(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
I like this idea. It combines vault and moons into a single tier, but separates the general goals better as tags. We still have stars as a showcase of excellent runs (for newcomers) just like it has always been. This makes sense especially after reading http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#TiersAndGoals because it is an extension of what already exists.
I like your idea of the checkered flag for the speed records category since it matches what it stands for. I suppose we could consider changing the name and icon for moons to reflect entertainment better. (Though I still laugh at the concept of mooning runs :P) I like the stars name, especially because Super Mario 64 "0 stars" gets a star.
Nope, your question was: "is it simple". I said "not". I didn't say anything about what is better. Anyway, if all other criteria are same then less if's = better.
feos wrote:
We tried to define criteria to publish "interesting" runs. It can't be defined.
Simple criteria: poll "should it be published".
I don't remember already, did I say anything about polls in Workbench. In my viewing of things, there would be only one question in poll: "should it be published", and entertainment rating votes after it is published. Hmm, actually you can accept entertainment rating votes for any of submissions, even not publicated, there shouldn't be a problem to make it available.
Nope, your question was: "is it simple". I said "not". I didn't say anything about what is better. Anyway, if all other criteria are same then less if's = better.
Don't you use absolute terms here. It's never "plain simple", it's never "not simple". It's only "simple enough", and "simpler than something". It's a subjective thing, and I respect it by simplifying it more (but not to the absurd degree). Most people in this thread remember how "simple" it was when it all started:
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13395r57shell wrote:
feos wrote:
We tried to define criteria to publish "interesting" runs. It can't be defined.
Simple criteria: poll "should it be published".
That's exactly what I'm suggesting, and I explained why and how it will work.
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 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".
I spend about 30 minutes trying to write an argument that amounts to petty whining, then I browse through the thread and see that nitrog of all goddamn people summed it up better than I ever could in two sentences.
Whatever. Some games 'deserve' to get vaulted more than others. I don't think anyone would miss A2600 Spiderman if it wasn't on the site. Hydlide is a million times more entertaining, yet it's in the same tier as Spiderman. What's the point of optimizing any run if it ends up in the same tier as Spiderman?
"Star" is an excellent name for the tier because it parallels the usage of the word when describing people. (The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it in that context as "a person who is preeminent in a particular field".)
"Moon" was originally just a "notable publication", in other words a "notice this" symbol in the recent publications list, chosen because of the "celestial bodies" theme. It got transferred as the symbol for the "better runs tier". It might also be because it can be thought as "a bit less than a star".
In this new tier scheme, however, it makes little sense as a name. It would only be named so because it has always been named so. But perhaps something more descriptive could be in place? Although granted, I can't think of anything better right at this moment.
In the same vein "coin" doesn't really depict "aims for fastest completion"... But yeah, I don't have suggestions for anything better.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
What good would renaming do if the intent behind the tier is the same? That's like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea trying to pass itself off as not a dictatorship.
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.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Hmm... can't really think of a better name for the vault tier, but I did come up with an idea (perhaps others on here could refine it?).
Much like how TASes from the star tier are randomly showcased on the tasvideos homepage, how about doing the same for the vault tier somehow?
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
What good would renaming do if the intent behind the tier is the same? That's like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea trying to pass itself off as not a dictatorship.
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.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2794
Location: Northern California
Featuring random Vault runs doesn't magically free them from the curse of being in the lowest tier. It'd just give more people a chance to see the runs and rate them ridiculously low scores like most Vault runs get. Also, it actually runs into the issue brought up by thatguy earlier: Assuming the front page is the first thing everyone sees, they'll see a "Featured Run" and think it's going to be great, and then it'll be Toobin' or Where's Waldo and they won't exactly have a great opinion of the site anymore. If another Featured category exists, I'd prefer if it showcased runs with high ratings, like 7+ average, as that would show off entertaining runs without driving off newcomers by showcasing Gotcha! The Sport.
I'm liking the feos/Warp tier re-organization idea more and more. It solves pretty much every problem I had with the Vault: The demotivating name and icon, the edge cases between Vault and Moons for a lot of runs, Vault runs not appearing in the Movies tab by default, Vault being the distinctly lowest tier and thus people assuming all the runs in it are shit... Plus, the new system basically retools Moon into a proper Demo/Playaround tier which is a huge plus in my opinion.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Samsara wrote:
Assuming the front page is the first thing everyone sees, they'll see a "Featured Run" and think it's going to be great, and then it'll be Toobin' or Where's Waldo and they won't exactly have a great opinion of the site anymore.
In defense for the Vault tier "Featured Run", there are some pretty good TASes that are currently featured on the front page, alone (Zero Tolerance, Hydlide, etc.), that would likely draw the attention of both new viewers as well as those who have already seen the majority of featured 'Star' runs who are looking for something different to watch.
That's just my take on it, though. I'm more in favor of making attractive tweaks to the Vault tier as opposed to setting up a new system, entirely.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Wait, that Ghosts 'n Goblins run is in the Vault?
EDIT: This is exactly why we need a Vault Showcase (or whatever the equivalent would be) on the front page. That's not something someone would find unless they're already looking for it. Plus it can generate interest in otherwise obscure games.
EDITWO: Incidentally trying to watch that movie in Bizhawk is hilarious.
Voted "Do something else" in support of the feos/Warp plan.
I guess it is "remove the vault tier", but it is really better organizing and categorizing of the main TAS goals.
I was skimming through the original vault idea thread: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13395 and saw many points that are very relevant to this discussion. It's funny how some of the points made then have now been brought up in this thread. Of course it is easier to see it now that it has been in place for a while.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2794
Location: Northern California
Well, why not just have a "Random Movie" section for all Vault/Moon movies instead of specifically featuring Vault? That way, every run on the site that isn't a Star/Recommended has far more of a chance of being discovered. There are a lot of Moon runs that don't get a lot of attention, after all. 9/10 of the runs listed there are Moon runs, some of them having been published for over half a year.
I'd love to see more attention paid to Vault movies, of course, but singling them out feels more like an act of pity to me, and it leaves out all the nice Moon runs that are being skipped over. Plus, if the new system is implemented, a Random Movie section would be able to stay just fine.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
I really like the feos/Warp plan of separating movies based on "any%/100%" or other goals (which would have to be entertaining to be accepted). No movie would be given a negative image based on tier and a TAS of every game that fits the Rules could still be made. And perhaps just as important, the greater visibility of Vault movies would get them more ratings!
As dunnius did, I'm voting "Do something else".
just stop separating the lists for games with vault runs and moons stars
It serves the purpose of separating their rules: we can accept an unlimited amount of runs we find enjoyable, but what's the point in removing the limit for boring ones? Making the site content more boring?
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 know that back in the original discussion, I was advocating having, rather than tiers, tags: "this run is entertaining", "this run is a speed record" (with many games being classified into both), but the admins disagreed with me.
The plan of having a "speed records tier" and a "side goals tier" is similar, but different. (I assume that side-goals runs would be accepted only if entertaining, and speed records would be accepted if they were verified as a record, regardless of entertainment value.)
This would also fix the poll on each of the submission threads to be something that would be used as intended. It's uncontroversial whether a run is aiming for any%/100% or not (sometimes it's controversial whether it succeeds, but that's not important here). Thus, for side-goals runs, a "do you think this should be accepted?" question would be equivalent to the current "do you find this entertaining?", and for any%/100% runs, it doesn't matter whether the run is entertaining, and so the "do you think that this should be accepted?" question is as relevant as any other.
Thus, I'm going to throw my support behind the "speed record" versus "side goal" distinction; it achieves most of what I want, and also simplifies things noticeably for the judges and submission viewers.
feos already answered how the submission poll question should be in that system:
feos wrote:
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?
i think of this site as the ultimate repository of TASes and therefore i support the acceptance of boring runs here,where else would they be archived and the records kept? if u want to separate objectives ok,but entertainment is an achievement of the run,not a goal itself
the playarounds and specific goal circumvent this idea but as long as it is the pinnacle of gameplay with a set goal or demonstration,i think the run is acceptable
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
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.
Seconded.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Well for starters, it's very easy to include vault tier when people list movies by platform. It's a URL that's part of our wiki (it currently goes NES-Star-Moons and if you change that to NES-Star-Moons-Vault it will include vault movies). Let's do that first.
Then, it strikes me that we could use some reorganizing. Regardless of what the original intent was, at present
Vault is for any% and 100% movies, except if they're entertaining
Moon is the default tier, since the majority of movies are in moon
Star is simply the highest-rated movies from moon (since to get added to star, it must have top ratings, and the lowest-rating movies are routinely removed from star)
...that probably wasn't the intent, but that's more-or-less how it turned out. It would help if we started clarifying what the intent actually is (and also, how the intent benefits from having "tiers").[/list]
Star is simply the highest-rated movies from moon (since to get added to star, it must have top ratings, and the lowest-rating movies are routinely removed from star)
I suppose I don't have any other choice than to give up, as it seems pointless to try to describe what the star tier really means (as far as I understand). I wonder how many times I have repeated the same things. Seems hopeless.
