First of all, I'll second your last comment there - Let's Give Up is super fun. (Although I've only played it once at this point.)Originally Posted by MurdocLoch
As far as Treetops... I know we've disagreed on this before, and obviously your stats do indicate that these two tracks should be the same level. I don't know my exact stats, but my first run through Let's Give Up I had about 110-120 faults in about 15 minutes. (Whoa! I did better than Murdoc!) This is faster and less faults than my initial runs on Level 2 tracks like Blackbelt and Dusty Dawn.
And Treetops, well, I timed out on that track 5 times before I even got to the end. That's over 2.5 hours of playing the track just to finish it. I never timed out (or ran out of faults) more than once on any of the Level 3 tracks.
Now maybe I just have really unusual strong and weak points in Trials compared to the average player, but then again maybe Murdoc does!
I'm not trying to say that it's only my own personal opinion that matters; I'm certainly all for getting tracks graded as accurately as possible, so all I can say is let's gather more opinions from other players regarding these tracks.
Quite amazing just comparing our initial runs: Murdoc did better on Treetops than Let's Give Up by over 50 faults, but I did better on Let's give up by hundreds of faults and several hours of play time...
Everyone who has played either or both of these tracks please chime in! If it turns out that I'm the weirdo with unusual strong and weak points then I will move the tracks to be more accurate for the majority of players rather than just myself.
Member
I know that you are very well versed in ninja tracks - probably more than anyone - but I think no one person can or should be making the ratings off of their own experiences - as you said we each have our own strong and weak points - I think perhaps this touches on the conversation we had last week about learned techniques vs unlearned techniques - maybe if you played treetops enough times to the point of being able to get less than 50 faults you'd agree with me that it's not level four - I know JJtheGerman has said he does not find treetops that hard - he told me once that he could zero fault it - also because you've mastered a lot of the techniques in jook used in let's give up, you find it easier than it actually is - you even commented that you implemented a skill you acquired in a QcChopper track - thoughts?Originally Posted by Malachyte
-ML
I´m not even in the Ninja-Leaderboards, but i can say: I my opinion Treetops is now a level-3-track. I´m not really a ninja-rider but i passed Treetops (with 400+ faults). On the other hand i did not managed to get over the first obstacle on AM-2. I think treetops was placed right at level 4, but now, as some of us had the time to learn the technique for it, i think it´s more like level 3.
Senior Member
I played Komodo Dragon last night for the first time and didnt get to pass it after 20 minutes, figured i would try again later. It took me a few days to get a feel of Pond Skippin and put in a good run. So i would think length of the track does not matter much especially if its already a short one, you could basically take one obstacle and scretch it to fit the whole track and that would just leave the difficulty of passing that obstacle and the time put in to pass said obstacle.
Honestly how i feel those tracks should be determined by a different level of ninja should mainly be based on us playing them for the first time. Which is sorta true when you think about it. Any track can be beaten when we practice a certain technique over and over, we will pass the obstacle 90% of the time, albeit a few silly faults. Therefore the level of ninja it is, will drop as we play it over time and becomes gradually easier and easier. This is only natural. ^this theory can be based off the acquired vs unacquired skills Murdoc pointed out.
Im pretty sure somone like Murdoc could honestly 0 fault Treetops if he put in the time, but when he first played the track- nearly had 100 faults, i am only using this as an example- and shows that the level of ninja in a track is always the highest when first approached, its just how high everyone agrees a certain track should be- but a few will keep at it and make that track look like not even close to ninja. So first approach is a huge factor in determining a level for a ninja, imo then is followed by difficulty of each obstacle and not so much- length of track- this is only if a track like Ctl-Alt-Delete was twice as long, would take much more time to put in just to pass it.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Member
the problem with judging this way is this: let's say i rebuilt all the obstacles from inferno II exactly just mixed up the order a bit - because we know all the techniques we'd breeze through it - does that make this inferno remix easier then the original? hell no it's the same - The tracks that use techniques we're accustomed to take less time and faults to pass the first time - this does not mean they are "easier"Originally Posted by jhitman
here's another this to consider - today i was in a party with JJ - he was playing Ctrl-Alt-Delete for the first time - he got 84 faults - first try 84 faults - he said that it was easier than bounce - then he played Lowercase for the first time- he got 328 faults and said it was way harder then Ctrl-Alt-Delete - so obviously we all have vastly different riding skills and no one of us can make a judgment call based on our first play though -
I think we need to figure out a way to gauge the difficulty of a track without involving faults or time - we need to be comparing the heights, angles and distances used to create difficulty - the amount of combinations of techniques used in each obstacle - and I'd like to see use figure out a way to rate not just on difficulty but on quality of difficulty - i.e. driveline difficulty vs poor riding surface/camera angle/blocked view difficulty
-ML
Member
AM 2 - 3 Faults
This was my warm up run - First run in over a month - when playing this track for real I would normally restart if I faulted on the second CP - Good thing I didn't - ML
Member
here's that 36 fault run on Treetops - I was going to get a sub 20 fault run before making another video but I got really burnt out on it - so for now here's this one -
Treetops - 36 Faults
Well it only took me a few days of practicing to get under 10 faults on AM-2, but it took over a month after that point to 0-fault it. Any track obviously becomes easier over time with more practice, but that doesn't mean that it's difficulty should be adjusted. People like yourself and JJ can probably 0-fault The Midnight Club on a regular basis, but this doesn't mean that all of the Extreme tracks in it should all of a sudden be "moved" to Medium.Originally Posted by Malachyte
My point is that I'm sure I could practice Treetops or even Ctrl-Alt-Delete enough to get under 50 faults, but the point is how much practice that would require. I think I could get under 50 faults on Let's Give Up just playing it a couple more times, but it would take me weeks of practice to get under 50 on Treetops.
I do understand your point about acquired vs. new skills, and I do try to factor that in. I gave an example with the front-flip-barrel-bounce thing in Dusty Dawn earlier. An example with Treetops is the 2nd checkpoint. I wasted a lot of time taking the wrong approach to it at first, and I did not factor this time in when determining it's level. However even when I figured out the correct technique it still took me hundreds of faults to get it right. An obstacle like the pipes in Ctrl-Alt-Delete has a more obvious technique, so there was no time wasted with a "wrong" approach, but it was still damn hard to get over them.
Regarding the one skill I utilized from a Qc track in Let's Give Up - that probably saved me about 10 faults - the technique wasn't necessary for passing that part in the track, it just made it a little easier.
Again, this implies that tracks get easier as players practice them more. No... the track stays the same, you're just getting better at it. As I said, I got under 10 faults within a few days of playing AM-2, but this doesn't mean it should be moved to Level 2. I ran out of time the first time I tried it, and got hundreds of faults the second time I played it. It also took me months to 0-fault.Originally Posted by MILCHMASTER
I agree with this for the most part, but the "acquired skills" argument has to be relevant as well. I think a track's difficulty should be determined based on the first time playing it, with the exception of time/faults wasted taking the wrong approach to a new type of obstacle. Basically, how hard is the track once you know all the proper techniques (regardless of your ability to execute said techniques consistently).Originally Posted by jhitman
But that being said, it still obviously differs a lot from one player to another, like myself and Murdoc with Treetops and Let's Give Up... or JJ:
Does this mean that Ctrl-Alt-Delete should be moved to Level 3 and Lowercase to a Level 4? I can keep moving tracks around until I'm blue in the face but the fact is that every player is just different.Originally Posted by MurdocLoch
I understand that ratings would be more accurate if we all practiced the tracks more to learn them, but there are so many tracks and so few players that are actually dedicated to Ninja tracks that this is just impractical, and it would be really hard to gauge as well - how would we determine if a player was "well practiced" on a track - 5 plays through? 10 plays through?
The only concrete ways to judge tracks in my opinion is either how hard they are the first time through (again, factoring in the "acquired techniques" factor), or how much practice they take to 0-fault.
So far it seems that myself, CypherDextrous, and Lifeonaboard all think that Treetops should be a Level 4. Murdoc, JJ, and MILCHMASTER think it should be a level 3. So far we're 50/50 for the voting...
Both jook and myself have rated Let's Give Up as a Level 2, while Murdoc thinks it should be a Level 3 - haven't heard any more opinions on this one.
Also based on what JJ said it seems he would rate Ctrl-Alt-Delete as a Level 3, while Murdoc, myself, and many other players would definitely call it a Level 4. JJ also seemed to struggle with Lowercase enough that it would be a Level 4 for him.
Honestly I hate to sound like a ******, but I'm almost inclined to say that I'm just going to rate tracks based on my own opinion because this is just becoming a big clusterf*ck. It's not that I don't value everyone's opinion, but I kinda thought that if I was wrong about something then the majority of people would clearly disagree with me, and I could move a track. But it's not really been like that - it seems that there's really just a lot of varying opinions, especially on a track like Treetops.
Take the in-game tracks for example - not everyone agrees with their ratings. When I first got into Trials I actually found Brown Boxes to be easier than Prison Break. But the consistent factor in the ratings of the in-game tracks is the fact that they were all rated by RedLynx. If I start taking everyone's opinion into account here with the Ninja tracks then we would have the issue of different tracks being graded by different players with different strong and weak points. If I rate them all myself then obviously everyone won't agree, but at least the rating scale will be consistent with itself since they will all be judged by the same person (or group - comparing this to the in-game tracks). I hope that makes sense.
Again though, please feel free to debate me on any of this - I love intelligent debates.
BTW, I just want to give a quick thank-you to Murdoc, jhitman, Willyumz, and jook. You four have made amazing contributions to this thread; not only new tracks and replays, but being actively involved in the conversations and debates too.
So thanks to all of you for your part in making this thread what it is.
Senior Member
Point well taken Murdoc. I suppose the accuracy of determining the levels will never be 'true', simply because of the skills that differ from a rider to another. I made the assumption that all the top riders had a similar base of acquired skills (meaning that they could all 0 fault the stock extremes with relative ease). But those skills can only go so far. Im pretty content with the levels where the ninjas are now, so maybe i see those tracks the same way Malachyte does, but people like Murdoc or JJ see level 1's as a tough extreme, and level 2's as 1's and so on. How to divide between that, i have no idea but surely we will have a better system worked out with more intellectual debates.
Another value i think should be added, the room for margin of error of being able to recover after not passing a certain obstacle should be taken in consideration. A track like Corporate Ladder, if i messed up in certain spots, i could recover and try again on way to a 0 fault run, but a track like C-A-D, its either a fault or a pass the obstacle. This could potientally help adjust the levels to where they should be as well as cominbation of techniques used from checkpoint to checkpoint, which i think is a great idea.
Also i must say after playin Treetops a few times, i would have to give this track a 3.5 so whether it is a 3 or 4 does not really matter to me, the only level 4 technique i feel is the obstacle after first checkpoint, and the one after the 3rd checkpoint, otherwise i can pass the rest of the track with moderate effort.
I would hate to express my disappointment but seeing Murdoc's Corporate Ladder run added, it is not a true run so i feel it really has no place being on the video leaderboards. I posted my run where i hit my head at the very end and the bike kept goin down the incline and hit the finish marker and the time stopped at 59, yet my run was not added and i hope it is not, i feel that does not really justify a clean run which deserves a replay added for everyone to see.
