I think that a rematch mode is better suited to a dedicated challenge than to something like this. That way you can explicitly make industrial competition the thematic focus of the challenge instead of having to adapt a different challenge series that is moving on. On the stipulations front, if I were to do a “recurring segment challenge” of sorts, I would have a 4 or 5-year step as opposed to a 1-year one, as that would simulate actual industrial competition with respect to development cycles - not just rapid one-upmanship.
Your reasoning for proposing a rematch mode - point 5, to be exact - has a concerning note to it. Your expectation for the challenge is for the competitors to ‘iterate’ into making better and more optimized cars; and my concern is that on the engineering side of things, we would see too many instances where people “over-optimize” to a point where a meta is found and people cling to it. It also illustrates very well why I would not make the rematchable challenge out of JOC: by 1979, my car would not suddenly optimize to include a 4-speed, a smaller engine with multipoint, et cetera. it would make no sense and would hurt my lore.
It sounds like you’ve done this and run into the pitfalls? If not, I was thinking of doing an experimental run just to see what would happen, provided I can get at least a handful of participants.
Clashing with lore is a caveat, sure, but how is that different from any other comp format?
A 4-5 year development cycle is more faithful to real-world design, but would partially defeat the purpose of point 1 above. The rapid one-upping you describe is exactly what I envisioned. Not the most realistic, but might be a fun learning experience all the same. This Journey has ended, and I’m talking about doubling back and playing in one of the dead ends we passed along the way, while the main event is elsewhere and elsewhen. It wouldn’t replace JOC by any means, it’d just be an experimental sideshow with the leftovers.
No, but I have hosted and been in enough challenges to know when some novel concept that they try to preview is going to end up all wonky. I have already given the example of what would happen to my car if I were to try and win the next round: I’d have to reassign quality points to allow it to carry double wishbones in back, I’d have to give it a multipoint-injected 5.8-ish liter V8 with overhead cams, and I’d have to give it a 5-speed manual. All of the above serves to ruin the car in my eyes to the point where I wouldn’t wish to enter.
Because any other lore format doesn’t have you look at everybody else’s entry and attempt to out-“optimize” it.
I am not worrying about this proposed challenge’s relationship with JOC - rather, I’m saying that if we’re going to stage a market competition game, then I wouldn’t do so around JOC rules and priorities. This is less of a concern considering your aim is an experimental run, though.
Generally, I think I agree with you, so there are mainly two things I want to clarify.
I am not saying that nobody did anything wrong either. If you know that you did anything wrong, you probably did. If anyone else thinks so, that person probably did. It’s just that a “who did what, who is at fault” approach is rarely constructive, things went wrong, people probably learned a thing or two from it, just move on then.
I already answered you earlier that when you had started with the format you did, you could as well continue. The thing is, there were both positive and negative aspects of your review format, and it was interesting to try it out, I am just not sure that it worked out that well in the end. That didn’t mean that it was a disaster, just that it came with some drawbacks, not everything in this world is either black or white.
Also, you might want look into this for inspiration, I know this was an appreciated challenge series.