2009 NoLimits Tournament - Round 1 [RATINGS PG-16]

Haha yeah dude, I know, I only posted that because it seemed like you jumped on my case for no reason. Write what you think all you want though.

Originally posted by hyyyper

Ratings round 1
coreyml ????????? Incinerator
Tech: The prelift was full of pumps, and the rest of the track had a lot of jerks and painful banking transitions. Supports are horrible. The lifthill would fall over because of the supports you deleted, there are no wide structures where they are needed and not all of the crossover are reinforced.
Adren: Average pacing, nothing spectacular, but also nowhere near boring. Forces are also average, they could've been a lot stronger.
Orig: The groundhugging worked well, but it takes away the thrill of a steep drop. The figure-8-helix-combo was cool.
4.2 ????????? 6.8 ????????? 6.8
5.93

Prelift - Hades' prelift is quite jerky with small steep drops
supports - voyage has like 2 places with wide supports. 1 = the 170' lift hill and the last tall hill with a turn in it. i didnt delete any lift hill supports but yeah, i could have used supportage on the side away from the station
steep drops? GG doesnt really do that. their drops are quite moderate

the forces - may i ask which direction you would want stronger? you didnt want more than +3 Gs...

I didnt expect to be rated awesomly but i thought surely better than a 5.42. i thought my pacing was peeeeeeeeeerty gooooood.
i had 90deg banking, not 101

cretique - i think you judge supports a lil harshly. i never say - wow, the supports on that coaster were trashy/awesome. shoot, GG makes those God-awful looking metal supports. I dont think you can say that someone's track wasnt very GGish if you havent been on a GG

voyage is amazing btw, go ride it - and be prepared for painful transitions and bankings...

im done - thank you for giving me some non-biased feedback and good luck w/ the rest of this tourney

So not to single anyone out, but I'm seeing a whole lot of whining, and very few (and by that I mean maybe one) of the tracks were remotely like a GG. It seems to me people associate hills and turns with Gravity Group coasters, but never stop to notice any details in either layout or element selection/shaping, and it shows. I don't know if hyyyper would notice these things or not, but I don't think it's a good idea for so many people to be complaining about how their ride is so realistic and wasn't judged as such because I personally believe they weren't very much so in general.

Vid_w ????????? Photon
Adren: Although the speed is very consistent, it feels like it's not getting there. The train is cruising while it should be racing. Lots of instances of airtime, but weak almost every time. Same goes for the laterals, a lot of them, but not strong.

The airtime is realistic, except for 2 points, where I went a little overboard (-0.9 and -0.8), becouse I knew this would happen.
There are instances of very hard laterals. Like, that turnaround, at the close side of the island, it pulls 1.6Gs and the very last turn pulls 1.6Gs. Also, the second helix at the far end of the island pulls a constant 1.1G, I think. but there are several other instances, with high lats. I must say, that the airtime wasn't the only thing you didn't quite get right, I don't think any GG coaster pulls 2G lateral...

Orig: The layout is simple, but it worked out great. I loved the far side helix, the final could've use one more kick-ass element.

Now, what kind of element would that be? Also, does this one thing justify a 6.8 rating?

[hyyyper]

^well, a tight helix perhaps. Your ending is hump-hump-turn-brakes. It kinda makes you feel there is something missing.

Here's a quick advice tidbit based on what you said about how you were going to rate the tracks:

Don't be afraid of being subjective. When you reduce your ratings to some finite mathematical formula rather than considering how much things mattered in the grand scope in your opinion, some tracks are always going to get screwed over by technicalities in the system, and end up with numerical ratings that they really didn't deserve. When the ratings are too focused on measurable technical data at every point in the track, the ratings tend to seem really nitpicky because nothing is overlooked for the sake of the grand scheme.

So, yeah, that's my advice. When measuring adrenaline especially, don't be so nitpicky about it. Certain elements may be slow or short or low-g, but how does it work in the grand scheme of the coaster? Did it really make you stop and say "that was boring" to the extent of hindering the overall ride, or would you completely forget about it because of how much you liked the rest?

For an example, take "The Voyage." I really hate the transition into the last 90-degree turn because there's a bump. On a coaster with worse adrenaline, I would get mad about that. But because the rest of The Voyage is so incredible, I'm willing to overlook that slight flaw and still call it my favorite coaster. If that bump was on, say, "Grizzly" instead, I would probably be much more upset about the bump and give it a bigger deduction.

Anyway, my point is that you're the judge, and you're allowed to have an opinion. If you think a track was better, it should be better, regardless of the would-be deductions. If you ask me, people's opinions are never wrong, because the worst you can do is say "I disagree." When everything is reduced to a numerical system, most everyone feels screwed because their coaster, which is much better in the grand scheme, loses because of technicalities.

And this is just some experienced advice. I'm still regretting two ratings that I gave back in the day for this exact reason. I was too harsh on Ragan in the 2006 NLT in the Originality department, giving him an originality score that his coaster probably technically deserved, but didn't fit when compared with the grand scheme, and as a result he got 17th place when his coaster really should have made it through. Also, muella in the Jazzland contest. That was the most devised system I have ever used, and I paid for it. Muella made an amazing track, but ended up getting 3rd place because of the 'required' technical deductions even though his coaster was probably the best in the contest. Anyway, though, that's my 2 cents about this.