Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
In short, I'm figuring out what objective rules make sense to expand the environment to include high scoring runs. There's a few nasty problems I'm running into in defining edge cases.
Games with a "firm maximum" in their Limited Scoring are those that better fit the Vault definition, as there is a relatively easy maximum to calculate. Since 100% completion can be made readily apparent from this, all that matters for a TAS is to achieve that score then beat the game as soon as possible, preserving the time-based metric Vault appears to be based off of.
Ones with a "soft maximum" are those whose system does not lend itself to a readily known maximum, yet the maximum is known to be finite. There is some apparent interest in including such runs. But by Vault rules, you can't get a clean 100% definition, and therefore can't be allowed in Vault. The Vault inherently works off of time-based metrics, not some arbitrary value in the game. The only way for a "100%" Vault run to be obsoleted by a slower 100% Vault run is as a form of correction, where the prior 100% goal is later discovered not to be complete.
So, I'm trying to help design a set of rules that allow for "soft maximums" to be published. Nasty bits include maintaining Limited Scoring where later a trick is discovered to allow Endless Scoring, and some method, taken as far out of the audience hands as possible to minimize subjectivity, to pick which tricks to ban when a combination of two or more allow Endless Scoring.
Under no circumstance is a programmed upper limit to be taken into consideration for the scoring rules I'm trying to come up with. If a game has a score-based ending, such as River Raid, we can file that under Vault rules as appropriate.
I do not intend to design rules to support Endless Scoring, although a provable score/time loop or perhaps even score/stage loop would be my suggested metrics. I am trying to clearly define a line between Endless Scoring and Limited Scoring, and any Endless Scoring rules can build off of that line.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Personally, I don't see what's complicated with the choice of level up stats. Really, the only one that I think matters is Drive, as TAS can deal with any control necessary to make up for the loss. Drive means the ball has a faster initial velocity with each shot.
Everything else, character selection, left/right handed, whether to fetch Super POW, those things do need to be tested. And the control isn't fine-grained, so it's a hunt for checking if this shot setup works, and if not, try this next one, and so forth.
If we do choose to not restrict ourselves from "Give up", we do get a difference of experience depending on our end score, which affects our Drive, and therefore how quickly we can take later courses. Without that restriction, things get a lot more complicated, as maybe saving ourselves the minute of flight time through Marion is lost in 40 seconds to Palms, another 30 at Dunes, 35 over here in Links, and... Really, no Give Ups is the logical start to begin from anyway to get a base line of comparison, and to get an idea which holes are the most costly.
Anyway, hope to see progress over on Toadstool Tour. I don't have any particular TASing plans at the moment, so maybe I'll fit this one back in my schedule.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
I do not have GameCube TASing set up on my computers, so viewing them won't be easy for me to do.
Still, I do want to mention things like making low shots, (super) backspins to reduce the roll of some shots, switching to stronger clubs because of lower angles, and popping your shots into hazards just so you have a shorter power bar to work with on the holes you can't instantly reach the Green.
Oh, and there isn't any good tolerance for missing the Impact Zone like in Advance Tour. And the Spin stat actually matters, if that would change your character choice to something other than best Drive.
At least there isn't any complicated stat choice to make here, pick the best character and go. This platform should provide finer tuned shots than on Advance Tour, so there should be less trial and error compared to the relatively large steps of the GBA platform.
Go for it, things should hopefully be pretty straight-forward here.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
I want to minimize interpretation. Vault-style is to minimize subjectivity. I still have definitions to build, so this is to be considered a WIP.
Have I defined well enough what score is?
Is the length of text sufficiently short?
Does it sufficiently follow some intent I've apparently been pushing for?
Any gaps in explanation? (SMB low score probably exposes one)
Defining what score is
In general, use common sense. Games often clearly indicate a number used for scoring, and this is to be used for comparisons to determine whether to obsolete a prior run. The score number may include a ranking, does not necessarily have to benefit the player, and may have a table of high scores in the game itself this number goes to.
Even if common sense fails, and we somehow determine the Experience stat in Dragon Warrior is to be used as a measurement of score, it still has to follow the rules of Limited Scoring. If the goal does have a finite quantity to collect, consider as well whether it can fit the 100% definition of Vault, and if so, it's a Vault TAS, not a scoring TAS.
In some cases, a low score is desired. In general, low in-game times and low move counts also lend themselves toward low realtime, but whether because of long bonus countdowns (This one avoids that), roundabout actions needed to keep the value low, or require extra manipulation at places that aren't scored, they do not always have the shortest input files. Also note that games with in-game times can also give time bonuses to this scoring that usually stop at 0.00 seconds and go no further negative. This cap is to be ignored like any other cap, and the time score measured accordingly, where feasible.
In rare cases, there is encouragement for both a high score or a low score. Super Monkey Ball gives unique rankings in its credits game for rather positive scores as well as particularly negative scores. It takes perceived skill either way you choose to get as far from zero as you can, so either goal is viable.
Ranking and score
Imagine you just got S++ after a stage. That's your rank. Rankings are outside the scope of these rules, and are not to be considered for scoring. Ranks are a step function that takes in your score and spits out a result, usually a letter grade or some words of how awesome you are.
In a particular example, Bishi Bashi Special has a scoring for each individual stage, then awards up to 10 points for a total score across all stages. These 10 points are based on how well you did on the stage, as a step function to the stage's actual score, and therefore are to be considered a rank.
((Yes! I figured out how to categorize that TAS! Satisfaction.))
If the goal is nothing more than to achieve the highest rank, it is, at best, a Targeted Scoring run, and therefore should not be published under scoring rules, requiring other criteria such as the Vault or popularity for publication.
Obsolete criteria
Under construction...
Score is to be used as top priority. Time is the secondary measurement by which a run can obsolete another. A run that takes 2 more minutes but scores another 10 points is a superior movie. Another TAS that gets exactly the same score, but does it 30 seconds faster is also a superior run.
For games with multiple scoring criteria, like minigames with a variety of scoring, (under construction)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Aside from having a rejected TAS based on triviality, I don't have much to add to your post. That's for our site staff to determine, I believe.
I'm an Editor, so technically, I'm part of that staff? Just use common sense to get my meaning, alright?
I keep talking about infinite scoring and limited scoring. It's time I define more precisely what these are.
Score is... Score
In general, there is a clear delineation of what is score and what isn't score, as depicted by the game. Destroying an enemy in some arcade style game is worth score. Destroying an enemy in Dragon Quest is worth experience. If it is pretty clear the intent of the value is score, then it is score.
... I'm now expecting some kind of debate over Super Paper Mario's "score" value. To which I have no good answer for as of yet.
If there are minigames or similar such events within a game, each with their individual scoring, then they are to be considered separately.
Ignore score limit
The programmed score limit, be it an upper limit that freezes the score once it gets there, or is unchecked and causes some kind of glitching once it is there, should not be considered as a theoretical stopping point. After all, such a limit has no impact on whether a player can continue to use scoring actions. If such a limit does not exist, can the player continue indefinitely to get a higher score?
If gameplay stops after hitting a score threshold (example), it should refer to Vault rules for publication. If it can be determined as an appropriate ending for Vault, particularly in cases where there is no other ending criteria, it can be published according to Vault rules.
Encourage limited scoring environments
Many games are inherently endless scoring. Many others are limited, and do not allow repeating scoring actions without bound. There are some that provide limited scoring options, but due to a few tricks or glitches, it turns into an endless scoring game. To keep the scoring mechanic in such games interesting, any restrictions that prohibit such actions, in order to create a limited scoring environment, are allowed.
This rule must be allowed to deal with the possibility of this:
* A limited high-score run is published
* A trick is discovered that removes a resource restriction (like time), enabling endless scoring
* Without restrictions,
. o A run that doesn't use the trick can't obsolete the current run since a higher score with the trick is possible
. o A run that uses the trick can't obsolete the current run with a higher score because it is in an endless scoring environment
. o Essentially, the current run is in violation because of a then-undiscovered trick, and is now impossible to obsolete
To deal with this "demon," restrictions of certain glitches, tricks, or actions must be allowed so that a later discovery does not break the format set out here.
Endless ScoringI called this "infinite scoring" before.
An endless scoring situation is one where the game allows the player to score as much as they like, given time. The game never restricts the players capability to do actions that would result in more score. The game's score cap is not to be considered. Just ask yourself, if you are approaching this limit, and you cheat with a memory edit to reduce your score, would you be able to keep increasing score in this loop? If this is "yes", we're in an endless scoring environment.
Runs of this sort are not compelled for publication. Only audience reception should be considered.
Guidelines on what constitutes an endless scoring environment:
* An endlessly spawning source of scoring enemies or other resources are available
* You can repeat a scoring action without bound
* Able to revisit stages, or at least parts of one by a checkpoint system
* Time is not used to force progress toward an ending, or can be extended without bound
Targeted Scoring
A subset of Endless Scoring. As such, it should require good audience reception for publication. Most games with Endless Scoring are likely to be submitted in this sort of category, as otherwise you have infinitely long runs.
Technically, it can also be done in a Limited Scoring environment, by simply selecting a score other than the maximum achievable with the resources provided. The game could have a ranking system, and awards maximum rank for a particular threshold, making the margin above unnecessary to reach this rank. Such runs will not be compelled for publication under these scoring rules, as it falls in the category of Targeted Scoring, but might be publishable anyway depending on Vault or popularity.
Guidelines to expect from targeted scoring:
* Some programmed score maximum
* Enough score to reach top ranking
* A convenient, although arbitrary, stopping point of score (like 10,000,000)
Limited Scoring
This type of environment puts a limit on what scoring is available to the player. At some point, the player can gain no further reward in trying these actions. Again, the upper programmed limit should not be considered, only the limit of actions the player has access to.
Guidelines for limited scoring:
* Enemies or other resources used for scoring are strictly finite
* Any object used for scoring does not return to a state where a prior used scoring action is possible
* Does not allow revisiting old areas for the life of gameplay
* Game uses a time limit, with no boundless ways to extend it
There are also rules of endless arcade-style games elsewhere. If there is a point where the difficulty maxes out, and the gameplay is effectively a loop of stages at maximum difficulty at that point, it can be considered an appropriate endpoint to do exactly one loop at that maximum difficulty. This is true for time-based goals of Vault. As it should be true for score-based goals of these rules as well, so long as it isn't possible to endlessly score within a stage.
Turning endless to limited
Due to the encouragement of these very rules in promoting TASes of limited scoring games,
Not all games necessarily have a type of gameplay that can lend itself to restrictions to become a limited scoring environment.
Guidelines that allow limited environments:
* If a trick or glitch is discovered that makes scoring endless, ban it.
* "Never look back." If a run can turn finite by restricting revisits to earlier areas, such as by death in a checkpoint system or by warps, then restrict that.
There are still probably a few holes to plug even here. Particularly since I mention guidelines rather than rules. We have to start somewhere, and I'm hoping to get things together.
One issue of note is what to do when there are different restrictions that separately allow limited scoring environments. My initial thinking was prefer the one that ends in higher score, but that may lead to some ridiculous definitions.
A second thought is to prefer the simpler or more intuitive restriction set. No deaths allowed is a simpler rule than "no more than 2 deaths per stage." If an action is to be restricted, it has to be a complete restriction. "No 1-ups from jumping on the same enemy" allows for jumping on the same enemy a finite number of times, and is therefore not a complete restriction on a particular action. "No jumping on enemies" is a complete restriction on such an action.
This will take further thought, of course.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
If a scoring action is repeatable, then it should not be publishable in Vault. I'd argue that Desert Bus has a repeatable action for a fraction of its point that can be used to get an arbitrarily high value of points (for a ridiculously long time per point, but said time can be extended infinitely). Pinball happens to have an infinite loop that works with zero input once it is set up, but once again, the action can be repeated for an infinity of times, to get any arbitrarily high score value you wish. Personally, I would not allow such infinity to be publishable. Even if the score caps out, it doesn't restrict the scoring action itself, so there's little of interest in just repeating that action over and over. And targeting some convenient score value, such as the 99 cap of Desert Bus, is not a valid reason for a Vault safety net.
Basically repeatable actions have no measurement of completion. So I won't mind keeping such runs out.
Finite scoring actions is the main target for what I'm trying to achieve.
Infinite, unbounded:#3912: adelikat's FDS Super Mario Bros. 2 in 115:17:46:40.00#4168: Aqfaq's Genesis Virtual Pinball "maximum score" in 00:05.46
These runs end up repeating some sequence of events without bound. Even when the score hits the maximum, it continues to repeat the scoring events. These are examples of runs that don't try to limit scoring in any fashion, although what their goals may be isn't strictly for fastest score/time in such a loop. Still, the game's score cap is not to be considered.
Infinite, targeted score:[1596] NES Tetris "maximum score" by Acmlm in 03:11.78[1875] SNES Tetris Attack "maximum score" by zvsp in 01:15.38[1904] SNES Panel de Pon "maximum score" by zvsp in 00:39.20[2691] N64 Magical Tetris Challenge "maximum score" by PoochyEXE in 01:57.38[2759] C64 C64anabalt by dwangoAC in 21:25.22#2211: alden's SegaCD Desert Bus in 41:17:15:05.68#3523: Bobo_the_King's SNES Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars "Beetle Mania" in 45:35.38Thanks, ThunderAxe31
All these runs allow for infinite scoring, under the definition that you can repeat the scoring actions endlessly as opposed to respecting whatever programmed limit the game has. However, a particular point total is selected for one reason or another, and the results are published as above.
On a side note, I disagree (weakly) with C64anabalt's acceptance into Vault. The fact the score display glitches at a certain point isn't really any more special an endpoint as Desert Bus' 99 point limit. If it is a commonly accepted endpoint in the community, then we have a goal to aim for in a game where we otherwise wouldn't have a potential Vault goal. I'm well aware I want more scoring runs published, yet by the rules I'm trying to design, this one wouldn't fit nicely.
Limited, firm maximum by single or targeted cycle count, infinite otherwise:[970] NES Track & Field "max score, playaround" by Phil in 12:55.43[2189] NES Gumshoe "maximum score" by Highness in 14:43.98
There are various arcade games that repeat a sequence of stages endlessly. At some point, the changes in gameplay or difficulty stops, and effectively the same sequence as the last cycle starts replaying. As with time-based goals that pick this sort of endpoint to stop at, we can also potentially calculate an absolute maximum possible score for such an end-point, and use that as a 100% criteria. Potentially. ... Okay, I'm proposing a possible interpretation of the rules to leverage my vision, but it's a point of view to consider.
In any case, so long as the stages themselves don't allow for infinite scoring without clearing them, such as death abuse to go back to a checkpoint, or infinite time and scoring resources are provided within a stage, then limiting the stage count to a convenient point where gameplay or difficulty no longer changes is a sensible way to give a useful limit.
Limited, firm maximum:[3245] A2600 Pitfall II: Lost Caverns "maximum score" by Alyosha in 09:30.32[3386] PSX TOCA Touring Car Championship "max points" by Noxxa in 10:37:18.72[3461] Vboy Nester's Funky Bowling by Spikestuff, MESHUGGAH in 01:02.70
These games have a readily determined maximum to calculate or discover. There is a decisive limit based on the resources the game allows, and the goal is to use those resources to their limit, then clear the game as soon as possible.
Even if there is a programmed limit that is beneath the total of scoring resources (and this recent Quest for Glory post gives a good example), simply selecting that limit means we allow ourselves to pick and choose which resources to arbitrarily ignore. Then all of a sudden it becomes really murky what it means to max scoring. Personally, I'd say ignore the programmed limit, and assume all scoring resources will add up to a higher total. Anything less, and we can't really say we've completed everything in the game.
I will have to admit the possibility of mutually exclusive scoring resources, in that using one denies the other. Whatever this implies, I'm not willing to go into details there as of yet.
Limited, soft maximum:[530] N64 Tetrisphere "Time Trial" by Acmlm in 07:00.00[886] N64 Wetrix "1 minute challenge" by Deign in 00:49.72[2246] Genesis Olympic Gold: Barcelona '92 "playaround" by Toothache in 10:32.23[2621] GC Resident Evil 4 "The Mercenaries: Castle" by Ubercapitalist in 13:44.33[2836] GC Ikaruga "2 players, maximum score" by keylie in 21:29.40#5681: mPap's NES Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! "high score" in 1:15:08.46
Some of these are actually rather fancy to watch. Personally, I want to see more runs like these. Part of a fear I perceive is that there is no Vault "safety net" to guarantee a publication of a high scoring run, and the site is primarily built around speed records. Part of my goals is to help promote such runs, where feasible. Included in those goals is to allow restriction of glitches or tricks that would turn a limited scoring environment into an infinite scoring one.
Olympic Gold was originally published into Vault, but then it was determined this was a mistake. I am curious as to the original line of thinking that got it into Vault to begin with.
Limited, low score desired:[1633] SNES Kirby's Dream Course "maximum score" by snc76976 in 1:09:13.63[2718] Arcade Neo Turf Masters "maximum score" by mamuuuut in 09:17.00[3150] NES Lee Trevino's Fighting Golf by Acmlm in 08:26.00[3194] NES Mini Putt by TaoTao in 06:54.17#2908: HappyLee's NES Super Mario Bros. "lowest score" in 14:32.80
Okay, so I listed a bunch of golf games. I suspect some of them are in Vault not because of an optimal known score, but rather that a low score happens to be conducive to fastest time. The Kirby one there isn't necessarily faster with a low score in this case, as presumably some of the shots could be ended earlier rather than extending it just to keep the shot count low, but it isn't Vault so it's published anyway.
The point is that not all games use a high value for making you look awesome. For this post, I haven't tracked down the Sokoban TASes that aims for fewest moves, but those decisively lend themselves to fastest times as well. It isn't necessary that a low score means a faster time, and I did track down a submission that does exactly that to avoid points from time countdown.
Limited, other/undecided category:[814] SNES Star Fox "maximum score" by YtterbiJum in 19:47.37
Haven't looked over this one. It has emulation issues, back in those old days? I get the impression the highest score possible isn't infinite, at least.
[2310] PSX Bishi Bashi Special "Marathon Challenge, maximum score" by Spikestuff in 33:53.43
It is clear this one is limited. What's not clear is the fact each stage has its own scoring criteria, and another for overall ranking. The overall ranking has a clear limit of 10 per stage, giving a firm scoring limit there, but the individual stages are softer in that you try to get the most you can within a time limit for some of them.
[2852] PSX Bishi Bashi Special 3: Step Champ "Track & Field, best performance" by Spikestuff in 02:41.27
Apologies. The first Bishi Bashi Special TAS has me scared now, so I have yet to put in effort here. In any case, the high score here is the farthest the long jump or javelin throw can get, which has a clear limit, but an unclear maximum. I'm going to leave this here as a limited, not categorized for now.
[3023] PSX Bishi Bashi Special "Time Trial, maximum score" by Spikestuff in 05:37.75
Another Bishi Bashi Special. The goal is to get the fastest in-game times, at sacrifice to the overall input file length for the necessary manipulation. I don't know how to really categorize what seems like a speed oriented goal, except for in-game times. Kind of reminds me of the various Sonic runs where the bonus countdown is tolerated for the sake of faster in-stage times.
[3508] PSX Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions by theenglishman in 1:35:46.46
There's a variety of max scores in here. The in-game times are also preferred over input file length. In some cases, the in-game time would be negative if the time bonuses for ammo/sneaking wasn't capped, making the 0"00 times more of a targeted goal due to a programmed limit. The run is basically a variety pack of scores. Perhaps like the Track & Field runs.
Not categorized:[3513] NES Crash 'n' the Boys: Street Challenge "best ending" by Inzult in 08:10.86
I'm pretty sure this run aims for getting 1st place in every event. It also tries to do so as quickly as possible in many cases. I'm not sure what counts as better scoring in most of the individual events. There is one event where the TAS crosses all the buildings nice and fast, and I'm not sure if failing that quickly, even with the 100% restriction of all 1st places, can make for a faster run, but in any case, it does cross those buildings fast.
Score not apparently a primary goal:These runs get a nice score, but time is put ahead of score. While other goals may be put ahead of time, a high or targeted score is not one of them, and time is aimed for immediately after the completion of this specific goal.[1290] NES Dr. Mario by CtrlAltDestroy in 01:12.83
The score is crazy high. The goal is to complete one level of Dr. Mario, the highest allowed difficulty from the starting settings, and to complete this level as quickly as possible. The fact it has an amazing score as a side-effect of this time goal, even though this one-level score is not likely to be beaten any time soon, doesn't mean score should be used as a measurement to obsolete this movie. If a higher score is achieved at a longer time, then this would be a record that can stand side-by-side with the existing fastest run, although not necessarily published together by TASVideos standard.
[1634] DOS Epic Pinball "Super Android" by dwangoAC in 05:07.53
The goal here was to max out various counters as quickly as possible. While the process of getting them maxed awards a lot of score, it doesn't actually end the run itself, and higher scores are readily possible. The goal is a specific completion point that in itself isn't targeting a particular score, and therefore score has a lesser priority to time where it is to get to this goal as quickly as possible.
[2091] GB Super Mario Land by MUGG in 12:08.75
The run aims for fastest time. Without impacting time, there is a secondary goal to collect every coin and defeat every enemy it can to maximize score, but this is beneath fastest completion. Unless the time remaining bonus is worth more than what can be collected in the meantime, this isn't a top scoring run.
[2113] SNES Super Putty "all stages" by Dooty in 16:53.17
The aim is to clear all stages. It feels like an appropriate 100% goal. Based on the submission text, time is prioritized after the goal to see through every stage. Score does not appear to be a significant factor in routing.
[3146] GBA Sonic Advance 2 by Dashjump in 17:41.10
The standard in going fast. Wait, is maximum score an appropriate tag? I'm confused... Please clarify the line of thinking here. In-game time is a standard among Sonic runs, particularly as waiting around intentionally at the goal just to avoid a longer score countdown is uncool, and plagued earlier Sonic games (this particular title lets you skip the countdown time). I'm not entirely sure how I feel about in-game time as scoring, but this game has an actual scoring mechanic in it, and if score was considered, it certainly wasn't considered ahead of time.
[3509] Arcade Jungle Hunt by £e Nécroyeur in 08:43.33
The movie runs through enough cycles to reach max difficulty of the game. It doesn't help the description indicates going through the game in record time, meaning time is likely considered ahead of score. It was accepted into Vault, and Vault can only use time as comparison point for obsolete runs, or possibly a correction of a prior goal that missed a point of completion for 100%-like goals.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
I think that "full completion" is just as subjective and fluid to define as any other goal -- for instance, Zelda 1 "full completion" doesn't toggle every save flag such as bombing open all the secret doors. The community came to a consensus that collecting all items counts as 100% for the game. Every game is going to involve this kind of consensus at some level.
Tangentially, my belief on what counts toward full completion is any event that is tracked by the game in its most persistent manner available, done with non-repeating events.
Defeating some random low-end enemy is generally not tracked by the game, and almost always repeatable even if it is tracked by a counter. Using a bomb is tracked, by the fact you now have one fewer to use and is saved across sessions, but this is by way of a repeating event. Marking a room on the map as explored is tracked by the game, and is a non-repeating event. Even if the event in question is not a "major" event anyone cares about, like opening this small chest and only finding a trivial amount of money, so long as this chest can't be re-opened, why should we exclude it for any reason other than "it's not important"?
Oh, and don't try to twist things by saying "everything is repeatable by deleting the save." The whole argument is based on the lifetime of the most persistent medium by which the game tracks things, and deleting a save is decidedly the end of such a lifetime. I am trying to make an argument that also fits within the definition of games that do not have a persistent save file, ones that drop all tracking once the power is turned off. There are also games that do their tracking based on a password system as well, and that can be counted just fine as a persistent medium.
If the run is entertaining enough, and the community is enough in agreement on the current run being "complete enough," I do not wish to impose on the extreme of getting every tiny side event done just because it's non-repeating and tracked by the save file. It's a good run already, and enough percentage of everyone is fine with what was done. I have my own beliefs, and do not wish to spoil a collective belief using one that only one person has.
On a side note, I did present some difficult questions in The Guardian Legend. Start your read here and work your way down a few posts.
In any case, I see a Vault valid 100% goal as being one where you complete a game as far as it will go. I wish to tie the max scoring definitions to be scoring as high as the game will allow, on whatever strategy you use to get there. This is as "100%" as such a scoring run will go. A repeating action that gives infinite score means we lose meaning of 100% on score. Much like Super Metriod's Time/Space Beam allowing essentially infinite% collection means we lose what 100% really means. ... I'm hoping my memory is on target with this glitch.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Well, that was a mistake. Fixed.
I no longer wish to change the Vault. However, I can still design a system of rules for fun. As I'm no longer constraining myself to a system present on this site, I won't have to worry about conforming to what is there. With no goal to change this site, I do not have to answer to anyone. So I will have freedom to imagine what I wish and share what I come up with.
So, what's the main goal for these rules I'm making? Record keeping for scoring. That 792-hour Desert Bus run just to reach 99 points is a record. However, not all records are practical to encode into a full video. That 792-hour Desert Bus run is going to be a nightmare for encodes. If I want the rules to include accepting this as a record, such rules should not include compulsion for publishing a full proper video. And especially not for infinite movies.
A number of games allow for infinite scoring. Many others have limited scoring. There's a few that are apparently intended to have limited scoring, but a trick or glitch breaks its system and allows for infinite scoring instead.
Infinite scoring should not consider a programmed upper boundary as a stopping point. Something like Tetris has infinite scoring. Several sorts of Mario games also fall under this category.
Limited scoring is defined simply that the scoring system does not allow one to get points endlessly. Again, this should not consider a programmed upper boundary as a stopping point, as this has to do with the resources provided by the game with which to score, not the upper limit to where the score itself can go. Restrictions on tricks or glitches are encouraged to provide a limited scoring environment where such tricks or glitches would switch it over to infinite scoring.
Targeted scoring is to pick some interesting spot, such as the programmed upper boundary, as a stopping point for a run. If a case can be given for some spot other than the upper boundary, it should be considered accordingly. The standard spot would be some upper boundary where either the score freezes, wraps around, or starts displaying nonsensically.
So, to give a few published examples from this list...
Infinite: Frankly, it's infinite. We don't have a lot of those.#3912: adelikat's FDS Super Mario Bros. 2 in 115:17:46:40.00
Limited:
[530] N64 Tetrisphere "Time Trial" by Acmlm in 07:00.00[886] N64 Wetrix "1 minute challenge" by Deign in 00:49.72[970] NES Track & Field "max score, playaround" by Phil in 12:55.43[2836] GC Ikaruga "2 players, maximum score" by keylie in 21:29.40
Targeted:
[1596] NES Tetris "maximum score" by Acmlm in 03:11.78[1875] SNES Tetris Attack "maximum score" by zvsp in 01:15.38[1904] SNES Panel de Pon "maximum score" by zvsp in 00:39.20[2691] N64 Magical Tetris Challenge "maximum score" by PoochyEXE in 01:57.38[2759] C64 C64anabalt by dwangoAC in 21:25.22
Whether I missed a few cases isn't particularly important, I wanted to select out a few examples that struck out at me.
I haven't fine-tuned any rules or descriptions as of yet to put out there, I'm simply trying to come up with useful definitions and terms to start from.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
In essence, the Vault is not constructed to use score as a metric in any form; it only uses time. There are no other forms of measurement used by the Vault. A value reported by the game itself is immaterial, as it is not time measured by the length of the input file.
Any sort of scoring can only be used as a measurement of completion, and it has to be 100% or any%. If 100% can't be defined on a measurable maximum value, it can't be used for defining the 100% goal.
That is how I interpret the rules here.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
_26640 - Soda Popinski's score
999990 - Suggested limit (something to confirm, perhaps by memory edits)
973350 - Score difference to make up.
In the first 10 seconds of that match, the player was able to score 1940 points. Mostly because most of those punches earned stars and some star punches were mixed in. More practically, right after the next star punch to get 2440 points, the player gets pairs of stars in a two punch pattern. 10 seconds later, we are now at 3760 points, so that time was worth 1320 points.
Let's assume stamina recovery doesn't affect our time (we can likely just add in a fixed time per loop later), and after stopping the clock, the AI lets us deliver these sorts of punches endlessly. Our rate is 1320 points per 10 seconds, and we need 973350. A quick division tells us we'll need 7374 seconds, or over two hours, to get to this score. And as I stated in the first sentence of this paragraph, we haven't accounted for whatever tricks are needed for stamina recovery during the match, which will certainly add more time. And if we can't make star earning punches after stopping the clock, we can expect the time to multiply by 11.
Just a quick estimation of the time needed to grind the score when time is no longer a limiting resource. But I'd still like a response on how long we can expect it to take.
Mothrayas wrote:
"Significant effort" is a very vague term, so it's hard to build a straight answer on that. But even if you assume a very thorough definition of effort, with the game disassembled, researched and simulated to Dragster-tier levels, my answer would still be no.
By "significant effort", I don't have any specific meaning. Dragster-tier analysis is definitely on the upper end of it, and passing interest over one afternoon is probably well below the level I'm looking for. Mostly, as long as some effort is apparent, and there are no obvious avenues of improvement, then it's around the level of "significant effort" I'm talking about. Some level of judgement is expected to determine where on the line it is, and the logistics of ensuring Dragster-tier analysis is decidedly far too much to expect on every score running TAS submission. Much like how we don't expect the judges to disassemble every game to ensure the submission is as fast as actually possible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Had a good discussion with Mothrayas a few hours back. Now that I had the time for the thoughts to sit and reform in my head, it's time I put down a few clear examples.
Some ground rules with the Vault has been clarified in the discussion, as well. Any memory corruptions or other tricks that directly modify score, bypassing normal means of attaining score, may be banned and such a run is still Vault-allowed, as they'd otherwise make the 100%-like completion definition rather fuzzy. Any tricks that, while they don't modify score itself, but modify a limited resource that would otherwise stop score from rising endlessly (such as time) must be allowed, or else we leave the parameters of the Vault by excluding more than the bare minimum restrictions.
After further thought, this one fact of allowing corruption of a secondary resource that can lead to endless scoring greatly restricts any arguments I may have on widening Vault allowance on score runs. I do not have an answer. I will explore this reasoning later in this post.
Regardless, I want to build on what I can elsewhere. I'll fetch a few examples.
The scoring systems I seek must not reward repetitive behavior, and most certainly not those allowed without bounds.
Super Mario Bros. can get a bunch of points, fetch a 1-up, die, and repeat a level forever. Restricting deaths would move toward finite resources, but then we're applying a restriction beyond the bare essentials the Vault seeks. It's not even that strange a trick. Of course, there is the turtle on the stairs trick which can get a particularly generous number of points, so even restricting deaths wouldn't end all the degenerative behavior I would like. This is one example I wouldn't mind rejection for Vault.
Super Monkey Ball has most of its stages with less than 100 bananas in it. However, there is one I can think of where there are more, and even though it is clear the designers intended it to be impossible to collect 100+ in that stage, TAS can do it, getting points and lives from the bananas, die, and repeat forever. We can apply no deaths, putting a complete stop to this repetitive behavior, and probably get the run published anyway as the game lends itself very much more than Vault in its appeals, and the fact it uses time remaining as a primary scoring factor helps it further. But then there's no Vault "safety net" I'm looking for.
Krazy Kreatures I've mentioned before. The game works in phases for each stage. First, stuff floods the stage, and if there's no room left, game over. After some determined number of line clears, it moves on to the timed phase where you are no longer in any danger of game over, as the flood of stuff stopped, so the point of phase 2 is to score what you can with whatever is left on the field. Once time runs out, the game runs its bonus count-up, where you maintain control for a short time more before it locks and you move on to the next stage. I'm aware of tricks to extend control during the count-up, but not endlessly, and I know of some scoring abuse in there, but it's not infinite. This is an example I want allowed for Vault, as I consider it having an interesting scoring mechanism that can be bested by a theoretical better strategy the original run didn't consider.
There are many auto-scrollers where time to completion doesn't significantly change based on player's skill, outside of boss battles. Rather, whether the player can survive, and how many points they get, depend on skill. Survival is usually trivial in TAS conditions. How easy it is to get points depends on the game. If the enemies are sparse enough, maximizing score becomes trivial, and can be rejected on the basis of triviality. If scoring is difficult like Ikaruga, then there is no clear maximum, only that there must be a maximum from the lack of any loops or other infinite score grinding techniques.
Infinite score grinding techniques. Oh, I hate the possibility of something undiscovered. I'm just listing out examples of things I'd like Vaultable or otherwise, but if we always assume there's some hidden infinite scoring trick somewhere, and that we never allow ourselves to restrict those, my rules completely break down.
If we do have a game where there's no known score grinding technique, and we have some upper value we can't get past regardless of proof, such a run would be accepted to Vault in my imaginary world. However, the crux of the problem is that, if some technique is discovered later that breaks what would otherwise be a restricting resource (such as the clock stop in Punch-Out!! making the time resource endless), the published run will be in some mysterious grey area where it shouldn't have been published because the scoring system now allows for infinite scoring with this trick, and it is impossible to obsolete because for any run that gets a higher score, that run could simply be beaten by a trick we can't restrict by Vault rules. But such a run using the trick can't be published as it fails to meet the ideals I'm looking for in my imaginary world, where the trick allows for endless scoring. This is problematic.
Because of this sort of definition where corrupting secondary scoring resources must be allowed under Vault rules, I am unable to provide a useful proposal for a rules change to better fit my views. Therefore, I am unable to suggest anything beyond the status quo as it stands.
I find this somewhat upsetting, I feel like there should be a change. Everywhere I push, I just can't find the foundation to set my cards. I concede further attempts at changing site rules, should the rule involving what I outlined as a "corruption of secondary scoring resource" be considered an absolute, unchanging standard for Vault.
However, having reached a conclusion, even one I dislike, there is some closure I can feel comfortable with. Unable to come up with a proposal that can satisfactorily handle the problematic case I pointed out, I have given myself a type of paradox I can't defeat. Until this demon is slain, I can't see any better way to redefine rules.
That still leaves a nice score listing and Tool-Assisted Scoreruns for fun, at least. Perhaps not changing the site, but no one minds a spare topic or page, even if the runs aren't going into the submission queue.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Mothrayas wrote:
Sorry, but I am going to instantly reject any proposal that would force us to publish a 74-hour pinball run, or a 792-hour long Desert Bus run. This is one of the main reasons we require entertainment voting support for publishing movies with goals like this.
Alright, it is clear we shouldn't accept any run with rather repetitive scoring systems. I will not press for the acceptance of such runs to Vault. This then leaves a problem on my side I have to address: What sorts of scoring systems should we accept to start with?
The definition in the rules already cover for games with a decisive upper limit. Meeting the goal, then finishing the movie as soon as possible is the standard.
I do not want to include runs with a practically boundless upper limit.
I want to include runs with an indeterminate upper limit, but decidedly finite.
Proposing a complex definition to get the subset of runs I want to see published into Vault will put undue strain on the judging side of things. If the definition is to work, it must remain a simple one.
Super Mario World has a scoring system. I wish to exclude it. Mario can repeat stages endlessly.
Alien Hominid also has a scoring system. I want this one excluded as well. Find a safe spot and shoot back and forth in an endless loop.
Krazy Kreatures has one as well. This one I would like included. Fields have a finite size, and you can only clear a finite number of lines before it moves on to another phase.
Various arcade games like Pac-Man, Galaga, etc. have scoring systems. Once the difficulty maxes out, and no new content is seen after one loop at maximum difficulty (not counting unintended things like the level counter looping around or glitching out some versions of the game), perhaps that should be the stopping point. And if we determine that as our goal, there should also be an easily provable maximum for this goal, as we go through a finite number of stages. Of course, I'm twisting some aspects and attempting to squish this type of run to fit within the current Vault definition, by selecting a particular point of view, but I need to consider these thoughts when trying to come up with an appropriate proposal.
... I'm posting these thoughts now. It's going to take hours before I can think through my intent properly. When I can come up with something reasonable, some way to readily and somewhat systematically determine if the scoring system is "interesting", I'll finish my train of thought there. Of course, I realize the problem of Vault for uninteresting stuff, yet I'm asking for interesting scoring criteria, something which seems decidedly at odds against each other. My intent is to reduce some perceived fear of rejection of score runs of an otherwise passable goal just because the audience didn't find it interesting enough, to help get a few more score runs submitted to the site. Placing a "safety net", so to speak, in hopes that runs that really are Moons quality can get some security of publication.
Maximum points or score is allowed as a full-completion category, provided that:
* There is no better way of defining full completion in the game.
* The maximum score is easily defined and absolute - it must not be possible to gain a higher score, even theoretically. It must be definable without being dependent on precise time, speed, or similar requirements.
* The maximum score is limited by not being able to gain any more points, not by hitting a score cap or overflow. If it is possible to score points infinitely, score cannot be used to define full completion.
If it can not be proven you have hit the highest possible score, yet multiple people can't improve upon the attained score value, is this still grounds for rejection? By the definition of the question I put forward here, we have not hit a theoretical limit. However, we did hit a practical limit, and have not been able to improve on it.
I wish I could cite on the Ikaruga example, as the scoring is rather complex (is it possible to have absorbed just one more bullet in that mess?), but that run was accepted in another tier. It therefore did not have to deal with Vault definitions.
I also have a single level Krazy Kreatures TAS. Granted, it's some side project and not actually published here, but would it be allowed in Vault, assuming the played mode was acceptable? It aims for maximum score. I do not know if I have gotten the highest possible score. I can tell you that there is a finite amount of time before the control will be locked and the level ends. I can tell you the strategy I've used is probably a very good scoring one, but I can't tell you if there exists a better strategy than the one I used. Is this scoring TAS to be rejected for being unable to prove I have achieved the highest possible score? I can only argue the strategy I used reached its limit, but not that the strategy has reached the absolute limit.
We commonly use time as a criteria for obsoletion. Is there a reason we can't use a score value as a criteria for obsoletion as well?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Mothrayas wrote:
How do you go about defining full completion of a game through maximum score, without being able to prove conclusively that it is the maximum score?
... Mmm... You know, we are now at a subject of debate. One that probably extends past this submission. I know of a topic I want to cart this discussion to. I have a new post to make.
Essentially, the question I have in mind is: If it can't be proven the achieved score is the highest possible, and after significant effort a higher score wasn't achieved, is this still grounds for rejection with no other consideration?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Shortly after I make this topic, this TAS comes in. You have my thanks. This game certainly has an interesting score limit, which doesn't appear trivial to meet.
Interesting to also see Little Mac apparently having trouble and getting beat up just to restore his opponent's stamina and earn a few more hits. Overall, the gameplay appears somewhat slow, but the stated goal of earning as much points as possible is fairly clear watching this. There should be no question this run shows off significantly different gameplay from our speed oriented TAS.
Only real question is one of optimization. If a few others fool around and can't get a higher score, or are also unable to get the same score in shorter time, then that would be pretty convincing the effort necessary to improve the run isn't trivial. It is hard to tell from the appearances of this run, though.
Just did a quick check on the Vault rules, and score is listed as a possible criteria. As long as you got the highest possible score, and got to such a score as quickly as you can, then that criteria is met.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
When TASes are submitted and published, their times are shown rather prominently. Time is an easy standard to measure by, as it's automatically measured by the length of the input file. A lot of games have a clear endpoint, and reaching that endpoint often only has time as a measurement stick for how good we did. Though, what about score? It's not as easy a thing to automatically read, yet it is still a clear and obvious value of measurement, should one want to run by it.
Many older games have a scoring system. Many score to infinity, or whatever integer limit they programmed, and some would allow endless scoring if deaths aren't restricted by some conduct, and yet a few others have their scoring, while otherwise finite, are broken by some trick, like the Super Mario Bros. "turtle on the stairs" trick even when restricting deaths.
Some games do have an interesting limit to reach, though. Whether it be a hard-coded limit or based on what's available to score from, reaching that limit itself can be an interesting process.
I feel as though the impression of TASes to be accepted here is strongly for shortest time, with no exceptions to be made for score. Of course, this feeling isn't exactly true, as we have score-based TASes published here, but the recent Track & Field submission has definitely elected to take time over score. An example where it is perceived we take time over score, and so the submission. Whether this perception is accurate is not for me to answer, but it is one I feel.
Regardless, if there is a way to promote creation of TASes of games that have an interesting scoring system, I'm for it. Discovering which games have an interesting scoring system, fitting under the criteria where it doesn't have boring "score grinding" tricks or endless gameplay, is generally up to the runners to find, much like how we need to pick non-trivial games to speedrun. I see the goal in a similar way as 100% runs, as you are trying to max something out on the way to clearing the game. So Link picks up this heart piece, so too will I shoot this enemy for score.
In any case, I frequently see bonus rounds skipped or failed instantly just so we end faster.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
I recall making some attempts at getting a wheel enemy to s8 miniboss. My own results came up negative. Maybe I didn't look in the right places.
As for the lag and invisible stuff, I would advise doing some memory compares on the same frame of different branches. I recall checking the two branches of that s6 fights and the memory came up rather different by some marker on s13. Even some things in IWRAM were different, but I didn't save the addresses.
So, how should we go about analyzing this? No ideas at the moment, had to deal with life stuff for now.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Here's the Stage 6 boss fight. I'm hoping it looks glitchy enough.
Did try running the movie to the end. Apparently it desyncs in s15...? I wanted to double-check to see if the movie properly ends afterward.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Now that I actually viewed the run, I was reminded of this:
[984] NES Arkanoid "warps, demo glitch" by Baxter in 04:26.28
Basically, the linked movie also uses the demo to skip ahead, giving us a lovely precedent to work with. "Warp glitch" is probably the ideal branch name.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
<ThunderAxe31> I felt incredibly lazy and tired... but somehow managed double metor lagless hitless. what.
<FatRatKnight> Damage free no-lag double meteor?
<ThunderAxe31> yes, that
<FatRatKnight> ... Wow, that sounded like some kind of made up crazy name or something.
<ThunderAxe31> meteor shower*
<ThunderAxe31> & Knuckles (tm)
<ThunderAxe31> LOL
<FatRatKnight> Damage-Free No-Lag Double-Hit Meteor Shower & Knuckles (tm)!
<FatRatKnight> That last exclamation point is necessary for the effect.
<FatRatKnight> Otherwise, it would have about 70% impressiveness.
<ThunderAxe31> lol
<ThunderAxe31> where is Moth when the best jokes happen
<ThunderAxe31> that's the kind of humor he likes
<FatRatKnight> A second exclamation point would be less efficient, but still adds more impressiveness if desired.
<FatRatKnight> Third and beyond just adds noobishment with no real impressiveness added.
<ThunderAxe31> stop my brain is bleeding already :D
<FatRatKnight> Observe the effects for yourself:
<FatRatKnight> Damage-Free No-Lag Double-Hit Meteor Shower & Knuckles (tm)!!
<FatRatKnight> Damage-Free No-Lag Double-Hit Meteor Shower & Knuckles (tm)!!!!!!!!!!!!
<ThunderAxe31> !x10
<ThunderAxe31> I'm not even sure I remember how to observe things anymore
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Raelcun wrote:
Secondly:
Toki has a scoreboard after the credits and before the “The End” screen. Submitted is a Movie with inputs ended early, but I have also made a file that enters TAS! into the name input which can be found here.
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/42346992048499974
I will leave the decision on which one is used for publication up to smarter people than I.
Yes! Someone who added that little extra for name entry!
... Okay, enough excitement.
I have done something similar in my Alien Hominid TAS. Basically, I submitted a file that was enough to show the ending in its entirety, as a record keeping file, and asked encoders to instead use a secondary file for that slight extra at name entry. The publication video uses the name entry version, while the timing uses the submitted version.
I think that's the ideal situation. No one disagreed with my request.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Boss is fixed, no worries. I found a few frames at the door, it's got crazy frame rules and such. Although it implies we should be jumping at more doors, not dashing at them...
End stages are probably going to be painful with the item drops all over again.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
Cosmic event is the leading theory so far. I'm pretty sure everyone would be very happy to change theories with sufficient evidence. Right now, as I see it, there is so little evidence of how it happened that the wildly unlikely is within acceptance range.
I'm not sure if they tried replicating the exact motions in the video into an input file, then running that input stream across all possible starting RNGs. Even more extreme, replicate the actions since the start of that race all the way to this spot, including the start-up foolery at the file select, watching for exactly when Mario blinks to help with timing. For the most extreme, console verify such a movie. Although, anything persistent across stages (stars collected, doors unlocked, lives remaining, coin scores, global timer, RNG, save file data, HOLP, whatever) are probably the only things that might remotely matter. Could be a laggy moment, an interrupt happened at a curious timing, and changed a behavior that would only fail one time out of a trillion.
If you're looking for something other than cosmic rays, I want to hear something like this. Well, in more detail than my hand-waves above, but you get the idea. We're not looking for evidence against the cosmic bit flip, we're looking for evidence toward software error.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
1) Can Stage 3 boss can be improved with the same trick?
No. Stage 3 boss actions depend on when we clear dialog, not when it begins existing.
Just to keep score:
0) We skip this one
8) We're rather limited in what we can do here
7) Well, we could use an Ammo Tank. Don't think we can win on 11 ammo alone, so the mid-fight tank is still needed
1) No invincibility attack
4) No invincibility attack
5) No invincibility attack
3) Attack depends on when we end dialog, not when boss begins existing. Insert frames before the dialog-clearing A press and see for yourself
6) We found the savings here!
2) Might be worth a few frames -- Delay enough to "wrap around" and get the boss upward slightly sooner!
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
2) Some months ago I've left a 1 frame delay in a certain spot in Stage 6, would getting back that frame save something?
Dialog frame rule is not in effect. Only thing left is the animation frame rule. My memory claims we were at 2/4 delay, and a single frame would move that to 3/4 delay. I do not fully trust my memory.
EDIT: Wait, the point of the pause is to delay things. If we enter at 0/8 or 7/8 delay, the 7/8 delay means we need to pause another 7 frames, as the boss started existing 7 frames earlier. We need to act sooner relative to boss, so... Dialog frame rule in full force here. I forget where we're at.
EDIT2: Made sure to check Stage 7's boss.
We can't efficiently win on 11 ammo, but we can on 15:
__->11 - 45:10 First charged laser, refill as we fire on a "magic frame"
11->_7 - 35:_9 Second charged laser
_7->_5 - 31:_8 Normal laser
_5->_1 - 21:_7 Third charged laser
_1->-3 - 11:_6 Charge Storage
After that, basic can cover the remaining 11 HP in 6 hits.
The core of the problem is poor timing. If we pause, we delay the boss. He's at the magical moment where this delay means the sole invincibility attack starts cutting into our time. There are not enough frames between unlocking ourselves from damage and the first laser we need to fire to fully wrap around the attack timings. I can get the invincibility attack a full damage cycle earlier, but then we get a second invincibility attack before our 11th hit.
I don't see us getting an 8-frame save on Stage 7 boss.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
I was well on my way to adding entertainment to the Stage 6 boss...
... But then...
I found an improvement to the boss! 85 frames by my count.
We're not synced up on the 32-frame item cycle. After all that, we got a pretty big improvement.
Basically, by pausing during the yappin' boss dialog, we can delay the boss actions long enough to get in an extra hit before that teleport. We were something like 10 frames before getting that next hit. But then I started thinking.
I'm too dangerous with my thoughts.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1173)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
So... We've resynced in a full beginning-to-end run.
In case anyone's curious about ammo left on ending:
_6 - Flame
11 - Whirlwind (went entirely unused)
_2 - Dirt
_0 - Bubble
_5 - Missile
_2 - Star
_3 - Spikeball
_3 - Laser
Mostly, I'm impressed with how much we're able to avoid pausing to refill ammo.
Also, frame counts:
73730 - Our movie
83628 - Team 4's run (winning DTC6 run)
Yeah, my stuff in the later stages definitely looked unclean, aside from s16. Anything from the teams as inspiration may be needed.
Going back over a table produced in the DTC6 topic:
s14 - Team 7 cleared stage portion fastest, followed by Teams 3 and 4.
s15 - Team 6 this time, followed by 3 and 5.
Just need to remember to clean up s11 boss re-fight, too. We don't need the meteor double-hit if it'll help us get damage-free lag-free fight, but we might still need a meteor single-hit.
My desire to finish TASing this game has almost completely dropped off now. Proximity to the endpoint is apparently not a sufficient motivating factor to me. That is, I forget about projects when 99% complete, and never get that last 1%. I'll try to remain a presence in case there's a bit more to offer from what seems like my encyclopedic capacity to recall even small tricks and mechanics.