Talk:CTGP Revolution/Track Wishlist/New Tracks

From Custom Mario Kart
Jump to: navigation, search

Page Cleanup

Shouldn't there be a cleanup of this page to remove all the stuff that has already been added to CTGPR v1.02? Otherwise this page could get incredibly confusing... -- WorldsBoss 23:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"New tracks"

I already see GBA Rainbow Road, GCN Rainbow Road, Iceway, Lava Road, SNES Mario Circuit 1, and Volcano Beach 2 in CTGP. I know they have been updated since then, but do they belong on the new tracks wishlist? Shouldn't all new versions of old tracks be moved here instead? A note for these people who like to repeat tracks on the new wishlist: there is a chance it will get rejected, even though it's technically already in the game. You want to take that chance? :P
Zilla 16:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Since v1.02 is technically still beta, unless the tracks have been explicitly approved of (not just being added to the beta), they can be removed at any given notice. We also keep flagged notes for the track creators to read so that they know why their tracks might not make it into the pack and what they can do to improve their chances. --Torran 20:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking back, I do see multiple versions of some ports in CTGP, like SNES Rainbow Road and some SNES Bowser Castles. I realize this is still a beta, but I haven't seen removed tracks before. I do think that some courses are really old and I wouldn't be surprised if some were removed. I'm still a little confused. Should I move my SNES Choco Island 2 to the wishlist? The other one is in CTGP, but it is old. Mine was added before to a list.
Zilla 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If your track is new to the CTGP and it's not an update of an old track then it goes in the New Tracks section. Your SNES Choco Island 2 is not an update of Butt's and it's not been in the CTGP yet so it can go in the New Tracks section. --Torran 21:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed tracks

Just wondering, if a track got "needs fixes" as review and I fixed the track, where do I have to put it? "New tracks" doesn't work because it isn't new, "updated tracks" either because it wasn't in the CTGP before and if I just add to the notes that I fixed it now it may not be seen. --NiAlBlack 00:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Move the track from the "Reviewed for 1.03" section to the "Added After Latest Stream" section. --Torran 00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unreviewed tracks

Hmm... Lately I've seen some CT's in the track wishlist staying unreviewed so I'm asking if you can move those CT's to Added after latest stream? Or do they just stay unreviewed? --MitsySueG24 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

1. I hope you realize you just broke another rule: editing the same page twice in a row within 15 minutes is forbidden.
2. Unreviewed tracks stay unreviewed until either Bean or Chadderz edit their statuses stating otherwise.
3. Your signature is unhelpful; it has no date. Try making signatures by typing this (without the quotations): "--~~~~"
4. This is how a signature is supposed to look:
--Torran 03:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
So your basically telling no one can move the unreviewed CT's to the latest stream?
--MitsySueG24 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to restate your question in a different manner. If I interpret your question as adding CT's to the latest stream table, anyone can add CT's to the latest stream table provided that the CT meets the minimum requirements for entry (use your common sense on this one). The existing contents of the table itself stay unmodified. --Torran 14:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Some tracks stayed unreviewed in "Reviewed for 1.03 (Stream 1)". Can I move them to "Added after latest stream"? -- NiAlBlack 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's acceptable if you really want them to be resubmitted for analysis, just don't delete them from the other section. -- WorldsBoss 22:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

SNES Rainbow Road

Actually NiAlBlack replacing the Teknik version is not simply my opinion. It has long been discussed in the CT Creators Skype group along with on Bean's streams in the past that any new (and better) version of SNES RR would replace Teknik's version rather than Tock's one. This was the general consensus from all involved. -- WorldsBoss 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is, replace all or replace none! All versions of SNES Rainbow Road are not that good for different reasons. All of them use bad textures and MrBean's and also Teknik's version don't have proper texture mapping. Also Tock's version has those flat item boxes which don't give you an item all around the course, which isn't really good. Some of you might say, you can't cut out SNES Rainbow Road by MrBean, because it's a classic CT, but I really think we got to move on, like many other CT's that still remain in CTP, it's design is simply outdated, and if someone wants to play these oldies, someone should simply release a "CTGP Classic". -- NiAlBlack 19:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Tenik's should go. However, I do like the idea of a "CTGP Classic". Kinda reminds me of Wiimm's Mario Kart Wii Fun distributions, except it would be all classic tracks. Nice idea there, NiAlBlack. HerbertMcHoover 20:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • SNES Rainbow Road (MrBean35000vr & Chadderz): not leaving, since they made the distribution itself. This is not the only reason, because it's different from other SNES RRs in the fact that it's scaled bigger and the turns aren't sharp, so the gameplay is different.
  • SNES Rainbow Road (Teknik): chronologically, it came out after MrBean's version. It was good, but now it's outdated, because of the next version. This will likely be booted out of CTGP-R.
  • SNES Rainbow Road (DasFragezeichen & Tock): best version resembling the classic SNES design. Also, it's UV mapping is better than Teknik's. Um... of course the item box textures on the ground don't work, since it's a throwback to how you'd see it in Super Mario Kart... There are even coin textures on the road. There are plenty functioning item boxes in the course itself.
There are some other cases where one port is significantly different than the other, such as GBA Sky Garden and SNES Bowser Castle 2. There is no reason to replace any track simply because it's old or for the sake of only having one port of a ported track. As for Teknik's SNES RR, it's the same scale as Tock's, so there is no real gameplay difference and Tock's is more detailed. Of course Teknik's will get booted. You just need to inspect the courses some more... In the end, MrBean gets the final say.
ZillaSpaz 02:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Updating an old track

I'm sorry I thought I have to put yes when I have updated the course. That it turns green and they know that a new version is available. So please don't think I'm lying. It was just a mistake :)

--unsigned comment by Super-Daisy55 (talk) 17:15, May 21, 2013‎ (UTC)

You only put green if you updated a course after an older version was already accepted. By the way, check your course talk page; you did not fix all the bugs.
ZillaSpaz (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreviewed and Reviewed Track Updates Section

Should there be a section where reviewed tracks are updated? This will be less confusing and messy. --MitsySueG24 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Track Review/Issues

Besides the fact that I don't understand why you suggest "improvements" the author clearly disagrees with, I believe that column is useless. "Minor KCL issues." Well what is the author supposed to do? look at 10000 triangles and look for it? Why not post real issues on the tracks talk page and show the author where those are.

Tock (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I revived this page a few days ago, cause I was unhappy how the CTGP Tester Team kept record about accpeted and rejected tracks and the encountered issues while testing. I totally agree that all issues should be reported on the tracks Talkpage or should be directed to the track creator via Discord or other stuff. But to be honest after a normal CTGP track test a lot of issues are reported by the testers. So far they mostly were reported on Discord and then got lost over the time OR were in most times reported to the author via Discord immediately as this is the prior form of communication for the MKW community today. So this page is just a quick summary of the reasons why the tester team rejected a track for CTGP. After cleaning up the page and moving dozens of tracks from the last 2 years in the correct category i only filled in a very very short comment on each track due to the amount of tracks I needed to comment on. (That's why all rejected tracks that are not up to current CTGP standards simply got the same comment copy pasted on them!) For the first update of this page after our last big track test on July 23rd a lot better and more detailed rejection reports were added (some with video proof). So the unclearness of some reports were only due to my limited motivation to write detailed summaries for so many tracks.
For the special case of your "minor KCL issues": I bet you mean GCN Wario Coloseum. I only wrote the comment based on the issue that Leseratte and Wiimm reported on your thread on, so I knew you that you knew what KCL issues were meant. Afaik that issue that was reported lately is currently the only rejection reason for CTGP. All stuff that is commented on your tracks is stuff you definetly already know about.
Overall I'm not really sure if reviving this page was such a good idea but we will see how it turns out. Let's give it a try. it could be really helpful for CTGP tester team and track authors, as well as all people who want to know why their favorite track is not in CTGP, like for example the Electric Shredder. Sucht93a (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes in theory the idea is good, but this all depends on the testers (not only you). Problems should be well documented (so the talk page) so not only the Discord CT authors know about it. Also this would help people if the author has abandoned the track.
Tock (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I noticed all the reject reasons. So I have some questions:
  • Does it mean, that all old tracks that matches at least one of these reasons are dropped from CTGP? If not: Why discriminating new tracks by rules?
  • If I see reasons as "not trickable" or "too much trickable": The tester team does not accept the the creative part of the authors. Maybe it's an authors will to add tricks at exact that places he added them. In this point you can critic or ask, but rejection is arrogant and brazen.
  • "Rejected because of wine glasses": really? What about fall downs? They are much more dangerous than wine glasses. And what about the monsters of tracks (e.g. goombas, user made monsters)? *lol*
  • "General design issues." This helps the author very much (irony!). Please add all issues add the discussion page of the track.
It seems, that creativity in unusual parts are not welcome, but only for new tracks. I can't believe it!!
Overall, you can critic, and then at the discussion pages. But forcing others to edit tracks without talking to the authors is a very bad way, because the authors has nbo change to react and some edits are really bad (because of hurry?).
-- Wiimm (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
"Too many thwomps and zapppers, delete some of them to make it easier"
Really? After removing wine glasses, other objects should be removed? The number of wine glasses, thwomps or zappers and of other objects is a creative decision of the creator. After removing all of them, the character of the track changed. I have no problems, if anyone want to fix technical issues. But this kind of impact to change the creative part of a track is really bad. Do you want to stop the creativity of the community?? Should a handful of people decide about the creativity??
So you like it, if change your tracks, so that they get a new characteristics?
-- Wiimm (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to explain my thoughts about this since it seems to be a big issue right now. First of all I should say that I do not believe anyone intended to offend anyone by the comments they put, so I'm sorry if any authors have been upset by this. To clarify our 'testing team' is actually more like a 'track selection team'. They do not just test the tracks, but also judge them. We have asked them to do this so that it is not always MrBean's opinion that wins, they can advise him. The team consists of people from different parts of the community too, so hopefully their opinions are based on group consensus.

When they make comments like 'too many x, not enough y' I believe what they are really saying is 'we have decided not to accept this track into ctgp because we feel there is too much x and not enough y'. If the author decided to then change their track, then maybe the reviewer's decision would change. At the end of the day though, it does remain the author's decision. Perhaps in some cases there may be an unofficial update if the author has left the community, but I hope they would follow the usual rules on this. If the rules have been breached then I apologise and I'd suggest we make any offenders aware of the Wiiki rules.

Track selection is always a controversial topic; authors feel their tracks should be in, we may think differently. We're not always right. At the end of the day just as the tracks belong to the authors, the pack belongs to us and we will pick the tracks we want to. Hopefully though, everyone can remain friendly about this.

Chadderz (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Track choice flaws

First edit on the wiki, huh. I probably did this talk page thing wrong. Regardless, I feel like you guys are being a bit too nitpicky on some tracks, the flaws are almost unnoticeable on ones like The Plain of Atlantis, Desert Fort, Kamek's Library, Divine Temple, Super Sky Courtyard, and a couple others aren't in CTGP. They seem to play pretty well from what I have seen on YouTube. They could easily take the place of really flawed tracks like the 4 loops, ASDF_Course, F-Zero White Land 1, Final Grounds, Haunted Woods, Headlong Skyway, Heart of China, SNES Bowser Castle 2 MKDasher version, or Undiscovered Offlimit. Or forgettable boring and old tracks like Alpine Mountain, Cave Island, Cliff Village, Galaxy Base, Green Park, Icecream Sweetland, Infernal Pipeyard, Jungle Cliff, Kartwood Creek, Lakeside Hill, Nostalgic Bowser's Castle, Retro Raceway, Rezway, Rockside River, Sacred Fogcoast, SADX Twinkle Circuit, Sandcastle Park, Seaside Circuit, Seasonal Circuit, Snowy Circuit 1 and 2, Sparkly Road, Stone Route, Sunset Circuit, Sunset Raceway, Unnamed Valley, Windmill Village, or Wolf Castlegrounds should also be removed, to name a few. Sorry if I sound really nitpicky and hypocritical, but these tracks that ARE in CTGP are honestly way more flawed than some tracks that weren't accepted for CTGP. Sorry, again, if I came off as rude, I don't mean to offend anyone. This has just been bothering me for a while. Thanks! P.S. I don't have a talk page, how do I create one? Jcharlesk (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The Plain of Atlantis has multiple major issues; namely, the track goes too far into the Y & Z coordinates, which causes items to literally disappear when used. This makes physical items (things like bananas, shells, bombs, etc.) impossible to use. Desert Fort is receiving updates from its creator, and as such it isn't ready to be added to CTGP. Kamek's Library has multiple jumps that cannot be made while small, which causes a massively unfair disadvantage to anyone who's been thundershocked. I'm not sure about Divine Temple, but considering SpyKid is in the backroom for CTGP, the track was probably already tested and denied for some reason. Super Sky Courtyard was already REMOVED from CTGP for various issues. We're trying to be as non-nitpicky as possible when it comes to tracks; all the backroom is really looking for is good-looking tracks that play well and don't have any glaring issues. As far as your list of tracks... some of those are on their way out of CTGP, and some of those won't be leaving for various reasons (e.x. ASDF_Course is the most popular time-trial track out of all the time trial tracks, and the only custom track to have more than 10k ghosts). Additionally, we can't just remove all of those tracks at once, as we need proper tracks to replace them.
I will also note that this page needs serious updating; I'm not part of the backroom so I can't do it properly, but I'm sure a lot of these tracks have either already tested or straight up denied. I know Koopa Shell Pipeland was tested at one point (a bit laggy so it's not being accepted yet) and a lot of the tracks on the greylist have general design flaws that'll get them automatically denied. I'll probably update the page later if I can get the permission to do so.
So, in other words... the specific tracks you listed have general flaws that are preventing them from getting accepted (except Desert Fort which is currently being updated); track removal is done based on what the Backroom and Mr. Bean think should be removed, and public polls are done whenever needed on Bean's twitch channel; the bad tracks will eventually be removed and replaced with good tracks, we just can't go willy nilly replacing whatever track we so please. Also, you did the talk page thing correctly! Just make sure put a colon in front of your message to indent it properly when doing replies, and leave the signature at the end of last message. You can create your own talkpage by clicking the "talk" text at the top of the page. Carp (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for the response. Yeah, I guess the tracks that I listed have their flaws. I never meant to say I wanted *all* of those tracks removed from CTGP at once, but I was just listing possible choices for some of them. I'll just wait to see what happens in the future, and I'll just play the tracks as they are now, and anticipate new additions in the future. Thanks! Jcharlesk (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
And as for Super Sky Courtyard's removal, I wouldn't have known since I only got CTGP for the first time last week. Jcharlesk (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)