This topic is for the purpose of discussing #7169: Technickle's SNES Stone Protectors in 18:54.20

Hey Technickle, love the new Stone Protectors TAS and all that you’ve done to it on your journey to get there with your 8th WIP this year that you made in a day and you continuously delete the previous WIP making it impossible to give you feedback until a submission is made. I’m going to point out a true table where it compares by Level Time and not TAStime ready? (Values gathered are from dumped footage using Audio Sync.) "Spike what does 'Loss' mean?" Time lost in the results screen due to getting an extra life, this is 60/61 frames slower than exiting the level without collecting every unique gem at least once. In the case of the colorful chart provided, Level 8 shows the fastest time, however it loses 60 frames meaning that the fastest run of Level 8 would go to v5/v7. You’re slower than yourself in several levels… some tracking back to v3. “But Spike” I hear someone ask, “what about merging the input together and using that instead?” Yes, that would work. However, despite being a mostly sync friendly game I still got a desync at Level 6 using Tech’s input on a previous WIP; v5 (Which actually synced quite comfortably with the Japanese version). Now I can do it again for v8 and see what happens and see if it syncs but the fact that each and every WIP was made in a single day and wasn't checked over is highly concerning to me, especially when v3 is still kicking strong. I don't know why you didn't compare by level, and why you haven't hex'd your input across. I'll see if I can hex v3, 6 and 7 into your input but knowing that each revision only had a day spent to them with no further polish is kinda frustrating. Refraining from voting.

---

Edit: Requesting co-authorship with this 293 frame improvement. Hexed in every single questionable level from the previous revisions that improve on this version. Issue; Level 7 is still slower due to the Boss fight in that level against Zink, making it slower than v3 by 20 frames (actually matching v5). My main gripes can be seen in the table. The Last 5 levels needs to be redone, cause there's frames on the table that can be picked up... like how you lost time in Level 8 from the results screen. Also

Level 8, I can pick up the gems, because if do not do that, the game will straight up softlock for no reason. (a well-built game I know).

Shows that this statement is false by using older input which doesn't collect an extra life.

v8 has a frame count of 60,779 | this movie has a frame count of 60,016 (763 frames faster)

You're implying I'm missing a version in the chart then if this is actually v9 but that would then begin to become semantics and then falls on the issue I already brought up. I classified v8 as this userfile which is coincidentally this submission.

Hey Spike! Thanks for the comparison chart for each version. Question: v8 has a frame count of 60,779 | this movie has a frame count of 60,016 (763 frames faster). I was a little confused at that moment. I don't know if you have watched this version or not. Or if you are comparing against a different timing method? Level 8, I can pick up the gems, because if do not do that, the game will straight up softlock for no reason. (a well-built game I know). The only reason all of them are picked up here, is so that I can be in line to attack Sucker Puncher. The more I use the Mic Toss move the more I move closer to the gems, food, and 1 up, so that's why. Otherwise, I'd do a swing and a miss and auto grab the items. The reason I only deleted the user files that were slower than this, is because I wanted the best available version so that people wouldn't have to dig through 9 versions of the same game over and over. Nothing personal on that account.

Sorry for the misunderstanding of the version numbers. I was labeling them wrong in my head which is my bad. Question: What would be the best approach to this then? Use the Co-authorship version, improve the Co-authorship version, sorry, I got a little confused there. Side Note: I also typed 60,016 by accident (made 8 versions of this, and yet I still can't seem to type the right frame count in lol). I meant to say prior was the 69,016 before the Co-Authorship download was posted.

What a weird beat-em-up game! I like the aesthetic and charm of the game, but the run is kinda boring. Unfortunately, efficiency here means ending nearly every battle before it starts with the same scream move which gets repetitive. So, I must vote 'no' for entertainment.

This game is very weird and wasn't very popular amongst reviewers and players. It's certainly no TMNT IV that's for sure. While its Entertainment value is thrown completely out the window, it still can be dull because of what is needed to go fast, which unfortunately in this case is the special moves being used.

EDIT: NEW USER FILE TO REPLACE THE 19:08.38 submission -> http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/72835226378619915 <-

Recommendation to the author is to look into Levels 6, 7 (at the fight), and 9. There's enough frames in the open that could allow you to sub 19. Or await another masterfile that merges your inputs together and gets the sub 19 and asks co-auth again. The new input features a revised level 5 that saves 88 frames, 7 that saves 45, 8 that saves 58 and a 10 that saves 255 frames over the submission file. Whilst losing 10 and 2 frames at levels 6 and 9 respectfully to the submission file. In a best vs best case it looks like this:

---

Edit: Requesting co-authorship with this 114 frame improvement, over the userfile (610 over the submission). Issue; Level 7 requires the new version created by Technickle meaning it still doesn't match the fastest version which is found in v3. My main gripe still exists with Levels 6 and 9 which is using input which I believe can be improved upon especially when the author has shown that Level 5 in this submission was improve upon. Level 7 I've pretty much personally accepted that the v3 that went through this basically got the best Zink fight it could ask for. It's still probably possible to improve, but I'm not going to spend the time looking through a level boss fight.

---

Encode: Link to video

I will allow you to be a co-author if you wish.

http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/72837199629138234 Co-authorship user file that improves the 19:08.38 and the 19:00.12 more info can be seen on this user file. *last message from me for this morning* (will check back later today/night for updates).

http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/72837199629138234 Co-authorship user file that improves the 19:08.38 and the 19:00.12.

I already provided the file. Why are you providing the exact same file with a different link?

Just a note for Technickle: You may want to consider taking a bit more time to optimize your runs. Even before this submission, I had already noted the rapid succession of complete game runs posted to userfiles from keeping an eye on the "Updates" channel in discord. Based on the history there, you have uploaded 12 userfiles of this game since June 30 (just over 2 weeks); only one of these was labeled as a WIP, and the rest were apparently complete game runs. From what Spike's chart shows, there are odd curiosities from version to version in how long any given stage takes, with numerous occurrences where you actually lose time to one of your own previous versions. From an optimization standpoint, it makes zero sense that you have two instances where you lost time in Level 1 to a previous version of the TAS. It's the first stage of the game; there's frankly no excuse to lose time to a version you've already made unless you can prove that the time lost in that situation results in an even greater time save later on in the game. This all results in your runs appearing as if you're not utilizing your own best input from previous versions as you create a new version of the TAS, but instead are redoing everything from scratch each time. You have 11-12 uploads of seemingly complete redoes of game in barely over 2 weeks. While the total game time improves with each version, the inconsistencies and lost time suggest that you're only considering optimization from a total time perspective, and not considering optimization of individual sections/levels of the game. Ultimately, all this makes it appear as though you're really rushing through these improvement attempts.

From an optimization standpoint, it makes zero sense that you have two instances where you lost time in Level 1 to a previous version of the TAS. It's the first stage of the game; there's frankly no excuse to lose time to a version you've already made unless you can prove that the time lost in that situation results in an even greater time save later on in the game.

Actually fun fact about 2021's v1 and v2 on Level 1. v1 goes into the menus and disables SFX, v2 (and onwards) avoids the menus and just starts the game (which is obviously faster, cause you're not going into a menu to turn off SFX). Technickle thought they improved on the v1 but under TAStime by "21 frames". But, it was not by a level by level comparison so they didn't know that they lost 128 frames in the first level. This mistake would actually continue throughout the entire creation of each revision after that, where a comparison by TAStime was done, not by Level Time. Just to show that setting: Highlighted in the Greenish-Yellow and is marked OFF to be a bit more visible if those colours clash for you.

How random is this game? Can you fix any menu mistakes and level 1 and still have the game sync to the end?

I had another thought/question. Did you (Technickle) ever actually test if a 1P or 2P game was ultimately the fastest method? I know this was brought up with one of your previous submissions of this game. Your response at the time was:

I do agree with you on your point about the 2 players being more interesting than a 1 player scenario. However, I don't want to put myself in a situation where I am not aiming for a 2 player run. For the purpose of this submission, I only want to compare to a 1 player run if that is acceptable and or allowed in this context.

Under the current site rules as I understand them (recognizing that the rules may be changing due to recent discussions about vault expansion/change): if a 2 Player run would be faster than this submission (which, based on the previous submission's discussion, it likely would be), this submission would need to receive enough positive entertainment response to be published into the moons tier as it wouldn't be eligible for vault publication due to being a sub-optimal method of completing the game. Given that this submission is sitting at 1 total vote (which is a NO for entertainment), there doesn't seem to be much interest in this game at all. This means it has a significant uphill battle to garner the necessary feedback for moons publication.

I have tested a 2 player scenario just recently and in the past. However, 2 player isn't faster: 1. 2nd player is more of a stand-around character and doesn't provide the necessity of having them around. 2. The 2nd player doesn't have a combo'ing moveset like Cornelius does and makes it harder to kill enemies and bosses quickly. The 2nd player also would have to wait for the enemies to be on screen or semi on the screen to hit them. 3. Characters such as Maxwell, Angus, Chester, and Clifford are slow movement-wise, have a slow special move, and are awkward to play as. 4. With having the benefit of 1 player, I can control the game easier, the screen with 2 players is awkward because either player 1 or player 2 needs to progress the screen first in order to go further towards the end. Some enemies don't even activate if player 1 goes further ahead of player 2, as player 2 would need to be there to do so, thus making it slower. example: Window Guards 5. While not as 'entertaining' as a two-player run, this run still aims for the fastest completion status. If by some miracle I feel obligated enough to make a 2 player TAS, it won't be the same (for me at least). Yeah, the strategies to kill enemies could be neat, but, it lacks the drive and purpose of being fast rather than: "I can do no special moves and play-around with the enemies for minutes on end". Bonus: If someone has the initiative (not me) to find a screen wrap with 2 players to get to the boss early, then it would be justifiable to play with 2 players. I hope that answers, the questions provided.

Not really... also that doesn't answer the question DrD2k9 asked, your response is under hypotheticals, and I honestly dislike hypotheticals especially when we can easily check. In our favourite level, Level 1 I was able to regain the 2 frames I lost and saved an additional 87 before reaching the first boss. This is from just having a second player, who's actually the first player that just exists and walks around. Here's the userfile, doing almost all of Level 1 except the first boss, due to not really wanting to figure out what kind of boss I got. This was a question I asked last year, and the year before with not much of an answer or any conclusive evidence for that matter. So for the fact that this wasn't researched still by the author is kinda annoying honestly. Edit: However, the bosses have more health. Something that I personally wished was explained the last two times that we honestly never got the answer to. On the side, still curious to see a response about this since it re-highlights important things.

Now that it's actually been determined why 2 player mode is ultimately slower (longer boss fights due to higher boss health) and while refuting these arguments isn't going to magically make a 2p run faster, I'm going to respond to these anyway in order to point out that none of these arguments you provided are legitimate reasons why a 2 player TAS is slower.

1. 2nd player is more of a stand-around character and doesn't provide the necessity of having them around.

This argument is frankly not true from a movement standpoint. Even if the 2nd player does nothing combat wise, he allows for improvements in player positions and earlier scrolling of the screen. If not for the longer boss fights, this improvement alone would be reason enough to allow for faster progression through the stages.

2. The 2nd player doesn't have a combo'ing moveset like Cornelius does and makes it harder to kill enemies and bosses quickly. The 2nd player also would have to wait for the enemies to be on screen or semi on the screen to hit them.

All 5 of the characters special music attacks are capable of hitting off-screen characters once they are spawned. There are times in the 1p TAS that Cornelius attacks on-screen enemies with attacks other than the special music attack. These other characters being present may allow for attacking such enemies faster than Cornelius can manage. Regarding combo attacks: Not having as efficient combo options with other characters would matter if they were the only character being played, but they aren't. What other characters may lack in combos, the fact that there is a secondary character present means that he could potentially be positioned to attack the enemy before Cornelius could himself execute the second part of a combo attack. Further the secondary character lacking such combo possibilities is moot; because if Cornelius still can do them (and that's the fastest way to clear the enemies), the secondary character may not ever need to do such a combo attack themselves in a 2p mode.

3. Characters such as Maxwell, Angus, Chester, and Clifford are slow movement-wise, have a slow special move, and are awkward to play as.

The only part of this that is legit is that the special music attacks are slower than Cornelius. But this again is moot as the secondary character may never need to use their music special. Regarding movement, Maxwell literally has a dash move that zips him to the far side of the screen in the same amount of time it takes Cornelius to take 1 animated step. This alone can get things moving earlier if he is used as the 2nd character. Even if a different character were used, the 2nd player starts further to the right of stage 1 than player 1 does. Thus a slower moving player would only delay things if Cornelius could outrun them by an entire screen in such a way that the slower character would then delay scrolling. This is unlikely due to the frequent forced stops of screen scrolling. A character being awkward to play is NOT an excuse for not using them in a TAS. You have all the time in the world to work out their movement/control in a TAS setting. While a particular character may be awkward for a human to control, a TAS should still use them if they would allow for more optimal play due to having perfect precision/control in a TAS environment. (Granted, they don't appear to be more optimal; but here I'm mainly refuting the argument against using them because of their being awkward).

4. With having the benefit of 1 player, I can control the game easier, the screen with 2 players is awkward because either player 1 or player 2 needs to progress the screen first in order to go further towards the end. Some enemies don't even activate if player 1 goes further ahead of player 2, as player 2 would need to be there to do so, thus making it slower. example: Window Guards

At least in level 1, I could not replicate a situation where player 2 being in front of player 1 prevented enemy spawns/actions in such a way that it made things slower than a 1 player version. In my testing, zipping Maxwell to the right of Cornelius immediately at the beginning of the game allowed for an earlier attack at the first wave of enemies, and nowhere through the first stage did it appear to delay any other enemy action.

5. While not as 'entertaining' as a two-player run, this run still aims for the fastest completion status. If by some miracle I feel obligated enough to make a 2 player TAS, it won't be the same (for me at least). Yeah, the strategies to kill enemies could be neat, but, it lacks the drive and purpose of being fast rather than: "I can do no special moves and play-around with the enemies for minutes on end".

My original question about a 2 player run was not about entertainment... it was regarding if it would be faster (though it has now been confirmed to be slower due to higher boss health). Regarding entertainment: to me, watching this game in either 1 or 2 player mode is boring because almost all one effectively sees is Cornelius' character screaming. Boss fights really aren't enough to add much entertainment value. Still, in claiming that you're going for fastest completion (essentially meaning regardless of entertainment), you've failed to make the only true argument as to why a 2 player TAS is ultimately slower...more boss health. TL:DR None of your arguments attempting to explain why a 2p TAS would be slower actually pan out in a TAS setting, and you failed to note the only true reason that 2 Player mode is ultimately slower. I'm not trying to be mean/rude with my comments; I'm trying to help you understand how to consider things differently and learn from those with more experience who have tried to help you in the past.

I'm not trying to be mean/rude with my comments

I believe your intent here, but as I look the general tone of this thread, and the manner of throwing big paragraphs of arguments with italicized and size-increased lines about how the other person failed to make any point; I think it might be helpful to have a bit more tact and positive encouragement. With that, a disclaimer like this wouldn't be necessary. That goes for many of the posts in this thread, to be honest. It's okay to point out room for improvements in a submission, or give criticism on comments made, but I think the way it is going in this thread is more discouraging than anything else.

Also, something for Technickle: People in this thread are helping you improve your TAS and even made it faster! They're also asking questions so that you can ask them yourself and improve as a TASer. You don't need to know or have everything be perfect instantly. Just like you, people who helped you tried the game out, taking steps and making mistakes. It's okay to say "I don't know" or "I didn't try that", and we can approach it together and improve.

New File to replace the 18:58.22 time: http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/73079230173798041

I counted the total frames of improvement in the comparison tables, and it comes out to an even 450, so theoretically you should be able to optimize the WIP further by 300+ frames. Take note of where and why you're losing frames and see if it's avoidable, and avoid those timelosses if they are indeed avoidable. Something I do when I look into improving runs is I have a separate emulator window open with that run in it, allowing me to directly compare what I'm doing with what was done before.[/quote]

Please look into level 4 again, you lose 10 frames compared to v8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxYGbrJPY2E More evident is the opening half as you catch it by despawning the glider and then lose that when facing Tackle Jackal.[/quote] My honest suggestion is to cancel this submission and then tackle it level by level, take a day in each level to optimize and refine then go for another submission. You'll save more than 242 frames if you take it slowly.

---

Technickle made a comment about this as a note:

Roughly another 400 frames can be saved, and I will work on the improvement later today. Level 4 mostly. Everything else seems pretty good as is, but, will look at them anyway.

new file to replace the 18:54.20 time http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/73094203204026874 *I also was contemplating whether or not I should have made a new submission, but, decided to keep this one, so it's not confusing.

Technickle, what's your TASing workflow? Most of us here do it like this: Post #499336 onward.