Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
This welcomes another question: what if someone publicly displays a movie file outside of the site, someone uses the same method (But different input), and submits a run of the same movie length? Do we reject the submitted run? Do external records have any influence on the acceptance of a run? As long as the input isn't copied exactly, then why should they? I'm wondering if the fact that input wasn't provided in this case really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
gia wrote:
Someone who contributes on your site from time to time made a run, you didn't have it, and you decide it is ok to publish it on yours, under your rules, by accepting from someone else?
You're implying the run submitted by p4wn3r is yours. It's not. Stop pretending otherwise.
The claim that I could have forged my run is ridiculous, how did I forged it so well it outputs the same as p4wn3rs run submitted much later?
And we had no way of proving this until p4wn3r created his input file. He did a service for this site and submitted a verification of your strategy, which you refused to do. You don't have to submit to this site, but then don't get mad when p4wn3r creates a run using your strategy and submits it.
...I would modify my history files to make sure credit is given where credit is due...I would make a history page which included the comments and a link to the video
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
gia wrote:
TASVideos is about tasing but tasing is not TASVideos, I can make a tas run and publish it on youtube if I decide to, that's my decision.
Yes, and you can't bar someone from creating a run using your strategy and submitting it here.
Not submitting to your site does not make my tas illegitimate, it's like saying a record isn't legitimate because Guiness didn't approve it, or a speedrun record because SDA doesn't have it.
So, based on this and your previous post, is it reasonable to assume that you want records to be recorded here regardless of whether the run is submitted or not? I mean, I suppose that's one way to look at it, but then we'd really be stealing your run (If you call posting someone's work and crediting them stealing). If I misunderstood you, and you merely want your TAS to be recognized, then you should have submitted it here. If you don't care about the records we acknowledge, then you shouldn't care that we're recognizing p4wn3r's. Make up your mind.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
gia wrote:
I don't need p4wn3r banned, that was just a stupid idea of his, I hope. Right now Brandon deserves it more.
Because I published a run approved by an admin to be published? You can disagree with what the site did, but this was an official decision of the site. To blame me is ridiculous. More on this in the next quote:
Did you know about this Nach and accepted regardless? If you have you have shown complete lack of respect towards me and my work, and I do not believe the way you think is the way someone with judge privileges should think.
There was absolutely nothing to question about accepting this run but the fact that it was based on your strategy. He had to have known about this and accept it on these grounds. I'm kind of upset he didn't make this explicit in the submission text, but I guess he didn't want to incite a flame war like this one (That's what you call a rant like the one you're bringing up, regardless of what you might label it).
Brandon, p4wn3r never offered me coauthorship I would have declined his suggestion that he could coauthor my run
Not offered to you; offered to the community. He mentioned several times on IRC how he'd be willing to list you if people thought it would be right. I, quite frankly, think he was too kind in doing this. You clearly have no interest in contributing your findings to this community, and I don't think that kind of mindset should be honored by said community.
p4wn3r doesn't have the right to offer me coauthorship for my run, what a joke you are.
It's not your run. I'm glad you think I'm funny.
You seem interested on having the records on tavideos. You are a site coder it seems, code something to link to external sites, in this case my youtube video, for records that aren't submissions to your site. Trivial work, problem solved. No need to do this.
So, you want me to take a run you refuse to submit to the site...and then put it on the site? How does that make sense? Ignoring the fact, that I'm not going to do a coding request for you on demand when you're being so rude, it ignores the fact that we won't uphold records that have no proof of existence. p4wn3r is the first person to provide a .vbm to the site of this strategy, and the fact that you came up with the strategy makes no difference.
DarkKobold wrote:
You may have published the 'recipe' but p4wn3r made the cake. We take cakes here, not recipes. p4wn3r gave you ample time to submit your cake, but you made it 100% clear you weren't going to submit, given any length of time. Deal with it.
Still nothing dramatically different from the warpless Mario run of SMB. Certainly there's gotta be some part of this game that benefits from using Luigi...right?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Sir VG wrote:
I compared the two runs visually, and they do appear to be the same run. I think we need a 3rd party (not gia or p4wn3r, obviously) to compare the inputs of the runs. If they're identical, then the runs should probably be unpublished and the user banned for submitting somebody else's work.
gia's input was never released; p4wn3r recreated it. This is p4wn3r's movie, regardless of the fact that gia came up with the strategy.
There are many reasons why having the record on TASVideos is important, one of which is that we can't properly improve a run without knowing what to improve. I've known about p4wn3r's previous run far before I realized that gia had beaten it. I had personally asked gia to submit over and over again, to which I got the following response: "dont care sorry."
p4wn3r clearly cares about the community by risking a flame war while submitting this. He's set the stage for an improvement in the future, whereas if he didn't, someone would strive for a 1:26:xx run and think that was an improvement. He credited you in the submission, offered a co-authorship, and now you continue to claim that you have been wronged.
You cannot claim a strategy as property. By rejecting this run, the judge would have set a precedent that if someone came up with a groundbreaking strategy and refused to submit, we could not publish a run using such a strategy. That the final time came to be exactly the same makes no difference. It's very possible that there are no further improvements to this run; are you suggesting that we should have an inaccurate record until the end of time because you refused to submit a run using this strategy? Consider for a second how selfish that is.
p4wn3r did not submit your run; he submitted his own based on your strategy. He had no way of copying your input because you never provided it. In fact, he's the first person to prove that such a strategy actually works on an emulator. For all we know, you could have faked the original video. He set the record, and you can only blame yourself for not doing so earlier.
I am not guilty whatsoever for uploading / publishing p4wn3r's run. I'm sure p4wn3r would still be willing to add you as a co-author if you requested it. If you'd rather not have any association with this run, well, you can have that too. You shouldn't be able to lobby to remove it. Nach did the right thing in accepting this run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
DJSecret wrote:
Brandon wrote:
DJSecret wrote:
mklip2001 wrote:
I actually liked the TASBlend with the encode. It made 1/1 swimming look amusing, and it shows something unusual happening, whereas a 30fps encode would miss it. To each his/her own, though.
A 30fps encode would show Mario swimming backwards.
Which is not what happens in the run. It's inaccurate. I hold accuracy to be more important than visual appeal. It doesn't make me stubborn just because we have different priorities. Under your logic, why not replace the encode with an HD rip of The Dark Knight? That would look way more visually appealing than 16-bit graphics.
If accuracy is more important than visual appeal, then this run should be rejected for not using bsnes, right?
Accuracy as in the encode accurately depicts what you would see when running the movie in the emulator the run was made for. Encoding in 60FPS HD would be the most accurate solution, but we can't do that on YouTube. TASBlend is the best solution to this problem that we have so far.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
DJSecret wrote:
mklip2001 wrote:
I actually liked the TASBlend with the encode. It made 1/1 swimming look amusing, and it shows something unusual happening, whereas a 30fps encode would miss it. To each his/her own, though.
A 30fps encode would show Mario swimming backwards.
Which is not what happens in the run. It's inaccurate. I hold accuracy to be more important than visual appeal. It doesn't make me stubborn just because we have different priorities. Under your logic, why not replace the encode with an HD rip of The Dark Knight? That would look way more visually appealing than 16-bit graphics.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Rockman2Neta has some issues with Hourglass. Aside from the save state system still not working (And by not working, I usually mean either failing to redraw the screen, although there have been other issues), there is another graphical issue:
Shredded Mega Man! Anyway, frame advance works surprisingly smoothly, though the program froze once. Here's a log.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
FractalFusion wrote:
Someone reported to me on IRC yesterday that the encode, which I suppose uses TASBlend, hurts his eyes (that's putting it nicely). I guess some people aren't used to the blur.
I was hoping that person would have responded here when I asked him to though.
This game has 30hz effects. I want to accurately display them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
OK, so as I explained earlier, I sadly created encodes for this run without noticing that Toothache had already done so. I'm willing to accept that I wasted time on this, but if for any reason it seems like the Youtube Stream would look better with TASBlend enabled, then I already have such an encode ready to go upon demand.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
FractalFusion wrote:
I recently noticed on one play that by going left instead of right, and following the path, you get to fight all the bosses at once in Bubble Man's boss room, underwater with spikes on top.
Yes, this is a nice little bonus. I'm not sure if it'd be worth employing into this run, though.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
t3h Icy wrote:
There is one incorrect mechanic in MM2N that allows you to pause any time after using Flash Stopper. This means you could use Flash Stopper for movement, and then switch to a weapon, attack, and repeat as needed. I think a run without abusing this flaw would also be interesting to see, so that the run will be true MM2. However, it's likely necessary for a no-damage run.
I don't think adding this additional restriction will make the movie any more entertaining.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
I've determined that it is acceptable to upload runs to archive.org so long as I remove them if they don't get accepted. I'm willing to bet this one will be accepted, so as such, here is the Archive entry.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Derakon wrote:
The big problems for a no-damage run, as I see it, are:
1) Air Man + Wood Man will fill the screen with projectiles; either attack alone is hard to avoid taking damage with.
2) Flash Man's freeze attack will probably be impossible to avoid without using weapons.
Heat Man will just stay in place until you shoot him, and his tackle is on its own easy to dodge.
I think we've established that weapons would be necessary. Flash Man's weapon will be a necessity.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Nuy wrote:
Even WITH tools I dont think No Damage would be possible.
Perhaps, but it'd certainly be worth trying! Maybe weapons would be necessary to do so, though. Also, should I submit such a run under a branch or not?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
Rockman 2 NETA (Originally found here, but seemingly broken (I still have it downloaded)) is a realistic simulation of what would happen if all of the Mega Man 2 bosses fought you at once. It is very difficult, but possible to beat. Here's a video of someone successfully beating it.
Considering this game is more of a fighting game than a platformer, I figure I should treat a run of it as a fighting game. As such, would people agree that instead of trying to get the best time, I should just shoot for the most entertaining route, perhaps being taking no damage and only using the Mega Buster? Or do people think speed would be a good goal? Does anyone have an alternative goal to these two?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(190)
Joined: 11/21/2010
Posts: 913
Location: Tennessee
I've determined that it is acceptable to upload runs to archive.org so long as I remove them if they don't get accepted. I'm willing to bet this one will be accepted, so as such, here is the Archive entry. The YouTube video will come shortly hopefully, and we can determine if the blurring was a good idea.
Shredded Mega Man! Anyway, frame advance works surprisingly smoothly, though the program froze once. Here's a log.