Build Around the Track Creation Help

[littleedge]

So Super came up with this brilliant idea: a contest where you're given a predetermined track and you have to build the layout around it. He's too lazy to run it, so I'm going to instead.

However, I am both waiting for AF2 to occur and end, per Ravidge's request, plus I haven't decided on how it's going to run and can't think of a good way to design the track. So I come to you, the community, the guys taking part in this contest, to decide how it'll work.

Currently, this is what we know of the contest (though it is subject to change). You will be given a track and pl entities. You will build around the track (or over and under!) and make a map. The winner (and runner ups) at the end will be determined by a Top 3 vote similar to how the 72 Contest (hosted by Muffin) winners were determined.

New Set of Questions as of July 21 at roughly 4:50 EST
1) Should the participant be allowed to alter the height of pieces of track if the top-down view of the track stays the same?
2) Should the start and end points be decided by the participant?
3) Should the control points location be decided by the participant?
4) Which of the following seems best for this contest's length?
--A. 8 Weeks to finish a map (detailed and everything)
--B. X Weeks to create a late alpha. Submit the alpha. Maps submitted by the deadline then have a short period to detail ONLY. [Number of weeks determined in a future poll]
--C. X Weeks to create a late alpha. Submit the alpha. Maps submitted by the deadline then have a short period to detail and fix the map in response to feedback. [Number of weeks determined in a future poll]
5) Should custom assets be allowed? If so, can you hire a personal model-maker or must it be made by the participant/be publicly available (same with materials).
6) Should collaborations be allowed?

Below is the old set of questions.

I'm requesting everybody answer the following questions with how you feel it should work and then give me any other comments or questions that I shall respond to accordingly.

So if you would, please:
1) Which of the following sounds good:
[LIST=A]
[*]One PL track
[*]One PL track, one PLR Track - you choose PL or PLR (or do both)
[*]One PLR track
[/LIST]
2) Which sounds better:
[LIST=A]
[*]An entire track laid out, you may not alter any of it whatsoever
[*]Bunches of track that you may combine in any order you wish, individual bunches may not be altered
[*]Individual track pieces, laid out as you wish
[*]A fixed track laid out with gaps for variety
[/LIST]
3) How long should you be given to make it?
4) Which of the following do you prefer* ([URL="http://i.imgur.com/ilBJ9.jpg"]Reference[/URL]):
[LIST=A]
[*]Upward's layout (Circular, curving in on itself)
[*]Badwater/Barnblitz (More straight, turns for optimization/boredom's sake)
[/LIST]
5) How should we decide a winner?
[LIST=A]
[*]A single-choice poll (like many detail contests in the past)
[*]List of Top 3 (with a prelim round if number of entrants is high) (like the recent 72 Contest)
[/LIST]

*I realize Badwater curves into itself, but Upward actually does a full circle and goes into the center while Badwater is more just sharing one side at the beginning and end.  It's like 5 sides in a spiral compared to three sides of a square.

 

[Moose]

1: B
pl/plr means more variety, and in a contest with the same track path being used, seems like it would be more fun.

2: A
Anything but a pre-made track would basically just be a pl contest all over again.

3: I don't really know, depends on whether or not the focus is speedmapping.

4: B
I don't think a track spiraling in on itself would allow for as much creativity as something a little more elaborate

5: B
I dunno, I like this better.

 

[Randdalf]

1a)
2d) A fixed track with gaps we have to fill in
3 no opinion
4 upward!
5 voting!

 

[Seba]

1 B
2 A
3 a week
4 upward
5 voting based on most fun had

 

[Micnax]

1) B
2) A
3) Not too sure. A month sounds challenging enough.
4) A
5) B

 

[littleedge]

I edited Question 5. Could the above people please Edit their response for it?

I also added D to Question 2.

 

[YM]

1)a
2)a
3)<2 months
4)a but you make the nooby mistake of thinking badwater doesn't curve in on itself just like upward. upward is just more... up.. about it. between upward/badwater'd be best
5)don't care

 

[English Mobster]

1. B, allows for more variety in submissions.
2. D, keeps the point of the contest intact whilst still allowing bits of creativity.
3. A month, perhaps?
4. Both, Badwater is a better style for a PL map, while an Upward-esque PLR map may be interesting.
5. B, that way a small plurality (~19%) can't decide the winner.

 

[grazr]

This seems like a really nifty idea, but it seems the problem you have is keeping the amount of variables reasonable. Too many variables like "X" amount of track pieces leaves you with too many variables to the point where you might as well just form a standard PL contest and keep things that open and simple. Not enough variables like a single fixed track and you end up with a whole bunch of maps which look and play remarkably similar to each other.

What you could do is release a set of predetermined paths like prefab sections. You can only use 9 sections or less (double for PLR). So players could place 1 or two sections between each CP.

So you'd have a selection of maybe 15-16 path pieces (excluding PLR crossovers) which can only be used once each. Which should also be enough for multi-stage. Enough track sections that players are competing against each other to make the most interesting use of the paths but not so many that each map is too unique. You might also include some basic geometry with each path track like walls or bridges that have to be used in conjunction with the track. You can add anything to or around it but not remove it.

IE

Note how CP1-2 is 1 section. Mappers can choose to reduce their pl map size as long as they have X amount of CP's which may or may not come as a part of the track sections.

1) N/A
2) B/D
3) ~ 8 weeks Perhaps 6 to submit B1 and 2 weeks to artpass and fix issues. The major problem people have is time management so if you have a primary and secondary deadline perhaps more people would be likely to not quit in the last moments.
4) badwater (although ultimately N/A)
5) primary, secondary and tertiary votes. Each worth 3, 2 and 1 points respectively.

 

[tyler]

1. B
2. D
3. A month or so
4. B
5. B

 

[Fraz]

1) B
2) A... (I'm not really happy with this, I'd much rather have a full track laid out but we can edit it slightly (make straights slightly longer or shorter, raise things up and down etc)
3) A month, maybe.
4) Badwater/Barnblitz (this is another way you could do it, have 2 PL tracks, one Upward style one Badwater/BB style)
5) List of top 3 a la 72 hour contest.

 

[Sergis]

1) A, if it's payload contest, it's payload contest. PLR is a different beast.
2) A, everything else is not "build around the track"
3) 2 months. Let people enjoy the summer instead of mapping 24/7.
4) -, does not matter to me.
5) C: like in assignment frenzy. I prefer to vote for all maps I like, instead of being limited to 1 or 3.

 

[YM]

Re what grazr proposes:

So we're just making a payload map then. If you do that it totally removes the fact we're all working off the same layout, because we're not; at all.

If you're going to do this contest, it has to be the whole track already laid out that we can't alter (except maybe to introduce height variations and very minor length adjustments of under~64 units here and there). To allow us to heavily modify the track as grazr suggests just turns this into a regular (and boring) payload contest.

 

[Prop]

Mhh I really love this idea! I also love Sergis's idea about 2 the month thing!

1) Payload
2) A
3) 2 months
4) Uhm... dont matter
5) Poll. Picking your fav!

 

[A Boojum Snark]

While allowing "minor variations" to a rigid track is a nice idea, I see it causing a lot of drama and arguing and checking. There also aren't a lot of cases I can think of where you would need to change it, since anything so minor as to be allowed is likely irrelevant in the grand scheme (the whole point here is to build around a static obstacle). My two cents.

 

[osiem]

Maybe make it like people can't change the track layout, but they can decide where the capture points on the track are? This will provide some variety and maybe someone will go for 3 or 5 cps instead of usual 4.

EDIT:
1. A
2. A, but cps placement chosen by mapper (you should consider doing it that way, pretty lot of people agree with this idea)
3. about 3 weeks, but if it's gonna be judged like major contest (categories etc.) and the aesthetics will count, then 2 months
4. sth between badwater and upwards
5. top 3

 

[Sergis]

Maybe make it like people can't change the track layout, but they can decide where the capture points on the track are? This will provide some variety and maybe someone will go for 3 or 5 cps instead of usual 4.

the way i imagine this should be done is people would get a prearranged set of prop_statics to do whatever they want around them, leaving cps up to contestants

 

[YM]

Maybe make it like people can't change the track layout, but they can decide where the capture points on the track are? This will provide some variety and maybe someone will go for 3 or 5 cps instead of usual 4.

Oh yeah I thought this but never actually said it. This is basically my opinion (though I wouldn't mind height tweaking, so the layout has to have identical birds-eye view but could look different from ground level)

 

[Pocket]

[Badwater Basin overview]

Wait, how did you get the tracks and junk to show up from way up there? You're way outside the fade distance.

 

[clayton]

...make it like people can't change the track layout, but they can decide where the capture points on the track are

the above is a good shout. the maps would have a definite resemblance, but we could still expect great variety. otherwise i don't think any changes should be permitted, however small (why should you need to slightly lengthen the track? just shorten your scenery!)

my answers:

1. A
2. A
3. 2 months seems reasonable
4. No real preference
5. B

great idea for a contest