DarkKobold: As noted here, by the original author of this movie, if the goal were to be changed to 'fastest end to input' then this submitted movie is sub-optimal. Thus, this improvement is not actually an improvement. Rejecting for a false improvement.
Secondly, while I'm not going to make any assumptions about the submitters intentions, I would like to say that if you are going to use someone's input, you should contact them first to discuss it, before just submitting the movie. Simply changing the final boss and resubmitting with your name on it, regardless of intentions, is questionable.
Finally, this is not the same situation as this submission. Copying input versus copying strategy are two very different entities. Moozooh's sadly ignored post does a perfect job of explaining this.
I think you should have just sent adelikat a message telling him about this improvement. It would be up to him if he would think this improvement is worth submitting or not. It would also be up to him if he would add you to the author list (but I personally think this is way too little added to the run from your part to be a coauthor). I don't like the idea of someone finding a small improvement to a TAS, and submitting as a coauthor.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
WUT?!
Encoding HD...
EDIT: waiting for submitter's reply yet.
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.
Actually I considered adelikat's latest TMNT movie to be one of his better works, especially since this game is a huge pain to optimize. A single 40-frame improvement on it can be considered large enough to merit a submission.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I think you should have just sent adelikat a message telling him about this improvement. It would be up to him if he would think this improvement is worth submitting or not. It would also be up to him if he would add you to the author list (but I personally think this is way too little added to the run from your part to be a coauthor). I don't like the idea of someone finding a small improvement to a TAS, and submitting as a coauthor.
I don't care whether this one add my name.
He makes the decision.Waiting for his reply.
I discovered this improvement only in coincidence,because I make Metal Slug's TAS and know the shooting system. This movie I have seen many times and feel an unnatural thing in the last boss.So I improved it.
Edit:Removing my name from the co-author.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
If there's actually input from 2 people here, both may be written I believe. It's not like, one told the trick to another and the latter created all input himself.
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.
If there's actually input from 2 people here, both may be written I believe. It's not like, one told the trick to another and the latter created all input himself.
No, it's like one person is responsible for over 99% of the input (no exaggeration), and wasn't given a choice. I'm not saying X2poet should or shouldn't be a coauthor, but that's entirely up to adelikat imo.
If there's actually input from 2 people here, both may be written I believe. It's not like, one told the trick to another and the latter created all input himself.
No, it's like one person is responsible for over 99% of the input (no exaggeration), and wasn't given a choice. I'm not saying X2poet should or shouldn't be a coauthor, but that's entirely up to adelikat imo.
Yes,I know what you mean.I agree with you.
This one is optimized by Adelikat for 3 times.I haven't found any obvious improvement,but only see the last boss make a miss.It can be improved easily so I improve it.
Joined: 7/30/2011
Posts: 129
Location: Watching a TAS in the basement...
IMO, x2poet should get co-authorship because even though adelikat did a lot of the input, x2poet did a little bit of it. At the very least, he should be in special thanks.
I like how the bulk of the discussion on the run is whether to give x2poet any credit for this improvement. Actually no, I don't really like that very much at all. I do, however, like that x2poet has the mindset of improving everything, and who cares about the credit. Voting Yes for x2poet.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Interesting, I submitted a movie and didn't know it! ;)
No offense but there is no improvmeent here. Cool, you ended input earlier, but you didn't kill shredder any faster. In fact, this movie is 4 frames slower by that metric.
We have, by design, not had a definitive rule on when to end input despite our reported times being based purely on input length. Sacrificing completion time for the sake of input time is a debateable topic and thus I've left it up to the authors to decide this. However, the point is that doing one method over another is hardly an improvement. Nor is finding a trick to input sooner without increasing input time. It is certainly something nice to find I guess, but the end result is the same.
(Also, I was fully aware of this tactice of keeping shredder on the left but my tests resulted in a longer actual completion time)
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
adelikat wrote:
We have, by design, not had a definitive rule on when to end input despite our reported times being based purely on input length. Sacrificing completion time for the sake of input time is a debateable topic and thus I've left it up to the authors to decide this. However, the point is that doing one method over another is hardly an improvement. Nor is finding a trick to input sooner without increasing input time. It is certainly something nice to find I guess, but the end result is the same.
To summarise: this is a run which a) is a duplicate of a previous run b) by another author c) differing only in frames trimmed off the end.
Oh, look, we've [submission 2527]rejected[/submission] [submission 2708]submissions[/submission] on those exact grounds before.
This may not be a written rule anywhere, but we've certainly adhered to the spirit of considering fastest completion time in terms of when the final hit is delivered as opposed to when input ends when disputes like this come up.
I also recall that adelikat had come up with other improvements to this run previously, which, on the above basis, this run doesn't incorporate.
I therefore posit that this run should be rejected.
EDIT: I should note that this run was submitted without prior knowledge or consent of the primary author, and a good argument could be made for preemptively cancelling the run on that basis.
Grunt, you're being unreasonably harsh, even though technically you aren't wrong. I'm well sure X2poet had the best intentions submitting this without realizing that adelikat had decided against ending input earlier on purpose.
Also, removing oneself from the authors after having (supposedly) found a notable improvement is already more than what we should ask for in cases like this. We've had so many frame-scale improvements where most of the input was a carbon copy of other people's work (and pretty much any frame war boils down to that), asking for consent is kinda unwarranted. What if the previous author doesn't give their consent? Especially if there isn't much room for variation, or stylistic choices employed seemed just right? I don't get this.
This run should be canceled indeed, but if anything the basis should be the goal misunderstanding.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3576)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
moozooh wrote:
X2poet had the best intentions submitting this without realizing that adelikat had decided against ending input earlier on purpose.
I agree that this was with good intent.
P.S. Has anyone actually watched the differences here? Perhaps this should be judged on the one aesthetic difference that it has? Which ending do people prefer? Does anyone care?
If I were going for input time at the expense of real completion time there is already a well known trick that could probably be employed here with mike and the shuriken glitch documented on the Game Resources page. It would take a good bit of reworking of the route and it would cost a lot of time, but it allows ending of input way sooner, so it might save time overall.
Joined: 7/30/2011
Posts: 129
Location: Watching a TAS in the basement...
*looks at Mega Man 2, realizing that the timing ends before the final hit is delivered by 1 or 2 frames*
That movie got accepted. So I see no reason to reject this one.
Oh, look, we've [submission 2527]rejected[/submission] [submission 2708]submissions[/submission] on those exact grounds before.
I can't help feeling like this is a 'thing'.
I'd like to see a new rule in place - simply improving the final boss by a short bit shouldn't include either authorship or publication.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Now let me dump my opinion here. Personally, I prefer to avoid confusion and just find the first frame the game needs no more input to self-comlpete. It works for every game, is a clear method for comparison and it results in the shortest movie overall.
Hence arukAdo and I decided not to include Phil's little Dance at the end in Super Castlevania 4, for example. Not that it really makes a difference if we're only talking about a few frames here, but, oh well.
...yeah, I don't really think it should obsolete anything
BUT this situation shouldn't set any kind of precedent. As moozooh said:
moozooh wrote:
This run should be canceled indeed, but if anything the basis should be the goal misunderstanding.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
There's multiple valid opinions on the proper way to end a TAS, as is discussed...somewhere, I can't find the page right now. Off the top of my head, there's:
* End input as soon as the game will end on its own (with no further input)
* End input as soon as it is impossible for further input to prevent the end of the game
* End input as soon as the game begins its ending
But anyway, given that there are multiple valid opinions, it doesn't make sense either to discriminate against one, or to publish an "improvement" that just consists of changing the ending method.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Which method does TASvideos use for timing runs? If this run is faster using that method then it obsoletes the previous movie. If it doesn't use the standardized timing method it shouldn't be accepted. The worst case scenario is X2poet isn't listed anywhere in the submission text.
Which method does TASvideos use for timing runs? If this run is faster using that method then it obsoletes the previous movie. If it doesn't use the standardized timing method it shouldn't be accepted. The worst case scenario is X2poet isn't listed anywhere in the submission text.
What shall I list?
I only want to show the improved ending input.
Adelikat complete 99.99%.But there is an ending input miss,I just find it out.
And the latest published movie keeps long time.
So,I removed my name,but still submit this one.
* End input as soon as the game will end on its own (with no further input)
* End input as soon as it is impossible for further input to prevent the end of the game
* End input as soon as the game begins its ending
I like this one the most:
* End input as soon as no further input can make the game ending happen faster.
(The major problem with "impossible for further input to prevent the end of the game" is that you have to then specify "except reset, start, and any possible button that pauses or interrupts the game even at the game end".)
Which method does TASvideos use for timing runs? If this run is faster using that method then it obsoletes the previous movie.
The site software itself goes by input time, as it has no way of determining anything else about the movie being played. But there are several distinct schools of thought regarding when to stop input, as already noted by Derakon, and each of those schools has advantages, disadvantages, and followers among the regular contributors. None of them is universally right, so it's left to the author's discretion to choose the way to end input. Consequently, an improvement that consists merely of using another way of ending input isn't considered an improvement because, while something gets shorter (in this case input), another thing gets longer (in this case ending the game/video length). As adelikat said, this could be judged on aesthetic merits, but not on timing.
adelikat wrote:
If I were going for input time at the expense of real completion time there is already a well known trick that could probably be employed here with mike and the shuriken glitch documented on the Game Resources page. It would take a good bit of reworking of the route and it would cost a lot of time, but it allows ending of input way sooner, so it might save time overall.
This is intriguing. Any chance that you could write the route change out in more detail so that X2poet could try his hand at it?
DarkKobold wrote:
I'd like to see a new rule in place - simply improving the final boss by a short bit shouldn't include either authorship or publication.
I'd like to see TASVideos not encumbered by rules any more than it already is. Go back to Killjoy where you belong, foul demon! :D
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
* End input as soon as the game will end on its own (with no further input)
* End input as soon as it is impossible for further input to prevent the end of the game
* End input as soon as the game begins its ending
When we're talking about pure speedruns, I think only the first type of ending suits TASing ideas in full.
To achieve fastest completion we're using every resource the game provides. When possible, we even use the game engine as a hexeditor to edit RAM.
So it's only natural to use the game engine as an eventeditor to program auto-completion of some levels. Usually it's more difficult to prepare everything right instead of playing manually. And when TASer manages to find a clever way to end input earlier, I consider it a valid trick, on par with route planning and resource management.
King's Bounty is good example. If TASer can find a way to program all game events in 10 frames of title screen input, why should he continue pressing buttons for several minutes if he already won the game in perspective?
This submission is okay, no co-authorship needed, but I'd like to see the improvement Adelikat mentioned (that one involving route change).
