Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos, You forgot to put Nach in the new branch group.
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
Habreno wrote:
So what is the purpose of all the time calculations then, if they aren't a factor?
You quoted it yourself:
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
I addressed various subjects people were discussing in the thread in some way, be it rule change, be it speed, be it entertainment, be it how this relates to other games, even though in the end, the judgment had nothing to do with any of those factors.
Let's call this thoroughness.Habreno wrote:
What is the reason for rejection and what argument lies behind it?
Again you quoted it:
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
But in any case, the run was rejected for too much similarity with the original version's warp branch.
Which was the concluding section labeled: "Judgment". Anything in prior sections is just my views on the various subjects raised in this thread and to what extent it influenced my views (or didn't).
Alyosha wrote:
Nach wrote:
I also raised questions that it's hard to estimate some of it due to a variety of factors.
You did? Where?
In my conclusions regarding the run:
Nach wrote:
If the run would discount non-playable segments
Nach wrote:
NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included
Alyosha wrote:
Given Hebrano and HappyLee's statements, the timing analysis seems incomplete and certainly not conclusive (and may even be incorrect.) If it doesn't factor into the judgement, I think it's better to remove it.
Good thing the timing analysis was under the section labeled NTSC vs. PAL in practice -> This game in particular and not under Judgment.
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
HappyLee wrote:
Sorry for all the troubles this TAS has brought.
Please don't be sorry. It was a very nice TAS, and I enjoyed watching it. I have placed it into my collection of TASs that I really like. Thank you for making it!
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
Habreno wrote:
So here's the issue I have with the judgement- it's 100% invalid. You discuss how NTSC makes differences to optimize nongameplay time but yet you ignore that PAL also did the exact same thing and did not adjust its framecount appropriately. If you watch the encode from 3:05 on (where 8-2 starts) you will note that at 3:12 he hits a spring, because he's wasting frames for the xx2 ending instead of the xx3 ending.
Requesting rejudgement based on this glaring error in calculations.
The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC. As I wrote in the judgment, I find that position from the outset to be lunacy, and most of the judges agreed it's absurd.
I also mentioned that the times I posted may be slightly off, and you're welcome to perform your own comparisons. I also raised questions that it's hard to estimate some of it due to a variety of factors. But it doesn't matter, the reason for rejection had nothing to do with time.
Also for your beloved time which I disagree with, you'd need to show more than 0.625 seconds were wasted there to argue that PAL was definitely faster.Warp wrote:
While I appreciate the work put in the judgment text into the technical details of analyzing the speed differences in individual levels of the game between NTSC vs. PAL, I don't really understand why this analysis is there. The length of playable portions vs. non-playable portions has never been any sort of factor in determining whether a submission is publishable or not.
You are correct that the speed differences was not any sort of factor here. In my judgment I addressed various subjects people were discussing in the thread in some way, be it rule change, be it speed, be it entertainment, be it how this relates to other games, even though in the end, the judgment had nothing to do with any of those factors.
I addressed the speed difference people were raising saying that based on how we view speed across different variants, I don't think such an argument holds true, and in any event requires research on how to handle certain issues. But in any case, the run was rejected for too much similarity with the original version's warp branch.
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'm saying that I can see fastest real time and fastest game time for just one of NTSC or PAL. I don't think that necessarily they should cross obsolete nor that we need to publish both NTSC and PAL.
The point in this thread is to ask whether some changes are wanted to codify cross obsoletion or publishing both. I'm not convinced there's any benefit in cross obsoletion. For publishing both NTSC and PAL, maybe it's warranted.
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
Your point is based upon a concept that a faster version should be the one published and should obsolete the other. I don't think our current NTSC vs PAL rules demand this. If you're suggesting that is something we should codify, you just raised a good argument why we shouldn't.
At this moment I'm not convinced our NTSC vs PAL rules need to change. Although I accept that clarifying certain points in the rules may be called for. If we do modify them, I'd want to look in the direction of accepting each as game variants individually, not as looking for one to obsolete the other which I think for many games makes little sense.
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
This is a general discussion thread, if you want to discuss a specific submission judgment please do so in the appropriate 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
Alyosha wrote:
From the SMB PAL thread:
Nach wrote:
Alyosha wrote:
More importantly I find the consequences here a bit strange. Does this mean a run could be submitted of SMB NTSC U that only times playable segments and by this analysis obsolete the current run? I think this is a more important question then what to do with PAL.
You could definitely make such a submission. It would probably be accepted as a new branch if the audience liked it and the judge found it differed enough from the existing content we have.
Why the heck are you posting this here? If you want an answer to your questions don't post in some unrelated 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
Alyosha wrote:
This is a real time run, and the game was completed faster in PAL then NTSC.
Not relevant. Cross version comparisons are always done based on game-play segments.
Alyosha wrote:
None of that shoots down then idea that PAL is faster then NTSC, it only shows that it's slower in our restricted rule set.
Everything regarding judging is within our rule set. I don't know about anything outside our rules.
Alyosha wrote:
More importantly I find the consequences here a bit strange. Does this mean a run could be submitted of SMB NTSC U that only times playable segments and by this analysis obsolete the current run? I think this is a more important question then what to do with PAL.
You could definitely make such a submission. It would probably be accepted as a new branch if the audience liked it and the judge found it differed enough from the existing content we have.
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:
2) The PAL version is vastly superior objectively (Lufia 2 E is objectively vastly superior to Lufia 2 U (but not necessarily Lufia 2 J)).
This is the "judge instinct". But I need this to be elevated above instincts and set in words, that would nicely match what Rygar and Blaster Master happen to have.
I specifically chose Lufia 2 as my example because it's more than just instinct, it's objective fact known by Lufia 2 fans.
Lufia 2 U was released in a broken fashion. Parts of the game have the graphics completely garbled. Parts of the game are outright missing. Logic is screwed up during one of the boss fights. The menus vomit on themselves. This doesn't lead to amazing game advancing glitches, it just leads to annoying the heck out of the player/viewer. Lufia 2 E fixes all these problems, and Lufia 2 J never had them in the first place. (Okay, there is some places in Lufia 2 U that clipping is missing where it isn't in Lufia 2 E, although I'm not sure that leads to any major game advances. I also found some additional details for Lufia 2 ending which are not normally displayed in any version are hidden in the U version which ties in both with earlier plot points and a tie-in with Lufia 1 that otherwise flies under the radar, but aside from getting a deeper understanding of the story, you'll never see it in a TAS.)
Anything of a similar nature to Lufia 2 I could see accepting PAL as the main branch.
Also as in Mario Bros. where there's some major differences in the game itself, or anything of a similar nature, I can see accepting both side by side, along with a whole set of branches on each.
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,
I think the requirements are more fully enumerated within related sections in the Judge Guidelines. My biggest issue with just accepting PAL games with a blanket understanding that it's a new game variant is that suddenly every existing branch of a particular game variant will try to be remade with the other.
I accept PAL as the main variant if one of the following two is true (which I think is also fairly obvious even if not 100% spelled out):
1) The PAL version is the original (or heck the only!).
2) The PAL version is vastly superior objectively (Lufia 2 E is objectively vastly superior to Lufia 2 U (but not necessarily Lufia 2 J)).
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
Radiant wrote:
As to the section "There are several observed schools of thought", I am curious if there is consensus among judges as to which of the three should be applied.
I cannot speak for others, but my thoughts are a case by case basis kind of thing. Most of the time, we accept the original, and anything else that offers something with large amount of differences.
If a later version adds on a ton of features, and a TAS of it ends up being a superset of the original, with equal or better quality, there's a good chance we do a cross-variant/cross-game/cross-platform obsoletion.
Only if the original is poor would I consider going forgoing it altogether and choosing something superior or more widely recognized.
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:
Now about "significant technical and/or entertainment merits". Neither the rule, nor the above cases clearly define what is considered significant here, but the votes for this run are fine. Differences in glitches and difficulty probably affect both tech and entertainment aspects, but don't exhaust them. I guess it should be first figured out what merits are expected from a run to justify different region versions published alongside each other, then we could evaluate the significance of what we have here.
Let me just add that up until yesterday I pretty much agreed with all your earlier arguments (as well as some good points from Warp). However, seeing judge reactions yesterday on that potential outcome made me reread the judge guidelines I just mentioned above, which I think is clearer: Keep the number of different branches per game minimal. A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game. .
We've worked with the compelling differences line of thought for a long time with all our branches. It is clear to me this guidelines applies to NTSC vs PAL also, and at that point it's not hard to get a sense what "significant technical and/or entertainment merits" are, we've dealt with this sort of thing for a long time. It always boils down to what percent of the run is unique material, how much is that noticeable, what are the long term consequences, and how runs may change in the future to become more closely aligned and lack differences.
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
Let me add that whatever changes are proposed to the rules, they should fit with the Judge Guidelines (which may need updating together with it?)
Some notable examples:
Quantity is not quality.
Keep the number of different branches per game minimal. A run for a proposed new branch for a game should offer compelling differences relative to previously published runs of that game.
In the past, we generally preferred one version of a game. The preference was for the original, such as Wonderboy for SMS instead of NES Adventure Island.
There are several observed schools of thought in regards to ports and conversions considered similar enough to warrant a strong preference. In some cases it becomes similar to ROM selection for the same platform where different regions have noticeable changes in content.
The first dictates that the original (chronologically first to be released) version should be preferred. Advantages: indisputable authenticity.
The second dictates that the more popular (more widely spread and/or recognized among the audience) version should be preferred. Advantages: easier and better recognition, better compatibility with existing records.
The third dictates that the superior (such as having expanded content, better graphics or music, more glitches, less lag or shorter loading times) version should be preferred. Advantages: potentially better watching experience, potentially more opportunities for creative timesavers. Superiority in this case can be disputed.
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
Kung Knut wrote:
While I am fine with the outcome of the judgement (even if I hoped for it to be different), I am a bit disappointed with the judging itself. I would very much have liked to see the rules regarding versions (1.0, 1.1 etc) addressed and why PAL vs NTSC is different.
I thought I did. One is the original game, the other is a port, and PAL ports are usually bad. If the port is good (or better for some reason such as Lufia 2 E being way better than Lufia 2 U), then we can consider it. Accepting it once open for consideration is based on how unique it is. The rules for PAL vs. NTSC differ little from NES vs. SNES.
Kung Knut wrote:
I feel many people that stated their opinion in this thread never got them addressed in the judgement. Much of the debate was not over the game itself, but over the current rules.
I judge based on the current rules, not on hypotheticals. As I wrote in the judgment, if the rules change, it will be reassessed. I would have liked to see the run being accepted as a new game variant, but it does not appear to fit in with our current site framework. If you want to see a rule change, then it should be its own thread which has nothing to do with this run or any game or run in particular, and should be considered within the larger framework of game variants.
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 don't see opinions of the audience being addressed in the judgment at all, despite of this being a clear Moons case.
I agree that it's a clear Moons case - if it happened to be acceptable.
feos wrote:
Also half of the thread was posts blaming the rules for being unclear and outdated, this hasn't been addressed either. Are the rules perfectly clear and fine?
I see no problem with the rules. I also further clarified that the rules are related to rules about game variants in general. Do we prefer original? Do we prefer most features? Best graphics? Etc...
feos wrote:
About asking other judges. Their opinions seem to have changed after being presented the info about marginal differences in how long playable and non-playable scenes take
Nowhere did I say this is the info I presented to them. In fact, it wasn't. I presented to them counterpoints to reasons why they gave for the various things they originally told me. None of them raised with me "faster" as being a reason for anything except the obsoletion argument which only 1/5 judges made.
feos wrote:
And my opinion is consistent with all I've been saying in this thread:
This judgment is absurd.
Absurd for following the rules regarding accepting new variants and branches thereof require significant unique gameplay? Okay.
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
Who do you think makes the best desktop/server motherboards? Why?
I've tried a bunch of companies over the years, I've had MSI's burn out on me, and I've heard others bricked theirs. Meanwhile Asus and Gigabyte seem to last a long time and are near impossible to brick.
What are your experiences?
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
Wow, that's one fast laptop. Is it any good?
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
Based on the excellent feedback which I greatly appreciate, I put together an improved version: http://nach.nachsoftware.org/nscrypt-improved/
This improved version does the same operations with less resources, combines the constrained and non-constrained into a single version, and also fixes some bugs highlighted by your reports. If you've had some odd cases above, please try this new version and report how things have or haven't changed.
Thank you!
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.
He's using Windows 7, you're using 10, so it could be there's a difference in how FF runs, or the CPU performance is managed.
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
Is the new glitch here possible on NTSC version?
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
jlun2 wrote:
These stats look horrific in comparison to others. Should I be worried?
It really depends how optimized your machine is. If you have no programs in the background, no extra tabs, no auto updates, no power saving, then these numbers are poor.
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
Warp, I find that shocking. Isn't the PS4 a modern piece of equipment? What browser engine is it using? What's the CPU arch?
My 10 year old laptop can run the slowest test in <20 seconds. That's just mind boggling...
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
Thanks for testing so far guys, keep them coming. I'm especially interested in results on the weakest devices you may be using.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Note: It doesn't seem to run on my phone at all.
Either version? Is there an error message? Does it just lock up?
Dacicus wrote:
I'm assuming that higher durations are worse?
Correct. Although that certain tests take longer than others is expected.
Warp wrote:
I don't know if smaller is better, but since it's measuring time, I'm assuming it is. I always thought that Chrome is faster than Firefox, but it appears that in this case it certainly isn't.
Smaller is better. For Chrome vs. Firefox, you have no idea how large the disparity is. For crypto code, I'm finding FF wipes the floor with Chrome. In fact I tweaked this test case to perform better with Chrome than earlier, at the expense of FF, and FF is still generally faster.
Spikestuff wrote:
Thank you so much for this. It's important to know if some older stuff produces odd results, so we can catch various bugs. I may whip up some other tests at some point to see if we can figure out when this device does and doesn't do the right thing.
Spikestuff wrote:
Pending: PSP (doesn't support my current wireless, doing a backup to make it work), PS3, PS4, Wii and WiiU.
Thank you, I look forward to it.
Bobo the King wrote:
Seems slow...
Because I'm not the most computer-savvy person on here, could you explain what this is? Is it essentially just a CPU speed test?
This is a series of tests using varying amounts of resources in a browser doing CPU intensive crypto operations to see how browsers perform. One thing that surprises me from the tests you guys are doing is that I'm seeing some of you with faster CPUs are getting much worse performance than those of you with slower CPUs. My 5 year old CPU is beating a bunch of modern CPUs in this thread. I'm wondering if this is due to some having poor silicon in their CPUs which under-perform, power saving settings, or if various browser plugins or perhaps active browser tabs are slowing down operations being benchmarked.
One trend which I noticed with several others that are testing for me is that Linux builds of Firefox seem to be significantly outperforming Windows builds of Firefox on the same machine, although it's unclear as to why.
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
Hi guys,
I've created some tests to determine what users are capable of if I'm going to implement some interesting new stuff. If you can please participate.
Post which CPU you're testing with, or if you're not sure, the name and model of your device. For example: Core i5 4569x 1.2 GHz or Nokia Blasterforce Pro H657G.
Then post the results you get from: http://nach.nachsoftware.org/nscrypt-improved/http://nach.nachsoftware.org/nscrypt/
If for some reason the above for you doesn't seem to load, try the following instead:
http://nach.nachsoftware.org/nscrypt-constrained/ (note, with this test, some will fail)
---------------------------
Sample:
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.
