Featured Tracks Information

I'd like to point out that Max wrote this all up. He did a fairly good job of pointing out the objective stuff, but there are some of his opinions in there (some of which I don't agree with, even a few things I'd vehemently argue against). But having different opinions works in our favor. I have a feeling that we all aren't going to say our exact ideas of what it means to be featured, and this OP is generalized and slightly biased by his preferences, so keep that in mind.

I'm just gonna hide all of this. You can read it if you want, it's informative, but you should have a little more faith in the members deemed fit to feature tracks.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

The best part of having a group of five dudes to judge the tracks is the variety of perspectives. We all have our talents and our specializations. When a track comes our way, we each develop our opinions of it. For example, my area of expertise is the track itself. The way it rides and the layout of a track are my main focus when I'm looking at it. I understand the intricacies of it, and after so many years of becoming knowledgeable in it, I can make an informed decision about it. I also have a penchant for design and composition/structure. I take note of the detail and art, but even though I can appreciate it as a viewer, I don't have enough insight into its creation to rightfully judge it.

After I have formed my opinion, I share it with the other mods. I explain my insights and I give my "yes" or "no" answer. We all do this, but we also take into consideration the other mods' points (hopefully). If I was a little iffy on the detail, I'd consult their opinions to be a little more informed. If someone didn't fully understand the track, I'd help out by giving my well versed side.

And also, as a team, we try and decide the standard for quality. It has fluctuated over the past several months. A general rule of thumb is "above average in multiple categories". We've never used numbers to decide if a track is worth a feature, but for example if a track was 4 minutes long, the detail was above average, it was original, and average in other aspects, it'd most likely be featured. And in some cases, incredibly above average parts can make up for others that lack. If a track was super original, had incredible art and detail, but the track was only 30 seconds long, it'd probably be featured too. But when the average track is awesome, you gotta step your game up and be above that level.

blah blah blah lots of text. we put a lot of thought into our decisions. even if you don't agree with the outcome of the majority vote, it's actually likely that you had someone on your side in the team. we're all very different people and we all have our preferences. but we each explain our side of things thoughtfully, and you should trust us to do our job.

 

Thanks for all this info guys! I'm currently working on a track that I hope will meet these high standards. Max007x knows what it is

 

Oh max you shouldnt have

 

Well, he knows wat i did too.

 

This helps a lot its nice knowing what you guys are thinking when tracks are featured.

 

I don't know about the rest of my feat. team as of now but I will inform you guys sometime on my take(purely mine) when it comes to feature worthy tracks. So far max has shared a relatively collective view on featuring intertwined with some of his own thoughts and opinions; he has done a great job however keep in mind this is just one perspective.

 

When I judge tracks, I take detail into consideration, but being as I'm playing for the ride, I especially judge the ride. I can't stand when a track has a bunch of lines close together and your acceleration goes haywire. I have no control, and if a track has enough of these, I downrate on the spot, especially in the case of grid jumps. Tracks can be hard, but should NEVER take control away from the rider. Random bumps and spammy boosts, I always try to avoid in my tracks. NEVER use more powerups than nessicary; it is extremely noobish, so please, only use powerups if you need to.
You have to keep the riders in mind. Make sure not to suprise them by suddenly going from a fast-smooth jump to a low speed trial. Be predictable, and if you want t surprise people, make sure that they can recover from the last obstacle before they get to the next. Make sure that there is a way to get over an obstacle, other than trying over and over until you make it on accident. Tracks should NEVER be completed with luck. And slomos, I rarely see see them used correctly, they are always spammy and annoying. However, when I see someone do it right, I'm already excited. Bottom-line, don't let people get too frusterated. That's when their is something wrong with your ride.

When you are making a track, ride it as you make it. This makes it easy to make a track with a good ride.

My idea of a perfect ride is when you need to put effort into completing a track, but it is not so hard that it's all a matter of trial and error between checkpoints. However, the biggest thing I look for is the effort put into a track. If I see that someone spent forever drawing beautiful detail or engineering the line, they immediately earn my respect.

If you have the above, I believe you have a fair chance of getting the "Ride" category down.

 

any reason as to why builder by jose isn't featured? it meets most of your criteria

 

Read the final bits of what max wrote, it addresses your issue sorta. The downside to making something like this is people assume meeting criteria is all there is to it. Jose's track is cool; by reaching certain criteria it just meets standard on certain bits we judge and that isn't enough.

Maybe I can explain this better another time.

e; ok I can, good is not great.

 

a lot of it looks brushy and lazy

 

Well, you'd think that. The ride is incredibly under par for what it's meant to be. You think "Hey, this track is isn't that smooth but hey they've featured better", in reality the track is meant to be smooth and it just isn't. The detail is more sloppy than some stuff I've brought out (Yo dude, I know!) and it brings the better stuff out and just decreases the likeliness to it. Considering the sloppiness of some of it, the neater art looks kind of suspicious in comparison. Some of the layout was butched.

There's more to it but I don't want to be here all day justifying myself again when you should realise that we spend time on these decisions anyway.

 

It,s hard to get a track i featured for me.

 

Spend a crap ton of hours on it and your good, people don't make features in a day.

 

I gues thath will work for me.

 

Hi i would like to make a featured track! Max007x can u give me tips on how to improve! http://www.freeriderhd.com/t/168554-thumbs-up-4-more-track/ (my first track)

 

that is already feature worthy in my opinion

 

true

 

http://www.freeriderhd.com/t/176101-recomposed
better than Maxs and its not done

 

Actually, no.

This track almost totally copied style-wise from other artists, such as Maple and lolz666 . Almost entirely. The small cloud section is extremely like a part in Project Apocalypse, very close to the starting point. It also is SIX SECONDS LONG, while good ol' Max here has a track thats about 5+ MINUTES. Max is counted as a better author because instead of copying everyone else's idea of detail, he makes his own style, and his style I find to be superior to Ishu over there. He also FINISHES his tracks, unlike this guy who has made (by my count) FOURTEEN WORK IN PROGRESSES THAT HE PROBABLY WON'T FINISH! I find it hilarious that you go around stomping and saying you can have a valid opinion when you're when the best work you've had solo is this! Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that everyone with a frickin' brain is going to disagree with you on this front bud.

/rant