Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
NxCy wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
EDIT: Another way to look at it, (possibly more simply), it's the effect of inertia and the balance of forces on your own body's mass in relation to the earth that affect how heavy you feel.
When moving upward, you have to accelerate your own center of mass using at a force greater than that of gravity to ascend the ladder.
When moving downward, you only have to match gravity's force to ascend the ladder and keep your own center of mass suspended in space. Thus it feels easier.
Why? Suppose I am standing in the elevator. Even if the elevator is moving down (relative to the surface of the Earth) at a constant speed, I will have a weight, mg, which, when standing, is balanced by the reaction force from the floor, i.e. it'll feel exactly the same as being stationary standing on the surface of the Earth. If I want to accelerate myself upwards, I will need to exert a force that is greater than mg. If I only 'match gravity's force', then my net force will be 0 and I won't accelerate. From the point of view of someone on the Earth's surface, if I 'match gravity', then my net force is 0, but since I was already moving down at the same rate as the elevator, I will continue to do so and remain stationary relative to the elevator's floor.
Yea...I see the flaw in my thought processes.
I'll edit my previous posts.
The only time someone should feel a different weight is when the elevator is accelerating/decelerating. These would be the only time when the external forces being exerted on one's body are changing.
Specifically, these would be the only times the pressure sensors (nerves) in the skin would perceive different forces, which the brain would interpret as feeling heaver/lighter.
What I wrote regarding the ball dropping should be accurate though.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Warp wrote:
If the elevator is going down at a great speed, even if it's at constant velocity, it will be much easier to jump, requiring significantly less effort. If the elevator is going up at a great speed, it will be harder to jump, requiring more effort.
But what explains that? It's hard to wrap one's head around it.
Did you miss my response?
Specifically this part:
EDIT: Another way to look at it, (possibly more simply), it's the effect of inertia and the balance of forces on your own body's mass in relation to the earth that affect how heavy you feel.
When moving upward, you have to accelerate your own center of mass using at a force greater than that of gravity to ascend the ladder.
When moving downward, you only have to match gravity's force to ascend the ladder and keep your own center of mass suspended in space. Thus it feels easier.
Let me add a couple words and it may clarify further. (added words bolded, important words underlined)
Another way to look at it, (possibly more simply), it's the effect of inertia and the balance of forces on your own body's mass in relation to the earth that affect how heavy you feel (and how much perceived effort it takes to change position of your body's center of mass in realtion to the earth's surface).
When the elevator is moving upward, you have to accelerate your own center of mass using at a force greater than that of gravity to ascend the ladder and move your own center of gravity further from the earth's surface.
When moving downward in the elevator, you only have to match gravity's force to 'ascend' the ladder and keep your own center of mass suspended in space at a given distance from the Earth's surface. Thus it feels easier.
The effort required to exert a force greater than gravity is greater than the effort required to exert a force equal to gravity.
For further clarification regarding this part of your initial question:Warp wrote:
If you are in a lift that's going up at a constant speed, you'll feel heavier (and it will be harder for you to eg. climb a ladder). If the lift is going down at a constant speed, you'll feel lighter.
This actually isn't true. If you are standing stationary in the moving elevator (thus moving at the same vertical speed as the elevator) you'd feel your normal weight. It's only when you try to move within the elevator (thereby changing the position of your body's center of mass in relation to the earth) that you feel a different weight. The perceived weight change is only a perception based on the amount of effort required to move your center of mass in relation to the earth's surface.
EDIT: This was a flawed thought process.
Warp wrote:
A related question: If you drop a ball inside the elevator, does it acceleration towards the floor depend on the vertical speed of the elevator? (If the answer is no, then it's even more puzzling.)
No, its acceleration is not affected by the speed of the elevator. It will accelerate toward the earth at the standard acceleration due to gravitational force. When it meets the floor of the elevator, it will stop/bounce due to the Normal force exerted by the elevator's floor.
Further, the time it takes for the ball to reach the floor in the elevator moving at (any) constant velocity when dropped from 3 ft above the floor should be nearly equivalent to the time it takes the ball dropped from 3 ft above the floor to reach the floor in a stationary elevator. This is due to the ball's initial velocity matching the elevator's prior to being dropped. The ball's inertia wants to keep it moving in the same direction of the elevator, but gravity wants to accelerate the ball toward the floor. As gravity is constant (for a given distance), the acceleration toward the floor is equal regardless of what direction the elevator was traveling when the ball was dropped (or if the elevator wasn't moving to begin with).
If the elevator was traveling rapidly enough to have major change in distance from the earth's surface within the time that it takes the ball to fall, there may be very slight variation in fall-time as the instantaneous force exerted by gravity would change throughout the fall as distance changes; but it would need to be a significantly rapid speed to have a time difference perceptible to the naked eye (without measurement tools).
Just make sure you're not confusing an elevator moving downward at constant speed with the process of free-fall. Free-fall is an acceleration process, not constant velocity. Terminal Velocity is the limitation of free-fall due to force exerted by air resistance. Within the closed elevator there's no increased air resistance upon the ball simply because the elevator is moving.
The way training for weightless environments is simulated in airplanes like the "Vomit Comet" is by the plane approximating the acceleration due to the force of gravity (or free-fall). If the planes were flying at constant speed (even perfectly vertical), there'd be no perceived weightlessness.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
electricslide wrote:
...but the concerns raised were over, "why didn't you do x the way we would have preferred you to do x" and not over the quality of the submission, etc.
When an established preferred way of having things done for publication purposes has already been standardized on the site, not doing things that way without a warranted reason is exactly a reflection of the quality of the presented submission.
The quality of this movie itself may be fine on its own and may indeed be very entertaining for some; but for a submission that is being offered for publication on the site, the submission needs to adhere to the established/traditional quality standards of the site.
So questions regarding methods employed for the creation and submission of this run are indeed questions of the movie's quality as a submission.
Pointing out that this submission fails to match or beat the current publication on certain tracks shows that better is possible for those tracks. Unless there's a valid reason those tracks MUST be performed slower to accomplish a faster overall run, the criticism that this submission is sub-optimal is valid. If those tracks MUST be performed slower to accomplish the faster overall run, then it should be explained why to the best of the authors knowledge.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Warp wrote:
Something that Bisqwit asked me made me think of something that I just can't figure out.
If you are in a lift that's going up at a constant speed, you'll feel heavier (and it will be harder for you to eg. climb a ladder). If the lift is going down at a constant speed, you'll feel lighter.
Or do you? How does this work?
If the lift is going down at a constant speed, you'll never be in free fall (because that would require an accelerating speed), no matter how fast the lift is going... but you still feel lighter? I can't figure this out.
It's an inertia/center of mass issue. As you are inside the elevator, your mass (and that of the ladder) can be considered part of the mass of the elevator itself.
When the elevator is rising, and you try to climb the ladder you are effectively shifting the center of mass of the entire elevator complex higher within the elevator at a more rapid pace than than constant speed the elevator is moving. Your action of accelerating this center of mass within the elevator complex require you to introduce the force necessary to move by using your body's muscles making you feel heavier as it requires greater exertion to introduce this force.
Going down is not quite but almost the opposite. As you try to climb the ladder you are still effectively shifting the center of mass of the entire elevator complex higher within the elevator. This time however, your actions are counteracting the accelerating force of gravity by allowing the center of mass to 'fall' slower while your climbing the ladder.
Because the total mass of the elevator system doesn't change due to your actions within, the overall system's speed is neither accelerated or decelerated in it's speed away from or toward the earth due to the change of forces applied within the interior of the elevator system.
If you aren't trying to move within the elevator, the center of mass of the entire system never shifts and you feel 'normal' weight during the constant motion. When standing still in an elevator, you only feel heaver/lighter during acceleration/deceleration because of the inertia of your body's own center of mass in relation to the earth.
It's all a balance of acceleration/deceleration. The moment you stop climbing the ladder (regardless of the direction the elevator is traveling) there's an opposite acceleration/deceleration of the systems center of mass to what you initiated a the bottom of the ladder.
Here's a video using a slinky to demonstrate center of mass and relation to gravity. It's not exactly the same but it shows how center of mass is important to how an entire system is impacted by gravity.
Link to video
EDIT: Another way to look at it, (possibly more simply), it's the effect of inertia and the balance of forces on your own body's mass in relation to the earth that affect how heavy you feel.
When moving upward, you have to accelerate your own center of mass using at a force greater than that of gravity to ascend the ladder.
When moving downward, you only have to match gravity's force to ascend the ladder and keep your own center of mass suspended in space. Thus it feels easier.
EDIT 2: This was a flawed thought process.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
simillarian wrote:
Thinking of it this way, it seems we either have 2 out of 5 events designed for high score and 3 out of 5 events designed for speed. Would the best run be one that aims for high score on the first 2 and speed on the next 3? I'm not sure how switching goals in the middle of the run would be any better than a run where 2/5ths of it is essentially waiting for the event to end.
For a high score TAS: If speed is the only metric for score on an event, then the fastest time = the best score. If there are other ways of earning points, attempting to maximize score takes priority over speed to the end point. It could theoretically end up being a balance point between speed and other score earned in-stage that yields the maximum score.
So for Freestyle and High Jump, just max the score.
For Downhill and Jam, you'd need to maximize points by balancing speed and points from tricks, pickups, etc.
For Joust, it's probably still a 'win as fast as possible' situation.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
My question essentially comes down to the section of the rules defining games which have achievable goals. Is simply ending the gameplay segments as quickly as possible the same thing as completing them? As you pointed out it's not "losing them" but it's not clearly winning them either. Typically in a video game you play it well to progress further into them but here progression happens regardless of performance. That signals to me that "progression" seems like a trivial goal.
I am not against accepting this kind of run despite feeling that a score oriented run would be more interesting, but I would like clarification on a rather ambiguous section of the rules.
This feels similar to my C64 Decathlon submission. It similarly didn't require good performance for progression. Granted it was rejected because the aim for max score didn't allow for true fastest completion (which would have been effectively done by just failing all non-timed events). That game's judgment has been suggested to be rejudged given the clarified vault rules for max-score runs (as somewhat discussed here).
Skate or Die may be a similar situation where only a max-score run can be vault eligible and there's no feasible way to have a speed only related vault eligible submission (barring perhaps ACE).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
WarHippy wrote:
So it's been almost a month since I put forward this suggestion. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
I'm fine with having it rejudged. If optimization is in question under a new judgement, I have no problem revisiting the project and improving optimization if a high score run will now be vault eligible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
Is this completion?
You could say this movie completes all new content according to endless games rules, but is this completion if the game does not care about how well you do in the slightest?
Individual events (Downhill and Jam) certainly can be considered non-trivial in that they have a clear goal: complete as quickly as possible. Compete all does not have such a clear goal.
Can losing an event that is only intended to be 'beaten' and isn't time based actually be considered as 'completing' it?
It's more of a 'participated-in' status instead of 'completed'.
Sure, losing may be the fastest way to show the content, but I'd argue that only losing in such a competition event doesn't really count as 'completion'.
Even if the game ultimately doesn't care how you perform in the task presented; the general assumption can be made that the game still expects you to try to succeed in that task. Thus losing intentionally isn't 'completing' the task presented.
EDIT: This would really only apply to the last stage for this game. My comment was more generalized and not specific to this game.
The first two modes of this game are done satisfactorily for a fast finish.
As presented, this final stage is good as well.
EDIT#2: Regarding completion of this game: If the two poorly performed events are the beginning aren't included because they don't have a clear completion goal, the run wouldn't show all unique content of the game. Therefore, even though the game doesn't care how poorly they are done, they are necessary for a 'full-completion' run of this game. These events, as presented, still appear optimized for time.
The only other option would be to allow multiple publications of individual events as 'complete' runs (which in my opinion, isn't full completion of the game).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
dekutony wrote:
Ok so apparently someone made a full TAS of this game:
video removed
And uh... I dont really know what to say about it. I'm not too familiar with this game speedrun wise, and the description is... interesting.
Just in watching the first few levels, the run linked by Grincevent is clearly more optimal.
On that note, I have been occasionally working on a TAS of this game myself, and have managed to improve a couple things over the nicovido run. At this rate though, it's going to be quite a while before I can have a submission ready (and that assumes when I'm all done, it's actually better than these two videos).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
I understand that people want movies to be appreciated for their technical accomplishments, but I don't feel a technical rating is the right way to go about that. Ultimately, only those who understand the ins and outs of a game can truly appreciate the amount of effort that goes into making the TAS. Ultimately what actually gets appreciated is the documentation of said process rather than the actual achievement.
This is exactly why a technical rating doesn't provide much information to a casual viewer or even another TASer unfamiliar with the game.
Speaking of casual (non-member) viewers of our publications...they aren't even given an option to rate movies. They can see the rating value, but can't contribute to the rating. Thus only members can have impact on the resulting rating; and when most members do actually contribute to how a movie is perceived, it's in the pre-publication discussion/voting.
I'd speculate that a fair number of our members simply feel that going back and rating a run post-publication is an unnecessary extra (if not also tedious) step, if they've already given their opinion on a particular run. This also explains the possibility that most of our members don't care much about the post-publication ratings to begin with or they'd do them.
Further, if a particular member has shown no interest in providing a simple yes/no/meh vote, how can we ask/expect that individual to want to provide an even more complex assessment of a run that they were never interested in to begin with?
So the question becomes, who/what are the ratings intended for?
If for displaying generalized perception of entertainment value: a simple 5 star rating system (as has been already brought up) would be sufficient to display this metric. And there's little reason to restrict this assessment to only members; we could allow the general public offer their entertainment perspective as well.
If for rating technical prowess of runs/authors...this accomplishes little more than stroking the egos of our members while providing little to no pertinent information to a casual watcher. A technical rating based on anything other than what's visible to a casual watcher is meaningless to that casual watcher. I'd suggest that even for other TASers, the technical accomplishments/ratings of movies are rarely the reason they choose to watch a particular run over other reasons such as entertainment or general interest in the game being TASed.
We claim that the underlying purpose of this site is entertainment. People don't want to have to work to be entertained. In general, people simply want entertainment provided to them. So doing (or even understanding) a technical rating takes extra work that most people aren't going to mess with when they're simply looking to be entertained.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
To add to Radiant's list of how to rate a movie:
The voting/rating guidelines tell viewers to consider the technical production of the run not just how technical it appears on-screen.
Therefore, There are additional steps required to do an appropriate technical rating.
*Click to open a new web page with the authors comments/submission notes to see how they made the TAS to begin with.
*Hope that those comments are fully developed and not simply a reference to an earlier version's submission notes (which would then require opening yet another web page to read those notes, or even more if it's the run's been updated multiple times)
*Read said note to hopefully understand what the author actually did to make the TAS from a technical standpoint.
*Have enough knowledge of the game to know if what the author did really was very technically impressive or not. (While this may not truly be a requirement, many viewers will feel this way in regards to rating technical quality.)
*Return to the original movie rating spot to actually do the rating itself.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
Who actually cares and pays attention to these ratings other than those doing the ratings? (legitimate non-rhetorical question)
It's one of the factors used in determining tiering. In fact it's pretty much the only factor post publication that can result in a tier change. Of course you could argue about how much tiering matters, but it very much affects whether or not certain TASes can be published here at the very least.
EDIT: I would not be against the idea that ratings should be phased out and other methods be used to determine tier.
Ratings are also used in calculating player's points but your mileage may vary on whether or not those matter.
I mostly understand what the ratings are used for regarding the site. But if so few are concerned with the ratings to begin with, should we really be using them to determine these things on the site?
Disclaimer: I don't have any other suggestions for tier changes. But I don't like the idea that ratings affect player points. I personally feel player points (as a quantitative value) should be based more on the quantity of currently published content that person has produced, not on how others qualitatively perceive the content that's been produced; I have no problem with losing points due to obsoletion.
Minor Side Note: You're accurate in assuming that the player points don't mean a whole lot to me either.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Memory wrote:
I've been talking and wondering why exactly people haven't been rating as much. I would like for people that don't rate post-publication to explain why.
I enjoy creating TAS content much more than I enjoy simply watching TAS movies. Therefore, I'd rather spend my free time creating new TAS content or updating an old one than watching runs of already published games simply to rate them.
With how little attention is paid by members in regards to doing the rating post publication, it does beg the question of how important post-publication ratings are in the first place.
Who actually cares and pays attention to these ratings other than those doing the ratings? (legitimate non-rhetorical question)
Frankly, I don't.
If I'm interested in watching a particular movie, a low rating will not discourage me from watching it. Likewise, if I have little to no interest in watching a particular movie, a high rating won't miraculously make me suddenly decide to watch it. My limited viewing of TASes is based on game interest not movie rating.
For that matter, I don't really care much how my own movies are rated (pre or post publication). If they are good enough for publication, I'm satisfied. Even when one gets rejected, I can still feel a sense of accomplishment for completing the project.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
I personally prefer auto-pilot mode.
I like the idea of ending input as soon as possible and letting the game finish itself even if getting to the credits takes longer.
I'd argue that the majority of what we publish here is based on this method (i.e. jumping into an end trigger to allow momentum to carry the character to the end trigger instead of having to have directional input all the way to the end-point). It's not universal on the site; but we're typically focused on shortest input, not shortest time to the credits screen itself.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
So it doesn’t seem like a 3rd person is going to sign up to form a 4th team. I haven’t given up on it yet but it’s probably a good time to think of some plan Bs.
So there’s a few options we can choose, and I’d like to know what everyone thinks:
we force two 5 player teams and have one 4 player team
one person leaves their team to join team 4, making two 3 player teams and two 4 player teams
the two individuals drop all together
Personally I would prefer the 2nd option but dont want to force someone out of a team unless they’re willing to do it. So what would everyone think is the best option?
Keep in mind if a 3rd player does sign up (or a 4th player shows up if we’re really lucky), we’ll disregard all of these options.
