Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6436
Location: The land down under.
Zinfidel wrote:
SHORT STORY: My TAS is slower than WR RTA due to RTAs using different consoles with better load times (PS2/PSTV). Does this fact disqualify my TAS from the Vault category?
As long as you mention the fact that the only things available for comparison uses FDS you're fine. (You're also fine not mentioning it cause someone would probably answer in the forum posts if it's brought up)
We have many PlayStation TASes since Hawk's introduction that are slower than Fast Disk (obviously) we wouldn't reject something for something like that.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
It would be ridiculously mean and counter-productive to completely disregard all the actual gameplay and its optimality and just reject because you're not overclocking the load times because the original hardware can't do that. Bonus points for overclocking it via something that's not even emulated on an acceptable level and has no usable TAS features.
Here's how we actually compare runs:
Obsoleting a published movie wrote:
When comparing against a prior movie for faster time, the faster time must come from improved play in the actual game-play segments. For example, gaining time by switching to another version which loads faster, has shorter cut-scenes, or by more optimized usage of the title screen menus is not counted as an actual time improvement. A movie which doesn't have any actual in-game game-play improvements over its published predecessor will not be accepted.
If time is gained from using a more accurate emulator, but game-play hasn't been improved, such a movie will be rejected. However, if improved emulation introduces more lag, extends the cut-scenes, or slows down game-play in some way, yet the actual game-play has improved, such a movie will be considered a valid improvement.
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.
Since we are going to see alot more GB/C movies get console verified now that Gambette is almost perfect in emulation accuracy, one thing that is in the back of my mind is if normal GB mode should still be used for submissions.
Sometimes GB games will have different properties or will lag differently if run on GBC mode in GBA, and movies have to be in that format in order to verify in a GBI, was forcing GB submissions to say in GB mode always a thing with the exception of Pokemon? or would it be allowed to submit GB movies in GBC in GBA modes?
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
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 neither Super Game Boy enhancements nor Game Boy Color's full-color graphics are supported, Game Boy mode should be used.
From what I could figure out, the Pokemon first gen games (at least for Blue and Red) did not support full color modes. They only supported partial color modes. It wasn’t until this movie that Blue and Red would start using GBC mode. So this seems to be in contradiction to the rule.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Can't speak for the other judge but console verification sounds like a good reason to use that mode.
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.
I agree that console verification is a good reason to allow GBC-in-GBA mode for GB games, since console verification is an activity directly related with TASing, as it works as a proof of legitimacy for movies made with TASing tools.
About one year ago I suggested to allow the GBC mode for GB games only for Moons and Stars, but it was deemed unnecessary. Personally, I'm fine either way about it, as long there is general agreement.
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player
(155)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 358
Location: Holland, MI
Can the movie rules be updated per the above? Perhaps something like:
"GB->GB or GBC-in-GBA
GB with SGB enhancements->GB, SGB, or GBC-in-GBA
GBC->GBC or GBC-in-GBA
GBC-in-GBA is allowed due to the support for console verification using the Game Boy Player"
GBC-in-GBA is allowed due to the support for console verification using the Game Boy Player"
My only concern for this is what if they use an older version of bizhawk where emulation would be not as good? should it only be allowed for bizhawk versions 2.4 and up?
it might be best to only allow it if the author plans on testing it on console or something.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
For one of the games that I speedrun, Dead Cells, there were a number of glitches discovered earlier this year that significantly changed the run. There had been talk (both serious and in jest) for ages about trying to create a TAS for Dead Cells, but these new glitches gave me the inspiration to actually attempt it. However, due to a bug with libTAS involving /dev/urandom, I will need to wait for a libTAS update before I can start working on a Dead Cells TAS. Nonetheless, I've been doing some preparations with routing and researching site submission rules and guidelines.
Looking at the movie rules:
However, there are certain games with unlockable modes, second quests, or other things of interest that can only be accessed if a save file (or an otherwise "dirty" SRAM) is present. If you really wish to submit a movie made on such a mode, you will need a verification movie made and provided alongside it. Any input file that starts from power-on (for example, a previously submitted movie for that game) and creates the exact circumstances for your submission to sync will generally do.
For context, although Dead Cells is a roguelike/lite, there is some meta-progression. Over the course of multiple runs, a player unlocks equipment that can appear in-game in future runs, additional abilities such as wall running that opens alternate routes through the game, and higher difficulties, none of which are available on a fresh save file. Two potential goals I could TAS are analogous to the Any% and Hardest Difficulty categories on speedrun.com. Both of these goals would rely on having these meta-progression elements unlocked, and thus would require an anchored save. Since they are substantially different from a speedrun on a fresh save file, I believe this fits the requirement that the "unlocked mode provides meaningful content over a fresh game."
My main question however, is about creating the verification movie to generate the save file. The speedrun.com community uses a save file that has everything unlocked to help get people started with speedrunning the game, but it would not be sufficient under the tasvideos submission rules. Assuming that the randomness is properly handled when using libTAS, I should be more than capable of recording a movie file to create the save file. However, there is a weapon that is used in both Any% and Hardest Difficulty runs, the Meat Skewer, that is only unlockable through completing 10 unique daily runs. The main issue with daily runs is that they change every 24 hours and as far as we know, we cannot go back to previous dailies, even with manipulating the system time. Thus, I don't think I would be able to unlock this weapon through a "standard" verification movie.
This leaves me with a few potential options.
1) Although I'd prefer to create the TAS to the site's standards, an option is to just create the TAS with Meat Skewer and not worry about submitting.
2) I could accept a slight time loss and create the TAS without using Meat Skewer. The weapon has some neat movement options that could be useful, but it isn't vital to the run.
3) The speedrun.com save file was created partially using mods thanks to the game's Steam Workshop support. Thus, I could create a mod that unlocks Meat Skewer for the anchored save as part of the verification movie. This is similar to how we created the speedrun.com save file, and it would allow the anchored save to be created consistently, but I assume that this would be frowned upon, since it could be against the spirit of the submission rules.
Perhaps there is another option I haven't thought of, but I'd like to know what the best course of action would be here.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
But do have an option of creating those 10 verification movies to be run every day?
We don't allow game modifications unless they explicitly add unique gameplay (as opposed to unlocking something that's already there):
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#NonOfficialGamesHacksHomebrewsEtcAndPrototypes
Regarding save anchored runs, they need to be different enough from what is achieved with a fresh game, and also entertaining enough to be published in Moons as another branch. For "fresh any%", however, there's no such restriction.
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.
But do have an option of creating those 10 verification movies to be run every day?
What makes that difficult is the way that the randomness works for the dailies. Here are two example level maps from the daily challenges from 22-Apr-2019 and 23-Apr-2019. The goal in a daily challenge is to get from the start of the level down to the boss fight room, which is the room marked in red at the bottom of both maps. Since these maps are randomly generated, there's no way to know what the level will look like before the daily starts each day at midnight, UTC+1.
Thus, while I could make a verification movie file for a given daily, that movie would only work as expected for that 24 hour window. So, let's say a user wanted to generate the needed save file, I would need to work with that user to get them verification movies for those ten dailies to unlock the weapon; there would be no way to put up a "one size fits all" set of verification movies that would work for everyone regardless of date.
I realize that this is somewhat of a unique situation without any similar examples on tasvideos to compare against... Considering a goal that would uses this weapon would not be eligible for the Vault tier, since it requires a save game, perhaps it is worth missing out on the potential time save that the weapon could provide to make the verification movie less of a hassle to make and use.
feos wrote:
I assume this means that verification movies to generate the anchored save also cannot utilize game modifications, which makes sense.
feos wrote:
Regarding save anchored runs, they need to be different enough from what is achieved with a fresh game, and also entertaining enough to be published in Moons as another branch. For "fresh any%", however, there's no such restriction.
Hopefully the Any% NG+ and Highest Difficulty goals would fit that criteria. I'm fairly confident that the goals are substantially different from a Fresh Any% goal, but hopefully the end products will be interesting enough to the audience. I suppose once libTAS is capable of TASing Dead Cells, it'll be helpful to ask folks for opinions on which goal would be the most interesting and focus on that one first.
Thank you for the rule clarifications and for giving me some additional stuff to think about!
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Sounds like source of randomness that the game uses for its stuff isn't known or isn't captured properly by libTAS? I don't think it's meant to cluelessly allow games to access everything in the host, but I don't know how sandboxed it is currently. You should talk to Keylie.
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.
Hi Judges,
With Zinfidel's recent Armored Core any% publication and my "sudden" abundance of free time I've taken to TAS a larger scale play of the AC1 series.
At first I was planning on a more traditional "no abort/no OoB" but I've been considering some of the game's more unique options.
Specifically, there is a mechanism in the game where by going 50,000 credits into debt (through ammo and repair expense) you become a "test subject" where you are granted various upgrades and the game resets to the first missions (eliminate strikers, eliminate squatters).
Undergoing this procedure 6 times results in several upgrades, most notably: 50% energy consumption. https://i.imgur.com/PlDOsvN.png
This process also allows you to effectively start a "new game" with any parts obtained from the suicide runs, custom build, and ( most importantly ;D ) a custom paint job.
Further, save files from AC1 can be loaded into the extension games Project Phantasma and Master of Arena - where the "human plus" upgrades are not attainable.
I think Armored Core is VERY Unique in these capacities so I wanted to ask the judges how they feel about these options.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#MovieMustPlayTheGameFromTheBeginning
In attempt to be more clear about my questions, in regard to the "start from the beginning" section of the rules:
1. Armored Core has a "hidden" upgrade feature that is based on repeatedly failing missions and going into debt. The process of suiciding is not entertaining and relatively time consuming but upon completion starts you squarely at the first missions of the game, similar to a "new game+".
Although it does not introduce any "new gameplay" inherently, I believe that these upgrades and the potential to start with a pre-optimized build would offer greater entertainment value to a standard "new game" play through.
Q: Would A save file starting from such a point be acceptable or would a vanilla "new game" file be preferred?
2. Due to Mission Branching, AC1 can not attain 100% completion without first completing the game and reloading into a "post completion" state - which would then have no "clear" completion credits/end screen.
Further, Armored Core 1 Data can be transferred to the expansion games, Project Phantasma and Master of Arena, creating the potential for a "300% completion" file across all three games. However, there is never a point where the game "prompts" you to change discs.
Q: would it be acceptable to submit a "300% completion" of all 3 games or would 3 vanilla "new game" files be preferred? Perhaps 3 separate recordings with the expansions loading from the previously completed movies?
I think that covers everything I was wondering. This seems like a pretty loaded series of nebulous inquiries so feel free to ask if you need any clarification and thanks in advance.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Starting from a fresh save is always the preferred option, because it guarantees your movie will be published as Fastest Completion. Then, if you want to build something on top of that, making it a new, save-anchored movie is okay, as long as it features stuff that is 1) unique, not available in any%, 2) interesting and sensible as a goal, and 3) entertaining on its own. Then if it meets Moons requirements, it can be published.
Regarding 300%, is there some official indication that saves should be used across all 3 games?
The Brookman wrote:
2. Due to Mission Branching, AC1 can not attain 100% completion without first completing the game and reloading into a "post completion" state - which would then have no "clear" completion credits/end screen.
How is 100% completion defined for that game?
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.
Joined: 11/21/2019
Posts: 247
Location: Washington
feos wrote:
Regarding 300%, is there some official indication that saves should be used across all 3 games?
The (small) AC speedrunning community is only just recently exploring a 300% category, so there aren't well-defined parameters yet. Brookman is part of that discussion though so maybe he can shed some light there.
feos wrote:
How is 100% completion defined for that game?
There is an in-game completion counter. To reach 100% you have to:
Complete the game to unlock mission free-select (this involves then starting the game again and loading your save data to continue completing missions)
Complete every mission
Defeat every Raven/AC in the missions that they appear in (this includes Valkyrie and both Nineballs)
Zin has a "fastest completion" run which has been published to Vaullt.
Unless you're suggesting you would want a submission that qualifies for moons before an anchored run would be considered?
In regard to additional categories there are several options:
1. vanilla "no abort/any%"
2. anchored "100%"
3. anchored "human plus/no abort/any%"
4. anchored "H+/100%"
"out of bounds" is an option for every category but would create similar gameplay to Zin's run during the final missions (mandatory build, similar routing)
As far as gameplay is concerned, I think the "H+/100%" would make the most interesting contrast to Zin's run but it conforms least to the rules:
1. Start from an anchored "new game+" file
2. Complete 1 branch
3. Saves the game upon completion
4. Load into post game
5. Complete remaining content
an un-anchored H+ category would not be worthwhile.
regarding the concept of "300%":
I don't have access to game manuals but I'm sure they mention file transfer from the preceding games.
All the main line AC games (1,2,3,4,5) have companion/expansion titles and this is very much a "core" aspect of the series.
"#"(expansions) https://i.imgur.com/qWcTWNe.png
I don't personally know any other (console) series that has this sort of continuation potential but I understand if a "3 game completion file" is beyond the scope of this site.
as for 100%, Zin's explanation is correct for AC1 and PP/MOA would have similar requirements (rank 1, collect all parts, complete all missions).
example of 100% in AC1: https://i.imgur.com/EXoMwfC.png
example of continued 100% file in PP: https://i.imgur.com/mHxA90S.png
I don't have a file for MOA atm
thanks again.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Zinfidel wrote:
There is an in-game completion counter. To reach 100% you have to:
Complete the game to unlock mission free-select (this involves then starting the game again and loading your save data to continue completing missions)
Complete every mission
Defeat every Raven/AC in the missions that they appear in (this includes Valkyrie and both Nineballs)
Collect every hidden part
Completing the game and then doing all the post-completion stuff in one go sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Also just like in Super Metroid, avoiding glitches that greatly damage entertainment makes it even better as a part of community-preferred full completion rules. Using those glitches in 100% would be vaultable, but no one would honestly enjoy such a run, while avoiding them boosts the feel of completeness.
Anchored "100%" is extremely iffy, since skipping previous content makes it "not really all that full of a completion".
"H+/100%", anchored or not, makes if feel overpowered, unfair, and unimpressive, because it artificially makes the game greatly reduce its difficulty.
Vanilla "no abort/any%" may be unnecessary if we have vanilla "no abort/100%".
Anchored "H+" feels like it needs some well established goal that makes the overpowered mode justified, along the lines of "max kills". Playing OP for the sake of itself is like enabling a GT code in Super Metroid just to make it easier.
It's arguably worth a try to make a run of one game using another game's save data, as long as it's officially endorsed, but playing several games in one go, without the game explicitly asking for it, is incredibly questionable.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#RomImageMustBeIntegral
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.
I got someone to send me an image of the manual for project phantasma: https://i.imgur.com/Gr7oUjc.png
I'll continue with my current TAS which will be a "no abort/no oob" and I'll consider 100% aspect if we can agree on how that could have a "proper" ending point that would be fit for publication?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
The Brookman wrote:
I'll continue with my current TAS which will be a "no abort/no oob" and I'll consider 100% aspect if we can agree on how that could have a "proper" ending point that would be fit for publication?
Whenever you accomplish the last required task and end the mission it's in?
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.
Hello, I was planning to TAS some Harvest Moon game as any% but for most of them, it means to pass as fast as possible all the days that the game let you before finishing the game. For most of them, it will just be going to bed as fast as possible. But there's one, Harvest Moon 3 GBC, that has a glitch which will let you passing days by entering thne leaving a certain building, but to be able to trigger the glitch, you need to wait 12 mins the first day because it has to do with the In Game Time of the game...
I have a doubt about the triviality of such TASes and it's why I'm asking what you think.
Note that for other games, RNG manipulation will have to be used to avoid some weathers and events that make us lose time.
Thanks in advance.
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.
Will it be trivial to optimally TAS, removing any competition?
I don't believe so or at least for Harvest Moon games where you need to go to sleep while manipulating the weather because this gives many possibilities.
For Harvest Moon 3 GBC with the glitched days, first you need to pass all the dialogs at the beginning so nothing really competitive for optimisation. Then you need to wait 12 mins and there as well, not making the game lagging by our actions. Then the specific time arrive (midnight) with a 3 frames window to enter the building and then leaving/entering the building at the very first frame available and this for 8 more minutes. Then dialogs at the end, same thing as at the beginning... So for me it can then be considered as trivial. If you confirm then i'll stop trying to "entertain" this 12 mins right away and put the movie in userfiles as it is :>.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I don't believe 12 minutes of #2908: HappyLee's NES Super Mario Bros. "lowest score" in 14:32.80 is going to be worth Moons automatically. If there's no challenging gameplay during that time, trying to make it entertaining may not help. So yeah, upload it and we'll see how trivial it is.
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.
