F was too harsh overall, I agree. It also didn’t apply to the car’s final ranking, which you’ll note is far from last.
The dispute appears to be the degree of (un)clarity regarding the rule allowing full slider range, as far as legality is concerned. I’ve yet to be shown where I erred there, but open to it.
My bad, guess my skimming abilities are far from infallible. And I’d agree there, though unlike most instances of competitor cars blowing up on this forum, yours still placed well.
Never said you were not in favor of sufficient cooling. I think the following passage from the OP is crucial:
And it applies even more considering you said you never did lose much reliability in reducing cooling. I did a test with my car, which has 55 cooling: If I reduce that to zero, the top speed - which is not a part of the stats sidebar but is still likely a factor in moroza’s judging - suddenly increases by 6 mph. I’d assume your car similarly gains 4-7 mph as a result of the cooling dump - and a huge one that is, indeed, implausible. I’d bet money on the outcome being different if you’d lowered cooling to, say, 30.
And both the game and the hosts have changed pretty significantly since the past decade; hell, even since the last update. I remember a challenge (Cool Wall 3) just last year where the reliability values of the cars submitted topped out at 65, and both myself and the eventual winner of that challenge ended up with sub-50 values. Now we have techpool; and with that little caveat, suddenly even somewhat premium cars can get 80, and luxury ones can breach 70 without compromising much; 50 reliability would have a car canned without question.
As for the hosts, I think we as a community have just had a very sharp swerve away from accepting metagaming and loophole use as fair play. Your example isn’t an egregious one and it likely didn’t net you much of a raw-score advantage, but you still saw a rule which said you’re free to adjust airflow, and figured the way to go was to set it to stone dead zero.
I’ven’t been here a fraction as long as either of you, and this is my first experience as host/judge. Only recently have I learned of major shifts in the culture surrounding competition judging. My very first entry (QFC23) was - I only realized long after the fact - a minmax-fest of cheese, perhaps to half of the degree it was accused of. I gamed the stats and was upset that that didn’t fly as well as I thought it should’ve. Since then I’ve come to adopt different views regarding realism and scrutineering, which involve deeper analysis of engineering choices than what the stat says. Analysis that I am, as should be evident by the length of wind in my reviews, more than happy to do.
At one extreme, there’s disregard for the stats and looking only at engineering (and notes; Howler’s submission included a bit about trick door hinges which I not only included in the review, but factored into final ranking). At the other extreme, we could just look at demographic desirability as the game calculates it. We’re somewhere in the middle, and it still feels a bit like being tossed between two horns.
All of which strums yet again that harp I picked up in CSR154: however we play this is less important than utmost clarity about same, especially for newcomers and those returning after a hiatus.
I still think Moroza can learn something here, but I have to step in a bit for him:
When LS lets a car burn in bin hell and tells you in harsh words that this is crap, also for having cheesy absurd engineering choices, that´s funny for almost everyone.
So why is this a big deal when Moroza added a car breakdown for his storytelling, as long as the car isnt overly trashed in the final stats (which it does not seem to be, since it was right behind the Authié et Dallier that seemed like a rather ok one)?
I understand that one wants to question criticism to a car that was done with patience and effort, but I don´t think Moroza went way too far here. In fact, the learning curve since the first effort to provide us a setting is quite good.
by @ldub0775 and @happyfireballman
September 17, 1977, early afternoon, Internationale Automobil-Ausstellung [exhibition] No.47, Frankfurt am Main, Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
“‘That good’? Well, it looks like a high-end exotic, with matching stratospheric performance and price tag - both up front and ongoing. From what I’ve gathered, such cars are useless for anything but showing off, tedious to drive, and miserable to own and live with. I’m glad you had fun all the same… though from your expression, that’s a bit of an understatement… but how is that we’ve gone from sensible sedans to… this?”
"I still remember how it felt to first own a car, the Kaffee, and the paradigm-shifting sense of freedom it gave. I remember quite clearly when we got the Lancier, opening up a whole other realm of driving. The cars we’ve encountered the last few days have been an order of magnitude above that. But this… this is something else.
The looks are breathtaking and the performance enough to induce cardiac arrest… but physical effects aside, it’s what the car adds up to mentally that makes it so powerful.
The first impression it gave, just looking at it… was intimidating. It looks like serious business, and a casual glance at the specs certainly reinforces that. But when the drive began, the ease of operating it, the refinement, the docility, the drivability (51.5, tied with the Cerberus for the median score)… was unnerving. The prospect of four hundred nine horsepower in something weighing barely over one ton… is scary. Discovering that this fearsome power is for me to control, and actually controllable, usable… was terrifying. But the fact that this deity of a car has its mundane, mere mortal side present, accounted-for, and sorted out to the point of being a legitimate daily driver… it takes my entire automotive worldview and stands it on its head. It’s shattering."
“So it wasn’t just any one thing, but that it all works together?”
“Exactly. And I should point out that many of those ‘one things’, taken alone, rank at the very top as well. Considering the whole picture, many of the parts are the best there are, and the whole is even greater than their sum.”
Ursula had taken the time Magda was out driving to study the spec sheet. "The numbers back that up. It ranks first in almost all straight-line metrics, sportiness (and by a lot; 52.7, followed by the Zephorus at 43.7), sum of sportiness and comfort, grip at all speeds, braking distance, and power to weight. It’s second behind the Cerberus on outright power, behind the KHI Stellia on performance per consumption, and third behind the Cerberus and Swanson on performance per service costs.
That last figure is quite remarkable considering it has by far the highest service costs here - 2409.60, followed by the Zephorus’ 1827.00 and then the Howler’s 1518.10. This is definitely an exotic layout - a transverse mid-rear mounting for the M4300i-12, which is a beautifully designed gem of an engine, but not one for beginners. High-tech - all-alloy DOHC-4, all forged internals, twin manifold port injection - high-quality, high-performance yet highly refined, and high-maintenance.
We’ve seen some weird international engine and engineering mysteries: American cars from Italy and Germany, French from Australia… and now this. Though Edgewater appears to be American, this is a poster child of a German car, especially the engine: complicated, expensive, a complete pain in the ass to work on, and very fussy about being maintained just so… but maintained properly, it’s actually above-average reliable (9th/19), while breaking performance records and still being somewhat reasonable to use for errands.
At the same time as the Daytona is so effective at getting itself somewhere, it doesn’t forget about what it’s transporting. For a supercar with a screaming V12 right behind you, it’s surprisingly quiet - 35.1 adjusted, tied with the Authie et Dallier, a touch louder than your Lancier (34), and quieter than the Novalina with its paleolithic powertrain (37.9) or the Planar with its inappropriate intake (42.1). Smoothness is an unsurprising 83.3. Overall comfort is near the bottom of the pack, but still higher than your Lancier…"
“…Which is satisfactory; as I understood at the beginning, even a downgrade could be ok if compensated elsewhere. Which it does in spades.”
“Passengers aside, the drawings detailed a frunk that is relatively huge for a supercar, rivaling a mid-sized sedan and no less convenient. Magda, can you confirm?”
“Yes, before I even drove it, that was probably the first feature I noticed that told me this wasn’t just a useless toy or ornament. It’s not very deep, but enough for a single layer of full suitcases, which it’s long and wide enough to fit several of. It’s not optimized for routine ass & trash missions, and we won’t be picking up large household appliances like we’ve done in the Lancier, but it should have no trouble getting groceries. Very very quickly.”
"And it’d be reasonable to use, as far as economy - 13.4L (17.6mpgUS) combined, 11.2L (20.9) at 110 (65). The highway figure is the median of all the cars here. The combined one slightly above average, 8th out of 19. Thermal efficiency at 18.12% is mediocre as such, but for a V12 spinning to 8300 and cammed for it… it’s some kind of feat.
The totality of these rankings represents quite accurately what you describe as a deity with its mortal side intact. The design spearheads with its inherent strengths extremely well, but doesn’t neglect its flanks."
Magda sipped the last bit of her Doppelbock, stood up, and simply stared for a moment, before pronouncing, "Some dishes rely on the quality of ingredients; others, on the skill of the cook. Some are tastier, some more filling, some healthier. Some are several of these at once. Uncommonly, most of the above. But rare is the one that is all of the above, and well-presented at that.
Actually, the presentation of this dish alone is almost worth signing up for; as design goes, I declare the Daytona no less than a masterpiece."
She hiccuped with some force. "The beer has, ironically, sobered me up regarding the experience I just had, and I feel more at ease naming its flaws as well. The worst is probably the rear side visibility. Though it’s a bit better than the Cascina and Zephorus, and the mirrors are amply sized, well-placed, and aspherical on both sides, it still takes more concentration to check blind spots, so in some situations driving it might be a bit tedious.
Then there’s the ground clearance. They had the sense to make the fiberglass lower body panels easily replaceable, as the staff showed me, but the very need for this says it all. Our country has mostly excellent roads, so this isn’t a hindrance to everyday use, but trips to that chalet we’ve rented a few times… are going to need something else."
And then… öm… that unnerving feeling returns, as I realize that’s really about it. It’s not just a supercar; it’s a good car too."
Ursula read from the stats. “It does have the second lowest safety score of anything here - 42.9, ahead of the KHI Stellia but somewhat short of the median 49.4.”
“Not great, but hardly a deathtrap. And of course, there’s the bleeding obvious - two seats. Trips with Stefan’s parents would be in the Hörch, which I mind but they don’t. But you know what? Those questions I ask of a coupe - ‘are you so amazing to drive and/or to look at that I’d be willing not to drive you sometimes? Are you so high quality that it makes up for reduced quantity of how often I can enjoy you?’… get an honest Yes.”
“Surely you’re not so impulsive as to have already made the decision to drop 44200 on the fulfillment of Anke’s teasing - a firebreathing Midlifecrisismobile?”
“The Daytona isn’t the cure for a crisis, dear, it started one. No, I’ve not decided what to get. But I have decided what not to get; there is only one other car that, while quite different, is a worthy opponent for the Daytona. As for the rest…”
Design concept: A+
Design execution: M is for Masterpiece.
Engineering concept: A
Engineering execution: A-. Minor brake fade and suspension imbalance, a stat point or two left on the finetuning table, neither of which put much of a dent in the superlative result.
“As a concept, of all the choices, this one nails a perfect bullseye for what I had in mind - a big, imposing, comfortable rocket barge. It looks the part and delivers just as more than advertised. Visual design isn’t the strongest, and sportiness takes a bigger hit than I’d’ve liked, though its biggest downside is the smell of cheese with every full throttle opening.”
“Cheese aside, there’s some properly solid engineering in places (engine and footwork overall), while others fall a bit short (small wheels, ridiculous flywheel). Nevertheless, its first-place rankings in power (by a lot; 501hp, followed by the Daytona with 409) and top speed (also by a lot; 327kph, followed by the Swanson with 300) earn it the title of Most Insane Highway Bomber.”
“Their marketing slogan was something like ‘let loose the dogs of war’, but I’d suggest a certain German phrase instead. On ships, forward speed is traditionally at five levels: in English, ‘ahead slow’, ‘ahead one third’, ‘ahead standard’, ‘ahead full’, and ‘ahead flank.’ The German equivalent of the last one, at least as used on some submarines, is ‘Wahnsinnige Fahrt voraus’, literally translating as ‘Insane speed ahead.’ I think it fits perfectly.”
“Visually excellent inside and out, and realistic. A competent, strong value proposition, let down by very low sportiness (7.3 vs. the incumbent’s 29.3), mixed engineering quality, and simply being outperformed even for the price.”
“A Sport version would be quite formidable. I’ll have my staff get in touch with their headquarters, see if they’d like Norðwagen’s engineers to consult with or outsource that to.”
“Between this and the next one was little more than a coin toss, as they’re very different cars performing the same mission. The Primus is by far the more livable, but the Zerphorus is that much better to drive yet still comfortable. I really had to think long and hard about how to weigh its downsides, and there’s certainly room for reasonable disagreement with the conclusion.”
"As dynamic qualities go, it’s second only to the Daytona, in some cases exceeding it - overall braking, responsiveness, and comfort… if you ignore the windows. It also trumps the Edgewater in Prestige, environmental resistance, and safety.
I’m impressed that both supercars here are so well-balanced as machines go. Both improve on the Lancier’s comfort while demolishing nearly everyone else for sportiness. Both are super cars. But the Daytona is more so, and has fewer less-than-super details; I can’t ignore those windows or that B-pillar."
“I suspect that the parent company’s meddling is holding Waldersee back. The engineering skill is plain to see, but the coprolite the Amis give them to work with can only be polished so much. I’d really like to see what they can do with a proper, modern powertrain. It’s let down mostly by low sportiness (15.9), also by a thirsty and not especially smooth engine. Even so, the Kurfürst is a true Prince of the Autobahn.”
“A left-field contender as charming and eyepleasing as it is well-rounded and an excellent value. Third in sportiness among non-cheese cars (fourth if you include the Walf), practical, and did I mention how lovely it is to look at, both outside and - more importantly for its occupants - inside? Despite suboptimal damper settings, it’s brilliant to drive, probably the best car here for more relaxed weekend cruising. Its Autobahn credentials are there too, just outperformed.”
We had a good run - and with good writing! Congrats to the finalists.
Sadly, this is already the sport version of the Imperator. But it was never meant to compete with super cars, the model year is 1967 and in 78, it was already rolling into the well-earned retirement.
That the oldtimer in this challenge managed to get into the semifinals and almost fought down a Zephorus is more than I expected.
The more I see of the Edgewater, the more I like it, especially with those cutout shots.
Whatever happens in the final, it was a good run.
It fought down the Zephorus much like a blue whale defeating a pterodactyl in a chess match; not really a meaningful comparison. For that matter, the entire middle of the rankings is a morass of vague judgement calls and meta-questions about scoring methodology. The top and bottom three or four entries are where they are with solid reasoning, but the middle of the pack all sort of run out of step but together.
Yeah, 7th isn’t anything to sneeze at. The small wheels is cause I didn’t bother to redo them after the major rule change allowing bigger sized wheels, and the flywheel is a hint of how I originally planned the car being, as a full on luxobarge with an auto transmission, and out and out hydropneumatic suspension. But it was fun overall going all out on it.
I refer to overall diameter - which would’ve actually made it easier to avoid too low a profile - not rim diameter.
1978 Swanson 555 SL by @Ludvig vs. 1978 Edgewater Daytona C by @ldub0775 & @happyfireballman
September 18, 1977, 7am, Magda and Stefan’s kitchen.
“Mff… coffee…” uttered the disheveled zombie that shuffled in.
“Good morning, dear! There’s a fresh pot on the stove. I know better than to interrogate you before you’re caffeinated, but Anke and I have had quite the speculative discussion about the results of your sleeping on the car decision, so we eagerly await your report.”
Muttering incoherently as she sipped, Magda winced slightly at this. A few sips later, "As a matter of fact, the rumination kept me up half the night, and worse, I have not managed to make a decision. The Swanson was a fairly clear winner from the beginning, but I wasn’t kidding yesterday when I said the Daytona completely upended my Autoweltanschauung [automotive worldview], threw a big titanium wrench in the works and ground it all to a halt. This is not an easy decision.
My brain says Swanson. My heart says Edgewater. My brain can rationalize and justify the surprisingly versatile and usable supercar. Yet my heart would not reject the stylish, spacious, and fast sedan. It’s a deadlock."
“How about we compare the two to your original criteria, and see where that goes?”
“Alright. From the beginning, then…”
“Not a pure sports car, no. Not to be the only car for a couple of 40-somethings. And now that we’re talking about Oma and Opa, I think we’ll be driving them around more, so not only do we need four seats and four doors, but plenty of legroom as well… For a truly special two-seater, forgoing this might be worth it, but doubtful.”
“There’s no doubt that the Daytona is a truly special car, and despite its sport credentials, it is not a pure sports car. Still, in this or another context it must be said that the Swanson isn’t a pure barge, either. It doesn’t handle half as well as the Daytona, but for Autobahn driving it’s not far behind. Also worth mentioning is that above a certain speed, it’s actually faster.”
Result: Draw, perhaps minor win for the Swanson.
“The new car should be a general upgrade, and significantly downgrade nothing major while improving overall.”
“The Swanson would be a sportiness downgrade, not huge but significant. The Daytona, a practicality and utility downgrade, also not huge but significant. They weigh roughly the same on my scales.”
Result: Draw.
“For the same or a bit less Fahrvergnügen, it should be a lot more comfortable. Or for the same or a bit less comfort, a lot sportier. But ideally, both would improve.”
“Isolating the previous question to suspension and chassis characteristics, the Swanson does indeed more than compensate for the decreased sportiness. But the Daytona meets the ideal, increasing both - one slightly (~10%) and the other drastically (~70%).”
Result: Daytona.
“I want to see fewer receding taillights on the Autobahn, and to be more comfortable cruising at higher speeds, not just getting there. More efficient, too. The same power would be ok - barely - if the aerodynamics, weight, and efficiency make up for it. Conversely, we could stomach paying the same for fuel if the power is that much greater. But ideally, same as the ride - a meaningful gain in both.”
“At uncommon speeds, the Swanson is faster. At more typical speeds, the Daytona is more significantly faster, and at all speeds handles much better. The Swanson is about 10% more economical at a cruise, about 5% less overall.”
Result: Draw.
“I’ve also come to appreciate Laufkultur more and more over the years. The motor can’t be just a sledgehammer; it needs to hit heavy, for sure, but just the right amount of hard, not too much.”
“Swanson has a smooth, lively, somewhat raspy flat six. Daytona has a god-like V12, louder but not objectionable.”
Result: minor win for Daytona.
“I’d like not just a good bit more Macht, but for it to look the part - something with more Überholprestige.”
“Both make strong impressions in a rearview. The Daytona looks faster, but the Swanson looks (and is) more prestigious, and more stylish.”
Result: Draw.
“A proper Autobahn machine that remains a reasonable daily driver.”
“Daytona is a better Bahnstormer as such, but Swanson is still very much proper, and more livable.”
Result: Draw.
“Suitability for high-speed cruising.”
“For strictly cruising, Swanson is better - more spacious, more comfortable, comparably capable, quieter. But its handling and grip mean less ability to sustain a cruise in turns.”
Result: Draw, maybe slight win for the Swanson.
“Looks, stylistic cohesion, Überholprestige, historical realism in style, and to a lesser extent mechanicals.”
“Swanson has more figuratively colorful styling, even holding literal color constant. It’s also ever so slightly cheesier mechanically, with its giant flat six.”
Result: Draw.
“Prestige.”
Result: Swanson (57.2 vs. 51.9)
“Efficiency, both absolute and relative to performance.”
“Swanson is marginally more efficient, but Daytona is in most circumstances a stronger performer.”
Result: minor win for Daytona.
“Sum of Comfort and Sportiness.”
“I call that ‘spumfort’, and there’s a related metric that better reflects how balanced a car is - the product of sportiness and comfort, or ‘promfort’. Swanson’s sum and product are 68.5 and 21.6; Daytona’s 85.9 and 35.0. Finally, a clear win one way or the other.”
Result: Daytona.
“Reasonable everyday usability. A blend of Drivability, Reliability, Practicality, bumper overhangs, visibility out of the car…”
“Apart from a minor disadvantage in combined economy, Swanson is more reliable (73.6 vs. 67.8), drivable (53.5 vs. 51.5), a lot roomier and easier to see out of, and without ground clearance concerns.”
Result: Swanson
“On-throttle response regardless of transmission, also off-throttle response if manual transmission.”
“Raw throttle response and flywheel weights: 45.8 and 9.2 (Daytona), 40.1 and 11.1 (Swanson).”
Result: Daytona.
“Reliability.”
Result: Swanson.
“Safety.”
Result: Swanson (57.3 vs. 42.9)
“Cargo volume.”
Result: Swanson.
“Environmental resistance.”
Result: Swanson (45.0 vs. 41.8)
“Those are roughly in decreasing order of importance. What’s the fuzzy math look like for totals?”
“(In text) Minor Swanson… major Daytona… minor Daytona… (four stars) minor Swanson… (three stars) major Swanson… minor Daytona… major Daytona… major Swanson… (two stars) major Daytona… four major Swanson wins of lesser importance. GAH! This isn’t any easier!”
“What about canceling out what we can, within each rank of importance?”
“Then we’re left with… ‘(in text) major Daytona… (four stars) minor Swanson, (three stars) minor Daytona and major Swanson… (two stars) three major Swanson wins’.”
“These heuristics are getting tedious, and don’t help very much.”
Magda walked over to the window overlooking the driveway. She decided to throw yet another perspective at the problem - the totality of her Journey of Ownership and where it might go from here. After a few minutes, she finally had an answer.
"Looking back on the past, the previous cars have been on the sporty side of available choices; that seems to be the automotive reflection of my free spirit. Looking forward into the future, when we’re old and slow and with aches and pains, I have a feeling we’ll be looking at sedans that begin with the caliber of a Swanson 555 SL, and the likes of the Daytona could become effectively off-limits. I’m in the best part of my life to enjoy something like this. So carpe diem; by half the width of a grey hair - at most - Daytona it is.
Or, to put it in the parlance I overheard some youth using at the IAA: ‘Fuck it; we ball.’"
This was my first time hosting, and first time reviewing in anywhere near this depth and scale. Mistakes were made. Some I should’ve reasonably known better than to commit, others caught me by surprise.
I invite and welcome any and all feedback, whether public or private: how I did overall, questions about individual rankings, regarding any points made in this epilogue, or anything else related to JOC3C. Talk to me.
Halfway through judging, several of the more upstanding members of the community brought to my attention some rather unkind remarks made about me over DM, in Discord, and elsewhere. Some are attributed, some anonymous. I don’t know of everything or everyone, but enough to be able to point out what by now is proven: that I didn’t let the shit talk get in the way of reviews and rankings. Now that this is over - better late than never, I guess - I would much like to hear from these people especially. You know who you are.
I did my best to strike a balance between giving yall what you expected, and adding some depth and innovation. Based mostly on second- and third-hand comments, it seems the depth was appreciated, but the novel rules caused more annoyance and confusion than anything good, though at least two entries took advantage of them.
The fact that virtually all such comments were made to everyone except the one person who might’ve best explained or done something about them… is perplexing. Did it not occur to you to ask me about tire sizes or thermal efficiency or whatever else? What good is your echo chamber in actually answering or solving such things?
Despite being consciously aware of the warning not to underestimate the work load, it still surprised me. That’s one reason this took longer than expected. Another is that I have severe nerve damage and basically can’t use my hands, including for typing, a significant part of the time. Some days are better than others. Of course, a third reason is the breadth of storytelling and depth of analysis that I felt were deserved, for reasons including but not limited to: a desire to make the story more immersive and entertaining, and a wish to make the engineering analysis more realistic - apart from the cheese smell used as a literary device - and educational.
I tried to be as lenient and not-trigger-happy with binning as possible. I sympathize with the notion expressed elsewhere, that it feels shitty to put so much work into a car and have it dismissed altogether with the briefest of remarks. I also made a point of not only allowing but encouraging resubmissions on a case-by-case basis.
Though any feedback I receive may change things drastically, by default you could expect any future hosting I do to incorporate many of the same characteristics as JOC3C: the depth of analysis and the inclination to tell a story; the leniency regarding binning and resubmissions; new ideas in general. You can also expect less if any death and tragedy, and kinder in-character treatment of cars…
Which leads me to my last two points:
So with the above (default) expectations in mind, do you want more comps done like this?
0 voters
Note that the poll is anonymous/blind.
Hi moroza. I think I’ve done my best to say to you what I think (as long as it has not already been said) about various bits and bobs. I still don’t really agree with your read on the slider, but your explanation of your perspective made enough sense that I could roll with the interpretation.
I think you should get the challenges role on discord. You missed a lot of chances to explain your perspective or see the whole story.
Here’s a quick summary of things from my perspective:
Some people got stuck at 1. A fair few people got stuck at 2 and 3. If your car got accused of cheese, that probably exacerbated the feeling. I know factually that many entrants were not really sure what would make a winner and some people (myself included) were surprised by how well they did.
(12th for a v8 compact was very surprising. I honestly expected a cheese comment or bin)
It took some getting over the initial rocks and the early miscommunication, but I ended up liking this challenge, mostly due to how the reviews made it obvious that you really cared and gave everyone their fair shake. Once I saw them, I realized it was just a situation of being in the ocean without a life vest. Or legs. I’d be happy to see you host again in the future, as long as (and it seems they are) learning and changing are on the table.
edit: man, this post is very mememe. Sorry. I hope the idea still got across.
I cant say something else than already sent via pm, but as a conclusion:
Automation is a nerd game. You seem to be one, too, which means you dive deeply into the game and its virtual world. There is nothing wrong with that, I am no better, I guess. But you seemed to have dived so deep that you almost drowned, lost in the virtual world. It was simply too ambitioned. You wanted to build a house without having ever used a tool.
Behind that lays a very intelligent person with deep mechanical knowledge. I was able to see it fast, since you reacted very good to constructive criticism, and I had a lot of that to be honest. This is what annoyed me in discord and I think I was very harsh when someone spoke behind your back, but I would do it again since they should have adressed directly. I told it in discord, that I did exactly that and got alright responses from you.
So the salt was poured until the reviews came. The first effort was trash, and you made it now better this time. Well, I think the whole “hate” was ironed out since that exact moment, as it became obvious that there is some substance behind the rather unusual challenge and that you have a good understanding of how a car works and you are able to review it in a fair way.
So, what would I have done different or would suggest:
Make the whole thing simpler, with goals directly addressed at game scores. Example: You make “Überholprestige” an objective. Most won´t know what to do. Instead, “it should look fast and maybe a bit intimidating in the mirror” as design priority and otherwise prioritize top speed since that is needed to pass out another car.
The reviews were almost like the novel “The struggle of Magda to buy a car” from M. Oroza, Frankfurt 1978. We all liked that our cars was given a lot of attention, but you seemed to get lost a bit in that. Maybe two thirds of the length would have been perfect, making it easier to read, while giving the same amount of information.
In general I have to say that I particulary liked our DM conversations, you showed interest and tried to use the hints that were given to you. For others, this shows that its worth the time and effort for both of us.
I am trying to be as honest as I can be now, without aiming anything at you personally.
There is a phenomena that is by no means exclusive to the Automation community. Inside a group of people, sooner or later unwritten rules will emerge. Everyone will understand them, new members will slowly understand and accept them, and nobody will think much of it.
When someone comes in from the outside, without understanding the unwritten rules that have emerged, following his own ruleset instead and questioning the existing one, I guess many people will se it as a threat, maybe not straight away, but subconsciously I guess the reptile brain gets a bit hostile, since a threat to the cozy little atmosphere has emerged from the outside…
I guess that somehow happened here. I really don’t want to bring up the transverse boxer fight more than necessary, since I know you and Tex has ironed it out by now. We’ve seen that happen before, new members comes in, breaks unwritten rules, starts to question why, and suddenly most of the forums gets a sour taste when someone comes in and ruins the cozy atmosphere we’ve all gotten used to. Unfortunately, that sour taste sticks longer than it really should. You have only one attempt to do a first impression, and if you fail that one, people tend to be much less forgiving to your mistakes than if you made a good one.
With this, I don’t say that you did anything wrong, nor that anyone else did, I guess we’re just humans that are less than perfect, and our actions sometimes have less than favourable results. I mean, this time it was some fighting on a board about a computergame, other times whole cities gets blown up into smithereens, if we put it into perspective. I prefer this over the later, I would say.
With that said, I guess you were already judged harder from the start than someone that had entered the group a bit more carefully would have been. Then… well, the original writeup for 3C was maybe a bit too much for some people to swallow. On the other hand, you didn’t break any written rules since they simply didn’t exist. So in one way, the fault is mine, and I have updated the rules, but it is absolutely not just because of this. JOC is a relatively fresh challenge that has been running a little over a year, this isn’t the first controversy we have encountered, the rules update was done with earlier ones in mind too. It takes some time to iron out the bugs I guess.
One good thing was that you actually was willing to change when people thought you were crossing the limits, many people would just stubbornly have defended themselves, you seems to be one that listens to constructive criticism and takes it seriously, and that’s a good thing for sure.
Then, I have kind of mixed feelings about the reviews. Yes, you’re a skilled writer. And yes, realistically, this is how one chooses a new car, some cars are eliminated already at the start while others needs thinking back and forth…
But maybe, sometimes, realism could be sacrificed for simplicity. I think the review and scoring system has been confusing to more people than me, and I suggest to make it somewhat simpler for the next time. There is probably a reason why GTA sells well while “Maastricht traffic jam simulator 2023” would be a lukewarm success. Sometimes people prefer fun and games over realism I guess…at least I do (to some extent).
But hey, for a first challenge, everyone has to expect some bugs, and at least it was ambitious. And yes, it took time, but still far from the time some infamous challenges have taken, so…you’re far from the worst at least.
So, I think the main problems here is that people to start with didn’t have any high expectations on you (which you at least to some extent has proven wrong), combined with that the judging became a bit too complex, heavy and long winded (an opinion I stand behind, and that I know I share with many people).
What I would like to see, however, with your writing skills, is what would happen if you entered some of the RP based challenges that comes up here. Check out the Shitbox Rally thread for reference (a bit dead at the moment but to get the concept at least), it is too late to join for 2023, but there will probably be a 2024 round. Also, in a couple of months I will probably put up the 2023 24 h of clunkers, another RP based challenge you’re welcome to join…
With your skills I am sure that it could be an opportunity for you to really shine!
Most of the automation users are pretty unforgiving to someone because they did a thing that they did not like about a video game.
Sure, the transverse boxer was somewhat unrealistic but this is automation where you can build and I agree with your statement of how you can build it, it isn’t as realistic, but it should at least get a chance to be reviewed like any other car.
Maybe that’s where the misunderstanding came from as the community would just say that you’re “salty” for being binned as opposed to being a statement of how engineering shouldn’t be equated to a bin.
And honestly, you did a great job with this JOC despite the criticism given.
You are quite new, the community was already way saltier in the past than it is now.
The most relaxed days were the old Kee era times, but that is just my subjective opinion.
Its sad to be back after a loooong time and seeing old Sports are no longer here.
The Daytona was the right choice it seems for the character and where she is (fictional) life.
Now, I’m probably positively biased as the 2nd place, but I definitely enjoyed this round.
Preliminary ruleset aside, I didn’t find the ruleset/brief hard at all to implement. Just build a good luxury performance sedan car essentially, and don’t do anything you wouldn’t do anyway, or the game tooltips say is a bad idea.
Yes, my engine was cheesy and I stand by it. I usually limit the size + head type more, but uh, We Ball™ Some other host would maybe make more of a ruckus about it. Hosting is like a box of chocolates…on both sides of the screen.
Lots to read, sure, but half of it was the meta discussions as far as I could tell. A lot of “extra material” but always focused, I think, on the cars. And every car got some actual good feedback, unlike the weirdly salty reviews of the “good old days” (well…early 20s).
The back & forth with the rankings kept some suspense in the game, I didn’t mind.
I don’t particularly enjoy writing (even in native, which I do enough already at work), but appreciate the effort and it seems the continuation is in good hands, whether we call it 3C or 4A.
I was unaware of its existence until halfway though the reviews. For better and for worse, I’ve now read the whole story, at least the public side.
My conduct in CSR154 - I knew or should’ve known better. The reactions to the first story - a surprise to me. Now I know better. Thanks for bearing with.
I don’t dispute this, but point out that LDub’s post was the only bit of constructive criticism regarding layout - that is, a suggestion of what to do - that I at any point received.
Did winning criteria make sense in hindsight?
I had a hard time ranking the middle entries, and your scaled-down, dressed-up, not-Rover SD was one of the hardest. Its final ranking reflects 1. my impression that you read the brief and answered it as an engineer would - “customer says they want X, Y, and Z; what’s the best we can come up with to accomplish those?” rather than “let’s figure out what car the customer had in mind, and replicate it”; 2. the audacity to present an unorthodox solution; 3. the suitability of your solution, as a concept, for the purpose; and 4. the good execution of that concept. As I channeled though Ursula, the Stellia in this context is Weird Shit That Works, which I relate to and admire.
They sure are. Sine qua non. [“without which there is nothing”] Thank you, doot.
As I’ve said before, I much appreciate your support, guidance, and involvement. Now I also appreciate your de-briefing, and wish that others would follow your example of communication done right. Danke schön!
The Überholprestige factor is likely the most glaring example of what you meant by over-ambition; as I started reviewing cars, it became quickly apparent how vague and abstract it becomes when translated into concrete, articulable design language. I think I struggled just as much with how to grade it as the entrants did with how to make it. In the end, it played a far lesser role in rankings than I had imagined.
OTOH, half the reason for including it in the first place was simply educational; to spread the knowledge of a cool bit of uniquely German car culture to an audience that would appreciate learning about it - car nerds who are mostly not German. The fact that two subsequent comps have referenced it is satisfying proof that at least this endeavor succeeded.
Your insights and bigger-picture perspective strike a chord with me. How many ghosts have been watching us squabble over engine layouts and luggage compartments and cheese, of those who would be doing the same thing if they weren’t stuck in a trench in Ukraine right about now?
That said, I disagree that nobody did anything wrong. I was wrong in my attitude during CSR154. Some of the more recent salt is excessive both in its fact and its substance. And collectively, we were and continue to be wrong to keep outdated rules posted and updated rules unwritten.
Sine qua non.
A perfectly valid opinion that I’m glad to know of, have no problem with, and will take into account, but why am I hearing about it only now? Why is this not reflected in the poll I posted specifically in order to gauge it? Had ‘too long-winded!’ seen even one or two tallies, I’d’ve certainly shortened all further reviews. Instead, if readers are unanimous about ‘good writing’, and a solid majority also appreciate the length while nobody complains about it… what author in their right mind would then sacrifice detail for brevity?
Suppose I worked on improving the review layout so that it more easily showed the bottom-line results, while leaving depth and complexity intact but compartmentalized well enough to be optional?
Thank you for the feedback and the suggestion! I will.
I stand by your engine too. We’d be Ballin’ just as well (and with footrests!) had the grey hair fallen slightly to the side. It was so close that I’d’ve ruled it a tie… had I not already mutated the whole comp, flown it with no prior experience in ambitious maneuvers far beyond its design parameters, and needed to land it intact before gravity and Murphy did.
The cheese was far below my personal threshold of excess, and the only reason I mentioned it at all was to conform at least somewhat to expectations of a host regarding historical realism. I find many people’s mentality about this overly conservative and unimaginative, but for a first-time and widely reviled host, I was already breaking with plenty of conventions as it was. By me, only the Walf had any noteworthy cheese at all, and that’s mostly because the game unrealistically over-penalizes hydraulic racks vs. unpowered ones.
Chocolates, huh? Perhaps 100% pure industrial-grade cocoa powder that got mixed in with diamond blasting media and other powders produced in the Andes?
“Native?” That is, indigenous?
What do people think of me continuing JOC3, and trying out a couple rounds of the Rematch Mode that I’ve mentioned as a concept here and there? The idea is that the year goes up by 1, otherwise everything stays mostly the same, notably including the judge. Entrants are expected to submit revisions of their previous entry, taking into account both previous feedback and their previous competitors. The benefits as I see them:
