Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Appearance
CATEGORY1: all any% and 100%
CATEGORY2: all entertaining side goals
CATEGORY3: entertaining rule breakers
CATEGORY4: the most entertaining runs from all of the above
Submission poll
Return to the "Should this be published?" question.
People love to vote based on their feelings, which can be affected by different factors: optimality, entertainment, impressiveness. Each if these alone is a ground to publish something, and if all of them are on a high level, a run can be starred.
Judgment logic
Language: c
void JudgeMovie()
{
if (SubOptimal)
return Reject();
if (any% || 100%)
return Accept(CATEGORY1);
if (!Entertaining)
return Reject();
if (BreaksSomeRules) // but still entertaining
return Accept(CATEGORY3);
else
return Accept(CATEGORY2);
}
Category names
CATEGORY1 was suggested to be named Coins. This keeps our usual reference to SMW:
Coin: Common, but good to find.
Moon: Rare, in SMW one of these is worth 300 coins.
Star: Very rare - you can't recreate the effect with coins or even a Moon, but only by finding a Star.
CATEGORY1 was also suggested to be named Records.
CATEGORY3 is usually expected to be called Demo.
Site code
Add some icon for NEW runs, showing "Rate me!" on mouse hover.
Add ability to hide publications by certain rating cutoff.
If you wish, I can scan through the thread and tell how many + and - posts were there for each of the above.
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.
TIER1: all any% and 100%
TIER2: all entertaining side goals
TIER3: impressive examples of the rest
TIER4: the most entertaining runs from all of the above
First, I'm not seeing any difference between tier 2 and tier 3 in your list, and for that matter the 4th tier you describe is hardly distinct from either of them either.
Second, the word "tier" implies a hierarchy with 1 being the top; what you propose is something else entirely. Don't use the word "tier" for things that aren't tiers.
feos wrote:
Return to the "Should this be published?" question.
People love to vote based on their feelings, which can be affected by different factors: optimality, entertainment, impressiveness. Each if these alone is a ground to publish something, and if all of them are on a high level, a run can be starred.
...and that's precisely why the question should not be "should this be published". Indeed, we tried that and it didn't work.
TIER1: all any% and 100%
TIER2: all entertaining side goals
TIER3: impressive examples of the rest
TIER4: the most entertaining runs from all of the above
First, I'm not seeing any difference between tier 2 and tier 3 in your list, and for that matter the 4th tier you describe is hardly distinct from either of them either.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think he's referring to:
1: Any% and 100% best game completions.
2: Non-any% non-100% game completions (of sufficient merit to warrant publication).
3: Demos (which don't complete games, or runs of games with no clear goal or ending.)
4: A small selection of all of the above that showcase TASing (ie. stars).
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Yes. 2 is about being entertaining. 3 is about being not entertaining but impressive in some other way.
The only actual "problem" then is calling those tiers. Well, what other names would fit the concept?
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.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think he's referring to:
1: Any% and 100% best game completions.
2: Non-any% non-100% game completions (of sufficient merit to warrant publication).
3: Demos (which don't complete games, or runs of games with no clear goal or ending.)
4: A small selection of all of the above that showcase TASing (ie. stars).
Thanks for clearing that up. But frankly, I don't agree with that proposal. Note that runs of games with no clear ending are already allowed in vault tier, and I think runs of a completeable game which don't complete it shouldn't be published.
So I don't think this proposal solves any current problem.
Aside from that, in my view, we currently have too many categories/groupings/tiers already. Instead of creating yet more of them, a better approach would be to get rid of the "notable improvements" pseudo-tier (there's an ongoing discussion about that) and fold "recommended for newcomers" into Star tier since they have substantial overlap.
The only actual "problem" then is calling those tiers. Well, what other names would fit the concept?
The SM64 community uses the term 'freeruns', as in runs that don't have the objective of going fast, but rather show off impressive feats. This might be a fitting name.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
Aside from that, in my view, we currently have too many categories/groupings/tiers already. Instead of creating yet more of them, a better approach would be to get rid of the "notable improvements" pseudo-tier (there's an ongoing discussion about that) and fold "recommended for newcomers" into Star tier since they have substantial overlap.
This thread isn't about any of these.
xy2_ wrote:
The SM64 community uses the term 'freeruns', as in runs that don't have the objective of going fast, but rather show off impressive feats. This might be a fitting name.
The question is about changing the word "tiers" to something more fitting, since this won't be about entertainment value layers any more.
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 SM64 community uses the term 'freeruns', as in runs that don't have the objective of going fast, but rather show off impressive feats. This might be a fitting name.
What you're describing is Moon Tier, though.
feos wrote:
Yes. 2 is about being entertaining. 3 is about being not entertaining but impressive in some other way.
The only actual problem is that "not entertaining but impressive" is an oxymoron.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
The tier system was introduced to allow the site to function as an archive for speedrun records, while also still highlighting entertaining runs. Hence, we have Moons (and Stars) as higher tiers which are more easily showcased, while in the lower end we can still have speedrun records for less interesting games with less interesting runs for those who want to look for those games/runs.
If we remove the hierarchical tier aspect, then what is the point of having "tiers" (or whatever you want to call them) in the first place? How do you want to use that to highlight good runs, regardless of whether they're standard categories or not? It's just dividing exotic categories away from standard categories for no particularly good reason. Why does Super Metroid RBO have to be in a different grouping than Super Metroid 100%? What purpose will it have?
The "tier 3" seems to introduce a new idea of concept runs that don't finish a game normally, and while we have a very select few of those on the site already, I don't see the reason to create a whole new "tier" just for what seems like it will be no more than a small handful of runs. Unless you want to change the direction of the site, away from focusing on full runs of games, but as long as hardly any currently publishable runs of that sort exist, I don't think it's a good idea to add a whole new "tier" for those.
feos wrote:
If you wish, I can scan through the thread and tell how many + and - posts were there for each of the above.
Post counts do not matter, people matter. How many people have agreed to these ideas?
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Mothrayas wrote:
The tier system was introduced to allow the site to function as an archive for speedrun records, while also still highlighting entertaining runs. Hence, we have Moons (and Stars) as higher tiers which are more easily showcased, while in the lower end we can still have speedrun records for less interesting games with less interesting runs for those who want to look for those games/runs.
If we remove the hierarchical tier aspect, then what is the point of having "tiers" (or whatever you want to call them) in the first place? How do you want to use that to highlight good runs, regardless of whether they're standard categories or not? It's just dividing exotic categories away from standard categories for no particularly good reason. Why does Super Metroid RBO have to be in a different grouping than Super Metroid 100%? What purpose will it have?
How does this hierarchical aspect function in the first place? We show stars and moons in movies by platform lists, and hide vault runs from there. We link to 3 tiers separately too (well, they appear in different recent movies lists on the front page too). That's all I can tell about it being hierarchical. If hiding lower part is the only way to showcase the higher part, I'd say we're not actually promoting anything.
On the other hand, stars and newcomer recs serve promotion well, since they are displayed on the front page randomly (depending on being logged in).
Mothrayas wrote:
The "tier 3" seems to introduce a new idea of concept runs that don't finish a game normally, and while we have a very select few of those on the site already, I don't see the reason to create a whole new "tier" just for what seems like it will be no more than a small handful of runs. Unless you want to change the direction of the site, away from focusing on full runs of games, but as long as hardly any currently publishable runs of that sort exist, I don't think it's a good idea to add a whole new "tier" for those.
I actually never intended to say it is for runs that don't beat the game. It is for anything that can't be in records or moons, but people still vote Yes for (and post their reasons in the threads). Right now, there was clear will to have board game tases published somehow. But Vault rules forbid those, Moon rules require being more entertaining, so board games meet neither, but people want them anyway!
More ideas about what can be sent to Demo tier can be found here:
http://tasvideos.org/Feos/Ideas.html#Brancheshttp://tasvideos.org/Feos/Ideas.html#Tiershttp://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14776
But all those pages just list cases that could be put to Demo, while deciding if that should be done can be by votes and posts.
Mothrayas wrote:
Post counts do not matter, people matter. How many people have agreed to these ideas?
Yeah, that's what I meant. Will count in my next post.
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: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
The tier system was introduced to allow the site to function as an archive for speedrun records, while also still highlighting entertaining runs. Hence, we have Moons (and Stars) as higher tiers which are more easily showcased, while in the lower end we can still have speedrun records for less interesting games with less interesting runs for those who want to look for those games/runs.
If we remove the hierarchical tier aspect, then what is the point of having "tiers" (or whatever you want to call them) in the first place? How do you want to use that to highlight good runs, regardless of whether they're standard categories or not? It's just dividing exotic categories away from standard categories for no particularly good reason. Why does Super Metroid RBO have to be in a different grouping than Super Metroid 100%? What purpose will it have?
How does this hierarchical aspect function in the first place? We show stars and moons in movies by platform lists, and hide vault runs from there. We link to 3 tiers separately too (well, they appear in different recent movies lists on the front page too). That's all I can tell about it being hierarchical. If hiding lower part is the only way to showcase the higher part, I'd say we're not actually promoting anything.
On the other hand, stars and newcomer recs serve promotion well, since they are displayed on the front page randomly (depending on being logged in).
Stars are highlighted on the front page (newcomer recs is outside the scope of the current argument), Moons are displayed in all movie publication lists, and Vault movies are only there if all runs per platform are requested. That's all various differences/levels of highlighting/visibility of runs, and that is where the hierarchy aspect comes in.
feos wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
The "tier 3" seems to introduce a new idea of concept runs that don't finish a game normally, and while we have a very select few of those on the site already, I don't see the reason to create a whole new "tier" just for what seems like it will be no more than a small handful of runs. Unless you want to change the direction of the site, away from focusing on full runs of games, but as long as hardly any currently publishable runs of that sort exist, I don't think it's a good idea to add a whole new "tier" for those.
I actually never intended to say it is for runs that don't beat the game. It is for anything that can't be in records or moons, but people still vote Yes for (and post their reasons in the threads). Right now, there was clear will to have board game tases published somehow. But Vault rules forbid those, Moon rules require being more entertaining, so board games meet neither, but people want them anyway!
More ideas about what can be sent to Demo tier can be found here:
http://tasvideos.org/Feos/Ideas.html#Brancheshttp://tasvideos.org/Feos/Ideas.html#Tiershttp://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14776
But all those pages just list cases that could be put to Demo, while deciding if that should be done can be by votes and posts.
Regarding board games, many of the board game runs that have been rejected, were rejected exactly because of the lack of interest value to them. If they were interesting, people would be entertained by them and voted accordingly, which hasn't really happened convincingly for many of them.
For the rest of it, I still don't really see this "tier" being worthwhile enough to have on the site, as it seems to be a dumping ground for ideas that might be somewhat novel but are still either just boring or are not actually proper runs/playthroughs, and also don't achieve the site's/current Vault's goal of being a speedrun archive. And I still haven't seen anything that suggests it would end up holding more than a small handful of runs.
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.
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.
Right now, there was clear will to have board game tases published somehow. But Vault rules forbid those,
If that's your problem then your proposed solution is way too complicated.
We can simply change the Vault rules so that board games are allowed in the Vault. Assuming there's consensus for that, of course. But there's really no point in creating a whole new (vaguely defined and confusingly named) tier just for a handful of runs.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
I still have yet to see an argument as to how or why splitting off any%/100% and esoteric goals from each other achieves anything at all. Again, what does that achieve? Why should, say, Super Metroid RBO be split away from Super Metroid 100%? What purpose will it have?
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Mothrayas wrote:
Stars are highlighted on the front page (newcomer recs is outside the scope of the current argument), Moons are displayed in all movie publication lists, and Vault movies are only there if all runs per platform are requested. That's all various differences/levels of highlighting/visibility of runs, and that is where the hierarchy aspect comes in.
I see only two differences/levels of highlighting/visibility of runs. Hiding Vault Vs. not Hiding the rest, and highlighting Stars Vs. not anything else. Hiding can be done by user defined rating cutoff (better since it's flexible, better since no run gets stigmated, which people are definitely arguing against). Highlighting of stars won't change. If we only want these 2 methods of promotion, they will still be there.
Mothrayas wrote:
Regarding board games, many of the board game runs that have been rejected, were rejected exactly because of the lack of interest value to them. If they were interesting, people would be entertained by them and voted accordingly, which hasn't really happened convincingly for many of them.
Quote me saying Demo is for "interesting" runs. It is for impressive achievements that don't meet the current standards of the main 2 tiers. If you want, I'll also list people who want board games published. If you want, you can ignore them stating that, but it's no solution.
Mothrayas wrote:
For the rest of it, I still don't really see this "tier" being worthwhile enough to have on the site, as it seems to be a dumping ground for ideas that might be somewhat novel but are still either just boring or are not actually proper runs/playthroughs, and also don't achieve the site's/current Vault's goal of being a speedrun archive. And I still haven't seen anything that suggests it would end up holding more than a small handful of runs.
I'd say it's what opinions are for. How do I prove something is needed if it pops up every once in a while, has definite meaning, but isn't taken seriously by you? I'd think, only by linking to posts that want this tier, but it'd take a week to find them all.
Mothrayas wrote:
I still have yet to see an argument as to how or why splitting off any%/100% and esoteric goals from each other achieves anything at all. Again, what does that achieve? Why should, say, Super Metroid RBO be split away from Super Metroid 100%? What purpose will it have?
It solves problems people unhappy with the current vault system (should I quote them all too by any chance?) have with it. Most of those who stated that in other threads now support the suggested change. Probably reading the posts I linked could help seeing what and how it solves to them.
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: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
I see only two differences/levels of highlighting/visibility of runs. Hiding Vault Vs. not Hiding the rest, and highlighting Stars Vs. not anything else.
Well, those are three different levels of visibility, right? How many tiers do we have right now?
feos wrote:
Hiding can be done by user defined rating cutoff (better since it's flexible, better since no run gets stigmated, which people are definitely arguing against). Highlighting of stars won't change. If we only want these 2 methods of promotion, they will still be there.
Right, but this has nothing to do with the idea of Vault/Coin and Moons tiers that were proposed.
feos wrote:
Quote me saying Demo is for "interesting" runs. It is for impressive achievements that don't meet the current standards of the main 2 tiers.
Are "impressive achievements" not interesting practically by definition? Either way, it's just wording at this point. Impressive, interesting, whatever, either word describes a similar concept.
feos wrote:
If you want, I'll also list people who want board games published. If you want, you can ignore them stating that, but it's no solution.
Go on with the list of people then, and then tell me where those people were when board games were being rejected for below par voting results. The only exceptional case I can think of is Othello, which was rejected for being trivial, and not for viewer feedback reasons - but that's a site rules issue, not a tiering or Vaultability issue. It's a different issue than what we have been talking about.
(I'm assuming "want board games published" here means "want board games published to Vault", since we have always accepted board games for other tiers).
feos wrote:
I'd say it's what opinions are for. How do I prove something is needed if it pops up every once in a while, has definite meaning, but isn't taken seriously by you? I'd think, only by linking to posts that want this tier, but it'd take a week to find them all.
How, exactly, is it "needed" by the site? I can indeed not take your argument seriously as long as you cannot answer that. In the links you sent me I've only seen two submissions/runs that actually could be published at all and aren't already. Lua scripts and multimedia files are outside the scope of site publications (due to verifiability/cheating reasons), and that is very unlikely to ever change. That leaves just thesetwo of your examples. So you are telling me this Demo tier is absolutely needed, for all of these two movies?
feos wrote:
It solves problems people unhappy with the current vault system (should I quote them all too by any chance?) have with it. Most of those who stated that in other threads now support the suggested change. Probably reading the posts I linked could help seeing what and how it solves to them.
Okay, so it solves the problem the current system has with subjectivity. But that does not give it a reason to exist at all in the new system. It's just division for the sake of division. It is not subjective division anymore, sure, but I ask yet again - what does it achieve? Why does this division need to exist in the new system?
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I'm tired. You're against any changes? Whatever. This is one of the thread's options. Just don't think your disbelieve in people needing it helps anything. See my sig.
What hurts me though it when I ponder and explain something for pages, and then see "what, you didn't explain anything, lol".
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: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
feos wrote:
I'm tired. You're against any changes? Whatever. This is one of the thread's options. Just don't think your disbelieve in people needing it helps anything. See my sig.
What hurts me though it when I ponder and explain something for pages, and then see "what, you didn't explain anything, lol".
I concur, whatever. When you refuse to answer my questions, when you make up statements about my stance, when you are reduced to making false claims about me ignoring or disbelieving people, I am done here. There is no more I will say on this subject.
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.
I didn't read people posts.
Vault is just fine as it is, I'd like tasvideos be a center web with collection of all kind of TAS runs, say someone want to see a TAS of terrible unpopular game come see here.
The issue is in the voting, "Did you find this movie entertaining?" - people skip that question and vote it like "Should it be published?"
Revamp voting question for workbeach to something like 1 or 3 question(s).
1. Should it be published? (ratio button)
a. Yes, Star tier (the run was very exciting and well done, it blew my mind!)
b. Yes, Moon tier (the run was good, it was worth seeing it)
c. Yes, Vault tier (the run was well done, but it was boring otherwise)
d. No (run wasn't good at all, I bet someone else can beaten it faster easily)
2. Rate entertainment value
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (ratio button)
3. Rate technical quality
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (ratio button)
#2 and #3 could integration with website rating. Or omit?
Yes. 2 is about being entertaining. 3 is about being not entertaining but impressive in some other way.
The only actual "problem" then is calling those tiers. Well, what other names would fit the concept?
I already mentioned categories. That's because 1 and 2 would be considered to be equal categories.
4 is for the best of the TASes as it has been (there is also recommend for newcomer for promotion)
3 is for the proposed demo (or also gruefood delight), which does not have to be implemented right now for this overall change. This was added in response to the thread about it, iirc. Perhaps the main proposal should omit this for now; it seems to be a distraction at the moment.
The main reason for this proposal is to eliminate middle cases (and thus all these argument threads) between the vault and moon by making them categories (of primary goal of speed vs entertainment) instead. We can still filter by movie rating by default.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I'll start with my personal opinion:
I am against the proposal of moving any/100 movies into their own "tier" (which I will refer to from here out as the "feos proposal". Strongly so. Please add me to the appropriate tally.
Here's my admin thoughts:
It isn't going to happen. Period.
This change will require effort, and does not solve problems. The problem we currently have is that movie navigation is dependent on giant lists that are sorted by platform and tier. Moon-Star is already too big for many platforms, absurdly so. This is a huge drain on the site resources, and eventually will be catastrophic as more content is added. Combining Vaults into that list will only shorten the lifespan of the current code (which is already on life support). The feos proposal has the same problem, it will result in tremendously long pages with slow load times, that drain site resources.
And here's the long term thoughts:
The feos proposal is bad and what we have wasn't intended to be the primary means of structuring the site by now. The correct approach is to be able to easily navigate by game, with smaller more performant pages that are quick to load and do not drain the server. In addition the rating system should be overhauled to make it easy and rewarding to rate.
If tiers were not the primary navigation means, and ratings were more numerous and reliable, than that opens up a lot more possibilities for tiering, and solves most of the problems presented in this thread by default.
This didn't happen due to technical road blocks, specifically the site code, the development environment, and lack of coders experienced in the technologies utilized by the site. There was a nice plan, it just never happened.
The feos is a band-aid proposal at best. And as one, it is rather underwhelming, I was hoping for a better proposal than this.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Long lists were considered, and I was always suggesting to hide by user-defined rating cutoff. It can be 6- entertainment rating by default, configurable from the Filter. Without that, current lists might already be considered too huge. And yes, this is the only part that requires coder effort (if we aren't talking about Demo tier yet).
Navigation by game has no contradiction to any tiering system at all.
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.
there are 2 main forms of value in TASing from what i've read on the forum and comment section on youtube:
the fun:is this tas funny ,enjoyable with many novelties and unexpected action?
Example: super mario 64
the technique:this TAS accomplishes something highly accurate and probably impossible in real time,usually TAS with high luck manipulation or frame perfect tricks all the time,but not visually appealing.They may be boring as shit,but they solve the game fast and that's their appeal.
Example:
Megaman battle chip challenge
Exxonym wrote:
I don't see why all the runs can't be merged and published in the same list, for ease of access if nothing else. You could simply add the vault icon, similar to moons or stars and state what it means on the top of the page. That way people know it wasn't as "entertaining" as other movies, but they can still find the games they want relatively easy.
THE SOLUTION IS LESS,NOT MORE. Remove all the Moon/Star console movies list and keep the Moon+Vault list for each console.This is less coding for adelikat.If you want to keep the fun TASes visible,do it inside the complete list by making the icons bigger or clearer to identify boring TASes and interesting ones.
Now,for the voting system,it should also be 2 questions:
is the TAS fun?
is the TAS well optimized/clean/highly technical?
obviously the last question is to get the run accepted,and the first is to put it on the right category.
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto.
TAS i'm interested:
Megaman series, specially the RPGs! Where is the mmbn1 all chips TAS we deserve? Where is the Command Mission TAS?
i'm slowly moving away from TASing fighting games for speed, maybe it's time to start finding some entertainment value in TASing.
If the problem the site is suffering is overlong movie lists draining the servers, then maybe a more basic solution is needed. Instead of having movie lists which contain full publications, complete with resource-heavy YouTube encodes, just replace each publication with a simple hyperlink which, when clicked on, leads to the publication.
I'm no web designer so there's probably something obvious I'm missing with this idea, otherwise we'd have done it by now...
