Let's go with completing all the discs. But what does that actually entail here? I would like to tas from beginning to end, from the start of the first disc all the way to the end of the third disc. So as far as a stopping point when switching discs should it be the very next frame after I press fire to defeat the last enemy in the first disc? Should it be the very frame after the last save point? Or should it be after the credits? And yes, each of these discs has its own credits as though they are individual games.
1) Are each of these discs individual completable games?
2) If not and if these should all be considered one long contiguous game, then at what point should I switch discs from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3?
What's the minimal required action in the previous disk that would properly continue in the next one? Is there any in-game prompt to swap a disk?
I think it makes sense to play them individually as separate goals, and then one continuous play as yet another goal since the game lets you carry over your stats.
The minimal required action to get to the next one is...nothing. There are no requirements needed to start up the next disc. However if you don't load the previous game's data then you lose out on powerups, but the saving and loading takes long and the powerups are typically not worth the time tradeoff. There is no in-game prompt to swap to the next disc.
Sorry saw your replay late.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11672
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
CoolHandMike wrote:
However if you don't load the previous game's data then you lose out on powerups, but the saving and loading takes long and the powerups are typically not worth the time tradeoff.
Then maybe 3-in-1 is not worth it for standard? There, savegame only makes sense if it makes things quicker.
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.
However if you don't load the previous game's data then you lose out on powerups, but the saving and loading takes long and the powerups are typically not worth the time tradeoff.
Then maybe 3-in-1 is not worth it for standard? There, savegame only makes sense if it makes things quicker.
The Movie Rules article says that ROM hacks need to be in a "well-known database" and then lists some examples. I imagine this extends to homebrew titles if I'm not mistaken. The game I'm TASing is currently only released on GitHub. Does this count as a "well-known database"?
Edit: The game is also listed as a "beta". Would it still be acceptable to submit this TAS?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11672
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Homebrews are judged like normal games, there's no database for them like there are for hacks.
Prerelease versions are fine if there's no release ones, and they may be obsoleted by the movie of the latter.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I'm interested in getting a grand prix TAS published for the game F-Zero GX.
I wanted to get verification on two speed-entertainment trade-offs that will probably need to be noted.
Nearly every GX TAS in existence imposes these two restrictions because they change the gameplay so drastically.
1. No Hyper speed side attacks (HSSA): by alternating the accelerator and side attack button every frame you can spam side attacks faster than the usual cap of one every 8 frames.
A run that uses this technique will typically spam it to gain height and pseudo-spacefly to the end of the lap.
Here is an example of HSSA in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRC4hYYRaz4
2. No major checkpoint/lap skips/spaceflying shortcuts (there is no official name for this tactic so it can go by a few different names. My good friend midiman proposed the term "Ultra Shortcuts" as a catch-all term for these types of exploits.
The game normally allows you to skip a certain number of checkpoints and you can even progress your checkpoint status while airborne.
However these flying shortcuts are different because they exploit the checkpoint system by flying through the air and precisely passing through specific checkpoint planes. This allows you to finish laps without traversing much of the track at all.
Midiman is easily the most knowledgeable person on this topic and has documented all the different types of spaceflying shortcuts. He also helped me write several scripts including this section that provides a quick overview on "Ultra Shortcuts"
"-Ultra Shortcuts
Ultra shortcuts are glitches that exploit the checkpoint system to allow massive lap skips without having to drive through the rest of the track. If you're currently somewhere before the 9th checkpoint and you could somehow teleport behind the starting line and drive across it, your lap will count. No other checkpoints are required. However, if you try to cross the starting line backwards, the game will subtract from its internal lap counter and won’t count your lap when you cross it again forwards, for obvious reasons. And going around the outside of it won't work because the starting line is actually a plane that extends indefinitely in all directions, so there’s no way to go backwards without crossing the plane itself… or is there?
As briefly mentioned in part 2 of this video series, First-Corner type shortcuts are just one of the types of shortcuts that make this possible. At the first corner are non-parallel checkpoint planes that, when extended indefinitely, eventually intersect with the starting line’s plane. As long as the first corner has fewer than 8 checkpoints, flying around this area will allow you to cross the starting line backwards without decrementing the game’s internal lap counter. Courses with 90 degree first corners are the easiest to spacefly on because the point where the planes intersect occurs right next to the starting line. This is just one of many ways a player can exploit the checkpoint system."
Here is an example of a spaceflying run. It clears one of the longest tracks in the game in 14 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-JdQU_7yY8&list=PLgBXlc-aPuyixmvCOiHb2blK_acGibqYB&index=14
-
So long story short restricting these techniques still allow for insanely fast times, but they would traverse more of the track and showcase much more of the gameplay.
Please let me know if these restrictions would be allowed on a published run because that is my ultimate goal. I can also provide more information if needed.
Thanks,
Sam
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11672
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
vsamxzero wrote:
1. No Hyper speed side attacks (HSSA): by alternating the accelerator and side attack button every frame you can spam side attacks faster than the usual cap of one every 8 frames.
A run that uses this technique will typically spam it to gain height and pseudo-spacefly to the end of the lap.
Here is an example of HSSA in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRC4hYYRaz4
Is there a video of how it'd look without HSSA? Not necessarily that same track, but ideally 1 with HSSA and 1 without for the same track.
vsamxzero wrote:
As briefly mentioned in part 2 of this video series
What series?
vsamxzero wrote:
So long story short restricting these techniques still allow for insanely fast times, but they would traverse more of the track and showcase much more of the gameplay.
Please let me know if these restrictions would be allowed on a published run because that is my ultimate goal. I can also provide more information if needed.
How much longer would a movie avoiding them both be compared to absolute fastest with them, approximately?
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.
Is there a video of how it'd look without HSSA? Not necessarily that same track, but ideally 1 with HSSA and 1 without for the same track.
Funnily enough I made a TAS for the same track that the HSSA TAS was made.
Fire Field Undulation with Fat Shark Using HSSA (Maxspeed) - 22"082 [TAS] by midiman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRC4hYYRaz4
Fire Field Undulation with Fat Shark No HSSA (Maxspeed) - 31"175 [TAS] by me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk0wiFxmn9Q&list=PLv6WH9UuWwlDanusfhglYBxJw-8RJyfyH&index=9
That first video may be the only TAS to use HSSA because no one seems interested in using it I guess. It saves a significant amount of time but that also varies depending on the track.
I'd like to revisit and improve that TAS some day but I can't imagine it going below 22 seconds.
feos wrote:
What series?
I've made a series of long form videos over the years that cover the history and discovery of advanced mechanics in GX. Midiman was a huge help in making them and provided all the information about spaceflying.
GROUND-BREAKING Discoveries That Changed F-ZERO GX FOREVER - [Part 2]
https://youtu.be/iTjh99dE87Y?si=EVv9avYu7FhCOyy4&t=1197
The part of the video referenced in that quote is at 19:57. It covers the discovery of Ultra Shortcuts and explains one of the first to be discovered called a "First Corner Shortcut".
feos wrote:
How much longer would a movie avoiding them both be compared to absolute fastest with them, approximately?
It is highly dependent on the track but spaceflying/HSSA will typically save a significant amount of time. The strategies they use have been optimized where they only have to fly the shortest distance possible to advance the checkpoint status and clear laps. Even RTA spaceflying runs will typically be faster than a non-flying TAS on most tracks since they don't have to actually traverse the track. The spaceflying video on Big Blue Ordeal I sent in the previous message is probably the most poignant example because you can complete the track by circling the very first corner on the track. A non-flying TAS couldn't possibly beat that time.
F-ZERO GX: MCTR (Flying) 12"925 [TAS]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGBgjO8VSL4
This might be the only spaceflying TAS ever made because all others choose not to do Ultra Shortcuts. A non-flying TAS hasn't been made for that track but it would probably be closer to 20 seconds.
This isn't always the case though. Some tracks can be optimized so much that they can beat the spaceflying times.
Sonic Oval is a short track that is famously the only case of the snaking WR (and the shaking TAS by extension) being slightly faster than the spaceflying WR.
F-ZERO GX: Snaking ~ Mute City - Sonic Oval - 0'24"790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVqUNXp64io
F-ZERO GX: Mute City - Sonic Oval - 0'11"245 【TAS】
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afE4xzKfSOs
This port town TAS is probably the peek of GX optimization while adhering to the two restrictions. It skips large sections of track but still manages to adhere to the checkpoint limit by strategically
returning to touch parts of the track to avoid exploding.
Looking at the description shows that CGN noted a third restriction for this run too. "No SpaceShaking" which is essentially shaking in the air to gain even more speed/height. I'm not sure if that should be a third restriction that should be noted. At this point even I am confused about how to handle all of this.
F-ZERO GX: Port Town - Aero Dive - 0'21"363 【TAS】
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMKhCh_pmhk
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11672
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
That's not a trade-off then, but an entirely new goal, because gameplay is vastly different. Sounds like a great goal for the Alternative class, I just can't come up with a nice label for it that wouldn't be too long and still specify the 2 avoided tricks.
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.
On a different matter, I see the old pacifist "low level" was relabel just "pacifist" but the new one is still label "pacifist, luck mode" and does not obsolete it, what gives ?
Sorry to ask again but its been a month, is theres something blocking obsoleting the old tas with the new one? luck mode only improve the time as the movie not using it was sent into playground for that very reason.
On a different matter, I see the old pacifist "low level" was relabel just "pacifist" but the new one is still label "pacifist, luck mode" and does not obsolete it, what gives ?
Sorry to ask again but its been a month, is theres something blocking obsoleting the old tas with the new one? luck mode only improve the time as the movie not using it was sent into playground for that very reason.
Can you provide a link to the movie you're taking about, and also a link to the movie it is supposed to obsolete?
Its the same goal, we talked a lot about it 2 pages earlier in this very thread, I can do a non-luck mode movie and the only difference would be that its slower, I dont see the point tho.
I dont see the point neither to have multiple branches for pacifist, or at least that was the conclusion presented here.
The advantage in question is a stat difference and is unrelated to the pacifist objective, its a speed purpose.
The old movie does 5 kills so its 2 kills more than the new, aside the speed difference.
I would also like to point out that almost all the others branches use that code, including "baseline".
If for a reason or another, you want more branches for pacifist, I will do it (obsolote without the code...) but lets just state it properly then.
This movie : #9534: arukAdo's PSX Castlevania: Symphony of the Night "pacifist, AXEARMOR code" in 19:56.08
Is as close as to not use the code, you gonna say it still use a code, yes, but the point is those are the stats you get from not using luck code, not using the axe armor code will only lead to 10-30 seconds slower for using a trick in a different room and with a slower technique; the whole rest will be identic.
Its the same goal, we talked a lot about it 2 pages earlier in this very thread, I can do a non-luck mode movie and the only difference would be that its slower, I dont see the point tho.
I dont see the point neither to have multiple branches for pacifist, or at least that was the conclusion presented here.
The advantage in question is a stat difference and is unrelated to the pacifist objective, its a speed purpose.
The old movie does 5 kills so its 2 kills more than the new, aside the speed difference.
I would also like to point out that almost all the others branches use that code, including "baseline".
If for a reason or another, you want more branches for pacifist, I will do it (obsolote without the code...) but lets just state it properly then.
This movie : #9534: arukAdo's PSX Castlevania: Symphony of the Night "pacifist, AXEARMOR code" in 19:56.08
Is as close as to not use the code, you gonna say it still use a code, yes, but the point is those are the stats you get from not using luck code, not using the axe armor code will only lead to 10-30 seconds slower for using a trick in a different room and with a slower technique; the whole rest will be identic.
If you a submit a pacifist movie faster than 2657 and don't use any code, then that will obsolete 2657. If you use any codes, minimal in effect as they may be, it will be categorized as a different goal.
That's my last word on the matter. I will defer to Senior Judges should any further inquiries be made in this topic.
Im fine with it, just wanted to make sure.
eien86 wrote:
If you a submit a pacifist movie faster than 2657.
Or kill less, right?
It happen to be faster anyway so I guess thats just extra cherry on the cake.
Would this duplicate every other branches as well? the baseline im working on does use luck mode like the published movie, but theres no "luck code" category attached to it (or the other branches).
But would a nocode run been a seperate category ?
Im fine with it, just wanted to make sure.
eien86 wrote:
If you a submit a pacifist movie faster than 2657.
Or kill less, right?
It happen to be faster anyway so I guess thats just extra cherry on the cake.
Would this duplicate every other branches as well? the baseline im working on does use luck mode like the published movie, but theres no "luck code" category attached to it (or the other branches).
But would a nocode run been a seperate category ?
Yes. A movie with fewer kills will obsolete the current pacifist, no matter how much slower it might be. The primary criteria is how pacific it is. Only when pacifism is equal does time decide.
Yes. The use of codes will translate to alternative categories, no matter what the base goal is (pac, any%, etc). The total number of possible goals is the Cartesian product of codes (not) used x base goals.
