In that case, why not just "savegame" or "saved game" like wikipedia calls it.
I'm gonna second this idea from Masterjun. "Savegame" is still a bit difficult to understand at a glance, and not particularly popularly used in speedrunning, but I've racked my brain for any kind of better term that covers all possibilities like this, and I can't come up with anything. At best you would use more specialised terms depending on the situation (some games may benefit from having some, but not all, things unlocked for instance), but I don't think that's what's being asked for here.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
The difference with how we're looking at it with the Fighting game genre is the new element being an unlocked character.
I can refer to Guilty Gear X: Advance Edition where Ky is obsoleted by Zato as they're both characters available form the start for an instance of a character that wasn't unlocked.
I can also refer to Digimon Rumble Arena where an unlocked character wasn't allowed, and instead a character that's available from the start would have been preferred instead.
But we're in the new site era now where we have a new submission that's using an unlocked character in Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance which should outright obsolete the Kenshi run and be the preferred run. But isn't for some reason.
A character name as a branch implies we would accept and publish every character. Which isn't good on the site side, as Judges and Publishers will have to deal with a "mess" of fighting game TASes.
But I already experimented with that idea with 5 separate characters in Tekken 3 and they're ineligible to be accepted due to Yoshimitsu (and that puddle can get muddier, but let's avoid that puddle) and of course Guilty Gear X as I referred to earlier.
In my opinion the character should obsolete the other regardless if they're an unlocked character or not and if they're an unlock then they should have the tag of well in this case `Second quest/Post game-completion`. We have tags, we should make the tags work at the very least, we still make new ones to this day.
This allows it to be simplified, and any other run from an unlocked roster or a standard one can instead go to Playground whilst the actual fastest can obsolete one another.
This also allows another type of branch for fighting games, where you have the fastest character, a playaround and then "all endings", at least for the fighting games that show off different endings.
SRAM should obsolete, but only for Fighting Games, and the information has to be very clear about it in the Publication. It will also cause the least amount of headaches.
tl;dr what I wrote.
Is unlock character faster?
> Yes
Obsolete.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Maybe more specific examples would help. For example, I thought New Game+ would cover everything, and I couldn't quite understand from the previous post why that one wouldn't work.
Just to throw some ideas around (and get them refuted), couldn't we call it "2nd run" similar to the "2nd quest" things we have? Or are there some situations where you don't actually have to beat the game story?
Yeah if the most optimal unlockable (or combination of unlockables) does not require beating the main game but is locked behind an overly specific combination of completions, it may not be the Nth run through any one particular mode.
Masterjun wrote:
In that case, why not just "savegame" or "saved game" like wikipedia calls it.
Wow I love "savegame"!
moozooh wrote:
I think there is somewhat of a contradiction over the fact that we'd only accept the most optimal default character for Standard while giving a "free pass" there to an unlocked one regardless of how fast it is in comparison. I mean, what if it's the slowest character? Or at least slower than the second-best default one? (Thinking of something like Streets of Rage 3's Roo here.)
While we do indeed aim for speed optimization in standard, restricting content too much makes it a pain on the long run for all participants, because things that make sense to a lot of people still consistently get rejected like they were not worth doing. So while aiming for speed in standard we allowed a whole lot of things that feature some conceptual difference that got a community consensus. Save-based unlockables are an example of this, so the most sensible decision seemed to be to remove the need to compete with the clean-save movies. We probably didn't consider cases where all the unlockables are slower, but if the point of the category is featuring this objective difference, I think it's not a long-term problem if it's the only reason a certain extra branch exists. If there's no clear difference between a clean save and a save-anchored branch, we will only have one.
moozooh wrote:
Would it not be better to accept all characters for Standard?
A lot of people in the community don't want the site to have a separate branch for each character in, say, fighting games, where it could result in dozens of branches, because there are already all the other standard goals that could be combined with different chars.
moozooh wrote:
But to answer the question, if we need a generic branch name, would something like "fully unlocked" work?
It may not be fully unlocked, if only the most optimal things need to be unlocked.
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.
The difference with how we're looking at it with the Fighting game genre is the new element being an unlocked character.
I don't see the fundamental difference from other game genres with unlockable chars.
Spikestuff wrote:
I can also refer to Digimon Rumble Arena where an unlocked character wasn't allowed, and instead a character that's available from the start would have been preferred instead.
The consensus was to move away from that limitation, so that submission would need to be unrejected at some point. It represents a situation but can't serve as example of how things should be.
Spikestuff wrote:
But we're in the new site era now where we have a new submission that's using an unlocked character in Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance which should outright obsolete the Kenshi run and be the preferred run. But isn't for some reason.
Why should it outright obsolete?
I can only see why it should not obsolete:
feos wrote:
I don't want save-anchored movies to compete with power-on ones in Standard, because the former kinda give themselves a handicap which would somehow not count as a part of its completion time. I feel it's fair to instead have more branches.
I don't see what's beneficial for the community from having fewer branches in this particular case, which implies extra rules and therefore more complexity going forward.
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: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
I'm only quoting this bit, cause it's the only relevant bit to anything you said back to me.
Everything you argued, doesn't argue anything I actually argued about and I don't want to repeat my exact same points to everything you wrote, because your arguments are wrong. For the fighting genre.
Especially when all my points aren't argued against. Including the part where I used Samsara's second idea in my post (which came from that conversation).
feos wrote:
Why should it outright obsolete?
feos wrote:
There's been a disagreement among staff regarding labeling of save-anchored branches that don't involve unlockable modes.
Cause we argued about this for like 20 hours in staff. And you very much know my position, and if you don't then why did I keep repeating my points to you every time you interpret it wrong?
Why did thankfully someone else in Staff actually know what the hell I was on about and agreeing with my comments and trying to also point out to you the exact same thing?
And we told you even when you said that we should discuss how it should be dealt with, you ignored it.
I'm using my exact same arguments but out here for complete clarity for something you aren't getting. Again.
Understand what we, the side that's against this arbitrary branch is trying to tell you. Don't gloss over it.
I'm not responding back if you don't get our point of concern, cause everything doesn't always work. And definitely doesn't work here for fighting games.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
A public discussion is meant to happen so that people can clearly explain everything they need with no rush and with all the info being available to everyone. Only then we can come up with a proper decision. It's not about proving me wrong about something, because I very rarely have a hard stance on things. But for the sake of community discussion I explicitly request mistakes to be addressed, because without it it's just a dead end.
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 think there is somewhat of a contradiction over the fact that we'd only accept the most optimal default character for Standard while giving a "free pass" there to an unlocked one regardless of how fast it is in comparison. I mean, what if it's the slowest character? Or at least slower than the second-best default one?
I’ll use a reply to this question to submit my perspective here:
I don’t like any save-anchored run obsoleting a run based on a clean start.
I don’t see a point in having a save anchored run be slower than the clean run unless it introduces a significant amount of new/different content. I personally don’t see a different move set (from an unlocked fighter) as qualifying as significantly new/different content in terms of gameplay. So for fighting games, my perspective is as follows:
A clean start run can only be accepted to standard using the optimal base character.
A save anchored run using an unlocked character can only be accepted to standard if that unlocked character is faster than using the fastest base character. This would not obsolete but be published along side the clean start run.
If multiple unlockable characters are more optimal than any of the base roster, then only the most optimal unblocked character is eligible for standard publication as a save anchored movie. Unlockable characters can obsolete each other’s save anchored publications, but cannot obsolete the clean start run.
If no unlockable characters are faster than the fastest base character and no new content is introduced, then there’s no reason to have a save anchored branch in Standard publication for that fighting game.
The branch name needs to indicate that the run is save anchored without using the fighter’s name in order to prevent potential confusion that the site would accept all character runs.
I think my perspective rectifies the contradiction moozooh mentions about a “free pass” to unlocked characters.
As far as a name for save anchored branches:
“savegame” is good.
A similar option that may be even slightly more descriptive that the run is starting from a saved point is “save start” or “savestart” if we want to eliminate the space.
There’s also the option of using an icon to indicate that the run starts from a save anchored point. In staff chat, the classic disk icon that is used as a save icon in much software was suggested.
If no unlockable characters are faster than the fastest base character and no new content is introduced, then there’s no reason to have a save anchored branch in Standard publication for that fighting game.
I personally only see the problem in "savegame" being an extra standard branch if there's no practical difference at all coming from unlockables. If the character is different and slower, that may be argued to be a harder mode/higher challenge. If the character is the same, there's no point in having both branches. Example: #8775: KusogeMan's Wii Mortal Kombat: Armageddon "Endurance, Kreate-a-Fighter" in 05:18.98
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 the character is different and slower, that may be argued to be a harder mode/higher challenge.
This argument could be made for a different base roster character also. Would the slowest base roster character be considered a harder mode/higher challenge?
I feel this would potentially make things even more confusing.
I don’t like any save-anchored run obsoleting a run based on a clean start.
I don’t see a point in having a save anchored run be slower than the clean run unless it introduces a significant amount of new/different content. I personally don’t see a different move set (from an unlocked fighter) as qualifying as significantly new/different content in terms of gameplay. So for fighting games, my perspective is as follows:
A clean start run can only be accepted to standard using the optimal base character.
A save anchored run using an unlocked character can only be accepted to standard if that unlocked character is faster than using the fastest base character. This would not obsolete but be published along side the clean start run.
If multiple unlockable characters are more optimal than any of the base roster, then only the most optimal unblocked character is eligible for standard publication as a save anchored movie. Unlockable characters can obsolete each other’s save anchored publications, but cannot obsolete the clean start run.
If no unlockable characters are faster than the fastest base character and no new content is introduced, then there’s no reason to have a save anchored branch in Standard publication for that fighting game.
The branch name needs to indicate that the run is save anchored without using the fighter’s name in order to prevent potential confusion that the site would accept all character runs.
This seems like the most reasonable way of handling things to me, if the unlockable characters aren't significantly different gameplay-wise to the base characters.
To me every save-anchored run carries the implication of all the additional time it takes to get the game to produce that save file. If you've just bought the game and started it, you have access to the base characters only. Having access to unlockable characters is only possible if you've already completed the game with a base character at least once, and one would assume that completing the game twice takes longer than completing it once.
I see more reason in not allowing unlockable characters to standard than I do in having them obsolete base characters. The best defence I can think for having both as separate branches is that they're both "fastest completion", but with a difference of timing method - standard characters are fastest completion from absolute zero (no save, power on), whereas unlockable characters are fastest completion from power on, but having already played for a significant amount of time and created saves beforehand. But then that leaves the question of whether a run that prioritises IGT over TAS time should obsolete, or exist in a separate branch from, one that prioritises TAS time over IGT.
In any case, it's effectively just NG vs. NG+, and it seems wrong to me that a NG+ run would obsolete a NG run. Just my two cents.
But then that leaves the question of whether a run that prioritises IGT over TAS time should obsolete, or exist in a separate branch from, one that prioritises TAS time over IGT.
While i believe there have been situations where different timing methods have obsoleted one another in the past, I don’t think this should be happening.
I feel that for any given game on our site, only one timing method should be the comparison point; without allowing various timing methods to obsolete each other.
Though even in typing this, I’m sure someone will have a arguable reason to allow it.
This is also slightly off-topic.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6337
Location: The land down under.
DigitalDuck wrote:
But then that leaves the question of whether a run that prioritises IGT over TAS time should obsolete, or exist in a separate branch from, one that prioritises TAS time over IGT.
In any case, it's effectively just NG vs. NG+, and it seems wrong to me that a NG+ run would obsolete a NG run. Just my two cents.
Only that it isn't. The only difference in terms of "new content" for a fighting game is that some titles has a rival character that shows up halfway as a mini """boss""".
A new character is technically not new content, for a fighting game. Therefore it should just obsolete.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
If the character is different and slower, that may be argued to be a harder mode/higher challenge.
This argument could be made for a different base roster character also. Would the slowest base roster character be considered a harder mode/higher challenge?
I feel this would potentially make things even more confusing.
Interestingly, since characters represent clearly defined content, at the very beginning I wanted to simply allow all of them in standard. Then I thought about games that have a ton of chars, and those combined with other applicable standard branches made me like this option much less. So the only reason we don't allow all chars to co-exist is mostly logistical.
On the other hand, "savegame" always felt like a clear enough in-game distinction, and since it'd only result in one extra branch for every standard category, it felt much more natural to just allow it to exist even if the benefit is minimal.
If the benefit is 0, that to me means it doesn't matter if it's save anchored or not. And if the benefit is negative, I admit I've never thought of it until this new iteration of the talk, but the amount of things to be allowed is still minimal, so it's kinda fine.
Strictly speaking, it's a good point that we don't accept suboptimal chars to standard as "just harder mode", so that argument of mine probably doesn't work. But my main wish is featuring objectively different content with lowest limits that we can reasonably afford.
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 then that leaves the question of whether a run that prioritises IGT over TAS time should obsolete, or exist in a separate branch from, one that prioritises TAS time over IGT.
If aiming for IGT only makes gameplay longer without making it faster in more relevant segments, then we consider that it doesn't make sense to aim for IGT for a particular game, at least in standard. For example imagine spamming pause to prevent IGT from incrementing: that wouldn't make the competition more fair (like it does in Sonic games), it'd just add a conflict between different speed techniques.
Also IGT versus real-time is more just a timing method difference when the main content is mostly similar. If the difference is several hours worth of gameplay coming from a whole extra game completion (that is split off into a verification movie), then we can't say it's just a timing difference but a goal difference. And IGT is not a goal that is accepted to standard alongside its real-time counterpart, only to Alternative.
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.
In any case, it's effectively just NG vs. NG+, and it seems wrong to me that a NG+ run would obsolete a NG run. Just my two cents.
Only that it isn't. The only difference in terms of "new content" for a fighting game is that some titles has a rival character that shows up halfway as a mini """boss""".
A new character is technically not new content, for a fighting game. Therefore it should just obsolete.
Given that you described them both as new, the only logical conclusion from this is that characters aren't content, which is a weird thing to say about fighting games.
But ignoring that, in many cases NG+ does not add new content, it merely allows you to play using your character's state from a previous playthrough. What new content is added in Sonic 3 & Knuckles "newgame+" that wasn't there in Sonic 3 & Knuckles "Sonic 100%"? It's NG+ because it allows you to replay under conditions that aren't available when you first play the game.
Joined: 8/15/2005
Posts: 1934
Location: Mullsjö, Sweden
I think the most clear and logical ruleset you can have for any game is to have the run from a fresh unaltered save file, regardless if this is the fastest category or not. It should never be completely obsolete by a run which take advantage from having a save file.
Not saying that sram runs shouldn't exist.
The difference with how we're looking at it with the Fighting game genre is the new element being an unlocked character.
I can refer to Guilty Gear X: Advance Edition where Ky is obsoleted by Zato as they're both characters available form the start for an instance of a character that wasn't unlocked.
I can also refer to Digimon Rumble Arena where an unlocked character wasn't allowed, and instead a character that's available from the start would have been preferred instead.
But we're in the new site era now where we have a new submission that's using an unlocked character in Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance which should outright obsolete the Kenshi run and be the preferred run. But isn't for some reason.
A character name as a branch implies we would accept and publish every character. Which isn't good on the site side, as Judges and Publishers will have to deal with a "mess" of fighting game TASes.
But I already experimented with that idea with 5 separate characters in Tekken 3 and they're ineligible to be accepted due to Yoshimitsu (and that puddle can get muddier, but let's avoid that puddle) and of course Guilty Gear X as I referred to earlier.
In my opinion the character should obsolete the other regardless if they're an unlocked character or not and if they're an unlock then they should have the tag of well in this case `Second quest/Post game-completion`. We have tags, we should make the tags work at the very least, we still make new ones to this day.
This allows it to be simplified, and any other run from an unlocked roster or a standard one can instead go to Playground whilst the actual fastest can obsolete one another.
This also allows another type of branch for fighting games, where you have the fastest character, a playaround and then "all endings", at least for the fighting games that show off different endings.
SRAM should obsolete, but only for Fighting Games, and the information has to be very clear about it in the Publication. It will also cause the least amount of headaches.
tl;dr what I wrote.
Is unlock character faster?
> Yes
Obsolete.
I just fully agree and wish there were special rules for some genres and will copypasta my examples of current abuse of the current system:
My general point is there's a recurrent treatment of fighting games as if they were single player games when it comes to rule standards, and that correct treatment for some genres of games would be based on the actual game community suggestion and not some judge which barely plays the genre. Some communities consider the base game on clear save to be incomplete and dont make distinctions for runs with more and less character options. I can only give these specific examples:
These games don't have content enough sometimes and devs use the unlocking to expand gametime artificially. The Nitara run is an example that the TASes based on the full game roster( which is not a secret char or Boss char intended for CPU only play to create challenge) wouldn't allow a Kenshi run to be published on MKDA if we go by the best records for the game as a whole in Arcade mode. Because we weren't confident in verification movies, SJ went for Kenshi despite being HIGH tier but slower char. Moloch if ever available should DEFINITELY BE A SEPARATE CATEGORY in case he became faster. Nitara is considered trash tier despite her amazing damage, the hitboxes and frame data are bad!
In MK Deception, we have 2 unpublished runs (Liu Kang and Ashrah) which are far better than the published one. Because it was easier to get it published, a lesser Ashrah run was made. How is it lesser? Because of the lack of verication movie, SJ foregoes a better stage selection, we're not entirely sure if Liu Kang or Ashrah is the best but we know we don't have the best stages currently. If we were to go with base roster rule..., we would still need sram for UNLOCKS STAGES. It's not optimal to play without the stages, but once again, for lack of confidence in verifcation movies. His Ashrah run beats by 1 second i believe my Liu Kang TAS and both beat the current TAS. Now tell me who in the fucking world wants to see a slower Ashrah run because of stage selection? We wanted our good runs published, but we had to go back and play fucking hours of konquest and extras to fulfill the moviefile.
the Liu Kang run was actually sent and had the savefile to sync as well! but it had no verfication movie.
Finally, I get the point when it comes to branching as a solution, but as a player i feel discouraged to try my best to know that i could ve just took the easier way and got the movie published with known worse strats. In fact, some games would be impossible to know how good the clean SRAM TAS is because literally nobody fucking uses that. The Fzero series i'm not sure they ever used starter cars but that would be an ironic sight to see, a movie full of not used strats that aren't comparable to the actual speedruns beucase of tasvideos branching for worse options that are only considered as they were in the immediate base game. Only reason they're published is that, not because they make up for entertaning runs, in fact the runs that would obsolete the older ones are more varied. Both Nitara MKDA is way less repetitive and ASHRAH AND LIU KANG MK DECEPTION TASes are much more interesting as well as they also use glitches.
TL;DR The slower runs are here because you wanted to enforce a specific ruleset that doesn't respect the ruleset from the game's specific speedrunning or competitive community. Not because the community values worse and slower runs. Branching will let people find the slower irrelevant runs for no good reason.
I think i might abuse this loophole in the future so if you keep the SRAM CLEAR and THE SRAM anchored movies both, prepare for trouble! I advise you to heed my warning
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
I think i might abuse this loophole in the future so if you keep the SRAM CLEAR and THE SRAM anchored movies both, prepare for trouble! I advise you to heed my warning
Exactly what is the point of this threat?
If it’s ultimately decided to have both types of runs accepted, it’s still only 2 standard publications for any given game:
1) most optimal base roster character
2) most optimal unlocked character
I think i might abuse this loophole in the future so if you keep the SRAM CLEAR and THE SRAM anchored movies both, prepare for trouble! I advise you to heed my warning
Exactly what is the point of this threat?
If it’s ultimately decided to have both types of runs accepted, it’s still only 2 standard publications for any given game:
1) most optimal base roster character
2) most optimal unlocked character
and you shall have so whenever possible!
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
No one on staff is going to complain about obtaining more publishable content for the site that meets site rules/guidelines.
Well, I'm still going to complain about the threat itself. Silly as it may be to threaten a content site with content, the tone is not acceptable.
KusogeMan wrote:
I think i might abuse this loophole in the future so if you keep the SRAM CLEAR and THE SRAM anchored movies both, prepare for trouble! I advise you to heed my warning
We've heard your takes, and took the effort to understand your position, even though you didn't make the discussion easy or pleasant for us in any way by being combative, going off on tangents, and so on. So adding this line already after a mod had to intervene to calm everyone down is very much not appreciated.
If we ever find ourselves in a disagreement, approaching it diplomatically is the only acceptable way to resolve it. Twisting the staff's hand to get what you want will get you promptly ejected off the spaceship instead. So let this be the first and last time I see you do this.
Please don't confuse fighting games with fighting over games. We want the former, not the latter.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
TL;DR The slower runs are here because you wanted to enforce a specific ruleset that doesn't respect the ruleset from the game's specific speedrunning or competitive community. Not because the community values worse and slower runs. Branching will let people find the slower irrelevant runs for no good reason.
What if a game has multiple communities with conflicting rulesets? Splits happen all the time because of differences in opinions on what the rules should be.
How many games' speedrunning or competitive communities time runs from power on? Should we stop doing that too?
Let's take a look at the Mega Drive Road Rash games on SRC as an example. Road Rash 1 has categories for Level 1, Level 1 & 2, and a custom "Rash Mode" category that isn't recognised by the game at all, but no category for actually... beating the game. Road Rash 2 has each Level individually (but only using specific passwords, meaning you could beat these times in a full game run), and Level 1 & 2 and Rash Mode again, and still no full game category. Road Rash 3 has each Level individually, and, finally, a full game category (marked as "100%"). They don't even agree on timing rules between games.
If I were to submit a Road Rash TAS, could I just do Level 1 & 2 and call it a day, because that's what the Road Rash "community" has agreed on, even though it doesn't even come close to beating the game? But then it wouldn't be good enough for Road Rash 3, which doesn't have that category, and would require either stopping earlier, or actually beating the game.
What if the categories changed? Do we have to reject TASes that were technically excellent and completed the game because some other people not part of the TASVideos community changed their minds on what counts as a category?
This is one of the larger problems I have with the user-driven speedrun sites in general, and I greatly appreciate what TASVideos does in terms of trying to create consistent rules that apply universally to all games. I really don't think "here's what other people do for this specific game" should dictate what's done on the site or encourage game-specific rules.
No one on staff is going to complain about obtaining more publishable content for the site that meets site rules/guidelines.
Well, I'm still going to complain about the threat itself. Silly as it may be to threaten a content site with content, the tone is not acceptable.
KusogeMan wrote:
I think i might abuse this loophole in the future so if you keep the SRAM CLEAR and THE SRAM anchored movies both, prepare for trouble! I advise you to heed my warning
We've heard your takes, and took the effort to understand your position, even though you didn't make the discussion easy or pleasant for us in any way by being combative, going off on tangents, and so on. So adding this line already after a mod had to intervene to calm everyone down is very much not appreciated.
If we ever find ourselves in a disagreement, approaching it diplomatically is the only acceptable way to resolve it. Twisting the staff's hand to get what you want will get you promptly ejected off the spaceship instead. So let this be the first and last time I see you do this.
Please don't confuse fighting games with fighting over games. We want the former, not the latter.
It's a very simple issue, some people consider the branch solution to be elegant. I don't. But I can't make you do this or that, i'm just a random user.
Instead of arguing, I'll think of the possibilites and make an effort and create content which is passable in one rule but not the other. You'll measure the result and tell me that i was in fact wrong or right, that we are going towards a more varied publishing or that it's not better to be publishing both runs.
Do you believe this to be a fair approach that doesn't offend any parties?
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Instead of arguing, I'll think of the possibilites and make an effort and create content which is passable in one rule but not the other. You'll measure the result and tell me that i was in fact wrong or right, that we are going towards a more varied publishing or that it's not better to be publishing both runs.
Do you believe this to be a fair approach that doesn't offend any parties?
Sure, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
