Messages

1

Jump Videos / Re: Run of the week

« on: December 03, 2013, 01:07:01 PM »

Beginnings 2013 - ROTW #55 (Demoman) skeletoN on jump_zero_b1 [1:37:2]

Beginnings 2013 - ROTW #55 (Soldier) QuBA on jump_typh [2:35:5]

2

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013 point system revision?

« on: December 01, 2013, 11:34:06 AM »

To be fair, the system works fine if everyeone submits 5 demos, that was pretty obvious from the start. So everyone who didnt submit demos just doesnt seem to care enough.

Yea this is definitely true... A top runner could have gotten a decent time (compared to the current hiscores) within an hour of trying, which really isn't a lot of time per week. They just did not, for whatever reason. Perhaps the point system should remain as it is after all...

3

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013 point system revision?

« on: November 30, 2013, 10:06:33 PM »

With a constantly diminishing number of participants this would work fine. Also because the best are always submitting there's no issue of someone stealing first.

OR we could do it golf style and if someone doesn't submit they forfeit to last place +1 or any other number really. So 5 would be the best score possible (quba). I like this one the most actually.

The thing is that it's not constantly diminishing... it's a bit unpredictable... from 6 to 11 for demo? I don't know man, I'm really skeptical about factoring in the number of submissions. Merely being able to complete a map hardly means anything anyways imo. Anyone can submit a multi-hour time.

I also don't believe in heavily weighting the later stages. It can be just as hard to speedrun an easy map as a hard map. Perhaps some weight to the later ones, but not a huge amount.

Not too sure about what you mean about golf score thing. Anyways the thing I want to change with a point system revision is to enable someone who misses a stage but still does really well (like top 3 in the rest) will still have a chance of winning. From the sounds of it, the golf thing isn't fixing that (as you're placing someone who misses a stage into last place???) As it is, once you miss a stage, you pretty much lose all chance of placing highly, which is I don't think is good.

4

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013 point system revision?

« on: November 30, 2013, 09:33:22 PM »

Just average the points for all 5 stages.

Then a person could get 1st in a single map and not run and still be at least tied for 1st place overall

That's why I said ALL 5 stages. If someone gets 1st on one map and don't submit for the others they get 20 points. If someone gets 2nd on all maps they get 99 points at the end of the comp.

That's really no different than looking at the total sum of their scores though... you're just changing things by a factor of 5.

I've thought of an idea:
Use the 100 point scale still. At the end, average the total points per player by however many maps they speedran. And then provide an additional point bonus for each map they did speedrun. So if a player speedruns all 5, gets 2nd on all 5, they'd get (99*5)/5 + 5 = 104 points. If a player does 4 maps and gets 1st on all 4, they'd get (100*4)/4 + 4 = 104 (which would tie with the person who got 2nd on all 5). Someone who gets 5th on all 5 will get (96*5)/5 + 5 = 101. A person who gets 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th will get (100+99+98+97+96)/5 + 5 = 103. To me this feels like a pretty solid ranking system.

The 1 point bonus could be adjusted if it's found to be not optimal (maybe a 2 or more point bonus instead of just 1?). Perhaps a greater weight on the bonus point for the later stages? Tell me what you guys think.

5

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013 point system revision?

« on: November 30, 2013, 08:39:10 PM »

Just average the points for all 5 stages.

Then a person could get 1st in a single map and not run and still be at least tied for 1st place overall

I don't think there's a perfect system. The weighting based on number of demos submitted, however, takes things like difficulty of the map. It evens the field a bit more for people who don't submit demos every week. The best system would be to determine an "optimal" best case time for each map, then award points based on how far off the mark each person is. You would have to curve it to fit all of the outliers, and clearly this method would involve a good bit of work to standardize an optimal time. You could also fit the curve to fit the number one time (as opposed to a true "flawless" run), but everything has bias

The number of demos submitted doesn't reflect how hard a map is. Grimace got 6 (stage 2), zero got 11 (stage 3). Is one harder than the other? Tbh it's hard to say. It seems as though people will submit a run if they like the map more than anything. And then there are people like Alexgaara who submits hour+ long times (no offense to alexgaara), regardless of how hard the map is. And finding the ideal time to base a point system off is just not feasible.

I think for now I'll reduce the point scale to 10 points for first for now. Still not perfect. I think there's an optimal point system... not a perfect one though.

6

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013 point system revision?

« on: November 30, 2013, 07:15:05 PM »

That seems flawed though as well though....

Imagine one person gets: 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Another gets 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd. Now, one of these people is bound to lose over the other purely because of how many people submitted demos... It doesn't seem right.

7

General Discussion / Beginnings 2013 point system revision?

« on: November 30, 2013, 06:59:19 PM »

It's fairly obvious the point system is flawed. As it is, first place gets 100 points and then for each subsequent place, a person gets one less point until 0. But this basically means that if one doesn't do a run, they'll have no chance of winning (e.g. a person who gets 1st in 4 maps will lose to a person who gets 15th in 5). I can't seem to come up with a good solution to a new point system, if a new one is desired at all.

I thought about things like... adding a player's times then dividing by the their number of runs, so the person who has lowest time wins. But then there may be a map that takes a lot less time than the rest so a person speedrunning that map and only that map might win it all. Or scaling it differently so that 1st place gives 10 points, 2nd gives 9..., 10th gives 1, 11 or later gets 0. But this still has the same problem where a person who doesn't run at least once can be severely set back, though not as much as the 100 point scale.

Link to hiscores (at the moment overall isn't updated): http://bit.ly/HPg5TX

8

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013

« on: November 30, 2013, 04:54:26 PM »

A few people have complained about the map being too bright. Try mat_hdr_level 0 if it is. I personally like it bright as fuck.

9

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013

« on: November 30, 2013, 10:58:19 AM »

Stage 4:

jump_remember for demomen by Afterglow: http://bit.ly/1cdUlNa
jump_steel for soldiers by Ancient Grandpa: http://bit.ly/1ai8uEd

10

Dodge iT / Re: 3rd Dodgeball Tournament Registration

« on: November 28, 2013, 11:27:38 AM »

shunix's maps suck

Aurora: http://steamcommunity.com/id/aurorah/
Afterglow: http://steamcommunity.com/id/CaterpillarJones

sorry glow

YEA? JUST GONNA SIGN ME UP WITHOUT ASKING???

11

ChiLL0uT Z0nE / Re: Chillout needs maintenance

« on: November 27, 2013, 11:27:35 PM »

IS THERE MAYBE NEW DB + NEW databases.cfg with new name and pw? if you so how i could know that ? i read maybe 2-3 weeks ago from redwine there will be new db with logins. i have send him a pm and no answer SO FUCK IT i dont care about this. i have no time to nevers anyone everyday and search  for things ... do it byself and send me the link if you want it.

New db sounds interesting... so who will step up to the plate and help out papa w33d???

12

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013

« on: November 27, 2013, 10:24:32 AM »

I gave AG the map about 12 hours in advance, and implemented every suggestion he gave me (full map regen, a seamless tele for the triple, and a couple other small things), to only find him later call it a shit map on stream.

If I said that, I was probably just mad after grinding it a bit and unable to get a good run. I've called every map so far a shit map at some point out of frustration tbh (especially grimace). I don't think any of the new maps are shit, it just gets frustrating flawlessing up to a later jump over and over, essentially wasting hours of time. There were a few runs where I hit both of the big strats (the two ramps after the water jump and the double on the wall pogo), but then failed on a later jump (once where I glitched on the rampslide on third last)... pretty damn annoying. So yea, don't take it personally lol4

13

Whatever / Re: Raw videos of jumpers

« on: November 26, 2013, 11:33:11 PM »

guyyst RAW video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls3Q0yyC558

14

ChiLL0uT Z0nE / Re: Chillout needs maintenance

« on: November 26, 2013, 11:31:13 PM »

The !nominate should bring up an alphabetical list of maps.

15

General Discussion / Re: Beginnings 2013

« on: November 26, 2013, 11:21:55 PM »

I can understand this type of curve, assuming that the goal is to determine the absolute "best" jumpers, since times in maps that are too easy would be so close for the top people. Of course that also means that after the first couple stages it's only the pros who will be competing, which may be what was intended after all, like eliminations in a tournament.

If it was meant to be a friendly competition to get noob and "pubstar" level jumpers invested more in the jumping community, it could have been handled a bit differently I guess.  Maybe that's an option for a future competition.  Something where people of lower skill level can still complete the maps, and are motivated to compete with each other, even though they realize that they won't be beating the big 10 or whatever at the top.  Losing 70% of your competitors after the first week doesn't seem ideal in any case.

It's also just the fact that this is a first attempt at something like this, and since the maps apparently aren't being tested by multiple people beforehand, it's understandably tricky to balance.

the issue is, Afterglow didn't really designate how hard the maps should have been. if we were given more time and more maps to compare to, the curve would have been much better and everyone should have been able to do stage 3. maps are being tested, but not by the runners themselves as they would have gained an advantage to the maps. This means we (I) am not able to get the spacing and everything correctly.

also bqe you suck anyways 0/10

I gave existing maps as references. You guys just dropped the ball, don't blame me for missing your mark by a large margin. Everyone's maps so far are harder than I intended, aside from Drexen who was intended to be stage 5 but for various reasons is now stage 3.

Soldier:
stage 1 - jump_impact
stage 2 - jump_sexydev
stage 3 - jump_tholos
stage 4 - jump_bomb
stage 5 - jump_klanana
stage 6 - no harder than jump_torii

Demo:
stage 1 - jump_embrace
stage 2 - easier than tissue
stage 3 - jump_ring/revenge
stage 4 - harder than tissue, easier than devils
stage 5 - easier than jump_drexen2
stage 6 - no harder than jump_koi

Demo was a bit wonky as the mappers and I had different ideas about what was difficult. For instance, I don't think devils is necessarily harder than tissue but that's what the mapmaker suggested.

As for the drop-off of players, I suppose it's to be expected. Speedrunning doesn't seem all that popular. It seems to be a thing in TF2 to avoid competition. Dunno why but TF2 seems to attract the most casuals of any game I've played. The thing is also that it can get very tedious to get a good run, which is why a lot of people aren't bothering participating (like torii and aurora). I'd say that all of the top jumpers could have gotten a top 10 time on void (abiding by the existing top 10 times) within 30 minutes to be honest, seems like people just really don't wanna do it. I myself had quite a few runs that would have been top 10 on void but I just didn't bother since it would have made me look noob (like guyyst's time of 1:40; obviously he is better than that). Getting a good time often times means just grinding the map for hours, which is perhaps a flaw of a tournament like this. What if we did something different like a trickjump tournament? I thought about that too, but ultimately judging a trickjump as being better than a different trickjump is purely subjective, whereas speedrunning is not. How little time they took to beat a map is all you need to know.

And it was fairly obvious the top runners would win and there would not be any new comers rise to the top (even though to me, there have been newcomers, such as tusic76). But let me just say that when I conceived of run of the week it was made for primarily for jumpers, more specifically speedrunners. Likewise, the same target audience was intended for this tournament. I would not have allowed a bunch of easy maps in a speedrun tournament designed for speedrunners. Even if the maps were a lot easier, the same top runners would still be at the top (just look at orbital and amazon). I'll say, we've seemed to attract a lot of non-jumpers and beginners who are subscribed to us, which is not a bad thing. But as a whole, their opinion is uninformed and often times flat out wrong. You often see dislikes about a run not being flawless or mediocre runs getting a ton of views for some reason (fribe's pure run notably). "Flawless" doesn't mean shit, only the time, but people don't seem to be aware of that. Like when I have a run where I use a shortcut(s) and I get #1 and people start bitching about it. Correcting them is futile... they just won't know until they seriously attempt speedrunning themselves.

I don't know what kind of incentive could have been used for the noob/newcomer jumpers either... Giving out rewards for non-top jumpers seems really silly and if I did something like make a video of their runs that would also be really silly imo (no one wants to watch a bad jumper, to put it bluntly...). And what if for example jamien decided to participate? There's no videos of him at all, yet he's one of the best soldiers in NA if not the best. Would he have been considered a newcomer? I saw a comment on one of our videos: "I think it would be fun if there was a tournament for up and coming jumpers instead of the top 5 just winning all the time.?" which has 28 upvotes atm. There's absolutely no way for us to verify if a jumper is "up-and-coming."

Honestly, I just think competitions for jumping just don't seem to catch on. There's been shit like jump challenges a long, long time ago on dellort's channel, but it just died off. Nonetheless, I think you'll see that if you look back, jumping's skill ceiling has increased by a lot. There have been some pretty insane jumps and runs the past year... I suppose that was my ultimate goal in organizing this tournament - to bring more buzz to the jumping scene and show how good people can really get. Perhaps after the tournament is over more people would be encouraged and try out jumping seriously. So if a tournament happens next year, we'd see more serious competition.