Posts for DrD2k9


DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Regarding the PAL/NTSC debate: Something that needs to be considered is that real software from either region often worked on real hardware of the other region WITHOUT any necessary fixes/modifications. If playing a PAL game in NTSC mode yields a faster framerate/music but otherwise presents no new errors/glitches, playing that game on an NTSC system is something that would have been possible on actual systems. It should therefore be allowed in an emulated environment too. Theoretically, the faster pace of play would make many of these (if not all) such games harder on an NTSC system due to requiring faster reflexes to accomplish the same results at the higher framerate. So if anything, the current policy off allowing PAL games in NTSC mode allows for beating the game in a way that would have been 'harder' for a casual gamer on real hardware.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
hopper wrote:
In the first 19 levels, you miss one of the last two ducks. You mentioned optimizing the spawning of the second duck while you're killing the first. Would it make any difference to kill the second duck and let the first one fly away? I was thinking about how the second controller can be used to control the duck in Game A, which could help it fly away faster if your intention is to miss. That doesn't work in Game B, but I still wondered if it would, nevertheless, be faster to let the first duck make some progress towards the top of the screen while you're running yourself out of ammo and killing the second duck.
My thoughts without testing specifically regarding killing the 2nd duck: 1) Waiting for the 2nd duck to appear before firing the first shot. Waiting to shoot the second duck as it appears would be a delay of 1-3 frames for the 1st shot itself (even when the timer can be manipulated to be 0, the 2nd duck won't release until the frame after the first duck). Then the 2nd shot/1st miss followed by triggering the fly away on the 3rd shot would take as much time as it does now. While this allows the 1st duck to fly during those 1-3 frames before the 2nd duck arrives, due to variability in flight direction it isn't guaranteed to save the 1-3 frames lost to waiting for the first shot. This may be viable. 2) Shooting 2 shots before the 1st duck appears. Having only one shot remaining once the ducks arrive would minimize the time between the arrival of the 2nd duck and "fly away". However... When the gun is shot before/between ducks, there's a slight pause in the duck release countdown. Delaying the countdown before any duck appears is pointless as it delays duck arrival and wouldn't allow either duck to gain much altitude after arrival before the "fly away" was triggered. Therefore, shooting before the 1st duck arrives will likely lengthen the total time. 3) Shooting ASAP and missing the 1st duck when it arrives, then hitting the 2nd duck with either the 2nd or 3rd shot. (This is what I assume you're suggesting.) Oddly, the delay between how quickly two shots can be performed is longer if you miss a duck than it is if you hit a duck. So missing both the first and second shots adds one extra frame before the last shot can be taken and trigger the fly away. Therefore the 3rd shot needs to be one of the misses to minimize time before that shot can be taken. Whether the first or second shot is the hit, the time to get to the third shot should be equal. So if the first duck is missed, it may indeed have time to get higher on the screen before the 2nd shot can kill the 2nd duck. Based on these thoughts; either option 1 or 3 may be viable, but would likely require testing on a level-by level basis. Unfortunately, changing any individual level would likely affect RNG and require complete redo of everything from that point onward. Still, I may do some testing on this thought. Thanks for the idea.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I find this run mildly entertaining, but not exceptionally. This is one of those games in which I would rather work on the actual TAS process than watch the final product.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Maru wrote:
What do we consider as gameplay? which guideline better constitutes gameplay? Does this TAS have any gameplay improvements compared to the published run?
In my opinion, these three questions have related answers. I feel the first two questions can be answered together: As already mentioned we typically time things from power-on for our TASes as opposed to whatever start point is used for RTA runs. (We also end our TAS timing at different points than RTA runners, but that's a bit beside the point) This standardizes the TASing approach. RTA rules, while possibly similar to our own, have rarely dictated how we assess and judge our movies here. With power-on being our start point, it's my opinion that any inputs after power-on should be considered part of 'gameplay' for a TAS even when they occur on (or even before) the title screen. Consider games in which RNG can be manipulated by either delaying title screen input or pressing buttons that don't appear to have an effect on the title screen itself. Changing these title screen inputs changes the outcome of the TAS itself and therefore is part of the TAS gameplay. To answer the the third question: Yes it is a gameplay improvement. Since I consider title screen (and pre-title screen inputs) as part of gameplay, this submission is indeed a gameplay improvement over the current publication.
If this submission is accepted, should it obsolete the published run based on the fact that the published run was thoroughly outperformed in terms of time?
It doesn't necessarily have to. As the current publication is currently sitting in moon tier, it could remain there as 'fastest non-DPCM abuse' run; though it would have to lose it's fastest completion flag (which would go to this submission). If by chance this submission is deemed moon worthy, they could exist side by side. If it's not moon worthy, it can land in vault and the other run can stay in moons without obsoletion being necessary.
Is this type of game end glitch significantly different from the published game end glitch TAS to warrant the creation of a new category?
Ultimately what needs decided is if there is enough difference between non-ACE game end glitches (I don't even know if these exist), standard ACE, and DPCM-bug abuse ACE. In my opinion, the DPCM ACE is unique enough to be a separate category: Standard ACE mainly abuses RAM management through manipulation of in-game features (i.e. positioning turtle shells) to enable ACE which then yields the desired effect. DPCM ACE (at least of this type) mainly abuses the game's software workaround of a hardware bug and will likely always be on the sub-frame scale.
Since the ending is almost instant, do viewers see some similarity or resemblance to entering a password in-game to skip to the credits?
Resembling using a password or code isn't banned, just the actual use of codes/passwords. If an unintended input method is found to glitch into state that resembles/activates something in the game which can also be done by code/password it is allowed so long as the code/password itself isn't utilized. So the viewer's perspective of this 'looking like cheating' doesn't matter on whether or not it should be acceptable. As long as the submission obeys the rules, it should be acceptable. These are my thoughts on your questions. I'm curious to see other's perspectives.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
This submission is an interesting case. Is viewing the result entertaining? In my opinion, No. As mentioned above, it's little different than simply viewing a video of end credits. Is the accomplishment interesting/impressive? ABSOLUTELY! Should it be published? In my opinion, yes, it should. Where should it be published? Given that it's not entertaining to watch, moons probably isn't a good location; leaving vault as the only other landing place as this is the fastest known completion of this title. This is where the case becomes interesting.... The accomplishment of this run could be argued as Star tier quality from a technical aspect, but the lack of anything visually entertaining argues against Stars. Therefore, Vault is the only appropriate publication tier based on current rules. That said, I expect argument against accepting DPCM glitch abuse into Vault.
Post subject: Temp Encode
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Here's a temp encode. Link to video
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
While I understand the inherent value of an RTA rules restricted TAS for RTA speedrunners, I don't see value in having them submitted/published on this site along side unrestricted TASes. The major purpose of TASvideos is publishing superhuman play. Limiting something to only what a human might be able to accomplish (mostly) defeats the purpose of tool assistance in the first place. Typically, the only time arbitrarily restricted TASes are acceptable is when the restriction provides for some interesting or entertaining feature in the resulting movie that isn't seen in an unrestricted TAS. Only then are the limited TASes considered for publication; and in those cases, the ultimate decision is still entertainment driven. For example: Zelda II has this run and this run which both restrict actions used in the fastest completion of the game. Each of these offer visibly unique entertainment value not seen in the fastest completion. In my opinion...As this TAS neither beats a current record nor offers much unique in regards to entertainment value compared to the current unrestricted TAS, there was no reason to present this TAS as a submission with arbitrary restrictions. An upload to userfiles linked in the SMB game thread would have sufficed as a way to present this RTA viable TAS.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
SaxxonPike wrote:
Some interesting info about T64 files, which are apparently unrelated to tapes whatsoever and are a relic of really old emulators: https://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71839 Now that I know they aren't related to tapes (and even have "1541 file types" on them!) I could probably just stick the contained files into a disk image the same way we do with PRGs and be done with them.
More technical info on .t64 http://unusedino.de/ec64/technical/formats/t64.html EDIT: Regarding pulling the data and making .d64 files: While this is doable with various modern utilities, it would create a new .d64 image. As others must be able to find/obtain a matching image for a TAS to be accepted, this conversion is a very grey area for TASing purposes. Thankfully, I've personally run into very few games available ONLY in .t64 format.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Could the All Bosses branch be standardized to mean 'All accessible Bosses'? If a game has different bosses (or boss sequences) for different player characters, a run of this branch would be defined as all bosses accessible by that character. If it's not possible to access a boss that is only available to a different character, it would not be required for an 'All Boss' run based on the character chosen. Perhaps in these such cases the branch should actually be "All Bosses - <Character>". If a glitched method of accessing a particular boss (who is not normally available to the player's character) is found for a game, that boss then becomes a required component for an 'All Boss' run by the character in question; and a longer run that includes the boss would obsolete a shorter run where the boss is not fought.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Please don't be offended by my not finding this very entertaining. Entertainment is a subjective evaluation. Different people just find different things entertaining. I do find the run interesting from a TASing perspective , just not entertaining to watch. Bottom line, I'm thrilled to have more people here willing to try TASing DOS games via JPC-rr. That alone gives you bonus points in my book.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
The C64 keyboard layout doesn't match a modern keyboard. You'll have to check your bizhawk controller/input settings to see what's mapped to what. As far as C64 layout is concerned, quotation marks are (shift+2) and the asterisk is it's own key. If you open the virtual pad, the entire C64 keyboard is there. You can press what you need there instead of trying to use your keyboard. Beware though, If I remember correctly, Ultima requires keyboard inputs to play, so you'll need to figure out your mapping to effectively play casually. For TASing all keys are available in TAStudio.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
The game image file determines which media format your game image is. If your loading syntax doesn't match your media format, the game won't load properly. Based on the picture you shared above, I'd guess you've got a disk format image. Loading syntax for that would be LOAD"*",8 This is all explained in the guide I linked.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Looks like you're trying to use TAPE syntax for a game image that isn't tape format. Read this to help you get started. http://tasvideos.org/Bizhawk/C64.html Also you can pull up the virtual pad under Tools>Virtual Pad to have a C64 keyboard layout available on your desktop.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
Now that's interesting. It seems the disk releases that are floating around are basically "bad dumps" (be it cracked or non-cracked). BTW, comparing against the only speedrun on SRC (at around 2:12), it seems you had really horrible RNG in that specific room, as it's basically taking forever for the teleporter to turn green. Abstaining from voting.
Yea I have recently acquired a couple disk images (cracked) that do have that room correct, but I have still been unable to verify that the game was officially released on disk media. The only cases I can make for a disk released are this ebay listing and this webpage. I don't know that I trust either of them. Specifically for the ebay listing, it doesn't look like official packaging nor does it show the 'front' of the disk itself making me think it's simply a cracked version or custom media conversion. As far as RNG being a pain...that's addressed in the submission notes. But yes they were a major problem with running the game. I'm still studying the issue.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
LOL just found this... Link to video
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
YAY! More DOS tasers! I had (and despised) this game as a kid (though I'm not sure where I got it). I had Skunny Kart too, actually. Didn't watch the whole thing...couldn't force myself too. But what I watched appeared ok from an optimization standpoint. Not very entertaining in my opinion.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I ran the SHA1 hash for the disk image I have (that created the above glitched room). It matches the SHA1 posted above by fsvgm777.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
I wonder why you went for the tape release (with the slowest loading, no really, about half the duration of the TAS is seizure-inducing loading as it is) instead of a disk release. I assume it's because you didn't want to deal with a cracked disk image, even though there's an exception for them in the rules (for C64 games and I presume also ZX Spectrum games). EDIT: So....I apparently found an *un*cracked disk release. SHA1: F51B6D934EED206DF74D248F9F70C16C96146133
I couldn't find evidence of an official disk release. Further all the disk versions I could find had a glitched room with walls/floors that weren't supposed to be there. EDIT: Specifically this room. Correct Glitched
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
how about a ####EM page for each bit of content? (EM meaning Event Movie) Disclaimer: I have no idea what it would take to implement this idea.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
At the risk of offering a 'too simplistic' suggestion: Would it be possible/acceptable to simply add a page to the wiki (or a new tab on the Movie Page) that houses/publishes high quality videos of event content; even if that content doesn't go through the normal submission/judging/publication process? This content could be kept separate from the standard obsoletion chains, while still having a presence on the site as 'official' TASvideos content. The necessary input files could still be hosted/linked for future reference, and the videos could be sorted by year/event instead of by system/tier/title. As with our current publications, the videos could showcase just the TAS content, not a replay of the event VODs. Essentially making it a page for here's what we presented at X event in it's raw form. This would satisfy the desire of the content creators to have their work published as part of our site instead of somewhere completely separate. If this page was strictly limited to content actually shown at an event, we wouldn't have to worry about arbitrary stuff being submitted for that page. Having this page would also do nothing to damage the current position of the site in regards to standard submissions/publications. Everything else could function as it currently is. If we wanted, we could even put notes with the videos on this page linking to any site content of the same games that have gone through the standard process. The three biggest challenges I see with this suggestion are: 1) Having to describe the playback method/emulator/tools used, if not already standard on the site. 2) Actually creating the high quality videos (I'm assuming some of the input playback methods may not have video dumping capability) 3) It would likely require completely manual curation and not have anything automated.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I've actually had Uridium on my list of of games to look into at some point.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Lobsterzelda wrote:
This is probably one of the earliest examples of rubberbanding in video games. However, instead of using increased/more dangerous hazards like Mario Kart does, Pitfall! uses the global timer cycle for all hazards to smooth things out.
I can only assume you're considering the global timer's affect on speed of play as the rubber banding effect. While it could be perceived as a limiting factor for more skilled players, I strongly doubt that difficulty/skill balancing had anything to do with the creators' choice to use the global cycle for all the obstacles. It's much more likely that it was easier/more efficient to program obstacles on a global timer instead of having individual timers for every single room. Using this global timing mechanism to support a claim for rubber banding in Pitfall! because it limits when certain actions can happen would be similar to claiming that frame rules in SMB are a form of rubber banding because they limit when certain events can take place. Generally, rubber banding in video games refers to changes in degree of difficulty based on the player's in-game performance. In other words, on-the-fly easing of difficulty for less skilled players or on-the-fly increase of difficulty for more skilled players. A game mechanic (such as a global timer) that is static and unchanging isn't difficulty balancing (rubber banding) just because it inherently limits the extent to which a skilled player can outperform a non-skilled player; it's simply a limiting factor for all players. The global timer in Pitfall! doesn't force faster players to slow down so slower players can catch up any more than it allows slower players to speed up to catch up with the faster players. All players move at the same speed and have the same obstacles to deal with all on the same global timer. In my opinion there's no dynamic change in difficulty in this game to warrant a claim of rubber banding.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Nice work! It's always interesting to see improvements on a game I've run myself.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Skim through here. Also, welcome to the site. Don't submit a SMB TAS unless it beats the current record, or you'll get a bunch of flack from other members about movie rules and guidelines. Side Note to the site admin: This should be merged with the current thread.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Memory wrote:
Do you want to try to find additional improvements, or would you like to use the updated file for the improvement and add me as coauthor? I will drop my claim over the submission if the latter.
I'm a bit surprised you were able to find improvements, so I'm good with you being co-author. Collaboration is one of the aspects of this community I enjoy most. I am curious if it's something I missed in both versions or if it's something that was only improvable in the NTSC mode.