So the next question is, do past runs impact what future runs may be submitted? If so, objectively, this run needs to be accepted, as the polls not only do not matter but a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Acumenium wrote:
Objectively, an auto-scroller or any point in a game where you have to wait for something to occur is not entertaining.
Acumenium wrote:
Yes, a few of the tricks were entertaining and not seen elsewhere... then nothing happens, for minutes at a time. Objectively, that isn't interesting.
Link to video
I think you mean in your opinion, rather than objectively. That's why you're not faced with complete agreement: entertainment is a matter of opinion, not facts.
For example, I think that autoscrollers can be the most entertaining part of a run, as you have the freedom to show off strategies and glitches that aren't part of the fastest movement. This movie is a good example: [4452] SNES Tiny Toon Adventures: Buster Busts Loose! by EZGames69 in 18:48.52Acumenium wrote:
a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
Do you also have a problem with the 38 published "maximum score" runs? The Starred Ikaruga movie achieves a score of 50,230,200, and this Touhou movie achieves a score of 2,429,908,660: I'm sure these scores may one day be beaten, but these movie completed their goals all the same!
See also the 5 published "Low%" runs. In particular, Super Metroid had a 14% movie obsoleted by a 13% movie: you can objectively measure an improvement here, despite a movie goal that aims to minimise something other than time.
What I'm trying to make clear is that these goals are not "literally arbitrary, everchanging". They're aiming to minimise or maximise something, just like fastest completion movies aim to minimise time. Do all fastest completion movies complete a game in a known minimum number of frames? Of course not! The goal is to aim for the minimum or maximum of something, and if that's one day improved, that's... well, the goal of the site to showcase :)
Hopefully that explains how unusual goals can still be measured objectively. A 62 A press movie would be a clear improvement to that other publication. You're allowed to find that movie boring, but that wasn't the consensus, and it's goal choice certainly doesn't mean that this run needs to be accepted. For complaints about that movie, this thread isn't the place.
I wouldn't say I used it wrong at all. In the first example, it is objective that this run should be accepted if we agree on another mentioned reason of "past runs impact what is accepted in the future".
I have never seen auto-scrollers be called "entertaining" since they demonstrate exactly no player ability or skill. Twirling around, repetitive jumps, hops, ducking/etc. for minutes on end, that's not particularly entertaining to keep seeing. When you're waiting for disappearing blocks or whatever to come back, sure, but for minutes, it falls flat, because there's little that can be entertaining about seeing a game play itself.
Touhou/Ikaruga and other bullet hell games avoid this by making the screens actually significant and involve player interaction on every screen, similar to Double Dragon or something but without the ability to "breathe" between enemy screens. The tank stages or airship spaces of Mario 3 require you to press A a few times every 30 seconds, sometimes holding right. They're not particularly interesting.
I guess we can split the difference but I'm pretty sure most would agree that watching paint dry (or watching nothing at all happen for minutes in a video game) is, objectively, boring. The issue is, if it's okay for it to be boring. If you're doing a 100% runthrough of Pokemon Emerald, there's a spot where you literally have to wait for two minutes in place. That's boring, but required for the goal. To be fair, it is also only two minutes in a many hour video... whereas in the ABC challenge, it IS the run.
So should it be accepted on the basis that it is entertaining or on the basis that it achieves a complicated subgoal? If the latter, then this run should be accepted. If the former, I have a lot of questions.
Those should be called "high score" runs. I have no issue with their existence but calling them "maximum score" sounds awfully absolute unless you're absolutely sure they will never be beaten---if that's the case, I'm not sure why you mentioned them being one day beaten?
Low% is objectively measurable, as the game actually does keep track. Completely fair for 13% to obsolete 14%. I wouldn't really compare it to this, unless SMB1 had a tracker for A button presses.
The SNES version of A Link To The Past has no tracker for how many times you've taken damage, or how many times you've used [x] item (sword included). Making a no damage run or no sword run an arbitrary goal.
The GBA version of A Link To The Past DOES have a tracker for both, although it requires beating the bonus dungeon to see. It can be accessed and fully played through with zero bugs or quirks with an easy warp glitch though, if you don't want to or can't play Four Swords. This makes a no damage or no sword run not arbitrary similar to the low% goal of Super Metroid, as the game actually DOES keep track, making it a score that can be objectively measured.
A low level run of an RPG like Final Fantasy is arbitrary as it has no clearly defined goal and what is considered "low level" will change. A no random battle run, however is not (similar to the never pressing B button SMB1 run) and in recent remasters or re-releases, is something they support entirely with enabling "no random battles" via a button press!
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Acumenium wrote:
A lot of nonsense
Entertainment is subjective and most humans beings simply don't find this run to be entertaining enough to justify a new category. It offers some nice walljump combos but that's about it. The same does not apply to the other run, and you can't change that by stating it offers "no entertainment value and just waits in a floor for ten minutes".
Your absolute cognitive inability to get a grasp on reality is putting you among the most unbearable people to ever have joined this site. Stop repeating the same wrong statements and get over the fact that most people don't share your sense of entertainment.
You're being highly disruptive---trolling, as it is. Editing quotes to appear as a "lot of nonsense".
Objectively, the other run waits in a floor for minutes... and minutes...
Is this supposed to be entertaining? If so, why? And how?
Here's my bottom line here (since as usual, I don't actually matter at all here as the verdict was already reached) before I get yelled at again for other people being rude and disruptive: This run should be rejected only on the basis it does not complete its goal---as in, if someone can prove it has a single jump that went too long and was not actually "the minimum" it could be. Any other rejection reason makes no sense given that the ABC run was accepted.
Acumenium, chill with your attitude. You are being extremely disruptive.
I have not responded to anyone with rudeness or hostility, despite receiving exactly that.
Or are you saying I am not allowed to respond to people directly talking to me because of their tone?
Using the current polls for accepted runs when they're for whatever reason not closed after accepting is funny. I've personally voted No on a great many videos long after they were accepted, even though the Poll itself now means nothing.
The point still stands---this run should absolutely be accepted if a similar run that consists of no entertainment value of just waiting in a floor for ten minutes was accepted.
The only reason this run should be rejected is if it failed to complete its goal, as in, if it had some jumps that went longer than actually required.
when entertainment level is not and cannot be an objective thing
To a certain point, it could be. Objectively, an auto-scroller or any point in a game where you have to wait for something to occur is not entertaining. That is the entirety of the "press A 63 times" run.
And yes, I'll keep calling it that! It's the only way you can make it not arbitrary since it's a clearly defined goal that isn't random or amorphous. If you want it to not be called arbitrary, it's the "press A 63 times" run then. You can't have it be both not arbitrary and not "press A 63 times".
"Most Judges" didn't agree with anything. It only takes one, and that's all that happened. "Most voters" didn't agree with anything, even the Judges agree that the poll is poorly understood and poorly utilized. "Most commenters" were literally defending the run's right to be submitted rather than saying anything about the actual run.
Adelikat found five whole seconds of the ten minute waitfest entertaining? Wow, put it in Stars then! /s Yes, a few of the tricks were entertaining and not seen elsewhere... then nothing happens, for minutes at a time. Objectively, that isn't interesting. There are a whole host of interesting or entertaining glitches or tricks that runs here do not use, because they either lose time or cause softlocks. Should we have softlock% as a branch now?
The irony of a troll going after me for using the word "arbitrary" (which I don't think I was even the first to use when referring to challenge/variant runs) as they myopically cherry pick and focus on minor details to "get the win".
Samsara.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=505232#505232
Although not mentioning a ratio, the page for Moons is interesting: http://tasvideos.org/Moons.html
"The dominant criterion here is entertainment value to the users. This will be assessed via votes, comments, and views."
"comments"
Comments defending a run's right to be submitted... don't sound very good for a run meant to provide entertainment.
"These movies must be impressive, attempt to entertain the audience even when it does not save time."
Who does waiting in the floor for enemies to move impress? Apparently, not the talkative viewerbase.
First of all, I disagree. I believe those submissions have yes votes because people see those submissions as worth voting yes for, and I have no reason to think otherwise. (Same with no and meh votes.)
Second, even if people vote for options for whatever reasons, it's not like we (who are not judges) can do anything about it. Why care so much about an online poll?
Third, those submissions are accepted, published and done with. It's time to move on.
It's true, most of the time the polls aren't actually understood by anyone voting. Why didn't the aforementioned SMB3 video get Moons, though? The Judges took it upon themselves to ignore the results of a poll that had the over 80% ratio that is supposed to mean Moons?
The poll needs to actually matter and be concise. Is it a "should this run be accepted" poll, or is it "was this entertaining"? Why is the poll used as both? When the Judge randomly decides to ignore the results of a poll or to change what the poll means, why get annoyed when people are saying "Yes vote, should be submitted. Not entertaining"? They're the ones muddying the waters and complaining that it's muddy?
Yes, the wait-in-walls/ABC run was already accepted, but using the same logic that accepted it, this run should be, too.
We now know that polls do not matter whatsoever for entertainment (comments for the wait-in-walls/ABC run weren't particularly positive, most just defending its right to be submitted) if the Judge does or doesn't like a video.
So the next question is, do past runs impact what future runs may be submitted? If so, objectively, this run needs to be accepted, as the polls not only do not matter but a run with a literally arbitrary, everchanging goal was accepted.
feos wrote:
We've spent several pages explaining to you how it works and why "known minimum" is not "arbitrary number". You've lost that argument there and you're repeating the same nonsense once again in a different place. Stop it.
Yo Venom, who's "we"?
And yes, "known minimum" is the definition of arbitrary.
Arbitrary:
- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Both "jumping with the shortest height possible whenever prompted to jump" and "jumping as few times as currently known to be possible" are both arbitrary goals. Actually, one may argue the former isn't, as it has a clear answer (especially if it is disallowing entering walls/etc.) whereas the latter does not, meaning it isn't an inherently personal whim or random choice but within a clearly defined system.
The same logic would apply to make "walkathon" not an arbitrary goal as it has a clearly defined goal.
You cannot tell me with any seriousness that the wait-in-walls/ABC challenge had a serious poll where the people who voted thought it meant a poll for entertainment when it is a boring ten minutes of waiting inside the floor waiting for enemies to finally move and almost every comment is defending the run's right to be submitted rather than a single comment on the actual video.
Good luck! In my experience with the prequel, OoB routes are mostly TAS-only (this game also has OoB), so you're likely forced to change much of the route (using the OoB visualization script). Just like the previous game, much of it is unexplored, so you probably will find something new.
OoB cannot be accessed quite as easily as in WL2, since wall clipping into a closed space makes Wario crouched and unable to jump. Instead, you need to get into a transformation that allows Wario to stand in the wall without crouching and jump beyond the bounds of the level. The only actual out of bounds I have accessed so far in this TAS is a shortcut in S3 Red, which can be seen in the WIP video I posted (about 46 minutes in).
It is true, there is plenty of unexplored OoB in the game, but judging from what everyone's discovered so far, getting anything OoB takes way too long in comparison with the intended way. Since the goal of this TAS is to ultimately get every treasure and every music coin, sequence breaking accomplishes very little besides overworld optimization. If you are thinking of other tricks, like wall clips, transformation climbs, and the screen scroll glitch (all of which can be done in WL2 afaik), then rest assured there is plenty of that in here.
Anyway, I had to take a short break from this over the weekend and some of last week, but at the moment I have finished 67 levels, and the movie clocks in at about 1 hour and 37 minutes. The levels only get longer from here, and I still have 15 levels with music coins to collect.
I'll probably upload a 4th WIP after I get 75 treasures, and I encourage everyone who sees this or the previous WIP to look for improvements that I may have missed.
When you're trying to go for all treasures, it is true OoB isn't (as) helpful. That being said, are there any areas where you can get power-ups earlier and remove the need to backtrack? Or skip boss battles? I believe ISM's run skipped a great many bosses by glitchy jumps or phasing through some walls, etc.
I imagine this was probably already mulled over though.
Had no idea you posted your WIP to YouTube---misread it for a userfile. Gotta check this out! WL3 is one of my favorite games!
Well, as a non-vaultable category it has to be entertaining enough to make it into Moons. If it doesn't, the nature of the category does not even have to be considered by the judge.
I feel entertainment isn't the main focus here since we have a run where someone waits in the floor for 5+ minutes of the same levels and almost the exact same screens (some differ) as the warps any% and had almost no actual run discussion other than arguing if it should even be added.
It had "Yes" votes because of who submitted it. The same reason anything Masterjun submissions gets tons of Yes votes, even if there is literally NOTHING that can be entertaining (unless you just wanted to see the credits real fast?)
So what were the votes on that?
- No 25% [ 27 ]
- Yes 59% [ 62 ]
- Meh 15% [ 16 ]
A popular game submitted by popular authors will get lots of votes. The key difference is that Masterjun's SMB3 is not an arbitrary goal---the poll and thread were to determine Moons, which it, for whatever reason, got.
The SMB1 arbitrary jump amount got Moons due to votes because people saw HappyLee and SMB1. The actual thread no one commented on its interest factor---because there just isn't any, it's literally waiting in a floor for just over half of the run.
Should this run in this thread be accepted?
Yeah, if the arbitrary jump amount one was, and it was.
No, but I'm a constitutionalist and free speech absolutist.
But here you are trying to control other people's speech?
Or is it only your speech you want to be free, Mr. Cruz?
Hate speech also isn't a new concept. It's just that it's actually applied to people and without fear of the death penalty.
In the 1700s you'd be put to death for saying "That King George guy, weird one isn't he?", note the lack of anything actually bad. In the 2010s you'd be publicly judged for saying a homophobic slur (which is actually offensive) about people who actually matter---commoners. No death penalty though.
You're not pro-freedom of speech, you're just pro-freedom from consequences. You have every right to speak your mind. Everyone else has every right to disengage with you if they don't like what you're saying and, if you represent someone or something (a company), people have every right to disengage with said entity.
No one is indebted to give you peace of mind. No one is indebted to pay you. No one is indebted to engage with you.
A co-author should be someone who directly contributed input to the run.
As I mentioned, when talking about timed key press files, "copyright" is a fuzzy area which, as far as I am aware, has never been tested or even opined about by copyright attorneys. It's not absolutely self-evident that it's copyrighted material.
Consider, for example, that the game recording (eg. in algebraic notation) of a chess game by two people is not copyrighted, even if it's novel and unique. This example comes awfully close to the keypress recording of a speedrun.
I wouldn't ever think to apply copyright to a speedrun. That would be vague at best (trying to copyright a strategy or form of playing a video game?) and disastrous at worst since you're... kind of saying you own a copyright of a copyrighted video game...
I was referring purely to the listed authorship of one here---it seems that it should go to people who directly contributed to the input file.
If all I did was offer suggestions or even a strategy, but did not play it, and contributed 0 input, I'm not an author. I wouldn't expect anyone to list me as such.
There was recently (once again) a discussion about "arbitrary goals" (and "arbitrary restrictions"), and when is a goal too arbitrary.
IMHO this categorizes as such.
The issue is that it isn't any more or less arbitrary than a "currently-known-minimum amount of A button presses".
This run being rejected feels awkward unless one can prove it didn't use the bare minimum amount of height for each jump (if he held A for 9 frames when 7 or 8 would've sufficed, etc.) since it's, again, no more or no less arbitrary than the accepted "minimum A button challenge".
This runthrough is not "jump as few times as possible", it's "use only the least amount of height when prompted". Does it meet that goal?
"63 A button presses" (the current theorized minimum without ACE)
I know it's easy to mix up games, but I'm not aware of anything in SMB1 that can be termed "ACE" in any way, even if we tried to stretch the definition of ACE beyond all reason.
Super Mario Bros., like many NES games, likely has an ACE vulnerability in the form of a DPCM attack, like its sequel's sequel, Super Mario Bros. 3.
SMB2 also features DPCM ACE per this GitHub I found in the submission for the above SMB3 run. It seems illogical to think it only appeared in SMB2 and SMB3, with SMB1 being free from it.
I voted Meh. It's far more entertaining than the other A button-related category as it's not 5 minutes of waiting inside walls, but on the other hand, it just ends up being the warps run with about 15 more seconds on it?
Hard to call this arbitrary if "63 A button presses" (the current theorized minimum without ACE) is allowed.
It warms my heart to see this TAS. Red/Blue always seemed like the most fertile ground of the Gen 1-2 glitchless runs to test out alternative routes, and I was disappointed when only Nidoran was pursued originally.
Some notes from the RTA perspective:
For mainswitching, the Safari poke of choice was usually L33 Nidorino (then immediately evolved into Nidoking). Clefable had also been considered by some as an intermezzo between Squirtle and Nidoking; certainly interesting to see it came out a bit faster in a TAS setting.
Leaving aside the question of RNG manipulation, the biggest issue for non-Nidoking pokes has been "safe redbar" for the lategame. Nidoking is rather uniquely suited to keep redbar for the entire lategame, due to several places with consistent AI abuse to help setup on fights. (Tauros has some additional issues, being underlevelled and vulnerable to encounters in Celadon Mansion and Victory Road.)
Out of curiosity, did you attempt a full-game Nidoran TAS? I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were 52 seconds to save on the published TAS from fully bruteforcing the luck manipulation, but from the writeup it seems like it would have run counter to your objectives with this TAS. (Edit: TiKevin83 says he'd estimate 15-20 seconds from bruteforcing, and he'd know better than me.)
Regardless, as someone whose foray into speedrunning was attempting to break up the "tyranny" of the Nidoran route, I'm happy to see this as the route that made it to the workbench. There are a lot of creative routing ideas out there for Red/Blue Glitchless in particular, and this hopefully will inspire more of them.
This isn't only meant as a reply to you but in general, it does apply though.
IIRC Nidoran being king of Gen 1 stems from Yellow, where the starter (Pikachu) is not very helpful and can't even harm Brock until significant grinding is done to endure a slow Quick Attack-fest. Additionally, it learns Double Kick at 12, which is pretty early, and handles Brock very well. It can also be caught at Lv6, and trained via Pidgeotto encounters which award a colossal 148 EXP. One Pidgeotto sends Nidoran-M to Lv8, enough to get Horn Attack, a strong Normal-type attack.
In R(G)B, it learns Poison Sting and not Double Kick, and is caught at Lv4. No Pidgeotto encounters either. So the highest non-trainer EXP yield (and you have less rewarding trainers and less trainers period) is like 53 or something.
Yellow was generally agreed on by most speedrunners to be the definitive "glitchless" one due to having slightly more content, harder enemies (Gyms 5-7 are FAR harder, as are the Rival fights), and fixing (minor) glitches (being able to Dig/Escape Rope out of Bill's house and most gyms, etc.). It also has two timesaves where you get Charmander (Cut+Dig+Strength) above Cerulean, and Squirtle in Vermilion, who learns Surf (and Strength if it saves more time for Squirtle to have it instead) and is available far earlier than Lapras in Saffron.
However, I never really liked this concept of a "singular" game for Gen 1. I prefer Yellow in playthroughs as well but R(G)B have a unique experience compared too, as this run clearly shows. It's not like Emerald and Ruby/Sapphire, or something, where the separate games are more or less the same thing.
Yes vote. You were inspired by that recent LeafGreen run, weren't you? :D My dude Clefable is goin' over!
Who am I kidding? This is a TREMENDOUS reference. Except for 2 battles (the creator was either very patient or lucky), I was able to replicate his run, needing no leveling up and abusing critical its thanks to slow dialogues. I wonder if this had potential in other games
I think the Pokemon TASes sometimes use slower dialogues (it doesn't matter too much anyway since with proper button presses (which a TAS will have) they're all the same speed) for this reason and I believe other Dragon Quest games do too.
I'm really not sure how it differs from executing code and the discussions here and the glossing over in the submission text aren't helping. It seems to be the difference is program/payload size?
With just a few more swaps of memory values in the limited RAM editor of underflowed inventories, this run would easily achieve full-blown, Pong-writing ACE. It opts not to, but rather executes routines ("Game Corner prize counter") from arbitrary points in memory that are manipulated via accessible RAM addresses in the limited RAM editor (underflowed inventories).
This isn't even the game's actual Game Corner. A modified one was created with an entirely new prize table and even modified from there to make the first prize be an easily modified RAM address.
CPP keeps ducking the issue regarding "payload size" but it's entirely true. This isn't ACE to him because the payload is a small but heavily modified routine in the game (the Game Corner). If he made Pong though, it would be ACE.
I've said all I want at this point. I keep getting accused of not knowing how to read, or whatever, I don't really care.
Your submission text does absolutely nothing to abate these concerns. You're instead adamant it's not ACE because of some unknown (to this thread, I've seen it linked 0 times, maybe it's elsewhere but that's not on me to find out) .lua script that "detects ACE" as if it's some quantifiable measure.
Instead, you create two new terms no one has ever heard of and likely never will again, and assure us that this run "is not any of those either", being arbitrary ROM execution (what does this even mean?) and "arbitrary memory corruption", even though I think a 483-address RAM editor comes impressively close...
The run also has the mark of not being finished---you said it "saves to SRAM", no, it does not. If the trainer name doesn't end, or doesn't exist, like this one, no SRAM is saved. Even with a dead battery in place, beating Pokemon and reloading the game will still have your savefile provided you have not powered off the console. This isn't doing that. I can't recall if the underflowed inventories (party/bag/PC) allow you to fix this or not. I know the Rival's name can be altered, can't remember about the player.
Your own words, ironically, solidify this as ACE:
Arbitrary Code Execution: If the PC (Program Counter) touches any RAM currently visible on the system bus, it is ACE.
If the Program Counter being manipulated by a limited-address RAM editor touches any RAM currently visible in the limited-address RAM editor and associated pointer calls ("ID 59 for the Game Corner"), it is ACE.
I also find it highly disingenuous to be comparing these glitches to anything like the Mew/Long-Range Trainer Glitch, which load a battle with a Pokemon based on the Special of the last one fought, and a level (ranging from 1 to 14) based on the Attack stage of the same Pokemon. There's nothing particularly arbitrary, and the glitch itself has very limited scope of function, unlike this, which has a lot of freedom, and just a few more swaps allows full freedom.
It's really a shame IRC was moved... I understand that a policy was updated to have less bans, and hey, less bans... actually a good thing! Nobody would use hate speech in this kind of community, or talk about unlawful activities, so that is a good thing they removed the ban for those things. If they think certain things are cancel culture, fine. They can think that. Mocking and punishing the staff is not fine, though. That's one thing that makes me support the move. However, it's ok if they aren't open to criticism. Sometimes, even I struggle with taking criticism. I've found impersonations before, and I've been ok with them. However, the intent was not good. I just think that with less bans, it could be a better time. I do understand the reasons why the migration is happening, but I just wanted to put my view out here.
Cancel culture is a weird way of saying "I don't want to be personally responsible for what I do or what I say". It deflects blame for the actions of one on everyone else.
A co-author should be someone who directly contributed input to the run. If I suggested a path for a Dragon Quest 7 speedrun, I would like a credit as a matter of courtesy. I am not an author.
If my idea for contribution was a necessary function such as "turn the game on", I don't deserve credit, and I believe the above "Scènes-à-faire" example (although applying for copyright) proves this. If my idea was a carefully planned equipment set and exploitation of the RNG to make a boss endlessly attack itself instead of our party and no one to this date has really posted about it, I think I deserve credit.
If I handled any amount of input for the lengthy speedrun, I expect co-authorship.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Warp wrote:
(For example, the text and illustrations of a food recipe falls under copyright, but not the recipe itself. Anybody can copy the recipe and republish at as long as they use their own wording and, if there are any, their own images.)
And this is why the recipe of Coca Cola is kept in grand secret.
It changing every so often is a bigger reason why it's still allowed to be a secret---or rather, copyright. It also highlights a bad societal issue---we have an effectively useless FDA since companies are allowed to sell entirely unknown items as "foods" or "drinks".
It should be a law that we know what we are intaking---instead "water, sugar, caramel color, caffeine, natural flavors, artificial flavors" are what we're drinking, and what are "natural" or "artificial" flavors?
Well, the FDA is supposed to help with that, but...
Okay, we should probably cover something again then. What defines "executing RAM"?
The Program Counter ("PC") points to read/writable memory or I/O, which will cause the CPU will execute code from RAM. That is the objective definition for "executing RAM."
"Using the limited RAM editing capabilities of an underflowed inventory/party to create or trigger new functions (Invalid Game Corner with a fully editable reward table) isn't it?"
1. No.
2. This doesn't create a "new function." This triggers an already existing function with the wrong arguments essentially, which has the result you see in the TAS. As a note, you cannot arbitrarily control this invalid Game Corner, you have to use whatever ones that are already per-determined in ROM (which one invalid one happens to source prizes in underflowed bag space and take prize money from SRAM).-game func
"The underflowed inventories are literally a form of RAM editor. Very limited in scope---as I said earlier I think it's somewhere in the 480 range for what both combined can access, and there may be overlap, but the point still stands."
Well what do you think "memory manipulation" is? I don't get how this is a point.
"they're effectively executing arbitrary code"
No, they're not.
"New routines that didn't exist in the RAM"
I'm not sure why you keep saying "routines." Routines are code, and thus are meant to be executed. You are saying this TAS is inserting code into RAM and is executing it. It's not, and that can be objectively proven so, and you have not proven otherwise.
"thanks to it such as the (invalid) Game Corner and its prizes that can be altered based on a RAM address corresponding to the Repels."
Again, this isn't some function created in RAM to go create the Game Corner. It's a sign created, which has its text script point to someplace that has the text script ID which corresponds to the Game Corner, and the Game Corner ID is set to 59, which by luck happens to have prize data in underflowed inventory and price data in SRAM.
If you were to rearrange the RAM just slightly more than done here, you'd have full control. As it stands, you don't have full control as of this video, just 483 (255*2 -6 (Party Pokemon) and -21 (20 Items + Cancel)) addresses, if memory serves right.
At that point, what makes using ACE to trigger the credits (Super Mario World, Donkey Kong Country, etc.) actually "ACE"? I mean, you're just triggering an in-game function, aren't you? It's not like it's "total" control.
I would also like to point out that Pokemon can and often does run code (when using ACE) from SRAM. Is this still "ACE"? Or is SRAM not actually RAM?
Literally anything is "code". I keep saying "routine" because I fail to see what else I am supposed to call a created function from code, of which RAM of any kind can be if you execute it properly.
Let's reevaluate, shall we?
- The game features two Game Corner prize tables that award Pokemon. Prizes vary by version, but in this one, they award, in order:
- Prize Table #1: Abra (180C), Clefairy (500C), Nidorina (1200C) | Prize Table #2: Dratini (2800C), Scyther (5500C), Porygon (9999C)
Yours is not only located in the Celadon Game Corner, where the others are, it has a displayed prize table of:
- Tangela (39C), Vileplume (39C), Metapod (39C)
Additionally, yours is triggered via "a sign" (not an NPC), that seems to be triggered by some use of an item? In reality, the prize table for yours is for show, the first option seems to award something based on a memory address that the Repel count is tied to.
Again, this isn't some function created in RAM to go create the Game Corner. It's a sign created, which has its text script point to someplace that has the text script ID which corresponds to the Game Corner, and the Game Corner ID is set to 59, which by luck happens to have prize data in underflowed inventory and price data in SRAM.
...so, to reiterate:
- you did NOT create the Game Corner. You just created a sign where there was none that creates a (new) Game Corner based on manipulated memory.
I'm sorry, but what part of this isn't ACE? Arbitrary is the polite and honest way to describe how you're going about defining everything to, ironically, avoid it being called arbitrary (code execution)!
To make matters worse, even if this is accepted with your frankly flimsy reasoning defending it from being considered ACE (if it's not ACE, it's not ACE, the lengthier the "defense" against accusations goes the more flimsy the reasoning behind it not being it, looks), it shouldn't be accepted on the basis that it isn't even a proper completion. It doesn't---and can't save. That has absolutely no difference from a run crashing during the credits.
It's okay if it didn't have a battery, it's not required that the game hold the save, but this isn't even creating one.
Yes vote. It's so chaotic and just comes to a crazy end after a bizarre but entertaining setup. The annotations/documentation during the video also help it massively, IMO.
This should have the "executes arbitrary code" tag when it is submitted though since it seems to be reaching the end of the game the same way that it is done in Super Mario World, which has it.
I think, as the delineation mentioned in this thread by the run creator (CPP) was arbitrary and makes it seem as if ACE is only when a program is a certain size or if it hijacks the entire RAM (which I already proved is not how ACE is defined).
I never said that. I literally told you if any RAM is executed, it is ACE (with the minor exception of code intentionally placed by the game into RAM and executed is not ACE, unless said code is at all corrupted by the player and executed, in which case it does become ACE. The only code that can fall under this exception would be the OAM DMA routine the game places into FF80-FF89 of HRAM, which is not modified at all). This run does not violate this, despite your baseless claims that it does.
"it's calculated manipulation to run specific routines---you know, code execution?"
If you're saying that memory is manipulated then that manipulated memory is executed, then you are objectively wrong.
If you are talking about "memory is manipulated then code in ROM doesn't something unintentional" that can really end up just covering a ton of glitches. You can argue the previous run is covered under this too. As a reminder, the save corruption is not required to perform the FTL (Invalid Game Corner) strategy, it is performable without save corruption, save corruption just makes this faster.
"This is most definitely running customized routines (programs), they just aren't very big."
If you are going to keep making this claim, can you at least provide any sort of proof? Looking at the encode is not going to tell you what happens under the hood. Either go download the movie file, tell me which frame I could pull up the tracelogger and find ACE, or stop asserting this.
Okay, we should probably cover something again then. What defines "executing RAM"? Using the limited RAM editing capabilities of an underflowed inventory/party to create or trigger new functions (Invalid Game Corner with a fully editable reward table) isn't it? Why? When does "executing RAM" or "RAM manipulating" become such? The underflowed inventories are literally a form of RAM editor. Very limited in scope---as I said earlier I think it's somewhere in the 480 range for what both combined can access, and there may be overlap, but the point still stands.
You triggered, via swapping and altering memory values in the underflowed menus, a Game Corner that never existed, especially in a location where it never existed, with prizes that no existing Game Corner has. From there, you also, via swapping and altering memory values, altered what the new Game Corner has for prizes.
Basically, and I feel I've covered this enough (as have you), my issue is with the use of the underflowed menus. Those are essentially limited-function RAM editors, which means that they're effectively executing arbitrary code. I've already illustrated that ACE does not require it to be a big program or have total control. Pokemon is in a weird situation as you said where it is so buggy that conceivably many categories of what is or isn't ACE can be created, but at that point you're just delineating how much arbitrary code should be executed before it's a new category. New routines that didn't exist in the RAM before swapping and altering their values now exist thanks to it such as the (invalid) Game Corner and its prizes that can be altered based on a RAM address corresponding to the Repels.
However I also have to concede that due to the existence of the glitchless Co-Op Diploma run, I don't know what could exist alongside it other than a run that isn't full-blown altering the Pokedex count (like the original save corruption TAS that did it to 152 incidentally). Wouldn't relegating memory corruption (Mew Glitch/Cooltrainer/other non-underflow methods) for only the missing slots be terribly arbitrary?
A no trades full completion run (124 in RB, 129 in Y, IIRC) could be interesting I guess, but would it be redundant alongside a Co-Op Diploma?
Acumenium, it seems to me that you either haven't read my previous post to you, or decided for some reason that you shouldn't take it to heart because you didn't notice that I'm a moderator and you shouldn't ignore what a moderator says when they address you specifically. (I know it's not immediately evident, which is why I'm not holding that particular thing against you.) In any case, I see no significant changes in your conduct since that time, which is not a great thing. You still routinely make arguments without a proper understanding of the subject, you're being combative, and besides, it's getting really hard to understand what it even is that you're arguing.
So here's my task for you: limit your next post here to two short paragraphs. In the first paragraph, recap the things you're upset with in regards to this movie, its authors, or the judging process. In the second, propose what should be done instead or how it should be done. Do both without being combative or rude. If you have no such points to make, state so clearly. Even if you decide to drop the discussion here for any reason, the same task will apply to whatever next argument you make in any other thread.
This will determine whether you're even capable of stating your disagreements in a polite and concise manner, and hence how we should treat your presence on the site. It's in your best interests to demonstrate that you are, in fact, capable of doing this right.
If you want someone to be aware of your discussion to them, PMs work. I had no idea you gave me any sort of warning, moozooh. I stopped checking that thread because I realized I was wasting my time. I was speaking from a minority platform in the first place, and was well aware of that. There has also been zero hostility other than two minor comments where I felt CasualPokePlayer was being condescending and it could've merely been a misunderstanding.
I am very curious what exactly it is you think was "combative" or "hostile" here. Yes, I am in disagreement with labeling this as "not using ACE". I have outlined why that is pretty well, I think, as the delineation mentioned in this thread by the run creator (CPP) was arbitrary and makes it seem as if ACE is only when a program is a certain size or if it hijacks the entire RAM (which I already proved is not how ACE is defined). This is most definitely running customized routines (programs), they just aren't very big. You know it is possible for people to disagree civilly, right? Memory corruption would fall more under the "reset curse" in A Link to the Past (GBA)---famously used to beat the Four Swords Palace in record time here. This isn't memory corruption, it's calculated manipulation to run specific routines---you know, code execution?
If we aren't allowed to discuss (read: say something that isn't praise) runs to any capacity, which is what you're trying to imply here, leave these threads closed to posts but allow voting only. So far I'm not seeing where anyone was uncivil. "Combative" implies hostility and again, except for two comments I probably overthought, I have not seen a single ounce of hostility from CPP and I have not said one negative thing about him or anyone else.
Whether or not these runs are "ACE" or not and whether that invalidates the run gets determined by judges, not laypeople. Most "laypeople" would frankly not understand what constitute as ACE, as most just see ACE as either "super glitchy thing" or "create pong or tetris" and not understand what it means at its core (executing RAM w/ caveats).
It is up to the Judges to make sure the layperson understand this as they're effectively the ones "marketing" the runs to the laypeople, the public. Ideally, the submitter would help too, but that shouldn't be required. You did a great job explaining what you did here, but not how it isn't [x] term for a glitch.
Looking up the term "arbitrary code execution":
> In computer security, arbitrary code execution (ACE) is an attacker's ability to execute arbitrary commands or code on a target machine or in a target process.
It doesn't seem to specify that you have to have absolute control. Limited-scope control seems to qualify.
Put it this way: is using 8F still ACE in Pokemon Red 3DS or no, because it can't access the 3DS firmware? When is it "total" control?
That's just like what the previously published run did with LWA (well, changing it so different Pokemon are caught depending on Master Ball quantity, same principle anyways), and that was not considered AMC (because the memory manipulation was limited, thus not arbitrary).
I feel like we need to determine if party and/or item underflow should or shouldn't be allowed.
You have 484 RAM addresses to modify between the two, if memory serves. I say "if memory serves" because I somewhat recall that the first 20 item slots still correspond to the same RAM they would normally, and the same goes for the first six party slots? That's not limitless, but it's more than enough to run complicated routines like the customized "Yami Shops" or "Game Corner" (this run) which call for modifiable RAM addresses (the "Master Balls" or "Repels").
When is it arbitrary? When all RAM addresses are possible to access and modify? That in and of itself is an arbitrary distinction as you're saying a program is only a program when it reaches a certain size.
If memory serves, Pong can fit in 192 bytes. So would that be ACE, or no, because it's small enough to fit in easily modified "limited" addresses?
It is different, the game does do its end game save routine (which the crashing mid-credits and looping on the HoF were critically missing). While the save is fucked anyways, the game does run all the save routines as it normally should at the end, thus this does count as a proper completion.
Feels like we're splitting hairs here. There's not enough of a difference I think. Recall that Pokemon Red does have a metric to see if you've beaten the game: Cerulean Cave. We can't verify that here as it never saves to anything.
This is not done. Custom routines imply player modified RAM is executed, which it isn't. If you want to keep arguing it is, well the tracelogs won't lie in the end.
This is very interesting. So at no point are you swapping around items that correspond to RAM values, then running an otherwise not possible routine, based on the RAM modified?
Visually perhaps, but how it's technically done is nowhere alike. This movie does not setup any ACE payload (i.e., it does not setup anything that jumps to RAM), rather it just does a ton of memory manipulation (which given the currently published movie, memory manipulation is allowed for 100% categories as long as it is not arbitrary memory manipulation(/corruption)) to just setup an invalid game corner to farm Pokemon.
Is there any particularly difference between arbitrary code execution and rearranging and redirecting memory to do things in a specific way? I feel like "memory manipulation" is just "ACE, but self-limited".
The same glitches are used to start both, so they appear the same.
ACE itself is achieved via rearranging and redirecting memory addresses in a way that it runs a program based on it... which this is doing. You made a payload that when using a certain glitch item, loads a glitchy Game Corner, which reads other parts of RAM (your inventory, specifically, it seems a Repel item count?) to determine what the prize is.
Defining ACE to just be "when you make Tetris or Pong" seems arbitrary in itself, and thankfully it appears I am not wrong with this specific part from what I've seen some Judges like Mothrayas say in other threads. I don't see at all how this run isn't ACE.
I do have one other question, is this save file okay? I know you can eventually fix the "255 Pokemon" and even buggy boxes, but the money seems blanked out. Is it a very high but playable number? Or is it 0? Or is it not actually usable anymore?
"Limited" is the exact point on why limited memory manipulation is allowed. The reason ACE (along with ARE/AMC) is banned is due to the fact you can in principle do anything with it, rendering any sort of restriction like "100%" moot. If it's limited, by principle you cannot just do anything with it, thus this mootness does not apply.
Also, can you please actually read the submission text? All this "glitch item" does is jump to the overworld loop. That's it. It's just an optimization so the start menu doesn't have to be closed to interact with the Game Corner (which is a glitched invisible sign that is set up to act like a Game Corner).
"Defining ACE to just be "when you make Tetris or Pong" seems arbitrary in itself, and thankfully it appears I am not wrong with this specific part from what I've seen some Judges like Mothrayas say in other threads. I don't see at all how this run isn't ACE."
Well that is not how I would define ACE at all, here is my own definition:
Arbitrary Code Execution: If the PC (Program Counter) touches any RAM currently visible on the system bus, it is ACE. "RAM" is definable as any memory or I/O (Input/Output, which isn't RAM per se, but in spirit of ACE it can act like such) which is R/W (Read/Write). However, code put into RAM by the game and executed is exempt from this, unless this code is at all modified by the player and executed, which then it becomes ACE.
This is not done, and therefore there is no ACE involved with this run. Again, the entire setup is explained in the submission text, which you did not bother to read apparently.
Also the save file state is explained in the submission text. The money is probably some high number (I don't know, I don't care, it doesn't affect loading the save file anyways). Also, the submission text explains the Game Corner ends up overwriting the party count (we don't have "255" Pokemon anymore) and name (as explained in the submission text, this means the save file can't be loaded since the game uses a valid name as a "check if save file exists". If it was a valid name anyways, it would load the save file just fine with the completed dex, so probably doesn't mean anything for validity of the run.)
How is this differing from ACE/ARE/AMC?
I did read the submission description. All it does is proudly boast that it does not use ACE/ARE/AMC and gives zero explanation on how this run is somehow different. If someone who actually knows what these terms or glitches are still has questions reading the description, it's profoundly bad for a layperson who doesn't. Your submission text should give a clear explanation on what you are doing and how you are doing it---and you do this with the glitches used, you know, swapping memory addresses around, changing memory values, running custom routines based on what was swapped around...
Jumping to the overworld loop is a fancy way of saying:
- Memory is rearranged to change current room's "overworld loop" to act as the Game Corner
- Memory is rearranged to change what Pokemon are available from the Game Corner, via modifying one memory address that handles the reward
So again, how is this not ACE/ARE/AMC?
If the savefile can't be loaded due to an empty name, shouldn't this be rejected? This is no different than it crashing mid-credits or looping on the HoF which has come up for runs before. Although via totally-not-arbitrary-memory-editing you could just give yourself a name before the Elite Four warp.
Frankly your condescension is really grating. I can see the original submission text right here: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=504335#504335
At no point do you mention the money thing. At no point. You didn't edit it in either: http://tasvideos.org/7054S.html
Additionally, I see no mentions of what ACE is, and how this run isn't ACE, just that it isn't.
I voted No on the basis that this is not entertaining. The same routine is done 153 (152 for sure, I saw 'M, didn't remember seeing MissingNO.) times in a row with everything else being a carbon copy of the current save corruption runs. I do acknowledge it should be accepted as an improvement to the current Catch 'Em All though.
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
Visually perhaps, but how it's technically done is nowhere alike. This movie does not setup any ACE payload (i.e., it does not setup anything that jumps to RAM), rather it just does a ton of memory manipulation (which given the currently published movie, memory manipulation is allowed for 100% categories as long as it is not arbitrary memory manipulation(/corruption)) to just setup an invalid game corner to farm Pokemon.
Is there any particularly difference between arbitrary code execution and rearranging and redirecting memory to do things in a specific way? I feel like "memory manipulation" is just "ACE, but self-limited".
The same glitches are used to start both, so they appear the same.
ACE itself is achieved via rearranging and redirecting memory addresses in a way that it runs a program based on it... which this is doing. You made a payload that when using a certain glitch item, loads a glitchy Game Corner, which reads other parts of RAM (your inventory, specifically, it seems a Repel item count?) to determine what the prize is.
Defining ACE to just be "when you make Tetris or Pong" seems arbitrary in itself, and thankfully it appears I am not wrong with this specific part from what I've seen some Judges like Mothrayas say in other threads. I don't see at all how this run isn't ACE.
I do have one other question, is this save file okay? I know you can eventually fix the "255 Pokemon" and even buggy boxes, but the money seems blanked out. Is it a very high but playable number? Or is it 0? Or is it not actually usable anymore?