Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
GMan wrote:
Perhaps we should start a thread on improving site navigation to avoid overloading this thread.
I agree, hence me mentioning that in the first post of this thread. The plan is already under way, the basic idea is just like you say, the ability to filter down. This is not just a "Oh let's come up with an idea", it is a LOT of code, that is slowly coming together.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I think this is exactly the type of movie that motivated the Vault. It has a lot of boring parts, but there is still a twisted interested from me in seeing this game destroyed. If nothing else, this TAS is justice against an angry weekend and a wasted $2 from my childhood.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
So what vault criteria was met by this movie? I think the argument against "full completion" was quite definitive, and is not addressed in the acceptance message.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
AnS wrote:
Now, Adelikat wants to publish many Atari runs
This idea has been in the works for quite some time, I resent this statement.
Nice image. I think this precisely visualizes what I want. You seem to be concerned about size of the red slice in these proposed scheme. However, the size in relation to that tier is up to the TASers, no me. We don't get many of these types of this submissions, for reasons other than site rules.
Do you imagine how ugly this "Tiers 2.0" system is gonna be?
I don't see the logical jump from the images you presented and "an ugly mess" Nor do I see how any of this hurts playaround. Llike I said, people aren't making many of these, this will be true now matter the level if inclusionism we adopt.
That's because there will be no real system, just lots of manual labour and subjective selections. But what concerns me the most, such division also hurts "Playaround" movies.
So far the system is clearly documented with a logical workflow that is mostly similar to what it is today. There's some one time labor happening to move to this set up (mostly in the re-judging of material that is now acceptable). But the workflow for this is easy to maintain and flexible for changes.
Included in this flexibility is the fact that the tiers themselves can evolve over time, and we can easily add/remove them.
Also, at this time I am not prepared to rely solely on ratings for tier decisions. These are too easy to manipulate and lack enough accuracy to trust it in something automated.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Moving <6 was a one time deal. It was an arbitrary decision that got a decent result set of vault material. I do agree that using entertainment < some value is a better way to do it, and am in the process of transitioning to this.
For new publications, the decision will be based on the submission audience + judge. This was just a way to get a pretty good retroactive move. I just assume grant "amnesty" to any publications in moon that passed this cutoff but are arguable.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Be patient, I tried to get all the playarounds and whatnot out of there, but I guess I missed a few? A more helpful thing would be to point out the ones I missed, thanks.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
We tier publication system and new [http://tasvideos.org/Moons.html]Moon requiremens[/url] requirements. My intent was to make this tier more open to odd category choices. So I'd like us to reconsider this movie. Is it too weird? Too many categories for the same game that are too similar? I assume it has sufficient entertainment value to the audience. Seems most any Super Metroid goal does.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Opening this up to re-judging. I personally would like even the Vault to have higher standards than this game. But where's the line? And how would I define it as such? Am I wrong?
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
The main thing I'm considering with the re-judging of this submission is whether it is a clear completion as stated in the Vault rules.
Do I need to clarify on games that repeat endlessly?
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
So, I think for the [http://tasvideos.org/Vault.html] rules, that similar versions of the same game across platforms are eligible for the vault. But for the [http://tasvideos.org/Moon.html] tier, we should demand some more notable differences between the two versions.
So is this too similar? If so, should we still publish such similar movies to the vault? Should the faster be the one published (SDA rules)?
Let's discuss.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
When I wrote up the specifications of the Vault tier I put in "Full game completion" as a valid category. But I was a little on the fence. I was on the fence because if the run had limited entertainment value to the audience, a full completion probably has even less. Here is an example of a unknown game on an under-appreciate console, 100% completion run. These make it to the vault under the current rules. Should they? Discuss.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
so we have the Vault
And I would like to put in some kind of clause that suggests a minimum amount of "TAS skill" if the wording can be clear enough (I want to minimize subjectiveness for this tier).
So should there be a minimum clause? And should we draw the line below or above this submission? Discuss!
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
subanark wrote:
From my understanding, any game that doesn't have "beats the game as fast as possible" as a goal can only be considered for moon and star, but not vault? While any run that beats the game using the clear and obvious way of "beating" the game can be put in the vault if it is optimized sufficiently? And there are still "games" that don't have any clear way of "beating it" that can be rejected for bad game choice?
You are correct on all your points. Except, the vault can also have "full game completion" type goals as well.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
So... Mega Man 2 The Power Fighters have 3 distinct routes, each one with a different set of bosses. Since it's on the vault tier, it means only the fastest route will be published?
The fastest of those routes can be easily published into the vault. The other 2, by rule, would have to be entertaining enough to warrant a moon publication. I am clarifying this because your question seems to imply that a vault publication means that game is doomed forever to be in the vault. That is not the case.
Also, today I moved every existing publication with a rating under 6.0 to the vault. I picked this number because the result set looked to be a good case of border-line vault material movies. Was this the perfect list? No, but it got pretty close. I expect there will be outliers, so if you users disagree with some of those moves, please discuss in the thread for that publication.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
1) This states it is a pacifist goal, but am I correct in assuming that the pacifist goal does not interfere with aiming for fastest completion time?
2) Auto-scroller games provide little opportunity for optimizing for speed. Should they be accepted to the vault? SDA does not accept speedruns for autoscrollers. Should I amend the vault description to say that a game must provide opportunities to optimize for time? (plus better wording)
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I definitely am looking for some discussion here.
Even for a the Vault tier, where game choice is not an issue. Is this still something that should be published? If not, why? What about the requirements could be changed to clearly draw a line between then and "more worthy" game choices?
I hope to flesh out some clarification based on the discussion ehre.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
So this has been unrejected and considered for the Vault tier.
I find this game to be a good fringe case for the vault requirements. Primarily the "must be clearly a game". What I mean is, how official should these games be? This is a pretty amateur job, with no QA thus easily exploited. Usually when we think of games we think of official commercial games?
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Ok, guys, the tiered system is now deployed to tasvideos!
I decided to stay with the 3 tiered system for now, vault, moon, star. We also changed notable publication status to notable improvement along with a new icon for that.
I apologize if I did not go with your suggestion, but know that I did seriously consider all suggestions and appreciate the feedback that I got from this thread.
I do think maybe we will do a "concept demo" type tier at some point soon, but there is a lot of changes to be made right now, so I would like to focus on these new tiers first, then revisit this idea after the dust settles.
In the next coming weeks there will be a lot of re-judging old submissions, and moving publications around in tiers.
Thanks!
