Talk:GCN Bowser's Castle (Tock)

Thoughts

--Wooow. Really amazing Tock. Wonderful work. Thank you. --Snake (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Respawn bug

Hi Tock, your track has a small respawn bug. If you fall down on the right side after the fire wheel, at the right angle (in the video at 1:09), you are respawned before the fire wheel and the 360-degree-curve (at 0:51 in the video). -- Leseratte (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Download Link

-- Download on Mega is dead--Snake (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

v1.3.1c

How is the latest revision any better than what I had? Not only is "inferior" subjective, but it is not based on the latest version, so why should it be listed on the bottom instead of being on top of v1.3.2? --KantoEpic (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the version history should be in chronological order. I don't think "inferior" is subjective. Have you tested the track before changing the description? It is inferior because the intro cameras had to be degraded because the Bowser statue is at a wrong place before the race starts, the statue has a worse draw distance so it pops up at around the midway of the stairs. It also isnt perfectly aligned anymore with the volcanoballs.

Now to your GCN Sherbet Land edit. We had the scale debate two weeks ago and you changed the scaling to have less information again. You are even inconsistent in your editing since you changed "1.27 to 1.3" to 130% but last week you changed the scaling of GCN Wario Colosseum from "1.4 to 1.5" to 107% which does not even make sense since "Upscaled to 107%" would mean that it was below 107% scale and it was change to 107 instead of "Upscaled by 7%". You also did not respond to my discussion page message.

You also needlessly changed the version name of GCN Sherbet Land even though the "Version Number" page shows that they were fine version names.

The Update summary of GCN Wario Colosseum seems to also been changed without even checking / testing the track. It now says "Fixed respawn points." instead of "Fixed respawn point glitches." I deliberately chose those words because I didn't simply changed the respawn points but used KCL Force Recalculation to fix it in addition.

I and many people that messaged me noticed that moderators and admins here change Information just for the sake of changing stuff.

Tock (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Honestly, using a chronological order for the version history would be very, very messy. Here is an example: Volcanic Skyway II. This is how the first set of versions look like in the latest revision, and this is a rough draft if we used a chronologicial order. I do not see an advantage if we had to use this order for every mod published on this website.

2. I see what you are saying, but I find that the word "inferior" is a bit harsh.

3. Thank you for pointing that out. I somehow have missed the discussion.

4. What the page had and what was on Wiimm's archive did not match. I used Wiimm's version numbers because they were already used in his distributions. I would revert them if Wiimm is okay with changing them on his archive, but I doubt he wants to due to what I already mentioned.

5. I did not change that. However, that would make more sense; I remember seeing enemy routes failing on a certain section of the track.

6. Are there any clear examples of this? I am not following on this. --KantoEpic (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)