RCT Discussion / Giving Spotlight to Great H2H Parks

Right. People are using roughly equivalent metrics to choose the score they give a park (how original is the theme? how is the support work? are the ride layouts well-paced? is there a lack of polish, e.g. rides broken down or non-functional? how much content is there? how well does it pull off the intended atmosphere?) - take any combination and assign them your own personal weight, but we all have a reasonably consistent understanding of how to reward effort and good parkmaking, I think.

 

But we struggle with "Spotlight" because it's not just an extra special good park that's a little better than a Gold. Some think, whether subconsciously or not I'm sure, that a Spotlight should fit the classical definition of one because the term itself is "classic". Therefore a Spotlight should be a large park, possibly with distinct themed zones, multiple large designs, an above-average eye for macroscopic composition and architecture, etc. Others likely think a Spotlight could be anything of sufficient quality. But take a look at the poll - clearly there is a big enough split here that it's significant. The Spotlight position could be virtually any quality because it was merely the best full-scale release (again, a term that was up to iris's, Cork's or Kumba's own definition - we have no formal agreement of what that means to distribute to the panelists now). Now that we don't use this system anymore the moniker of Spotlight has to become something else - either let it be an effective "Platinum" category above Gold that anything submitted for a competitive non-Design can win, or use the Spotlight name instead to highlight the most important works over a 2, 3, 6, 12, whatever month timescale. This means all Spotlights in a year could come from a contest, perhaps, if the contest was sufficiently high quality enough. But then you could still reward those parks that score sufficiently high with another rating, e.g. a "Platinum" 80+.

 

I don't really think the awards dedicated to a contest like H2H are enough of a reason to discount those parks from Spotlight. It fails to reward parks for succeeding holistically, even though there may be a best park award if the contest is sufficiently high quality you are under representing it. If it's sufficiently low quality, and solo releases from the year are more deserving, then no Spotlights come out of it. Seems like a fine outcome to me. Everyone still gets scores tied to their parks, parks of sufficiently high quality are recognized, and Spotlight keeps its meaning as referring to the best stuff the site produces, just with a slightly looser definition that's up to the panel. In this system, there is no reason Designs couldn't get Spotlight write-ups as well, if they are a big enough deal. Stuff like Vulture and Kumba spring to mind. They would be thought of as special enough releases to get a write-up rather than any particular type of park, or park made in any particular way.

DAW failing to win Spotlight closed that door forever. Can't have arguably the greatest park of all time, which happens to be a H2H park not be a spotlight then start handing them out to other, lesser parks.

Perhaps it would have won spotlight at the time of it's release had it been eligible for accolades right away. But it didn't and so I don't think any other h2h parks should.

^GF that's your personal account. Other people may not love DAW the same. Please stop wanting to impose recreationalist RCT2 as the de facto style meta everyone at the site should compare against.

I think he is talking more on a score to score basis posix. DAW is the highest scoring h2h park at the moment so I think what he says holds some validity. (Correct me if I'm wrong about the score)

Personal opinion backed up by the score I guess. Though I can't imagine anyone not believing DAW is amoung the top H2H parks of all time.

Well I do not have skill that you have, but speaking as a trainee player, yes I think size is important, 60x60 parks type should compete only with 60x60 or 100x100 should compete with 100x100 etc., and still think it should have MAIN THEME, that is the same theme for both teams.
If futuristic then futuristic, if castles then only castles, just example.

Never vote without first thinking, analyzing, researching, to make the best possible evaluation, I look a lot at the layout of the park, theme, colors, imagination, rides, even the food in the park I evaluate, and I try to imagine how much work who built
The big goal or challenge would be to build something with a specific size for both teams, and even theme, I do not know if I say wrong, it would be fairer competition (just a thought).
I have seen H2H parks with different themes and the two are well elaborated, but being of different themes, but the park + cool (talking in quotes) ends up winning, of course one or the other will win, but that is the same theme.

I do not think meta should change, I think meta can improve.
I do not participate in H2H but it is a great emotion to participate with votes and opinions, and also have fun.