Park / Hammerhead

20 Comments

  • geewhzz%s's Photo


    After the long period of stunning parks produced in Head-2-Head 5 we now have chance to get back to the normal system and let some of the lesser known guys get their recognition. Maverix is indeed a new face to the community and with two Honorary Mentions under his belt, FATE and Mount Fury, it’s now apparent he has stepped up his game by securing his very first Design Hammerhead! Read On...

  • ChillerHockey33%s's Photo
    Meh. Looks very bare and layout-wise very sub-par. Honorary Mention at best. But congrats anyway.
  • SSSammy%s's Photo
    as reflected in my score, i didnt really think this was design standard. the ride was okay, the foliage was good, but the architecture was really boring. none of it feels right, and thats why i only gave it a twelve, genorously.

    well done anyway. one more NE Desin than me, youre the better man i suppose.
    i actually much preferred FATE from you. alot more atmospheric.
  • Cena%s's Photo
    I think nowadays it is real easy to score a design accolade here ... Maybe you need to make the line on which is a design or not higher. Now it is 13 ... Make it 14 or 15 :) 
  • SSSammy%s's Photo
    nope.

    no no no.

    there has been things where arguably things should have been design along the line, its just personal oppinion of the panel.
  • posix%s's Photo
    Maverix, congrats on the design. I enjoyed it for its nice colour flow and overall atmosphere. I think it shows your great improvement and I'm really looking forward to seeing your next project :)

    Also wishing you a happy birthday! :birthday:
  • Maverix%s's Photo
    Thanks posix, this was a great B-day present. :)
  • CedarPoint6%s's Photo
    For those complaining, look at the score and see how close it was to not making it. Still, I'd say the coaster was worthy of a design. It had a nice layout and it was a cool pretzel around the station-- that was a nice touch. The wing dip was too, but that's probably because I have a soft spot for Manta. Your buildings are the next thing to work on, but I think from here you can probably get a lot better in architecture integrated into a map. Nice job-- it was a close one, so congratulations.
  • gir%s's Photo
    Congrats on winning on your birthday! :) Nice design, but my most glaring concern is how bare your buildings are on the inside. If you're going to use that much glass, at least fill the buildings up and make it look believable. Still, well done, this is a great achievement.
  • turbin3%s's Photo
    Congrats!

    I love the layout, but I neither like your theming nor the landscaping that much.
    The architecture wasn't the best...foliage was okay.

    I'd have given it a 11. ;)

    Yannik
  • Six Frags%s's Photo
    Congrats Jimmy! You are probably the fastest improving parkmaker on this site. The design is ok, but imo it takes too much from the work of others. I mean, the colors used are pretty much the same as rrp used on his Calypso Quay B&M lay-down, and the layout looks a lot like loopy's in Alumwell Bay.. That said, I see you used the work of others to improve your skills, which is probably the best and fastest way to improve.

    Just work a bit on your park composition, as now it is just a bit like coaster here-building there-long ways of pathing with nothing next to it but fences-another lonely building.. It just does not have much flow. And as cp6 and gir said, work a bit on your architecture skills.. For example use some real life buildings on google image search to copy them in your rct park. It really works!
    Good luck and looking forward to your next work,

    SF
  • Hepta%s's Photo
    I agree with most of the previous statements. I'm sorry but this just seemed a little bit too easy.

    Yeah the coaster was pretty nice, but the atmosphere was dead. You had a bunch of tiny ass little buildings seeming randomly placed, and none of them appeared to have an practical use besides a filler.

    Sure it's not bad, but I agree with Sammy, FATE was much more enjoyable than this.
  • Cocoa%s's Photo
    All the buildings were one level. Even the custom ride was short. The layout was nice, but not enough to save it I think.

    There should be one of those percent things for making design, like how there is for spotlight.

    You accolade panelists need to be harsher or move the point level up. Anyway, the old description for design was on the level of spotlight, but just one ride.

    Edited by Cocoa, 23 August 2009 - 04:07 PM.

  • SSSammy%s's Photo
    hehe, no.

    i dont think people understand how hard it is to get a happy medium with voting.
    next thing you know you guys will be complaining that there were a million honary mentions that should have been designs.
  • posix%s's Photo
    ^<3
  • inVersed%s's Photo
    IMO, the core aspect of a design is the coaster layout, and with this is mind it feel this was ace. The layout itself was pretty great. Wonderful interaction with the path, exciting portions, and that wonderful pretzel loop around the station. The second thing of importance to me is architecture and theming. Honestly, aside from the station, the rest of the structures looked a quite sub-par. As for the landscaping, it was not horrible, but it just didnt do it for me. At the end of the day, i guess the layout barely makes this strong enough to be a design, however one of the weaker ones. I would have given this a 12 or 13

    :birthday:
  • JDP%s's Photo
    Finally someone got a design spot that was actually judged for the design and not the surroundings. The design was solid and surroundings were a bit below average. I would have went with a 11 or 12 with this
    however, imo this was better then eggs.
    -JDP
  • K0NG%s's Photo

    IMO, the core aspect of a design is the coaster layout, and with this is mind it feel this was ace.


    Exactly, the CORE aspect is the layout. But, if not for the surroundings, the accolade would be called "Layout". It's not. To me, a 'design' should encompass not only the actual layout of a coaster but, how the surroundings look, interact and add to the overall enjoyment of the ride itself.

    No RL park is going to add a new attraction to it's arsenal unless all the bases are covered. Save for the occasional "layout" that is just SO tits....that it doesn't matter what surrounds it. This layout doesn't do that. I mean..it's nice, parts of it are fantastic but...overall, I'm not sure that if I were on the panel that it would have received any more than an 11 because of the fact that I don't know that that layout was strong enough to overcome the weak surroundings.

    I do, however...disagree with the landscaping replies. I actually like how it has a certain flow and keeps it through every angle you switch to. Not overwhelming but....if you really look at it...it's simple, understated (which I believe was the intention) and while not the best I've seen...it certainly sufficed.

    The architecture here, to me, was what would have kept it down around an 11/11.5 to me.

    of course, that's just my opinion....I could be wrong.
  • Gwazi%s's Photo
    only thing i disliked was the architecture. the landscaping and foliage were actually pretty good, i thought. i'd probably be voting right around zodiac's level if i were on the panel. its pretty good, but not quite at Design level imo.
  • tracidEdge%s's Photo
    why am i not a judge.

Similar Parks

Members Reading