Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos wrote:
The solution is very easy.
"Any%" is either shortest possible input to make the player win eventually, or quickest possible win with whatever input is required.
"Maximum score" is maxing out whatever the game gives you as a "score".
"Full completion" in this game would simply be maximum yardage since it'd be the main optional metric to maximize to consider the game completed the fullest.
From this perspective, i was erroneously blending “maximum score” and “full competition” criteria.
Sorry, i didn’t see the separation before. I change my stance and can see this run being accepted as “max score”; a max total distance being a “full completion” run; and a shortest frames being the any %.
EDIT: FWIW, the three frames needed for the maxed final drive is fine to keep as a stylistic choice.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
eien86 wrote:
I will have to agree with DrD2k9's opinion here. IMO, the only two acceptable categories I would entertain for this game are:
* any% - reach the win screen in the least amount of frames, heavily manipulating the CPU to reach the least yards in every shot and only beating it by one the least amount of times.
* max score - make the further possible shot, every time. The final score sheet contains 12 numbers. All of them should be maxed, not only 2 of them.
In my eyes, this submission achieves neither. As a consequence, it does not feel like superhuman play (fundational requirement for a TAS) but rather like a relatively good player recorded it RTA and achieved a max drive once.
I can't agree that this doesn't feel like superhuman play. As I mentioned in my original post:
this does seem to be a well planned out and executed run
I feel there's enough evidence to qualify as superhuman simply due to the precision shown in the TAS. I just disagree with Winslinator on what should be considered maximum score.
I'm not going to complain if the majority of respondents are on the side of Winslinator's opinion regarding "maximum score"; if that's the community consensus, that's what we need to go with.
I was asked for my perspective; I shared my perspective; I further clarified my perspective after Winslinator suggested changing the submission notes; and my perspective hasn't changed. What I definitely do NOT want is for this thing to become a big emotionally charged issue.
If anything within my posts has come across as attacking Winslinator personally, it was unintentional; and I apologize for any such confusion.
Regardless of the result of the maximum score definition. I'd love to see what Winslinator can do in an any% run from the perspective of getting a 6-5 win as quickly as possible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Winslinator wrote:
nymx wrote:
Can this submission be reworked to salvage your movie?
Yes, very easily. I can remove all discussions from the notes regarding maximizing drive yardage and define score solely based on # of wins. The movie would just require a minor tweak at the end to not max out the 416-yard longest drive, and would only be 3 frames slower. I agree with most of DrD2k9's points, especially that I admittedly went for a weird amalgamation of scoring metrics. However, I would argue # of wins is a better metric for basing "maximum score" on than total yardage. This is because the game very clearly and unambiguously labels your # of wins as "SCORE" on the driving screen. And that was my main intent with this "maximum score" submission. I think if a future submission wanted to max out total yardage the branch should be called "maximum yardage" instead.
Simply removing discussion regarding drive yardage from the submission notes doesn't change my perspective on what the definition of "maximum score" should be for this game. Even had the original submission notes said nothing about individual or total drive distances, I'd still feel that it would be a better metric than simply rounds won. Mainly because, maxing out the drive distances leaves nothing else to maximize for the game; where only winning all rounds (with less than maximum distances) does leave something else that can be maxed out. The game also "very clearly and unambiguously" displays each round's drive distance on the Score Board screen, so I don't feel that only the round score being shown on the driving screen is a very strong argument as to why distance shouldn't be considered.
So I still don't feel like this qualifies for max score.
Discussion on what should/shouldn't be considered maximum score aside, and switching to consideration of the run from an any% perspective:
If not maxing out the distance on the last round is 3 frames slower than this submission, then don't change it and make a longer overall run. We obviously wouldn't want a longer any% run.
That said, if the goal was switched to any% from max score; I'd still be curious if losing anywhere up to 5 rounds was even faster
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Consider this a review, as it's already been claimed for judgement:
This run strikes me as an odd amalgamation of goals; primarily due to the chosen definition of "maximum score."
The goal is listed as "maximum score," because every round vs the CPU player is won (with the final tally 11-0) and because the player wins the longest drive metric. The submission notes clearly state that the drives themselves aren't maxed out for each round. This was done to make the run more "interesting" by just barely beating the CPU golfer for each round, until the last (where the maximum distance of 416 yards was then attained).
To me, the total sum of drive lengths is a better metric on which to claim "maximum score" than simply winning all the rounds; even though the total sum isn't displayed, all the constituent parts of that sum are. So, even though it may be less "interesting," I feel a maximum drive on all rounds would be necessary to claim "maximum score". My primary reasoning is that such a run would contain, within itself, the criteria that this submission uses to claim "maximum score" (winning all rounds and having the single longest drive), while still having a higher total for sum of drive lengths. Assuming 416 is the maximum length which can be attainable on all 11 rounds, then the maximum sum should be 4,576 total yards not the 3.664 yards presented in this submission.
For this reason, I don't think this run qualifies for a "maximum score" branch.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure this run would qualify as an any% run either. Without having tested myself, I'm curious if actually losing (up to) 5 of the 11 rounds would yield a faster overall run than winning all 11 rounds as presented. This would result in a completion of a full game playthrough that was 6-5 in favor of the player, which could be considered satisfactory to have won the game. Therefore, if losing any amount of rounds up to 5 would result in a faster complete run, that would best this submission from an any% perspective.
Even if the first 10 rounds of this submission are actually the fastest way to complete those 10 rounds (of which I'm dubious); the fact that the maximum distance is obtained on the very last round means that round likely takes longer than necessary and still wouldn't qualify for any% from the perspective of purely optimal play to win the game.
I hate to say it, because this does seem to be a well planned out and executed run; but I don't feel this run is acceptable (as presented) for Standard Class publication in either any% or maximum score branches.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
nymx wrote:
I finally have some news on this situation. Finally got an NTSC disk image. After reviewing the situation, my original inputs actually sync up with the new version. The only difference is that I had to inject about 20 frames to get the movie lined up.
There is one major difference here. The Bull is not in this version, but the graphical glitch is gone, so I can get this new movie finished up tomorrow. But before I do, I want to ask if there is a still a chance to keep the original submission "As-Is", since we are only talking about that display glitch. I would hate that the bull is gone.
Keeping the original submitted inputs would be fine if we publish it using PAL mode, but not NTSC (as they were submitted) due to the introduced glitch.
Regarding the 20 extra frames for the actual NTSC version: if inputs sync otherwise, I’d expect framerate difference to make up for those 20 frames and still have the NTSC version be faster actual time.
It would be a bit of a bummer to lose the bull.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
nymx wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
nymx wrote:
Are we talking about any glitches or glitches that affect game play?
My perspective on the graphical glitches when TASing C64 in a different region settings:
If a game doesn't have them, and there's no other apparent glitches; then the game appears to work fine in both regions, and playing in NTSC is fine even if it was a PAL release.
If a game does have graphical glitches, then that's at least one indicator that other potential issues may be present with playing in the 'wrong' region (even if we don't know of or have evidence of any other glitches).
If no glitches are apparent, we can't assume there are issues with cross regional play. If glitches are apparent, we know there are issues with cross regional play (even if they are limited to graphical only).
Just one more thing to note. A lot of C64 games perform "Raster Interrupts" on screen drawings. I have a few games that do this, but it is not a glitch...its just hard to time those situations so that the screen can be drawn the way the author intended. I wonder if that is the case here, since we see a slither for about 2 blocks of display.
I already brought this up with nymx on discord, but leaving it here so other's can see the thought process:
If it could be proven that the graphical issues also occur in NTSC mode due to this raster drawing situation, then we could argue that the glitch wasn't introduced solely due to cross region play.
In this case, however, it sounds like they don't appear in NTSC mode.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
nymx wrote:
Are we talking about any glitches or glitches that affect game play?
My perspective on the graphical glitches when TASing C64 in a different region settings:
If a game doesn't have them, and there's no other apparent glitches; then the game appears to work fine in both regions, and playing in NTSC is fine even if it was a PAL release.
If a game does have graphical glitches, then that's at least one indicator that other potential issues may be present with playing in the 'wrong' region (even if we don't know of or have evidence of any other glitches).
If no glitches are apparent, we can't assume there are issues with cross regional play. If glitches are apparent, we know there are issues with cross regional play (even if they are limited to graphical only).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
We’ve had a policy on C64 TASes for a while that allows for PAL games to be run in NTSC mode so long as glitches aren’t introduced.
But it does appear that a glitch has been introduced in this case. So, I’d encourage nymx to redo this game using the NTSC version.
For now: if nymx’s inputs synced when used in in PAL mode, I’d recommend publishing that PAL mode run and then obsoleting with the NTSC version when/if it gets made (assuming its faster).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Yea. If the game has an actual ending, it’s probably safe. Also, if not all available content/songs are shown on those three levels, a run doing all the content/songs would potentially qualify as a separate full completion branch.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Would maxed out character stats be enough to be considered “added gameplay” for using a password/code?
Here’s a theoretical: the recent boxing game i TASed (NES World Champ) gives a password after beating the game that allows you to carry stats into a new play session (without any other type of save feature). Using that password starts the game in the final weight class (of four).
I know how modify the given password to allow for having the higher/maxed stats for the player’s boxer while still starting in the first of the four weight classes, effectively allowing for a complete playthrough of the game with a maxed out character. This would be similar but faster than a non-password based run due to the player character dealing more damage to earlier opponents.
I assumed such a movie that used the modified password be Alt only? But if it could be standard, I’ll make it.
EDIT: The game does have training modes where a player could max out their stats before fighting any ranked opponents, but it would take around 200 training sessions to max out the character.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
If the only difference is language, and all other gameplay is the same; then I believe English is preferred.
We don’t (currently) consider improvements solely due to language differences.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos wrote:
Yeah it'd be ideal if the main submission obsoleted the current record within the same metrics first, and then the one that aims for a different type of ending could co-exist as a secondary publication file.
Why a secondary publication file instead of a different publication?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Achieves best ending (?). If you reach the end without the whole party the game gives you a fail screen, not sure if that would be considered an actual ending or just a fail screen.
Based on this statement from the submission notes,
...quest to assemble a party of of adventurers...
I'd argue that this submission is not a "best ending" but just a general ending. It seems the presented goal of the game is to assemble the party. If the game tells you that you've failed because you didn't assemble the full party, then you've not beaten the game.
To me, a game outright telling they player that they've failed in the main goal means that they didn't beat the game even if they otherwise reached the end of playability. So if it's required to have the full party in order to get an ending that doesn't say "failed," that's a minimum requirement for the game to be considered beaten.
I realize that some games have multiple endings where it may report you failed some sub-task(s) presented while still achieving the main goal. In these cases we'd often consider such an instance a "bad" ending or not the "best" ending. But when a game only has 2 ending possibilities (effectively You Won or You Failed), then winning must be achieved to consider the game beaten.
Since we generally don't accept unbeaten games for publication, I don't think a run of this game that finishes faster by not getting (or, if possible, losing) party members would qualify for publication under a "bad ending" branch.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
KusogeMan wrote:
I did a little searching into the profiles and I noticed something very clear from the start. The only who are being affected by this rule in this voting were the specific people that voted against the ruling that was passed. Only me and Spike, i looked over all your TASing movies and got this result:
Me and Spike are the only fighting games TASers for speed. The only people that voted against.
Feos, Samsara, Coolhandmike do not TAS fighting games, but TASed beat'em'ups.
Slamo, Fortran, DrD2k9, DigitalDuck, Tompa, Chanoyu, oceanbagel don't TAS any of these, they also do not TAS racing games either. Nobody in this voting TASes racing games,
Mario Kart Double Dash and Wii fans, and the FZero X and GX fans would be affected as well. Of course nobody here TASes either games as well.
So basically this is the equivalent of inviting 12 politically not interested people and 2 politically interested people to vote for laws that only affect those 2 interested people.
I could give a more specific example with politically charged issues but I don't want to derail this. I just wanted to vent out how bad i feel about being a major contributor, along Spike obviously, and having my vote crushed by the uninterested party.
player TAS fighter? TAS beatemup? vote
kusoge yes yes obsolete
spike yes yes obsolete
samsara no yes no
slamo no no no
fortran no no no
feos no yes no
DrD2k9 no no no
DigitalDuck no no
Tompa no no no
Chanoyu hasnt published anything
oceanbagel no no no
coolhandmike no yes no
Just because you are the only two in this list of players to have published fighting game runs does not automatically mean that none of the other players will ever be interested in making one themselves in the future.
Nor does it mean they are an “uninterested party.” The simple fact that they took time to respond to this thread shows, at least, a degree of concern for the issue and how it could potentially impact themselves or other TASers (besides you and Spike) in the future.
Further, your list of players is either accidentally or intentionally deceiving. It appears you only considered publications for whether or not a player has interest in fighting/beatemup games. You have myself listed as a no on TASing beatemup games, but i have before. I have TASed and submitted a run of Double Dragon, but it was not published.
You cannot know what other people may be interested in TASing in the future solely by looking at what they’ve had published already.
As far as your vote “getting crushed”: when things are put up for a vote, there’s always the possibility that someone who is very passionate about their position/vote will not get their way due to the votes of others. The whole point of basing things on a vote, though, is to consider the views of all respondents not just those who are the most vocal/passionate about the subject being voted on. While you may currently feel that this vote has impacted you differently than others, that’s not true. The vote impacts the whole community (present and future) equally, as the decisions made based on the vote will determine site policies going forward. Even if a particular individual never chooses to TAS a fighting game, they are still subject to the policies and are thus equally impacted.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
WhiteHat94 wrote:
Gunhawk, a zapper game, wave based shooter. Clear the waves as quick as possible. Post stage powerups are seemingly random, and you really want certain ones at the start.
RTA run - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUZ0_yVMDgA
I could probably handle this one. I’ve got experience with zapper games.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
I’ve always been under the impression that April Fools submissions are meant to be taken as jokes on the day of 4/1. .
With the old site, it was arguably harder to get an April Fools submission published due to rules of acceptance at the time. Now that rules have loosened on what’s acceptable, more April Fools publications are indeed publishable. But the general joke side of April Fools submissions is about the submission on the day of, not about getting a joke run published on the day of.
Regarding publishing non-joke runs on April Fools Day: the content should make it obvious that things published on that day aren’t commonly joke publications. Is it worth it to skip publishing for a day (or two, due to time zones) to prevent non-joke publications from being taken incorrectly? Some may feel so, but I don’t think it’s necessary to delay publication of other runs.
TL:DR It’s the submission that’s meant to be the crux of the joke, not the publication.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos wrote:
The savegame branch would just be labeled "savegame" + whatever other standard goal it would have, if applicable. For for Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance it becomes "Arcade Mode" and "Arcade Mode, savegame".
Just a suggestion on inclusion of “savegame” as part of a branch name (for any genre): Have “savegame” always be the first part of the branch name as it’s the main differentiator for that particular branch. Then any additional branch name identifiers would follow.
So for the above example: Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance “savegame, arcade mode”
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Something else to consider learning/using is TAStudio (assuming you’re using BizHawk). It allows for placing specific inputs on any given frame of a run without having to use frame advance or recording mode. It’s a way to ensure perfect precision on when/where inputs are applied.
Using TAStudio should allow for always being able to utilize your combo regardless of how frame perfect the inputs need to be to accomplish it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Just a quick addition to Spike’s comments.
Judging has become a bit looser recently and runs are now more likely to be accepted based on if they visually appear optimized. Judges aren’t going to overly scrutinize every frame of your submission. That said, we still desire highly optimized runs. So if a judge or someone else can easily beat your submission putting in little effort of their own, it shows that the run wasn’t very well optimized in the first place. In such a case, the run may be rejected or you may be asked to rework the run before it can be accepted.
TASing isn’t about getting as many runs submitted/published as quickly as possible, it’s about optimizing games. Take your time and don’t feel rushed to submit just because you finished TASing through a game once. I’ll reiterate what Spike said: take some time to review and polish your work before submitting.
Also consider utilizing the feedback avenues of the forums or the TAS feedback channel of the discord server to potentially get feedback on your runs before submission. While these aren’t guaranteed ways to prevent sub-optimal submissions, they can help.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Regarding the endpoint of this run:
The lives rollover creates a kill screen for this game, and we consider kill screens valid endpoints.
In aiming for a score attack (max score) run, our rules state “Infinite scoring loops that delay completion are not allowed.”
For this game, an extra life is gained every 2000 points.
Therefore, it’s possible to attain a higher score by dying to delay reaching the kill screen then scoring more points (including enough to gain extra lives). However, there is no limit to how many deaths/extra life cycles could occur. This creates an infinite scoring loop that only allows for increasing the score by delaying the kill screen completion; this breaking the current rule.
Therefore, the highest attainable dale score at the kill screen should be considered valid for a max score run of this game.
As an odd caveat for this game, deathless should also be a requirement because of the potential scoring loop.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
PLANET wrote:
…it was not ok to be even somewhat slightly harsh to a person here, now - not even the product of this person. What's next?
Feels like a poison of (political) correctness spreading further and further...
Why would you want to be harsh toward a person, especially over something like a TAS?
Being harshly critical of the TAS itself (because you don’t like it or because you feel it wasted your time to watch the run) can be tolerated.
But being harshly critical of the individual who created the TAS for those same reasons should not be tolerated (and I will fight for it to not be tolerated).
Your original comment of “Waste of time.” does not indicate that you felt that watching the run was a waste of your time and can thus be interpreted that you are claiming the author wasted their time in making the TAS and/or that the TAS’s existence itself has no value. Neither of these are true. The TAS itself can hold value to someone even if you personally don’t particularly find value in it. The time the author spent in TAS creation also holds value (in the author gaining TAS experience and simply having fun with the creative project) even if nobody else were to appreciate the work.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
KusogeMan wrote:
Yes, the player could some day improve this with SRAM unlocked chars, but then again why would the person do it?
Because they want to, and they want to see an SRAM backed/unlocked character's run published along side the baseline clear SRAM run.
It wouldn't be an improvement and the movie would already be published with slower characters, why go through the trouble?
True that it wouldn't be an improvement to the baseline (clear SRAM) branch. But again, it can still be published along side the baseline (clear SRAM) run.
It really seems to me that you fail to realize that both types of runs can be published simultaneously (if their respective branches are labeled appropriately). You also seem to argue that nobody will do SRAM anchored runs simply because a clear SRAM run already exists. While you personally may not see the value in having both types of run published, you cannot project that opinion onto everyone else in order to make blanket statements that no one will "go through the trouble" to make an SRAM anchored movie simply because a baseline run exists as already published.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
FWIW, a “maximum score” category for this game is possible by saving the maximum possible number of lemmings. It could potentially be labeled “maximum saves,” but that may be confusing just due to the use of the word ‘save’ for save games in regards to gaming in general.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
GJTASer2018 wrote:
We save the required number of lemmings in each level, but do not go out of the way to save any more, leading to lemmings dying to save time.
Sorry, but I don't consider this a "100% run" if you're not saving every lemming every time. If anything, I would consider this "any%" or "minimum required lemmings" run instead. Barring any evidence of glitches or bad game design making it impossible to do without cheats or hacking, saving every lemming every time should be part of the criteria for a "100% run" on a game like this.
To my knowledge it’s not possible to save 100% of the lemmings in any lemmings game.
Because each of the different rank/difficulties are separate play throughs of the 30 stages with different tools/restrictions, the fastest single playthrough of any one rank/difficulty would be the any % run for this game.
As this run competes play throughs on all 30 stages in all the difficulties, “all levels” would be a better branch name than 100%.
