|
Post by thatoneuser on Jan 21, 2011 16:50:28 GMT -5
The reason older competitors are so low on the list is because statistically, they competed on weaker courses. (I don't think anyone is going to say that 1-4's Final Stage is easier than 18-23's)
|
|
|
Post by roy on Jan 22, 2011 10:53:22 GMT -5
^ that should be true for all calculations. Weaker courses should have less weight. However, achieving victory should (technically...) guarantee a competitor a higher position than one who hasn't. But it is still reasonable by the 'weaker course-less points' rule including victory.
And I don't really understand why finishing time(s) counts. The only figure of time remaining which has ever mattered in Sasuke is 0.00s.
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Jan 22, 2011 15:06:50 GMT -5
And I don't really understand why finishing time(s) counts. The only figure of time remaining which has ever mattered in Sasuke is 0.00s. That is something that I would've liked to address for those who didn't clear the stage, but timed out, via the obstacle percents I made on a previous page. It would probably be even more accurate, and if scnoi can maybe he could factor it in somehow (though I do believe he's already done so pretty well, and trying to get it more accurate would probably create more trouble than it's worth). And even so with both this and the "time bonus" thing you mentioned, I get what you're trying to say but it only seems fair IMO. For example, should Levi's nearly flawless Stage 1 clear in 23 be worth as much as Li's whose was much slower and more flawed in that same tournament? Not really equal in grading it in this system if you ask me, especially if you consider that he wouldn't have even cleared if the time limit was only 115 seconds (by which case Li would not have even moved on and therefore earned more points). Putting it into perspective, in many video games once you finish a level/stage/whatever you are awarded an appropriate amount of points based on how efficiently you did and how much time you had left. More points for "better" runs, fewer points for "less ideal" runs. That's pretty much what I figured would make sense here as well since in several ways they are similar to those respects. Besides, calculations such as these won't make a significant difference in the long run, but they do seem to balance the list better compared to not having them included at all. Regardless of whatever way you look at it (and this has been said before multiple times), there is no perfect system of ranking competitors by performance throughout all of the competitions. The course is almost always changing, the skill level of competitors differ each tournament, and many other factors (weather, luck, etc.) make it virtually impossible to make this list completely accuarate. Same thing with sheep's Sim Sasuke program---we can only get so close in accuracy, but it's close enough that it's pretty close to correct.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Jan 22, 2011 19:49:15 GMT -5
Aside from the time(I understand what you mean now), I really like how this is done. It's a great picture of the capabilities and achievements of all competitors. Are points taken away for having to take multiple attempts at obstacles? That could be another measure of efficiency(albeit a small one, since you'd expect someone who had two attempts at the HPA to fail the 1st stage ).
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Jan 22, 2011 20:01:59 GMT -5
Aside from the time(I understand what you mean now), I really like how this is done. It's a great picture of the capabilities and achievements of all competitors. Are points taken away for having to take multiple attempts at obstacles? That could be another measure of efficiency(albeit a small one, since you'd expect someone who had two attempts at the HPA to fail the 1st stage ). That does kinda go along with time though since it takes longer to complete the obstacles.
|
|
|
Post by dudesky1000 on Jan 23, 2011 16:15:34 GMT -5
I think the points system should be more weighted on what OBSTACLES were cleared rather than stages... so I think the first thing that needs to be done is create a ranking of the toughest obstacles based on what we know...
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Jan 23, 2011 21:31:14 GMT -5
I think the points system should be more weighted on what OBSTACLES were cleared rather than stages... so I think the first thing that needs to be done is create a ranking of the toughest obstacles based on what we know... That's what I made the obstacle percents on one of the earlier pages for. Unless someone cleared the entire course, there were percentages for how many points they would receive depending how far they got in a stage. Harder obstacles get more percent, while easier obstacles get less percent (all of which is judged accordingly to how many obstacles there are in a stage as well). For example, in 26 someone who failed the Half-Pipe Attack would get more points for that tournament than someone who failed the Hazard Swing. One thing that has been mentioned though that I'm not sure if scnoi was able to address is how for some of the tougher/longer obstacles a competitor should get more points for progressing farther in it than someone who failed it early on. Does it make sense, for example, that in Sasuke 23 Hashimoto gets as much credit for failing the Salmon Ladder right away as Ito who failed the final rung? Not really. If scnoi is able to program the calculator to address this issue, it would make it even more accurate. One thing I could think of is by putting in a decimal varying on how much of an obstacle like the Salmon Ladder, Pipe Slider, UCH, Jumping Spider, etc. was cleared instead of everyone getting no credit whatsoever on it. For example, in 23 Hashimoto could be credited as having cleared 1 obstacle in Stage 2 while Ito could be credited as having cleared 1.75 obstacles or something like that. Now granted this cannot be done with some obstacles, but with others accuracy would be improved relatively much.
|
|
|
Post by dudesky1000 on Jan 23, 2011 22:13:24 GMT -5
I think the points system should be more weighted on what OBSTACLES were cleared rather than stages... so I think the first thing that needs to be done is create a ranking of the toughest obstacles based on what we know... That's what I made the obstacle percents on one of the earlier pages for. Unless someone cleared the entire course, there were percentages for how many points they would receive depending how far they got in a stage. Harder obstacles get more percent, while easier obstacles get less percent (all of which is judged accordingly to how many obstacles there are in a stage as well). For example, in 26 someone who failed the Half-Pipe Attack would get more points for that tournament than someone who failed the Hazard Swing. One thing that has been mentioned though that I'm not sure if scnoi was able to address is how for some of the tougher/longer obstacles a competitor should get more points for progressing farther in it than someone who failed it early on. Does it make sense, for example, that in Sasuke 23 Hashimoto gets as much credit for failing the Salmon Ladder right away as Ito who failed the final rung? Not really. If scnoi is able to program the calculator to address this issue, it would make it even more accurate. One thing I could think of is by putting in a decimal varying on how much of an obstacle like the Salmon Ladder, Pipe Slider, UCH, Jumping Spider, etc. was cleared instead of everyone getting no credit whatsoever on it. For example, in 23 Hashimoto could be credited as having cleared 1 obstacle in Stage 2 while Ito could be credited as having cleared 1.75 obstacles or something like that. Now granted this cannot be done with some obstacles, but with others accuracy would be improved relatively much. Yeah... then we start to talk about the UCH!!
|
|
|
Post by jfeathe on Jan 25, 2011 16:04:45 GMT -5
I think the points system should be more weighted on what OBSTACLES were cleared rather than stages... so I think the first thing that needs to be done is create a ranking of the toughest obstacles based on what we know... That's what I made the obstacle percents on one of the earlier pages for. Unless someone cleared the entire course, there were percentages for how many points they would receive depending how far they got in a stage. Harder obstacles get more percent, while easier obstacles get less percent (all of which is judged accordingly to how many obstacles there are in a stage as well). For example, in 26 someone who failed the Half-Pipe Attack would get more points for that tournament than someone who failed the Hazard Swing. One thing that has been mentioned though that I'm not sure if scnoi was able to address is how for some of the tougher/longer obstacles a competitor should get more points for progressing farther in it than someone who failed it early on. Does it make sense, for example, that in Sasuke 23 Hashimoto gets as much credit for failing the Salmon Ladder right away as Ito who failed the final rung? Not really. If scnoi is able to program the calculator to address this issue, it would make it even more accurate. One thing I could think of is by putting in a decimal varying on how much of an obstacle like the Salmon Ladder, Pipe Slider, UCH, Jumping Spider, etc. was cleared instead of everyone getting no credit whatsoever on it. For example, in 23 Hashimoto could be credited as having cleared 1 obstacle in Stage 2 while Ito could be credited as having cleared 1.75 obstacles or something like that. Now granted this cannot be done with some obstacles, but with others accuracy would be improved relatively much. I agree with you completely, but it's just not practical. It would makes things a tiny bit more accurate, but I just don't think it would be worth the extra effort.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Jan 25, 2011 16:24:30 GMT -5
That's what I made the obstacle percents on one of the earlier pages for. Unless someone cleared the entire course, there were percentages for how many points they would receive depending how far they got in a stage. Harder obstacles get more percent, while easier obstacles get less percent (all of which is judged accordingly to how many obstacles there are in a stage as well). For example, in 26 someone who failed the Half-Pipe Attack would get more points for that tournament than someone who failed the Hazard Swing. One thing that has been mentioned though that I'm not sure if scnoi was able to address is how for some of the tougher/longer obstacles a competitor should get more points for progressing farther in it than someone who failed it early on. Does it make sense, for example, that in Sasuke 23 Hashimoto gets as much credit for failing the Salmon Ladder right away as Ito who failed the final rung? Not really. If scnoi is able to program the calculator to address this issue, it would make it even more accurate. One thing I could think of is by putting in a decimal varying on how much of an obstacle like the Salmon Ladder, Pipe Slider, UCH, Jumping Spider, etc. was cleared instead of everyone getting no credit whatsoever on it. For example, in 23 Hashimoto could be credited as having cleared 1 obstacle in Stage 2 while Ito could be credited as having cleared 1.75 obstacles or something like that. Now granted this cannot be done with some obstacles, but with others accuracy would be improved relatively much. I agree with you completely, but it's just not practical. It would makes things a tiny bit more accurate, but I just don't think it would be worth the extra effort. We could do this, but I think then the system would have to be completely re-worked. Essentially, we would have to give points for each step a person takes. Make it to the 8th step of the Jyundantobi? That would technically be worth more than a guy that only made it to the 3rd step. Same would go for the Jumping Spider. Colin Bell in 19 should get less than Nagano in 26 and both should get less than Nagano in 24. We could apply this way of thinking to every obstacle (Rolling Escargot spins, how many times it takes to scale the WW, etc) but honestly, like jfeathe said, it would not be practical. Plus, the difference in points would be that much to warrant all that work i.e. the list would pretty much stay the same as it is now.
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Jan 25, 2011 17:44:48 GMT -5
I agree with you completely, but it's just not practical. It would makes things a tiny bit more accurate, but I just don't think it would be worth the extra effort. We could do this, but I think then the system would have to be completely re-worked. Essentially, we would have to give points for each step a person takes. Make it to the 8th step of the Jyundantobi? That would technically be worth more than a guy that only made it to the 3rd step. Same would go for the Jumping Spider. Colin Bell in 19 should get less than Nagano in 26 and both should get less than Nagano in 24. We could apply this way of thinking to every obstacle (Rolling Escargot spins, how many times it takes to scale the WW, etc) but honestly, like jfeathe said, it would not be practical. Plus, the difference in points would be that much to warrant all that work i.e. the list would pretty much stay the same as it is now. Yeah I understand that for pretty much all the reasons you guys mentioned, and it would definitely cause more trouble than it's worth. And for the most part, it doesn't really matter that much---if you pass the obstacle, you pass it; if you fail the obstacle (whether it be in the beginning, middle, or end), you fail it. Point blank, this is no big deal for more than 90% of the obstacles. It's just that for the toughest obstacles (UCH and Salmon Ladder especially) it would seem kinda messed up if someone who fails right away gets the same credit as someone who nearly clears it. For example, if in a future tournament someone fails when getting to the final ledge of the UCH, does it make sense for them to get an equal amount of points as somebody who fails on the first ledge? Not really. Trust me though, I am very happy with the system as it is right now. If however we ever feel like improving upon it at some point in the future I think we should incorporate this and a few other possible ideas.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Oct 5, 2011 10:05:37 GMT -5
Moved to the 27 board. We need to start updating this list. First thing to do is to determine stage difficulty points. So how hard was 27's course (each stage) relative to older SASUKE stages?
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Oct 5, 2011 15:52:00 GMT -5
Although so many people cleared Stage 1, it still had a lot tough obstacles and even took out a few top competitors. Therefore, I feel that Sasuke 27's First Stage deserves a 7. This Stage 2 was arguably the toughest one ever, which I say because it was virtually the same as 25 and 26's but with a 5-second time cut. Either way, I feel it still deserves a 10. Stage 3 was toned down rather drastically for this tournament compared to the previous 2, but it was still extremely difficult. So I'd give it an 8 or 9, depending on what it was given for 25 and 26 (i.e. probably 1 point lower). The new Final Stage may have been beaten on only its second attempt, but keep in mind that Yuuji has focused a lot on rope climbing and stamina. Nevertheless, for most other competitors it would require much more out of them than what would be needed to clear it in 40 seconds. In comparison to the previous 3 versions of the Final Stage, I think this one should get a 7 or 8. Also thank you scnoi for bringing this up again! I nearly forgot about it.
|
|
|
Post by zdude69closedrofl on Oct 6, 2011 20:34:48 GMT -5
Obstacle percentages?
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Oct 8, 2011 10:42:15 GMT -5
Stage 1 Step Slider 10% Rolling Escargot 30% Giant Swing 40% Jumping Spider 52.5% Half-pipe Attack 65% Soritatsu Kabe 70% Spin Bridge 85% Tarzan Rope 90% Rope Ladder 100%
Stage 2 Slider Drop 12.5% Double Salmon Ladder 50% Unstable Bridge 57.5% Balance Tank 65% Metal Spin 85% Wall Lifting 100%
Stage 3 Arm Bike 2.5% Flying Bar 17.5% Ultimate Cliffhanger 57.5% Jumping Rings 62.5% Chain See-Saw 80% Rope Climb 87.5% Bar Glider 100%
|
|
|
Post by zdude69closedrofl on Oct 14, 2011 0:24:53 GMT -5
Stage 1Step Slider 10% Rolling Escargot 30% Giant Swing 40% Jumping Spider 52.5% Half-pipe Attack 65% Soritatsu Kabe 70% Spin Bridge 85% Tarzan Rope 90% Rope Ladder 100% Stage 2Slider Drop 12.5% Double Salmon Ladder 50% Unstable Bridge 57.5% Balance Tank 65% Metal Spin 85% Wall Lifting 100% Stage 3Arm Bike 2.5% Flying Bar 17.5% Ultimate Cliffhanger 57.5% Jumping Rings 62.5% Chain See-Saw 80% Rope Climb 87.5% Bar Glider 100% Merh, shouldn't Jumping Spider be a little less? HPA took out more competitors this time.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Oct 14, 2011 0:40:27 GMT -5
Stage 1Step Slider 10% Rolling Escargot 30% Giant Swing 40% Jumping Spider 52.5% Half-pipe Attack 65% Soritatsu Kabe 70% Spin Bridge 85% Tarzan Rope 90% Rope Ladder 100% Stage 2Slider Drop 12.5% Double Salmon Ladder 50% Unstable Bridge 57.5% Balance Tank 65% Metal Spin 85% Wall Lifting 100% Stage 3Arm Bike 2.5% Flying Bar 17.5% Ultimate Cliffhanger 57.5% Jumping Rings 62.5% Chain See-Saw 80% Rope Climb 87.5% Bar Glider 100% Merh, shouldn't Jumping Spider be a little less? HPA took out more competitors this time. Both were shown to take out 3 people each. The WW was shown to take out 6 people.
|
|
|
Post by RiderLeangle on Oct 14, 2011 1:16:06 GMT -5
The WW was shown to take out 6 people. 6? Kishimoto Shinya, Okada Yuichi, Drew Drechsel, Satomi Kohei and Yamada Katsumi were all I remember, am I missing someone? And this is assuming Drew's injury counts as a SK fail
|
|
|
Post by zdude69closedrofl on Oct 16, 2011 17:05:02 GMT -5
The WW was shown to take out 6 people. 6? Kishimoto Shinya, Okada Yuichi, Drew Drechsel, Satomi Kohei and Yamada Katsumi were all I remember, am I missing someone? And this is assuming Drew's injury counts as a SK fail You're right. I checked the Sasukepedia for the 27th tournament, and it indeed only took out five people. So Warped Wall should be counted as a bit more than the HPA.
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Oct 18, 2011 13:24:17 GMT -5
Step Slider 10% Rolling Escargot 30% Giant Swing 40% Jumping Spider 47.5% Half-pipe Attack 57.5% Soritatsu Kabe 70% Spin Bridge 85% Tarzan Rope 90% Rope Ladder 100%
Better?
|
|