I'm having the same problem again. Where's the distinction between the styles? Wouldn't it be better to do an official definition of styles?
--------------------------------
Example: I want to play a track with much speed and long drifts. What do I look for. Speed? I will find a lot of fullspeeder without drifting. Drift? I will find tracks with drifting but not all with the proper speed i want...
--------------------------------
Another suggestion: What about linking a track to several categories: f.e. you have a race track with much speed and drifts, you can tag it with speed and drift. So you can search for a combination of features you like to play, to find the tracks that fit your preferences the most.

MrA, I agree the list shouldnt be too long but throwing all speed types together in 'Speed' is too general.

SkunkY says:
Well fullspeed noslide and fullspeed slide are 2 completly different categories in my book.

Yup in Nations full speed was obvious, no brake+no slide (apart from the speed slides but they dont count as a style)

In Canyon it's more complicated. Indeed a FS No Slide to me is totally different from FS Slide. And I assume with Slide you mean Transition Slide. For me Transition Slide is the best description but if we all agree Slide = Transition Slide then I'm ok to call it just Slide.

I already hear people say FS Slide is a track where you brake for corners but because you keep holding the acceleration button they think it FS Slide instead of Speedtech. So a style description has to be as clear as possible for everyone.

Example Full Speed Slide 1
Example Full Speed Slide 2

FS Slide is harder than FS No Slide. You can even call it technical.

HansHolo says:
Another suggestion: What about linking a track to several categories: f.e. you have a race track with much speed and drifts, you can tag it with speed and drift. So you can search for a combination of features you like to play, to find the tracks that fit your preferences the most.

This could work. Combine 3 styles and you can come very close to what your track is. Let's try:

Full - Speed - No Slide (sounds good)
Full - Speed - Slide (sounds good)
Speed - Tech (parts full speed and parts brake, sounds good)
Speed - Drift (brake all the way. But wait, isnt that just tech but just a fast tech? And what's Tech Drift then?

Ok so im not sure if combining styles is the best idea. One thing is clear that Full Speed needs to be destinct somehow. At least into FS No Slide and FS Slide.

And btw what is a Normal Race? Isnt there always a style. Even a mediocre nadeo style track can be tech or fs.

I hate it when I search for RPG-tracks (on tmu/nf-x) and a bunch of trial tracks with a mod appear. Their explanation is: NOT POSSIBLE TO CHOOSE TRIAL AS STYLE. It's really a pain in the ass to find a RPG tracks nowadays using the filter.

Can't we just have a lot of different track genres? Instead of only Fullspeed, we could have Really Fast Fullspeed (600km/h+), Natural Fullspeed (No boosters), Simple Fullspeed (3-400km/h) and something similar for the other track styles. More options would give better filter results imo.

I think we should not add excessively many track styles.
A few more are fine but we can't have one for every possible style.
Instead there could be an option 'not specified' or 'other'.

I also like the idea of checkboxes because a lot of tracks fit different styles.
Lets say a track starts technical, goes into speed drift and ends fullspeed noslide. What style should I choose on the track page? Is it tech? speed tech? speed?
It's almost impossible to have the right choice for every track.

What ever happened to summarising what sort of track it is in the Author Comment?

that would mean for every track you wanted a tiny peice of information about you would have to spend 10-15 seconds skimming through the author comments. a whole 10-15 seconds!

Statistically speaking, the higher stuff gets read. The further down you go, the more skimming is done. This is known as the F pattern, because what we read takes the general shape of the capital letter F. It's great to learn!

The problem is not that you need 10-15 seconds to skim through the AC, but that the author needs 5 seconds to copy and paste some specs from the track details, add smileys and put them into italics.

The point is that these track styles are made for people to get a quick understand on which track they should prepare for, and making it easier to filter out tracks. It's so f***ing annoying, every time I try to find a RPG track, I end up opening a trial challenge of some sort. A system might not be very good if it's too complex, but I'm begging for a difference between trial and RPG. It's just awful to hear people say "but it's almost the same" when that's as far from the truth as you can get. It's like calling a technical track fullspeed, "because you don't have to drift, that's optional".

Please consider adding separate options for trial and RPG =(

eie says:
It's just awful to hear people say "but it's almost the same" when that's as far from the truth as you can get.

Okay dude, i think you're stretching it a bit now
If you took that trial map you downloaded, and added a mod and basic storyline, it would be an RPG. Driving the two of them is pretty similar. Right? Am i missing something huge here?