Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
That is just so totally awesome, haha. That game is so manipulated I don't even think a gameshark user could do the same thing. It's nice when the yes decision is so easy. ;)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
TheAxeMan wrote:
Thanks everyone, this was a lot of work.
On crit waiting, it does seem that for some reason it is more difficult at lower levels and on certain enemies. Also, there is no advantage to varying when you hit the button for some presses, in particular the fight command vs selecting the enemy. Still, there is probably some way to reduce wait time in some cases. The longest pause is on the fight in Lianport and I accepted that because after that there was almost no wait the rest of the fight. It seems the only way to really change luck in battle is to change the order everyone goes, which isn't always acceptable.
Another problem is that once a fight begins, the following variables are set:
A) The enemy group (if it's a random battle)
B) Enemy HP
C) Did not see/enemies attack first/normal battle
D) The order of everyone's turn in the first round
E) The randomization seed for the first round
So basically, I have to find a tradeoff between these because you can't get absolutely perfect values for all of them. In random battles I can actually only manipulate the enemy group, I have to accept whatever it gives me for the rest. For many battles enemy HP was a priority because I needed to manipulate their hp down to get them in one hit (or 23). This is a bigger factor than you might think, I was able to spawn gremlins with under 45 hp out of 60 and Malroth had only 189 out of his 250 max. I know the pauses seem long sometimes, but when I compared to adding extra rounds to battle or letting an enemy attack me first, it was faster.
Your explanation is noted. I think I will have to agree that it was very well manipulated. Very nice.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
I vote yes. The strategy you used to beat this game was very well thought out. The only thing that concerned me a little was the long delay for some of the critical hit manipulation in the battles. It looks like you simply waited at the last command for the critical hits instead of testing various inputs at different times. Other then that I was very impressed by how you planned level ups and used only the chars you needed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
hero of the day wrote:
I just found a way to bankrupt the cpu within 9 seconds (the entire movie is only 9 seconds), but it involves a controversial method. If you press Start and select at the same time, an option appears on the board which says "which player am I talking to" if you select the computer players name, you can control thier actions while in the select menu. At this point you can trade all thier cash to player1 and since you are also player1 you can accept the transaction. Afterwards the computer is left with $0 and he must land on a space which costs money, only then will he go bankrupt. Should this method be allowed in a run, or is it considered cheating?
Haha, I used to do that when I played it on the NES for fun. It made things very boring after a while...one thing I did like, outside of the computer AI was that the chance for rolling any given number and getting any given card is about the same as the board game. Makes this game uber hard to TAS.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Walker Boh wrote:
I watched the dual avi that DeHacked encoded. Anyway, I'm on the side that thinks that this frame hunt has gone way too far, so I don't know what to think about this run. Sure, it's cool and all that it was improvable but to me it looked pretty much like the same run.
When I first got into this community it was about entertainment but now it's pure speed that is important it seems. I'm not really fond of how it has turned but that's another story and from what I've seen in this thread most of the arguments have already been brought up.
I don't know if I'll even vote but if so I'll probably vote "meh". It's faster, great, but it's the same run to me and it didn't add any new entertainment. Sorry but good job Donamer.
I have to agree that I like the numbers as well as entertainment, I always thought we were going for the fastest while also being entertaining.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Bisqwit wrote:
You will beat him? Does this mean you know this submission has some flaws?
I hope there are no flaws, I was testing things down to the pixel to see if it would be faster. I also didn't see any way to improve the levels where forward movement was the main thing. I guess we will see.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Phil wrote:
Well, I find some flaws but I was expecting to use some tricks that no one have tried before. I am currently testing. I don't promise that it will be done soon. Testing things requires hours of work. I've passed many days testing things at 1-3, 2-1 and 2-2 when Donamer said that he did improved 1-2.
Today, I've tested many things at 1-1 but all failed :(
I will probably be faster than Donamer but don't expect much improvements, especially if I can't find a new trick that can work correctly.
Good luck dude, I know you can do it. I guess I aim to breed perfection. ;)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
FODA wrote:
The hole thing i meant is that small improvements like this that doesn't add anything visually new to the run shouldn't be interesting at the moment for this site. I think there are higher priorities than taking the time to encode these insignificant improvements.
Yeah...I guess there are some things I missed. That's one of them. I don't mind holding on the submission if that's what it means....I guess I got a little upset.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Nach wrote:
DonamerDragon wrote:
This game is like the first super mario brothers now...even If I had found small frames adding up to an entire second this movie would not look any different.
I don't think so.
I think not all of the tricks have been exhausted yet. Quite a few glitches were never tried, and a few areas can use some more original thinking.
Although it may never happen, I think there is the possibility someone will come up with a way to save a second or two, and that will happen by slightly modifying some routes and glitch usage.
That would be so awesome. I would love to see that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
MattyXB wrote:
So I vote yes, but I have still one question:
The Bird head Boss, the one in 7.2 infront of the last Boss. Why all always use the second stone, to defeat him? When Toad carry an item he is faster, so would it not save time, when he carry the first stone and use this as item to defeat the Bird head? He can walk faster from this point to the head.
Or takes the Boss so long, till he wake up that it is not important, which stone Toad pick up?
I tested this, I do believe it's because when you pick up the first one, you have to stop to get over the second one
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
This game is like the first super mario brothers now...even If I had found small frames adding up to an entire second this movie would not look any different. If a new author somehow manages to beat the first SMB by a single frame, aren't we going to be intrigued as to how anyone could possibly do that? But I guess it's to be expected that some people don't care for this kind of improvement. I have to agree though with someone, though I can't find them now...if we're all going to get rejected for making small improvements, how will a game ever become perfect? If we had kept Sleepz version (which is still very good) I would have come to 51 frames and that's almost a second, would we still be having this argument?
I understand the work and effort the previous authors have put into their movies. I also put this kind of effort into the movie and I was able to do a little better, as Phil was able to do a little better then Sleepz. My movie is also on the board for someone else to improve if they can. If my time is broken, I honestly hope that with no new tricks that there isn't 19 more frames.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
AngerFist wrote:
Vatchern wrote:
AngerFist wrote:
In my eyes, you are currently the SMB2 King.
Shouldn't the kings be Sleepz + Genisto. since he did discover the latest tricks to this game.
He has both the warp and warpless run records, he is my King. Sleepz and Genisto are legends for discovering the tricks.
Thank you Angerfist. I do have to agree somewhat with Vatchern, I didn't come up with the biggest time saving tricks. All I did was to try and do them faster...
Edit: and when Phil is done with the warpless run he'll be under 20 minutes. I look forward to seeing his.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Tombad wrote:
Donamer wrote:
And did you do this when Phil beat sleepz?
Bisqwit at Phil's SMB2u thread wrote:
I haven't watched this submission yet, so I refrain from voting. In any case, I wouldn't hurry publishing this movie.
So, the practice hasn't changed (as was stated a few times before in this very thread.
EDIT: Ah well, let's link the thread here for good measure. Click.
Well, that makes me feel a little better...but I still feel underminded just a bit.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Vatchern wrote:
wow...I see hardly any difference from Phils..
[edit with reason]The reason i voted no was because the question is "Did you enjoy watching the movie?"
I did not enjoy watching the movie because I already enjoyed it when i watched Phils and Sleepz. I never voted on Phils(I dont think) because it was almost a second improvement. But this one is not. I was not entertained due to i have seen this before.
It's alright, I can totally understand that. I expected to get at least a couple of no's for that reason.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Bisqwit wrote:
Vatchern wrote:
wow...I see hardly any difference from Phils..
Indeed. I intend to hold this submission until some previous author, such as Phil or Sleepz, at least attempts to beat this record (*).
I don't like allowing people to take honor from others with mere few-frames improvements on a movie that has so much effort invested in like SMB2u.
*) But not indefinitely.
And did you do this when Phil beat sleepz?
Actually I'm kind of offended by that...I tried really hard on this movie. So you're saying that if Phil can beat mine by one or two frames then his will get published and not mine? That's bullcrap dude, that's killing my honor right off the bat without giving me a chance.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
Nach wrote:
Interesting to note, this has to be the ultimate TAS game.
So many many bugs, each which can give a small time saver. Multiple characters for more strategy, Different routes...
I don't think we have another game on the site where people are constantly thinking what's there is practically perfect, and then someone finds something new.
Well, I don't claim to be a pro. I expect that in time this will be beaten. All I have to say is that if I can beat it, it's still not perfect. :P
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Ow. This is even worse than what Phil did to Sleepz.
Unfortunately, a precedent has been set. Yes.
Well there's not much that can be done. I'm sure Phil will spend the next month trying to beat this run. If he does, I hope it's not by 19 frames...heh.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
hero of the day wrote:
Congrats man. Perfection is very close now, for this strategy at least. But lets hope this war never ends.
Unless someone can find a better strategy, I would think it's pretty much close to perfection. There's only a certain number of frames it is possible to lose...If I've been fallowing right, it looks like you guys have saved about 20 frames more then you though there possibly was to save?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(104)
Joined: 6/7/2005
Posts: 290
Location: New York
tmont wrote:
Very good, although 2-3 could've been faster had you heeded this post. 3-1 was particularly brilliant. I guess this movie means it's not possible to kill Mouser with a star in 1-3?
I don't think it's possible because of how long it takes for a bomb to explode compared to where the super star would appear...but because of that assumption i didn't test it heavily. Maybe it is.
