Genesis

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Sep 2004 12:16

wolfpac444 wrote:Cameron, can you explain how that would work / walk me through the logic of that system with something like atom smasher?

It doesn't illustrate well . . . I'll try to use these four lines to point out the components as I see them

TC= Trick Components (jobs) :
NCEFP= Next Component Elegible for paradox (Bonus Point //XDEX) :
GBP= Gets Bonus Point/add/xdex/whatever
GPA= Gets Paradox ADD

Code: Select all

 
Atom Smasher 
TC      : Toe > Op Out [dex]  > Op In [dex] >op toe [del]
NCEFP :  NO >  YES               > NO             >
GBP    :  NO  > NO                 > YES  [bonus]> 
GPA    : NO   > NO                 > NO               > 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          dex        + (dex +bonus) + del = 4 thingies          

Paradox Tapping Whirl 
TC       : clip > op out [dex] > same in [dex] > op clip 
NCEFP  : YES >  YES            > NO                > 
GBP     : NO   >  NO             > NO                > 
GPA     : NO    > YES             > NO                > 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                         (dex+paradox) + dex + (xdb+del) = 5 thingies
Nuclear Whirl 
TC       : clip > op out [dex] > op in [dex] > op clip
NCEFP  : YES> YES              >NO             > 
GBP     : NO  > NO               > YES           >
GPA     : NO  > YES              >  NO            > 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       (dex+paradox) + (dex+bonus) + (xbd+del) = 6 thingies

So the idea is atom smasher gets a bonus thingy because the mirage following the atomic set is a paradox mirage. Some people will say the bag is in front of them after the set . . . but at some point the bag was on the far side of the body, and the reason it's in front of you now is the conditioning spent to rotate into the position for the mirage. The mirage is a paradox mirage. Even though I believe the bonus point above is a paradox add, I seperate them to help see where the bonus is applied.

I tried to use the > to seperate the trick components in all four lines . . . but formatting this to look good is a bitch, enjoy.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Sep 2004 12:54

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Sep 2004 13:30

I already said it doesn't illustrate well . . . it's either blatantly obvious, or you don't see it at all. It's just a floating window of what scoreable entities the next component is eligible for given the bags positioning.

SUMO is paradox atomsmasher

TC= Trick Components (jobs) :
NCEFP= Next Component Elegible for paradox (Bonus Point //XDEX) :
GBP= Gets Bonus Point/add/xdex/whatever
GPA= Gets Paradox ADD

Code: Select all

TC       : clip   > op out [dex] > op in [dex]     > op toe [del] 
NCEFP   : YES  >    YES         >    NO             > 
GBP     : NO   >    NO           >    YES           > 
GPA     : NO   >    YES         >     NO            >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                   (dex+paradox) + (dex+bonus) + del = 5 thingies.

Make sense to anyone ? I generally get the same answers as XDEX purists . . my difficulty fudge factor just happens to be easy to code into applications like video games, scoring systems, and jobs parsers.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Sep 2004 14:31

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Sep 2004 14:51

FlexThis wrote:So you reward both the PDX element and the thingy element for Sumo.
.

Yes. The paradox concept is defined in such a limited way that it is practically useless. I personally think the "thingy/bonus/xdex/" element is very very very very very closlely related to the paradox element. . . I can't say they are the same as paradox because paradox has already been defined in a way that limits paradox to the first dex of tricks set from clipper, oh, and some spinning tricks, and sometimes the dex following a stepping set . . .buwah.

I still score paradox . . . I just added it's closely related friend, "thingy" into the equation instead of XDEX.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Sep 2004 15:36

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 17 Sep 2004 15:49

Paradox Blur

TC= Trick Components (jobs) :
NCEFP= Next Component Elegible for paradox (Bonus Point //XDEX) :
GBP= Gets Bonus Point/add/xdex/whatever
GPA= Gets Paradox ADD

TC :clip > same in [dex] > op in [dex] > op toe [del[
NCEFP :YES > YES > NO >
GBP :NO > NO > YES >
GPA : NO > YES > NO >
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(dex+paradox) + (dex + bonus) + del = 5 thingies

The first dex is "paradox", and nothing can take that away . . . however since it is done as a stepping set, we know the next dex can be paradox if related properly to the prior dex. The first half of the first dex moves the bag to the far side, making the second dex eligble for a paradox add . . . without taking away the legit paradoxidness of the first dex. In effect, the paradox and the following very very very very very very closely related to paradox element overlap in time.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 17 Sep 2004 16:49

Tsiangkun wrote: The first dex is "paradox", and nothing can take that away . . . however since it is done as a stepping set, we know the next dex can be paradox if related properly to the prior dex. The first half of the first dex moves the bag to the far side, making the second dex eligble for a paradox add . . . without taking away the legit paradoxidness of the first dex. In effect, the paradox and the following very very very very very very closely related to paradox element overlap in time.

I think that is a weak explanation; it seems like a lot of "hand-waving". If the first half of the first dex brings it to the far side, then the last half of that dex brings it back to the center.

ShredPirate · Post by **ShredPirate** » 17 Sep 2004 19:22

i still think only toe moves should get xdex.

and to explain sumo, you can think of that move as a toe move, done paradox. any toe move can be done paradox, like eggbeater and dlo.

it is a "paradox" atom smasher, and since atomsmasher already gets xdex, so would sumo.
and 69 i don't think should get xdex, cause it can get 2 paradox adds. the paradox that is attached to the nuclear dex, and the paradox that is attached to the pdx drifter-like motion after the set.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 18 Sep 2004 08:23

wolfpac444 wrote:
I think that is a weak explanation; it seems like a lot of "hand-waving". If the first half of the first dex brings it to the far side, then the last half of that dex brings it back to the center.

It's the same fudge factor that puts the paradox in blurrywhirl, blur, and fog. I don't think there is a paradox in these tricks. . . but since it's accepted, I had to fudge where it comes from for a moving window system. The only thing I could come up with was the first dex was added ontop of the paradox second dex, and the first dex is done while the body is positioning through the paradox element of the second dex.

Yes it's weak, it's hard to make an argument stronger than the foundation upon which it is built.

david · Post by **david** » 18 Sep 2004 08:42

I didnt spend like, 20 minutes reading all this, but i skimmed it, and why does it matter so much if sumo is 4 or 5 or a 1 or whatever? Why is it such a heated discussion?

If this has been answered, and i just missed it, sorry.

footjoe · Post by **footjoe** » 18 Sep 2004 13:05

Adds are a big joke. They cuase to many debats and shit its dumb. They should just be catagorized on hardness.

~joe~

B_Man · Post by **B_Man** » 18 Sep 2004 13:34

footjoe wrote:They should just be catagorized on hardness.

Honestly, how can you catagorize tricks on hardness? Different tricks are harder for different people so that wouldn't work either.

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 18 Sep 2004 16:54

To me it's somewhat worth it to debate adds because if you attempt to make adds represent a trick's difficulty, a person would be more likely to throw it down in shred 30, thus allowing for very different styles in shred 30.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 19 Sep 2004 01:42

Categorising moves based on hardness doesnt work. Period. Theres no point in trying to bend the Add system to fit this idea because it wont work and its pointless. As has been said before, the Add system was developed in order to describe moves in text form, and wont be anything more unless an entirely new system is developed to achieve Hardness categorisation, if thats what we happened to want. Which i dont think the game really needs.

EDIT: Interestingly, despite what i wrote above, i accept XDEX. I dont understand it but i accept it when a majority agrees a move gets XDEX. Do i contradict myself? I guess thats gonna happen when discussing this topic, go figure

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 19 Sep 2004 02:46

I don't see how anyone can think that the intention of the add system is not an attempt to describe the difficulty of a trick. If one wants to describe a move in "text form", then one has to use Job's notation. Although commonly included within a trick's Job's notation, the add system is something completely seperate.

kaos · Post by **kaos** » 19 Sep 2004 03:13

I agree with Mike.

Kenny Shultz wrote:The Add System

The Add system was "invented" by myself and Rick Reese while driving to a
tournament in Santa Rosa, CA from Eugene, OR. I don't recall the exact
motivation for the discussion but it is a long drive so it seemed to pass the
time pretty well. A point rating system with defined categories of elements
gave us a systematic means of thinking up new tricks to try. We just had to
imagine different combinations of elements trying to build harder and harder
tricks. While the Add system may have outlived it's usefulness, it is almost
solely responsible for the rapid expansion of the global freestyle
vocabulary. It has certainly led down some blind alleys but each of those
wrong turns has the potential to lead to something cool. How many Adds a
trick has isn't the destination, but the pursuit of bigger Adds has resulted
in some pretty cool tricks. For every Reverse Whirl or Symposium Butterfly
there is also a Mobius and a Vortex. And keep in mind that from Symposium
Butterfly to Superfly is a very short trip.

quoted from the mailing list

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 Sep 2004 10:40

I don't see how anyone can think that the intention of the add system is not an attempt to describe the difficulty of a trick. If one wants to describe a move in "text form", then one has to use Job's notation. Although commonly included within a trick's Job's notation, the add system is something completely seperate..

Wow. That was very nicely put, Mike. Thank you for bringing this up. I just get the feeling sometimes that people don't distinguish these things and other freestyle-related issues properly, and it is frustrating to me. One cannot say that ADDs and Jobs are the same thing just because they are used in conjunction, and to substitute one for the other, or to confuse them with other rules, is to misuse these tools, sometimes to our detriment.

footjoe · Post by **footjoe** » 19 Sep 2004 11:28

Yeah I guess basing a trick on hardness can not possible be done. I undertand all of this about the jobs and stuff . But who the hell cares if genesis gets a x-dex for a fucking extra add. Ide still give them major props of hitting even if it was a 2 add trick. I look at atomsmasher as a 3 add myself because I dont get into the x-dexy stuff. obviously its harder than a butterfly or a pdx mirage but thats what makes each trick unique.Im just typing what i think it prolly doesnt make any sense but what ever.

~joe~