Genesis

[Shredster]

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~

I agree with what you said, which is why we need to modify the add system to fit difficulty. Who cares if butterfly is a 7 add and genesis is 14 adds?! Either we mod the add system, or we come up with an entirely new system, and therefore, keep the add system as strictly a move categorizer. ORR, we can complain about it.

[jon]

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~

I agree with what you said, which is why we need to modify the add system to fit difficulty. Who cares if butterfly is a 7 add and genesis is 14 adds?! Either we mod the add system, or we come up with an entirely new system, and therefore, keep the add system as strictly a move categorizer. ORR, we can complain about it.

Since difficulty is subjective the only system that would work would be a subjective one. A good reference would be the rock climbing scale where the first person to climb a route assigns it a rating and then over time as more people climb the route they either say if they agree with the rating or give their own opinion of the difficulty, over time a consensus is reached. If someone where to start a online database where all the tricks were listed and players could go and rate them then overtime a fair difficulty rating could be agreed upon, whenever a new trick is performed the inventor could give it a temporary rating and as more players learn to perfom the trick they could give their input on its difficulty rating. The only problems with such a system would making sure that only people that had performed the trick were allowed to rate it.

[ted]

Blah fucking blah blah.

Why is this still an issue? We all know what good shred is.

[Tsiangkun]

Blah fucking blah blah.

Why is this still an issue? We all know what good shred is.

For applications like video games and stat tracking, there is a need for a difficulty measuring system. Video games don't let the user enter the score they want for each trick, and to dynamically generate tricks like THPS, the game needs a way to determine trick difficulty. By using a floating window of opportunity, I propose the individual components of a trick can be assigned relative points of difficulty. These component difficulty measurments can be used to generate trick difficulty scores.

One camp thinks adds and the adds system is the way to go, and with enough tweaks it can be made to work. The other camp is in favor of something new specifically designed to measure difficulty, seperate from the add system.

[CICFreestyler 17]

I think most everyone agrees that the current system needs to be changed but some of the ideas be thrown out there are just ludacris! The system has to be simple and easy to understand, especially if we want to apeal more to the general public. I was thinking about something like this:

Dex=1
Delay=1
Spin=1
Duck=1
PDX=.5
Symp=.5
Symp 2dex=1
3 Dex=.5
4 Dex=1

Ex. Ripwalk=3 (2dex, 1delay)
Atom Smasher=3 (2dex, 1delay)
Sumo=3.5 (2dex, .5pdx, 1delay)
blurry whirl=3.5 (2dex, .5pdx, 1delay)
blurriest=4.5 (3dex, 1dealy, .5 for 3 dexes)
nemesis=6 (4dex, 1delay, 1 for 4 dexes)
montage=4.5
whirlwind=4
pdx mirage=2.5
ps whirl=3
blurry symp whirl=4.5

So far this seems to make sense. There are always going to be minor problems in all systems because there are so many tricks and the sport is so complex. Play around with this and let me know what you think. One more thing, all delays should be 1 and there should be no cross body. I think all adavanced freestylers might agree that ending a move on a clipper is no harder than ending one on a toe. It actually might be easier.

Peace out,
Brian
CIC

[Outsider]

One more thing, all delays should be 1 and there should be no cross body. I think all adavanced freestylers might agree that ending a move on a clipper is no harder than ending one on a toe. It actually might be easier.

I'll object to this. While Brian is correct about clipper being just as easy as toe stall, clipper is not the only cross-body move.
I'll make a counter-suggestion: There should be no Delay ADD. If advanced freestylers would think about it for a few minutes, I think they'd realize that most delays are actually easier than kicks when you consider freestyle moves as a whole. Playing advanced freestyle without any delays would be far more difficult. Prove me wrong and show me your 20 contact tiltless strings. I know it can be done, and I've seen them, but they're very limited and predictable (flying clippers, butterfliers, and dragonfliers)(And where have the multi-dex, spinning-ducking, and paradox-symposiums elements gone to now?) So my theory goes that Delays do not deserve to get rewarded with a point for their difficulty because they are actually making the game much easier for us. Rather, they should be, like, negative ADDs.

[FlexThis]

[Stoke]

I like Kenny’s original way of thinking- That the add system be used to help you think of new, more complex moves, and to push yourself to hit them. But the need has arisen for a difficulty rating for each move.

Why is this still an issue? We all know what good shred is.

The only reason we need a difficulty rating for each move is for competition, specifically the shred:30. The add system isn’t perfect, but it seems to be the best system that we have. Any system that we could create would have many of the same problems. Nothing would be perfect.
So since we’re already using the add system to score the shred:30, I believe it would be in our best interest to modify it to more accurately reflect the difficulty of each move. Whoever invented the concept of x-dex was trying to do just that. They weren’t “add-hunting.” They weren’t just trying to give themselves an extra pat on the back just for hitting moves like atom smasher. They were trying to make the add system a more accurate gauge of difficulty. They were trying to give people a reason to use a beautiful move in their shred:30 routines- a move that is more difficult than it’s add-rating [without x-dex] would reflect.

the mirage at the end of fury is a full dex. However the barraging set is not - it is either half a dex plus a full dex (meaning fury would get an x dex) or it is a total of one a half dexes for 2 dexes adds - making each dex more than a half dex but less than a full dex (lets say 3/4 of a dex) - thus meaning that the move shouldn't get an x dex.

By the logic of the second option there, if I hit a triaging pdx mirage, the move should still only get 6 adds [without x-dex], because if you divide the number of full dexes in the set [2.5] by the number of adds you get for the dexes [3], then each dex would be only .83 of a full dex. That also means that no matter how many times you dex the bag before it peaks, none of them will be a full dex, which negates the possibility for getting x-dex for the move.
The point of all that is this: Forget about adds for a second. Forget about dexes. A barraging set is one movement. In that one movement, your leg will do more than one complete revolution of the bag, which constitutes a full dex. You guys are looking at it wrong. Why even bother asking where one dex in the set ends and the other begins? I believe the heart and soul of the concept of x-dex can be summed up like this: If you make two separate movements, each of which make atleast one full, complete revolution around the bag, it is sufficiently difficult to rate an extra level of difficulty. If you have two movements, that generally means a set, and then a downtime component. I.e., whirr is definitely two dexes, but it’s one motion. No x-dex. Same with barrage, all double downs, mofly, triple atw, HP drifter, double blender, barroque, etc. Now add a full-dexing set to any one of those moves, and you have two separate, distinct movements, each of which constitute atleast one full revolution around the bag. Moves like fusion, nemesis, genesis, and fury all deserve x-dex. Being set from toe or clipper makes no difference. Performing both movements with the same leg makes no difference…

Except in cases like tap and tapping illusion. With tap, you can do the atomic set, but then keep your leg over to the side, ready to do the mirage in downtime. But you never break the plane below the bag with either motion, so neither is a complete dex. You only go over the bag and not under it. [The same is true for pdx tap.] But with tapping illusion, you have to make two separate movements, each of which is a complete dex.

I think the concept makes a lot of sense. If you think x-dex is garbage, think about this: There are a lot of people [myself included] who think that there is not enough depth in our current system of rating difficulty. In other words, the hardest move anyone has ever hit [according to the system] is a 10-add move [If I’m wrong, that’s beside the point]. Most moves that people put in runs are between 2 and 6. All integers. That means that there are only 5 main separate difficulty levels. If you add in a concept that increases the difficulty rating of just a few moves, and it raises the average rating of all the moves, don’t you think that helps, in terms of giving more depth to how difficult a move is, judging by its rating? It makes the whole system just a little bit better at rating difficulty.

[kaos]

Good post Stoke, you convinced me that barraging and double downs count towards x-dex.