Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Thanks for the clarification. Since the credits don’t naturally roll without actually playing the final level, I think it’s the right choice to include the gameplay.
If the credits rolled when using the glitch, I’d suggest it would be the best any% approach of beating the game; but since they don’t, that’s moot.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
Technically, I could do End Cutscene Storage one more time to skip 4-5 and the game will consider itself completed but that doesn't feel genuine and after seeing the same thing over and over for nearly 4 minutes, it's about time you guys saw something more interesting.
Would doing the glitch to skip 4-5 result in the game playing the final cutscene & credits (or even just the credits)?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Dimon12321 wrote:
Post #531746
What's the logic behind marking submissions as verified? Is it documented anywhere?
Should I become a reviewer or an editor in order to mark submissions myself? If someone else still has to verify the run on its own, then my impact on movie verifications doesn't make much sense
A movie being marked as verified by someone other than the author means that it's reproducible by someone other than the author. This gives more validity to the TAS itself. Truly, all past site videos have been (or should have been) verified through the judging/publication process.
Specifically adding this functionality of having others (besides a judge) verify sync on a run offers a bit more flexibility to the judging staff. If a judge can't get a run to sync themselves, but others in the staff/community have been able to sync the run; then the judge is still free to make a decision on the run for acceptance/rejection based on the verified sync check, even if they haven't personally synced the run. Similarly, it allows a judge who may not have the current setup/knowledge/capability to run a TAS on a particular system/emulator (i.e. linux w/ libTAS) to still judge the run based on an encode and another's sync verification.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
FractalFusion wrote:
I don't think Mega Man X4 is the type of game that deserves "10x" speed edit on loading screens in an encode, but whatever.
For a temp encode, it's fine. As HappyLee stated, nothing is being missed/skipped from a gameplay standpoint; so viewers can watch all the gameplay of the TAS in less time. It's not something that will impact judgment either.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
So I had another thought on this run today after posting in the “Ask a Judge” forum: In general we still want Alt/Playground runs to actually beat the game (unless it’s a playaround type run).
Since my main reason for considering this run as invalid for Standard Class was that it doesn’t actually beat the game, where does that leave us on this submission as an Alt/Pkayground submission?
Oddly enough, i think this run’s goal is fine for Alt. While it doesn’t truly beat the game, it does accomplish a type of non-standard endpoint (in finding the fastest way to beat the final boss), which in my opinion is a valid choice for an Alt endpoint.
At very least, we could argue that this run is a playaround goal. Though i think a better goal/branch would be something along the lines of “fastest final boss” instead of “warp glitch.”
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Hmm. We might have to discuss this one among staff.
EDIT:
After reading/discussing with staff, here’s my perspective (which seems to me mostly agreed among the staff that engaged).
While level select is part of normal play, and this glitch allows for accessing the final boss from the otherwise standard level select within normal play; the game seems to treat this boss battle as more of a level replay than it does completing the game, because there’s no internal indication that the game considers itself beaten upon beating the final boss with this glitch.
So since the game seems to basically be considering it as a level replay and not as actually game progression, we shouldn’t consider it as beating the game for Standard Class publication. It would, however, absolutely be fine as a goal for Alternative/Playground submission, and I’d encourage submission for that goal.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
SuperSqank wrote:
Basically, this game has an exploit where you can access the final boss from the level select after you have finished the first level which normally should not be possible.
Does the game normally need the player to use the level select screen to progress from stage 1 to stage 2? Or does it happen without the stage select screen?
If accessing the stage select is an extra/code thing that is not part of normal play, then this approach may be considered invalid for Standard class publication due to our current rules against using level select codes/menus to bypass gameplay.
However, if the level select screen is part of normally gameplay, then it seems like a validly exploitable glitch for reaching the credits.
EDIT:
SuperSqank wrote:
They typically play after the end cutscene but that doesn’t play when you play the final level through the level select, legitimately or with this glitch.
This makes it sound like the level select is not part of normal gameplay. So it’s likely not valid for Standard Class publication, but it may still be ok for Alternative/Playground.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
KingKappa wrote:
I have been TASing Super Mario Bros. Deluxe for about 8 months now, and I am considering making a warpless TAS to see if it will get accepted. However, I am very new to the TASvideos site, and I am not 100% sure how the submission process works. Under game versions, the North American and European versions of the game are listed, but the Japanese version is not. Does this mean the Japanese version is not accepted for TASes, or is it because it hasn’t been used in a submitted TAS yet? Whether or not I can use the Japanese version will influence my TAS because the Japanese version has some tricks that are not possible on the NA/EU version.
Generally, various NTSC releases would be equally considered valid/the same (discounting language based time differences) and only gameplay would be compared in regards to preferring one run over another for publication/obsoletion
If, however, there are tricks/strategies available in the Japanese version that aren’t present in other versions, and it changes the approach to how aspects of the game are played; there’s potential (but not a guarantee) that the Japanese version could be published along side the NA/EU version(s).
I’d encourage you to go ahead and submit the run. Just be sure to use the submission notes to emphasize the unique strategies that are only present in the JP release.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
The palettes themselves would have no effect on gameplay once the game is started. What is actually happening is "startup state post-BIOS timing was slightly different because I inputed a different BIOS" (which even then, that's not even necessarily true as many palettes converge wrt timing, and there are other things you can do to affect timing here, like hold A/B/Start/Select, hold that palette input instead of tapping it, switch palettes multiple times, or outright delay the end of the BIOS by continously changing palettes at the end)
It's something where you could end up getting less lag way later in the run because you did some extra "meaningless" jump in the beginning of the game.
could it be that the inputs used to select a different color palette are what is making the difference, not the color palette itself?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Our submissions system has a line for “goal” which is usually baseline/any %, full completion, max score, etc.
The purpose of most goals is to beat the game with whatever condition is included in the “goal” of the TAS, so runs are judged according to the goal.
As the purpose of a “playaround” goal is entertainment, then judging the run based on the goal (as we would do with every other submission) requires judging a playaround run from a standpoint of entertainment.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
xy2_ wrote:
feos wrote:
I'll think about the rule wording later.
after the post by feos, i'd like the tas to be re judged if the rule changes happen
As the run has already been accepted and published, rejudging would only potentially serve to change the publication’s class designation from Alternative to Standard (and this assumes that a rule change would make the run eligible for standard). There wouldn’t be any other changes that would be gleaned from a full rejudge.
A change in the rules in such a way would necessitate that other runs ina similar situation that are previously submitted/published would also need redesignated from Alt to Standard, so this run would be included in such a shift.
Also other runs previously rejected may become acceptable, which again we’d get to updating as we (as staff) were able.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
McBobX wrote:
feos wrote:
It's hard to tell why or how, but over the decade of hard feedback dependency for every submission (to decide on its tier) people stopped getting so shocked by every new submission, and stopped posting as much. It's not due to Discord, because we've had an IRC chat for ages and the forum was still fine. My theory is that the hobby did finally establish itself as some cool and known thing. TASBot team's effort played a huge role IMO, also RTA runners got insanely good and kept replicating TAS strats for a decade, so there finally was some nice synergy between the 2 hobbies. But yeah, people got universally used to TAS, it stopped being as jaw-dropping mind-blowing, aside from a few exceptions every year.
That is something has to happen I guess. Like you said, there is just no one to blame here. While TASing is an awesome hobby, the fact that it is getting more and more popular and people seeing such content more frequently, they will just get used to it as a normal thing, and that could one of the reasons why we have less activity in submissions. However, entertainment still important, as seeing a game being broken time to time or moves at a high speed makes people enjoy that game in a different way. I would say that relying on entertainment alone is not too wise, but it at least should be mentioned. Also, people change, and TASing is not exclusive to OG people. New speedrunning enthusiasts might want to explore the site, like we all did more than a decade ago, and they should find awesome content still :)
We’re not advocating for removing entertainment from TASing. We’re advocating for removing entertainment as being a requirement for publication. There will still be entertainment to be found here. In fact, the proposed changes will allow more stuff to get get published that some people might find entertaining even if the majority of viewers wouldn’t. In a way it is actually expanding opportunity for people to find things that they will find entertaining.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Samsara wrote:
Alternative runs may not immediately receive encodes, but they will be published nonetheless, likely with temp encodes
I’d suggest that delayed encodes not be limited to Alternative publications. If a Standard publication is otherwise ready to go aside from an encode, i think it should also be published with temp encodes and an ‘official encode forthcoming’ approach.
I do agree that Standard should be a priority, but that is a subjective stance based on personal opinion that i wouldn’t throw a fit about if things went another way.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Bigbass wrote:
Was curious if moving to BizHawk would be enough to console verify this game, but alas, it isn't. Even more convinced now that this game likely requires initializing memory in order to verify, which I don't have the equipment to do.
Would poking a random value (instead of the emulator default) into all RAM at frame zero (after the emulator initializes RAM but before the game code does any changes) help determine this?
I’m thinking if RNG changes in such a case, then we’d know it’s based off uninitialized RAM seed instead of a game defined seed. If the RNG stays the same with different poked RAM values at frame zero, then the RNG must come from something the game code specifically sets.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
As this is an endless game, choosing an appropriate endpoint is necessary. The chosen endpoint seems valid with the last increase in enemy difficulty. As such, the “40 levels” branch name is likely not needed as this will probably be considered a baseline run.
That said, if someone were to continue TASing through a later valid endpoint (either the 80th stage where the timer also stops decreasing the allotted time, or at the stage rollover from 256 back to 1), such a run would likely obsolete this run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
nymx wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
zaphod77 wrote:
honestly, the explode afterwards feature was just to show off the little tune for that failure condition. :)
You can play indefinitely with perfect 10x landings, so a maximum score tas would be very boring.
I'd say 100% is perfect landings on each platform.
Would the scoring for getting 5x landings in less time offset the time it takes to get 10x landings and actually be able to max out score faster?
That is my question as well. Certainly needs testing.
You going to do the TAS?
Not any time soon. But I’d consider it perhaps…someday.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
zaphod77 wrote:
honestly, the explode afterwards feature was just to show off the little tune for that failure condition. :)
You can play indefinitely with perfect 10x landings, so a maximum score tas would be very boring.
I'd say 100% is perfect landings on each platform.
Would the scoring for getting 5x landings in less time offset the time it takes to get 10x landings and actually be able to max out score faster?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
DarkRiolu27 wrote:
Apparently changing the color palette when the game is booting up causes lag to occur in different places. This could potentially be leveraged to decrease lag overall, although it would be difficult to figure out which color palette is the best, since none seem inherently better than others, just different.
How does that compare to running in standard Gameboy mode instead of Color Gameboy? Is there even less lag with the monochrome?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
I'm not sure what to do regarding the goal with this run.
Since the level doesn't increase after the stage at level 9 like it would at easier difficulties, then chosen endpoint seems fine...at least for an any% run.
But my hesitation is with the "maximum score" choice. If more stages were played, could not the score be increased further? If so, I think maxing out (or rolling over) the score counter would be a better endpoint for a "maximum score" run than simply getting the maximum score possible on one stage.
What do you want me to do with this submission? Accept as-is for an any % run, or delay so you can add more stages to it for a "maximum score" run?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
dwangoAC wrote:
It's fine for a Synced run to never be promoted to a Published run in this new model because it's no longer treated as "not accepted" by default. Individual game/community members could use their own decision process to decide what runs to promote up to Published. Perhaps fighting game communities have obscure character-specific categories that remain as Synced runs while new and improved any% category runs get promoted to Published runs with descriptions and ####M pages. Encoders would process Synced runs to archive them but would uncheck the "Publish to subscriptions feed and notify subscribers" box on YouTube (i.e. it wouldn't be promoted).
I personally cannot support this approach as written, because it invites the possibility that runs which would be guaranteed to be published under current site rules (Standard eligible runs) wouldn't be guaranteed to be published under this model if a particular game's community decides not to push the synced run up to the published/promoted status.
I don't want to support any changes to site policy that could effectively produce a situation where currently publishable runs wouldn't be guaranteed to be published after site policy changes.
If the above proposition had the caveat that runs which are currently acceptable for publication cannot be left only at Synced status, then I'd have less of a complaint.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
eien86 wrote:
I don't really understand the choice of goal here. This movie lands the lander thrice, one per platform. However, this seems an arbitrary choice than a means to reach a ending scene or a goal clearly established by the game.
In the absence of a clear game-given goal, I'd say any% would entail simply landing the thing as fast as possible. A maximum score category would be either (1) make the perfect, scoremost landing, or; (2) land so many times as to maximize the score. The movie as it stands now lands between these two goals, but not really hitting either.
For any% I'd accept the first third of this movie, where you land the thing as fast as possible.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, landing on all three platforms is completion of all possible gameplay options. So if we were to accept landing on only one platform as any %, then this submission would be equivalent to full completion.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
KusogeMan wrote:
Superman Shadow of Apokolips GAMECUBE has 3 difficulties, in case me or someone else decides to TAS this, can I go for the unlockable Very Hard difficulty? Otherwise gotta stick to the Hard default one..
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/ps2/553880-superman-shadow-of-apokolips/cheats
With the newer tricks, it will be interesting to see if RTA can be beaten despite difficulty difference!
In-game codes can be used to unlock harder difficulties and should still be Standard eligible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
I aree with TIKevin that some degree of curation is necessary. Without that, there’s no reason to maintain the existence of the site beyond being a simple file repository for any and all things that can be labeled as a TAS, regardless of how well produced they are. That goes for both artistic and speed oriented runs.
Without somehow being able to say “these are the best TASes we’re aware of (that we have the means to reproduce),” what service (beyond file hosting) would we be offering people who want to create TASes? What meaning would publications have if there’s no curation? What impetus is there in striving for a publication if we don’t have a minimum standard of acceptance to give meaning to that publication? Without meaning to publications, why publish in the first place? And if we’re not doing some form of publishing, do we even need to exist at all?
I’m not trying to say that change isn’t an option, just that I don’t see value in changing to an uncurated approach.
Regarding current judging/publication bottlenecks (and this may sound ironic given that i just emphasized value): We currently have limitations on how frequently runs can be published (as well as strict rules on the act of publication). This timing delay is done, as I understand it, to maintain a level of highlight for publications on YouTube. Thus enhancing the value of each publication.
That said, these publication restrictions are also part of why we don’t accept more things than we currently do. For example: fighting games. I realize that there may be counter opinions, but there are multiple staff/community members who see the value in having a separate full run being allowed for each individual character in fighting games. The current issue isn’t that we think it’s wrong to publish such runs, it’s that we can’t handle the load under the current process. So, this currently isn’t accepted, but potentially could be if we had the ability to process it all.
If we were to loosen the timing restrictions on publications so that more runs could be published at a faster pace (basically as quickly as the publishing team can handle getting things published), then we may not have to be as restrictive on what types of runs are acceptable; so long as they still meet a standard minimum. (Here comes the irony…) while it may slightly lessen the value of a publication that comes from the current time exclusivity in the YouTube publication/presentation, all other aspects and value of publication could remain as they are now. I feel this approach would both further open up opportunity for authors to submit the types of runs they want, while maintaining a minimum level of curation.
Bottom line, whether we move away from our current system or not; it is the availability of volunteers (to actually do the minimal level of curation necessary for the site) that will ultimately determine whether or not the site continues or dies. More volunteers would help, period. Some may not want to volunteer because of current site policy; but to change to something different, we need the people to support the change first. So to anyone potentially interested yet hesitant, please be at least willing to join us. Just recognize that until/if a different system is a agreed upon, you need to be able to work within the confines of what currently exists.
EDIT: TiKevin83 wrote:
…judging should be minimized to replicating sync and either confirming with a game community that an improvement appears legitimate or if no community exists just to do a visual check that the TAS appears like a good faith attempt to set a baseline record.
Effectively this even further simplifies optimization requirements from the current approach of ‘doesn’t look sloppy to a casual viewer’ to ‘it’s the best known available even if improvements appear to be possible.’
In my opinion, publishing the baseline ‘best known available’ for a game is better than not publishing a game at all simply because there may be some actions in the game that are visibly not optimal.
So for judging, the bare minimum standard could be something along the lines of:
So long as continued progress toward the stated goal of a run is consistent within the run—no unnecessary extra activities taking place outside of minor suboptimal movement—and there are no other known complete runs of that goal which are better; the run is acceptable even with potentially apparent minor suboptimal actions.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2300)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US
Mikewillplays wrote:
When submissions aren't claimed for judgement for a long time, are they forgotten?
No. It just means that a judge hasn’t gotten to it yet. Not all judges feel able/comfortable judging all systems/goals, so sometimes it takes a while for a judge who is comfortable to claim a particular run.
