Blackflag82's Feed

Blackflag82
02-28-2019 at 12:36 PM
16 Comments
Rate this Entry

Fast and Furious Super Cars Rules

Here are the rules as I believe they should be set based on community input and the information Juan has provided thus far. This would allow for an easily submitted to track with very little confusion. I welcome everyone's input (Any posts that are excessively off topic or redundant will be deleted at my discretion). Please note: I'm not suggesting these be Juan's rules, but that these be used for a track of the game that can be set up and actually submitted to.

This rule set will only track fastest times and will cover all 27 courses.

----

1) Settings must be shown as follows:

-Start time: 80 seconds

-Check point bonus: 30 seconds

2) Game difficulty: any

3) Use of boosts and glitches are allowed

4) Player may freely select car

5) Player may choose manual or automatic

6) Conversion machines are allowed

@Snowflake @Pixe Sukola @sdwyer138


As a side note, I believe that TG should take a more active role in vetoing rule sets which are not properly worded for clarity or create a situation in which it is unlikely anyone can ever have a submission verified because of poor wording/rules. I do not think they should attempt to help members with this process, but if a veto is used should provide a clearly defined reason why the rules are unacceptable and what can be done to make them acceptable. @TWIN GALAXIES @admin staff @SincerelyFranny

ThanksPixe Sukola, SincerelyFranny thanked this post
LikesSnowflake liked this post
Comments
  1. sdwyer138's Avatar

    This set of rules is very clear and in my opinion would encourage participation in both playing and adjudicating. My only question at this point is with the conversion cabs. Did JJT give any explanation as to why he was against a conversion?

    LikesBlackflag82 liked this post
  2. Snowflake's Avatar

    should different version like tokyo drift be allowed? In a lot of ways I see it as simliar to street fighter 2 with multiple verions. SF2 is way more popular though so splitting is more deserving. I dont know though if merging the games would effectively obsolste one title.

  3. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by sdwyer138

    This set of rules is very clear and in my opinion would encourage participation in both playing and adjudicating. My only question at this point is with the conversion cabs. Did JJT give any explanation as to why he was against a conversion?


    He never did to my knowledge, though I imagine his reason would have to do with the "equipment" not being uniform...the steering wheel is tighter, or the stick is different, or there are different buttons...

  4. Snowflake's Avatar

    also there was no way to verify its original wood if the rule is you cant just verify by wathcing mojave :)
    but yeah, impossible to verify rule based on other rules, where no reason was given.

  5. Blackflag82's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    should different version like tokyo drift be allowed? In a lot of ways I see it as simliar to street fighter 2 with multiple verions. SF2 is way more popular though so splitting is more deserving. I dont know though if merging the games would effectively obsolste one title.

    What would that look like? Would it be one fast and furious track with super cars tracks and tokyo drift tracks each under that banner? my inclination is to leave it as just super cars, but I'm not set on that

  6. Snowflake's Avatar

    Aren’t there sane tracks in both games? In those cases I was thinking allowing any version


    But you know what never mind I don’t want to introduce any more confusion when we’re so close up clarity

  7. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    They look good, in my opinion they could be even shorter, and in case of the use of glitches I think it is better to specify that the use of boosts by glitch is allowed but not just any glitch. And the conversion thing I agree it doesn't need to be the original cabinet but the same peripherals do have to be maintained: Steering Wheel, pedals and stick. I would not agree with a conversion for the game to be played with an xbox controller for example.

    So I would write them as follows, but I don´t care that much, I´ll a gree to what the majority says.


    1) Start time: 80 seconds

    2) Check point bonus: 30 seconds

    3) Any difficulty, any car, any transmission

    4) Use of wall riding and any boosts is allowed (including those by glitch)

    5) Conversion machines are allowed as long as they use the same peripherals.

  8. SincerelyFranny's Avatar

    I believe that TG should take a more active role in vetoing rule sets which are not properly worded for clarity or create a situation in which it is unlikely anyone can ever have a submission verified because of poor wording/rules. I do not think they should attempt to help members with this process, but if a veto is used should provide a clearly defined reason why the rules are unacceptable and what can be done to make them acceptable.


    This has been discussed on the back end, and it is possible that we will implement a final "Admin Check" gate before the track is actually live in the near future.


    It's definitely something that would have nipped this in the butt before the derivatives were made.

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
    Updated 02-28-2019 at 02:14 PM by SincerelyFranny
  9. Snowflake's Avatar

    i hate to admit thats needed, can i request the guidelines on what gets vetoed by made public and discussed

    basically i want to make sure silly tracks, really, anything subjective is alllowed and we dont have admin forcing their opinion on us

    i'd hope the policy is to just remove unclear tracks, or offensive tracks "shout racial slurs while playing super mario bros" for example.

  10. sdwyer138's Avatar

    If I was going to design a new new track creation process, this would be the basic flow:

    1) Member creates new thread with their proposed rules (no SP charged at this point)

    2) Community has a set period of time to discuss and provide feedback during which the rules can be revised

    3) At the end of the discussion time, the community can pledge SP (still not charged at this point) until the track is funded

    4) Track is queued for Admin review. Admin can either: a) accept as is; b) push back to community for revision; c) make minor formatting/spelling corrections with out pushing back to the community.

    5) After the track has both community and Admin sign off, Admin charges the pledged SP from the community and publishes the track. If it is determined that the track was proposed in error, or that the community and Admin cannot come to an agreement, it is marked as cancelled, and none of the pledged SP is charged.

    LikesJoonas, SincerelyFranny, Desidious liked this post
  11. SincerelyFranny's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by sdwyer138

    If I was going to design a new new track creation process, this would be the basic flow:

    1) Member creates new thread with their proposed rules (no SP charged at this point)

    2) Community has a set period of time to discuss and provide feedback during which the rules can be revised

    3) At the end of the discussion time, the community can pledge SP (still not charged at this point) until the track is funded

    4) Track is queued for Admin review. Admin can either: a) accept as is; b) push back to community for revision; c) make minor formatting/spelling corrections with out pushing back to the community.

    5) After the track has both community and Admin sign off, Admin charges the pledged SP from the community and publishes the track. If it is determined that the track was proposed in error, or that the community and Admin cannot come to an agreement, it is marked as cancelled, and none of the pledged SP is charged.


    I like this. I'll bring this to @Dave Hawksett and our engineering team too see what they think of it and the possibility of implementing this process.

    Thankssdwyer138, Desidious thanked this post
  12. SincerelyFranny's Avatar

    1) Member creates new thread with their proposed rules (no SP charged at this point)

    @sdwyer138

    After rereading this, I would argue to keep an initial SP "deposit". This would be to gate people on purposing hundreds of tracks at once due to there not being an upfront "charge".

    Either way, this is all just on the drawing board and will have to be discussed internally. Additionally, if approved, it's implementation won't be immediate due to us needing to completely reword the market place from an engineering standpoint.


    That being said, all ideas are appreciated and welcome.

    Thankssdwyer138 thanked this post
  13. sdwyer138's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by SincerelyFranny


    @sdwyer138

    After rereading this, I would argue to keep an initial SP "deposit". This would be to gate people on purposing hundreds of tracks at once due to there not being an upfront "charge".

    Either way, this is all just on the drawing board and will have to be discussed internally. Additionally, if approved, it's implementation won't be immediate due to us needing to completely reword the market place from an engineering standpoint.


    That being said, all ideas are appreciated and welcome.


    Yes, that makes a lot of sense

  14. Snowflake's Avatar

    i have some concern community approval would get snobish and elitist and try to track only what they care about. community advice and review should be welcomed, i'm not to thrilled about community veto though. especially when all that does is just make track creator want to wait until the community is a different set of active users. old users leave and new users arrive all the time.

    i dont mind the community flagging something for review, similiar to the dispute system to trigger admin review. I just forsee arguments on eveyr detail of track creation. theres gotta be a balance between giving community full control over others, and no control where one person can just go wild.`

  15. SincerelyFranny's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    i have some concern community approval would get snobish and elitist and try to track only what they care about. community advice and review should be welcomed, i'm not to thrilled about community veto though. especially when all that does is just make track creator want to wait until the community is a different set of active users. old users leave and new users arrive all the time.

    i dont mind the community flagging something for review, similiar to the dispute system to trigger admin review. I just forsee arguments on eveyr detail of track creation. theres gotta be a balance between giving community full control over others, and no control where one person can just go wild.`


    I didn't view it as community approval as in a way for the community to approve or reject a track, but to donate to the track if they wanted to. (Similar to how it is now) Approval will lie solely on the admin in charge or reviewing the track. They will be able to take the feedback in the discussion thread and implement it as soon as it reaches the point of complete funding.

    We want the community to be able to create tracks of their choosing, however we just want an extra layer of security to ensure clarity and proper formatting/spelling. :)

    LikesSnowflake liked this post
    Updated 02-28-2019 at 04:54 PM by SincerelyFranny
  16. Desidious's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by SincerelyFranny


    @sdwyer138

    After rereading this, I would argue to keep an initial SP "deposit". This would be to gate people on purposing hundreds of tracks at once due to there not being an upfront "charge".


    That's definitely true because that is exactly what I would do. I would go through each game that I own at least and figure out how to make tracks. I still will always believe a reduction in cost is more effective in getting more tracks into the database and members more willing to fund tracks.

Join us