By "relatively recently," do you mean the 1970's? :P
He was rookie of the year in 1989 so at least at that point. Maybe he did just bring a lighter for all I know though.
You and I have different definitions of "pretty stock." Except for a cigarette lighter and the cosmetics of its body shell, there is nothing at all stock about that car.
I think that true stock car racing could be pretty popular if someone tried to bring it back. People love to play GTA/Forza, which feature plenty of cars that normal people like you and I can buy at the dealership. It would also be an incredible advertising opportunity for the car companies. When the Mercedes wins F1, what does that say about the Mercedes you buy at the dealership? Nothing. There is almost no relation. If a stock SLK wins a major race, that will definitely get the sales up.
It would be pretty simple to have this kind of racing. Get some road courses together. Drivers have to get the same exact cars that consumers get. They can tune the cars all they want in terms of adjusting the suspension, reprogramming the computers, etc., but can not add or remove any physical parts. You get the tires that come with the car, and replacement tires have to be the same exact variety. They can't even remove the radio, air conditioner, or floor mats. All cars in the same class have to use the same fuel. Then they just race. I would watch that for sure.
I really think that serious racing with the same cars people see on the road every day could really generate some excitement.
That does go back to the original roots of NASCAR. Of course, then the question is how safe would these cars be to drive in said race? Most consumer cars aren't designed to be driven the way race cars are and hence don't have quite as much in the way of safety equipment. I believe the original rationale behind NASCAR's changing from pretty much highly-tuned consumer cars to custom cars that only look like consumer cars is to allow for installation of safety equipment such as roll cages, special seats, seat harnesses, etc.
I think a good compromise would be "stock except for additional safety features for racing." Keep the car 90% as-is, with the only modifications be the minimal amount required to install features like roll cages and safety harnesses. As a result, the interior may look completely different (not as plush as the consumer version in your Mercedes example, for instance, in order to make room for the safety equipment), but the exterior, engine, tires, etc., would all probably be identical to the consumer version.
Yeah. What we don't want is for race winners to be determined by who is most willing to risk their life. With some car designs (e.g., ground effects), you take a not-insignificant chance of death in return for more speed.
I want to see races of skill: not races where someone wins solely because they are less afraid of death. Driving skill should be the primary skill tested.
You can go legally purchase a car like an Audi R8 that has a top speed near 200mph. There's almost nowhere you can legally drive the car at that speed. Either a consumer car should not be capable of going that fast or it should be safe to drive at all the speeds which it is capable of achieving.
But yes, safety modifications that are equivalent for all competitors are obvious. What's important really is that the outside appearance of the car and the mechanics powering the car are identical to what consumers would drive. Also, unlike NASCAR, never drive on boring oval tracks with only left turns. Every race should be a true road course or at least a grand prix. Maybe bring back Laguna Seca for the opener.
Oh to be clear, the JK2 objection is to stalk ganking the other player until they quit. I know that house rules are just that, and require agreement from all parties. Rubbing it in potentially goes too far.
But for say Dark Souls 2, it's kind of awesome when an invader bows before engaging you. It's risky and arrogant, but also respectful. And if they win, and bow again, I feel much better about it than if they emote a neck slit, because at least I didn't lose to a jerk. Will I hold it against them if they don't? No, but I enjoy it more if they do.
If optimal play requires interpretably dickish behavior, in a group that won't necessarily play to win, I apologize beforehand, emphasize it is not personal, and explain the reason behind my choice. This usually results in them playing to win, which is, in and of itself, a win.
Oh to be clear, the JK2 objection is to stalk ganking the other player until they quit. I know that house rules are just that, and require agreement from all parties. Rubbing it in potentially goes too far.
Haha. A little more context then.
The player in question was REALLY easy to kill with force lightning, and was so focused on his "dueling" that he was always in the same area. I'd blitz through that part of the arena and force lightning all the duelists to death every time I passed by for 3-4 easy kills (and won the match). Since he was always there, I killed him every single time.
I didn't single him out so much as I singled out anyone in the dueling area they'd staked out
What drove him to quit, specifically, was when he tried to get me to duel him one on one. I promised I wouldn't use force lightning.
Someone else (I don't know if it was Scott or not) force lightninged him to death mid-duel. It was one of the funniest things that's ever happened in a videogame.
Interesting aside: have you noticed that TF2 encourages players to pick on specific members of the opposite team? You are rewarded for killing a specific player repeatedly.
Interesting aside: have you noticed that TF2 encourages players to pick on specific members of the opposite team? You are rewarded for killing a specific player repeatedly.
BF3 has a ribbon for killing a player that has killed you multiple times.
I never played JK2, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think that what Rym and Scott are describing in their play is the very definition of unsportsmanlike. If someone is requesting to duel you, and part of the terms of the duel is not to use a certain move or to observe certain conventions such as bowing to begin the duel, your options are to accept the duel and obey those conventions or say, "No, we're not dueling, this is just a fight." If you agree to a duel, and then don't obey the conventions thereof, that really seems like a dick move. Is there some factor I'm not aware of that makes this kind of behavior permissible?
You can go legally purchase a car like an Audi R8 that has a top speed near 200mph. There's almost nowhere you can legally drive the car at that speed. Either a consumer car should not be capable of going that fast or it should be safe to drive at all the speeds which it is capable of achieving.
Audi is a German car company, right? Here we have autobahns. Yesterday I was was nipping along for a bit at about 160 kmph (just because why the fuck not?) and I had to get out of the way of cars approaching fast from behind over and over. I'd judge many were zipping by at about 200 kmph. That's about 130 mph. It's pretty safe in decent cars on roads where such speeds are expected.
You can go legally purchase a car like an Audi R8 that has a top speed near 200mph. There's almost nowhere you can legally drive the car at that speed. Either a consumer car should not be capable of going that fast or it should be safe to drive at all the speeds which it is capable of achieving.
Audi is a German car company, right? Here we have autobahns. Yesterday I was was nipping along for a bit at about 160 kmph (just because why the fuck not?) and I had to get out of the way of cars approaching fast from behind over and over. I'd judge many were zipping by at about 200 kmph. That's about 130 mph. It's pretty safe in decent cars on roads where such speeds are expected.
Comments
It would be pretty simple to have this kind of racing. Get some road courses together. Drivers have to get the same exact cars that consumers get. They can tune the cars all they want in terms of adjusting the suspension, reprogramming the computers, etc., but can not add or remove any physical parts. You get the tires that come with the car, and replacement tires have to be the same exact variety. They can't even remove the radio, air conditioner, or floor mats. All cars in the same class have to use the same fuel. Then they just race. I would watch that for sure.
I really think that serious racing with the same cars people see on the road every day could really generate some excitement.
I think a good compromise would be "stock except for additional safety features for racing." Keep the car 90% as-is, with the only modifications be the minimal amount required to install features like roll cages and safety harnesses. As a result, the interior may look completely different (not as plush as the consumer version in your Mercedes example, for instance, in order to make room for the safety equipment), but the exterior, engine, tires, etc., would all probably be identical to the consumer version.
I want to see races of skill: not races where someone wins solely because they are less afraid of death. Driving skill should be the primary skill tested.
But yes, safety modifications that are equivalent for all competitors are obvious. What's important really is that the outside appearance of the car and the mechanics powering the car are identical to what consumers would drive. Also, unlike NASCAR, never drive on boring oval tracks with only left turns. Every race should be a true road course or at least a grand prix. Maybe bring back Laguna Seca for the opener.
But for say Dark Souls 2, it's kind of awesome when an invader bows before engaging you. It's risky and arrogant, but also respectful. And if they win, and bow again, I feel much better about it than if they emote a neck slit, because at least I didn't lose to a jerk. Will I hold it against them if they don't? No, but I enjoy it more if they do.
If optimal play requires interpretably dickish behavior, in a group that won't necessarily play to win, I apologize beforehand, emphasize it is not personal, and explain the reason behind my choice. This usually results in them playing to win, which is, in and of itself, a win.
Nascar boring.
The player in question was REALLY easy to kill with force lightning, and was so focused on his "dueling" that he was always in the same area. I'd blitz through that part of the arena and force lightning all the duelists to death every time I passed by for 3-4 easy kills (and won the match). Since he was always there, I killed him every single time.
I didn't single him out so much as I singled out anyone in the dueling area they'd staked out
What drove him to quit, specifically, was when he tried to get me to duel him one on one. I promised I wouldn't use force lightning.
Someone else (I don't know if it was Scott or not) force lightninged him to death mid-duel. It was one of the funniest things that's ever happened in a videogame.