Adding to the add system

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 29 Jun 2004 15:36

I think it's better. I like how it makes harder combos worth more. However, on average, aren't most current 3 adds going to now be five, 4 adds now be 10 and 5 adds now be 17? I don't know know if thats a drawback, but it's just something I noticed.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 29 Jun 2004 15:50

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 29 Jun 2004 16:34

That's an interesting system. I kind of like the fact that it more accurately reflects difficulty. But at the same time, unless your mind is in math mode, it would be more difficult to count adds quickly.

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 29 Jun 2004 16:42

the only reason people want a new add system is to enhance judging capabilities. Because if someone hits huge 4 adds vs someone who hits weak 5 adds, the person who hits the 4's will lose.

With this system, ur just replacing the numbers 1-7 with larger, harder to calculate numbers, but they have the same meaning.

1 add = 1 add
2 add = 2 add
3 add = 5 add
4 add = 10 add
5 add = 17 add
6 add = 26 add
7 add = 37 add

it will ALWAYS be like this. This is no inbetween unless you end the trick with a non-delay. If there was a way to break it down more so there are different numbers involved to better represent tricks (ie: pdx getting 2 adds), then it would be something to consider. Thats what the problem of the current add system is.

Of course, i feel a more complex system should only be used to create a more balanced and fair judging system. Because outside of tournies, adds mean nothing. People know the diffuculty of tricks, they just need a way to represent them.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 30 Jun 2004 06:44

I think it would be easier to scrap paradox, scrap the xbd add, and scrap the del add. Then after that, scrap adds.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jun 2004 07:05

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 30 Jun 2004 07:21

I like the above version better, cause a clipper requires more balance than a toe stall. But then there are moves like pdx sym mirage.

PDX SYM MIRAGE = 1 del + 3(1 dex + 1 sym + 1 pdx) = 10 adds

what if u cut out the paradox in the multiplier so it looks like:

PDX SYM MIRAGE = 1 del + 2(1 dex + 1 sym) + 1 pdx = 6 adds

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jun 2004 07:58

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 30 Jun 2004 08:05

i don't like the idea of giving a bonus to xbd. especially one that big. Also for calculating scores for runs, u get a bonus for setting from xbd because u can get pdx. Thus if u want more points u use xbd more. I'm currently trying to work out a slightly different system. I got mobius and ps whirl to both be 7 adds. I do however feel mobius is harder then ps whirl.

marc · Post by **marc** » 30 Jun 2004 08:13

I don't know if this is totally too outragous to do, but possibly individually evaluate each trick, and label it with a certain amount of points or something of that sort. That way each trick has it's own amount of points or whatever, according to how hard it is to pull the trick off.

Iain · Post by **Iain** » 30 Jun 2004 08:22

the problem with that is its personal opinion. Certain tricks could rank in different catagories to different people. Plus it would take a massively long time to individually rank each trick seeing as there are so many. This would also mean a memorization of every tricks add worth. The other problem i see is if someone hits a never before seen trick at a tourny. how can u judge it?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jun 2004 09:14

marc · Post by **marc** » 30 Jun 2004 09:35

maybe it's just too hard to judge everything fairly with adds ?

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 30 Jun 2004 10:19

I don't know if there is an easy answer to this.

First, I don't like the idea of the multiplier system at all. It doesn't make sense when used in practice, I don't think. The numbers are large and unwieldly. 5 is a lot easier to maintain in one's head than 17. Also, the multiplication makes it inherently harder to think about in your head, unless you have a strong facility for math. While it seems not too complicated now, it sounds like it has the makings of getting much, much more complicated.

I think ideally you'd want to examine the system as it is now and establish why it doesn't work, and then aim to fix that. For example, clippers versus dragons? Which is worth more? Should either be given any points? I personally believe they should be worth the same. Just watch Jon Schneider. He's practiced them a LOT, so much that he can hit things like flipwalk. So while it seems he can do dragons fairly easily, looking at him actually attempt flipwalk, it looks a lot harder than ripwalk - even for him. What makes the difference? Is it somehow paradox? Is the flexibility an issue?

Now, while people don't want to go over each and every move, I believe that may be something that needs to be done. There are facilities at work that I don't believe are considered in the add or jobs system. Clipper set mirage versus toe set mirage. You can set both very low, but you can set clipper set mirage even lower. Frankly, a clipper set mirage is nearly as easy for me as the same toe without the dex. Whereas, toe set mirage is slightly more difficult, because it requires a consistant set to your waist or perhaps slightly lower or higher. These are not things examined by the add system.

I, myself, am not proposing anything new, but from my short 6 month sojourn into this sport, I can strongly detect fallacies in both add system and Job's. That is my observation.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jun 2004 10:25

richardabshire · Post by **richardabshire** » 30 Jun 2004 10:33

Forget the concept of adds. After the five add realm the adds start to cloud the actual difficulty. Maybe changing it to points would reflect the actual concept of rating moves. Adds simply account for the additions in the move, not the actual difficulty of the move.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jun 2004 10:43

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 30 Jun 2004 10:54

You make a fair point. I suppose it just comes down to examining every component individually and looking at different examples of when it is used, how hard it is to execute, how hard it is to play out of. There's nothing stopping us from doing this now. There seems to be an odd respect for the people who founded the sport and the archaic systems they tied onto the game. New moves have been invented since then that they likely didn't dream of, and new moves will continue to be invented that bend our minds. People just need to stop being lazy and figure out a way to measure this, before it becomes such a problem that it has to be scrapped completely. Then again, I don't know if that's such a bad thing.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Jun 2004 10:57