What the actual fuck is this thread. I literally can't even.
I'm going to assume that this is entirely trolling and that nobody actually believes any of this hilariously stupid garbage. It would severely scar my hopeful outlook on humanity's future to think otherwise.
Patashu, I was referring to his attitude, which will lead him nowhere good.
So you're boycotting watching his TAS because you don't like his attitude? Well darn, what ever is he going to do without your 1 view on the youtube view counter?
Personally I'm looking forward to the TAS whether it's submitted or not. OoT TASes are always pretty entertaining imo.
please enlighten me as to how LUA scripting is being used in half-life 2 and other source games? or are you using a different scripting language to assist your gameplay?
PS: I am even more of a beginner than the OP.
It's not LUA scripting. Scripts or scripting in the Source community it what we call programming or automating inputs, basically.
[snipping my post since the relevant junk got moved]
Will Quake or half-life style demos ever be acceptable for submission here, or is that likely not possible due to their nature?
We simply wanted to produce a video that would fulfill the category for 100% Map Completion, as worked on by our community of speedrunners in the Super Metroid Deer Tier collective.
I just wanted to point out that you've literally already done this, regardless of TASVideos' decision. So congrats on that I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7cW1q888-w
This is improvable by at least 4 frames on 2-1 alone, I think I can eek out 5 though. It's currently 35 frames faster than the published TAS at the end of 2-1. Savings currently comes through faster password input, optimizing lag frames, and slight movement optimizations. Heplooner and I are currently working on this one, I'll get the fm3 WIP posted when I'm home from work.
I'm picking up Metal Storm. Improved 8 frames on password input. Hopefully more to come lol.
Awesome!
I admit I was a bit intimidated to try that one, I hope you keep finding improvements as easy as that one.
Heplooner and I are working on it together, we're 29 frames ahead after 2-1. I'll try to get a WIP posted and maybe someone else can see some errors we missed. It's mostly lag reduction, but there are a few easy things like the password. Also the "start" input on a "press start" screen was 5 frames late in the published TAS... dunno how that happened =P
Yeah, let's focus on this new tier that probably won't ever have much in it instead of the multiple other re-tier proposals. Great idea.
While I'm not a fan of the snarky tone, I sort of agree with the sentiment here. This seems to be a tier created for *GDQ showcase TASes and other ACE TASes, even though there are other examples of Technical Showcase that don't really fall within the definition. It'd be nice to add a tier that could be a catchall for board/sports/rhythm/shmup games, potentially in addition to this tier. It seems like there have been more of those that got rejected than, say, ACE tases.
Tecnically speaking, the ring singularity appears on stationary solutions; that is, the ring singularly exists from -infinity to +infinity, amd there is no dynamic solution showing the collapse of a rotating star into a rotating (Kerr) black hole.
However, numerical simulations do exist, and they show collapse going towards an oblate intermediate form. But things inside the event horizon tend not to be modeled because they tend to crashnthe simulation or cause severe numerical stability problems. Whether the singularity would end up as a ring or as a disc is harder to say.
Moreover, it is likely there will be a lot of angular momentum and mass lost through gravitational waves during the collapse, so they can't be assumed constant.
Finally, the radius of the ring singularity of a rotating uncharged black hole is actually quite simple — it is equal to its angular momentum divided by (mass times speed of light).
This is what I get for trying to guess at stuff with an undergrad degree lol.
Conservation of angular momentum has the consequence that if you shrink a rotating object (all other parameters remaining the same), it will start rotating proportionately faster (so that angular momentum is preserved).
A (rotating) star that collapses into a black hole becomes zero-sized. By this logic it would rotate at infinite speed. Yet that doesn't happen. It will still rotate at a finite speed.
Is the reason that the singularity actually becomes a ring rather than a point?
(Which makes me think: Does it become a ring because of conservation of angular momentum?)
Not to be lame, but to quote wikipedia:
"At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[55] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation.[56] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[57] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."
I would suspect that it would have to form a ring of zero volume, such that the mass is distributed away from the axis of rotation. Otherwise, as you stated, conservation of angular momentum would be violated. I'd imagine there's some ugly nice equation that can be solved to determine the radius of the ring, if you're given some other parameters about the black hole.
I heard this one on Car Talk a little while back.
Suppose three guys, Alex, Bill, and Charlie, go out fishing one day. They get up early, pack their stuff up onto the boat, and head out to sea. They spend all day fishing, catching some number of fish, i.e., more than zero. They get back to dock late that night, and decide to just sleep on the boat and wake up early in the morning and go home.
In the middle of the night, Alex starts to feel sick and decides he'll go home to have access to some sort of medicine. So he gets up, goes to the fish tank, and counts the number of fish. After he's counted the fish, he finds out that there's no way the fish can be divided into three equal parts, so he throws a fish overboard, and takes a third of the fish home, without waking up the others.
Sometime later, Bill gets homesick, and decides that he's going to leave early to be with his wife. So he goes to the fish tank, counts the fish, and notices that the number of fish in the tank can't be separated into three equal groups. So he throws a fish overboard, and takes home a third of the remaining fish, not knowing that Alex has already come through and done the same.
Morning comes, and Charlie thinks he's up first. Ready to get home, he goes down to the tank, counts the fish, sees that they can't be separated into thirds, throws a fish overboard, and takes a third of the fish home, without knowing that Alex and Bill have already done the same and aren't on the boat.
So, after all this is done, what is the fewest number of fish that could have been in the fish tank initially for this situation to have happened?
(Bonus points if you can give me the general solution)
If I'm not horrifically mistaken, the easiest way to go about this is to think about it backwards.
The number of fish charlie sees when he wakes up can be defined as (3n+1) (where n is a whole number, since we're not chopping up fish here), since he chucks 1 fish and is able to take an even third of the remaining fish.
For this amount to be left after bill tossed a fish and took a third, we consider that bill left 2/3 of the fish that remained after subtracting a fish. That means that we can write the number of fish he saw as
((3/2)(3n+1))+1
fish when he woke up. Following the same logic, Alex must have seen
((3/2)(((3/2)(3n+1))+1))+1
fish when he woke up.
At this point you can do some simple plugging and chugging with n as a whole number until the end result is also a whole number. The smallest value of n that seems to work is 3. This means that Charlie saw 10 fish when he woke up (he tossed 1 and took 3), Bill saw 16 fish when he woke up (he tossed 1 and took 5), and Alex saw 25 fish when he woke up (he tossed 1 and took 8)
(this might be wrong, I just did this on a pad of scratch paper at work)
(edit: thanks for the interesting distraction from work! Boring week =P)
By creating a board/sports game tier, we would be accepting that our standards of acceptance for that tier are vastly lower than other tiers, in terms of speed/entertainment goals.
I don't see how. The core standards of the vault tier are: Play at the highest difficulty (unless you have a very good reason otherwise), complete the game as fast as possible. The "board game tier" would have those exact same requirements.
As for entertainment, it's a rather non-issue for vault, so why should it be an issue for this proposed new category?
The entire reason why board games aren't excepted to vault is because they're all too "same-y" and typically not interesting. That's why this discussion is happening instead of just accepting them to the vault. If we're trying to apply vault rules to a board game tier, why are we not just accepting board games to the vault tier instead?
I feel like if we're creating a whole tier specifically for games that may or may not be the best speedgames, then trying to force arbitrary difficulty guidelines doesn't really make sense. By creating a board/sports game tier, we would be accepting that our standards of acceptance for that tier are vastly lower than other tiers, in terms of speed/entertainment goals. If we were to encounter a case where there were hundreds of combinations of difficulty, character selection, cpu character selections, etc. then we chould just wait until more than one submission happens for that game and discuss that individual case at the time. It's not like anyone is going to submit a run of clue for all ~1200 possible endings, that would be stupid and nobody would waste their time or TASvideos's time doing that. Even if someone were to submit ~10 runs for the same game at the same time, it would be relatively easy to select which of the 10 runs would be the best one to have on the site.
In other words, I guess, I don't see why we have to decide ahead of time which runs for a game are accepted, when we can wait for the submission process to do that.
@z1mb0bw4y: I'd be willing to talk about the qualities (and lack thereof) of board games and how we can fit them in our site structure (see above), but I can't take you seriously if you try to argue that Tetris is a board game. It is a video game, no physical board nor physical pieces are involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomino
If you want to get technical about it, the Jenga game for DS isn't a board game either. All pieces and boards for that game are contained within the DS software and nothing about them is physical. Tetris board games have been made and pentomino board games predate tetris significantly. All that aside, my main point was that "chess has been made at least once on every platform and would result in too many publications" is a poor excuse when you look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tetris_variants
I've never seen a game rejected from tasvideos because "It's just another tetris game".
Putting this here because I accidentally (sort of) posted it in a gruefood thread instead. Whoops.
z1mb0bw4y wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
Patashu wrote:
Jenga is a board game? RIP
This is actually something I did some research into when I judged this movie. It turned out that yes, Jenga is indeed commonly categorized as a board game.
From wikipedia,
"A board game is a game that involves counters or pieces moved or placed on a pre-marked surface or "board", according to a set of rules. Games can be based on pure strategy, chance (e.g. rolling dice), or a mixture of the two, and usually have a goal that a player aims to achieve. Early board games represented a battle between two armies, and most modern board games are still based on defeating opposing players in terms of counters, winning position, or accrual of points (often expressed as in-game currency)."
Tetris is a game in which pre-defined pieces are moved about a pre-defined board and stacked in such a way as to accrue points.
http://tasvideos.org/4423S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/1065S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/2786S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/2459S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/2471S.html
I'm sure there are more, but I'm lazy. I find it ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS that the common argument against board games is "wut r we gona do wit all the chess gaemz?" when we still accept tetris clone after tetris clone after tetris clone.
Rejecting someone's hard work and effort because "it's a board game" is a farce of an excuse.
This is actually something I did some research into when I judged this movie. It turned out that yes, Jenga is indeed commonly categorized as a board game.
From wikipedia,
"A board game is a game that involves counters or pieces moved or placed on a pre-marked surface or "board", according to a set of rules. Games can be based on pure strategy, chance (e.g. rolling dice), or a mixture of the two, and usually have a goal that a player aims to achieve. Early board games represented a battle between two armies, and most modern board games are still based on defeating opposing players in terms of counters, winning position, or accrual of points (often expressed as in-game currency)."
Tetris is a game in which pre-defined pieces are moved about a pre-defined board and stacked in such a way as to accrue points.
http://tasvideos.org/4423S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/1065S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/2786S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/2459S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/2471S.html
I'm sure there are more, but I'm lazy. I find it ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS that the common argument against board games is "wut r we gona do wit all the chess gaemz?" when we still accept tetris clone after tetris clone after tetris clone.
Rejecting someone's hard work and effort because "it's a board game" is a farce of an excuse.
Voting no because of how bad this bootleg is. Ripped-off level design, graphics and audio combined with terrible physics, all mixed up in a way that don't blend together. Even just looking at this submission, it's quite clear that the same repetitive actions are done to beat the game in an optimized way without any semblance of challenge.
The only entertaining part of this game is the nonsensical story and the absurdity of the whole thing, which is completely irrelevant for a speedrun, and yet looking at the positive comments so far it seems it's the only thing that caught interest.
It's the gameplay that matters for a TAS, and it's horrible here. If what you care about is the presentation, go watch a Let's Play - it's gonna be more entertaining for you.
I'm surprised how long it took me to realize that this was just a poorly made super mario bros 1 clone. Yes vote because it's short enough to not outstay its welcome and the game is hilariously bad
Gotta chime in to ditto all the comments about having never played this one but fully enjoyed it. I'll be buying and playing this game in the near future. Yes vote and +1 for star consideration.
Also very hype to potentially see this shown off at a GDQ event! Looking forward to that one
Can we not? As others have said now, there's not even a 100% run being started for TASing, so discussing categories would be better done elsewhere anyways...