The way he wrote it didn't define a scope of how far it should apply, and I was fighting it in the way I described above. That kind of policy should never pass for every movie.
So you just assume everything everyone says applies to everything unless they specifically say it doesn't? Maybe you should just use common sense to define the scope yourself like the rest of us, it's not like this case was especially ambiguous. When you comment on a workbench thread, you're commenting on the movie, not general policies. Sorry to vent but this just pissed me off.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah shut up.
You seem to be missing the little detail that, on a site that aims for "perfection", it is entirely possible that that kind of attitude would be applied everywhere.
To me, it is a better idea to attempt to point out the flaws of that position first and debate if it was needed later, rather than leave it unchecked and potentially see more interesting runs get rejected.
Of course, I also have no real problem arguing with users, either, so I have little problem playing debate pinball with people like... you.
I would've rather seen a full 2-player version that doesn't care about lag, but that's just me.
(I always thought lag management was stupid. It usually means less interesting events.)
I will watch this later regardless, if only because I find the game interesting.
Edit
Got around to watching it. Dislike.
The 2-player use seems almost tacked on. In some places, P2 would be doing something other than P1, taking a different route, whatever. In most, he was dead, or just following behind P1 exactly.
This is where I think the 2P run would be better as something like the Nightmare on Elm Street 4P TAS, where both players are always active and doing something different from each other, even if it means being slower.
...but, we all know Xkeeper and his wacky ideas for what would be the best!
Tools > Prefrences > Advanced > Cookies, under Opera.
To check the site's cookies, right click -> Site Preferences -> Cookies. You can try changing the expiration date and other things that way.
I get the point Xkeeper is trying to make, though. In another case, I'd probably agree with it, even. Unfortunately, it falls flat in this particular application.
Oh, I never said it should be applied here. Far from it.
I was making this point in terms of a more global scope.
Just because Rick said he wouldn't allow any known mistakes in this run doesn't mean he would extend the same for other runs. Why do you have to be an idiot on purpose, Xkeeper?
Proper sentence would've been "By this point, there should be no known mistakes in a run of this game. It's been documented and speedrunned to death, so there are plenty of materials to check against."
The way he wrote it didn't define a scope of how far it should apply, and I was fighting it in the way I described above. That kind of policy should never pass for every movie.
Fun fact: the Wiki engine chokes on itself (note the broken tab code at the bottom)
Even splitting it into pages of 20 movies each, hiding the history, and some other things would've made sense.
I'm sure there'll be some long excuse of why it can't be done, and I'd almost be willing to bet it hinges on how the Movies-xxxxxx page can show a veritable billion different combonations.
The best part is how the NES Movies page is (521,580 + 759,362) bytes, or 1.22MB... and has 227 different things that need to be loaded.
For somebody who constantly whines about "internet terrorism" programs creating hundreds of connections, you'd thing something would be done about this!
I pointed this out long ago to Bisqwit (it happens also on the all-movies list). He basically didn't give a shit because it works in Firefox. Yeah, whatever.
I've suspected it's because the <div> tag exceeds some stupidly high height that overflows on huge pages.And, of course, since the page is built entirely from <div> tags, long pages explode.
This could've been fixed in a billion ways, but in typical fashion nothing was done. i.e., find some other way to fix it... unfortunately, it seems your only choice is to use one of the prerelease builds.
Even moreso because those builds tend to be a bit unstable.
I just did that kind of thing on my forum (PMing votes, counting them up) so if you need some grunt to do bean counting, I'm probably available.
...
It doesn't mean I agree with the idea, just if it actually happens I'd still be willing to help.
I dont think ¾ of a minute is pointless but saying that it is is. Nobody cares who found it. All that matters is the author of the currently published run and the one who obsoletes it.
Your point makes no sense. Nobody cares who found the improvement, only the person who made the full movie?
Either neither matter (end result, no specific people recieve credit for a run), or both matter (all involved users recieve some level of credit). You can't have just one.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to have, say, 10-15 humans and take the top 5 to get a better guess?
I may have made more sense, but that's not how scientific studies work (and I believe this was supposed to be a publishable journal article, not just a "look what we did" experiment). Imagine if they did the same thing with new cancer drugs...
Yes, but read the article again:
...with the most successful policy...
A rough equivalent of this would probably be taking only the best n players average.
I am not saying that the results should be skewed for no reason.
It seems like recreating ZSNES's key combonation feature (with graphical symbols instead of text and different commands, like "tap A" or "hold/release A" and "wait x frames" would be easier.
Damn, I sure hope you don't watch television, then.
If we equate them (the only real difference is that games provide an interactive experience, whereas television does not), then your assumption falls apart.
Please realize that just because some portion of a group is a certain way does not mean that all of a group is that way (i.e., don't stereotype).
Tetris is quite popular for AI, at least I thought so. It's a fairly simple game at the core.
But:
AI agents who learned with the most successful policy had an average score of 8186 points over 50 games. The average score of five humans, who each played 10 games, was 8064. In the non-learning experiment when agents used random policies, the average score was just 676. Other policies produced scores that fell within this range.
I can usually score a decent average of 70,000, and I am by no means good...
Wouldn't it have made more sense to have, say, 10-15 humans and take the top 5 to get a better guess?
I just wanted to point out that it's a bit hypocritical to bring up the topic of immaturity on a forum about video games.
I'm sorry, you seem to be implying that enjoying video games is a sign of immaturity. If this is the case, you should probably go somewhere else.
That would work, but the important thing is that there are gazillion routes in SMR, and an unoptimized run would take as much as ~4 hours realtime (to watch, not to do).
It seems like a good idea would be to take a few people who know SMR well, have them all slightly-assisted run though the game, and compare the routes they come up with.
Then, spend a bit of time refining the best one(s), maybe choose alternate routes that closely resemble the original.
It's no brute forcing, but many users working on something can lead to nice results.
The difference between Majora's Mask is that the occasional fairy-color problem is not something most people would notice and is not annoying. Even the whiteout period isn't annoying; it just fails to appear and only lasts one time for less than half a minute.
From what I have heard, Paper Mario's problems are far greater and annoying.
Interesting, but I would rather have a movie that didn't fast-forward though the ending scene.
Other than that, it was interesting. There was so little variation in the weapons used, though, it seemed...
FCEU's contoller display is a bit backwards in that it either a) shows input for 1P unless 2P is also having input, which given the way it displays makes it jump around really badly, or b) shows input for every controller possible instead of only the ones that are connected.
Unfortunately, these problems tend to make it hard to use. Something like the SNES9x way would be perfect, although the development of this feature in FCEU is probably never going to happen.
(I mean, afaik, they still haven't fixed the fullscreen palette error)
Then why use a "made up version #" ? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the movie number?
Because Bisqwit said he doesn't want to.
Also, why use 5 characters, if it can also be done by 3? I don't care for the date, nor do I care for the movie id when I'm searching for a file.
Ignore Bisqwit. This isn't about what's being implmeneted, since we've already seen that isn't going to happen any time soon.
I want your view.
MovieID over version number provides more usefulness (direct link to movie, sorting) rather than an arbitrary number that has limited usefulness (sorting).
Then why use a "made up version #" ? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the movie number?
Simply removing the date and changing it to "M####" would be fairly easy.
The mechanics of the split-screen have already been discovered. There are always 9.
Also, if you checked, there was never any verification of it being beaten because it hasn't. The $100,000 prize was never awarded.
The maximum possible score requires eating all 9 dots on every life. No lives can be lost though the normal levels.
