If having ILs compared to full run doesn't change anything for the run i don't think it is useful to accept them as it will be redundant stuff. A solution for it would be, if standard/moons classes can obsolete the showcase class, to obsolete all levels that doesn't save time compared to one of the full run.
Another problem of levels that doesn't save time compared to full run is authorship... A new person arrive and "submit" (depending on the implementation) a level that is already in the Moons/standard TAS of the same game by another author, even if the inputs aren't the same, the author(s) of the old TAS already made the level optimally.
Firstly, I don't think that only the single most optimal movie for some goal should be kept in Playground. Since it's meant to be self-organized, I don't mind having several movies of the same goal but with different level of optimization. Think of it as DTC: several teams create their works and then someone can merge all the finds into one movie that is actually submitted. Different IL attempts may contain different tricks, which can then be put into a complete run that could be submitted and published.
Secondly, I don't think there should be any kind of obsoletion or competition between Playground and publications. One of the reasons is the very implementation of Playground that we seem to like the most: it's just a submission status, and it's post-moderated by game mods. You can't obsolete a submission by a publication, and you can't put them in the same automated module. The second reason is we don't want to be limiting, dictatorial, or paranoid about what we are allowed to have. We decide this together, and users also get to decide what they want to have.
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: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
I would honestly say ILs are very important to keep around, even the ones that may not be as optimized.
One of my biggest motivators for wanting an "anything goes" area of the site is the fact that I believe every single TAS has merit in some way or another. In this case, even slower runs might bring something brand new to the table, something that could possibly be reshaped into major improvements for publications. While I can't remember any specific examples off the top of my head, I actually remember seeing publications where one of the improvements ended up being re-implementing a strat used in a long-obsoleted run, just because there were new uses found for it. I wouldn't want that sort of thing to disappear by having active obsoletion in Playground. At the very least, even if a run brings nothing new to the technical side of the table, it could definitely provide some inspiration for entertainment choices.
Having ILs and not forcing a strict obsoletion structure also provides more of a welcoming space for those who may still be overwhelmed by the process of making a full, optimized run intended for publication. RTA glitch hunters can post IL strats they discover without needing to optimize, newer TASers can get their feet wet and get constructive feedback without the fear of rejection, it's honestly all a win/win to me.
New site maintenance is starting to slow down, so I'd like to get back to making this happen, especially since a good number of runs currently on the workbench would be perfectly suited for this and I really don't like the idea of rejecting them if we're close to agreeing on how to implement this. Does anyone else have any ideas, or are we generally in agreement on feos' Playground proposal?
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Also, in the context of IL discussion, this includes stuff that we would not necessarily consider ILs, such as:
- Mods and fangame content in general for example (I know Undertale fangame boss showcases are quite popular among Undertale TASers, to name an example). For example, while TASing the entire Spring Collab for Celeste would be a massive endeavor, TASing specific levels is quite accessible and has been done.
- Proofs of concept for specific setups (SM64 ABC stuff, general challenge run concepts, or even experiments for other TAS or RTA runs)
In general, stuff that is just "partially" part of a full game TAS that could take a long time to actually adapt into a full game TAS. Heck even something as let's say, cutting a frame from one of the RNG heavy ILs in Melee Target Test would probably require tons of effort in order to ensure RNG sync for a full game submission which would not necessarily be worthy for such an small improvement, but by allowing ILs, we give a proper place for documentation and archival, and allow people to see these improvements. We all win!
Just a comment on my poll vote: I chose Indifferent, and want to explain why. I actual lean more in favor of having the Playground than not.
I'm good with the playground existing, because I believe it will offer significant potential for content exposure and centralized strategy documentation that would otherwise be scattered across the internet (if publicly documented at all).
However, I don't want the Playground to introduce any additional stress to the main site staff (beyond it's initial creation) for normal daily function. Essentially, once created/implemented, I feel that the Playground should be completely user sustained (or perhaps via game-specific mods similar to speedrun.com), and the staff should not have to worry about that area of the site at all--except in extreme cases such as removing content that is already considered unacceptable on the site (ROM links, pornographgy, etc.).
Joined: 8/30/2020
Posts: 42
Location: United Kingdom
I like the idea of Playground, but I prefer the name “Showcases”. Playground seems like a more… casual term? idk exactly how to word it, but Showcases just comes across as a more fitting term, since this could be used for LOTADs and the like. I just wouldn’t be able to take something uploaded to a “playground” seriously compared to something clearly dedicated to showcases.
maybe I’m just nitpicky tho lol
I like the idea of Playground, but I prefer the name “Showcases”. Playground seems like a more… casual term? idk exactly how to word it, but Showcases just comes across as a more fitting term, since this could be used for LOTADs and the like. I just wouldn’t be able to take something uploaded to a “playground” seriously compared to something clearly dedicated to showcases.
maybe I’m just nitpicky tho lol
The problem is Showcase is a planned new name for Moons. See this discussion Post #511194.
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: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
DrD2k9 wrote:
However, I don't want the Playground to introduce any additional stress to the main site staff (beyond it's initial creation) for normal daily function. Essentially, once created/implemented, I feel that the Playground should be completely user sustained (or perhaps via game-specific mods similar to speedrun.com), and the staff should not have to worry about that area of the site at all--except in extreme cases such as removing content that is already considered unacceptable on the site (ROM links, pornographgy, etc.).
That sentiment was also discussed on Discord, and I'll say that there isn't likely to be any additional stress on us. In fact, for me personally, I feel like a lot of my judging stress will be lifted by this implementation. It's a lot easier for me to look at something and say "Yeah, we can do something positive with this" than it is to look at something and try to figure out how to nicely reject it. Building new logic into the site for this would be an absolute breeze, since we'll likely just modify our current systems in order to account for it, so it isn't any increased stress on the site developers. Publishers wouldn't have any additional stress either since we wouldn't require publication quality encodes for everything that goes through.
The beauty of the new site and the direction of TASvideos itself is that we're always going to be looking for ways to make things easier for both the community at large and ourselves in turn. If something becomes a problem, we now have the ability to fix it easily, and we intend to do that no matter what the problem is. I'm seriously glad people care about us though, thank you for that!
chilsie wrote:
I like the idea of Playground, but I prefer the name “Showcases”. Playground seems like a more… casual term? idk exactly how to word it, but Showcases just comes across as a more fitting term, since this could be used for LOTADs and the like. I just wouldn’t be able to take something uploaded to a “playground” seriously compared to something clearly dedicated to showcases.
maybe I’m just nitpicky tho lol
Once again, there was a bit of discussion about this on Discord. I do like "Playground" as a name. I think it's a natural fit for the level of freedom and creativity that the category is going to allow, though as someone who heavily criticized the name and branding of Vault back in the day, I do understand that a name can have those kinds of implications. If there's enough of a sentiment for the name to change, we can change it, even if that sentiment comes after implementation.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Maybe a name like Sandbox? (or waterbox amirite HA)
Sandbox is technically a subset of Playground if we look at original terms.
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 don't really have a problem with the name "Playground."
But for the sake of ideas. We could consider something simple simple like "Open Class."
Other ideas:
-Freeform/Freedom
-Whiteboard/Chalkboard
-Independent Class
-Carte Blanche
-Unrestrained
-Emancipated
-Autonomous
While I may not be able to express it well, I share Samsara's enthusiasm for this idea. I immediately liked feos' Playground suggestion the first time I saw it. For a long time, I have disliked how some groups of TASes have been denied from being apart of this site. Such as, what are otherwise high-quality submissions, being rejected just because they utilized some form of cheat, even when such a cheat is just a debug tool/code left in by developers. Some restrictions have since been lifted (e.g. educational games, or Vault limitations), and that's great, but I feel there is still a lot of missed TASing potential out there, just waiting to be discovered and shared.
Of course, like others have voiced on Discord, I also do not want the site flooded by low-quality submissions. I'm not sure how to best enable the community to handle such inevitable submissions. But, I do strongly believe we should move forward with Playground, and make it a reality!
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player
(119)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 348
Location: Holland, MI
I've mostly discussed this on discord but I'm a big fan of the playground concept. I feel calling it "Category Extensions" would be the easiest way to help people grasp the concept since it's already common in RTA speedruns to have separate less strict leaderboards with way more categories under that label.
So if I understand correctly, these "playground" runs get their own threads in the forum but they don't get a publication page?
Given how many SMB submissions we get I think some grouping may be in order, but otherwise seems like a good proposal.
So if I understand correctly, these "playground" runs get their own threads in the forum but they don't get a publication page?
Correct.
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.
This post is very important.
We seem to have agreed on the implementation and the main purpose of this entity. But we need to have an agreement on the fundamental rules we want for it. It's clear that we want as few rules as possible, but those that should be there should be as fundamental as possible. For something that's meant to grant a ton of freedom, it's important that the community as a whole is on the same page.
A movie that goes to Playground:
Must break some Wiki: MovieRules (otherwise it just gets published)
Must be reproducible
Must be decently executed
Must have a goal
Opinions, criticisms, additions?
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: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2792
Location: Northern California
SRAM-anchored movies should require written verification/reproduction steps, in my opinion. I don't want to outright require verification movies, but there should always be a written set of reproduction steps so that anyone can create the needed SRAM state. This would be more for movies that are using intentionally hacked states, giving a careful record of exactly how the state was hacked, as it future-proofs the movie (provided files could go missing, emulators could be improved or obsoleted, etc) and ensures that the movie is still being presented in a "legitimate" way (all hacks and changes are accurately and openly represented).
I feel like this should actually apply to all submissions in general, now that I think about it. Maybe it's worth a different thread.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
[*]Must break some Wiki: MovieRules (otherwise it just gets published)
Does it mean there is still a line between movies that will be featured under the new class and the currently published ones under this category?
https://tasvideos.org/Movies-play
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.
How should we define this? I don't mind having movies of different optimization levels, but when do we reject for being overly sloppy?
Also do we want to account of lack of current completed movies of a certain goal? Like sometimes it's an argument for submitting a suboptimal run (better than nothing), and it feels like this may make sense in Playground. For example if there's an optimality bar (granted it's lower than for pubs), being the first to submit a new goal should probably allow even sloppier play? Not sure about this one.
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 don't think the bar for optimization should be too high. I think as long as it plays better than you would expect a speedrunner to play in real time, it should be okay. That would open the door for a lot of these "LOTAD" runs you see every now and then, and potentially even human theory TASes of really hard challenges in games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Aside from that, I think having a pretty low bar for optimization would mean we would encourage people to spend less time worrying about frames and more time making entertaining videos.
I think as long as it plays better than you would expect a speedrunner to play in real time, it should be okay.
This could be hard to figure out. For acceptance for publication, we consider the movie rejectably sloppy if in a lot of places we can easily save a lot of time. For Playground, I'm thinking of "there should be no obviously visible sloppy play", and as long as it looks clean, it's fine.
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: 2/26/2020
Posts: 43
Location: Super Bell Hill
I am concerned about would it be partly judged for leniency. Where it hasn't reached the exciting part, or long unentertaining setup just to setup something cool. Imagine smb3 without whistles. (ignoring DCPM workaround) you have to sit through 6 worlds without new content just to see cool stuff. Why should the other parts affect the viewing experience of the real playground - the main focus the author wants to show off? Unless the primary goal is to be fast.
I am concerned about would it be partly judged for leniency. Where it hasn't reached the exciting part, or long unentertaining setup just to setup something cool. Imagine smb3 without whistles. (ignoring DCPM workaround) you have to sit through 6 worlds without new content just to see cool stuff. Why should the other parts affect the viewing experience of the real playground - the main focus the author wants to show off?
I don't understand what you're asking.
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: 8/30/2020
Posts: 42
Location: United Kingdom
feos wrote:
FitterSpace wrote:
I think as long as it plays better than you would expect a speedrunner to play in real time, it should be okay.
This could be hard to figure out. For acceptance for publication, we consider the movie rejectably sloppy if in a lot of places we can easily save a lot of time. For Playground, I'm thinking of "there should be no obviously visible sloppy play", and as long as it looks clean, it's fine.
I agree. I think if it LOOKS clean, but there is potential for improvement, it would be perfect as a LOTAD, and I think Playground would be a perfect home for these.
As aforementioned in this thread, it would also be great for human theory runs.
