What it means is I had different purposes and priorities when making this challenge’s ruleset as compared to that one’s; the second part of my comment exists to highlight a contrast between the two.
One might consider taking a less condescending tone with me if the explanation above is that difficult to comprehend.
The difficulty with comprehension would be on your end, there was no need to “highlight a contrast between the two”
Is that not me essentially saying the same as:
?
Then I go on to say (with added clarification in brackets):
Hopefully that’s clear enough to you how I was well aware of that already? Probably not sadly, I’ve already made the mistake of overestimating you here before so there’s a chance I did again. : /
The one thing you brought up which did highlight something necessary was how the other challenge was also by you and so my earlier praise of your rule writing should perhaps be rescinded.
Meanwhile none of what you said addresses my critique, only further confirms I was right to levy it.
That quote admits to laziness in the previous rules, the laziness which seemed absent from these ones.
Here is an idea. stop arguing with the host.
If you don’t like the rules, don’t enter. If you think you can do better make your own challenge.
I did say
…
Too bad he decided to instead ironically suggest I had comprehension difficulties…
Salt before a CSR even starts 
What’s new I guess.
Incorrect. Whether I need extra contrast in my response, pertaining to my two briefs, to your speculation regarding said briefs - is my decision alone. And in this case, I decided it was needed.
Incorrect. Your statement is speculation; mine is confirmation. You could make the argument that I could have just said something to the effect of, “You were correct in your assumption of my motivations”; however, it wouldn’t make much difference, and as host I feel that all of my statements should make immediate sense to all entrants - which I have done.
Your assumption that there was no reason to ‘count turbo techpool at all’ is incorrect. I would have either fixed it at 0 or 2, because it gave me the peace of mind that all external cost levers were accounted for - even if turbo TP does have no effect on NA engines.
Sure, whatever. It’s an open forum, critique all you want. Just don’t be surprised if people stop taking you seriously when you condescend to somebody for, in effect, agreeing with you in a way you found redundant.
And - incorrect. People have expressed that the techpool tab can be disorienting; a starting field of identical numbers is easier for the eye to process, so that’s what I did. I didn’t have a reason that connected directly to the game’s mechanics and the challenge’s setting - like I do in this challenge - which is the reason for the “wasn’t really a reason” blow-off.
This whole argument is pretty insubstantial; I sure as hell don’t want or need you to like me, I just need you to be civil and tone down the smugness so that this challenge goes well. We can be crossed or we can be cool, so which is it?
Hello fellow citizens, what is going on he…FOR THE GASKET-EATING GOD OF BOXERS, WHAT THE HECK IS THIS.
Jokes asides, why the heck did this convo even started to begin with, and can we get this CSR back to CSR stuff? Before this thread becomes a pile of flame higher than a parking lot full of gen 1 Fieros, we’re better get back to car making, folks.
Also, can someone here be so kind to tell me why a standard cassette system costs more than a premium one in automation? Is my game bugged, or is it something of a feature, so to speak?
I can’t even see how having +2 as the turbo techpool in a non-turbo-era challenge would be a problem. The only thing it does, is to make it easier on the eyes, not primarily for the hosts, but for the contestants, when the base TP is +2 everywhere else. If there always was a fixed TP value it could be argued that it “ate” 2 techpool points, but now it is set by the host anyway. Absolutely no difference between having 40 TP points and +2 at turbos, or 38 TP points and 0 at turbos, for example. I can really not see how that is a thing worth fighting about.
I’d assume it’s the early adopter penalty. If you are using techpool and pick an option that would not be available without it, that option is more expensive than it would normally be. The penalty has a pretty harsh scale, too. Standard cassette unlocks in, I think, '84 or '85? So you’re paying on top of techpool to get that part early.
I, for one, am so excited about this challenge that I already have a car ad. Look! …please!
Give the Malaise Era a nice, tall glass of SHUT-UP JUICE with the new Durendal Le Grand! V6 power with all the latest in fuel-injection technology gives you the strength to kick through a 3-COUNT! Enough room for five full-sized JABRONIS! Ooh yeah, nothing like crushed velour to pad your ass in comfort!
The CREAM always rise to the TOP! That’s where you’ll find the Durendal Le Grand, BROTHER!
Finally, we get to KICK THE DOORS OUT and SHOVE THE CONTROLS INTO A NOSEDIVE
Speculation sure, though speculation which ended up being correct now by your own admission and given there was no prior confirmation and I’m understandably not you and therefore speculation is the best I could be expected to give, that’s not something which can fairly be used against me.
Also, it’s incorrect and frankly hypocritical to claim there’s no difference if you went with your in effect example given your condescending tone complaint earlier.
A reason perhaps, though not a particularly good one, however it’s far more the extra given context of the matter as in the harsh binning if they did everything else correct but that which I have real issue with. None of this would have been brought up if not for that and it also ruins the credibility of the last part, harshly binning for not doing something supposedly done just to make it easier for people seems counter productive, rules should be enforced, sure, though alternatives exist like “officially tech pool is +2 across the board (yes, that includes turbo, though as it does nothing I wont be counting it myself)”, you already did in brackets clarification there so, not like it was gonna make much difference on your end. Perhaps… you could say it’s easier to tally up on your end when viewing entries, though also super convenient you would leave that out till now after hiding behind “it was for the ease of entrants” despite the contradiction on that front already covered.
You acted as if I had no awareness of these things bud, again showing how incorrect you were in saying there was no difference as well as not address my critiques, yet still said
Trying to be somewhat positive after a total blow off reply with an overly defensive aura which given your further replies was another correct assumption on my part.
A total blow off reply isn’t smug? Especially when followed by doubling down like crazy? Works both ways you know, though I would rather us be cool to answer that.
Well, if you want to be cool, we’ll be cool. Any further discussion of our disagreements will be in the DMs. However, I will ask you to cease backseat-hosting - and that goes for any challenge you join the talk on, not just mine.
I severely disagree with regulating advanced trim in this way and it has sapped most of my motivation from entering this time. I understand that excessive use of the settings can make cheesy suspension and tyre set ups look more normal, but being this prescriptive with these settings is stifling for creativity. It removes the ability to correct things like different suspension types having inherently different widths, the ability to properly emulate era correct wheel shape and fitment in their minutia. A clause of “advanced settings are allowed within reason” is broad enough to catch people abusing them to cheese stats, but lenient enough to let those of us who want to tweak things so they’re as close to period correct as possible without sacrificing stats (with wonky rear offset for example) do so with full creative freedom. Yes this opens up room for judging salt, but that is inevitable with most challenges. I do not understand reasoning for adding in these rules so late into the rules deliberation.
There’s still time to iron things out. I tend to prefer “exact” regulation rather than a “no cheese” clause, so whatever comes out of this would likely be a compromise between my rule prototype and that. Ping me on Discord, it’ll be faster there.
fully agree.
with no advanced trim, my car has a noticeable rake, at least to my eye it looks like a carolina squat. this means that i can’t “cancel out” the suspension height, and if i leave it alone it looks wonky.
no tyre settings is also kinda annoying, i always prefer to have a more uniform fitment front to back, and now i probably won’t be able to.
The ATS rules are being looked over. Do note that “front and rear must cancel out” means that allowed combinations are things like +2/-2 or -0.65/+0.65; in other words, correcting rake is already allowed. Do be aware (and make backups accordingly) that if you adjust your car with ATS, especially in terms of rake, many fixtures have the tendency to freak out the next time you touch them.
So the car I am making has a similar colour scheme and the same body - lol.
Lol may the best G-Body win! My car’s paint scheme is a carbon copy of my first car (1981 Bonneville).
