Marble Blast Ultra checkpoints/TTs

In MBU falling off OOB and respawning in a checkpoint makes the clock run again, whereas in MBP it continues stopping. See the path for Rolling to Eternity and many customs. As we're adding MBU levels to MBP leaderboards, do you want the same behaviour to happen for those levels, or keep it in the tradition of MBP.

Post down YES to keep MBP behaviour and NO if you want MBU's behaviour.

Please note that since physics (faster and lighter marble) and start pads are different between the two, comparison of times and WRs are therefore impossible to begin with.

YES

Reason: physics are already different, and its a standard in MBP, why not just move it to MBU.

YES

YES

YES,

simply because I never played MBU, and a change to respect the aspects of the MBU version just wouldn't make much sense, especially to younger marblers.

YES

^^ What they said.

And, it might give a possibility for new routes to find

YES
1. Times are not comparable for other reasons anyway.
2. Ctrl-P was allowed, and this probably won't affect as many levels.
3. Less work for the Platinum Team, since they won't need to change more stuff.

YES

YES

Yes

YES

for being consistent with other MBP levels since the MBU levels are played in MBP.

YES
I would be interesting if we stick to MBP's coding.

YES

NO because HiGuy needs something to do.

~Aayrl

[5/29/14, 10:54:41 PM] HiGuy: I KNOW RIGHT
[5/29/14, 10:55:03 PM] Andrew: matan wanted MBU separate?
[5/29/14, 10:55:04 PM] HiGuy: it's also easier to code (aka i do nothingggggg)
[5/29/14, 10:55:22 PM] Andrew: matan u so silly
[5/29/14, 10:55:25 PM] Andrew:
[5/29/14, 10:55:44 PM] Aayrl: I'm going to post NO
[5/29/14, 10:55:49 PM] Aayrl: because someone has to stand up to the man.
[5/29/14, 10:55:58 PM] Andrew: C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

ಠ_ಠ

That Aayrl is an imposter, and I can prove it, though I'd rather not.

~Aayrl

um... I'm gonna say...yes.

Lee Zi Xian wrote: um... I'm gonna say...yes.

You will get a thank you from Jeff

YES

Since this is MBP it should go by MBP gameplay mechanics, even if the levels are MBU levels.

I may as well concur with the above responses for the sake of adding to the masses (which at this point could actually go both ways; thank you Aayrl for complicating this situation for me). But, I guess I'll stick to the more popular side and vote positively, mostly because it makes much more sense rather than screwing up the physics for the sake of nostalgia. Missing something is part of what makes it a good memory.

This is much more productive than the cliché +1 posts.

Well, I like MBP's behavior.
So, the answer is:

YES

YES

Reason: Wouldn't need to change anything if they kept MBP's behaviour (too much work), also due to MB's engine/physics, the marble would be slower if it were bigger, so it would create different paths on some levels if they had MBU's behaviour (also doesn't have anything to do with MBP/MBU coding).

I'm gonna have 2 say yes!

YES

If MBP and MBU had the same physics, I would've likely voted to implement MBU's behavior, but since the physics between the two games are noticeably different, I think it would make more sense to keep MBP's behavior.

LOL I'm kinda late to this but I will vote yes.

I was opposed to the "fixing" of MBG levels in the MBP versions of MBG levels, but that's because the gameplay between MBG and MBP is essentially the same. By this statement I mean that for any MBG level, an MBP version of it can be made such that


(I would have to make exceptions for things like possible internal clock differences and weird corner cases like the No Gems Siege path. Also, from what I understand, .rec's aren't transferable between MBG and MBP?) Thus it is useful to not modify MBG levels when they are placed into MBP. However, as Matan points out, the above statement does not hold for the MBU levels, and so it makes sense for decisions on gameplay mechanics to be based on MBP not MBU.

Obviously, YES!

You guys are really really REALLY late to the party.

Locked.