Build Around the Track Creation Help

[EArkham]

1. A
2. A (with CP locations chosen by mapper)
3. 45 days
4. A
5. Don't care

 

[Tom Hoen]

1) C as I have never done PLR
2) A
3) ~2months
4) B
5) Top 3

 

[Turbo Lover]

1) B
2) A
3) 2 months.
4) A
5) B

 

[Tekku]

1) B
2) D
3) 2 months.
4) Badwater
5) B

 

[Ritz]

1)A
2)A
3)~1 Month
4)B
5)B

 

[WastedMeerkat]

1) Pl
2) A
3) 2 Months
4) Badwater
5) Top 3

 

[gamemaster1996]

1) Which of the following sounds good:

One PL track

2) Which sounds better:

A fixed track laid out with gaps for variety (If this means you'll have it set but then we can put whatever peice of track we want in the gaps).

3) How long should you be given to make it?

About 3 months

4) Which of the following do you prefer* (Reference):

Upward's layout (Circular, curving in on itself)

5) How should we decide a winner?

A single-choice poll (like many detail contests in the past)

 

[littleedge]

Of 20 answers, 11 said PL. 1 said PLR, 8 said PL and PLR.
Of 21, 15 said Entire Fixed Track. 6 said Fixed Track with Gaps.
Of 19, 1 said 1 Week, 1 said 2 Weeks, 6 said 4 Weeks, and 9 said 8 Weeks. 1 said 6 Weeks, 1 said 12 Weeks.
Of 17, 10 said Badwater and 7 said Upward but what I wanted from that question is no longer needed.
Of 17, 14 said Top 3, 2 said a Single-choice poll, and 1 thought out of the box and added a third choice: "Like AF"

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 4:30 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?

 

[Ritz]

1) no
2) no
3) yes
4) C
5) Yes, self-made/publicly available only
6) No

 

[Turbo Lover]

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Yes.
4) A
5) Yes.
6) Yes.

 

[Fraz]

1) Yes
2) Not really
3) Yes
4) C
5) Yes, but I'd also probably add a clause like all custom materials should be made public even if made specifically for a contest map (this allows specific modellers to work with people, but others get to use the assets as well)
6) No

 

[Seba]

no
no
yes
A
custom assets allowed; all self-made are cool, made by others must be publicly submitted before the contest starts
no

 

[Prop]

no
no
yes
a
no
no

 

[Wilson]

no
no
yes
c
no
no

 

[English Mobster]

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?
Yes.
2) Should the start and end points be decided by the participant?
No.
3) Should the control points location be decided by the participant?
Yes.
4) Which of the following seems best for this contest's length?
--C. 5 Weeks to create a late alpha. Submit the alpha. Maps submitted by the deadline then have a 3 week period to detail and fix the map in response to feedback.
5) Should custom assets be allowed? If so, can you hire a personal model-maker or must it be made by the participant (same with materials).
Custom assets allowed ONLY if a. made by the participant, or b. the model is in the public domain and accessible to anyone visiting this website prior to the beginning of the contest.
6) Should collaborations be allowed?
No.

 

[Tekku]

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes
4) C
5) Must be made by the participant/be publicly available.
6) No

 

[Zhan]

1) I would think the contest might be more interesting if we all had to work with a single fixed track layout, and moving pieces up and down might introduce too much flexibility.
2) I don't think so.
3) Sure.
4) I would say A (8 weeks for everything) but I almost think more time, like 12 weeks, would be better
5) Yes, but only publicly available or self-produced content.
6) I think a collaborative contest might be interesting and fun, but it would have to be very well managed so that no one who wants to participate feels left out because they don't have a partner, or feels cheated because their partner is less experienced.

 

[C00Kies]

Yes
Yes
Yes
A
public or self produced
No

 

[Tom Hoen]

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?
Yes
2) Should the start and end points be decided by the participant?
No
3) Should the control points location be decided by the participant?
Yes
4) Which of the following seems best for this contest's length?
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).
public only
6) Should collaborations be allowed?
No

 

[grazr]

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.

The funny thing is i do agree with you. I tried to suggest something less static to keep things fresh but we need to be competing over something (as you say and i said before) and so a single track is a logical choice. Especially since if there are fewer entrants than anticipated it may not be visible that the tracks are even supposed to be similar/the same.

As a second suggestion i was going to suggest a fixed track but people can move the CP's up and down the track. I think height variation would also be fine and would be a sufficient variable to keep things fresh between entries.

1) I really like this idea; so yes, but really don't mind overall.
2) No
3) Yes
4) I don't really mind, the idea behind B and C was to force people to time manage better and doesn't really affect the overall time spent on the map (IE 8 weeks). If people go beta sooner that's really up to them and/but if you don't get a working alpha by the last week people tend to drop out like flies.
5) Custom content should be allowed but having a "personal modeller" is a clear advantage over other entries as it's basically the same as a collaboration. Many people would probably make their own models and materials as well which means they'll be spending less time on producing the map. It should be limited to like, 3 new models if you have new content and any existing already published.
6) No.