Way of the Machine
Eye of the Storm Ninja
A bit nervous about posting this, but seeing as no one else has made a thread about it I will.
So lately a number of people both in the community and RL have made good points about the different levels of ninja difficulty, that they aren't well defined or the lack of consensus on what the difficulties themselves mean. I'd like to post my thoughts regarding these issues as well as potential solutions. Note that my opinion comes from the perspective of someone who has been playing Trials since late June last year when I bought Trials Fusion, and currently at a skill level where the hardest RL ninja I've beaten is Inferno IV NJ (+top 50 global leaderboards on PC).Originally Posted by RoguishRonin Go to original post
My Opinion on Difficulty
So difficulty, how should be it be defined? Its subjective, but I feel an important anchor to define it should be linear progression. For instance, when I started playing, as I started getting Gold medals on the Hard tracks, I was able to start getting through the Extreme tracks, starting with the easier extremes like Eye of the storm.
And to elaborate this is generally how I progressed through the main game: Get bronze, then silver on one difficulty, try a harder difficulty and timeout or give up, switch back down a difficulty and try to get gold, maybe succeed and go back up a difficulty and get bronze there, sometimes go down two difficulties from there and get the platinums now that it felt really easy there. etc. etc.
So translating that to Ninjas, I feel there's a fairly simple baseline: If someone gets Gold on an *easy* extreme, they should be able to get bronze an *easy* level 1 (at least after a few attempts). Getting Gold on W.O.T.M, one should be able to get bronze/scrape through pretty much any level 1, just due to WOTM being one of the hardest extremes to be consistent on. Then repeat the process on lvl1s > lvl2s (for nj tracks that medals are set up reasonably of course, maybe define that standard by faults and consistency rather than medals).
l also don't think whether someone can get platinum to be too important; this is because the relative difficulty of getting platinums switches around depending on the consistency (can you recover or are forced to fault) of certain obstacles. For instance, a lot of people seem to find the track Eye of the storm to be easier than Covert Ops. I feel this is only true from a speedrunning perspective. A new player will definitely get bronze on covert ops before they will get bronze on EOTS, BUT, trying to get Platinum? It switches around due to the physics objects that Covert Ops uses, creating a level of inconsistency that makes EOTS easier to zero-fault.
Also for this reason, I feel there is nothing wrong in calling something an "easy lvl1" or a "hard lvl2" etc. as long as this is set in stone. The problem arises when riders use "hard lvl1/easy lvl2" etc. mainly because they are conceding the fact the difficulty isn't properly defined. If the difficulty is properly defined, there is still a significant difference between a very difficult one level, and an easy upper level, for example: Covert Ops as a hard hard, is still significantly different from the easy extreme Eye of the storm. Meteorain as a hard extreme is still easier than the easy lvl 1 Eye of the storm Ninja. Another consistency example, Gigatrack might be more difficult to get a good medal on than an easy extreme, but that's due to length over difficulty. For that reason, it may be easier to get a Gold standard on EOTS Ninja than Way of the Machine, but EOTS Ninja has the more difficult individual obstacles, etc.
Back to defining Ninja difficulty, what's a good solution?
A good first step, as Shifty said is to get a community consensus, such as on the official Redlynx Ninjas. These ratings will serve as useful guide for track creators and riders who wish to define a track difficulty themselves, they can simply refer to the closest difficulty of which there is a Redlynx Ninja, and factor this into their decision. I have already filled in the ratings on tracks I have beaten, based somewhat on my above opinion. These tracks can be loaded up on any platform, console users can search these track names as being uploaded by FusionCommunity, PC users can find these uploaded by osoguineapig.
Hopefully any resulting debates in this thread can also help reach a consensus on things like obstacle difficulty. (esp. Front wheel/back wheel, would be good to hear opinions on that)
Ninja Difficulty Tally
Track Name Difficulty Ratings Eye of the Storm [NJ] 1 1 Rock of Rages [NJ] 1 1 Light City Run [NJ] 1 2 Frostbite [NJ] 2 2 Inferno IV [NJ] 3 3 Devil's Beak [NJ] 2 Way of the Machine [NJ] 2 2 Deluge [NJ] Charred Remains [NJ] 3 Robot Wasteland [NJ] 2 2 Meteorain [NJ] 4
So if you are a ninja rider please post in this thread your own difficulty ratings for these tracks. You don't have to beat the track to rate them (I personally choose not to), but provide justification in any case. I will post my rating justifications in the next post.
Ratings are appended like so: Frostbite 2 2 2 1 2 2 etc.
My track ratings:
Eye of the Storm NJ - lvl1 (easy)
Straight forward, don't think anyone will argue with this. Good beginner ninja to tackle.
Rock of Rages NJ - lvl1
More challenging than EOTS, but I'd say beatable if you know basic techniques like fapping and good throttle.
Light City Run NJ - lvl1 (hard, inconsistent)
edit:re-evaluated, that was a dumb rating
Frostbite NJ - lvl2
Despite beating the first 3 ninjas, at the point in the time I attempted this I struggled with a lot of timeouts. The issue was I had not much idea on how to do slow wallclimbs and consistent cliffhanger/spiderman recoveries, which are crutial to getting through this Ninja. I would gauge these kind of climbs as level2+, just because on level 1s you do get setup to do a fast wallclimb, which are a LOT easier. It also makes sense in terms of difficulty progression, such as extreme: slow steep hillclimbs, lvl1: fast wallclimb, lvl2: slow wallclimb (lvl3+ slow wallclimb + chain into more wallclimbing)
Inferno IV NJ - lvl3 (easy - medium, inconsistent)
Was rated lvl 3 a while ago, I feel the rating is justified. I got through this when I started getting <100 faults on level 2s. However, if you know the right techniques, the first few obstacles get a bit easier. For instance first cp, endo first barrel fender grab second, straighten up onto the engine block, gives a nice accelerate and hop to next cp. Then on 3rd cp, you can do an inconsistent underslide > fendergrab onto the large wheel. 4th cp is also inconsistent, just bunny hopping from a spinning wheel can be tricky to right every time...
Way of the Machine NJ - lvl2 (long, hard)
Hardest cp on this track by far is bunny hopping the 3 small barrels, (easily a lvl3 cp) but the rest are lvl2 cps I would estimate.
Robot Wasteland NJ - lvl2
edit: re-evaluated, another dumb rating
we should also define measuerments of tracks in general.
Ive heard somtimes people rate tracks based on how many people have finished the track, which is not very good in my opinion.
so, measures:
- amount of checkpoints
- length of checkpopints
- checkpoint recoverable or 1 try = 1 fault?
- what kind of obstacle (fw/bw, wallclimb, stationary,...)
- difficulty of obstacle (easy wallclimb, borderline insane wallclimb)
what else?
I dont think its possible to find a defined guidline everyone can applpy to a track to find its difficulty..
definately not with only 5 levels.
the differences inbetween each level are still to vast.
Maybe, maybe not. But at least setting in stone right now the difficulties of the official ninjas will help us define guidelines from that.Originally Posted by Steiner84 Go to original post
Per-checkpoint, I feel this more increases a track's inconsistency than its actual difficulty. Because I think a track difficulty should be based on passing it, rather than zero/low-faulting it. Per obstacle within a checkpoint however (so you can't recover from one obstacle after another, you will fault.) does increase a checkpoint's difficulty, thereby the overall track (such as the logs cp on meteorain NJ that have to be perfectly bounced from one to the next).- checkpoint recoverable or 1 try = 1 fault?
2witchy made a good post about this the other day, having large seperations between checkpoints is more artificial than actual difficulty, and should be avoided by track makers where possible. Better to make the actual obstacles themselves challenging, if that makes sense. It may help to refer to a long checkpoint by calling it inconsistent rather than difficult to counter-act this.- length of checkpopints
Luckily there may already be consensus on this. Watching a stream where some good ninjas were attempting Rustland Derby a 20cp lvl4 NJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtv0XShz4qY, which they describe as a hard, long lvl4. Not level 5 because of length, they think it is level 4 because inconsistency + length shouldn't define the track difficulty, and I'm inclined to agree.- amount of checkpoints
Also keep in mind that I'm not sure there is even such thing as a lvl5 without frontwheel/backwheel. At that point the difficulty is absurd enough that its hard to create obstacles of that difficulty without those restrictions.
I like your idea behind this, however there is 1 problem.
hard level 1 or easy level 2 ninja, What is that tiny difrent.
Also ...what is hard for you, is easy for another.
If u for example check leaderboards of Eye of the Storm(NJ) (wich supost to be an easy level 1 ninja)
You wil see that some people passing it with 0 faults, and others with more then 300 faults or even timing out.
So if they gonna cross platform a ninja, because it's chosen and given a easy level 3 by a ninja ambassador,
It could be a nightmare for many,
Another example: crossplatform a level 5+ ninja, and only a handfull can pass it. (bye bye idea of ninja crossplatforming)
First max level was 5, and that was hard, i watch lifestreams on twitch, and i see people are building level 6. (not even a hard level 5 lol)
Personaly i only have 2 categories in ninja tracks
1 = based on skill (all about control)
2 = based on luck ( u know how it's done, but the bike just won't get you there)
(EDIT) problem with most hard ninja tracks are lack of checkpoints.
Less checkpoints = harder ninja
if said this for a long time. "If you want to make a hard track, make hard obstacles, dont artificially bloat it up by having long CPs". But what do you know, that backfired horribly because people said at some point you can only make it harder by making it longer (wow.. thats what she said, i guessOriginally Posted by Waistless Go to original post).
Experienced players didnt like that concept and so that was that. noone agreed with me.
I don't think Ninja levels should be defined by an 'ambassador', that sounds silly. What I think should happen is the community should rate the official ninjas, thus giving a guideline for track creators to rate their own ninjas based on those tracks.
Yep I know what you mean. 2 is what I refer to as 'inconsistency'. Such as the light city run NJ, with a huge bunny hop obstacle that requires a fair bit of luck even if you know how to do it. I rate this as level 1 over Frostbite being level 2, because Frostbite I see as having a more consistent, harder difficulty, if that makes sense. I would like to see ninja difficulty ratings being all about 1 - control, but that requires consensus1 = based on skill (all about control)
2 = based on luck ( u know how it's done, but the bike just won't get you there)Which goes to the next point,
The consistency I talk about. It should be easier to classify a track as a hard 1 instead of an easy 2 if the obstacles are inconsistent instead of challenging. It might also help to define a few standards like I suggest for instance, do not rate tracks with slow wallclimbs as level 1.hard level 1 or easy level 2 ninja, What is that tiny difrent.
also what could be done is to predefine medal limits (if you want medals to be part of ninja rating at all).
if every track has the same medal limits, for example plat is always 10 and lower, gold always 50, silver always 150 you would have at least one thing that is comparable over all tracks because its the same on all tracks.
that doesnt help for when you release a track, but it can be an indicator once sufficient amount of people have played it.
regardless of type of obstacles, inconsiostency, length it would be one thing that is compareable for every track.
also, I would suggest to set time limits to 30minutes on every medal tier, because ninjas are about passing them, not speedrunning them. Time restrictuions shouldnt be of any concern.
I support this thread. Good to have a place to expose our opinions about the current state of the ninja community.
First things first. The official ninja tracks' level imo :
Eye of the Storm NJ : 1
Rock of Rages NJ : 1
Light City Run NJ : 2
Frost Bite NJ : 2
Inferno IV NJ : 3
Devil's Beak NJ : 2
Way of the Machine NJ : Hard 2
Deluge NJ : ?
Charred Remains NJ : 3
Robot Wasteland NJ : Easy 2
Meteorain NJ : 4
I didn't rate Deluge NJ just because of that one obstacle near the end which is much, MUCH harder than all the others. So I can't give a global opinion over the whole track.
Now pointing out a few things.
I completely agree with these measures. Also I'd like some guys to stop rating tracks depending on how many timeouts they made. I timed out 20 times on a level 5 track on evo, someone else timed out 1 time, that doesn't change anything. The track, the obstacles, everything is still the same.Originally Posted by Steiner84 Go to original post
Also add the consistency of the obstacles to that list. A track with consistent obstacles will be much more easier to rate than a track with inconsistent obstacles. But I think that's been pointed out earlier.
They shouldn't be immediately defined by the ambassador. Having a couple ninjas discuss the level of a track, then let the ambassador have the final word (While taking in account everything that's been said by the group), that sounds like a good idea for me. Right now almost everyone is throwing his own opinion on the ground without even thinking about it.Originally Posted by Waistless Go to original post
Malachyte was the "ambassador" of the whole THD ninja era, TBNSoty was the "ambassador" during the start of the Evo ninja era. That system worked up pretty well for around 3 years.
Many people rating on their own, much debate/discussion, ninja ego raising, ends up destroying the whole community itself.
One ambassador, quick track rating, elitists can't debate/complain on that and cannot change things, good results.
I'd suggest to have 3 categories of ninja tracks :Originally Posted by Smilies2013 Go to original post
• Gimmicky tracks : Includes front/back wheel stuff or techniques that are commonly used aside from throttle control.
(Example : Igneous by slikscythez)
• Throttle tracks : Includes everything that requires mostly throtle control to be passed.
(Example : Mount Confirmation by Wesleyden)
• Pure technical tracks : Includes everything that just requires technique to be done.
(Example : Childs Play by JamaicanX)
A track has both throttle control & gimmicky obstacles ? Then look what technique is mostly used in it. If 60% of the track is about throttle & the rest about gimmick, then it's a throttle control-type track.
Now I'd like to talk aboutthe subjectivity of the levels... Or rather, what made the levels so subjective. Many people think that the ninja levels themselves are subjective, but it's the community who made the levels subjective, nothing else. If we can measure a level with objective measures, then perhaps we could make them slightly less subjective imo.. And that leads to an idea I pointed out quite a few times already :
Borderline ninja tracks.
I know, bleh bleh bleh subjectivity, the limits won't be the same for everyone... What if these limits are actually defined by the ambassador ? Like I said before, what worsens the ninja community is those elitists with lots of ninja ego who don't care about opinions and just rate on their own, leading to countless debates everywhere. But if we can get a good ambassador and if he fixes good borderline tracks for everyone, then the rating system will be much more efficient. And perhaps we can make the levels a bit more objective.
Now about who's gonna be the ambassador, I gotta say that's gonna be lots of work to handle since the ninjas are split on 4 different platforms. So why not nominate 1 person per platform ?
Personally I'd vote for Plopikoosy on Xbox One and Jeruhnq on PS4.
That's pretty much all I have to say for now. I really hope we can come to a consensus and put the ninja community back on both feet again.
I think Frost Bite is higher than a 2, may be wrongOriginally Posted by StormPsykoz Go to original post