Like I stated above, sorry I have a busy life. I take issue with the adjustment, and the argument “if no one cares its not a problem” for various reasons in numerous scenarios this included.
My suspension optimization? down the drain. I don’t know what stats are on it now. Gearing ratios pertaining to comfort sport and drive? poof gone. In what competition do I not know my entry’s final stats.
Really? A surprise mechanic in a competitive setting? You’re kidding right? what is this a thriller?
Imagine a football game and at the end “Surprise! goals don’t count! The time of ball control determines the winner!”
I agree skipping would be boring. Revealing bit by bit is not boring. Maybe a more specific criteria would be scrutinized after when the pre-lims are more general, but straying too far is unreasonable don’t you think?
The writing was great, I enjoyed it very much. Though I can’t be asked to feel fulfilled when my effort, thought and time put in were twisted into something else and imo unfairly judged.
Why heff to be mad? I made something with my very limited time according the words in the brief and it was imo not judged according to the brief itself. It feels like shit I deal with at work when a client ask for A then I deliver A to get “Actually nvm lemme change it a bit”. At least at work there are reasonable circumstances to why technical requirements change.
I have also very little spare time, and not willing to offend you, I do NOT have the time and energy to reopen a discussion that was already more or less closed with “most things were good, but that mistake should really not be made again”, especially about something as unimportant as a damn video game.
Yes your points are totally valid but I guess its all not worth the negative emotions and time to heat up even If you are not wrong.
Sure that part was closed. I did say it wasn’t a huge deal and my biggest gripe. Sorry if It seem like that was the point. My ranking was the main issue for me.
Also I guess we can agree to disagree. I can see where the “its just a game” point comes from but no thanks. I do this for fun and being treated unfairly isn’t fun and I feel my joy has been robbed.
I think the issue of how the realism adjustments were done has been thoroughly litigated, and I think all I can really say at this point is that it’s become clear that I should have handled this differently, likely by simply stating up front things like “no rear double-wishbones” in the same way that the rules set out “cross-ply tires” only.
This outcome you discuss here, however, was exactly why I thought that the realism adjustments I made were an effective way of penalizing/rewarding for realism. In other words, if someone carefully colored inside the lines of what was actually available in this market segment at the time, then they got the advantage of their careful suspension/gearing tuning. If not, then, yes, this exactly would be the result. Again, it’s become clear that this was an unpopular and controversial approach, and it’s not one I intend to repeat if I ever host in the future, but this was an intentional feature of the scheme, not some sort of unanticipated quirk.
To be clear, the brief identified two high priorities: drivability and “cost to own,” which was a combination of purchase price, fuel economy, and service costs. As a result, I calculated an overall “cost to own” score that counted as a high priority.
I think your concerns largely speak to the issue that there are different ways to weigh high, medium, and low priorities, and I’m not aware of a particular convention that is used in that regard. I have seen some challenges (like Cool Wall) that specifically lay out how much each criterion will count toward the overall score, but that has appeared to be the exception rather than the rule.
Here, I applied a 2x multiplier to high priority items, a 1x multiplier to medium priorities, and a 0.5x multiplier to low priorities for score weighting. Could I have weighted these differently? Yes. Would your entry have probably won if, for example, I had decided to give a 3x multiplier to high priority items? Probably. But I picked a set of scoring rules and applied it. Your entry scored 5th out of 7 finalists based on this formula before any controversial realism weighting/design scoring was applied.
The key here is “beaten in a single medium,” which understates the key difference between your entry and the other finalists. Your car scored 31% above the median in drivability and about 23.5% above the median in cost of ownership. But the rest of the finalists scored 2-3 times the median in sportiness, while your entry finished slightly below the median in sportiness (again, before any realism penalties/bonuses). As a result, the magnitude of this difference–even though it did not receive a 2x multiplier as the high priorities did–was enough to essentially erase the advantage you gained in the high priority stats. Because your entry scored so well in the high priority stats, it could afford to be beaten in sportiness. It could not afford to get blown out of the water in sportiness, as it was. I would also note that in unadjusted scores among the finalists, the ultimate winner, the Lionhead, scored second-highest (behind your entry) in both drivability and cost-to-own, second-lowest in sportiness (but with a score double your entry), and second-lowest in comfort, which illustrates that drivability and cost to own did count significantly more than medium priorities like sportiness and comfort.
I think you’re probably right that the dialogue between the characters spent time talking about sportiness and comfort that were disproportionate to their scoring weight, but this was because it was the main point of controversy between the characters. There wasn’t a whole lot to say on criteria that they both agreed were important. And however they were framed in the narrative, it didn’t affect the actual scoring.
Again, it’s become clear that there are ways I should have laid out the judging criteria more clearly ahead of the fact, and I understand the frustration of spending a lot of time on a car and having it not score as highly as I’d hoped, or not quite understanding how the judging criteria were applied. I hope this explanation helps.
I can’t help but take a little umbrage at this remark. Was my scoring methodology unconventional? Apparently so. Controversial? Clearly. But unfair? Absolutely not. Say what you will about the criteria that were applied, but they were applied consistently and fairly, and at no point was I somehow targeting some particular entry for an advantage or disadvantage. I have shared the scoring spreadsheet, and you should be able to see the formulas and see that they were applied consistently. If I did somehow make a mistake when I was inputting/copying the formulas, then I would gladly re-run the calculations.
Do I love it when people disagree with my judgment or my decisions? No. But it’s fair game to question those, and at the end of the day, I have tried to listen to and learn from the feedback that has been given about my judgment and decisions–even if it was difficult to read.
But this sounds like questioning my integrity. Maybe that wasn’t the intent, but that’s certainly how it comes across, and that, to me, crosses a line.
Although I don’t see anywhere in the forums stating you couldn’t combine stats and as host you are within your rights to do so, I can’t help but feel they diminish the value per stat. Perhaps it is an interpretation issue as I considered each stat seperate and the formatting as an efficiency move in typing and space. I am accustomed to considering each of them as they are in game just as you layed out on your comparison spreadsheet, I can only suggest further clarity in the future at this point to prevent misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
At this point i’ll also like to add at no point did I contest the winner, I did not compare 2nd place either and I agree with the chosen winner (perhaps I should’ve made that clear) though I do have my opinions on 3rd and below.
Yes you did apply all the formulas equally and showed no favoritism or biases whatsoever to any entrant. That was not what I was referring to.
Initially it didn’t. I meant to say I feel unfairly treated. Just an opinion. The execution of the formulas as stated above were fairly and equally applied. However, after further thought, I am inclined to think maybe it did. Unintentionally of course.
Maybe I didn’t see it but I don’t remember seeing the controversial alteration process for the finalists being disclosed in the main brief, even reading it right now. I’m not sure if you came up with the whole changing entrants mechanic mid-way through the challenge or you had it planned all along. I’m inclined to think that you did not treat me unfairly, you treated every entrant unfairly by withholding(intentionally or unintentionally) such information regarding the judging process until after submissions closed. One which would have entrants engineered their car differently if disclosed. I’ll unfortunately have to reiterate that a hidden twist in a competitive setting where the rules and judgement should have been clearly laid out is not okay. I believe it is unfair to all the entrants who are affected and you are free to believe otherwise but to me, that crosses a line. You did not commit illegal acts or anything, nothing against any rule, but I will say this will remain a big yikes in my books and apparently too in other’s books before me.
I rest my case for entry ranking. May it be water under the bridge for everyone involved, probably has been water under the bridge for most as I was late.
I always knew, and I always disclosed, that realism would be taken into consideration. This was in the original brief:
Then this clarification followed:
Since it was always disclosed that realism would be taken into account, I’m not sure why disclosure of the precise mechanism for considering realism would have made a difference in anyone’s engineering choices. In fact, I saw one of the finalists make a comment on Discord to the effect that “I always knew the rear double wishbones were going to kill me.”
I also don’t see how the upfront disclaimer about realism was somehow insufficient to put you on notice that realism would affect your score, or how it was any less precise than that provided in other challenges. For example, here’s the currently running QFC47:
Here’s the recently completed CSR162:
Similarly, here’s CSR161:
Here’s the thing that’s been bugging me about the reaction to this judging; I was actually more transparent about how the judging was conducted than most challenges I’ve seen and went out of my way to try to come up with scoring mechanisms that weren’t just my own subjective judgment, and yet because everyone has come to expect design/realism scoring to essentially rely on the host’s subjective judgment and the notion that I “modified entries” set off alarm bells, the different way I approached judging has clearly rubbed people the wrong way. Admittedly, it would have been better if I had identified the design/realism mechanisms upfront in the brief, but, as a first-time host, this was a learning process for me where I initially relied on simply imitating similarly vague realism/design rules in other contests without having a clear idea of how those factors would ultimately be applied. But exactly the same outcomes could have been reached if I’d simply written things up a different way that was more opaque about how realism/design was taken into consideration. And this whole conflagration started with a wildly mistaken comment suggesting that “the finalist cars needed changing to be finalists,” which I think framed and fed the concerns that I “modified entries.”
I know that at this point this competition is going to go down in everyone’s memory as the one where the judge did some crazy scoring scheme that “modified entries” and had a bunch of “twists” in the scoring, and that nothing I say can change that impression, no matter how much I think that’s a mischaracterization. I also know that there is nothing I can say that will make you agree with me or stop you from feeling like you were somehow robbed or cheated in this challenge. But realism was clearly identified as a discretionary factor from the start. Considering that I would have been within my rights to bin or severely penalize any entry that I found to be unrealistic, I think that applying relatively modest realism penalties to cars that reached the finals was absolutely a fair approach.
Ultimately, beyond simply not considering realism at all, it’s not clear to me what you would have considered a fair approach to considering realism, or what sort of disclaimer you would have needed to take more care with designing your car more realistically.
Yes you did disclose that realism would be taken into consideration. The original is on par with other challenges I’ve seen.
I didn’t think having rear double wishbones are equivalent to these meme-ing entries you describe but that’s just an opinion.
I can’t speak for the others in this case, but if I knew that you were going to change core elements of the engineering, I would have done the engineering differently. I think that’s reasonable that people would not use double wishbones if you said you’re going to replace it out right. The same goes for the gearing if there was a disclaimer or notice like “If anyone goes beyond 4 im going to remove them”.
At this point I’m confused and that brings me to question to why allow double wishbones and not ban them outright if you are going to just change them into semi trailing arms? that goes the same for limiting gear numbers. You don’t want them in the challenge why leave the option for them? Or you do want them in the challenge just to severely punish people who do? That doesnt make sense…
I doubt its from malicious intent but doing something to the effect of ‘here’s an option but if you pick it you will be severely punished’ I don’t see the need to open the option if realistic vehicles are your goal for this challenge. Nor do I see the need to have an option that seeming only used to punish entrants.
I am fully aware and do expect penalties from using double wishbones. Though I expect the standard subjective number tinkering in the spreadsheet. You must see that changing such things affects more than just that particular thing. You did not just take away the suspension and gear you took away its optimization and selected ratios. You made choices for the entrant. If I knew you were going to make choices for me I’d reconsider joining this challenge. like I said its useless to allow it at first then change it completely. That’s where this challenge overstepped and differ from the rest.
I’d think changing entrants engineering without their knowledge is something you should disclose as a host. Its apparent now and no use saying it again, yeah that was not something that should’ve been done though nothing anywhere says you couldn’t.
In regards to other challenges, they all vary in realism according to hosts. You can’t just go “Look at other challenges” when the problem is with this challenge. Your realism discretion was to change entrants engineering without their chance of optimization post change nor their knowledge previously. I highly doubt the challenges you mentioned will do the same.
This is way more predictable than the out of left field alteration, I doubt anyone who joined thought that their entries would be changed that way that much.
Wait what?? you can’t be serious… Won’t people question why some of the judged stats are different from their original submission? you can’t hide changing their engineering… even in the spreadsheet. And the thought of hiding the fact that you changed the entrants cars… wow… all I could say is you did not judge MY car.
Tell me you did not change my car’s suspension and gearing. Hell, nevermind that. Even you admitted to doing that.
Well it did and it’s only one twist.
You’ve explained my rankings case well and I accept that. It just changed to others got screwed not only me.
Im at the opinion of “dont want it there? Ban it then(?)” Hell funnily enough I’d be content and and went oh well if my entry was outright binned!
Telling me you’re going to change the engineering at a whim… no that won’t make me care more, I’d stay away from a challenge where I have no control over my car’s final stats as is.
I agree with this. I rested my rankings case earlier and didn’t ask rankings to be changed. I hope this serves more as a reflection than anything else.
im not gonna say too terribly much here because im quite tired and dont want to start any more fires than are already burning but i am personally rather baffled by the thought of… editing entries for judging.
if rear dws are rare/unrealistic? add a cost penalty like some challenges do. or ding for realism in your judging. deem it expensive and complex to service, or unreliable somehow, or something. dont like… change it? because now youre not judging the entry are you, no, thats some abstraction. the ranking isnt valid anymore. thats a could-be, not an as-is.
if i hand you a cardboard box with packing tape on it for you to put things in and you replace the packing tape with masking tape because you don’t think packing tape is necessary, and suddenly the box isn’t as good as i thought it was when i gave it to you, and it isn’t as good as someone else’s box… then what in the everlovin hell are ya doin with my box?
that might be a terrible analogy. moving does things to a mans brain. you can probably tell by my disregard for punctuation.
id say thats my two cents but in this economy i want my two dollars
…for closing arguments sake im claiming this is all as rhetorical food for thought.
On the one hand, you’re saying you agree with the comment that we should just move on. On the other hand, you’re the one who re-opened this whole mess after I tried to leave it at a gracious “let’s just move on point.” And in the same post, you are continuing to take every single thing I say and interpret it in the worst way possible, and to suggest that I am arguing things that I don’t think any fair-minded reading would suggest that I’m arguing. No, I am not denying that I created a cloned version of each finalist and modified the engineering of those cloned versions to calculate realism penalties for the finalists. No, I am not suggesting I should have lied about or tried to hide the scoring. My point was that I could have stopped my judging efforts at the point of saying, “Eh, this doesn’t seem very realistic, so I’m going to bump it down a few spots,” written it up that way, and everyone would have been happy. As a first-time host, I tried to go the extra mile to make sure that realism penalties bore a rational relation to the actual effect that any unrealistic engineering choices had on the car. And everybody hated it. Heck, people who didn’t even make the finals (and thus never had a cloned version of their car created) and didn’t even participate in this challenge have jumped in to criticize my judging.
It turns out that I’m just a guy who likes cars and video games and who isn’t an expert on early 1960’s compacts. I was doing my research along with everyone else, so I honestly didn’t know at the start of the challenge that double wishbones or 5-gear transmissions were essentially unheard of at the time. That’s why I didn’t ban them upfront. I wasn’t trying to hide the ball. I was just doing my best to try to run an efficient challenge, not fully knowing what I was getting myself into.
If I entered a challenge and my car was altered by the host and never judged as is, I would be upset. But every car made its initial preliminary scoring and finalist qualification based entirely on the stats as produced by the game in the as-submitted version of the car. Funnily enough, I’ve also received criticism for not considering design/realism as part of these considerations. So, it seems that I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
At the end of the day, any judging for design or realism is going to be considering something that is more than, less than, or modified from the game-generated stats. What’s the difference between (1) taking the in-game generated stats and then applying some sort of additional “realism score” or “realism penalty” picked out of thin air and (2) using the in-game engine to calculate a realism modifier? Both are effectively creating modified statistics for your entry. I could have sworn that an earlier version of your post proposed adding a cost penalty or a reliability penalty for double wishbones. Well, if I did that, then, again, I would be judging something that is not your as-is submitted entry, but rather some modified version of your entry. And applying a cost penalty could easily result in a car having to be binned for exceeding the cost limit. Given the fact that you are this upset over the exact way that I derived a realism scoring modifier for your car that made the finals, I seriously doubt you would have been content if I had simply binned your entry based on some never-announced rule about double wishbones.
I was trying very hard to do right by everyone with this scoring. It obviously backfired. Next time I host (if I ever get that chance, and honestly at this point I’m not sure I’ll take any future hosting opportunities I might get), I will simply announce “Ten points for Gryffindor!” when doing design/realism scoring, and then apparently everyone will be able to sleep at night knowing that they have absolutely no idea how that score was arrived at, other than that I liked or didn’t like something.
So if you want to believe that I somehow screwed everyone over by applying a consistent ruleset that applied milder and better-explained realism penalties than I could have to a limited set of 7 entrants who made the finals, go ahead. I’m done with this challenge. I will not be replying any further. So feel free to go ahead and get the last word.
Thanks to everyone who participated, I’m sorry I let you all down, and good luck to moroza and/or ananas with the next round.
Sorry for being late to the party. I had things to do that are more important. I am genuinely sorry to the others that feel disturbed by my late questioning and arguments even if I hoped everyone else could have ignored it. This will also be my final reply here.
Yeah I agreed after my case was settled. Quote:
Then instead of a “sorry you feel that way, I’m still learning” you came back with a huge reply comparing this challenge to others and stating:
So I replied with my opinion on how I considered a fair approach.
Perhaps that’s how it came out no matter the intention. Tone is hard to convey through text but take it as you will.
Wow, see this is the answer I was looking for when I said:
Because I was trying to understand where you come from in terms of approaching the matter. That could’ve ended my questioning.
You’re right they are both modified statistics, though I’d like to agree to disagree. At the very least the entrants have control over the in-game generated stats. Though the same results could easily be accomplished I feel that part is crucial for the entrants.
I still think you should continue hosting if real life circumstances are not an issue. You demonstrated great writing, organizing, and hosting in general up till that part. Even with the amount of ‘heat’ I or others have given you, I don’t think anyone would disagree that right up till that part you did fantastic work especially as a first time host. My point was never to put you down or discourage you from ever hosting again if it seems that way to you.
P.S:
I really should’ve said this earlier and it was in the bottom of my notes for quite a while, 1962-68 Alfa Romeo 2600 Berlina had a 5 speed manual couple sources claiming its a ZF S5-18 but all agreeing it was 5 speed. Its a family saloon for the mid size E segment. For those looking for an earlier justification the 1957-62 Giulietta Sprint Speciale 2+2 Coupe came with a 5 speed too.
I understand your frustration, but to avoid long winded arguments that some people might find tiresome a good idea can be to take such discussions with the host via DM. I don’t think anyone is upset with you being dissatisfied with how your entry was handled, it’s just that an argument between two people that goes on for a long time isn’t really of interest to the rest of the community and should maybe be handled over DMs because of that.
Assuming 1970, +5 body techpool, and only SUV, I count at least five body groups that would be viable: “1975 SUV”, “Predator 1970 SUV”, “1960 SUV”, “1957 SUV”, “Predator 1955 SUV”.
For trucks, including semi-cab-over but not car-based utes, I count six: “1975 Pickup”, “Predator 1970 Pickup”, “1970 Pickup”, two different “1960 Pickup” (one that looks like a Jeep, the other like a Corvair Greenbriar), and the “1957 Pickup” could still be dressed up for the 70s.
And a ton of car-based ones. I’d argue that the 1977 DCMW Hiluq is proof that those can be turned into respectable trucks.
Our opinions differ there a bit I guess, yet I share some of them with you, so here’s an explanation what I am thinking…
1975, Predator 1970 bodies: Yes, works for something more like a Land Rover pickup or a Jeep CJ8. Not as good for something like the “traditional” american pickup.
1960 SUV/Pickup: May be based on a Scout (I think), but yeah, fair point, it could be made into something like the more traditional pickups, I had missed the 3 metre wheelbase one, that could be something to work on, there was just a smaller one before it which was too short.
1957 Pickup: IMO it looks too old (could maybe be used with extensive work but hard to get it to look right).
1955 Predator: See 1970 one.
Cabover/semi cabovers: Fair, if you want to make one, but they were rather dead in the US by the 70s.
Car based bodies: Can be made into believable minitrucks (I have done that myself) or something like a Ranchero/Camino.
My main gripe is that when I am thinking about a 70s US pickup, something like this is what I am sure most buyers would have gone for:
And my opinion stays that we don’t have a lot of good bodies for something similar.
Not saying that the round would be impossible to pull off, but it would end up a bit weird compared to how it most likely would have looked IRL. On the other hand, if you don’t care about that I guess that it’s no problem running it, but then you have to be a bit open minded that you might get some oddball entries, not expecting a C10 and then be disappointed in getting lots of stuff that is far from that.
The Fords of the 70s looks a bit more old fashioned than Chevy and Dodge yes, maybe the 1957 body could work if choosing more of that route but it would require skills in that case.
True, but what I meant was the “OBS” Ford from 1980, well represented by the 1978 bodies, which I will make a point to be available via either starting year or techpool.
I know you conceived of this series with the idea that each Journey would occupy one continuous thread. Besides some tedious cluttter polluting the way in this instance (merits of the contents aside, they should’ve been hidden in details), digging through several hundred posts to find the newest is annoying. And in JOC3C, we got one entry for JOC3A. Yes, the new one can be linked from the first post, and yes, closer attention would’ve prevented the OXXRON situation (but then we wouldn’t’ve had the Firebreather…), but this seems against the grain of established competiton practice, counterintuitive for many, and for little gain. What if we include an ample summary of the first two stages of Earl’s Journey in a new thread for the third?
The thing is, back in the days (before you joined) it was not unusual for continous challenges to run in one single thread. I think CSR ran that way for the first 60-odd rounds, AGC did it until rather recently and I think CSC too. Yes, it was really a format that had its drawbacks, hence why it was abandoned.
On the other hand, people tend to be lazy. They won’t scroll through old threads, not that they always will scroll through the most recent either but there’s at least more of a chance. If we lose the overall concept of the character, JOC will be rather pointless. If the character says in round 1 that “I hate convertibles” and in round 3 it is suddenly “woho build me a convertible” it will be a kind of tragicomical situation, but that’s where it will end up if we don’t do attempts to keep the story consistent.
So, yeah. I am not opposed to a change of format for JOC, BUT…and there’s very much of a but here. Then I really want to see, not a summary of the last round, but of ALL previous rounds of the actual JOC at every new thread start. And one that gives a good overall brief. Not “haha red car won”.
