H2H4 / Week 6: Strangelove vs Ferocious Tigers

that's bullshit.
just because ll isn't as technically advanced or "detailed" as rct2 shouldn't be cause for judging it unfairly or differently. it's still rct, it's part of the competition.

the two games really should be judged equally, regardless of buildings made with scenery or land or anything else, or it having neat little custom supports. what matters is the idea, and the execution of said idea.

Dragonland is as close to an RCT2 park in LL as we're going to get (well, there's been other times). The certain parkmaker who made this just stacks scenery as if it's nothing and uses details that some wouldn't even consider on their own. In the case of this week, there shouldn't be a problem as to whether this match is 'unfair' because Mamba is too detailed. In some places Strangeloves park is almost too detailed and it just starts to get ugly.

Notice that a lot of the pro-Dragonland comments are coming from experienced people and a lot of the pro-Mamba Kilima comments are coming from members that are young, few posts, but still fairly well-adjusted. Continue in that direction, down that line, and in all probability you lose well-adjusted; you start getting into people that are too new to know what they're dealing with, particularly in regards to Dragonland. These are people that vote unfairly for the RCT2 park without a second thought because they don't know anything about LL and are therefore biased towards RCT2, or they don't even look at the LL park and just judge from the screens. Then they don't comment, leaving others mystified. My theory is that at least 6-8 votes toward Mamba Kilima came from way down that line. It's been seen before in LL vs. RCT2 matchups.

I can't think of another reason why we have ~28-18 non-team votes in one direction and the complete opposite ratio in comments.

Edited by Panic, 28 August 2006 - 05:29 PM.

Hey. well after some deliberation i went for the Tigers. It was a close one but the inovation in dragonland... and that entrance sign won it for me...

if only it was compolsory (sp?) to post before you vote...
surely this would eliminate cheating through secondary accounts as well as remove the mystery votes? just a thought

Edited by Gutterflower, 28 August 2006 - 05:23 PM.

that's bullshit.
just because ll isn't as technically advanced or "detailed" as rct2 shouldn't be cause for judging it unfairly or differently. it's still rct, it's part of the competition.

the two games really should be judged equally, regardless of buildings made with scenery or land or anything else, or it having neat little custom supports. what matters is the idea, and the execution of said idea.

Exactly what I was trying to say to Panic. Thanks for saying it in a much more accurate and concise way.

And why must there always be people whining and complaining. Who cares about the total votes and when the match is called, who cares about a bias against LL in the matchup. It's not like the winner is getting massive amounts of money or anything. H2H is all about pride and proving yourself, and quite frankly if you have built a truly good park it should reward the maker with the fitting pride and proof of skills regardless of wether the park wins its matchup or not and regardless of other complications. I get sick of people bitching about little pointless shit and forgetting the whole point of this site.

Well that's exactly what I was trying to say too. But I see some people expecting an LL park to be ridiculously innovative and well done while being fine if an RCT2 park is not, as if the LL idea and execution has to be many times better. Can I call it Castle Grijs syndrome?

Edited by Panic, 28 August 2006 - 05:43 PM.

Personally, I expect innovation in both games. That's what I look for. When I see ideas that I've seen somewhere else, I get a little annoyed. When I see almost entirely ideas that I've seen somewhere else then I get really annoyed. When I see ideas that came from a bunch of my old parks slapped together and then being praised as "innovative" or "creative" I get really really annoyed and stop wanting to post here ever again.

I liked both of these parks. The LL park actually didn't annoy me (surprise, surprise) and the RCT2 one was very pretty. I find it a little funny that people are pointing out how much better the architecure is in the RCT2 park. Umm, yeah, it's RCT2. That's what it does well. Look at Mont St. Michel. And it's also a little unfair Panic to say the architecture in an LL park looks kindof blocky or uninteresting once you remove the coaster track part of it don't you think? That's a pretty essential part of the architecture. You wouldn't say about an RCT2 park that the architecture looks a little bare once you remove all the scenery would you? I see what you were getting at, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but then I don't think it was ever the intention to make buildings which look good when you make half of them invisible.

And I think it's pretty obvious that the big unfairness in the voting is that half the people voting just don't have LL so they can't see both parks. I like how none of them has even mentioned that the LL park is 70x70 while the RCT2 park is only 50x50. Oh but you can't tell that by looking at the overview screens can you?

Ed I ended up voting for the subtle park anyway so I hope I am at least partially forgiven.

Edited by Panic, 28 August 2006 - 06:15 PM.

I wasn't mad at you Panic, and I see what you mean actually. That castle in particular looks pretty undetailed compared to the other buildings. It may have been a stylistic choice though. And the monastary building is pretty squarish too. I was just pointing out how the ride track parts which most people tend to use as adornment to the actual buildings look like pretty essential parts of the buildings here.

Well Panic, I guess we were on the same page then. I was just overstating it a bit to emphasize the fact that LL parks nowadays often seem very boring and repetitive, while most RCT2 parks maintain a greater level of variety and interest. But this is because I try to grade them on an even scale.

I agree here.

As bad as we (strangelove) need this win to turn things around I feel this is the first time we've come to winning unfairly. I loved for my own team figuring it would be "damage control", and at the time (with only a few votes in) we were tied. Now that I see we're winning by a solid margin I'm a bit sad.

Basically I'll be sad if we win this and angry if we loose it (because we'll be in a hole we might not be able to climb out of).

*sigh*



Ride6

Strangelove's park sells to the majority.

Tiger's park sells to the critics.

-ACE

i actually think the blocky buildings were pulled off pretty well.

ride6, i voted for the tiger's so I agree with you there...although I'm not surprised at the current vote tallies. But don't feel too bad, you were on the losing side of the LL vs RCT2 battle week 1, now you get a win back. Just tell yourself you won week 1 and lost this week.

Such is the will of NE, I suppose.

Yeah, I'm hoping for a RCT3 H2H park just to fuck with us because I'm sure most of us either don't have it or have uninstalled it. Whatever goes against it will automatically win, but it would prove a point.

It would just show that all of this LL stuff is bullshit.

When I say that, I mean that too many people vote for whatever they are used to and the norm, like a nice RCT2 park, rather than even trying to appreciate the LL park. I mean look at the topic, I doubt a couple of people who have voted (and posted!) have actually seen the LL park.

I personally haven't had time to look at the parks yet, and so I haven't voted. But it seems like I better. Of course I could easily vote the other way, I just wanted to bring up a few things.

I thought RCT3 parks aren't allowed... So, that wouldn't work.

Edited by Drew, 29 August 2006 - 12:46 AM.

Do we have any mirrors for these yet? Or could someone send them to me at rohn_starr(at)earthlink.net please?

panic, postit, others:
that would all depend on what the standard for H2H is. do we actually know what we're voting on?
is this a contest to see which park took more skill to make, or which one looks better?

it's not listed in the rules, though it should be- corky kind of avoided it.

"The basic concept of Head-2-Head is simple. Any given matchup features two teams, each pitting a mini-park (usually around 50x50 to 70x70 squares in size) made by a pair of parkmakers. ... Upon the deadline, both parks of the matchup are posted on the forums for the public to vote upon. The winning park is the one with more votes. In this way, Head-2-Head acts as a sort of RCT Sport, with the teams and scores and the competition."

now, the easy answer here would be to say that we are voting on which park is better.
but what makes it better? while the skill of the creator is something that obviously can make something look better, from what i can understand this isn't a contest to determine which park took more skill to make. we could argue for hours about which takes more skill, LL or rct2, and not get anywhere.

I guess i'm trying to say that it shouldn't matter if the park is LL/rct2; if it looks worse than its competitor, it should lose. so stop voting based on what game the park was made in and start voting on the park.

[/rant]
approx, matt.

^ It's neither a matter of which looks better nor how much "skill" it took. It's a matter of how much you like it and if it followed the basic rules, nothing more.

Ride6

Two very nice parks but the one in rct1 looks incomplete from the overview and in the game. The only things that I liked from the Tigers's park were the dragons and the entrance gate.

The Strangelove's park was great in every aspect: the coasters were great, the architecture was colorfull and the objects inside (spanish roof with the colorable tiles) are so usefull!

My vote=Strangelove