Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
final track all equipment?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Fortranm wrote:
Nach wrote:
[*]finishing all sidequests - It didn't do this, instead it only did side quests mentioned by one of the characters, and even that is somewhat debatable as some of the sidequests have more than one part, and they were skipped.
Whether Gaspar stops mentioning a certain sidequest is probably the best way to tell whether a quest is completed. This is also the current RTA definition of 100%. arandomgameTASer said he was planning to make a run following RTA rules a few weeks ago, but he has been inactive for a while.
Your logic still assumes a side quest is only if Gaspar mentions it.
We don't care what other communities do. We care about what our users as a whole want and what makes sense. We have an entire thread of our users saying this is not 100%, it never will be.
Fortranm wrote:
Nach wrote:
[*]defeating every boss - Didn't do this either. It only did bosses that have special boss music. (The game uses special music for the dramatic fights, which are typically bosses, but as an example Spekkio doesn't have special music because the fights with him in the story are not dramatic. Some of the bosses also have way more dramatic music than others because as part of the story, some of the fights are way more significant than others.)
AFAIK, all enemies considered bosses in the Bestiary of PSX and DS versions are beaten in his run. Spekkio is not considered a boss in both PSX and DS versions.
People in the thread pointed out what they considered bosses were not beaten. IIRC some of them are mentioned in other versions as being bosses.
Fortranm wrote:
Nach wrote:
[*]Visit all endings.
Given the fact that the game doesn't save after the each ending and that you can't get back to the game without resetting, it's probably not a good idea to do this category on the SNES version.
It's a terrific idea to do this because it's something the game offers to do and people mentioned they want it. The lsnes emulator is perfectly capable of recording resets. As far as I'm concerned, completing the game every single way it can be completed is the single most significant thing you can possibly do. Anything less is only partial completion.
Everything I mentioned is a summary of what people mentioned. As long as someone mentions something to do in a game which doesn't have its own completion counter, you cannot claim 100% without doing it (this is within reason of course).
As I mentioned previously, my personal criteria for 100% would require all side quests, all chests, and all endings. None of which was achieved by this run. But in any case, what I want is hardly the issue, lots of people listed lots of criteria, and most of them are within reason, yet not accomplished.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
After reading the submission thread I can say that this is the original goal:
Complete as much as possible, as long as it's entertaining.
I'm not sure that's correct either. Some stuff could have been left out and provided more entertainment. It's really arbitrary.
Here's the author's criteria along with my notes:
getting at least 1 of every Item/Weapon/Armor/Helmet/Accessory (186 unique items) - It did this.
collecting all Power/Magic/Speed Tabs (except of LV99 Pink Nu reward) - Its own definition claims it didn't do "all". Some people also pointed out in the thread that there's more Power Tabs aside Pink Nu in the game than were collected.
opening all the Sealed Chests (Black Boxes) / Sealed Doors in every time period - IIRC someone mentioned it skipped sealed chest variations if the item was already acquired elsewhere.
finishing all sidequests - It didn't do this, instead it only did side quests mentioned by one of the characters, and even that is somewhat debatable as some of the sidequests have more than one part, and they were skipped.
defeating every boss - Didn't do this either. It only did bosses that have special boss music. (The game uses special music for the dramatic fights, which are typically bosses, but as an example Spekkio doesn't have special music because the fights with him in the story are not dramatic. Some of the bosses also have way more dramatic music than others because as part of the story, some of the fights are way more significant than others.)
defeating every form of Spekkio (except LV99 Pink Nu - separate demonstration of that form available here) - Its own definition claims it didn't do "all".
learning all Single/Double/Triple Techs for each character - It did this.
Aside from this, other things people mentioned in the thread that weren't done:
Open all chests.
Speak to all characters.
Visit all endings.
Collect various non-usable items such as cats and kittens.
Everyone can have their own criteria on what full or high means, but the only things we can say about the current one that is unanimously agreed to is that it got one of every piece of equipment, it learned all techniques, and it did a lot of other stuff, but by no means all. This is why I suggested originally we name it something like "all equipment and techniques" because that's the only things that we can honestly and objectively agree to.
feos wrote:
It's clearly not vaultable, hence it's clearly not full completion, nor 100% by any objective definition. I see how misleading the "100%" branch label is now.
There were at least a dozen people explaining why it's not 100%. My summary of points they raised is above. Saturn for some reason writes in his "rebuttal" that there's only one person who disagreed with his "100%" label. I don't know how anyone can read the thread and honestly say that.
feos wrote:
"maximum completion" is informative, now we know that the goal is maximizing completion. So we just need to mention in the description that the run only aims to complete things that are entertaining to watch. Clear and accurate.
Well, I would say something along the lines of maximum completion, with some notes describing what it did. I wouldn't necessarily say entertaining to watch is the best criteria either, it's really arbitrary.
feos wrote:
If we get a run that completes a comparable amount of things while being more entertaining, it can obsolete it. Doesn't have to complete the same amount, nor more, nor less. Just comparable. And it must be more entertaining, since it's our end goal here. See how low the rating of that run is now.
Agreed.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
So essentially, in a broader sense, I always consider ACE off-limits for any sort of full completion category, because once a run enters ACE, any sort of concept around completion is rendered trivial. Going to the ending is done in an instant, going to the ending with all completion flags set is done in an instant
This idea is key.
If you're doing ACE, obviously we want the best ACE possible, but ACE itself renders all other criteria moot. ACE is just ACE, it's not "ACE 100%", nor "ACE min%", nor "ACE unlocked Mew", nor "ACE I managed to rename the opponent into Nach and beat him 151 times in a row".
Now obviously there can be different kinds of payloads, such as jumping to game completion, play a movie, add on cool features to the game and play it and other stuff, but any inherent built-in game play criteria and mechanism no longer matters.
Mothrayas wrote:
I've always taken full completion (in the sense of 100% item completion, etc.) to mean having the movie going through the motions to collect each particular item, instead of just requiring that the relevant completion flags are set. For example, I could take a Super Metroid ACE movie, take some cycles to write in 100% for the completion counter, and submit it as an improvement to the 100% run - but that would not really satisfy anyone, would it?
Yes, full completion means you actually had to do something to get whatever it is.
Although there's ways to expedite it by glitching the game to skip all the prior criteria for each collectable/objective, and then just perform the actual last step for collectable/objective and then getting the desired 100%.
Mothrayas wrote:
Since the movie does not do the things that would invalidate it as full completion by above criteria (ACE, or memory-corrupting completion flags) and does fulfill its basic full completion goals (get all Pokémon and reach the ending) by obtaining its Pokémon through in-game encounter mechanisms (if highly glitched and optimized) using other methods of glitches available, I would consider this movie Vaultable.
EDIT: The submission mentions other forms of (arbitrary) memory corruption that were not used in this TAS - I think some of these (like arbitrary ROM execution) could be banned from full completion runs in the same vein as ACE, or be considered a part of it. This is where the distinctions (for eligibility purposes) get really messy, however.
It is indeed messy, but what you're saying all makes sense to me.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
So most people reading this thread had no clue what was going on.
A number of holidays occurred over the past week. The messages Bisqwit and I posted were in reference to them. 6 people messaged me privately showing they understood the messages, the rest of you did not.
The various holidays are now pretty much over. Locking this thread.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
I have one last question. Would that run be shorter if it used more exits?
Some levels would get easier due to some additional blocks you can stand on becoming available. Perhaps in a few places it may make it more straight forward to get higher.
However the time it takes to complete the switch palaces definitely outweighs any meager time savers they provide.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
I don't think there is a good label that communicates Mario is always small, Yoshi is forbidden, switch palaces are forbidden and goal is maximum exits.
If there is no good label that communicates the goals of the run, then we should start considering it too arbitrary and reject the run.
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
And since every goal is listed in the movie description, it might be better to leave the branch name as it is.
Descriptions don't help you when you see two runs side by side with the exact same label but are supposed to somehow be different.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
That might be an option too.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Technically, the only really sensible branch would be namely "Max completion". Because it is really a run aiming for max completion for teh win.
Something along these lines is probably the least arbitrary we're going to get it.
We add a comment in the movie description that it's not actually maximum possible completion, just maximum currently submitted to TASVideos. We obsolete the moment someone submits a decent run with higher completion.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Some people are suggesting "maximum exits'', that's not a good label though, as 4 more exits are obviously possible (the switch palaces) and they are forbidden in this category.
So then you're saying it should be "small only, no switch palaces, max exits" or perhaps "no powerups, no switch palaces, max exits".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I don't know why this isn't clear already.
1) Verification movies are not allowed for anything other than unlocking built-in game modes.
2) You cannot edit SRAM values individually.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
<Masterjun> I'm surprised people want verification movies, since when can you simply count off the time it takes to set up a glitch?
<Nach> Masterjun: It's amazing how you pulled the wool over so many people in that thread
<Masterjun> yes indeed
<Masterjun> I was expecting the number of replies, but not by a lot of different people
<Masterjun> it goes like this, I have a setup SRAM which has 3 empty files, then I do a subframe reset to set the first 33 bytes of SRAM to 00, making a corrupted file which wins the game
<Masterjun> so then, if I'm allowed to set the SRAM, why didn't set it to the corrupted file in the first place?
<Masterjun> because that would start the game with a working file, which throws off people so that they wouldn't argue in favor of me
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Okay... so... If the lsnes SRAM is valid, what other set of bytes can be valid? Or other words, if lsnes SRAM is known to be invalid, what should be valid?
Battery backed up SRAM from the factory is initialized to something. It can differ from each manufacturing of a particular game. There would be no way to know without having a database of known initial SRAM states for each game.
If you removed the battery and then provided power to truly allow it to be uninitialized except by the console itself, then what it would contain would be some kind of pattern based on the circuitry in question.
jlun2 wrote:
Now I'm legit curious is there a way to set the SRAM byte to whatever allows ACE possible in game fast enough to obsolete the current TAS.
Questions regarding a single byte are always invalid as I wrote about many times on the topic.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I was waiting for an elaborated rejection regarding SRAM + uninit RAM rules territory.
Also if Masterjun could make an ACE without relying on uninit RAM and SRAM modification, changing these two while making a verification movie, should he submit this movie again but without rejection? This also sounds.... educational.
Already answered in the rejection you didn't read closely enough.
TASVideoAgent wrote:
This run is in violation of the variousrules. Rejecting.
Specifically the first link. As it says that SRAM verification movie is for unlocking game modes like New Game+, not for putting prework into something and magically beating the game in moments.
To add insult to injury, here is Masterjun himself:
<Masterjun> I'm surprised people want verification movies, since when can you simply count off the time it takes to set up a glitch
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
By that logic, I think that the movies I referred to previously should have their branches updated from "# X" to "maximum X". I am willing to do so myself if there are no objections.
We should also do the same for minimums.
Super Mario World 11 exits is misleading in that people have no idea why 11. We've had people submit 12 because they think it's a random number.
Although saying SMW minimum exits in this case at least is also misleading, because if someone finds a faster route which uses 15 exits, it'd obsolete the 11 exits. We'd need a solution for this case which informs us it aims for fastest completion without using memory corruption of some kind.
I can give my blessing to renaming the cases where we can make it clearer regarding maximums and minimums. We need to be aware of cases like the SMW 11 I just described though.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
This might be a simple question. But, can't we use the RTA community's branch descriptions where appropriate?
They're hardly ever appropriate.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I don't have good answers for you at the moment.
We probably won't be accepting every variation. We should work with the experts of the appropriate games to figure out which branches we're likely to accept and boil them down to clear names for the casual players.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
<Nach> Raise your hand if you love feos* Nach raises hand* Mothrayas raises hand* Nach glares at Masterjun* Masterjun ...* Masterjun raises hand* Nach glares at EZGames69* EZGames69 raises hand in fear<Nach> Okay, we can agree that we who are present love feos<feos> thanks* ThunderAxe31 raises hand<feos> lol what a flashmob
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
We might want a sub tag clarifying the nature. Major skip glitch - maximum, major skip glitch - individual levels.
Again, I'm not saying exactly what we should be looking for, I'm just aiming for a direction. We put on that which best describes the run in question and differentiates it from others.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
If it aims for fastest speed for the primary goal, and doesn't particularly care which other goals happen to be faster, such extra goals don't need to be mentioned in the label. -> If it aims for fastest speed for the primary goal, and doesn't particularly care which other goals happen to be encountered, such extra goals don't need to be mentioned in the label.
Aside from the wording which needs some tweaking, I think you've put together something fabulous.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Using the same logic you mentioned about Walkathon, I think it should probably be "small only, 86 exits". If someone manages to make a small only with more than 86 exits, it will be labeled appropriately and obsolete this one.
Yet I still don't know if "small only" minimizes time or maximizes entertainment with its amount of exits used. Does it sacrifice time and add entertainment by using more exists than needed for fastest completion? I deliberately picked this game, because I don't know it at all, even after having read your rejection of Masterjun's "anti-11-exits". So I think we're not done with this particular run.
I agree with your problem. Mothrayas solved this on IRC:
<Mothrayas> Nach: for the branch label discussion, for the SMW small only example, would "small only, maximum exits" be preferred over "small only, 86 exits"? that'd seem clearer to me
I think "small only, maximum exits" tells us that it aims for as many levels as possible within the criteria of small only. It's clearer than my poor 86 exit suggestion.
feos wrote:
I'm basically asking for a guideline suggestion. This is why I need to have a formula that'd help me figure out whether it's moot or not. Most importantly, if I get hit by a truck, how do new staff members that need to handle this labeling know if it's moot or not? What do I say as I record my valediction to them (before I die on that road), teaching them how to resolve this problem?
The first suggestion I can give is that if in doubt, ask staff, ask people familiar with the game for help. This can be in the rules, and IINM, already is.
You are also correct we need more than just ask for help.
For the simpler cases I think we can all agree on what we're looking for. For the more complex cases, I think it ties into understanding why a run was accepted, what are the criteria the run itself aims for, how would we handle other runs that are submitted that aim for much of the same criteria but are not identical. Now obviously we cannot always predict what other kinds of crazy runs may be submitted, but I think even in our more complex cases, at least 90% of the time, we do know what to expect, and at the very least can aim for the correct direction. Our goal here isn't to absolutely 100% prevent never having to adjust things, but to minimize the need to adjust and further clarify as often as we humanly can.
I don't have exact wording of a rule for you, but I think in terms of level completion, we can understand it's tied to how important the levels are to the run, and if the intention is to minimize them or maximize them, or whether it simply isn't relevant for the run in question. Other things like "1p" or "2p" probably is important enough to always mention whenever a game supports that kind of thing, unless an ACE run is submitted which beats the game before player selection even begins.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
I think when speed is the dominant factor of the goal that's not just "warps" or just "warpless", the author doesn't care if it's warped or warpless: whichever is faster is used. Neither warps nor warpless is essential to fastest "game end glitch" Battletoads or SMW. Warp usage in GEG is moot.
Agreed.
feos wrote:
When entertainment is the dominant factor, the author picks whichever adds more unique content and variety, while also better showcasing the goal. So I think SMB "walkathon" cares about being warpless: it's essential to its goal, which is demonstrated by the fact that as soon as warpless route became possible, such a run immediately obsoleted warped walkathon (per your decision). Warp usage in walkathon is not moot.
I agree with your argument. It's not moot. Therefore it should say "walkathon, warpless", so it informs the viewer that it completes everything by walking, and that its aim is to complete as many levels this way, and not to beat it as fast as possible with warping. (Likewise the obsoleted should say "walkathon, warps" so it's clear what it is.)
feos wrote:
But I honestly don't know if it's essential or moot for these runs:
Let me try to analyze each one then, and you can tell me if you agree with my reasoning for it or not.
[1868] SNES Super Mario World "no powerups, maximum exits" by PangaeaPanga in 1:18:23.22
Small only doesn't imply much. Is it showing off the fastest way to beat the game only as small? Or does it describe that as many levels as possible is beaten as small, similar to what you said about Walkathon? What its actual objective is appears to be unclear without additional information.
Using the same logic you mentioned about Walkathon, I think it should probably be "small only, 86 exits". If someone manages to make a small only with more than 86 exits, it will be labeled appropriately and obsolete this one.
[2977] NES Super Mario Bros. "maximum coins" by TEHH_083, HappyLee & CuteQt in 26:10.25
Maximum coins aims for maximum coins however you get it. I don't think warping here ties into the equation. It's not about speed to completion, it's not about some minimum or maximum levels. Since it focuses on coins, the levels played is moot.
[3640] NES Super Mario Bros. 2 "warps, princess only" by mtvf1 & chatterbox in 08:20.83
Completing the game using the princess character could be done with either warps or without it. We can publish both. The title alone just saying princess does not tell me what to expect from the run, does it aim for fastest completion with princess or to show off as many levels as possible completed using the princess? Therefore this should mention it uses warps in order to clarify the matter.
[3648] NES Super Mario Bros. "all items" by Mars608, chatterbox & HappyLee in 19:50.04
If you're getting all items in a game, then I think that implies you're visiting every level in order to get the items in it. No additional information is required.
feos wrote:
And most importantly, how do I as a layperson/newcomer understand this difference between moot and essential? I also need to understand it as a judge. And as a publisher.
The layperson/newcomer obviously does not understand the differences between the various points in this fine discussion we're having. However, different descriptions will mean something to him, and we should ensure what we write conveys information which will leave the viewer mostly informed of what a run is about without misconceptions.
As staff, I think we need to put ourselves into these people's shoes. Most cases should be clear. For the trickier cases, we need use logic above like you did above for Walkathon and I did for the other cases you pointed out.
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
2) More clarity is always preferable. (But avoid information overload, because that obfuscates)
I need to understand this borderline as well.
I don't necessarily know that there is a line. With what we laid out above, I think we demonstrated that "princess only", "walking only", or "small only" lacks information as to whether it's fastest with this criteria or as many levels with this criteria, and requires further clarification. Runs of both kinds are likely to exist on the site (even if some are obsoleted).
On the other hand, something like "No spazer, no wave, no mother-brain constant-kill, yes grapling, no out of bounds, no x-ray, save the animals, no SRAM corruption, pacifist" is complete and utter overkill. We want to avoid these. We also don't want to mention things that should be implied unless explicitly stated otherwise. For this kind of thing, we need to come up with some encompassing names that perhaps don't tell you the full details about the run, but at least point out what the key criteria for the run are.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I don't know that that's necessary. Doesn't game end glitch imply warps?
It implies neither warps nor warpless. It just uses the approach to warping that's faster. If some day we discover than you can trigger game end glitch right after the warp point in level 1, "game end glitch" branch will become warpless.
I think the issue of warps when you're glitching as soon as possible to the end is moot.
You're unlikely to play straight to level 3 and then glitch to the end if you can warp directly to level 3 from level 1. I don't think we'd accept a run which plays to level 3 and then glitch warps to the end of the game.
If you can glitch warp right after the level 1 warp to the end if you bypass the built-in level 1 warp, that's basically saying the fastest possible glitch warp is mutually exclusive with the built-in warp.
It's not that you really care about normal in-game play in this sense whether you played the game with warps or not, a game end glitch run ignores anything you think of normal play, and does whatever it can as soon as possible, whether that means using a built in warp or not.
I think for such cases warps vs. warpless is moot and and any mention of it can even be misleading.
feos wrote:
The opposite happened with SMB "walkathon": the longer warpless movie obsoleted the shorter warped run because it was more entertaining. But the "walkathon" branch implies neither.
Walkathon indeed implies neither. The question whether warps or warpless should appear alongside it depends on whether the issue of Walkathon makes the question of warping moot as in the above example, in which case we leave it off. If it's not moot, then it boils down to whether this is information that is self explanatory to the viewer when they see "Walkathon" for the game in question. If it isn't, then it should appear there to give them info.
Really, put yourself into someone new to TASVideos and only casual familiarity with the game. What title do you want to see that advises you what to expect, why you should watch this run, and how it differs from others you're likely to see alongside it for the same game. If you think "Walkathon" is honestly all you need, then fine. If you feel you're missing something and "warps" or "warpless" would better inform your choice of what to watch, then it should be added.
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
"game end glitch, warplesss, 2 players"
"game end glitch, warplesss, 1 players"
Are we likely to accept these?
This is an important question. If we stick to the current rules, there's no way such movies would be published alongside each other. Yet there's a chance they obsolete one another in future. So they can co-exist in history, just not among current branches. Should we put 3+ goals into labels?
For specific case, refer to what I just said above in this post.
Regarding 3+ labels, I have no hard reason to be against 3 or 4 or whatever number, the rule as I said is:
Nach wrote:
2) More clarity is always preferable. (But avoid information overload, because that obfuscates)
The ideal number of labels might differ on a case by case basis. Or it might mean max 3 or max 4 or whatever. I'm not strong on any number. I just want clarity without information overload.
feos wrote:
No, my plan here is to perfect the system, and to dig into our problems as deep as needed. I want it to be resolved in a reasonable and elegant way.
That I can agree with. I think in pursuit of that though, we should avoid accumulating opinions from people who elevate their own opinions over clarity for users and ease of publishing for our staff.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I didn't mention the upcoming full moon (3/31) as part of my initial message either.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Today is day four of the crunchy stuff.
Happy happy.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Google gives sources for DMCA notices. But to my knowledge they don't provide sources for other kind of removal complaints.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
