Elma Wiki - Internal Levels - brainstorming thread

[Uncle Milty]

Hi.
I suggested to add complete pages for each internal level. For i don't really think anyone else will start it, i will start work on that topic now. I worked out some layoutdraft (find it below), some of the information needed is easy to get, some is dynamic and some is difficult to formulate.

Code: Select all

[Internal Level] int xy - [name]

[Right Side Box:]
*MAP*
Current wr (dynamic link)
top ten table (dynamic link)
quick navigation between internals (link-table)

[Table of content:]

-General Information
--introducing the level
--Target Times

-Statistics
--Wr-Statistics
---Timed Graph (Schumi can make em)
--Cheat-Statistics

-known Styles
--Style#xi (+rec / video)
---Best Times (done, theoretical limit if estimable)
---Development
---History
--Style#xi+1
---[...]
--(also maybe still not done styles, discussed styles, S/L-stuff)
--How to do Target Times
---Beginner (Guide, Styles explained)
----Trainlev(s) + rec(s)
---Ok
----Trainlev(s) + rec(s)
---Good
----[...]
---Professional
----[...]
---World Class
----[...]

-Useless Facts
--ZOMFG! Lab Pro has only barrels in it! and a flag.
--Flat Tracker wasn't partitially good in Flat Track.
--?


[Content]
...

There are some questions:
Which target audience do we work for? Rather for the noobs (How to do beginner time), the bigger part of kuskis, the pros or all together?
Thus asking: Is it really reasonable to write HowTos for each Target Time?
Also:
As you all see, my concept relies heavily on the Target Times. Maybe we can come up with a newer source of sortation? Or reinvent the Target Times for that matter even! (long time overdue!) Or leave it as it is.

I don't know much about scripting, dynamic links etc, help there is highly appreciated!


---
Structural advices, ideas etc, critics, help in any form is welcome. Also my english is pretty shitty after all (german punctuation, limited vocab).

[Zweq]

I dont think there should be estimation of theoretical limit, only facts. Also saveloaded times shouldnt be valid if rec hasnt been published. So, only information. Information is what ppl look for on such a page.

What facts can be written:
General:
-was in across? was modified for elma?
-lev creator
-current WR(why would anyone be interested if whole table is on mopo?)

Replays:
-best published ride?
-best published tool-assisted ride?
Statistics:
- link to mopo
- if there is something special like most improved internal(zig zag), biggest number of improvements(apple h) or sach, could be mentioned

Trivia:
- amount of apples, polygons, vertices, pictures ( who cares? )
- ?????????? ???? ???? ?????????

Styles:
- speculation
- more speculation
- ???????????? ??? ??????? ???????????????????
ok maybe you could write something about styles, but it will be difficult for many levs. liek 0.03 faster in warm up is a major style, while 0.3 in lab pro is not worth mentioning because there have been dozens of sach styles. Some levs like steppes would be max ez, like go around-style, 3 different over pole-styles, brutal-style and spinnage. Then again there are many different ways to do the brutal, many ways to turn, many ways to spin. See the problem?

[Igge]

I think there should be some history in there as well.

[abruzzi]

lol just was to state about history that is style evolution, affairs, etc. etc.

[Uncle Milty]

History/affairs
something like this?:

"48,8x by Zweq (neither rec nor video shared)
but obviously a merge of the famous talli style and some improvements.
talli style 51.50 [rec]

talli style was longly discussed before, arguably impossible, some pros tried and made all parts in seperate levels, then talli was able to pull a finish off and beat the wr by bjorn. The style was shown publically in EPO-internal-video, which led to spread discussions what new limits would be in int15. Also a high amount of kuskis agreed, that tallis run was almost perfect, thus anabling bjorn, who beat talli soon after, to announce again that his style is the faster one.
Obviously no one really knew tge potential of talli's style; most pros even refused to try it out, "I won't touch this with a 5m stick" (Zweq, out of commemoration)
This style was rediscovered in late 2010 and Quinn and Uncle Milty were able to finish rather bad times with it (53 and 52)
It was clear from then: this style can be improved below 50, but Zweq was the first to accomplish this effectfully. Still S/L shows atleast 47 to be possible with that style. Milagros claimed 40 to be perfectly possible.
Bjorn is yet to defend his style."

?


@ zweq's:
current wr should be in the sidebox just for quick referrence. not everyone, that visits the page knows the current wr or is willing to change pages for it. It is only for comfort.
Lev creator should be there, u'r right, even if it is kind of useless fact / trivia :/

styles:
maybe we should devide between styles and tricks (in lab pro for example), but styles in general should be mentioned.
for steppes the stuff you noticed, but without further details. AT FIRST! Maybe, if the concept is there, someone cares to add small notes for different tricks, turns, brakes etc. That is up to the community. The whole wiki is something we should create as a team.
But for now focussing on general stuff is the need, more if we like to. (and i personally would like to add some notes about styles )

[Igge]

"48,8x by Zweq (neither rec nor video shared)
but obviously a merge of the famous talli style and some improvements.
talli style 51.50 [rec]

You can't present speculations as fact like that.

[8-ball]

Yes please.

[Uncle Milty]

its not pure speculation, igge
some guys spyed zweq doing some kind of talli style. i heard of that, so i assume, he used talli style for his time.

[Smibu]

Started Warm Up article and a template for level info: http://zworqy.com/elmawiki/Warm_Up

[Grace]

A map would be great also.

Maybe percent improvement since table #001

Also the whole target times idea is good but we should reinvent targets if we do that, no way should i have more than half pro times.

[Thundr-]

Also the whole target times idea is good but we should reinvent targets if we do that, no way should i have more than half pro times.

Agreed. No point in adding target times unless the community or a/the crew who did it last time come up with something more up to date.

Also there was this discussion that target times change over time due to new styles hence no point in making new and smth about world top 10 = wc, top = 20 pro etc is a better way to measure yourself instead. So perhaps better leave target times out completely?

[Zweq]

Ez add "Elite" target which is top10 or better, no need to change the old targets (which btw some sites use)

[Uncle Milty]

I think, that a lot of people actually use the old target times for personal references and compare their times even with the old times. Most of em are a quite good aim for noobs (or even me in some cases), wc targets still require dedication for not super pros. Elite Target might be an answer to that.

Maybe we should start a poll about target times?
( ) reinvent
( ) keep
( ) neglect

[Bludek]

Neither I would change current target times. In 90% of levels they are great. There are few exceptions, but (as Zweq suggested), new category would solve everything.

but

I think current top10 times are not always accurate for times in new category, coz they change over time and some levels are just more popular than others, so they are better hoyled. If there will be "elite" (or any other suitable name) category, times there should be made with "newly" invented styles (few examples: int54 around 1:20, int07 ~30:50, int24 ~45:00, int32 42:90, maybe int03 17:80) or seriously hoyled (much harder to determinate times ). Top 10 times say a lot, but not everything.

[Zweq]

you're right, same goes with twin peaks(oh you mentioned that already). There 17.8x is definitely not what i'd see as "elite" target, more like 17.65 or better, because the WR is not höyled at all. However, if it's nat always top10 it'd stop being dynamic. Then we'd need to gather around and do updates on it at least annually (which should have been the case with the original targets)

[Uncle Milty]

Sounds like a good concept with the new Target.
Maybe someone, who knows lots about current top internal times could make a draft of the new targets, maybe you, zweq?
We'll see, if people dislike the idea a lot or not, but giving em a concept is the way to go.
We can discuss some "elite"Targets (or whatever the'll be called) on some levels, not all targets will be determined easily.

where to put int15 ? 48.8x is wr, the time may be lucky (or not) but is most certainly not very hoyled. yet theres a big gap. 09 too. Most people, even pros wont get elite there ever. On the other hand: why not? 52.00 elite in serp sounds challenging, people have to struggle REALLY hard for em, if they really want to. maybe someone invents small changes in order to get em. maybe internal scene will profit in the end.

[anonymous32]

what makes you think those times "most certainly are not very hoyled?" another thing to keep in mind, is target times always are changing. as much now as they were back then. maybe a little less, but the fact is no one can yet dare to put his hand in the fire with the assertion that there will be no more "surprises."

"maybe percent improvement since first table"
-- like i said, graphs of records per date might do;

but obviously a merge of the famous talli style and some improvements.
-- maybe replace "obviously" by "as could be assumed for x reason;"

elite times? perhaps. but then, already so many pro times are made obsolete by now. at least for now they are very epoch related -- wave-changing.

finally, maybe handle the simplest things first, then from there build on each step at a time -- too-big projects tend too much to contribute to a lack of future motivation.

for example, talk about styles is way more complex (e.g., "the replay file is not public, but the style is") than talk about other, simpler things like basic level info. not sure if i would be in favor of displaying tool-assisted records, though. although i am not saying it should not be displayed. rest of warm up article serves as a pretty good example. such basic info is for sure the way for it to ever start.

more than anything else, do it like you are seeing it. like they said in wikipedia, "be bold -- if you see something that can be improved, improve it!"

[Uncle Milty]

but obviously a merge of the famous talli style and some improvements.
-- maybe replace "obviously" by "as could be assumed for x reason;"

good!

for example, talk about styles is way more complex (e.g., "the replay file is not public, but the style is") than talk about other, simpler things like basic level info. not sure if i would be in favor of displaying tool-assisted records, though. although i am not saying it should not be displayed. rest of warm up article serves as a pretty good example. such basic info is for sure the way for it to ever start.

Yes, certainly you are right. Start small, spread info over time.
But actually that is not the point of this thread. We (maybe I) will create thosse pages based on a draft with all those FACTS, without speculation / discussion. From there it is much easier to enhance them.

Editing pages tend to be more attractive to people than writing them. I guess I will add pages for the other levs this week or next (depends on my time) in a quite similar way, smibu did his (good work). But at first without announced TAS-times. At first!? lets see, where it leads.

[Igge]

I agree with Anonymous32 when it comes to displaying TAS records. They could be mentioned in play text, sure, but actually making somewhat of a record table for them wouldn't be too good of an idea. I say this solely because people don't have access to the same kind of tools, and thus it wouldn't really be fair.

[Zweq]

I agree with Anonymous32 when it comes to displaying TAS records. They could be mentioned in play text, sure, but actually making somewhat of a record table for them wouldn't be too good of an idea. I say this solely because people don't have access to the same kind of tools, and thus it wouldn't really be fair.

this very. WR table for tool assisted times doesn't exist (except the one from 2004 that isn't being updated), do we want the wiki to be that table? no