Minimum Checkpoints | Forums

[rlmergeuser]

Hello. ( If you don't want to listen to me blab on skip down a bit)

I notice a lot of people seem to be rushing tracks to get them out onto the game and are not taking the care needed to make it 100% enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong, I have downloaded loads of great custom tracks.

But I have downloaded many poor tracks, that have the potential to be great with a bit of tweaking.

For me the main issue is lack of checkpoints and poorly placed checkpoints. The amount of times I have been playing with friends, in the lead then I crash stupidly and go back almost to the start of the level. Or your right at the end, crash, and find yourself less than half way when you re-spawn.

Or you spawn, and cannot get enough speed to get over the next obstacle, so you have to reverse to get a run up. I know this sounds noobish but seriously, there are times where the checkpoint is too close and you just are not going fast enough to get the air.

I understand some times people want to make it more difficult by having less checkpoints. But on a longer map it ruins the multiplayer experience. Basically, if you crash once, you have no chance at all of catching up unless of course your opponents all start crashing too.

I've been working on my track for about 6 hours in total, I have about 8 obstables, takes about 20 seconds to complete (On a perfect run). This is because I have tested each part over and over and tweaked over and over. Checked that each checkpoint is properly located so that the obstacle can still be passed if you crash and lose momentum. If I had just chucked it together, it would of been done ages ago, but it would of also been pretty lame.

Anyway. Enough rabbling. My suggestion is this;

Are you able to set a minimum amount of checkpoints for a certain lengh of map. (Forced by editor)

I have no idea what would be a good example so I will make one up

200m track = 5 checkpoints min
300m track = 7 checkpoints min
400m track = 10 checkpoints min
500m track = 14 checkpoints min

etc - As I said, these figures are just fabricated as an example, I have put no thought into them

I know you want the user to be in control, but for me, there needs to be a least a little consistency. It's really annoying where your enjoying a track, and you suddenly realise you haven't passed a checkpoint for over half a minute.

[DJ_2wItchY]

Putting checkpoints by how many metres you have built woudnt work.

Checkpoints should be put after each obstacle or set of obstacles. Then made sure the checkpoints are tested to make sure the next obstacle is do-able from that checkpoint. This is what should deffinatly be done for extreme tracks. Flowy and easy tracks you could space them a bit more.

[rlmergeuser]

There's no way to force people to make checkpoints without making another track which may be an exception to the rule worse. Don't make the editor worse by adding training wheels.

[rlmergeuser]

I'm not saying the checkpoints must be at a certain distance. I definatly agree checkpoints should be extensivly tested to make sure they are properly placed

I'm saying that if you set a minimum based on track lengh, it will stop tracks being "under-checkpointed"

The checkpoint placement is still up to the user. But if you created a 500m track with only 8 checkpoints, when you try to publish, the game would say "You do not have enough checkpoints for a track this lengh, please add X amount of checkpoints".

Then it is up to the user to place them properly. This would at least eliminate half the problem. I played a track last night, that was a high speed track, no challenge. But it had one checkpoint in the middle somewhere. It took about 1:30 to complete a faultless run. So basically, if you crash and your mates dont, you were guarenteed a DNF

[rlmergeuser]

There's no way to force people to make checkpoints without making another track which may be an exception to the rule worse. Don't make the editor worse by adding training wheels.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means . You could only make this applicable to newly submitted tracks.

I don't think it would make the editor any worse. Anybody who is savvy enough to make a decent track, will have enough checkpoints already and won't ever see the promt.

This is basically for the 12 year olds that put a driving line on, bang some obstacles in and publish it without thinking it over and testing it properly.

As above, if your track editing is good enough, it won't effect you anyway.

It's not a major thing, I will just continue to delete all the tripe tracks I download. It's just I see soooooo many tracks where the only thing they lack is well thought out checkpoints.

[Happyflow]

I am always against constricting people due to quality reasons.
Do you really think that someone who is not able to create a decent amount of checkpoints will be capable of creating an awesome track. Definitely no. That is what rating is for. To filter the bad tracks from the good ones. If a track has not enough checkpoints then that should influence your rating.

Btw. Think of Gigatrack. I think it is good that there are only very few checkpoints on a long track. It adds to the appeal of the track. It is always a matter of what you want to create and how you want to create it. Therefore it is hard to set up a standard.
You'll see sooner or later the good track makers filter from the bad ones and as the lifecycle of Trials Evolution continues tracks being publiced will constantly improve quality wise.

[rlmergeuser]

There's no way to force people to make checkpoints without making another track which may be an exception to the rule worse. Don't make the editor worse by adding training wheels.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means . You could only make this applicable to newly submitted tracks.

I don't think it would make the editor any worse. Anybody who is savvy enough to make a decent track, will have enough checkpoints already and won't ever see the promt.

This is basically for the 12 year olds that put a driving line on, bang some obstacles in and publish it without thinking it over and testing it properly.

As above, if your track editing is good enough, it won't effect you anyway.

It's not a major thing, I will just continue to delete all the tripe tracks I download. It's just I see soooooo many tracks where the only thing they lack is well thought out checkpoints.

But it COULD affect good track makers in certain situations. One example off the top of my head would be if someone wanted to make an incredibly challenging ninja track with NO checkpoints. Sure, that map wouldn't be for everyone, but the challenge aspect would certainly appeal to some people (Me for one) and with this system in place, it would be impossible.

Besides, if someone is incapable of placing checkpoints, are they even capable of making a quality track?

[rlmergeuser]

You guys make valid points.

Perhaps now they have fixed the rating system it will square itself up somewhat.

The main thing for me was 90% of the tracks I downloaded where pretty poor.

Around half of them I would of kept if they have more checkpoints - it's just a shame

[rlmergeuser]

P.S

Do you really think that someone who is not able to create a decent amount of checkpoints will be capable of creating an awesome track. Definitely no.

No - this is not what I meant . Somebody who isn't able to make a decent amount of checkpoints is able to create a OK track - obstacle wise.

What I am saying is - Anybody who can create an awesome track - is capable of creating the correct amount of well placed checkpoints. So having the restriction wouldn't usually effect them.

This being said - your points are valid - Gigatrack, Ninja tracks etc.

The more I think about it - the less sense it makes to restrict the editor.

Like you said , eventually the tripe will fall to the bottom of the pile.