User:V 0 1 D/Draft:Mechanical, Visual and Original structure

I've been working on a new scoring system for combos, namely I have a big issue with the existing way that structure points are defined, and how interpretations differ between judges, or even between structure categories.

This new system defines a structure category for each of the "big 3" categories:

• Visuals (This category is usually split into Effectiveness and Execution)
• Mechanics (Usually defined by only Difficulty, but has also been loosely defined structurally with Density)
• Originality (Which keeps the same name in regular criteria, and has loosely been defined structurally with Integration)

So why not just use these? Well, for starters the criteria that applies to the structural equivalents tends to narrow in on only a few aspects, for example integration focuses on making sure the combo has some sort of theme (but I simply don't see why combos cannot be chaotic and have many themes!), or Density has been used to refer to tricks per second while difficulty structure can mean so much more.

A new proposal for a criterion

Instead, we should take a given criterion, let's say Visuals, and give it a structural equivalent. So, "Visual Structure".

Then, we instruct judges to plot a graph of visual impact over time in the combo, or to at least imagine the graph. Roughly speaking, the imagined area underneath the graph should be the Visual score, and the average of the graph should be the visual structure.

How does this work? Well, for example if we take a 10 second combo such as i.suk's Round 5 and use Mechanics (difficulty) instead of Visuals, we can see that there is a high average difficulty, and a high total difficulty measurement. If we add in 10 seconds of filler before the rest of the combo, the total difficulty stays roughly the same (in fact it slightly increases), but the average difficulty drops.

This system also balances out and corrects the current "super-short density combo" meta that currently exists, where the maximum amount of tricks and difficulty is crammed into about 10 seconds. Reducing the time of your combo lowers your total difficulty, but increases your difficulty structure. Meanwhile, making your combo longer makes your total difficulty higher, but lowers your structural difficulty.

Why the new names?

I like the terms "Mechanics" and "Visuals" because it makes the categories more wide and interesting. Difficulty is commonly associated with power tricks, fingercross and linkages with a lot of tricks in a short time. But the common thing that makes things "Difficult" is the presence of more complicated mechanics, such as transitioning between awkward fingerslots and trick combinations, controlling the pen with only a single point of contact, or balancing the pen on an unstable part of the body.

Visuals in particular I like because I feel that "Execution" alone can miss a vital point of what makes an aesthetic combo so appealing. It's not just executing something perfectly, but trying to create a certain visual, and the expected visuals are usually limited to a few expected categories: minimal hand motion, light finger motion, subtle movements. A great example is Saltient, who focuses on unique finger positioning and presentation of his combos to an obsessive degree, but can never hope to be recognized for his visuals because they are so far out from the expected norm.