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

The Car Shopping Round (Round 64): Tears in Heaven


#9512

I’ve got a few comments/recommendations:

  • You mention a maximum price and price for modifications, but don’t give us any formulas to calculate price or modifications. As it stands, we can’t make a car for a budget since we don’t know what makes for an $8,000 car.

  • CSR is usually a one trim only thing. I don’t see anything in the general rule saying that isn’t allowed (just that only one car is to be submitted), so not sure if there’s an unwritten rule or if this would be setting a precendent.

  • Best to not limit to JDM. People have lore companies from all over, even Lite Campaign and made up countries. By stating you want something specifically JDM you’ll be making it impossible for most to submit a car within their company lore.

  • A deadline 10 days from now is a little long, CSR is usually a week-long thing at the most.

  • You need to make it clear in the rules of what you’re looking for in a car in terms of stats. If it’s only price and looks, that works fine, but if there’s anything more to it you should add it to the ruleset, either as an explicit rule or part of the story brief.


#9513

:thinking:


#9514

Thanks for the feedback - as to your points:

This is more or less the point of this round - you’re basically supposed to ballpark estimate the constituents of the asking price, with tech value and mod costs relatively easy to get right and heritage value more mysterious. That said, I think I will make it so that overshooting the budget will just incur a penalty rather than leading to an instabin, so you can’t screw up completely. I’ll also add a bit of info to make it a bit less vague.

I see your point. I’ll alter that to “JDM-like”, as in: american muscle cars are not what Kenji is looking after.

Yeah, I know, I chose that because of questions and christmas (don’t know how the latter will affect you guys). I can shorten that if it’s deemed necessary.

OK, should’ve mentioned that - stats are largely irrelevant, they should just be reasonable for the type of the car (as in: V12 in a hatchback - bad; 2-speed auto in a sportscar - bad). Stats of the riced car have no impact on the scoring whatsoever. So basically yes, it’s price and looks.

I’m aware that this round is not your typical CSR-round. I think I’ll leave it to @strop (as the initiator of the thread) to decide whether I’m stretching things too far here?

EDIT: Adjustments have been edited into my OP.


#9515

This is one of the most complicated CSR rounds I’ve ever seen… Its premise would be much more suitable for another challenge, in another thread. In fact, this feels a lot more like a tuning contest than an actual CSR round.


#9516

So this is a cheap as chips beauty pageant?


#9517

Not at all - keep in mind that the asking price for a 20 year old car with a 25,000$ market tab price will be well under 5,000$, so even for an expensive car you’ll have a good deal of headroom towards the 8,000$ target.

Some real-world examples:
A 1988 Honda Civic won’t be a good candidate since it’s not old enough to be significant. A 1967 Toyota Corolla, on the other hand, is ancient, and hence, collectible.

A 1983 Nissan 300ZX is not terribly old, but sure to become a classic, and therefore a good candidate. A 1968 Toyota 2000GT will be checking all the boxes, but be way out of reach for Kenji.

It’s about building a cassic, balancing prestige vs age, then ricing up the result.


#9518

Well, I dunno about the rest of the peeps here, but I’m willing to give it a whirl. This smells like a round for the first-gen Kaminari.


#9519

I still think the issue of the budget is not in the spirit of the CSR. Unless we get a clear indication of the cost of changes to a car, we’re getting a penalty over something we have no idea about. The CSR has been about tailoring cars to the buyer, but in this case it sounds like it’ll go to whoever is lucky enough to make something you deem to be worth $8,000 by some arbitrary measure.

CSR isn’t the place for a crapshoot where you submit something and hope it falls within a certain criteria that is witheld from the entrants.


#9520

Sheeeet…I’ve been playing this all wrong! :rofl:


#9521

I thought that was the whole point of CSR? lol


#9522

Maybye first entry here i come :slight_smile:


#9523

So, is the modified trim supposed to be created in 2010, or are both to be created when the car is new?


#9525

@bastormonger add this to the bottom of your round post maybe?


#9526

Ok, somehow I can’t help but get the impression that this super awesome obfuscated ruleset idea of mine is not going down well with quite a few of you guys, so maybe this was really poor judgment on my part.

I’m kinda in doubt now as to whether it is a good idea to push this through in its current form - maybe it would be a better idea to just scrap the whole age calculation thing and turn this round to a purely styling-based no-holds-barred ricebowl catwalk?

This would be a pretty drastic rule change, but it’s still early in this round and no one has submitted anything yet, so maybe this would be smarter than going through with the current rules by hook or by crook.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: If you guys are in favor of an all-out rule change, I would be able to do this by tomorrow around midday, so not much time will be lost, fyi.


#9527

For Pricing, Maybe Use Car Price Simulator V0.1 (Used in CSR 53), Set Current year to 2010 to Get a Current Price (Under the $8K Stated) so We Don’t Have to Guess what the Price would be.


#9528

Honestly, I’m quite liking this idea, even though it’s very much a sort of stumbling-in-the-darkness sort of round, it’s unique so… my 2 cents: the vagueness can be excused on account of the fact that it doesn’t conform to the same old formula and brings something fresh to the table.

Here’s what I want to point out. Say you change this to the standard format and we assume you will do your role as round host very well irrespective - which one will people remember, the one that was radical or the one that’s exactly the same as all the ones before it? I really think CSR is in need of an injection of life and if this goes well this could be it, because it does seem to be general consensus that the CSR has been getting dreary, repetitive and boring. This is just my take, so if we want to stick with the old way, we can do that.

That being said, to go with this round, it seems it needs some work. The rules could be and need to be more concise, plus you need some sort of spreadsheet to idiotproof the pricing system. It isn’t very user friendly and it would be unfair if people were put out of contention because of a mistake or whatever. Won’t be impossible to do.


#9529

I think our only issue with this is that we can’t fix down pricing.


#9530

I agree with you there. The challenge itself isn’t a problem for me, just figuring out the rules in terms of pricing is a little muddy at best @bastormonger. Maybe simplify the rules some more instead of scrapping them altogether?


#9531

I think the real issue here is CSR itself. It took @bastormonger 1 day to come up with this ruleset. Thats simply not enough time. Especially for something this complex. Some challenges which have simpler rules took even longer to come up with said rules. This challenge was ambitious and could have been interesting, but due to our expectations of CSR, where if we dont get a challenge immediately after the last one finished, we have people who complain and say that its taking too long, it became a confusing mess.

I dont think bastormonger has ever won a round before this, and I doubt he expected to win. Furthermore, considering that the winner of CSR 57 was chosen from the runner up from CSR56 since CSR57 took too long to complete, you can see the pressure placed on the roundmaster to come up with any sort of round. This is leading to the stagnation of CSR where its basically become the same cookie cutter formula, where interesting rounds are a rarity.


#9532

At the rate things are going, I would suggest a total rule change - I feel that the current rule set for CSR59 is too vague, and should have been created over two days instead of just one.