Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bezman wrote:
Personally though, I like the idea of rewarding extraneous technical virtues - such as superhumanly late jumping. I like the idea that simpler games should recieve lower scores for fewer techniques being used - certainly settles Baxter's qualm.
Well... three points to be made here:
1) Even though this ideal would indeed solve that problem I mentioned, the reality is that people generally don't view technical rating like this.
2) Technical rating, for whatever people might think it means, has a steady 1/3 influence, and some people might want to give this a heavier weight, and some people might want to give it a lighter weight. With a single rating, they can give it as much weight as they want, and compress it into a single value, combined with entertainment and whatever else they think is important.
3) With two seperate scores, you won't really end up with a rating list that represents something that goes from movies that you like best to movies that you don't really like. I think having such a list would be quite nice. For this, being able to rate 0-100 is also important.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
Baxter wrote:
My suggestion
You are able to give a single decimal number (0.0, 0.1, ..., 7.6, 7.7, ..., 10.0).
Basically you are suggesting a value range of 0-100. I'm not completely convinced such accuracy is necessary.
- Even though right after the technical rating it says "(how close it is to perfection)", no one really agrees on what it actually means, and gives it an own meaning.
I have always had the opinion that people understand the technical rating wrong. It was not what I had in mind when we created the voting system. Most people seem to think that the technical rating evaluates how many errors there are in the run, ie. approximately how many frames could still be saved with better running in relation to the movie length.
That's not what I was thinking. Ok, it can be *part* of the judgment, but only a small part. (Certainly if a movie is extremely sloppy it shouldn't get a very high technical score, but most runs are not sloppy, but they don't necessarily deserve a high technical score either.)
I thought about the technical score to be an evaluation of the *techniques* used in the run. In other words, rather than being a pure optimal-frames/actual-frames-in-the-run score, it's an estimation of the quality and diversity of techniques used in the run. A bit like figure skating: The judges don't estimate how fast they are skating, but how well they perform their techniques (and how many there are).
Does it perform heavy luck manipulation? If so, does it do it to its great advantage? Is it "cool"? Does it zip through walls? Is the zipping performed with good style and technique? Does it "look good"? What kind of tools were used to make the run? Was lua scripting used to aid in making the run? Was a bot written to create part of the run? Was the game disassembled in order to understand how the rng works? That kind of things.
Even a frame-perfect run may deserve a low technical score if it doesn't show advanced and well-executed techniques. Perhaps the game in question just doesn't lend itself to awesome techniques, but then it's simply a poor game choice.
I have suggested this a couple of times in the past, but always shot down. For whatever reason I cannot comprehend, people don't want this. They want the technical score to be a pure optimal-frames/used-frames score, and nothing else. Interpreting it like that makes the whole technical score kind of moot and uninteresting. It has no value. It doesn't say anything.
Well, I gave several reasons why a 0-100 scale would be very welcome... and why I do think this accuracy is needed. Could you give some reasons why "you are not completely convinced", and particularly respond to some of the reasons I gave?
As for the technical rating, what you are suggesting would indeed be slightly better, but like I said, that's not how the large majority interprets it, and it's not what it says right at the side of the rating: "(how close it is to perfection)". I gave several reasons why to get rid of the technical rating, one being that people give different meaning to it, and you seem to agree with this. And to the next reasons I gave you basically said: "Yeah, but that's not how it should be interpreted.". That might be right, but it is interpreted in that way, which would be a good reason to get rid of it. A few more direct responses to what I wrote would be appreciated, rather than a description of what technical rating should be.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I'll post my thoughts on the rating system here once more. I also posted them one page ago, but whatever... I have a few additional points (I hope).
Current rating system
You are able to give integers (0, 1, 2, ..., 10) to both "the entertainment value of this movie" and "The technical quality of this movie (how close it is to perfection)". The entertainment value counts for 2/3 to your final score, and the technical value for 1/3.
My suggestion
You are able to give a single decimal number (0.0, 0.1, ..., 7.6, 7.7, ..., 10.0). It's just a single rating for the TAS where you consider whatever you think is important to whatever extent.
This is a better rating system because
- Even though right after the technical rating it says "(how close it is to perfection)", no one really agrees on what it actually means, and gives it an own meaning. This might not be a problem to many, but it can be used to argue against people who say they are interested to see what technical rating people are giving.
- Assuming that most people do view the technical rating as a measure how close the movie to perfection is, is this a good thing for this to influence the final score? It seems like 'easy' games are just getting a rating boost by this. A game like Donkey Kong, SMB or Circus Charlie takes a lot less effort to make more perfect than a long game with lots of lag and randomness. It might be a technically much better achievement to create the hard TAS, even though it's obviously not as close to perfection due to randomness and such. Still the 'easy' game choice seems to get an instant advantage. (Note that the argument "But the harder game will be more entertaining." is a really bad argument, since there is no guarantee for this.)
- Assuming that most people do view the technical rating as a measure how close the movie to perfection is, how does one know how close a particular movie comes to perfection? The truth is, you have no idea of determining that until you actually TAS the game yourself, and notice howmany, frames you can save. Neither the tricks used, the amount of rerecords used, the author, whatever else you could possibly know of this movie by watching it. Of course, if you spot obvious errors you might get an idea, but most of the TASes obviously don't show these, as they wouldn't be published. On this very page, Adelikat mentioned "mm1-near perfect except the energy refills which are extraordinarily difficult to do frame perfect." The currently published movie improved upon this however in nearly every room. (And 3 of the only 5 movies he mentioned to have given a 10 as technical rating, were obsoleted. This is btw not in any way meant to downtalk Adelikats judgement, he has a very good judgement, it's just that technical rating in this sense cannot be known, which was my point.) One can also see a very strong correspondence in some cases to people being entertained by a TAS, and the technical rating they give, even if this strictly shouldn't be the case.
- People might disagree on the fact that entertainment counts for 2/3 and technical rating for 1/3. Some people might find entertainment more important than that, or less important. People might also consider other things besides these two things. Would it not be better for each person to consider whatever he finds important, weigh it as high as he thinks and compiles it into a single rating?
- People might want to rate higher than a 8, but wouldn't quite give it a 9 (or want to be between some other numbers). Some people consider a 10 to be a perfect score, and are reluctant to hand it out, but it's the only option if something is worth more than a 9. Being able to give ratings like a 8.2 or a 9.3 would solve this problem.
- Being able to rate a 8.2 or 9.3 (or whatever) will also enable you to list the TASes you've rated better by rating. This way, you will truly get a list of TASes you like best to TASes you 'like' worst. The current system doesn't produce this kind of list for two reasons: 1) You can only rate integers, and many movies will get the same rating, even if you like one movie a little better than the other. 2) The technical rating will give boosts to some TASes, even though you don't like them as much... this will especially be the case for the 'easy' games I mentioned earlier.
- The labels the current integers have "slightly above average" and so on are very confusing, and might not represent what people think. It doesn't matter if one person gives his movies an average rating of a 5, while some other gives them an average rating of an 8, as long as their own list is consistent. I don't think these labels are needed.
Edit:
Maybe a bit unrelevant to my suggestion above, but it's also about the ratings. I find it somewhat hard to get to the rating list of other users. http://tasvideos.org/rating.exe/my/ This page shows a list of the top 15 raters, it would be nice if their names linked to their rating lists.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bisqwit: What about the fact that TASers might feel their work being appreciated a bit more by good voting results? I somehow doubt there will be significantly more posts this way...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
upthorn wrote:
I strongly disagree with removing the poll. The inability to vote anonymously has a strong tendency to quash desire to state opinions contrary to that which has the most appearant support.
Additionally, even with no votes currently cast, it can make it somewhat less friendly to vote no, because then the author might take it personally and have it influence their opinion of you in future, et cetera.
With the poll system, because people have the ability to vote "no" without posting, it's much easier to get the first "no" vote in. After a few "no" votes have been cast, and show up on the vote result, it becomes psychologically and socially much easier for any individual to vote no and post their reason. Whereas without the quasi-anonymous poll, anyone who votes against the popular trend may face ostracism for it, and anyone who votes no may face the wrath of the submission's author.
Put together, the result, plain and simple, is most likely to be a drastic increase in the (already present) tendency for the workbench voting to be skewed heavily away from the negative.
I agree with keeping the votes, but for completely different reasons. I don't even count 'no' votes without an explanation (unless it are many, and the explanation has already been stated by others at the topic). I think especially 'no' votes need an explanation, as it is this explanation that is most important to judging the movie.
There are currently lots of people who just vote, and don't post anything, and I think not being able to vote will mean not hearing anything from them, and thus especially missing out on yes votes, which the author could see as a sign of appreciation of his movie.
I know that some people will randomly vote yes, if they like the game, the TASer or whatever, even if the actual TAS might not be that good... and I know that the final judgement might be different than what the votes suggest... but everyone knows this. I think both the voters and the judges take it into account, so even though the votes might not be that important for judging the movie, I still think it's nice to know what the votes are, and they might indeed (like I thought their purpose was) be of some small assistence of the judges decision.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Lord Tom wrote:
Bravo! Looking at the list, it seems like a very reasonable result. Even though my idea didn't get chosen, (sniffle), I'm very pleased that this was done.
Randil: Too bad Baxter chose such round values for his constants (2.5, 0.5)...had he so narrowly edged you and the values were (3.4752, 0.232877) you'd have been entitled to some serious indignation...;)
One should note that these values are constantly changing as people are rating, new movies get published, and old ones obsoleted. In this particular case, there will probably be a zelda "second quest" movie published some time in the near future... so the fact that the results are really close now is rather arbitrary.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Ok, in this post I will try to explain how the new ranking system works. It will be a little similar to my previous post explaining this, but I'll add the specifics:
The following formula will give a result for all players with a published movie:
- Take the rating of one of your published movies to the power of X.
- Divide it by the number of authors of that movie to the power of Y.
- Do this for all your published movies and add the numbers you get, this will give you your result.
- N is your total amount of published movies.
- X should be determined on how important high ratings are considered. For instance, if X=0, then ratings don't matter at all, and only the amount of movies is considered. If X=1, you will just be adding the ratings of your movies. If X is bigger than 1, movies with higher ratings will count heavier. It is probably good if X is bigger 1, since generally, one movie with a rating of 9.0 is liked better than two movies with a rating of 4.5
- Y should be determined by how much team movies count. If Y=0, the authors will both get the full amount of points for the movie, the same amount an author would get if he had made the movie alone. If Y=1, you divide the amount of points a movie would get equally of the authors. The most logical value for Y is probably somewhere between 0 and 1.
- Lets call the result of the summation Z.
Now that every player with a published movie has a result, these results can be listed. This is done here You will need to put in values for X and Y in order to change the list.
Once X and Y are determined, certain ranges of results must be grouped together if the result is:
Bigger than 0, smaller than A --> rank 1
Bigger than A, smaller than B --> rank 2
.....
Bigger than E --> rank 5
Then the names of those ranks needed to be determined.
===============================================
Specifics:Determining X:
As already stated, X needs to be higher than 1 to account for the fact that a single movie rated a 9 is appreciated more than two movies rated a 4.5. One can ask him/herself the question: How many movies rated a 5 are worth a movie I would rate a 10? Or, 100 movies rated a 9 are worth howmany movies rated an 8? Here are some answers to those questions for several X values:
X=2: 4 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 126 of your 8 ratings
X=2.5: 5.5 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 134 of your 8 ratings
X=3: 8 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 142 of your 8 ratings
X=3.5: 11.3 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 151 of your 8 ratings
X=4: 16 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 160 of your 8 ratings
After some thought, and asking some opinions, I determined that X = 2.5 seems like an appropriate value.
Determining Y
As stated before: "If Y=0, the authors will both get the full amount of points for the movie, the same amount an author would get if he had made the movie alone. If Y=1, you divide the amount of points a movie would get equally of the authors. The most logical value for Y is probably somewhere between 0 and 1."
At Y = 0.5, it means that for being a part of a 4-player movie, you half the score you would get from it if you have made that movie alone.
If you made a 2-player team movie, you will get about 0.7 times the score of what you would have gotten if you made this TAS on your own.
These two values of X=2.5 and Y=0.5 seems reasonable, and create the following list.
Here is a table that tells you which ratings will add howmany points to your score with X=2.5, and what fraction of those points you will get in a teammovie with Y=0.5:
Determining the ranges:
Obsoleted movies will have their score multiplied by a really low number. This way, they are still accounted for, and people without any currently published movies can still get a player rank. These would have a result between 0 and 1.
People with a single published movie will get the player rank. The question would be, from what result they would go one rank up. Eventually it was determined that a result of 250 would be a good value. To get 250, you either need 3 movies with 5.8, 2 movies with 6.9 or 1 movie with 9.1. This seemed like a good requirement to move on a rank. So the player rank was is given at values from 1 - 250
The next rank you get when you double that, at 500, and the next again when you double it to 1000, and finally when you double to to 2000. The list of the result for all player gave a somewhat exponential curve, so even though the ranges get higher, the amount of people occupying the ranks get lower.
After that the names of the ranks had to be thought up. Here are the results of this, listed with the amount of people at this moment:
0 < Z < 1: 51 people - Former Player
1 < Z < 250: 111 people - Player
250 < Z < 500: 33 people - Active Player
500 < Z < 1000: 22 people - Experienced Player
1000 < Z < 2000: 7 people - Skilled Player
2000 < Z : 5 people - Expert Player
You can also somewhat see the people with their ranks here.
(Note that the table for instance says 5 expert players, and the page only say 4, which is due to Nitsuja currently being labelled a "Coder".)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Bisqwit: I noticed in your encode of the first quest movie by Phil and me that when leaving screens in dungeons, Link is visible. This shouldn't be the case, and I would really like it if you could avoid this somehow for this movie.
There is a position Link can take 'underneath' the door where he is completely not visible (last frame before leaving the room)... to avoid showing seemingly pointless waits for luckmanipulation inside rooms, these waits were usually made underneath these doors where Link is not visible (so the luck manipulation is not noticable. I want to add to that that is also just looks strange.
The left shows how it is supposed to look, and the right shows your encode for the current first quest movie. Could this please be fixed for this movie?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
It is also interesting to know where a game as Adventure Island 2 would fall under. During the boss fights, your input (only 1 controller) controls both the man and the dino, so technically 1 player controls 2 characters (with 1 controller). Would this also get such a tag?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Warp wrote:
Since the "abuses luck" tag is rather non-descriptive, as it's given to movies very lightly, how about a list like "extreme luck abuse"?
Alden wrote:
Hmm, Monopoly would be a good one for that too :) and Vegas Stakes
Here's another one people probably won't like: movies that look very fast -- some sonic game, biker mice from mars, sparkster... hmm
The thing is, the current tags are either goals, subgoals, or other specific facts (and genres). The thing being suggested here would be very subjective... I don't know if that's the right way to go (although I can see why you would like them). People might object to them just like people objected to stars.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
alden wrote:
I guess it comes down to encouraging people to ignore criticism and make movies that they themselves like.
This is true for people who don't care about whether or not their movie will be published. If one does really care, it can be misleading to encourage him too much to work on a possibly very long project that's likely to be rejected. I don't think there is anything wrong with people giving their opinion about it.
You might be right that something "might turn out great"... but for this someone can always post wips... and someone who really thinks their idea is great (even though it's arbitrary) would definately be willing to make a wip. If the reaction to such a wip however is also negative, the only reason why one should continue working on it is really not caring about whether or not it's gonna be published.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
alden wrote:
It's just unfortunate that the prevailing attitude is against using said arbitrary rules, which seems to discourage people from even attempting to make movies with unique goals.
Rules can be arbitrary... but they must still be well defined, and there must be a reason why these arbitrary rules are chosen.
I think that "well defined" speaks for itself. As for the reason, I think the recent OoT is a good example. The rules are quite arbitrary... but a new any% run will pretty much skip everything, and a 100% run will have lots and lots of extra boring stuff (probably).
In the case of the Zelda run you are referring to at the bottom of your post, I don't see even the slightest reason why such a run would 'add' anything. There are already two runs for that game, and what is suggested there would do the same dungeons as one of those runs. Collection of items that aren't needed, or even visiting rooms that don't have anything, or not taking damage boost doesn't make sense, and would only produce a same sort of movie that already exists, but more boring.
So I think, arbitrary rules are only an option if there aren't any non-arbitrary rules possible that would provide the same kind of entertainment.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
MUGG wrote:
And a question: I don't know whether I saw it in Sleep'z demonstration or in some other video, but I saw Link going through the top of the screen horizontally (like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SioisShS7Q0 )
and now I was wondering if it can be used to skip even more parts of the map by using that black part on the top as a bridge. But I'm sure this has already been tested or the way the screen glitch was done in the run was already the most effective way.
The top of the screen resembles part of the screen underneath. something like, top half isn't used, it's swapped half a tile to the left. Then it's just like a part of the screen underneath pasted above, so sometimes your movement is very limited there. There weren't any particular cases where we found it to be profitable to walk here to scroll sidewards... maybe in the first quest, we'll see ;)
Very nice, but it would make a 100% run relatively even more boring. picking up skulltula's wouldn't add anything very interesting, but maybe something like getting the ice arrow would. I don't know if that was known before or not, but to me this is somewhat like more evidence that the current submission has the right goals for a 'full movie', instead of a 100% run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
dave_dfwm wrote:
A question though -- and it may have been brought up elsewhere.
Is it possible to use the scroll glitch inside of a dungeon?
No, this isn't mentioned in the submission text yet... but it should be. More things will be added there... but no, it it not possible to glitch from one side of the room to the other side of the room inside dungeons. This can only be done in the overworld.
ShinyDoofy wrote:
Another lossless x264, this time without the subtitles (for the publishers).
Hmm... the current youtube generation is all too willing to upload any movie, and maybe even the fewer subtitles the better. I remember DeHackEd accidently encoding a tetris movie of mine without subtitles, and even though it was replaced very quickly, that version without subtitles can still be found at youtube... I'm not a big fan of it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
this is me wrote:
Acheron86 wrote:
More than four minute's improvement to a classic game... good lord. Well done! Watching now, will vote when I'm done.
actually the last one was 25:28.6
the time they are quoting for some reason is from the first one i believe
i could be wrong
Are you referring to this? This is a previous submission by Phil of the first quest (and has been obsoleted). The movie linked in the submission text is the currently published movie of the second quest, that hasn't been obsoleted.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Comicalflop wrote:
perhaps a very strict no Out of Bounds rule could be made
No... just no. Restiction of particular glitches, while allowing others leads nowhere. There need to be clear goals. I thought the goals of this TAS were kinda arbitrary, but seeing that a new any% run will skip virtually everything, it seems like a good option, without having to do 100%. An any% run and this run are enough... and maybe a 100% run... but that could also obsolete this run (if it turns out more entertaining than this one).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I only watched level 1, but it made me wonder... so I tried TASing it myself.
This seems to be 144 frames faster for level 1.
Edit: I watched it completely now, and maybe because I already knew the game, it was entertaining to me. I don't know what other will think who aren't familiar with the game though...
I don't think however that the quality is as good as it should be. Besides that improvement at level 1, I also spotted improvements for instance for level 6 and level 16.
At level 6, you can pick up the fruit at the bottom right by jumping straight up, instead of jumping over the pit and back... when I completed the level, I also noticed that the spring jump at the end and the climbing wasn't optimized, so frames could be saved here also.
At level 16, you only make a low jump at the spring at the bottom right... a high jump would have been a lot better and saves half a second easy.
So I would vote yes to a TAS of this game (without skipping levels like the other movie obviously)... but since it can clearly be improved (I just tested some things I noticed... didn't do any real research or anything) I won't vote at this moment.
Edit2: Ah, I forgot to mention. There were some levels were I really enjoyed your solution, such as level 17, 20, 32 and 44. Most of these involved going from one side of the screen to the other.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
Voting no for being boring... sorry. I don't feel bad, since it doesn't seem like this cost you much trouble to make...
I am wondering though... why didn't you skip level 50?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
I don't see what's the problem here. The voting results aren't as good as they might appear. It's known for some time that people give away yes votes much easier than no or meh votes. There are quite a few runs with better voting results than this that also got rejected.
I do think the judges take voting results into account... it's just that the voting results for this run weren't good enough.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
bkDJ: funny that you picked Arkanoid warped as an example. While making it, I thought, if optimized for least button presses (which I didn't do, since I moved quite a bit to the left and right while waiting) it could very well be the TAS with the largest % of the frames no button presses at all.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1403)
Joined: 5/31/2004
Posts: 1821
It's not VBA that's the problem. It's certain key combinations that your comp won't register at the same time. You can either:
- Assign the buttons to different keys
- Assign the problematic buttom to multiple keys
- Assign multiple buttons to a single key
- Take the rating of one of your published movies to the power of X.
- Divide it by the number of authors of that movie to the power of Y.
- Do this for all your published movies and add the numbers you get, this will give you your result.
- N is your total amount of published movies.
- X should be determined on how important high ratings are considered. For instance, if X=0, then ratings don't matter at all, and only the amount of movies is considered. If X=1, you will just be adding the ratings of your movies. If X is bigger than 1, movies with higher ratings will count heavier. It is probably good if X is bigger 1, since generally, one movie with a rating of 9.0 is liked better than two movies with a rating of 4.5
- Y should be determined by how much team movies count. If Y=0, the authors will both get the full amount of points for the movie, the same amount an author would get if he had made the movie alone. If Y=1, you divide the amount of points a movie would get equally of the authors. The most logical value for Y is probably somewhere between 0 and 1.
- Lets call the result of the summation Z.
Now that every player with a published movie has a result, these results can be listed. This is done here You will need to put in values for X and Y in order to change the list.
Once X and Y are determined, certain ranges of results must be grouped together if the result is:
Bigger than 0, smaller than A --> rank 1
Bigger than A, smaller than B --> rank 2
.....
Bigger than E --> rank 5
Then the names of those ranks needed to be determined.
===============================================
Specifics:
Determining X:
As already stated, X needs to be higher than 1 to account for the fact that a single movie rated a 9 is appreciated more than two movies rated a 4.5. One can ask him/herself the question: How many movies rated a 5 are worth a movie I would rate a 10? Or, 100 movies rated a 9 are worth howmany movies rated an 8? Here are some answers to those questions for several X values:
X=2: 4 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 126 of your 8 ratings
X=2.5: 5.5 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 134 of your 8 ratings
X=3: 8 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 142 of your 8 ratings
X=3.5: 11.3 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 151 of your 8 ratings
X=4: 16 of your 5 ratings are worth one 10 rating, 100 of your 9 ratings are worth 160 of your 8 ratings
After some thought, and asking some opinions, I determined that X = 2.5 seems like an appropriate value.
Determining Y
As stated before: "If Y=0, the authors will both get the full amount of points for the movie, the same amount an author would get if he had made the movie alone. If Y=1, you divide the amount of points a movie would get equally of the authors. The most logical value for Y is probably somewhere between 0 and 1."
At Y = 0.5, it means that for being a part of a 4-player movie, you half the score you would get from it if you have made that movie alone.
If you made a 2-player team movie, you will get about 0.7 times the score of what you would have gotten if you made this TAS on your own.
These two values of X=2.5 and Y=0.5 seems reasonable, and create the following list.
Here is a table that tells you which ratings will add howmany points to your score with X=2.5, and what fraction of those points you will get in a teammovie with Y=0.5:
