Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Nach wrote:
If the main goal is to actually collect them wherever they are, even if it means warping to them, and you did so, then you completed your objective. If you just put an item into your menu but did not actually collect them, then you did not complete your objective.
Errr... I could argue with that (NES Megaman TAS completing the game without flagged as completed).
I'd say it's the opposite case. Those flags only get set after you beat it the normal way. The game has ended in any case, we don't depend on full game state being identical to normal completion. We just require that the game after glitched ending acts like after normal one.
Full completions TAS rules are different, see my post in the initial thread:
Post #468560
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Before I actually read the whole thing, this is what I think.
When one focuses on speed alone under certain rules (tasvideos rules in this case), this speed is what we want, as well as creativity involved into reaching that speed of game completion. As long as it obeys the rules, it's considered a speed record, and even if it's boring, we still publish it (to Vault). We can call it any%.
When we talk about full completion instead of fastest completion, an extra goal gets added. But it's important to figure out the priorities. Do we want it to be just as fast as any%, with expected artifacts of full completion obtained by any cost (that fits into the same rules as any%)? Or do we want to see something additional actually achieved gameplay-wise, and only then we want it to be optimized for speed?
I don't think the rules for these 2 goals are the same. We allow hacking in game ending as long as the result works the same as after legitimate ending. But when we want to see some creativity in obtaining extra stuff, we have already agreed that we don't want to see plain any%. We do not evaluate TAS merits of a full completion run by artifacts that appear in the end, we evaluate it by superplay involved in obtaining them. When we can hack such artifacts in by corrupting memory, the purpose of the category gets completely defeated.
We can use "arbitrary code execution" to complete the game within the any% goals. This proves a point about absolute fastest game completion within certain rules. If from the same point we hack in full completion artifacts, what point does it prove? That you can hack them in? You obviously can, it's total control! But it's not related to actually completing anything.
Now we enter gray area. Because you could ask: "Then what is so impressive in ACE speedrun in the first place? You simply hack the ending in, nothing impressive!" To answer that we keep branches that avoid game breaking glitches and still aim for any% rules otherwise. This is because Moons allow to publish such branches as long as they represent enough unique content and entertain the audience. And they are liked exactly because people are interested in "spoiler free" game completion in terms of legitimacy. Some people don't feel like runs with major skip glitches are legit, and for them we have those branches.
In short: we allow 2 types on any%!
Can we do the same with full completion - keep a branch that hacks in arbitrary completion artifacts and then a branch that actually achieves them through gameplay? I don't think so. Because up to the point if reaching ACE such runs would be the same, and after that point they are virtually the same as well: just stream code that sets some more bits, that's all. Such 2 runs would be too similar to co-exist as separate branches.
Therefore means to get completion artifacts without obtaining them in some way don't make sense.
However, this leaves us with a question: What if it's not total control? Where do we draw the glitchiness line when we judge game completion? I don't know. I need to read the thread.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Warp wrote:
feos wrote:
But it's a Moons era, and Moons were allowed to have esoteric branches from day 1, as long as they are entertaining.
Perhaps we should start moving away from this? After all, how much could the list of requirements be shortened and still be accepted under the same branch category? Who decides this? Wouldn't it be unfair to the author of the first run that someone else could just remove some requirement from the list and make a "better" run that way? When runners can freely decide what the branch category is supposed to mean, it makes no sense, as anybody can obsolete anybody else's run by coming up with a different list of requirements.
If it's
1) more entertaining (check out how low entertainment rating the run we're talking about has),
2) similar enough, and
3) there's an agreement among viewers and judges,
it'd obsolete if by the Moons rules, regardless of internal rules of the run. We never allowed endless amount of esoteric branches, and if we need, we obsolete different branches by one another.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Thanks for posting :)
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Right, and at the same time we can define completionist in any way we need in future, which allows for a wide range of obsoletion options.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
I already elaborated why "100%" is absurd here (and why other "%" options don't make sense either).
Mentioning in the label what it gets will be either inaccurate (omitting some of the goals or presenting them in a strange way) or overloaded (simply telling too much, more than the viewer wants to know).
"Completionist" doesn't actually sound as bad. It doesn't define the entire goal, but the goal isn't strictly defined either! And quite a few people liked it.
"Maximum completion" feels the most accurate, because there's no way to define "full completion" objectively, and it's a Moons-only branch, so we expect that it defines it based on entertainment instead.
My 2 favorite ones are "completionist" and "maximum completion".
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
So what version of the label do you personally prefer?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Warp wrote:
What does bother me is that I get the feeling that the list of requirements is not fixed, set in stone, but up to the author. "As long as it's entertaining."
"Up to the author" in this case meaning that if other runners wanted to obsolete this one, they could decide on a different list of requirements, at their own will, and they might actually have a shot at getting their runs accepted, obsoleting the existing one, in the same branch. Because the list of requirement is not agreed and fixed, but can be pretty much freely decided by each individual runner.
It's that kind of arbitrariness that bothers me slightly. It kind of makes the branch a bit meaningless.
(If I'm incorrect that this kind of run, with a slightly modified list of requirements, would be accepted as obsoleting this, please correct me.)
You are correct, the goal is super arbitrary. But it's a Moons era, and Moons were allowed to have esoteric branches from day 1, as long as they are entertaining. Of course some judgment needs to be made on whether the goal is too arbitrary to be accepted. For that run the decision was that it's not arbitrary enough to be rejected.
Warp wrote:
I don't think it's necessary for the game itself to show percentages for a "%" category to be completely logical and legit. As long as we can establish exactly what constitutes 100%, we can calculate the actual completion % ourselves, even if the game itself doesn't. (If an exact 100% definition cannot be made, then you may have a point.)
It's exactly what I mean:
"max%" doesn't work, because there's no percentage in this game in any form
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
After reading the submission thread I can say that this is the original goal:
Complete as much as possible, as long as it's entertaining.
I'm not sure that's correct either. Some stuff could have been left out and provided more entertainment. It's really arbitrary.
Well, we know that it was the original goal, and it means it was judged by Saturn whether something he does is going to be entertaining to him or not. It doesn't mean that it was all similarly entertaining to others. People just happened to like a lot of the run's content.
Nach wrote:
Everyone can have their own criteria on what full or high means, but the only things we can say about the current one that is unanimously agreed to is that it got one of every piece of equipment, it learned all techniques, and it did a lot of other stuff, but by no means all. This is why I suggested originally we name it something like "all equipment and techniques" because that's the only things that we can honestly and objectively agree to.
"it did a lot of other stuff, but by no means all" - this part was lacking from the originally accepted label. And I don't see any sensible way to add that: it'd be the 3rd part of the label, and it can't even be accurately formulated as a label.
feos wrote:
"maximum completion" is informative, now we know that the goal is maximizing completion. So we just need to mention in the description that the run only aims to complete things that are entertaining to watch. Clear and accurate.
Well, I would say something along the lines of maximum completion, with some notes describing what it did. I wouldn't necessarily say entertaining to watch is the best criteria either, it's really arbitrary.[/quote]
I didn't mean that we need to write down the goal literally as "Complete as much as possible, as long as it's entertaining" in the movie description. Everything that might be useful to know is already written there, I don't see anything confusing.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
[802] SNES Biker Mice from Mars "final round" by Baxter in 05:12.62
Uses a password to skip to the hardest track in the game with full equipment, only beats one track, looks super entertaining, was accepted as a demonstration, doesn't aim to be a speed record or legit any%.
I really don't know how to call this, unless we start using "demonstration" in the branches.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
After reading the submission thread I can say that this is the original goal:
Complete as much as possible, as long as it's entertaining.
It's clearly not vaultable, hence it's clearly not full completion, nor 100% by any objective definition. I see how misleading the "100%" branch label is now.
So, is it "max%", "high%", "maximum completion", or "high completion"?
"high completion" sounds strange, as it's not used for any branches so far, and I'm not even sure it's real English. But it doesn't really tell anything either.
- High? Okay. How high though?
- Nobody knows. Somewhat high.
- Why is it considered Hight enough then?
- Nobody knows.
"maximum completion" is informative, now we know that the goal is maximizing completion. So we just need to mention in the description that the run only aims to complete things that are entertaining to watch. Clear and accurate.
"max%" doesn't work, because there's no percentage in this game in any form.
"high%" doesn't work for the same reason, and also because it's not descriptive.
Memory wrote:
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
Technically, the only really sensible branch would be namely "Max completion". Because it is really a run aiming for max completion for teh win.
Something along these lines is probably the least arbitrary we're going to get it.
We add a comment in the movie description that it's not actually maximum possible completion, just maximum currently submitted to TASVideos. We obsolete the moment someone submits a decent run with higher completion.
Would a run with less completion but also less arbitrary (and less boring) also obsolete this TAS?
If we get a run that completes a comparable amount of things while being more entertaining, it can obsolete it. Doesn't have to complete the same amount, nor more, nor less. Just comparable. And it must be more entertaining, since it's our end goal here. See how low the rating of that run is now.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
All walkathons need to mention their warp usage, as per recent guidelines addition. Even though warped walkathon can be considered speed-focused, it has an entertainment-focused counterpart now, warpless walkathon. To prevent confusion we label both by their warp usage.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Does the game even have warps?
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Also, there are many Super Mario World movies, including hacks, that lack an appropriate label, but we also have to decide if going for the "warps"-"warpless" naming or "low exits"-"max exits" naming
When we aim for fastest speed while avoiding major skip glitches, we don't care how many exits we end up using, so exit count is irrelevant here. So "warps" SMW (and hacks) should remain "warps". But when the goal is getting all exits, we should use "all exits". And when all can't be used, yet we want maximum, we should use "maximum exits", like in the fixed "small only" branch.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
LOL
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Ah okay. I'll fix it.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
I mean the same actions that you can do on the SELECT screen you can also do on that easter egg screen, and their result is identical. So it is functionally a SELECT screen with some changed graphics.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
I think we should only use "maximum X" when it's actually as much as you can get given the restrictions imposed externally. I'll need to reread the submission thread.
If it's not a result of restrictions, just an arbitrary pile of things one felt like achieving, and that pile is reasonably huge, I suggest enforcing "high X" for such cases. Or some better wording.
Then a run that obtains more, but is equally entertaining, would obsolete it. As well as a run that gets less, but is more entertaining. Because the current movie has quite bad rating.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Yeah it can be pretified after you make a pull request.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
When a run uses a combination of internal and external goals, we need to find out which of them it prioritizes, and which of them it only happens to have as a result of the primary goal.
If it explicitly and independently prioritizes more than one, and each of them is chosen for the sake of unique entertaining content, each needs to go into the label.
If it aims for fastest speed for the primary goal, and doesn't particularly care which other goals happen to be encountered, such extra goals don't need to be mentioned in the label.
The primary, external, goal in that run is "no powerups", the secondary, internal, goal is "maximum exits". It could get more exits if it didn't ban all permanent powerups (including "growing up"). This boils us down to:
SNES Super Mario World (USA) "no powerups, maximum exits" in 1:18:23.22 by PangaeaPanga
And saying in the description that the run bans permanent powerups that I listed above.
Opinions? Staff and other members agreed that this label is good (at least as good as "small only", but most of us think that it's better: more accurate and still not overblown).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
I have one last question. Would that run be shorter if it used more exits?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
Niamek wrote:
Why no just tkeep small only? Same with all the others movies like walkathon.
The details are already in the movie descriptions. Should be enough.
Why revise? Why fix? Why contribute? Why care? Same with everything one would bother doing. Reality is already better than shit. Should be enough.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11297
Location: RU
So the extra exits are forbidden because of those 2 forbidden techniques? We don't want to list the rules in the labels, only critical differences and unique goals. If there's a cherry-picked set of tricks that are forbidden to make it more entertaining, we could also list them in the movie description (if we haven't already). I'd need to know if those extra exits are sacrificed for speed or for entertainment.
As for reading the discussion, here's the result everyone seems to agree with:
Post #468111
I think it's important to talk to actual people who run this game before putting labels, so please try to help us keep it accurate and sane while improving the system.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
