’ve learned from it. Which, in my book, is super admirable. (And then there’s one who I’m pretty sure intentionally tanked their vehicles early on for lore purposes… which was hilarious and also great to see the comeback)
(Also, Private Miros… I see what you did in your ad there… )
For anyone still scratching their heads at all of this, remember this competition is written through the eyes of an American consumer review magazine. They were notorious, particularly from about '75 to 2000, of sometimes making odd, bizarre, and counter-intuitive recommendations.
And I cannot stress enough… a lot of buyers just don’t listen to them either. Otherwise, GM would have gone bankrupt in 1992, not 2008. So a bad review or RR in the game doesn’t mean your car won’t sell. It’s just a number for sorting the competition.
Now… for the rest of us, back to the round.
All entries sent over the weekend are being downloaded now. I was out of town with no internet.
It was the first time I saw a model that really was the same style as I was planning, plus I’m in a competitive mood with that historic semi-final for our little country against France; so I had to do it.
Thursday, June 19, 1986
“Hideki,” Matt Seldon motioned toward his desk. “Please, come in.”
“Yes, Mr. Seldon.” The Japanese design exec was showing his age in every step. He lowered his body slowly into the chair. “What can I do for you, sir?”
Matt tented his fingers, tapping the ends of the indexes against each other. “Are we just about done with the E2 modernization?”
“We are on track as requested, sir. Seven months from now we can start producing units.”
“Good.” Matt paused. “Now, how about you?”
Hideki was caught flat footed. There was a moment’s pause. “Sir?”
“Was this your last hurrah, or are you able to do one more design for us?”
Hideki Akiyama was at a loss for words. His career was illustrious, spanning more than 50 years working for Suzume and Ardent. It was, without a doubt, time for him to retire. Yet he hadn’t given it much thought.
“One more time, Mr. Seldon. One last, as you say, hurrah,” he replied.
Matt smiled. “Your legacy is already secure. But I have a feeling that you still haven’t created your Magnum Opus. Any resources you need are at your disposal. All you need do is ask.”
Hideki rose and bowed deeply to his boss. “I will not disappoint you, Mr. Seldon.”
(And no, the engine in the Silver Sentinel is NOT Hideki Akiyama’s Magnum Opus.)
All of this seemed to go down while I was at work. I just wanted to say however, in addition to making me a better designer, this has also made me a better writer. My lore page was undeveloped and unfocused, more comparing myself to IRL cars, and the bodies that I wanted, rather than what was available, etc. By progressing the story, I became a better writer (at least until I got busy at home).
Lemme put my two cents in.
Was Leo right in asking for the round to be rerun? No. Its an overreaction imo.
Are the issues he pointed out wrong? No. (apart from maybe the spreadsheet thing idgaf about that really)
First off lets ask why this accident happened on the first place. Leo’s car was put in the upmarket categories because Vic thought it had premium seats. Assuming every other stat was correctly noted down, this would mean Vic entirely bases whether a car is premium or not on what seats it has as opposed to the price or prestige. I can further back this up seeing as two rounds back, my entry, despite being cheaper than even some of the entry level sedans, was put alongside luxury cars, just because I had premium interior. IMO, this is a terrible way of doing it and was bound to lead to someone being put in a market they never intended to compete in. Just think about it, how pissed off would you be if your truck was placed in the upscale class and had to compete with luxury cars? (extreme example but bear with it) You would be pretty pissed off. Even if you would do better in that category as opposed to the one you intended to be in. Which brings me to this point.
So what? Isn’t the entire point of generations to compare cars of the same class? So what if it does shit? That’s happened to me many times and if that car was placed in the wrong category and did better, of course I would pissed. And I’m pretty sure someone else was running this challenge and it happened to you, you would be equally pissed.
Now onto the next point, does this challenge have arbitrary scoring? I would argue yes. Back In round 7, my entry did poorly scoring under 80. Now is that score fair, yes. Was it fair that it was touted to have poor handling, yet had one of the highest driveability in class? No. And just in case anyone thinks I’m just being salty that my car scored poorly, I know it had poor reliability and had mediocre stats else where. What I’m pointing out is that my car had poor handling despite being one of the best on driveability. You know why it was touted as having poor handling? Because a barge had better lateral gs than me entry. If that isn’t arbitrary I don’t know what is. I get that flavour text is needed, but ffs make sure it isn’t something stupid. You could have said it was unreliable, poor value for money, literally anything but poor handling, yet that was what was said. Not only was it wrong, it was misleading. I read the round 7 review on when I was away from my PC, and I assumed that I had lower driveability than the rest, only to find out later it was pretty normal.
Next onto how people minmaxing and using incredibly advanced tech. I know Vic said he cant actually ban people using advanced tech, and I agree. But at least do something more than just “you have to use cars that are old and you cant make totally new cars each round”. That doesn’t solve the issue it hides it under a rug. I’ve already said this, but taking ET into consideration would be a surefire way to mitigate the number of people using highly advanced tech early on. Also handing out more penalties for using vastly advanced tech. IIRC there was only one time where this happened, back when TSR first entered, but nothing else since. I have no doubt that some of the basic cars entered into round 9 had multi point fuel injection, despite the fact that it would have been an incredibly rare sight to see, or in the rounds prior to that using mechanical injection. Point is, not enough is being done to attempt to dissuade those from using really advanced tech in their cars. If nothing is done to change this, I expect to see direct injection being used in early 2000 shitboxes.