Park / The Testament
-
18-May 09
- Views 36,539
- Downloads 1,328
- Fans 6
- Comments 94
-
76.88%(required: 70%) Gold
Kumba 90% Liampie 90% G Force 85% Coasterbill 75% csw 75% Jaguar 75% trav 75% bigshootergill 70% Poke 70% Xeccah 70% 76.88% -
6 fans Fans of this park
-
Full-Size Map
-
Download Park
1,328
-
Objects
459
-
Tags
Still absolutely loving the Vekoma Madhouse btw.
I mean, it costs time for our team too to make the readme and it adds something to the park.. Like for example I wouldn't post sound files which were initially meant to go with the park but due to time constraints couldn't be attached to the park.. It's also not allowed to post screens of your park in this topic to explain or show some of the details in the park so why is it allowed to post a readme then? It could pull people over the line who were doubting to vote for the park but when they read the readme understood more about the park and then voted for it..
SF
I think that is fair too anyway, because otherwise you could kinda pimp your park and these topics could turn out to be a "show the best parts of your park" topic..
Anyway, I still think the readme levis posted is unfair..
It's something that must be created during the time you had for the park, and not afterwards.. edit; Or AT LEAST after the voting is over..
SF
and I don't see a problem with it and as far as I'm concerned people can post whatever last minute stuff they want about the parks or full reviews with screens because there is no guarantee that it'll make much of a difference. Especially in this case... I'm certain it didn't change the outcome of the match.
Edited by Milo, 21 May 2009 - 03:06 PM.
A readme is something that's part of the park.. As long as NE exists they always are attached to the park file in a .rar archive..
I don't know, it just feels wrong to me to post the readme afterwards while the voting isn't done yet.. Voting percentages are very important this H2H so I think every vote counts here, even if you guys are beating us big time..
SF
if you're going to post a screen that has flaws circled why can't we post a file that points out some highlights of the park? for the sake of fairness it actually balances out
I don't fully understand this idea that a readme is a sacred thing that HAS to be in the file either... if the text had been in a post it would still have the same effect. In fact being a readme possibly means that fewer people will actually bother to look at it
Edited by Milo, 21 May 2009 - 03:15 PM.
I can understand why he did it though, as he really is a coaster perfectionist and can build coasters like no other, and because of that is bugged by things like he pointed out..
About the readme attached to the park file; I think it's a great way to give an insight in what the park is meant to be and pointing out some details that could easily be missed..
I agree with you though it could also be explained in the topics, so that kinda weakens my argument..
Maybe make a new rule for this one, because we don't have enough rules yet?
SF
but I'm in favor of just leaving things as they are and allowing people to post screens. I'd love to see some more things like what gee did recently... it shows what people like and don't like in the park. As far as teams posting stuff, I personally think it's fine to post a readme (although just a detailed post might work better
and since I got my last final done today but haven't had the time to do writeups I might go back and do full reviews of parks with "little things" screens
Also.....I thought that Panic posting screens with circled 'flaws' was a cheap shot.....I mean, maybe after the voting poll has closed (unless you're posting flaws of your own work), but....it most certainly can influence votes. Not like there can be a viable 'rule' against the posting of screens....I guess it has to be left to ones integrity.
Fortunately, in this case it appears that neither had any real effect on the outcome of the match.
Edited by K0NG, 21 May 2009 - 04:06 PM.
I think I'm fine with non-team members posting those kind of replies (although it could be biased too when a team wants another team to lose to benefit their own, but that's a whole other subject) with screens, but I think the teams involved should wait with posting extras and reviews until after the voting.. The reviews are (or could be) biased and the extras should be part of the building time every team has (but that's just me
Anyways, those write-ups of you are great to have again for this h2h! I thoroughly enjoyed them last h2h..
SF
And to explain why I think people should be allowed to post extras after the match has started... I think that a H2H match is quite similar to a release of an accolade, just in a more structured setting. And when an accolade is released the creators almost always have questions and comments to answer and even post some things they missed. You could argue that being anonymous means people have to be quiet but seeing as the whole team has at least seen the progression of the park I think they can all be an available source of information. People keep mentioning about how lot of time is spent making these parks... that's true and it would suck to see people miss out on certain details or maybe it was sent in but a key ride isn't open. I don't see any reason why teams can't set the record straight on a problem or give in depth comments about the opposing park. In case it wasn't clear... I didn't think Panic shouldn't have posted what he did (unless it is deemed we shouldn't have posted a readme), I've talked about rides and ride design with him a lot in the past and understand why he would make the comment he did.
What I'm trying to say is that with the way the community is today and the fact that people have to open parks to vote, I don't think the park being put in a match should be a one shot deal on getting all the ideas across... and you can never be sure how people will take your park. People are going to make comments and I think teams should be allowed to respond how they want to (short of posting another version
It's that sort of activity in the community that I like to see and it helps everyone without ruining the integrity of the contest imo. I don't think it's right that teams have to accept a concept that people might be alienated to if they have the drive to put together a post of info from what the park was based on. I think it would be really cool to have seen a detailed post of the Bioshock park, with clips and screens from the game and then screens of the park... the same could be said about the AL park in this round... a post of SP clips along with their rct ride counterparts would be hilarious and really informative for those who might not know the show. And sometimes things just go wrong in a park and you don't catch them until it's already released...
Just my 2 cents on that
Edited by Milo, 21 May 2009 - 05:03 PM.
Maybe it's because it wasn't really clear to me that these kind of things are allowed, but now I know they are we will be preparing some extras to be posted in our next match-ups..
SF
Can't we have discussions over here anymore?
(because that's what I like about these forums)
SF