I like the vault. My favorite types of TASes are for those stupid cookie-cutter games and the Vault allows those games to be published. I do support a rename/reworking though. The current form is kind of like a "stamp of shame".
YoungJ1997lol wrote:
Normally i would say Yes, but thennI thought "its not the same hack" so ill stick with meh.
Haven't read the whole thread but I think the Vault is a very good thing and allows for publications that make it that just never would have otherwise.
If only you could remove the stigma associated with the Vault...
First of all, the main problems always was and still is with borderline cases.
If you think, that main problem is borderline cases, then how you suppose to solve it? Do you suppose to find solution for that cases? I don't know such solution, and can't even imagine that. There are borderline cases only while there IS BORDERLINE. So one of solutions is: remove borderline Say strictly: Moon in this cases, and Star in this cases... Honestly, I don't mind is it star, or moon, but I don't agree with vault at all, because, but about it a little after...
feos wrote:
Those are what makes the Vault look bad - runs that don't look deadly bad get placed there.
Let's make then tier: trash, for thos "deadly bad" runs. But for me, any technical good run must be accepted, and it should not called trash nor vault.
feos wrote:
RATE ME makes more sense, because it can still have little to no ratings after a year, when it's in no way NEW anymore.
RATE ME makes more sense yes, but if you think that two months old run is really old, then I can't say anything. I don't think that there are so many people who every day checking new publicaitons. If you will keep such runs with NEW tag, people who look once in two month would be able to check and watch them.
feos wrote:
The only 2 problems that are possible here are:
- ambiguity of what is ambiguous (how do we know it needs to go to the undefined tier?) and
- should that tier be used to accept unvaultable runs of uncertain entertainment value (pretending they will be Moons, to justify acceptance)?
I don't like sophisticated rules, they looks ugly, and it's difficult to understand them and apply them right. For me, any new run must go into undefined tier in your terms. Honestly I don't understand second sentence so I can't comment that :D. But I say it once again, all technicaly good runs should be accepted, except those who does not satisfy other requirements such as "Complete Whole Game".
Warp wrote:
Why should the vault tier need to feel like just a dump to throw the "garbage TASes" into?
Because it's sounds like it. Look at this: crypt, tomb, grave, mausoleum, cavern... Garbage is not synonym, but it's some near by. For me vault has association "garbage". If you calling something "turd", would you claim that you didn't mean "shit"?
Warp wrote:
The "all games deserve a TAS" principle is reserved for completion time only (with any% and 100% being the two possible goals).
Rly? Then it's really bad. Don't ask why. I don't know, it's complicated question. If run was not accepted only because it's not any% or 100%, and it's interesting (but not entertainment, because it's vault), and it was rejected ONLY because it's not any% or 100%, then it's silly.
Warp wrote:
Edit: Which gives me the idea: Change the tiers to "the any%/100% tier" and "the everything else tier". (I don't have good ideas for the actual names.)
lol
Pokota wrote:
I guess this kinda goes along with r57shell said, though I would point out that Gruefood is the loser tier when not deliberately sought for (such as with the April Fools' submissions).
Yes I'm not againts good names, which means like it's worth something, that it's not trash. Also, there is coin in mario :)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
Which gives me the idea: Change the tiers to "the any%/100% tier" and "the everything else tier". (I don't have good ideas for the actual names.)
I like it! Here we could finally throw away the scary Vault icon and replace it with
putting ALL any%/100% runs there, making it a real default tier, with Moons and Stars being moved to for good and superb entertainment value respectively. Another option is to move to Moons only all runs of of the side goals. Goal is indeed a non-arbitrary borderline!
Then, as a separate system, we can allow sorting by certain rating. So subjective stuff won't be mixed in and argued about. Unvaultable goals will still stand, entertainment value will still stand. All happy :D
EDIT:
"Coin" is awesome as well! All the tier system then can be described in a couple sentences with no option to get it wrong.
EDIT:
r57shell wrote:
RATE ME makes more sense yes, but if you think that two months old run is really old, then I can't say anything. I don't think that there are so many people who every day checking new publicaitons. If you will keep such runs with NEW tag, people who look once in two month would be able to check and watch them.
Agreeing now. Like, a "New" flag, that shows you a popup text "RATE ME!" when you hover at it.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
>my main problem with Vault is how much negativity it implies.
So once a month the site front page can showcase an old run or runs RELEASED FROM THE VAULT Disney style. Promote game. Promote author. Promote youtube. Promote promotional promotions. Then after a few days put it/them back in the vault. Now even the bottom tier run gets vaulted to the top (!!!) once in a while and people will be confused what is this new flashing banner front page of insanity? And why are we showcasing combatribes? Everyone wins.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
feos wrote:
Warp wrote:
Which gives me the idea: Change the tiers to "the any%/100% tier" and "the everything else tier". (I don't have good ideas for the actual names.)
I like it! Here we could finally throw away the scary Vault icon and replace it with
putting ALL any%/100% runs there, making it a real default tier, with Moons and Stars being moved to for good and superb entertainment value respectively. Another option is to move to Moons only all runs of of the side goals. Goal is indeed a non-arbitrary borderline!
This way we could return the old question: "Should this run be published?". It would just mean different things depending on the branch:
- If it's a speed record, people vote for its optimality
- If it's a side goal, people vote for both entertainment value and optimality.
Because if (and only if) a speed record is not optimal, it will be rejected. Otherwise go to Coins.
If a side goal is optimal but boring, it will be rejected. If a side goal is enjoyable but suboptimal, it will be rejected. Otherwise go to Moons.
Pretty simple, huh?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
The "all games deserve a TAS" principle is reserved for completion time only (with any% and 100% being the two possible goals).
Rly? Then it's really bad. Don't ask why. I don't know, it's complicated question. If run was not accepted only because it's not any% or 100%, and it's interesting (but not entertainment, because it's vault), and it was rejected ONLY because it's not any% or 100%, then it's silly.
If it's interesting, then it gets published into the Moon tier. If no alternative goal is interesting enough, the game can still have a completion-time TAS. What exactly is the problem? Do you really want to accept any arbitrary goal for every possible game, inundating the site?
Warp wrote:
Edit: Which gives me the idea: Change the tiers to "the any%/100% tier" and "the everything else tier". (I don't have good ideas for the actual names.)
This way we could return the old question: "Should this run be published?". It would just mean different things depending on the branch:
- If it's a speed record, people vote for its optimality
- If it's a side goal, people vote for both entertainment value and optimality.
Because if (and only if) a speed record is not optimal, it will be rejected. Otherwise go to Coins.
If a side goal is optimal but boring, it will be rejected. If a side goal is enjoyable but suboptimal, it will be rejected. Otherwise go to Moons.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. I don't object.
(Btw, I still think that the "star tier" should be special. It shouldn't be considered just a "better-than-Moon tier". Basically any TAS ought to be eligible for a star if it showcases something representative we want to show. Having extremely high ratings can (and will usually) overlap with the Star tier, but it's not a requirement. Not all highest-rated run will necessarily get a star, and not all star runs will necessarily be on the very top of the rating list.)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
(Btw, I still think that the "star tier" should be special. It shouldn't be considered just a "better-than-Moon tier". Basically any TAS ought to be eligible for a star if it showcases something representative we want to show. Having extremely high ratings can (and will usually) overlap with the Star tier, but it's not a requirement. Not all highest-rated run will necessarily get a star, and not all star runs will necessarily be on the very top of the rating list.)
With tiers tied to goals it's what will happen. Fastest possible any% and 100% runs that are already starred will showcase that. BTW, then the system is no longer
(Stars)
ideal anything
/ \
(Coins) (Moons)
speed entertaining
records side goals
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Basically, whether you like the Vault or not depends on whether you primarily make TASes or just watch other people's. If you painstakingly create a technically excellent TAS of an obscure NES game with little entertainment value and see it banished to the Vault, it can be very disheartening. Conversely, if you have never made a TAS in your life, you almost certainly don't want to watch such a TAS and hence would prefer it to tucked away somewhere harmless - where those who wanted to watch it could do so, but where it wouldn't trouble you if you didn't go looking for it.
Now, imagine you are a newcomer to the site and have never heard of TASing before. You are instructed to watch a few stars and you will have your mind blown most probably, and your interest will be piqued. You might go searching for movies of the NES games you played when you were a kid, and stumble across "Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?" which, under the new system, is categorised with a bunch of very entertaining movies. (Remember at the moment when you search for movies by system, the Vault publications are not listed by default, so currently this scenario wouldn't happen.)
For a person dipping his toe in the TAS waters, early exposure to WITICS could kill off all interest that person has. We HAVE to think of our audience over and above ourselves, and that includes giving newcomers the best possible impression of TASing that we can. Remember, those people will become TASers themselves. Without that, TASing will have a bleak long-term future.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying that making boring TASes is a waste of time - far from it, as the puzzle solving aspects that come with making any TAS can still be entertaining. But that does not automatically make a movie interesting to watch, just because it was fun to make.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
People still seem to be under the impression that removing Vault means removing all the runs contained within.
Runs will not be removed or unpublished. This has been stated by site staff on multiple occasions.
What I meant by "removing Vault" was just removing the tier itself and merging all the Vault and Moon runs into a singular default category that still accepts all runs that would normally qualify for Vault. I apologize for the awkward wording. I'd appreciate if this were added to the OP (I can't edit it anymore) and the poll, as I think the voting reflects my accidental implication.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Added a note about the above to the OP.
I also reset the poll because of general misconception and people wanting to change their votes.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
What I meant by "removing Vault" was just removing the tier itself and merging all the Vault and Moon runs into a singular default category that still accepts all runs that would normally qualify for Vault. I apologize for the awkward wording. I'd appreciate if this were added to the OP (I can't edit it anymore) and the poll, as I think the voting reflects my accidental implication.
It seems to me that we may be reaching a consensus where the Vault tier will be renamed and the distinction between the new "Vault" and the Moon tiers will be changed to be about goals rather than about reception. So, in a sense, a big part of the current Moon runs will be merged to the "new Vault" (whatever its new name will be; "coins" seems to be a popular suggestion, but personally I find it a bit odd...) and the rest of the Moon runs will remain where they are.
Perhaps the poll options should reflect this possibility more clearly?
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Thank you, Mothrayas.
Warp wrote:
It seems to me that we may be reaching a consensus where the Vault tier will be renamed and the distinction between the new "Vault" and the Moon tiers will be changed to be about goals rather than about reception. So, in a sense, a big part of the current Moon runs will be merged to the "new Vault" (whatever its new name will be; "coins" seems to be a popular suggestion, but personally I find it a bit odd...) and the rest of the Moon runs will remain where they are.
Perhaps the poll options should reflect this possibility more clearly?
I think the "Rename Vault/change its appearance" reflects that possibility.
Speaking of, I kinda like that idea but I feel like it'd have to be really fleshed out to work: If the criteria is just "not any% or 100% for Moons" then how much would we be accepting? Would this be the (if my memory serves me correctly) often asked for Demo Tier/Playaround Tier or would it just follow the same criteria we have now? It wouldn't be like just renaming Vault to something more positive: It'd change the actual tiering system altogether, and if the guidelines and qualifications didn't change with it then I feel like it'd be somewhat arbitrary. A big step what I feel is the right direction, but still somewhat arbitrary.
thatguy wrote:
Now, imagine you are a newcomer to the site and have never heard of TASing before. You are instructed to watch a few stars and you will have your mind blown most probably, and your interest will be piqued. You might go searching for movies of the NES games you played when you were a kid, and stumble across "Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego?" which, under the new system, is categorised with a bunch of very entertaining movies...
-snip-
...For a person dipping his toe in the TAS waters, early exposure to WITICS could kill off all interest that person has. We HAVE to think of our audience over and above ourselves, and that includes giving newcomers the best possible impression of TASing that we can.
The mind doesn't work that way. If your first impression of something is positive, then your future impressions will ultimately remain positive even if you're exposed to the negative aspects. If you've eaten 10 great flavors of ice cream, one bad flavor wouldn't immediately make you hate all ice cream. You'd just avoid that one flavor from that point on. I've been around for 8 years, starting by just lurking when I was an idiot teenager and signing up a few years later, and only once in those 8 years have I seen someone honestly complain about a single published run destroying the integrity of the site, and that happened this month. I'm all for the "think of the audience" mindset but I really don't see your hypothetical scenario as a legitimate problem.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Samsara wrote:
Warp wrote:
It seems to me that we may be reaching a consensus where the Vault tier will be renamed and the distinction between the new "Vault" and the Moon tiers will be changed to be about goals rather than about reception. So, in a sense, a big part of the current Moon runs will be merged to the "new Vault" (whatever its new name will be; "coins" seems to be a popular suggestion, but personally I find it a bit odd...) and the rest of the Moon runs will remain where they are.
Perhaps the poll options should reflect this possibility more clearly?
I think the "Rename Vault/change its appearance" reflects that possibility.
Speaking of, I kinda like that idea but I feel like it'd have to be really fleshed out to work: If the criteria is just "not any% or 100% for Moons" then how much would we be accepting? Would this be the (if my memory serves me correctly) often asked for Demo Tier/Playaround Tier or would it just follow the same criteria we have now? It wouldn't be like just renaming Vault to something more positive: It'd change the actual tiering system altogether, and if the guidelines and qualifications didn't change with it then I feel like it'd be somewhat arbitrary. A big step what I feel is the right direction, but still somewhat arbitrary.
Is this not fleshed out? It handles everything exactly as we do now, but removes all the hardship we're having. In other words, elaborate.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
How would obsoletions be handled for things like playarounds? Does this allow for more ROMhacks? If someone just makes up a brand new arbitrary category and people find it entertaining/optimal, does it still get published or does it have to have some sort of importance? Would there be a limit on new categories for games?
I'm probably seriously overthinking this, to be honest.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Samsara wrote:
I'm probably seriously overthinking this, to be honest.
Everything remains 100% the same in that regard:
Samsara wrote:
How would obsoletions be handled for things like playarounds?
Playarounds are obsoleted if more entertaining. They are side goals, aim for entertainment.
Samsara wrote:
Does this allow for more ROMhacks?
ROM hacks/howmebrews/bootlegs are "vaultable" if they have significance, then they are "coinable" on the same exact grounds - a speed record for a significant ROM hack/howmebrew/bootleg.
Samsara wrote:
If someone just makes up a brand new arbitrary category and people find it entertaining/optimal, does it still get published or does it have to have some sort of importance?
What?
Samsara wrote:
Would there be a limit on new categories for games?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I don't think so. So many if and then.
Warp wrote:
r57shell wrote:
Warp wrote:
The "all games deserve a TAS" principle is reserved for completion time only (with any% and 100% being the two possible goals).
Rly? Then it's really bad. Don't ask why. I don't know, it's complicated question. If run was not accepted only because it's not any% or 100%, and it's interesting (but not entertainment, because it's vault), and it was rejected ONLY because it's not any% or 100%, then it's silly.
If it's interesting, then it gets published into the Moon tier. If no alternative goal is interesting enough, the game can still have a completion-time TAS. What exactly is the problem? Do you really want to accept any arbitrary goal for every possible game, inundating the site?
It won't be published into moons, because it's not entertainment, and it's not speed run -> so it rejected. Yes I would accept any arbitrary goal for every possible game, if it's interesting, and high quality (very optimized... may be some more technical requirements). But, indeed, only if it does makes any sense. I don't care about inundating this site. If you look into not obsoleted runs - there are not so many of them.
Warp wrote:
Warp wrote:
Edit: Which gives me the idea: Change the tiers to "the any%/100% tier" and "the everything else tier". (I don't have good ideas for the actual names.)
lol
What's that supposed to mean?
It means, that it makes me laugh. For what it is intended? How it helps? For searching? I can open list and CTRL+F any% for example, or somehow better. If it is for searching, then best way to remove tiers at all, and add tags "any%", "100%", "not speed attack" something like this. When you have tag system, you don't care how many tags you may add, and there already enough of them: "takes damage to save time", "Pacifist version". Why tiers then?
Your tiers system cause following result: tiers only for searching, and very easy to find speed runs, and very easy to find all other. Very easy to select right tier. What's a point? Looks like suggestions about new search tags. What Stars, Moons, (nothing)/coins tags (call it tiers if you want) are doing for us? It is some kind of rating (or rating itself). Rating and search tag - completely different. Sugguested tag "New" supposed for that period while rating is not clear.
feos wrote:
(Stars)
ideal anything
/ \
(Coins) (Moons)
speed entertaining
records side goals
How could speed records be "ideal"? They could be all ideal from position: it's current record, no one beat it yet. They could be all not ideal from position: you can't prove that it's done in fastest way. So, either coins removed at all, or speed records can't be stars. If you allow speed records to be in both (stars/coins) you'll get another borderline cases branch :D. Everyone would ask: why my speed record is not ideal?
feos wrote:
Is this not fleshed out? It handles everything exactly as we do now, but removes all the hardship we're having. In other words, elaborate.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
What?
...Now that I think about it, forget I said that. My point was that there could be things like Donkey Kong Country "ONG%" or Sonic the Hedgehog "all rings except for 394 of them" coming through, but I'm sure people would just ask for any really arbitrary categories not to be published.
As for everything else, fair enough. I don't think it's necessary for me to read the Judge Guidelines another time, though, especially when it's in response to a new system that might not even happen.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
It won't be published into moons, because it's not entertainment, and it's not speed run -> so it rejected. Yes I would accept any arbitrary goal for every possible game, if it's interesting, and high quality (very optimized... may be some more technical requirements). But, indeed, only if it does makes any sense. I don't care about inundating this site. If you look into not obsoleted runs - there are not so many of them.
> if it's interesting, and high quality
> interesting
...Now that I think about it, forget I said that. My point was that there could be things like Donkey Kong Country "ONG%" or Sonic the Hedgehog "all rings except for 394 of them" coming through, but I'm sure people would just ask for any really arbitrary categories not to be published.
As for everything else, fair enough. I don't think it's necessary for me to read the Judge Guidelines another time, though, especially when it's in response to a new system that might not even happen.
I linked it because we are currently dealing with all the questions you've posted very well. It's only a matter of how it's set up.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
that there are more and more "total control" TASes (and IMO also reset-corruption TASes) that just jump to the end screen of the game rather than completing it. Does that count as "fastest completion", or should it be a TAS that actually plays the game through?
I think total control pretty much means that the game is over, it has ended, you've mastered it in every conceivable way and potentially even wrote your own sequel to it. It counts as a fastest theoretical completion of a game in my books, even if it's not always satisfying to experience...
The heavily glitched, fastest playthrough would be the any% TAS. A low glitch TAS would be a valid alternative goal, if nothing else.
thatguy wrote:
Now, imagine you are a newcomer to the site and have never heard of TASing before. You are instructed to watch a few stars and you will have your mind blown most probably, and your interest will be piqued...
If some guy came on TASVideos, viewed a few runs he was impressed by, then accidentally glimpsed a particularly long-winded run... becoming bored, never to return... do you think he was the type of personality that would TAS as a serious hobby in the first place? I dunno... something in that example just doesn't sound right.
thatguy wrote:
(Remember at the moment when you search for movies by system, the Vault publications are not listed by default, so currently this scenario wouldn't happen.)
What...?
*goes to try it out*
THE VAULT HAS TO GO
Warp wrote:
Which gives me the idea: Change the tiers to "the any%/100% tier" and "the everything else tier". (I don't have good ideas for the actual names.)
It won't be published into moons, because it's not entertainment, and it's not speed run -> so it rejected.
I think you are being rather contradictory here. You are basically saying "an interesting alternative goal will be rejected if it's not interesting".
It either is interesting (in which case it can be published) or it isn't. It can't be both.
I'm honestly not sure what is it that you are actually trying to say.
You mixing up together interesting and entertainment. It's not the same things. Entertainment means = FUN, interesting means - you have interest, you wanna know something, or wanna watch something, because it's interesting, not because it's FUN or enjoyable.
EDIT:
feos wrote:
"We tried". Tried to make tier? Did I said that you suppose to add tier? Why not just be able to accept "exceptions"? If they really bad, yes, you should reject it, as you always do.
feos wrote:
The TAS itself must be perceived as of highest quality.
"Highest", and "ideal" is different for me. Highest means: highest among something... "ideal" means - no imperfection. So if you mean star - highest quality (not ideal) - then that scheme looks fine.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
r57shell wrote:
Is it argument or what? Anyway, with each additional "if" things become more complicated.
It's about how less if's != better. And it reduces dramatically the amount of if's involved in judging right now.
r57shell wrote:
"We tried". Tried to make tier? Did I said that you suppose to add tier? Why not just be able to accept "exceptions"? If they really bad, yes, you should reject it, as you always do.
We tried to define criteria to publish "interesting" runs. It can't be defined.
r57shell wrote:
So if you mean star - highest quality (not ideal) - then that scheme looks fine.
Whatever.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
I will admit to having not read anything past the first few posts.
Site admins come up with some new feature. Said new feature works pretty great! People are happy.
System suffers one or two hiccups. A handful of people are displeased.
Burn the feature to the ground!!!
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
putting ALL any%/100% runs there, making it a real default tier, with Moons and Stars being moved to for good and superb entertainment value respectively. Another option is to move to Moons only all runs of of the side goals. Goal is indeed a non-arbitrary borderline!
Then, as a separate system, we can allow sorting by certain rating. So subjective stuff won't be mixed in and argued about. Unvaultable goals will still stand, entertainment value will still stand. All happy :D
EDIT:
"Coin" is awesome as well! All the tier system then can be described in a couple sentences with no option to get it wrong.
EDIT:
