| SUGGESTION: Sort by length |
|
Forum Index - SMW Central - Site Questions & Bugs - SUGGESTION: Sort by length |
|
Pages:  1  |
|
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 01:58:51 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
In the hack section you can sort hacks by "Name", "Date", "Author"... I was wondering if it would be possible to sort by "Length" as well. I tend to play the longer hacks, and would be nice to sort them that way.
Thanks for reading this.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 02:18:03 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
I assume this wouldn't even be hard to implement, considering it has its own column in the table already. Strange that you can't sort by length as it is.
Seconded.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 02:44:24 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Thirded...
That would be a good idea, if your looking for a short hack or a long one to play.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 02:47:06 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
I like the idea also, but I think the reason that it hasn't been implemented is because hack lengths can be "measured" by the number of levels or the number of exits. I suppose it wouldn't be too big of an issue, though, since the more levels there are, the more exits there will be.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 02:53:25 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Simple solution to the exits/levels/unknown thing.
List length by exits at top then length by levels then unknowns at the botton.
Fourthed?
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 09:51:25 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Fifthed?
And since this would probably fit the topic, why don't we have a 'Sort by date' button in the ROM and RAM Maps?
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-01 10:05:32 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
Sixthed. I would make great use of this, as I'm always looking for a good, long hack.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 09:08:03 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
How about including both a column for number of levels, and a column for number of exits? That way, people could look at (and sort by) whichever one they feel like.
Of course, one of those columns would be blank at first for each hack, but I think people would be willing to help point out the number of levels/exits in hacks that don't already list them (besides, it's nice to know the total number of exits for any hack so you know when you've found all of them). (If a hack changes the gameplay enough that number of levels and/or exits is no longer relevant, it could just say N/A or something.)
There is the question of what exactly counts as a "level", though... (SMW has 76 levels enterable from the overworld, but only 72 if you only count levels with at least one exit, and 73-74 if you include Bowser's Castle but not Yoshi's House and Top Secret Area.)
|
| Last edited on 2011-11-02 09:14:22 AM by Zeldara109. |
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 01:29:21 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
The reason why this feature doesn't already exist is because of the initial decision to use the same database field for either levels or exits.
Secondly, levels or exits are not a very good indicator of actual hack length, as the length of each individual level varies greatly between each author.
In the future, I have thought of listing the length as the amount of time it takes on average to complete the hack.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 02:13:01 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by Kieran MenorIn the future, I have thought of listing the length as the amount of time it takes on average to complete the hack.
That seems simple enough for new hacks as you can always tell the people moderating them to make a mental note of the time, but it would be quite the challenge rating ~600 hacks based on how accurate you would want list to be.
|
| Last edited on 2011-11-02 04:54:41 PM by Vinnyboiler. |
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 02:29:48 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Lol, you don't say.
Maybe we can call upon the help of the community when the time comes.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 04:30:15 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
People also are at different levels of expertise.
It might take me half an hour to complete a level someone else can beat in a minute.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 05:11:02 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
It could be a good idea to have the hack mods determine the length from their own playing time.
EDIT: Sorry, I meant when they moderate hacks on the first time.
|
| Last edited on 2011-11-02 08:19:34 PM by The Secret Exit. |
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 08:11:26 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Oh, please, have mercy! We're still trying to finish the music remoderation--having to go through every hack and measure how long it takes would place extraordinary strain on the staff and force us to hire more people, whish is what you want.
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-02 08:48:45 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Tbh, I don't know how I feel about that. As stated, play time is highlight subjective. I think if we just take the number part and ignore whether it's levels or exits, we should be fine.
Also, the ROM and RAM maps don't have this feature either, presumably because addresses can be measured in bits or bytes (although I haven't seen the former used). However, this could even be sorted out mathematically without any compromise (just divide it by 8 if it's in bits).
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-03 01:49:10 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by The Secret ExitIt could be a good idea to have the hack mods determine the length from their own playing time.
I somehow very much doubt that the time taken to play through a hack while moderating it is at all indicative of the time it will take someone to play through it normally. For one, I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, of the hack mods use emulator tools during their playthroughs so as to make the moderation process go faster.
Originally posted by K3fkaAlso, the ROM and RAM maps don't have this feature either, presumably because addresses can be measured in bits or bytes (although I haven't seen the former used).
Or it might be due to the fact that unlike hacks, I honestly don't see any use whatsoever for sorting addresses by length.
|
| Last edited on 2011-11-03 01:50:50 AM by yoshicookiezeus. |
|
| Posted on 2011-11-03 01:55:36 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
I would suggest adding the time allocated per level, but even that has its flaws. In particular, some people use some quite inappropriate time values. But then again, this is only meant to be an approximation. Worst case scenario, call upon the TASers have them do speed runs and we can say that is the "minimum completion time" 
|
|
| Posted on 2011-11-03 05:28:23 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
Since it seems most people who want this feature are just looking to play something with a bit of meat to it, it would probably be easiest to take note of if a hack took more, less, or around an hour to complete and give general estimates. If ya ask me, any hack that takes longer than an hour to beat has a pretty good amount of substance to it, and ones that take 3+ hours fall into the category of a very long hack.
Going by level count isn't a cure-all solution, since there are notable outliers like SMB: The Castle which have a miniscule amount of levels but quite a long completion time, and others that have a fairly meaty level count, but are (very) roughly similar in completion time, like The Essence Star.
Now, I ain't no stranger to making vague ballpark estimations for length, as seen in my SMWCP guide, since a lot of the level length ratings were based on memory or feeling - I didn't have a stopwatch to get precise ratings or anything like that, but I do feel they help know what you're in for anyway. Therefore, I think rough estimations are all that is necessary in helping people pick out their adventure. For instance, most demo hacks that the mods... modded, are probably not very long in length, and outliers (say, ones with about 50% completion) would probably be remembered and easily able to be marked as medium or long without the excessive effort of trying to tackle what exactly is the right way to gauge length, and of course, actually playing through all the hacks again under those conditions and marking times.
I think it would be safe to, say, mark most of the less memorable 5-35 minute demo hacks as short, 30-60 minute hacks as medium, and pretty much anything that takes more than that as long (or even very long, in cases like TSRP games or the SMI series). Giving a rigid minimum completion time would really require a ton of time for very diminished gains, and if all this is set out to do is help give an idea of how much content there is in a hack, I think these types of estimations are all that would be necessary. Maybe adding a little chart that explains how long the ratings roughly are expected to equate to would be a good idea too.
Certainly woulda helped me skip over some of the undesirably short hacks anyway!
|
|
|
| Pages: 1 |
|
|
|
|
Forum Index - SMW Central - Site Questions & Bugs - SUGGESTION: Sort by length |
