Posts for moozooh

1 2 3 4
229 230
Posted: 7/1/2021 2:32 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Pleased to announce that Team 7 is doing well; almost 30k rerecords made across several files including tests. Progress is steady and the results are looking good! The game has enormous depth in terms of both routing, movement optimization, and enemy manipulation, so we're still discovering new techniques and opportunities. This made us adapt the initial work plan in a way that, hopefully, will let us incorporate all of them and result in a much tighter optimized movie. I'm really intrigued as to what other teams will come up with. Fully prepared to see routes and tricks nothing like ours—too bad it's going to take another two months before I can.
EZGames69 wrote:
I think this was an excellent game choice, even better than my pick for DTC.
Dat humble brag...
Posted: 6/28/2021 5:40 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
A horrible, horrible way to go. Once-in-a-lifetime talent lost to someone's desire for cheap entertainment. The circumstances around this are infinitely aggravating, so here's a friendly warning: This is regarding the Kiwi Farms thread in particular, which by now has over 30 pages of some grade A psychopathy. Having your skin crawl after a few minutes of reading is the least you should expect from it. If you're mentally unstable, depressed, have a bullying-related trauma, etc., DON'T go there. This is what terrorism looks like.
Posted: 6/16/2021 4:59 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
:D
Posted: 6/8/2021 2:44 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Of course there is. The principle of luck manipulation is making something with low odds of happening guaranteed to happen by finding a sequence of inputs that leads to that result. Like with almost every other game, nothing in PoFV is truly random, and whatever the AI does is seeded from the player input, which makes the built-in replay system work in the first place. Since the actions of the player invariably determine the actions of the AI in the same way every time, it's a question of finding what actions of the player lead to a less favorable position for the AI. And as long as something can happen earlier, there is a sequence of input that will make it happen. Finding that sequence or one close enough is achieved via trying out different actions at different times and going with whichever leads to the result the soonest. We have an extensive collection of movies that do that to a very significant extent (the Castlevania runs and most fighting/brawling games are great examples). In case with PoFV you can help that happen by setting up the enemy screen in a way that makes collisions more likely and this way reduce the volume of the total testing space you'd need to sift through in order to force the AI into a collision. But perhaps you can actually trick it into colliding with any bullet that passes close to it if that can happen at all. Make no mistake, I don't expect it to be quick or easy, because I know for sure it won't be, and nobody here would expect you to find a truly optimal sequence for every stage. But in terms of the final result a publishable run must be much better than what an unassisted player could realistically attain even if they could dodge bullets indefinitely and without regard for their own safety. If/when you decide to look into it deeper and use a better tool, do post WIPs in this thread so we can track your progress and give feedback. We also have a Discord if you're interested.
Posted: 6/7/2021 11:32 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Ah yeah, I get what you mean now. Anyway, I've watched parts of the replay so I can more or less tell how this would've played out. In stages 1 to 3 you pretty much never chain and so struggle to keep up with this random unassisted Marisa Normal replay (note: watch on the unpatched game) I just found in terms of speed. This alone would be unacceptable by any standards, so I just skipped to the final stage to see what you do there. In the final stage the lack of savestate use becomes especially evident since you're just keeping yourself busy surviving instead of aggressively setting up kill scenarios for the AI, for which Marisa is actually very well-positioned due to her Ex attacks limiting horizontal mobility. If I remember the mechanics correctly, the ideal strategy for a TAS would be spamming level 2 spells (a risky thing to do in unassisted play) to have them reflected by the enemy onto your screen, reflect them back again via well-timed fairy and bullet chaining, and finishing off with a level 3/4 spell when the screen becomes sufficiently cluttered from the back-and-forth. At least that's the one thing that comes to mind considering the AI is a filthy cheater and takes advantage of TAS-like movement itself, and waiting it to make a mistake instead of manipulating it into making one is orders of magnitude slower. But manipulation isn't possible unless you can rewind to an arbitrary moment and try again. So yeah, I'm afraid you'll have to remake it using Hourglass/libTAS (if you can get either to work) so you can take advantage of the rest of the TASing tools. Slowdown alone won't do.
Posted: 6/7/2021 9:13 PM
Post subject: Re: Phantasmagoria of Flower View NoMiss Marisa
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Citizen564374 wrote:
if it's worth the trouble in terms of an interesting playthrough, otherwise human impossible
Just no-miss by itself isn't impossible. Unless you mean to do something else, e.g. maximize kill speed and such. PoFV is a PvP game so you have plenty of opportunity to turn it into a speedrun.
Citizen564374 wrote:
The goal is finishing a full run on Normal difficulty without losing the round and without taking any hit at all.
It's a TAS, why go lower than Lunatic?
Citizen564374 wrote:
Second the whole thing goes over 78min total.
This sounds about ten times longer than it should, considering unassisted speedruns on any difficulty take only 8–10 minutes. Also, in order to submit the file here (as in make a publishable submission) you will need to use Hourglass or libTAS and provide a movie made via one of them. And it will have to be done on an unpatched copy of the game because it's a submission requirement. One of the reasons is that everyone with the copy of a game and the emulator/TAS environment should be able to reproduce your replay without having to look for extra files which may have changed since the making of the movie and would hence require tracking down the specific versions.
Posted: 6/3/2021 11:55 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
I would like to kindly request everyone to stop responding to Acumenium's posts in this thread, and instead use it for its main (and only) purpose: providing feedback on the submission in question. And yes, Acumenium, I've already told you that your attitude isn't going unnoticed. You don't simply disagree with other members—you're being rude (1) and repeatedly misconstrue or misrepresent their words (2) in threads where it doesn't belong (3) because you don't understand how things work but insist that you do (4), despite moderators telling you to stop (5). That's five things you're doing that explicitly aren't appreciated. And the staff are getting fed up with it. This is your last warning before your ability to post is revoked.
Posted: 6/1/2021 12:03 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Okay, two pages of derailment is more than enough. Let me reiterate the important points. 1. Freenode has been taken over by people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be of the unscrupulous kind. There is more than enough proof for this for everyone to find in this very thread, and by the time it runs its course there will likely be much more. Additionally, it doesn't matter what policy they have on the site if they condone the behavior they allegedly disallow or discourage, and also give people who indulge in it operator privileges. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. 2. We are moving from Freenode to Libera. This is already past the point of a debate, the process is underway, and it doesn't look like anyone has any arguments against it. Great to have everyone on the same page for once. This thread was meant to provide information on the process and the background, and collect feedback on the decision. Not to discuss separate concepts. 3. This thread is not for the discussion of the free speech principles or their implementation. Please go discuss them in a separate thread if you will. Any further derailment will be removed.
Posted: 5/31/2021 6:35 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
That's great then; let us have the discussion back to that topic.
Posted: 5/31/2021 6:00 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Warp wrote:
No. Nobody can be forced to listen to someone's opinions if they don't want to. They are free to stop listening, leave, or if they are within the private property of the unwilling listener, the speaker can be trespassed. I have never said otherwise.
Your examples imply that if a public speech platform exists, everyone is equally entitled to the privilege of using it. That's how it works in a vacuum; in practice, people with consistently disagreeable takes are eventually marginalized because at some point nobody wants to listen to them anymore. This inevitably happens in every community; online or otherwise: workplace collectives, groups of friends, hobbyist communities, political movements. I won't give this phenomenon a moral evaluation, I'm just describing it for what it is.
Warp wrote:
Where your principles start playing more of a role is if you are offering a public forum for people to express their opinions, but then silence opinions you personally don't like. The forum might be your personal property and you may have 100% the legal (and even moral) right to ban anybody you want for whatever reason you want, but your banning actions reveal your attitude towards other people's free speech. If two people, other than you, are having a conversation in your forum, the conversation is relatively civil, no insults and threats are being posted, no illegal material is being posted, do you intervene if the conversation is about topics you abhor? Do you have an attitude of "this is my forum, owned by me, I decide what topics are allowed", or do you have an attitude of "as long as the conversation remains civil and legal, I'm fine with the expression of any opinion, even if I personally don't like it." Do you defend their right to express their opinions, or do you want to restrict what is being discussed in your forum because you don't like certain topics?
I support expressing opinions in principle, and I also don't mind stupid people being stupid. But I also recognize that some opinions are plain disrespectful, whether they come from ignorance or malice, and can (and have!) hurt people. I want to minimize that, and will ban consistent offenders; this is what moderators do. Between upholding a nebulous principle at all costs and keeping the community safer and free from toxicism and disruptive behavior, we generally lean towards the latter, because not every cost is justifiable. If what you're about to say is going to hurt a lot of people who did nothing wrong, maybe you should reconsider saying it publicly in the first place. Maybe it won't serve whatever righteous cause you have in mind. Maybe empathy is a better determinant of quality of opinions after all. On a side note, I've actually conducted some experiments in the past with regards to community management. My friends and I had a Telegram chat for which I was the sole admin, and my idea was to make it completely free from any moderation. People were free to invite other people no matter who they were. At some point a small group of assholes has successfully killed all conversation in the chat because no-one wanted to talk with them being around. It simply wasn't pleasant for them.
Warp wrote:
- You are free to express your (non-illegal) opinions in a public forum without negative repercussions, and without being impeded or silenced. (Swearwords are not opinions. Not even if phrased as if they were opinions)
Note that hate speech is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. We also have an explicit rule against it as feos has pointed out a number of times in this thread. Which by extension means that you don't support it either, assuming you're consistent in your following of the principles you quote. In any case, the issue at hand is moving from Freenode to Libera because there's already more than enough reasons to do so. We are also already in the process of doing so. Do you have anything against that in particular, or are you just here to express your conceptual disagreement?
Posted: 5/31/2021 4:43 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Warp, you're conflating the principle of free speech with entitlement to having your opinion be welcome. For instance, if I get on a phone call with you, and start going off about some subject that you don't care about, or otherwise make you bored or uncomfortable, you aren't in any way obligated to indulge me and keep listening to me. In fact, if this is something I'm known to do regularly, you are in no way obligated to even pick up the phone. My free speech rights won't be violated this way. You're just executing upon your own freedom to not listen and not be subjected to something that is uncomfortable. Freedom of speech does not in any way translate to desire to communicate, and it rightfully shouldn't. Note that I'm not even touching upon any moral aspects here, just the utility alone. There are no universally recognized rights that entitle other people to do anything for you. Communication between people has other layers and protocols through which favors and disfavors are achieved. It's not just a matter of laws and principles.
Posted: 5/31/2021 4:20 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
PLANET wrote:
Vault perhaps?
The Vault is the tier for runs that don't meet the entertainment and/or user feedback standards but are still recognized as the best in their respective well-defined and common categories for the purpose of record-keeping (currently: any% and 100%, though we're looking to expand it with other common categories). I'm afraid it's completely orthogonal to the situation at hand.
Posted: 5/30/2021 9:17 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
I don't think this category works at all. This is, at its best, an any% with an added lackluster walljump showcase that runs out of any novelty value less than halfway through. SMB1 walljumps simply aren't that interesting of a trick to carry the entertainment potential for an entire category. What would make it more interesting would be extending the definition of a jump to include zero-height jumps, i.e. simply jumping as little as possible. Which is a run that we already have, and it was well-received for what it was.
Posted: 5/26/2021 8:21 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Nach wrote:
I'm just now wondering if the Freenode staff are actively filtering discussions about moving away from Freenode in some way. We should probably assume networking issues over anything, especially since my connection has been acting up all week, but with what DeHackEd pointed out about Freenode staff going nuts, I'm starting to wonder what else may they be doing?
Realistically, it doesn't help to spend the time wondering why the message didn't come through, especially considering that it's IRC and it never explicitly guarantees that any message does. This time is much better spent repeating, reiterating, and duplicating the message in ways available to us to ensure that it does, in fact, come through to every remaining active #tasvideos user on Freenode. We need to expedite the process because we (you in particular) didn't take a decisive enough course of action when we saw the writing on the wall several days ago. So now we have to do it under the threat of a channel takeover, which is much less convenient but no less urgent. Among the staff, you're the most staunch IRC supporter and the one who de facto took it upon himself to handle the IRC affairs. Do what needs to be done, Nach. Help people migrate ASAP.
Posted: 5/26/2021 4:34 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Nach wrote:
So I don't know what to make of that.
The IRC protocol does not notify you in any way if your message has not been delivered, or has been delivered to only some people in the channel. And yes, that can happen because the protocol has no countermeasures against it; your line will appear in the chat log immediately, but when and whether it will appear to the users in the channel is up to the IRC network, TCP ACKs won't help you there. ICQ had a similar problem, and it pissed people off all the time. That was one of the main reasons people have been more than happy to move to chat applications with guaranteed two-way acknowledgment.
Posted: 5/22/2021 4:21 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
This is an awesome run. Very impressive that you've managed to find improvements in every stage for such a highly-optimized game.
Posted: 5/22/2021 1:31 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
In the interest of solution-seeking, there's also this great elephant-in-the-room of a solution called "improve the run yourself and give credit to whoever you feel appropriate", which is how people in the past used to solve disputes like this.
Posted: 5/22/2021 1:34 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Arc wrote:
This is about the intellectual property rights of everyone on the site, not just me. I have in fact defended someone else's work on the exact same principle: Post #495619
Which, by the way, was an extremely weird case to make (both there and here) because you suggest to credit Aglar for the trick allegedly discovered by Kenny which by your own admission defined Aglar's TAS, to which a natural response would be: wait, how does that work? Shouldn't it have rather been that Aglar had to credit Kenny if it wasn't his own discovery? There is some merit to suggesting that "signature" tricks deserve to be credited, provided there is a way to establish whose signature trick it is. However, it would be ludicrous to insist it has to be done via co-authorship. Otherwise every SMB1 TAS after 2007 would have to co-author klmz for the flagpole glitch, every Super Metroid TAS after 2004 would have to co-author Michael Flatley for arm-pumping, and so on, and so forth. See where I'm going with it? And while we're on this topic, can you even describe with certainty and beyond rational doubt what your "signature" trick or strategy is that had never existed prior to your involvement in running this game and can be seen in DreamYao's submission—to a large enough extent that it can be considered a co-authorship-worthy contribution?
Posted: 5/20/2021 1:58 AM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Acumenium, it seems to me that you either haven't read my previous post to you, or decided for some reason that you shouldn't take it to heart because you didn't notice that I'm a moderator and you shouldn't ignore what a moderator says when they address you specifically. (I know it's not immediately evident, which is why I'm not holding that particular thing against you.) In any case, I see no significant changes in your conduct since that time, which is not a great thing. You still routinely make arguments without a proper understanding of the subject, you're being combative, and besides, it's getting really hard to understand what it even is that you're arguing. So here's my task for you: limit your next post here to two short paragraphs. In the first paragraph, recap the things you're upset with in regards to this movie, its authors, or the judging process. In the second, propose what should be done instead or how it should be done. Do both without being combative or rude. If you have no such points to make, state so clearly. Even if you decide to drop the discussion here for any reason, the same task will apply to whatever next argument you make in any other thread. This will determine whether you're even capable of stating your disagreements in a polite and concise manner, and hence how we should treat your presence on the site. It's in your best interests to demonstrate that you are, in fact, capable of doing this right.
Posted: 5/17/2021 11:31 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
The annotations made my day. Honestly the most entertaining part of the run. Yes vote.
Posted: 5/5/2021 8:51 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
A decent technical showcase that ends before it overstays its welcome, though in my opinion it could've included stage 14 as well, even if it's trivial compared to the other stages. But whatever, still good.
Posted: 5/5/2021 6:52 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Acumenium, it occurs to me that you have strong opinions about things. That is perfectly fine. And you're also being passionate about delivering your opinions, trying to see it through that they are taken to heart. That is also fine—but only to a point where two conditions are met. 1. Your argumentation is based on concepts you understand well, can formulate well, and are able to present in a constructive manner. It doesn't seem to be the case on your end because you're frequently seen making erroneous assumptions about how the site works, but luckily this is something we can fix. We're there for you to answer questions, and staff members like Samsara, feos, and adelikat have already spent quite a bit of time explaining things to you specifically. In this context we only ask you to do the whole thing correctly, adhering to the most basic unspoken rules of forum communication: if you're unhappy with something, make a thread in the appropriate section of the forum or find an existing one if there is, present your case, tell us why you think we're doing things wrong, offer a solution that you think would improve the situation, and listen to feedback. It makes things easier for everyone. 2. You are not being rude or disruptive in your attempts to make things right with the world (metaphorically speaking). This is more problematic, however, because right now you're tiptoeing the line of being passionate enough to lose track that you are, in fact, upsetting people with your combative behavior and lack of self-reflection. That's not a great direction to go in your life as a forum member because unless you realize it and change your conduct, it eventually leads to a ban. Might as well attempt to change the course early and not let it reach the point where it makes you and possibly other people miserable and forced into heavy decisions. At this point we have heard your take on this submission, it was gauged against the positive feedback, and a decision was made in favor of the latter. In this respect, any further discussion on the site's publishing system, goal choices, arbitrariness, and so on will have to be continued in a separate thread, should you decide to keep discussing the subject. But please follow the two conditions I've outlined above so that it doesn't devolve into pointless bickering. This goes to everyone else as well. This is a thread for a published movie, any further posts not specific to the movie in question will be removed from the thread. Thank you.
Posted: 5/2/2021 2:31 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
Okay, enough. Feedback has been given, decision has been made. You don't have to agree with it, but please go play a passive-aggressive victim elsewhere.
Posted: 5/1/2021 7:33 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
My take on this is simple: the effort put into lag reduction might be of merit to some, but lag itself isn't. If the best way of reducing lag is to use the version of the game that lags less, than that version should be preferred. It's also clearly a winning move in terms of entertainment for those who don't care about this game enough to analyze the extent of lag reduction and consider it something more than a self-imposed challenge.
Posted: 4/21/2021 3:10 PM
moozooh
Experienced Forum User, Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5789
Location: Away
If you're depressed enough to talk about it in your submission comments, please consider seeking help. If you let it fester long enough, depression can ruin your life. Making demands and conditions such as "don't give negative feedback" is not something we appreciate, however. And I doubt you'd find any community centered around public feedback that would oblige. When you submit your work for feedback, whether you get positive or negative feedback depends entirely on your effort, and censoring it just to ensure more content from you or to take pity on you is something we will never do. Please understand this.
1 2 3 4
229 230