Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Sand wrote:
How does the scoring work? It looks like you get points by flying close to the ground? And excess points earned in earlier stages can be applied to later stages?
The player’s score when hitting 30 miles or when the timer runs out must exceed the BONUS value in order to continue to the next level.
Flying low to the ground clips flags with the helicopter’s runners for more points.
This userfile still only contains input for 1 player.
Make sure that when you are exporting your TAS to an .fm2 file that you are selecting the 2 Players option.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Oopla,
Overall, this is a solid run for a first submission, but I had some curiosities on potential improvements after watching through the run.
Specifically the following things I either suspect as areas where improvement is possible, or areas where I'd encourage testing if you haven't already. While not blatantly sub-optimal, these areas just drew my suspicion while watching through. Without actually fully testing all these myself, I can't claim they qualify as sub-optimal play and thus wouldn't outright prevent acceptance of the run.
Room at Frame 8438 - I suspect the last enemy may be able to be killed against the lowest section of ceiling to save some time exiting the room.
Room at Frame 8852 - I think its worth testing if switching the order of kills would be faster.
Room at Frame 11226 - I'm confident the sword enemy can be defeated quicker, you don't hit him before turning back left.
Room at Frame 13411 - I suspect the red guys can be attacked on the way up to the ceiling instead of just flying straight up there.
Room at Frame 15219 - Again, I suspect the red guys can be attacked on the way up to the ceiling, possibly going left first instead of right?
Room at Frame 15490 - May be faster to try going right first instead of Left?
Also, a significant chunk of time can be saved at the very end of the run. As TAS timing is based on the frame of final input, the last input needed to beat the game is actually on 18364 of this submission. Everything after that just adds unnecessary time to the run and should probably be cut (unless you REALLY want it in there from a stylistic perspective).
So...Which these options would you like to proceed with?
1) Have me judge the run as-is.
2) Have me truncate the run to frame 18364 then judge the run without other potential improvements.
3) Investigate the potential improvements yourself, and provide a userfile with any updates so that I can update the submission and finalize a judgment.
4) Have me do a detailed analysis of the entire run while implementing any improvements I can. Include me as co-author (assuming I find improvements) and allow another judge to judge the resulting run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Just as a note: while this is (rightfully) labeled as a “pacifist” run, it’s also a valid any% run as manipulating the enemies to kill each other is going to be faster than maneuvering around to shoot those same enemies (assuming the round duration is based on number of kills and not a set time).
nymx can correct me if I’m wrong on that point.
EDIT (because I’m an idiot and forgot to include it the first time around): My point being that this run should qualify for standard class if accepted.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Technoturnovers wrote:
So, something I want to point out before this run inevitably gets canceled/rejected for, well, using a Game Genie code: strictly speaking, a Game Genie code can act as a form of romhack, and just like Wii homebrews will often implement themselves via Gecko codes, it's entirely possible to convert a Game Genie code into an ordinary romhack with an IPS patch. While this run doesn't do anything particularly interesting to merit an exception, I do think that categorically banning Game Genie codes is a bit unwise given that it does allow for interesting possibilities beyond just basic cheating.
Game Genie isn’t categorically banned from the site, it’s banned from Standard Class publications. If a run using a game genie code garners enough entertainment value, it may be publishable in Alternative Class.
Edit: Also we have this in the rules:
External codes are treated as ROM hacks if modifications are severe enough.
This modification via game genie likely wouldn’t qualify as severe enough to be considered a ROM hack.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
In general, do we not treat continues as undesirable regardless of system unless the continue provides for a special time saving technique such as the one used in The Legend of Zelda to sacrifice the life and resting to the start location/dungeon entrance?
In other words looking unfavorably on using continues to simply add more/infinite lives to a run in order to be able to keep dying until the end is reached instead of utilizing better/superhuman play to reach the end in a similar (though possibly slightly slower time).
Considering most arcade game continues are based on loss of lives—which in the arcade world is typically an indication of less than ideal play—most uses of arcade continues would be this situation of playing in a less than superhuman/ideal way and then utilizing the continue to keep going instead of just TASing better gameplay in the first place.
If there is a situation where an arcade continue provides for a special time-saving circumstance, that run could be an exception to a “No Continue” rule for arcade games (or any system for that matter).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Heads up to any potential teammates: My time is limited, but I’ve typically enjoyed working on these.
I’m in.
Edit: CasualPokePlayer and I are teaming up.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
zaphod77 wrote:
I will give a real example.
Jumpman has a simple ml loader inside basic that uses the kernal routines to load the main program, and then jumps to it's start address.
But you can write a small M/L routine to copy the kernel to RAM underneath. You can do it with pokes (easy to do rapidly under TAS conditions), then do another poke to change the vectors to make it start automatically without a sys command, and the routine can restore the vector you just poked.
Then you can bank out the kernal with another poke. now kernel is in RAM, and you can directly modify it with pokes.
Now you patch the load routine so that after the load is finished, and before the routine returns, it JSRS to another bit of code you poked in that changes the RAM of the game. say, to disable sprite to sprite collision checks. it just patches blind.
The code runs after the first load, but does nothing. it also runs after the load of the main program, when it's there to modify. and this time it does something.
Now you are cheating, and everything you did was BEFORE the load that kicks off starting the game normally.
Alternatively, you can create a TSR with POKEs that messes with the loader to do some similar cheating.
For a basic game, you can copy BASIC to ram, and then modify the basic interpreter itself and use THAT to cheat in a BASIC game.
Pretty much the only thing that is far is messing with the rng, though if a game is silly enough to make assumptions about the starting background and text colors and not set them by hand, i'd say those are fair game to change.
While all this could be done, it wouldn’t be easily done in an obfuscated way. Any POKE commands used in a TAS should be thoroughly explained in the submission notes and verifiable. If a judge can see that the actions taken don’t match the claim in the submission notes, it can be rejected for cheating/disallowed game modification.
If POKE commands aren’t explained at all, the submission would (at minimum) require more info before a valid judgment can be made. If the author never responds as to why the POKE commands is present, I feel that it should be an instant rejection; even if it would otherwise have been a legit POKE use.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
eien86 wrote:
Ok, adding my review:
* Sync: Yes. Tested on c-square's modified JPC-rr 11.2 with TASScript
Making it sync was a bit of a research task. This movie uses a different machine BIOS' than the ones provided in c-square's JPC-rr 11.2 redistributable. You have to download them from the Bochs repository and import them into JPC manually:
https://github.com/ipxe/bochs/blob/master/bios/BIOS-bochs-latest
You need to modify the movie file with this line, if you want it to reproduce with this BIOS:
BIOS 740f01be58103af0996220bdeb7c4d12 -> BIOS 21fa468b969329b6ac3571ead5b181e3
Similarly, a different VGA bios is used (Elpin) to properly display the game's text and prevent a desync.
https://github.com/ipxe/bochs/blob/master/bios/VGABIOS-elpin-2.40
As for the DOS disk, the standard FreeDOS image that comes with JPC-RR works just fine. For the game image, I used GoG's source removing the unnecessary files, according to the submission notes.
* Previous Work: DrD2k9's own previous movie (Movie #4447M) played on a similar setting. This movie improves it by almost 2 seconds.
* General Optimization: I really recommend OneShortEye's documentary on this game's WR history and read previous submission notes to know the level of trickery that goes into beating this game fast. The TAS, of course, takes this to an extreme. The level of optimization is clearly visible and there's nothing I can add to it. I'm mindblown by the new tricks, especially the beanstalk yolo skip.
* Entertainment: Watching this movie at different speeds (see provided encodes) provide totally different experiences. However, as with any TAS, it takes some knowledge to truly appreciate the level of trickery. I would love to watch a TAS-specific documentary to dissect every step of the movie.
I'm going to make sure my future DOS TASes don't use the BIOS that I originally used in this run. (If I can before judging happens, I'll re-sync on a more available BIOS and update the submission.) Done.
FWIW, The linked World Record progression video is significantly outdated. The current RTA record for KQ1 is 42.20 seconds and was set within the past couple days.
Also FWIW, the different route that I need to investigate which I mentioned in an earlier post may eliminate the YOLO jump from the beanstalk if it ends up being faster.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Yea. While the yolo jump off the beanstalk was new to me, it’s apparently been known for a while in the RTA community. I just hadn’t seen it myself until recently. So i implemented it.
On another note, there are potentially further improvements to this run coming in the future:
1) the beanstalk can be planted elsewhere to shorten the route.
2) i need to investigate a different route altogether that may be faster.
But I’m not sure how soon i can get to implementing these; so I’d like this run judged as-is.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Since attempting to formulate a generalized definition of “glitchless” seems like it may be difficult, and it appears that it may ultimately become a game-by-game decision…If we do implement “glitchless” in standard class, perhaps the opposite approach would be beneficial. It may therefore be wise to have a posted list of events/activities that we (as TASVideos) definitely do consider as glitches regardless of the game or its community.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
WarHippy wrote:
The current Standard category is a great pillar of stability for the site: Any%, 100%, and Max score are common between most every game out there. I don’t think Glitchless is a common enough category as it only arises after a game gets completely destroyed by one (or many) glitches and exploits.
Alternative is designed to capture all the rest. This may lead to Alternative becoming bigger than Standard in an extreme case, but that in and of itself shouldn’t be a problem. The extra runs are still being published to the site which is the most important part of inclusion.
The problem with this perspective is the entertainment requirement for Alternative Class. The entertainment requirement could prevent a solid “Glitchless” run from being published (even if it’s drastically different than the glitched run) simply because it doesn’t get enough entertainment votes. This is most likely to happen with lesser known games/systems; and it would effectively prevent a good “Glitchless” run from being publishable even if it’s otherwise acceptable.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
Perhaps we need to establish some degree of difference between glitched/glitchless branches to allow both in standard class.
I think it would make it more subjective, because when it comes to the "x enough or not" arguments, there appears the need for something else objective that we could rely on, to then decide whether the difference is subjectively big enough or not. But why add this extra ambiguity?
I can't argue against it being more subjective that way.
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
I agree that it seems odd to have two nearly identical runs side by side in standard just because one uses a glitch that saves a tiny fraction of the overall run time.
Why?.
Because I was thinking about it in regards to bloating the site; which honestly hasn't really been a major concern for me personally, but I feel others have expressed opinions concerning bloat in the past (no I don't have specific examples).
From a more exclusive/elitist mindset (that we've been shifting away from), one could argue that it's nigh redundant and unnecessary and thus bloating. From a more open mindset (which we've been shifting toward), one could argue for allowing both side-by-side with no issues regardless of similarities. While I've almost always leaned for more inclusion of stuff on the site--especially from an archival standpoint--I do occasionally slip back into considering things in older more exclusive ways.
Regardless, my bolded statement should have made it clear that I'm more in favor of inclusion as opposed to exclusion.
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
So perhaps we could compromise and keep "Glitchless" branches as being published into the Aternative class, but make an exception rule that "Glitchless" runs aren't held to the entertainment requirements that other Alternative class goals would require. This would make "Glitchless" branches more of a pseudo-standard situation; where acceptance would strictly based on obeying the movie rules sans glitches, while still having the actual publication being listed with all other Alternative goal runs.
Which problems does that solve that appear if it's just a standard goal?
Only publication sorting by class; and only then if we consider it a problem to have both very similar runs side by side in a list of only standard class publications.
FWIW, I already mentioned that I'm effectively in favor of having "glitchless" in standard class. I was mainly trying to suggest possible compromise options for anyone who's primarily against them in standard.
Arguably, if we take the perspective of Standard Class being goals that are monitored/inherent to the game and Alternative Class being more varied/arbitrary goals imposed or chosen by the author and not monitored by the game itself (i.e. walkathon); beating a game without glitches accomplishes the main goal inherent to a game which is beating the game using the intended means of doing so. It would thus fall under Standard class in my opinion. The fact that a glitched run which finishes the game faster may exist, doesn't negate the fact that a "glitchless" run is still a standard goal of a video game.
EDIT:
EZGames69 wrote:
It’s whether or not it creates a notable difference in how the game is played..
This brings us back to subjectivity. How notable a difference is doesn't negate the fact that it's a difference in goal methodology.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
My only issue with making it standard is not every game has their entire speedrun changed just because they don’t go for glitches. If a speedrun for a game happens to be purely glitchless, but has one glitch that saves like 2 seconds (in say a 20 minute run), then would it make sense to have both a normal TAS and a glitchless TAS where the only difference is that one rather insignificant change?
For games like Ocarina of Time that are very notorious for their game breaking glitches that completely break the game, doing glitches is an entirely different experience all together. But not all games are like this, and honestly they should be judged on a case by case basis for alternative.
I can see how this would be a concern.
Perhaps we need to establish some degree of difference between glitched/glitchless branches to allow both in standard class. But even this would likely be a game-by-game decision. I agree that it seems odd to have two nearly identical runs side by side in standard just because one uses a glitch that saves a tiny fraction of the overall run time.
That said, I don't like the idea that a truly glitchess run of a game would never have a chance to be published simply for that reason. Thus, my only issue with "Glitchless" being restricted to the alternative class is the entertainment requirements. I feel there is value in publishing the fastest 'regular' or non-glitched gameplay for nearly any game that we'd have a glitched run published. Basically, I don't want a good potential run (especially one significantly different than a glitched run) to be rejected only because it's not considered widely entertaining.
So perhaps we could compromise and keep "Glitchless" branches as being published into the Aternative class, but make an exception rule that "Glitchless" runs aren't held to the entertainment requirements that other Alternative class goals would require. This would make "Glitchless" branches more of a pseudo-standard situation; where acceptance would strictly based on obeying the movie rules sans glitches, while still having the actual publication being listed with all other Alternative goal runs.
EDIT: I realize that the compromise proposal above could open the flood gates to a bunch of submissions of games currently published with glitches but not glitchless.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Putting it here for a record:
In general, I'm mostly for allowing "Glitchless" in standard class as those types of runs would be the theoretical fastest ways of completing the game while still staying within the 'rules' of the game (or what some may refer to as developer intent, which can also be sometimes hard to define/determine). But that's not the main thought for this post...
Regarding defining "Glitchless" :
Consider that some people feel that actions like wall jumping and clipping through walls (as in SMB1 & SMB3) should be considered glitches as opposed to simply being considered optimized use of normal game mechanics.
Unfortunately, I think we may struggle to come up with a standardized definition for "Glitchless," even as a baseline definition that could then be tweaked on a game-by-game basis. This may simply be a situation where each game requires it's own unique definition.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Patashu wrote:
Are kids really expected to figure out what fraction those partially filled bars represent? This is cruel and unusual.
Maybe that’s why they still gave points for landing on wrong fractions?
But speaking as someone who played this, it wasn’t usually too hard to get the correct bar even if it took a couple tries.
As a note: at least on the C64 port, you could fall through a hole or off the end of the platform and land safely on the one below so long as there was still platform below. Then you’d have to work your way back up.
It’s actually something I’m curious about checking for RNG manipulation. If the elevator takes you up to the next level, but there’s no platform at that point; the elevator continues on up levels until it finds a platform to dump you on. In theory, if the platforms were offset properly and the solution for the first level of play was near an end of the platform, you could solve that platform and ride the elevator all the way to the very top/last platform.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
I had this game on my C64. It definitely ran smoother on that system. I’d debated TASing it myself, but that was before the rule change in educational games. So I might have to revisit that again soon.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Our site parser automatically calculates the time for submissions based on the system the game is for and the frame count of the movie file.
If you’re wanting to have a run published on our site, it needs to go through the submission process first.
If you’re just looking to share your work with others, you could post your runs to userfiles and/or the appropriate forum topic for the game.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
BlackWinnerYoshi wrote:
Added publisher to game title to distinguish from Ice Palace (Creative Sparks).
Although, isn't this actually from Creative Sparks? This ROM from the TOSEC DAT pack (Commodore C64 - Games - Arcade - [D64]) matches the movie hash and syncs with the movie as well. Is TOSEC and me wrong then? (and yes, I checked the latest DAT pack.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
FractalFusion wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
If one only obtains the maximum possible point value for each duck, completing up through Round 24 will yield a score of 975000 before the "Perfect" shooting bonus.
The 30,000 bonus points will then cause the score display to roll-over (back down) to 5,000 points.
More bad programming that could have been prevented with one line of code.
Now I'm curious. Are you referencing the roll-over as bad coding?
What additional coding would it require for this not to happen? Something as simple as an if/then statement along the lines of this:
if Score>999900 then ScoreDisplay = 999900 end
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
jeff_town wrote:
I remember this one!
I assume the mismatch between the video length (~20) and the play time is due to some loading time not present in the preview video? vs input at the end that needs to be trimmed.
Indeed, the preview doesn't show the loading time. If accepted and published, the official publication will include the loading time.
Here's a screenshot from the Creative Sparks version:
