Featured Track Team is Biased

Lol thiz totally sums this **** up

 

I couldn't agree more. Not detailed tracks though, but something in that direction, yes.
another alternative would be to let go of the feat mod consensus system, and make all feat mods able to feature tracks by personal preference. Yes it would reduce quality, but it would increase quantity, which is the real problem atm (this worked out on canvasrider).
im fine with lowering quality standards down to "chuck's level", as the updates would dramatically increase, and thereon increase popularity of the list. This will bring more plays and thumbs to everyone which tracks are featured. Everyone is winning (except the ones that need to have feel special by having their tracks featured).

 

Fudge this thread, just make another section named recommended tracks, which is kinda like featured tracks, but the standards are lower and has more tracks. Jusf like stig said

 

is it*
Let's be real, comparing my tracks to his tracks is like comparing fresh organic apples to rotten oranges. Mine is the best of it's kind, while his is the worst.

 

I agree

 

I remember saying something earlier...

 

This thread is a never ending cycle. You want the opposite side to get your point and none of you are willing to agree on anything.

 

do it

 

I thought we were done here

 

Hey, he started it.

 

I know.

 

Ok im srry to everyone if i was a big rude. I was in a bad mood cause i felt sick

 

I'm a bit late for all this
Anyway. I'm going to throw my feedback into the pool once again!
Snowy Slopes:

• The effort you put into the track has no relevance whatsoever. I could probably make a similar track in a week and not have it featured, lol.
  
• The track is extremely repetitive detail-wise and ride-wise. I mean, there are parts that look more copy-pasted than my sperm cells.
  
• The ride is badly done. I can see bumpy sections and boost spam which doesn't do the ride much good at all.

Twisting Nether:

• The track is completely out of proportion. Clearly, if you're making a track on a large scale, the cliffs and rock faces should be a similar size to look half-decent.
  
• You've mixed up scenery and ordinary detail across the entire track.
  
• The grass/rock detail is extremely repetitive and sparse from each other. You'd have to put more and place them closer together to make it look appealing.
  
• The perspective feels all wrong. For example, with the lake and the tree behind it, you have a ramp (to the left) that looks like fudge-knows what, and then a landing to the right that looks crazily different. This echoes across the whole track.
• What the fudge is this!??!
  
• 
• Hell, it again links to the lack of proportion in mind AND the spam. (You coulda made it neat at least, lol)

Cityscape:

• Again, repetition. I'm repeating this to tell you that your tracks are too repetitive. There's the windows on the buildings and the buildings in the background.
  
• The explosion, which may look nicely done, doesn't look right on the building. Buildings do not inflame immediately to that extent once they are struck by an explosion.
  
• Yet again, the ride. If you deleted the "detail" on every single one of your tracks, they'd look more similar than twins. It looks and feels like no effort once again.

/rant
Anyway...
To be honest, I'm also going to say that the new "detailed track" section isn't going to be any help.

1. What if there's no decent tracks to nominate, or a lack of tracks simply on that week? 90% of good tracks do take months to work on. (I've been working on one of my tracks for about a week and it's only 30k. Much bigger plans)
   
2. What if many tracks get released at once? And if they're all top standard and revolutionary, not all would get the attention they require.

Just my two cents.

 

I thought we ended this conversation a long time ago...

 

I agree with jefe. chucknorris bridge could have used some work

 

Just when you think the argument is over, Jefe needs attention

 

Jefe I think you really missed the point of the post entirely. I also think you may have missed 4-5 pages of discussion.

Anyways, Instead of explaining how the featured tracks that I listed were good, you found every little flaw you possibly could in my tracks. Firstly you could not make a track as good as Snowy Slopes 10 in a week, even with the curve tool (which did not exist when I made it). And if you really believe that it's so easy and effortless, why not do it really quick and get hundreds of likes and subscribers for free? I'm sure you would like the recognition for your other tracks. I'm really interested to see the bumpy sections as well, because I honestly cannot find them.
As for the picture you posted, I added those parts very quickly just before re-uploading it (so that I could have it start with MTB) to make it look better in full screen. I didn't want to spend days detailing a 3 year old track. Still, my main point was that the detail is better than most of the ones I linked, which you chose to completely ignore.

If you delete the detail on any detailed track ever, they are going to look pretty damn similar. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by pointing that out. And that whole bit about how buildings explode... lol... come on now, that's such an unbelievably ridiculous criticism about a track that it's not even worth arguing against.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this discussion is over.

 

I don't think the featured section should change. That's where all of the godly tracks hang out. However the recommended section sounds like a good idea to me. All of the "worth-my-time" sort of tracks.

 

I think it should either have higher standards or lower ones. Right now there is way too much gray area. I think someone needs to start a new thread too to get people talking about it and throwing out ideas.