AnS
Emulator Coder, Experienced player (728)
Joined: 2/23/2006
Posts: 682
jlun2 wrote:
So as long as that is still the case, there will still be people recording them on an old emulator because......nostalgia? User-friendliness? (Idk, I never TASed SNES games before)
But that's another topic. What's your point?
creaothceann
He/Him
Editor
Joined: 4/7/2005
Posts: 1874
Location: Germany
Tangent wrote:
That's not the point he was making and your analogy is completely out of whack. If there ARE indeed errors, then fixing them is indeed improving the run. But treating existing runs as if they are problems themselves that have to be fixed is wrong and would wipe out most of the site.
I admit that I had some trouble understanding FractalFusion's point so my analogy may be inappropriate. However, who said that all existing movies would need to be converted? The first post in this thread was talking about what to do when there are "some people that wish to try improving a movie from an old emulator". Doesn't sound like a new policy that declares all movies on older emulators invalid to me.
Tangent wrote:
It's not the content, it's the container. Not correcting an actual error, just presenting it in a different emulator. If you want to really stretch the book analogy, it's more like republishing from hardcover to pdf. Sure, it's a lot of work to type it all out again (ignoring scanning and OCR), but that's not the same as writing the book yourself.
That's exactly my point too, and the reason why I suggested separate "resynced by" field(s) on the previous page.
AnS wrote:
I think we were talking about the hypothetical situation where the author of resync wants to remove names of authors of the original run.
Allowing that would be illogical, I don't think we need to discuss that.
Post subject: The rule for accuracy resync submissions (Split from 6023S)
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
EDIT: This discussion was split from #6023: TiKevin83's GBC Pokémon: Yellow Version in 1:36:42.94
There was a talk on IRC about allowing some exceptions. We don't have a real thread for this yet, but I just had a thought. Allowing resyncs to be accepted case-by-case does indeed feel harmless. But how do we actually make decisions on whether some movie deserves it or not? If the idea of acceptable exceptions is not clear enough, people will always say "why this and not that". Console verification is obviously a huge accomplishment, for emulation in general, for the science, for validity of TASes. But if you look from a judge perspective, how do we verify that it was indeed replayed on console? I don't know any of the judges that have a replay device. There's no reason to suspect this particular movie in not being console accurate, no reason to think the verification is fake. But what do we do if someone decides to fake it? We can't really depend on having a person around who is able to replay tases on console. We need to verify movies for optimality and being possible on console in principle. We can expect that from judges, and we require that. But we can't require verifying the console verification in order to accept something. Thoughts/ideas?
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.
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
I'm not sure which of these would work well for drawing a hard line, but here are some ideas: Allow resyncs when a movie is to replace another movie from the same author(s). This sounds quite reasonable in any event; what's to prevent an author from retracting their old runs before submitting the new one to circumvent the resync designation? Unless you can't retract a run from the site. Allow resyncs when console verification is independently vetted, but not necessarily by a judge. Yes judges may not have access to verification hardware and indeed are unlikely to, but on the flipside there are often other individuals with their own equipment to replicate the acheivement. Indeed this would be a considerably more thorough vetting than any RTA world record could ever be vetted, even if not from an official judge. In this case Extrems has done an independent console encode, and at least one other individual in the TAS community has the equipment. Allow resyncs when a known improvement is made to a core as opposed to resyncs across cores. This could tie resyncs to improvements in hardware knowledge better.
Post subject: possible minor improvement?
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1353)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
feos wrote:
Thoughts/ideas?
Well, if the submitted movie gets improved, even by 1 frame, it would then beat the current publication due to being faster, since we exclude emulation differences when comparing two runs. For example, during the last fight with Gary, wouldn't be faster to use X Speed before defeating Sandslash, instead than Alakazam? Sandslash has Slash move, which would make a shorter dialogue when failing, compared to Alakazam's Kinesis.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
This TAS is actually closer to 75 frames slower than the previous due to a variety of factors involved with rewriting 180k frames and the frames lost with the accuracy improvement. Your specific case would be slower because gen 1 misses get "Sandslash's Attack missed" as text whereas Kineses fail gets "But it failed," and finding a 1 in 4 enemy stat modification miss is likelier to find a fast setup than a gen 1 miss.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
TiKevin83 wrote:
Allow resyncs when a movie is to replace another movie from the same author(s). This sounds quite reasonable in any event; what's to prevent an author from retracting their old runs before submitting the new one to circumvent the resync designation? Unless you can't retract a run from the site.
Right, when talking about the author's decision to update their movie, there's still a valid question "Why?" that we need to have an answer to. The judge guidelines talk about avoiding meaningless publications since 2006. We had no reason to retract that requirement because it's always been a valid one. It just happens to be a bit vague, and it hasn't changed a lot since then. So the judges keep this in mind and always ask themselves, as well as the authors, why exactly do we need to publish a given movie. This movie we have here still answers "because it now syncs on console". You don't state that in the paragraph I quoted, you just mention the author's wish as the first reason. But the author has made a submission, so obviously they want a movie to be replaced. The very fact that a movie has been submitted can't be a reason to accept it. Therefore there has to be a more fundamental reason. The third reason is along the lines of "closer to being replayed on console". So overall, all we have is "better accuracy".
TiKevin83 wrote:
Allow resyncs when a known improvement is made to a core as opposed to resyncs across cores. This could tie resyncs to improvements in hardware knowledge better.
I don't know what's bad about resyncing across cores if they are comparable. I don't know what's better about resyncing within the same core as it gets better. This reason might justify resyncing a run after every new release when the core was tweaked to (supposedly) become more accurate. I don't think any of us aims for allowing that.
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.
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
I didn't flesh out that last idea much. It probably doesn't work very well. You mentioned not wanting to require console verification to accept something, does that cause a problem with a rule like "a TAS that has been independently console verified can be accepted as a resync improvement when the existing movie cannot be console verified" I like the cleanliness of saying the last one didn't sync, now this syncs.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Overall, I still think that the message of the site is highlighting optimization as a thing in itself. Another thing we highlight is entertainment value of the resulting product. Of course we heavily depend on emulator accuracy. But in cases when neither entertainment, nor optimality has improved, accepting such a movie means highlighting accuracy alone, as a thing in itself, which would be something entirely new. Again, this was always important for us. But accuracy is not what a movie can achieve. This is a side job, it's done by emulator coders. You can not "TAS accuracy". You can arguably compete in accuracy by tweaking movies. But like Battletoads showed, some things are just non-deterministic by nature, so perfect accuracy is impossible for movies. And better accuracy is not always real: a movie might get closer to console sync by working around some problem, but the problem itself is still there. In Battletoads, the RNG routine runs during all the idle CPU time, and tweaking the startup state looked like it helped with sync, but in fact, the movie remained non-deterministic and only synced by coincidence. DwangoAC had to hack the replay method really hard in order to replay the "game end glitch" movie on HRDQ. This yet again boils it down to "better accuracy" rather than "perfect accuracy". Console sync can be a coincidence too. So console sync can not be our "thing in itself" that we want to highlight independently. Which brings us to the same problems the Demo tier met: anything that we can not unambiguously verify as optimized and/or entertaining replay file, is moot when it comes to accepting a movie of it. See I'm not saying it's anything bad. But after all these years, there's zero consensus about what a Demo tier really needs to be: all staff members disagree, even the advocates of it disagree with each other. Lack of consensus is what can be bad. Lack of consensus is what I mean by "moot". We can talk about our ideas for several pages and still not advance. Even that is not the final verdict, and maybe we can have a consensus here. But usually, it takes a direction or a problem obvious to everyone, and only then people can agree on something. When the problem or the direction is not so clear, it's barely possible to promote policy changes.
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.
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
Feos, thank you for your input here. It's helping me understand the problems faced with the current rules and proposed rule changes. To the problem of perfect accuracy with the existence of the potential for non-deterministic behavior: Pokemon's RNG is as precise as Battletoads, it updates every frame and the update calculation relies on the rDIV register which is basically a CPU cycle counter. This is why such nuanced CPU behavior needed to be solved to sync the new movie. In effect, we had to find "perfect accuracy" as is relevant to Pokemon Yellow to achieve full sync. In fact the gameboy does have some non-deterministic behavior observed in gekkio's test ROMs related to audio, but it wasn't relevant in this case. In many other cases with degrading hardware or inherently non-deterministic hardware design like the SNESes we ran into at SGDQ, this level of consistency is impossible. I don't think you have to throw out the general concept of "perfect sync" for a movie because specific other consoles or games have limitations including non-deterministic behavior that make it impossible. Moving past that, I have another idea: what if after a submission is accepted for publication, the submission's authors become maintainers of the submission page and can update status messages for things like the level of console sync, status of sync with the latest BizHawk versions, and movie files to sync with newer versions? Effectively making the submission page a kind of wiki for the branch like Dolphin uses to track how games are running across versions. Then when an updated movie file on the page sees a meaningful improvement in optimality or entertainment, it could be considered for submission. As mentioned elsewhere, my primary goal here was to document information related to the status of console verification of this TAS, which I think that solution could account for.
Former player
Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 1107
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
I have to disagree with your position on this, feos. We should accept new movies as an improvement based on better accuracy alone, this motivates people to improve this aspect of TASing. The idea that "we don't know if this better accuracy is perfect accuracy, so it can't be counted" just seems plain wrong, for the same reasons why I disagree with the rule for vaultable highscore runs having to have 100% proof that they can't be improved. You can never proof something is 100% perfect, such proof should never be required. We don't follow this mindset for normal speed records, so why in these instances? And of course, there's also the problem with TASes that are optimized to SMB1-levels, we should be able to replace those movies if necessary, even if no gameplay improvement is found.
Current project: Gex 3 any% Paused: Gex 64 any% There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
To TiKevin83. Yeah, we need to discuss all the other options as well. If eventually resyncs are not allowed, we'd have to think about other options anyway, so why not now? Also, proper discussion helps to remove all the noise from the problem, so in the end we can come up with a simple list of points anyone could assess without having to read everything from start to end. What I see here so far is our need to acknowledge accomplishments that happen on the TAS scene. This is why I think your case is identical to the Demo tier question. As dwangoAC said yesterday in the GDQ thread, not allowing those accomplishments to be represented among regular movies feels like we don't really care about them. On the other hand, us caring about them doesn't magically turn into us accepting those movies. As I said, the entire staff crew needs to be convinced. Which is why we would need to come up with simple, obvious, logical, and compelling points. I'll ponder your actual post later.
andypanther wrote:
I have to disagree with your position on this, feos. We should accept new movies as an improvement based on better accuracy alone, this motivates people to improve this aspect of TASing. The idea that "we don't know if this better accuracy is perfect accuracy, so it can't be counted" just seems plain wrong, for the same reasons why I disagree with the rule for vaultable highscore runs having to have 100% proof that they can't be improved. You can never proof something is 100% perfect, such proof should never be required. We don't follow this mindset for normal speed records, so why in these instances? And of course, there's also the problem with TASes that are optimized to SMB1-levels, we should be able to replace those movies if necessary, even if no gameplay improvement is found.
I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying it's something entirely new that we never did before. And I'm saying that policy-wise, it's seen as moot right now. If we want to convince people that it should be introduced, we should make it not moot. Which includes discussing all the other scenarios, and all the other reasons to acknowledge the TAS scene achievements. We obviously can have a rule "movies that are neither time nor entertainment improvements can be accepted to obsolete if they feature accuracy improvements", but reasons to introduce such a rule are so far unclear.
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.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1353)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
TiKevin83 wrote:
Moving past that, I have another idea: what if after a submission is accepted for publication, the submission's authors become maintainers of the submission page and can update status messages for things like the level of console sync, status of sync with the latest BizHawk versions, and movie files to sync with newer versions? Effectively making the submission page a kind of wiki for the branch like Dolphin uses to track how games are running across versions. Then when an updated movie file on the page sees a meaningful improvement in optimality or entertainment, it could be considered for submission.
I'm not sure what your idea exactly consists in, but I can tell you that users with Editor role are able to edit the description of published movies. This would allow to update the movie description of your current Yellow run, for including additional information about the movie itself.
andypanther wrote:
The idea that "we don't know if this better accuracy is perfect accuracy, so it can't be counted" just seems plain wrong, for the same reasons why I disagree with the rule for vaultable highscore runs having to have 100% proof that they can't be improved. You can never proof something is 100% perfect, such proof should never be required. We don't follow this mindset for normal speed records, so why in these instances?
I think there is a misunderstanding. We don't allow highscore runs for Vault, but rather maximum score runs, which is technically different. Also, we do this because we need an univocal yardstick for games where this is the only applicable definition for full-completion. It's not a matter of "proving" that the score can't be improved, but more like a matter of findind indications, in-game and in the relative official game manual, that the score or point system in that game does indicate, in a definite and absolute way, the amount of progress towards full-completion. It basically should work the same as for games that have a percentage gauge for full-completion, like Crash Bandicoot; the only difference is the way the progress is mathematically displayed on the game screen. Please, see the relative section in the Movie Rules for more clarification.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
I also wanted to mention, I think it's important to look at the inverse of the problem presented here. If a new movie were to be submitted that is faster but relies on inaccurate emulation and does not play back on console, it would violate existing rules about taking advantage of emulation inaccuracy. I feel like in order to keep consistency with that rule, some standard needs to be set for accuracy related improvements as well.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
TiKevin83 wrote:
I also wanted to mention, I think it's important to look at the inverse of the problem presented here. If a new movie were to be submitted that is faster but relies on inaccurate emulation and does not play back on console, it would violate existing rules about taking advantage of emulation inaccuracy.
Not exactly. Relying on an emulator bug, where some trick in the game is only ever possible with that bug (see the recent discussion about VC Ocaria of Time) is one thing. Allowing a trick that in principle works on console, just has slight difference in timing or outcome (Post #465348) is another. We are fine with the latter.
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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
So apparently there's not much discussion going on surrounding this movie and the policy it might affect. So I'll just summarize my thoughts and see if there is disagreement. I'll also use this post to gather opinions of people I'll be asking. Two fundamental entities tasvideos has always cared about the most are optimality and entertainment Each of them can be measured and compared. We host TAS movies, and these two entities are qualities of a TAS, so by measuring and comparing them, we compare TAS movies, that's how we decide on obsoletion. Obsoletion is an important part of hosting TAS movies All the time optimality and entertainment get improved, and we only want to primarily showcase the most optimal and the most entertaining movies. Because this is where we set the quality bar, the level of TAS craft. By keeping it high enough, we encourage people to strive for it and improve the overall quality of our content, as well as their skills. Emulator accuracy is not a quality of a movie You can't TAS emulation accuracy, you can't make it more entertaining, more optimal. You can't objectively measure it either! Because what appears as emulation accuracy might in fact be a coincidence. One could argue that test ROMs are our way to assess accuracy, and we can measure how many tests an emulator passes. While this is true, and eventually the emulator core gets closer to the real CPU in logical behavior, there are a few problems.
    Consoles may be different in hardware behavior Talk about known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Test ROMs that evaluate an aspect of some set of machines, might completely miss this same aspect of another set of machines, for whom it works differently. And there can be infinite amount of such different aspects we don't know about. So it might look as being accurately emulated in general, but it only considers a fraction of all the real machines. There's always human factor to test ROMs They can simply miss an aspect a real machine has, resulting in all sorts of behavior mismatch, discovered or undiscovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug#Related_terms Testing emulation accuracy is actually very hard It takes a person with a real machine, a person writing a test ROM, a person developing and setting up a replay device if we're talking about verifications. It's also barely possible to verify, because all those factors use to only work together for volunteers, and we can't guarantee that some of them isn't lying or mistaken.
Setting up an emulator and running a movie is trivial and reliable Sometimes emulators aren't deterministic enough to work the same for everyone, and some emulators are just hard to set up. But effectively almost anyone can replay a movie without fiddling with any hardware at all, by simply following known software steps. And most importantly, we don't need too much coverage here, unlike with testing emulator accuracy: we only need to confirm sync a few times, and we approve. Accuracy is still an important factor for movies There are cases when a trick used is outright impossible on the real hardware. This matter is a bit of gray area, because there's no strict borderline to what measure of inaccuracy we allow. In general we just require that a bug works on console in principle, instead of completely relying on emulation bugs, being impossible on console in principle. In such cases, it indeed makes perfect sense to obsolete an old movie: if the trick used was found to be impossible without emulation bugs. But if all we're talking about is just a bit more accurate general event, there's no certainty. Imagine there's a list of 10 possible drops from a certain enemy type. The old movie gets drop #1 just because randomness aligned that way. Such a drop is legit and possible. A new movie, done on a more accurate emulator, gets drop #6 there. Also legit and possible. If optimization and entertainment are the same, we wouldn't consider this an improvement But what if it also syncs on console? See above about how coincidental console sync can be. This is an achievement, and it's directly related to TASing. But it's not a TASing achievement per se. Strictly speaking, one can theoretically just resync an old movie without improving anything at all. It'd be more accurate to the console. But it's not a TAS improvement. Considering the above, my opinion is that treating non-TAS improvements as TAS improvements in terms of Movie Rules and judgment is moot. It relies on unreliable things and opens up a can of exception worms, where exceptions are allowed despite of unreliability, while in other unreliable areas they aren't allowed. Solution: we can use Wiki in all sorts of ways to document emulator accuracy and how relevant movies are. Thoughts?
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.
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4109)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
I've been asked to give my opinion on this case. As far as I'm concerned, the most important issue with an obsoletion of this nature - where no gameplay improvement is made, only emulator difference is relevant - is that the original movie's authorship must be held in publication. They set the TAS time record, and I think it's wrong to take away their record due to factors outside of their control and outside of their mastery of (TAS) gameplay. Whether or not the movie is resynced by someone else doesn't really matter, just that the original author retains their record. If someone else resynced the movie, they can still be credited for that in the description, but not in an authorship role. As long as that is fulfilled, then I'm fine with a movie like this obsoleting a published movie, as long as there is a relevant distinction in emulation quality between the two movies. Obviously, being console-verifiable where the previous movie isn't, is a strong case in this regard. More generally speaking, I'm not sure where to draw the line - that is on others to figure out. But this is a good case, and I would approve of accepting this submission to obsolete the published movie.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa <dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects. <Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits <adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I was asked to give my opinion as well, and I agree very much with everything Mothrayas said. I will just add that I think (for now) that if we need to mod the rules, we still maintain a requirement that the movie sync on an approved rerecording emulator (which this movie does). At some point we are going to have situations where a movie will sync on hardware but no emulator can recreate it. But we don't have the resources to demand judges verify anything on real hardware. So for now, we need to maintain this.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Just to note, Moth has an important say here as the original judge in the similar case (and from the perspective of a former Senior Judge): http://tasvideos.org/3989S.html adelikat also pointed out on IRC that in fact, if a TAS has been successfully replayed on console, it fulfills one of the fundamental goals of tasvideos!
WelcomeToTASVideos wrote:
Using these tools, we overcome human limitations to complete games with extremely high precision, entertaining our viewers as our players tear through games at seemingly impossible speeds. The end result of this process is simply a series of key-presses which may be performed on the original hardware.
Wiki: ConsoleVerifiedMovies wrote:
Since they started, tool assisted speedruns were designed to make it theoretically possible, given super-human abilities, to recreate them on an actual console. Using special hardware, several movies have been shown with video evidence to play correctly on the console, and are below. Getting these videos to play on the console is a testament to how accurate the emulators used on this site are and that all tricks and glitches depicted are really possible in the actual games.
This is what has improved about this movie, and the author is the same, and it still syncs on a more accurate emulator too. Since my previous post consists of just cons, all we see after it may be just pros. If we allow resyncs in such scenarios, even if no console verification was done, then making sure the emu is indeed more accurate now is the only thing we'd ask from judges. Of course not always directly! But in any case, we'll have to define on what basis it should be done.
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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Update upon recent IRC talk: Nach's stance is that obsoletions must contain actual gameplay improvements, so resync submissions shouldn't be accepted. But he prefers another way of recognizing efforts like this: adding an updated movie to the publication. That way, the current publication persists as perfectly valid (because not syncing on console doesn't inherently mean the movie is invalid, and console sync has never been a requirement), and the publication also persists with all its content. And at the same time, the resynced movie gets the proper place right in the publication module, duly supported by the site as an update of (still) the same movie. This option doesn't seem to have any downsides, and in future, it wouldn't even need new submissions. But actual regulations will be decided later, when Nach is around next time.
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.
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5777
Location: Away
feos wrote:
Nach's stance is that obsoletions must contain actual gameplay improvements, so resync submissions shouldn't be accepted. But he prefers another way of recognizing efforts like this: adding an updated movie to the publication. That way, the current publication persists as perfectly valid (because not syncing on console doesn't inherently mean the movie is invalid, and console sync has never been a requirement), and the publication also persists with all its content. And at the same time, the resynced movie gets the proper place right in the publication module, duly supported by the site as an update of (still) the same movie. This option doesn't seem to have any downsides, and in future, it wouldn't even need new submissions. But actual regulations will be decided later, when Nach is around next time.
This subject came up recently as I've been going through the Rules page to fix wording and inconsistencies. For the record, this is how the relevant rule looks right now in entirety: If time is gained from using a more accurate emulator but gameplay hasn't been improved, such a movie will be rejected. However, if improved emulation introduces more lag, extends the cutscenes, or slows down gameplay in some way, yet the actual gameplay has improved, such a movie will be considered a valid improvement. To reformulate, this rule disallows submitting resyncs and gives preference to longer but more accurate movies as long as there are gameplay improvements. If a resync is warranted without redoing the movie from the ground up, the current practice as quoted earlier is for the authors themselves to upload it if they decide to redo it on a more accurate emulator, and for that movie to be added to the current publication without changing the encode or the final time listed on the publication page. There are several issues with this. 1. Accuracy is downplayed. Despite being a more faithful representation of the game, which should always be preferred with all else being equal, the resync is essentially relegated to being a sidenote—even though in theory it should take priority since the rules invalidate gains made thanks to emulation inaccuracies. If there is an easy way to achieve this without remaking most of the movie, we have no reasons to disallow it. 2. Nobody is allowed to offer a resync on behalf of the author (under the original author's name, of course) if they aren't around. That situation has, in fact, happened in the past, when adelikat submitted a resync of Phil & Genisto's Circus Charlie in their name, having failed to find meaningful improvements. And it was accepted because the previous run was made on a horribly inaccurate, long-deprecated emulator, and there was an effort going on to replace all runs made on it with something better. This situation is liable to repeat in the future as TASes become better-optimized, and we'll likely run into it whenever we orchestrate new efforts to get deprecated emulators off the site and find other movies without known improvements. 3. It creates a potential for a situation where a submission can be rejected or be stuck in limbo simply because gameplay changes resulting from using a more accurate emulator are too minor or uncertain to be meaningfully classified as improvements (e.g. different RNG values), regardless of what name it is submitted under. I propose changing it in the following way: 1. Minor resyncs where relatively few actions need to be taken to achieve sync on a more accurate emulator can be added to the existing publication as per the current practice, but the time and encode should be changed appropriately and the old movie file removed from the publication page. Having a less accurate movie made on a deprecated emulator alongside a more accurate one serves no functional purpose. A link to it can remain in the submission message for posterity. Such resync can be offered by whoever as long as the credit remains with the author(s) of the original movie. This addresses concerns #1 and partially #2. 2. Situations where a different author had genuinely tried to find gameplay improvements but failed, yet their effort resulted in a different (more accurate) time compared to the original movie, this is best done via a separate submission, and credit can then be shared between the author(s) of the original movie and the author(s) of the attempt at improvement. This addresses concern #3 and the other half of #2. 3. Once a movie is confirmed to sync on console, no future resyncs for it are necessary. The rule would then be formulated as such: If an improvement to an existing publication is made using a more accurate emulator, the timing difference coming from emulation accuracy will be discounted, and judgment will be made according to improvements in gameplay. Situations where a shorter movie would be obsoleted by one that is slightly longer because of the more accurately emulated lag, load times, etc., should thus be expected. A submission made on a more accurate emulator that fails to improve upon an existing publication in gameplay will be rejected. An exception can be made as long as all of the following conditions are met: 1) the existing publication has no documented improvements; 2) the author of the movie intending to replace it has failed to find improvements but can prove their due diligence in trying; 3) the change of emulator has lead to fixing immediately evident presentation issues (wrong visuals/sound/game behavior) and/or made it sync on console. The authorship will be shared between the authors of both movies in this case. Note that if you would like to offer a resync of an existing publication on a more accurate emulator in order to fix said presentation issues and/or make it sync on console without looking for other improvements, you're free to upload it to Userfiles and notify a judge. If it is deemed warranted, the file will be used to update existing publication directly without change in its authorship.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
TiKevin83
He/Him
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player (155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/61577240561588605 http://tasvideos.org/2091M.html This would be another example of a movie that could benefit from such a rule change - the current published movie runs at the wrong framerate due to being on VBA and doesn't account for either the GB or GBC bootROM. In my resync I also encountered some lag that showed up on console and in the more accurate emulator (8:57 in the current youtube encode should lag more). It would be nice to be able to have these resyncs reflected in the official publication while maintaining the credit with the original TAS author. I believe Alyosha has also resynced several GB/GBC movies in this way.
Emulator Coder, Judge, Experienced player (728)
Joined: 2/26/2020
Posts: 774
Location: California
TiKevin83 wrote:
the current published movie runs at the wrong framerate due to being on VBA and doesn't account for either the GB or GBC bootROM.
Not only that, but VBA is horrible at timing what it actually has. It just uses VBlanks for timing, which is a really bad idea for timing GB/C due to the LCD being able to be disabled and VBlanks do not occur when the LCD is disabled. (As an extreme example of why this timing is very bad, let's say a movie has 10 minutes worth of VBlanks, but also 10 minutes worth for the LCD being disabled. VBA will ignore time the LCD is disabled and report a time of 10 minutes instead of 20 minutes).
MESHUGGAH
Other
Skilled player (1917)
Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1353
Location: 𝔐𝔞𝔤𝑦𝔞𝔯
Regarding resyncing movies which results in what TiKevin83 did: I think this is OK, but what would be the motivation for a resyncer? As long as the resyncing doesn't grant anything to the resyncer while the original TAS gets proven to be resyncable on a "better" emulator, I see no harm in this. If the resyncer is able to grant something by doing this, rules should be made and enforced to make sure no misuse happens. Because it would just turn into hunting down the release of new emulators. Something like this could also happen outside of resyncing, where a TAS is able to get a new way to be improved gameplay wise (Pokémon Yellow cames to my mind) but this is another topic.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Emulator Coder, Judge, Experienced player (728)
Joined: 2/26/2020
Posts: 774
Location: California
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I think this is OK, but what would be the motivation for a resyncer?
Believe me, there's enough people who hate noticeably inaccurate emulation enough to go resync the runs to newer emulation. Also, console verification can be a factor for relevant platforms, although just the hate against noticeably inaccurate emulation would be the main factor probably.