Parkour Discussion / Q&A

[Adab 2,896]

On 11/8/2022 at 1:28 PM, UnIeash said:

If we are writing about rules, then if you get ban you cant get reward should be also changed. Ban has nothing to do with parkour. 

Even before you made this post, I started thinking about removing such kind of rules from the Parkour Club Rules and discussed about such kind of rules of the Parkour Club Rules with the leaders of parkour clubs having the Parkour Club Support and with the leaders of parkour clubs having the official status

[Devoid 2,601]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:31 PM, muzamil said:

Yes it's hard to edit 60 frames then 30 

60 FPS edits can be hard to produce for new editors, similarly 24 FPS edits can be difficult for anyone that has not tried editing in this frame rate. But newbie editors learn, and so can seasoned editors who have not touched 24 FPS editing before.

[I_Lauv_You 221]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4iMNGYPVYw
During the wait of tanki being ded, here is some mild entertainment of striker rockets going in a sphere  

[Adab 2,896]

On 12/3/2022 at 10:19 AM, I_Lauv_You said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4iMNGYPVYw
During the wait of tanki being ded, here is some mild entertainment of striker rockets going in a sphere  

Well, that's content I didn't expect I would be watching

[SwiftSmoky 8,445]

@Adab, it's always good to see you making improvements for the parkour community, but there's one thing that is sad to see, and I don't know how much of it is coming from you or from the people whose requirements you have to keep in mind, but here it is:

On 11/16/2022 at 4:12 PM, Adab said:

because they get paid with in-game stuff for creating videos and they are not normal parkour clubs

It's sad that being in a parkour club became viewed as a job. Originally, all clubs made videos for one reason only: fun! The club paint was a gift of genuine gratitude for a club's contribution to the game, and club support came from empathic people who saw the struggles of running a successful club (some good clubs were slowed down or demotivated by the need to fund their parkour). It wasn't payment, it was kindness. (I know because I was there.)

I believe that despite the motivation of clubs to achieve official status or at least receive support, fun is still the main reason players do parkour and make videos, and I hope that the Tanki helpers and employees see it this way too, and will keep the rules and support system focused on these values: help parkour clubs have fun and contribute to the community without having to struggle for it, and reward them when you're grateful rather than for living up to perfectionist standards.

I get it, it'd be really nice if the best clubs put in some work to make their videos more perfect in certain aspects, or to make more videos, but I'd be grateful to have such great clubs in the game even without these last improvements, and I wouldn't want to burden them with requirements that make it feel like making videos is a job. (Remember, they don't make videos because you pay them!)

Edited January 11, 2023 by SwiftSmoky

[Devoid 2,601]

On 1/11/2023 at 3:07 PM, Adab said:

At first glance this post was pretty convincing, but upon reading it carefully, it seems it is vague and baseless, because me saying "get paid with in-game stuff" doesn't necessarily mean or imply that being in a parkour club is viewed as a job nowadays,

Firstly, "vague and baseless" clearly must mean something different to you than others, because I entirely understood his viewpoint, and judging by the number of reactions (none of which are neutral, let alone negative) to his post, I think others do too. This isn't even taking into consideration whether they agree, which I assume they do. Also, I think it is immature to, when debating a topic, dismiss the other person(s)'s perspectives outright; most constructive arguments include a level of understanding and acceptance of the other party's position, even if you don't agree with that position. And no need to pull the "I didn't understand what he meant, that's why I used these terms" card, when you fired back with an entire exposé defending your point of view from his points; if you were able to do that, you clearly understood the points he was trying to get across.

 

More importantly though (and secondly), Helper positions in this game more-or-less give the same bonuses to those that are in such a position and do work within the scope of their Helper position - I am sure you would agree that such positions fit the criteria of a "job." Sure, the duties of a parkourist may be less "sophisticated" in nature than that of a Helper, but they still receive similar rewards, and even have to adhere to behavior standards in spheres vastly outside of their immediate work scope (such as having a clean chat history, being on neutral and/or good terms with the corporation behind the game, etc.). Also, imposing deadlines that have to be adhered to in order to not risk potential negative effects (such as reduction and/or complete loss of bonuses) is something that occurs in a work environment, and coincidentally, is something that also happens within the TO parkour community. In TO's terms, "reduction and/or complete loss of bonuses" is synonymous with losing Official status, losing access to Club Spectators, losing supply support, etc..

If we Forum users still had the ability to create polls in our messages, I would create one that asked the question "Does being a member of an Officially-recognized parkour club meet the criteria of and/or feel like a job?", and I think you specifically might be surprised to see that the majority does feel this way (even though to me and to the reactors of SwiftSmoky's initial post, the poll outcomes would not be surprising).

 

On 1/11/2023 at 3:07 PM, Adab said:

"paid" can even be used for phrases like "paid respects" or "paid gratitude" and I used "paid" in this sense to mean "give".

Regardless of whether "paid" is used in a different manner in those phrases, you still meant in YOUR message that "paid" means to provide, and this is even something you admitted to! "Paid" in the same sense as "give" both mean the same thing here, just the connotation of the word used is different. Connotation doesn't affect the meaning of a word, nor does it cause words to magically no longer be synonymous. You can even go back to your initial post and swap in the word "give" in place of "paid," and still, SwiftSmoky's argument is unwavered, and his point still stands; that should be enough proof to back up what I just said.

 

On 1/11/2023 at 3:07 PM, Adab said:

And even if being in a parkour club is viewed as a job, it doesn't mean clubs wont make videos for "fun", because even in paid jobs, you can find people working for "fun" or to seek "fun".

Sure, there might be people in a real-world company that do their work simply for the fun, and don't mind their salary, but for the majority of employees at that same company, they are carrying out their jobs in attempt to make money and/or receive other bonuses that are more tangible and physical than a mere feeling. What's to say the same isn't true with parkour clubs, then? I mean, if you feel paid jobs are just the same as parkour clubs, surely the translation of my point can be done logically...

 

On 1/11/2023 at 3:07 PM, Adab said:

I'm someone who knows that "fun" is an important factor that makes people do parkour, that's one reason why I tried to and eventually changed the rule concerning official parkour clubs about posting a video every 6 weeks to 12 weeks.

Doesn't matter if the deadline is 6 weeks, 12 weeks, or once a year: there's still an existent deadline. Circling back to my point about deadlines being a foundational element of what's considered a job, even the mere existence of a deadline changes the atmosphere of why parkour is done by adding an unnecessary filter on the sport.

You see, in SwiftSmoky's days, parkour clubs had freedom to take as long as they'd like on constructing their montages, as, at least to my knowledge, there wasn't a written deadline they had to adhere to. Clubs became official because of the caliber of their tricks and secondarily the editing of their montages, and the amount of time between montages wasn't something that would make-or-break a club's chances at obtaining "Official" status. In today's times, however, especially aggregated by the existence of a set of cut-and-dry rules on what it takes to become an Official club, the title has become more of a symbol of completing the very-objective requirements. What I think we're all trying to get across is that because of the existence of checklist-styled rules when it comes to Parkour Club Support, Club Spectator Access, and all perks relating to becoming Official, there has inevitably become an unhealthy obsession with the rewards from participating in this sphere, and such overshadows the actual mode itself. The rewards, at the time they were created, were a great way of saying "thank you" to the hard-working parkourists that were able to, through their work, instill an enjoyment for a previously less popular part of this game, but now it has morphed into an ever-depleting motivation for continuing to build further on the infrastructure of this community. At the rate we're going, and with a collage of paints being one of the main pillars of the parkour community, it's only a matter of time before the boredom sets in, and these paints are no longer enough to keep people creating.

[I_Lauv_You 221]

Read it all, forgot what everyone said, read again… and realized this isn’t fun at all like the topic you stated hurts my brain in fact to read essays. Best idea is to blame @SwiftSmoky for being such a potato and making drama! He is just jealous he doesn’t have Fenix Oreo and Slide paint. 

[Adab 2,896]

On 1/13/2023 at 4:13 PM, I_Lauv_You said:

he doesn’t have Fenix Oreo and Slide paint. 

Never in the wildest of my dreams have I imagined Aero as Oreo

But hey, that "Slide" name sounds good for a parkour paint!

[SwiftSmoky 8,445]

Wow this got blown out of proportion fast! I especially didn't expect a discussion about the meaning of the word 'pay' lol.

 

To clarify my message:

I started my message with the most important thing, and it was no sugar coating:

On 1/11/2023 at 2:47 PM, SwiftSmoky said:

it's always good to see you making improvements for the parkour community

I really mean it, from what I can see on the forum (and my chats with a club leader), you improved the rules and the community is doing (and feeling) better thanks to those changes.

What I said is sad to see, is not certain rules, but the view (maybe I should have said: mindset) that led to the creation of problematic rules in the first place. Take a look at the statement that led to my previous post (this time with more context):

On 11/16/2022 at 4:12 PM, Adab said:

videos using VP9 look much better on YouTube and we want the videos made by parkour clubs with the Parkour Club Support and official status to not look just fine when they can look much better because they get paid with in-game stuff for creating videos and they are not normal parkour clubs.

Stripping some of the details, we get: "The videos could be better, and we're paying clubs for their videos, so they should satisfy our new preference (or else no support for the video)."

Now you agree that it's better to not have this rule, but the fact that someone (whoever created this rule) had such a mindset shows that the original purpose of club support was neglected (resulting in doing the opposite of supporting clubs in their struggles). I'm not saying that the person who made this rule is necessarily always looking at clubs like they're paid workers that should satisfy every desire of the rule makers, I imagine it can be easy to slip up and make this mistake with good intentions, not realizing the impact this rule may have, and thinking that this is a favor to tell clubs how to make their videos look better easily.

However, there was a time when an unkind, perfectionist and bureaucratic mindsets governed the parkour rules, and the damage stuck around long after the people who put these rules into place (I spoke to one of the rule makers back then, he held the opinion that parkour should be treated as strictly as eSports). And it's also possible to get tempted to encourage clubs to improve, using methods that have (maybe unforeseen) harmful side effects. That's why when I saw your post I decided to highlight the importance of staying true to the values I mentioned.

Now that I think about it, I have a suggestion to make: before changing rules, ask clubs for their input, and ask follow up questions after the rule was active for a while to get a better idea of what impact it had on the clubs.

 

Comments about the rest of the discussion following my post:

I've seen complaints about certain rules, and comparisons to what it was like when I was in charge.

First of all I agree that things were going well, and there was no need back then for rules that exist now.

But after I left, it wasn't easy to find someone who felt ready to take over my responsibilities, let alone someone that had as much support from the community as I did. Then came the need to make some unpopular and unpleasant decisions (like make a certain club Official when opinions were divided about who deserves it more, or to deny/revoke support for certain clubs), and with them came rules to justify such decisions and make them feel less personal. If the club support manager made his own club Official, or his friend's club, it's very easy to call it corruption, but when there's a rule that states measurable conditions for becoming Official, then a club support manager can make his own (or any other) club Official without getting as much heat from the community about it, all the while being able to answer questions like "why this club but not that club?". (I realize that there were still problems with the conditions allegedly changing to match a certain club's performance, but let's not get into it now.) Unfortunately, the chosen solution to make the parkour community feel fair and to protect the people working to help this community, had some side effects:

1. The rules changed the meaning of being Official. Instead of being a prize for a long term, big and special contribution to the community, it became something like "this club is doing well for a long time", and then it became "this club is active, records with spectator, and meets a few other such criteria", all of this while also being viewed by many players as "this club had connections to a parkour club manager".

2. The rigidity of the rules (although sometimes softened by the parkour club manager's choice to delay unpleasant choices) placed a burden on the supported clubs to work harder to meet certain requirements even if it came at the cost of not enjoying it as much or burning out, and yes, a feeling of having a job to complete (to avoid a loss that to some might mean being unable to keep doing as much parkour as they want, and to not let down friends that need this support).

Yeah that's only half of the story, but that's the half that matters now, that's why some rules are kept, and it's not easy to find an alternative.

Moreover, circumstances have changed, if we went by the old standards for becoming Official then it may no longer be possible for any club to become official because there are no more big special contributions left to make: ToT was the first big success of it's kind and inspired many others including TFP who were the first long term parkour club in the EN community and contributed to the growth of this community, and FnF raised the creativity in parkour. For other clubs to become Official, the meaning of being Official had to be changed, and the question of "what is the right meaning of becoming Official?" is perhaps something that should be discussed publicly.

So while there are problems with today's rules, I don't think that just going back to how things were in my time is going to work well, it will only replace some problems with others. I think it'd be good to aim for a middle ground where parkour clubs get as much freedom as possible while still allowing the club support manager to stop supporting clubs that no longer make use of this support, without having to suffer from the community's reaction, and without raising doubts about whether the decision was fair.

For example, I suggest that clubs will be able to extend their access to spectator accounts (up to a reasonable limit) if they provide proof that they are in the middle of working on a video or if they said ahead of time that they expect a drop in activity (especially because there are times when everyone is suddenly busy preparing for exams, or the leader has to be inactive for a while). That way parkour clubs will know that when times are harder Tanki has their back and will let them take the time they need, so that soon enough they will be able to return to normal without burning out. (And if it isn't the case already, I'd say remove the time limit on supplies, when a club uploads a video it gets supplies, and when it doesn't it gets no supplies, fair and simple enough, right?)

[Adab 2,896]

On 1/13/2023 at 10:20 PM, Devoid said:

They give crystals and a slightly different type of paint...So what? Still very similar, and not enough to completely dismiss the thought of parkour clubs being a "job"...

This entire discussion has became a vocab argument; this is straying so far from the points being made, and is becoming a useless time-suck.

 

I'll just end it on this note: I think it's unhealthy to have an individual that gets caught up in the weeds of defending their own position(s) on things, as opposed to focusing on bettering the community by taking into consideration the opinions of others. I feel it would be smart to employ a second individual with expertise in this field, to both create a form of "checks and balances" between people that hold the title of "Parkour Clubs Manager," while also offering up a second opinion on all issues related to parkour. The main reason why we've gotten by as a community in the past without such is because other individuals that held this position were more democratic in nature, that is, they listened more to feedback presented by members of the community. They didn't make decisions based solely off their own opinions, they enveloped the opinions of the delegates the decisions would impact. Obligations switched from the sphere of parkour the Parkour Clubs Manager works in, to serving the game they are representing when the position became an officially-recognized Helper position, and it has become far more bureaucratic than necessary.

Wow

[Adab 2,896]

On 1/13/2023 at 8:31 PM, SwiftSmoky said:

Wow this got blown out of proportion fast! I especially didn't expect a discussion about the meaning of the word 'pay' lol.

 

To clarify my message:

I started my message with the most important thing, and it was no sugar coating:

I really mean it, from what I can see on the forum (and my chats with a club leader), you improved the rules and the community is doing (and feeling) better thanks to those changes.

What I said is sad to see, is not certain rules, but the view (maybe I should have said: mindset) that led to the creation of problematic rules in the first place. Take a look at the statement that led to my previous post (this time with more context):

Stripping some of the details, we get: "The videos could be better, and we're paying clubs for their videos, so they should satisfy our new preference (or else no support for the video)."

Now you agree that it's better to not have this rule, but the fact that someone (whoever created this rule) had such a mindset shows that the original purpose of club support was neglected (resulting in doing the opposite of supporting clubs in their struggles). I'm not saying that the person who made this rule is necessarily always looking at clubs like they're paid workers that should satisfy every desire of the rule makers, I imagine it can be easy to slip up and make this mistake with good intentions, not realizing the impact this rule may have, and thinking that this is a favor to tell clubs how to make their videos look better easily.

However, there was a time when an unkind, perfectionist and bureaucratic mindsets governed the parkour rules, and the damage stuck around long after the people who put these rules into place (I spoke to one of the rule makers back then, he held the opinion that parkour should be treated as strictly as eSports). And it's also possible to get tempted to encourage clubs to improve, using methods that have (maybe unforeseen) harmful side effects. That's why when I saw your post I decided to highlight the importance of staying true to the values I mentioned.

Now that I think about it, I have a suggestion to make: before changing rules, ask clubs for their input, and ask follow up questions after the rule was active for a while to get a better idea of what impact it had on the clubs.

 

Comments about the rest of the discussion following my post:

I've seen complaints about certain rules, and comparisons to what it was like when I was in charge.

First of all I agree that things were going well, and there was no need back then for rules that exist now.

But after I left, it wasn't easy to find someone who felt ready to take over my responsibilities, let alone someone that had as much support from the community as I did. Then came the need to make some unpopular and unpleasant decisions (like make a certain club Official when opinions were divided about who deserves it more, or to deny/revoke support for certain clubs), and with them came rules to justify such decisions and make them feel less personal. If the club support manager made his own club Official, or his friend's club, it's very easy to call it corruption, but when there's a rule that states measurable conditions for becoming Official, then a club support manager can make his own (or any other) club Official without getting as much heat from the community about it, all the while being able to answer questions like "why this club but not that club?". (I realize that there were still problems with the conditions allegedly changing to match a certain club's performance, but let's not get into it now.) Unfortunately, the chosen solution to make the parkour community feel fair and to protect the people working to help this community, had some side effects:

1. The rules changed the meaning of being Official. Instead of being a prize for a long term, big and special contribution to the community, it became something like "this club is doing well for a long time", and then it became "this club is active, records with spectator, and meets a few other such criteria", all of this while also being viewed by many players as "this club had connections to a parkour club manager".

2. The rigidity of the rules (although sometimes softened by the parkour club manager's choice to delay unpleasant choices) placed a burden on the supported clubs to work harder to meet certain requirements even if it came at the cost of not enjoying it as much or burning out, and yes, a feeling of having a job to complete (to avoid a loss that to some might mean being unable to keep doing as much parkour as they want, and to not let down friends that need this support).

Yeah that's only half of the story, but that's the half that matters now, that's why some rules are kept, and it's not easy to find an alternative.

Moreover, circumstances have changed, if we went by the old standards for becoming Official then it may no longer be possible for any club to become official because there are no more big special contributions left to make: ToT was the first big success of it's kind and inspired many others including TFP who were the first long term parkour club in the EN community and contributed to the growth of this community, and FnF raised the creativity in parkour. For other clubs to become Official, the meaning of being Official had to be changed, and the question of "what is the right meaning of becoming Official?" is perhaps something that should be discussed publicly.

So while there are problems with today's rules, I don't think that just going back to how things were in my time is going to work well, it will only replace some problems with others. I think it'd be good to aim for a middle ground where parkour clubs get as much freedom as possible while still allowing the club support manager to stop supporting clubs that no longer make use of this support, without having to suffer from the community's reaction, and without raising doubts about whether the decision was fair.

For example, I suggest that clubs will be able to extend their access to spectator accounts (up to a reasonable limit) if they provide proof that they are in the middle of working on a video or if they said ahead of time that they expect a drop in activity (especially because there are times when everyone is suddenly busy preparing for exams, or the leader has to be inactive for a while). That way parkour clubs will know that when times are harder Tanki has their back and will let them take the time they need, so that soon enough they will be able to return to normal without burning out. (And if it isn't the case already, I'd say remove the time limit on supplies, when a club uploads a video it gets supplies, and when it doesn't it gets no supplies, fair and simple enough, right?)

Alright, I'm thinking about this, I may respond after some time

[SwiftSmoky 8,445]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:07 AM, UnIeash said:

Whole issue with today parkour clubs is simple, they want get official then to flex special paint, then do some crisis parkour montage video just so they doing videos as they should. Parkour has lost its purpose and its to show community awesome new tricks and they did it for fun and not for some paint.

I don't think that's the whole issue, but it's certainly a big issue. I suggest an equally simple solution: Remove the Official status completely.

There are so many problems with the Official status (list in the spoiler), and very little advantage, especially nowadays when this status has lost it's meaning and value to many people. (Also, many people, including myself, never valued it at all in the first place.)

Spoiler

• Neglecting what matters more: to enjoy the game. Instead, doing what they believe will bring them this status/paint.
• Pressure on others (especially club leaders) to go after the status even if that's not what they want, even at the cost of what they do want.
• Feelings of injustice, fights between clubs (and some people that support those clubs).
• Some club applicants turning out to be unhelpful "paint diggers" that only came for the club's bonuses.
• Certain rules that are imposed on members of clubs that became Official. (I'm not sure about the situation now, but there used to be a rule that required Official club members to have a clean chat/ban history, and I decided that if I will be asked to kick a member out of the club because of the rules, I will instead reject the Official status, because friends come first. But not all club leaders made the same choice.)
• Clubs losing motivation once they get the status, dropping in activity and quality, or falling apart completely.

I'm sure you can think of more, this is just what I recall off the top of my head.

Edited January 15, 2023 by SwiftSmoky

[SwiftSmoky 8,445]

I also suggest having a week (or a few weeks, whatever seems right to you) to let the members of all clubs have the Official club paint of their choice just so they get to experience it if that's something they really wanted, this way they might feel less bad about the removal of this status (and even get to put out a video with these paints). Think about it as a goodbye party for the Official status lol.

Edited January 15, 2023 by SwiftSmoky

[Lennard 3,270]

On 1/15/2023 at 3:47 PM, SwiftSmoky said:

There are so many problems with the Official status (list in the spoiler), and very little advantage, especially nowadays when this status has lost it's meaning and value to many people. 

I must admit that the Official status lost its status. In the first case, it should never have been possible to meet certain requirements to get the Official status. This is where the Official status lost its status. You can see the results when clubs meet those requirements and get the Official status (as you said): "Clubs losing motivation once they get the status, dropping in activity and quality, or falling apart completely". Clubs going Official say "we've got the Official status and paint, nothing is stopping us from taking the Official status away. Let's sit back and do tranquilo". It may sound harsh, but this is the reality. Once you have Official status, there is nothing that will remove Official status. Unless you break one of the current official parkour club rules (which is almost impossible these days lol).

However, I don't think Official status should be completely scrapped, as some clubs certainly deserve it when you compare their activity and quality with other Official clubs.

[Devoid 2,601]

On 1/15/2023 at 7:26 PM, Lennard said:

However, I don't think Official status should be completely scrapped, as some clubs certainly deserve it when you compare their activity and quality with other Official clubs.

Maybe there can be a routine system set in place where clubs are re-evaluated on the more subjective elements of the Requirements for Official Status (trick quality, editing quality, etc.), and if a club fails, they lose their status. It would take being harsh in order for the system to maintain any lick of integrity though.

I would suggest doing so after an Official club uploads, but I don't think that's fair because as it stands, clubs like Fly to High upload significantly more frequently than clubs like FeatherLike, and there's not a good way of adding in an "opportunity cost" of sorts, where a club is graded on an axis that factors in both time since previous upload and caliber of tricks, editing, etc.. Therefore, I'd suggest something like a quarterly check-up (for example, one in March, one in June, one in September, and one in December).

Adding onto my point of there being a lack of measuring "opportunity cost," I think that's something that, regardless of whether these check-ups are implemented, should be added to the Requirements for Official Status.

[Beyond 416]

On 1/13/2023 at 3:42 PM, Adab said:

Never in the wildest of my dreams have I imagined Aero as Oreo

But hey, that "Slide" name sounds good for a parkour paint!

The name "Slide" is already booked 

[SwiftSmoky 8,445]

I think it would be nice to have clubs chosen by the community to become Official, by subjective judgment, like having Official and supported clubs announce when they think some club should become Official, and when all (or almost?) of those clubs agree then the status is awarded.

I feel like being chosen by the community is the most pleasant and rewarding way to become Official (because then you know it is because the community thinks you deserve it, and not because you met some requirements), and the best way to make the paint feel valuable again (because the community will not disagree with any choice of making a club Official, and surely not everyone will let clubs get it easily).

But if you do something like that, the process should take into account that beef/rivalry between clubs might mean there won't be a unanimous agreement sometimes.

I guess you could play with the idea and have clubs vote just to see what the results would be like now.

One thing I don't like about this idea is that it might cause some clubs to be offended by someone's choice not to vote for them, or to vote for someone else before them. The vote could be anonymous of course, but somehow I have a feeling that people will end up telling about their votes anyway.

 

(I'm not actually expecting this to happen, just throwing around ideas lol...)

Edited January 16, 2023 by SwiftSmoky

[Doja 212]

It's kinda a funny how so many people cared about the "status" of such paints these days when all problems in terms of people caring for how many people have this paint compared to this paint could of been solved by just creating new paints for each individual club which would solved the problem of being isolated as THAT specific club and aswell just because there are so many official clubs now anyways so it wouldn't matter. This idea has been long mentioned since FnF not wanting Phoenix to replicate a club that they did not feel was related by any standard they had. But before then was never a problem due to the fact that each 1 official club of each community was separate and special in their own way. But even when FnF had Phoenix it was still special til TDF became official just because the leader was Parkour Curator, Phoenix lost value when you saw 5 people wearing this paint in every single battle you joined (which funnily enough created the rule of 14 people capacity can receive paint in clubs) but then FTL as well received it later when TDF lost activity coincidently right after receiving official status lol. But who wouldn't ask for official when it can be free in such a position? The list goes on but that is where the downfall started especially when FnF died (after swift/darrrex left) and NGU/FoF never became official but others did.
^

Same thing happened with FTL to become official due to parkour curator
Same thing happened with becoming official ToD making aero lose value as the 3rd club with it
Same thing happened with FTH would prefer a new paint like FnF instead got Aero

This being said , obtaining this status is even more funny when you come to find out that for whatever reason Tanki would refuse creating new paints, you could just go into another community that hasn't had an official club yet such as Polish community to then earn official status then go eternally inactive (Similiar to AoP because no competition) because they have no rules against posting dates or activity but mainly just to get paint and relax because that community has no experience with parkour I assume? So it's an easy way in and out... so just fix solve your own problems and go make a club in BR (Brazilian) FR (French) or some other community make a couple videos and become close friends with the CM and relax from then on after getting a new paint which Tanki can obviously make for other communities but NOT for just the current official or upcoming official clubs. But then who deserves it ? idk , lets remove official @SwiftSmoky !!! Would be funny to eat popcorn and watch

Or create an COP/MOC which would be like MOP but "Clubs Of Parkour" or "Master of Clubs" to have a show down of creating best video(s) to have just 2 clubs as Phoenix/Aero and just change rules a bit compared to MOP but have the team of 10 or so and could be discussed. That would be pretty fun and cool for clubs and community ngl 

[SwiftSmoky 8,445]

On 1/16/2023 at 5:42 PM, Doja said:

lets remove official @SwiftSmoky !!! Would be funny to eat popcorn and watch

That's the spirit! Burn it down! lol

Seriously though, can't deny that it would be satisfying for me as someone who always viewed the whole Official thing as a distraction and a problem. Maybe let TFP have it because it basically became part of their identity at this point (think of it as them having the paint for historical reasons rather than for current circumstances if you like), but everyone else - even if they don't feel this way now - could really benefit from not being manipulated by this paint.

Edited January 16, 2023 by SwiftSmoky

[Lennard 3,270]

Wassup Parkour Community,

Since there most likely won't be a parkour contest anytime soon (probably never again), I would like to know your thoughts on the following;
Are you interested in a Parkour Survival contest? A contest where a challenge is given every week, which gets harder and harder every week.
As a former Parkour Survival Organizer (2019), I have the experience and knowledge to organize such a contest.

I asked the CM for in-game prizes. But unfortunately this is not possible. It will be an unofficial parkour competition without prizes.

What is the purpose of this contest?
If you are ready for new challenges in parkour, this is your ideal opportunity to participate and stretch your brain

Before I spend my time creating parkour challenges, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

[Ku6epCTTopTcMeHKa 3]

On 9/5/2023 at 11:22 AM, Lennard said:

Wassup Parkour Community,

Since there most likely won't be a parkour contest anytime soon (probably never again), I would like to know your thoughts on the following;
Are you interested in a Parkour Survival contest? A contest where a challenge is given every week, which gets harder and harder every week.
As a former Parkour Survival Organizer (2019), I have the experience and knowledge to organize such a contest.

I asked the CM for in-game prizes. But unfortunately this is not possible. It will be an unofficial parkour competition without prizes.

What is the purpose of this contest?
If you are ready for new challenges in parkour, this is your ideal opportunity to participate and stretch your brain

Before I spend my time creating parkour challenges, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

Sounds interesting  , why not )

[Adab 2,896]

On 9/5/2023 at 12:22 PM, Lennard said:

Wassup Parkour Community,

Since there most likely won't be a parkour contest anytime soon (probably never again), I would like to know your thoughts on the following;
Are you interested in a Parkour Survival contest? A contest where a challenge is given every week, which gets harder and harder every week.
As a former Parkour Survival Organizer (2019), I have the experience and knowledge to organize such a contest.

I asked the CM for in-game prizes. But unfortunately this is not possible. It will be an unofficial parkour competition without prizes.

What is the purpose of this contest?
If you are ready for new challenges in parkour, this is your ideal opportunity to participate and stretch your brain

Before I spend my time creating parkour challenges, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

Sounds great to me, let's go!

[Devoid 2,601]

As I am sure most of y'all have seen, the recent Patch Update #744 implemented several adjustments that have significantly hurt Lightweight augments. Now, a fully-upgraded Wasp Mk7 with a Lightweight augment is heavier than even a fully-upgraded Mk7 Wasp was prior to the Patch Update #713 that increased the weight of all hulls (which was previously irrelevant because of how Lightweight augments worked, but now is a significant matter due to workings of this new update).

 

I suspect the Developers rolled out this update because of some sort of issue Lightweight augments posed within Matchmaking. Whatever the reason is, if it relates solely to Matchmaking, it shouldn't warrant these changes also being present within Parkour Mode. With this in mind, I replied to the most recent update's topic, suggesting that the Developers should revert the changes for Parkour Mode specifically so that we (parkourists) can continue to use the old form of Lightweight augments where each hull is identically weighted at 1,000 kg, and that the Developers could keep the changes made within this update in Matchmaking, other types of PRO Battles, etc. so it can fix whatever issue the update was meant to fix. You can see my reply here, and if you want, feel free to add another reply with your take on everything.

 

I am curious to figure out what implications within the Parkour Community these changes will bring. I know when HTML5 was first introduced, the physics were a lot different than the Flash physics we were used to since the dawn of parkour, and several parkour clubs needed more time between montages to get around this complication to produce tricks of similar caliber to the ones they created before Flash was discontinued. I am wondering if that might be necessary here as well.

Personally, I think the 12-week timeline we currently have is sufficient and could work without change, and I do not believe it should be extended. My reasoning for this is that while giving clubs more time to mess around with Lightweight augments in their current state could lead to higher quality tricks, I feel it is more likely that clubs will just misuse a deadline extension¹. Also, I believe that history will repeat itself, in that the extension will continue long past the day that the problem that warranted the extension in the first place is fixed². If you are wondering why I think these things, check out the spoiler below for a more in-depth break down of my thought process.

Spoiler

1: I infer this to be the case because a few clubs already take until the very end of the deadline to finally upload, and these uploads are nothing more than other clubs' videos. Had such clubs' videos been twice as long, or included twice as many tricks, it would make sense that it took them twice as long to create their video, yet these videos have roughly the same number of tricks, and the trick and video editing quality are very similar to other clubs. This leads me to believe that they just do not properly make use of their time. Giving such clubs even more time would just result in more wasted time, not subjectively better and more exciting montages.

 

2: The deadline to post a video should have long-since been returned to the length of time it was before being increased to 12 weeks, as the HTML5 physics have been fixed, and there is no longer a crisis that demands more time to work around. Yet this deadline length remains untouched by our management. I think this will also be the case if the deadline is increased with the current problems with Lightweight augments we are facing: as how is it really any different of a scenario?

 

Anyways, I just felt it was important to start this dialogue, and get our Parkour Clubs Manager involved in helping us work through this time of issue. Feel free to share any thoughts below - I would appreciate hearing others' opinions (whether they are in agreeance with my views, or otherwise).

[Vacuum 76]

On 11/11/2023 at 1:21 AM, Devoid said:

As I am sure most of y'all have seen, the recent Patch Update #744 implemented several adjustments that have significantly hurt Lightweight augments. Now, a fully-upgraded Wasp Mk7 with a Lightweight augment is heavier than even a fully-upgraded Mk7 Wasp was prior to the Patch Update #713 that increased the weight of all hulls (which was previously irrelevant because of how Lightweight augments worked, but now is a significant matter due to workings of this new update).

 

I suspect the Developers rolled out this update because of some sort of issue Lightweight augments posed within Matchmaking. Whatever the reason is, if it relates solely to Matchmaking, it shouldn't warrant these changes also being present within Parkour Mode. With this in mind, I replied to the most recent update's topic, suggesting that the Developers should revert the changes for Parkour Mode specifically so that we (parkourists) can continue to use the old form of Lightweight augments where each hull is identically weighted at 1,000 kg, and that the Developers could keep the changes made within this update in Matchmaking, other types of PRO Battles, etc. so it can fix whatever issue the update was meant to fix. You can see my reply here, and if you want, feel free to add another reply with your take on everything.

 

I am curious to figure out what implications within the Parkour Community these changes will bring. I know when HTML5 was first introduced, the physics were a lot different than the Flash physics we were used to since the dawn of parkour, and several parkour clubs needed more time between montages to get around this complication to produce tricks of similar caliber to the ones they created before Flash was discontinued. I am wondering if that might be necessary here as well.

Personally, I think the 12-week timeline we currently have is sufficient and could work without change, and I do not believe it should be extended. My reasoning for this is that while giving clubs more time to mess around with Lightweight augments in their current state could lead to higher quality tricks, I feel it is more likely that clubs will just misuse a deadline extension¹. Also, I believe that history will repeat itself, in that the extension will continue long past the day that the problem that warranted the extension in the first place is fixed². If you are wondering why I think these things, check out the spoiler below for a more in-depth break down of my thought process.

  Hide contents

1: I infer this to be the case because a few clubs already take until the very end of the deadline to finally upload, and these uploads are nothing more than other clubs' videos. Had such clubs' videos been twice as long, or included twice as many tricks, it would make sense that it took them twice as long to create their video, yet these videos have roughly the same number of tricks, and the trick and video editing quality are very similar to other clubs. This leads me to believe that they just do not properly make use of their time. Giving such clubs even more time would just result in more wasted time, not subjectively better and more exciting montages.

 

2: The deadline to post a video should have long-since been returned to the length of time it was before being increased to 12 weeks, as the HTML5 physics have been fixed, and there is no longer a crisis that demands more time to work around. Yet this deadline length remains untouched by our management. I think this will also be the case if the deadline is increased with the current problems with Lightweight augments we are facing: as how is it really any different of a scenario?

 

Anyways, I just felt it was important to start this dialogue, and get our Parkour Clubs Manager involved in helping us work through this time of issue. Feel free to share any thoughts below - I would appreciate hearing others' opinions (whether they are in agreeance with my views, or otherwise).

Hi, totally agree with you, I think we should stand together as parkourists here. I think, if enough people will comment this update, we can achieve something!

[Lows 0]

I would like to complaint about last patch update.... its HORRIBLE! As a player this was only topic I was interested in... and slightly, to be honest you are losing players aswell.