Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Other than merely obtaining the fire powerup (and using it to dispach a few enemies where it's not extra beneficial to kill in this manner), this run doesn't appear to offer anything significantly different in general gameplay from the baseline run. Therefore, in my opinion, obtaining the powerup is effectively just time wasted, as its acquisition doesn't benefit the run in any meaningful way. If it was worthwhile to have the fire power (by either being faster than a small mario run, or by offerring a significant difference to the overall gameplay experience) then this branch might be worthwhile.
Further, the time of this run is about 40 seconds slower than the baseline run. Simply obtaining the powerup doesn't take that long; so either there are unnecessary inputs at the end of the run that didn't get truncated correctly (I didn't check), or it's evidence that this submission lacks known optimizations that are present in the baseline run.
In my opinion, this run shouldn't be accepted for publication.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
FYI, I re-cataloged the run under the goal of "100 %" instead of baseline.
For anyone wondering, throwing mail slows down stage progress; so I assume a run that delivers the minimum necessary mail to beat the game would be faster than this submission and thus more appropriate as a "baseline" run.
"Perfect" from the standpoint of not dying/getting hit isn't really necessary, in my opinion, as it doesn't really make a significant difference compared to a baseline run.
EDIT: I renamed the 100% goal to "deliver all mail" as this is more descriptive to what 100% is in the game than simply "100%" and the game doesn't count by percentage as a game like Super Metroid does.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
After watching this, I wondered if the final fight could be improved. So I started working on it. I managed to save quite a lot of time, so I decided to go back through the whole run and try and improve things. I managed to start 1 frame earlier and made improvements in all stages except stage 6. Most improvements are better lag management with a few improvements from killing enemies (which also results in better lag management).
Here is the improved run.
User movie #638860535137851114
While a lot of input got changed, I used hydrideGS's input as a base; so I'm asking for this submission to be updated and myself added as co-author.
Once I'm added as co-author, I'll upload a new temp encode unless hydrideGS beats me to it.
EDIT: As a bonus, the bird no longer takes damage, so this version is truly damageless.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Regarding # of loops for maxing out difficulty/content: The manual simply says that the difficulty increases the more buildings are scaled, so nothing definitive there. It does, however, mention that extra chances (lives) can be earned through play. For the first 5 buildings, the player can earn up to 5 more chances per building. Starting with the 6th building, the possibility of earning more chances is reduced to 2 per building. So I'd say that a goal of maxing out content would need to complete 6 buildings (loops) instead of 5; in order to show at least one full loop with this new chance earning variant.
All that said, a single loop is sufficient for a baseline run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
kierio04 wrote:
It's unfortunate that all these communities have gone without being a part of the TASVideos community at some point in their community's history. TASVideos is awesome, so I feel like they've missed out. For whatever reasons it may be, these satellite communities formed (in and of itself this is fine). It could be the fragmentation that came with Discord, a dilution of TASVideosChannel among modern TASing content (which rarely mentions tasvideos.org), or the negative reputation of TASVideos's past turning older communities away.
This paragraph is exactly where you and I seem to have fundamentally different views.
No matter how much we love our own site and hobby; I don’t agree that it’s “unfortunate that all these communities have gone without being a part of the TASVideos community.” To believe this, in my opinion, is to adopt an unhealthy complex of self-importance or superiority that we (as a site) must have our awareness made to any given gaming/TASing community, and if not, then that community has somehow missed out.
We are awesome!!! But an individual or community who is unaware of us cannot feel like they have missed out on anything, because they aren’t aware of what they’re potentially missing. So there’s no need to feel they’ve missed out for them. Likewise, someone or a community that has chosen not to engage has chosen to miss out on us. I’m not going to bring myself down by feeling bad for them.
kierio04 wrote:
The problem is in the loss of a sense of community among TASing games that used to exist, not that other TASing games have strayed too far and need to be "put right".
Again i disagree that this is inherently a problem, and I feel even more strongly against the idea that it is a problem that needs fixing. Even if the majority of TASing was once generally centralized, to suggest that it’s somehow wrong that it’s no longer centralized is not a healthy perspective.
There’s nothing wrong with things or multiple communities evolving away from what they once were as part of a generally centralized community. Heck, if TASVideos changed enough away from what i enjoy about being here, I’d leave; and i might even consider starting a new TASing website that was more along the lines of what i wanted. This would potentially cause a branching away of some in our current community who might leave with me, but even that wouldn’t be a problem if in the long run it enabled more people to engage with TASing the way they desired for themselves. I wouldn’t want this new theoretical site community to harbor any ill will toward TASVideos at all (and I’d promote being as friendly as possible between the communities), but I don’t think direct interaction would be necessary for either community to thrive. In fact, the differences between the communities might be exactly what allows them to thrive.
I’m all for expanding our awareness. I’m all for growing our community. I’m all for rebuilding bridges with communities that may have less than stellar views of our site, but we can only do so much. If those communities aren’t willing to help build the bridge, we can’t beat ourselves up over it.
All that said we need to be very cautious against adopting the idea that it’s a problem for things/communities to change and evolve naturally, especially when those evolutions allow people to do what they love the way they love. Sometimes a community that branches in multiple directions allows more people to do what they enjoy about a topic without major issues arising from trying to force everything about that topic to fit into one central place.
See the TASBot community as an example. There are plenty of people there who could care less about what we do as a site, but they still love what can be done with video games via scripted input especially on actual consoles. Likewise, there are individuals in our community that could care less about the TASBot side of things. While the split between the groups was less than amicable, the resulting two communities have offered a greater exposure/opportunity for TASing in general. Thankfully, relations between us and them have improved. But even if they hadn’t, it wouldn’t change the fact that the split minimized a degree of internal conflict within our community by allowing those with differing perspectives to go their own way and grow their own way.
We can’t please everyone. We can’t constantly be changing who we are to try and accommodate every other TASing group out there. If that’s what we endeavored to do, who we are is in danger of become diluted to the point that no one should care that we exist at all, because we’d become so many things that there’d be nothing unique about us. We can reach out to other communities (if we do so carefully). But if their response is “eh, we’re not interested,” then we have to be able to let go and accept that we may no longer be that centralized home for the world of TASing.
And that’s okay.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
kierio04 wrote:
Samsara wrote:
I have a few questions of my own in response to this, actually: What benefits would an established community want TVC to give them? Do people see us as trying to push TVC as a benefit? If so, what's giving off that impression and how can we change it?
I don't really know how to answer this, as I personally don't see any issue with TVC encodes. However, what I've seen is that people want to keep their upload on YouTube as the central one, and don't see the point of there being a second one for a completely unrelated audience. I went over this in more detail in this reply to moozooh, so I'd recommend you read that (if you haven't already). Lastly, I don't think there's any explicit opinions that TVC is the selling point of TASVideos, so you don't need to worry about that. The general point I'm trying to get across is that there are a lot of people out there saying "why bother with TASVideos" and TVC uploads are just one of many gripes.
I don't mean to sound uncaring, but if someone or a community, who knows what our site actually is, still has the opinion of "why bother?"; I don't think we should really worry about that individual/community. They aren't a target audience or community member for us (by their own choice) regardless of whether or not they a part of a separate gaming commnuity (which may or may not do TASing itself).
kierio04 wrote:
Many communities now have no awareness that TASVideos exists so the issue comes less from them not wanting to interact with TASVideos, but not knowing it's even a possibility. Even beyond that, if they find out it is a possibility, because they've never interacted with it, they don't have the drive to reach out, talk with staff, and figure out how rules can be modified to incorporate their community.
While it's always nice when awareness of our site is expanded, you almost make it sound like it's a massive problem for any gaming/TASing community to be unaware of us. It's not.
It would be nice for as many gaming TASing/commnunities as possible to be aware of us (and accurately know what we are/aren't in order to best interact with us), but we can't look at commnuities who have no desire to interact with us as problem. It's ok for any given community to choose not to interact with us. In fact, acting like it is a problem when another gaming/TASing community isn't aware of us actually makes the impetus to create connections between us and that community come accross a bit like gatekeeping (which you've already mentioned as a concern among some). I can see such an approach to those communities as coming across like "oh hey, you do TASing?! You need to be aware and connected to us somehow." That sure seems close to gatekeeping.
Similarly, trying to force interaction with other groups who DO know what we are and still have generally chosen not to interact also seems a bit like gatekeeping (or potentially desperation on our part). "But...but...but.. we need you to connect with us."
Look, I'm all for trying to improve/restore relations with commnuities (i.e. SM64) with whom we've had issues with in the past. I'm also for promoting greater awareness. But I think it's dangerous to present the idea of a commnuity NOT knowing about us (or interacting with us due to their own choice) as an inherent problem that we have to solve. We need to be okay with others NOT wanting to interact with us. We don't have to be liked by everyone.
Frankly, I'm curious why we should be worried about general gaming comunities who have never heard of us? Even if that community is one centered around TASing a particular game, we don't have a monopoly on TASing; so it's okay that they exist oblivious of our own existence.
Again, I'm not suggesting that making a connection with such a group is a bad thing. I'm only suggesting that the fact that they are unaware of us is itself NOT inherently a problem, so we shouldn't make it one.
EDIT: Think about things the other way around. If another TASing community existed which we were oblivious of; it's not inherently a problem for them that we don't know about them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
kierio04 wrote:
moozooh wrote:
We spent several minutes just figuring out the wording behind this question, lol; it's very confusing ("allowing" TVC to mirror TASes?). The interpretation we settled on is that you're asking whether we should use TVC YouTube uploads where an author's own upload would suffice for the wide reach and could be used instead. Notably, regardless of whether we do a TVC upload or whether the author even submits their work to TASVideos at all, their audience will still see their upload, so these users are still reached with or without our help. The issue that was brought up was that some authors prefer not to submit high-profile TASes to TASVideos at all so that TVC doesn't "leech" their views, so we implicitly miss out on these submissions because they never reach us anyway. (This also made me think whether such authors would consider submitting their work here under the CC BY 2.0 license problematic, given how much redistribution freedom it entails.)
Apologies for the poorly-worded question. You landed on the right interpretation though. While the "I don't like TVC leeching views" crowd exists, that's not what this question is for. Basically, while most people will be happy with there being two encodes (on their own channel and TVC), or even just one (on TVC), there are those who are used to just having one (on their own channel). Where I come from, we have a large community of TASers, and when a collaborative project is completed, we have to come to a decision on who gets to upload it to YouTube. It usually goes to the person who kickstarted it or made the biggest contributions. When this kind of routine suddenly has the option of "submit to TASVideos and get a bonus upload on TVC!", it no longer makes complete sense to have an upload on TVC. Suppose you say "TVC gives more views!", well so does uploading every single TAS to the channel of the TASer with the biggest following, which we don't do. You said a TVC upload wouldn't change the fact that the intended audience would be reached, and to that one could say "well then, what's the point of a TVC upload at all? I'll just save the effort of submitting to TASVideos at all!". Obviously, TASVideos has so much more to offer than its own encodes. That's not what I'm saying here, in fact I don't believe any of what I'm saying here, they're just arguments I've heard, but this is what I'm trying to get into. There are people out there who don't see the point, and I'm just trying to ask "well, I don't know, what is the point?"
The point of submitting to TASVideos is to be published on TASVideos as a recognized publication on our website. While the TVC Youtube Channel is part of that because we provide our own encodes of the runs we publish, getting a run on TVC isn't (or shouldn't be) the primary purpose of submitting to the site. If an outside gaming community doesn't specifically care about having a TASVideos.org site-based publication, then I wouldn't expect them to care about whether or not they have a TVC Youtube video either.
Perhaps that's is another aspect that outside communities do not understand with our site. While we publish encodes to TVC as part of our publications, TVC isn't all publications are; nor is it the primary purpose of our publication endeavors.
EDIT: Conversely, if an outside gaming community's only goal in being involved with us is getting a TVC video on YouTube and they don't care about a site publication, then they misunderstand our main site publication purpose to begin with. We aren't necessary to get a YouTube video of any given TAS, anyone in their community can upload one for themselves.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Here are the current rules on game hacks (which is generally how we treat Game Genie Codes)
There must be a publicly and readily available download link to the hack's patch file on the web. It should be easily found through Google. Having to join an online community (for example on Discord) to get the file is not allowed. -- For obscure hacks that are not well known but really well done, ask a judge if it can be accepted.
Fan translations are not allowed at all, even on top of other hacks.,
Cosmetic hacks are not allowed by themselves.,
Hacks that transform the game, especially new/changed levels, are preferred.,
External codes are treated as ROM hacks if modifications are severe enough.
So how does this run fit with those rules?
Since it's a Game Genie Code, the first bullet point isn't necessary as anyone with the emulator can input the code themselves to "hack" the game instead of needing a patch.
It's not a translation.
It's not a cosmetic hack.
So that leaves us with questioning whether or not this hack/GG Code transforms the game.
Consider how a human would play when using this code. They could accidentally press “down” too early and get stuck/wrong warp. So there is a bit of a new challenge with this code from a mechanics and speed standpoint, in not trying to warp too early. It also presents a change in approach to play with having to make sure Mario is grounded at the earliest possible moment when an actual warp is available; otherwise time would be lost.
It may not otherwise be a drastic change from the main gameplay, but it is a transformative change in how the game is played.
So the ultimate decision to make is: HOW transformative does a hack/code need to be in order to be published? Personally, I think this run is fine for publication.
EDIT: I cant repeat the optimization I initially posted here. Not sure how I got it to work the first time. But I'm retracting my statement that further optimization is possible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
McBobX wrote:
I believe that instead of separating, it would be better to make a new run that simulates US version in Japanese version by either dropping Reset Warps and keeping just Death Warps, or simply dropping both Reset and Death Warps, and (maybe) dropping Area 7 skip. This will still take the advantage of Japanese version's optimal lag management while also achieving a different goal.
Separation not an issue of different goals; it’s about separating the runs as a way to acknowledge there are significant differences between the regions.
If the lag issue was the only difference, then i could potentially see preferring Japanese over US for an otherwise identically routed run. But because there are other differences, then just keeping the best possible US run along side the best possible Japanese run seems more appropriate than trying to simulate the US route with the Japanese cart.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
It's stated in the "Game Objectives":
* Completing the game with 000000 points in one life (dying is banned)
If dying were allowed, this TAS would become repetitive and meaningless.
I missed that line when reading the submission notes.
FWIW, I don't agree that using death would be "meaningless" otherwise I wouldn't have asked if it was considered. I personally would have no problem watching the repetitive play required in order to see a TAS that used death to achive the goal of "Completing the game with 000000 points" as fast as possible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Two semi-connected questions: Was “dying to save time” considered/tested? Which point farming in the run is the most beneficial?
I was just curious about taking the normal stage route as used in the baseline warps run (going straight to 8-1 instead of using the warp to 6-1). Then since there is a point farming opportunity right at the beginning of 8-2, farm everything you can there, then die and repeat the farming there with a new timer. Since so very little distance is needed to get to the farming point from the stage start, it maxes out farming time. While there would be extra stage intro screens from the deaths, these may be offset by not having the stage intro screens from all the stages not needing to be run. It would also eliminate full stages with low point opportunities like world 6/7 castles.
Just a thought.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
I'd also like to credit DJ_Incendration, who made the previous TAS of this romhack. Any fights that haven't been obsoleted were initially TASed by him, and many of the obsoleted fights are just minor improvements to his work.
If you used some of DJ_Incendration's inputs (as opposed to creating this whole thing from scratch), you should include him as co-author.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
As randommo mentioned, we’ve already accepted a cart swap run for the site. I’m going to throw my opinion in here: this submission should NOT obsolete the current game end glitch run. The introduction of other game carts into the mix makes the two runs impossible to compare.
I don’t have a problem with this being accepted to alternative or to playground, so long as it doesn’t obsolete the run made with only the SMB3 cart.
We may also want to consider a standardized way to visually identify multi-cart publications; either by an icon or simply as part of the branch name.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
I just want to point out that the act of submitting the original version of this run (and its subsequent acceptance/publication) is what has really spurred all the more in-depth work on this game. That in and of itself is AWESOME!
It's situations exactly like this one that prove to us how accepting a run which looks generally optimal, while possibly having some less-than-obvious optimization potential, can actually spur more interest/action on a given game. Had the original submission not been made/accepted, it's possible none of these improvements would have been looked into or found anytime soon.
Kudos to all of you!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
alexheights1 wrote:
It is fun to watch, not a bad run, but...
While you're at it, why not make the screen transitions faster also?
Why not make overworld travel faster? Please max the speed of overworld travel!
This is what I would like to see: Max the speed of everything. This includes enemies and everything else that moves.
Not a bad run, but not THE FINAL FORM!
I believe it can be made much more amazing than this...
Please think of ways to make the concept more interesting. XD
Pre-emptively voting yes for an ACE run that maxes the speed of EVERYTHING.
I had a similar thought. If you're already maxing out Mario's horizontal speed, why not also max out his vertical jumping acceleration/speed? Wouldn't that make vertical stages faster, and potentailly minimize/negate the need for the cape as well?
EDIT: Still a fun watch, as is.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
alexheights1 wrote:
I want to see what the best dice roll combo and route is for snakes and ladders!
https://www.mobygames.com/game/5224/chutes-and-ladders/
Might be TASable if a way can be found to run it in Linux.
Though, I would suspect a route of fastest dice rolls might be able to be calculated manually fairly simply. I think some versions of the game may use a spinner instead of dice to determine how far to move, but the process for determining the optimal roll/spin would be the same.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
I'm just familiar enough with this game to know that various difficulty levels require completing different mission objectives. So runs of the game using each individual difficulty would be varied enough due to those objective differences to warrant different publications. So I'd suggest to add a goal/branch label of "agent."
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Just as a note: the extra frame before input response has been given a issue in the BizHawk dev github. https://github.com/TASEmulators/BizHawk/issues/4227
Looks like this was added about 3 weeks ago after HappyLee first brought it up. So it's a known issue, but there doesn't seem to be a solution yet, as it doesn't appear to be consistently reproducable across multiple users.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
TheOnlyOne wrote:
Hi there, I just want to say that what I meant by frame advance is Tas-studio, so I am actually using that. Soon I'm making a Tas of Sonic R on the saturn, Hope it can be published!
Might want to look into a previous submission that was rejected. You could potentially get some help and insight from both the previous work and the judgement notes.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
Walgrey wrote:
In February, I submitted a 201 frame publication for Famidash. On February 28th, a new version of the game released, adding more content, and I created another submission for that version.
My question is, do I cancel the first submission? I’m going to be honest, I think the current publication is poor in quality. It isn’t optimized and there is little interesting playaround, despite the game offering a lot of opportunity for it. I’d like to have the 201 frame improvement accepted, as there would at least be an optimal TAS of version 1.1 before it gets obsoleted by the 1.2 TAS. Does the 201 frame improvement have any chance of getting accepted?
Additionally, will the version 1.2 TAS get accepted? Figured I’d ask since I don’t think I’ve seen any other examples of a game on TASVideos being given more content in an update, although I could be wrong. The 1.2 TAS is longer, but it’s more representative of the game in its current state (and more interesting than the 1.1 TAS in my opinion). Is there any sort of written policy on this?
We have this in our rules:
Any release version or update patch of a game may be used, though you should be able to explain why you chose that version.
If there is a significant difference in content between the versions, there is a possibility we may allow both versions as separate publications. That said, I can't guarantee that version 1.2 wouldn't obsolete version 1.1 if all the content from v1.1 is seen in v1.2. I will state that 1.2 would likely be the prefered version (as the more complete version of the game) if we were only going to accept one of the versions for publication.
The current v1.1 TASon the workbench still can be accepted even if it would ultimately be obsoleted by a v1.2 run. (I've gone ahead and claimed both of the workbench runs). Assuming the v1.1 run is acceptable, I'll make sure to delay judgement on the v1.2 run until the updated v1.1 is published. That way, even if v1.2 does end up obsoleting the v1.1 runs, the obsoletion tree will show the better of the v1.1 runs as having been accepted/published.
I'll have to discuss with other staff regarding whether or not the v1.2 run should obsolete v1.1 or be split into a separate publication. If you haven't already, please explain, in detail, the differences betwee the versions in your v1.2 submission notes. That will help us as staff to better decide on what to do with the various versions of the game.
Walgrey wrote:
I’d also hate to get pedantic, but the collectable coins in Geometry Dash are called “Secret Coins” in-game. Famidash technically doesn’t have a name for them, but I’d assume the same name applies, considering it’s a demake of the Geometry Dash. Is “main levels, all Secret Coins” a better branch name or is “main levels, all coins” still accurate?
Either is valid in my opinion. If you feel that specifying "secret" is preferred, you can edit the submission yourself and change the goal name.
Walgrey wrote:
Would “main levels” without the coins be accepted? When you collect a coin, you are forced to wait for it to get tallied on the score screen. Sure it’s technically fastest completion, but it doesn’t offer anything different from “main levels, all coins” other than intentionally missing the coins and getting free timesave at the score screen from it. The level route and skips are still the same.
Potentially, though again, I can't guarantee. A no-coins/minimal coins run would likely be the fastest way to beat the game due to managing less time counting on the score screen. The improvements in time may only appear to occur on the score tally screens, but they would result from different gameplay. So it could be argued that getting the coins and beating the game as fast as possible is a different goal than just beating the game as fast as possible due to different gameplay optimization techniques.
It could also be noted that runs obbtaining coins aren't going for the baseline fastest possible optimization of the game (Standard Class) and would thus be Alternative goals; I'll bring this point of difference up with other judges when I bring up the version issue in staff chat as I'm able.
Walgrey wrote:
Lastly, I’m working on an “all levels, all coins” TAS of the game. Is this an acceptable branch, or is just “all levels” preferable? I’m reusing my inputs from the “main levels, all coins” TAS I made to save time. Is this allowed? Frowned upon? Should I change the inputs in the main levels to make it more visually distinct from the existing submission I made? Should I just make a “custom levels, all coins” TAS instead?
An "all levels" or "all levels, all coins" TAS would probably fall under our standard class definition for "full completion," and it would likely be acceptable along side a baseline "main levels" run. Re-using input is absolutely fine to do for overlapping content. Given how much we are about trying to optimize games here; it would seem odd to tell someone to do more work than necessary just to make overlapping aspects of two separate runs be slightly different visually, yet to also maintain the same level of optimization. Re-using the inputs saves you time and work!
As mentioned above, I can't say if a separation of publications between obtaining or foregoing coins would be the case; so I can't currently make a recommendation on "all levels" vs. "all levels, all coins" run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2331)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1137
Location: US
The submission notes state: "this is my first actual TAS using frame advance"
It's awesome that you are using a new TASing tool that you haven't with your prior TASing. I'd strongly encourage you to investigate the TAStudio tool. It makes visualizing/setting inputs on a frame-by-frame basis for any frame in your TAS. In my opinion, it makes TASing a bit easier as backing up and re-doing portions of a run can be performed while maintining future inputs (that may or may not need changed depending on the game).
Also, make sure your submitted runs are meeting our rules; specifically in this instance (as Spike mentioned), making sure that the submission gets to the point where the game starts to loop. The guidelines would also be a good resource to read through.
Keep working at your skills, and you'll (hopefully soon) produce something publishable!
