Posts for DrD2k9


Post subject: Re: #5710: DrD2k9's DOS Space Quest: Chapter 1 - The Sarien Encounter "EGA version 2.2" in 01:12.24
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Radiant wrote:
Oh and yeah, "holy shit" is a cheat code. If you allow that, you might as well press Alt-D on the first screen to teleport to the endgame.
Which is why I resisted the temptation. The only reason I can see it being even considered is that it only shortens a tedious repetitive action without skipping any game material. Whereas, Alt-D teleport skips the entire game. The best solution though would be to better understand the coding behind the slot sequences to manipulate luck and win just as fast as using the 'holy shit' code. I don't foresee any way to do this without analyzing the game code somehow (which I have no idea how to do at this point in life).
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
c-square wrote:
In that case, it's not an emulation bug. If the text for the game is garbled under real "console" conditions, then this run should be acceptable IMO, even with garbled text. Thoughts?
Well, I'm biased, but I hope it can still be accepted. To further discussion though...I've been searching everywhere I can think of for info on this problem. It seems to be a conflict of some sort between the game's AGI interpreter and the (in this case emulated) graphics cards. It even occurs on many real systems trying to play the game. The only solutions I have found in my searches, is to play the game using third party interpreters like NAGI, Sarien, etc. This leads me to believe that DosBox and JPC-rr are likely emulating different style graphics cards. So the problem with the submitted run is not a 'emulation error' per se. I am thus assuming that JPC-rr is emulating a newer style graphics card resulting in the same display bug that many actual systems would also display with these old AGI based games. Sorry I can't explain any further, I don't understand the software/technology to that depth.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
Speculation time: Maybe it could have something to do with it running on FreeDOS instead of MS-DOS
I wondered that too...looks like you figured out that it's not the issue before I had a chance to test it.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
As found by c-square, this site may explain the font issue, at least in part.
Post subject: Font Display Issue with JPC-RR
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
So I've TASed Space Quest 1 on JPC-RR. But as can be seen in this image, the in-game font doesn't display correctly. Using the same game files on dosbox, the font displays appropriately. Any suggestions on how to fix this?
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
A comment on Score Based TAS after reading FatRatKnight's categorizations and preliminary rule guidelines It seems to me that determining in which scoring category a particular game fits, will be the most the most difficult aspect of implementing any score focused system.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Higher/lower rating has been addressed regarding confirmation bias based on whihch tier the video gets published in. I don't know if the following falls under that or if it is a different concept on rating bias: Has anyone considered that a significant percentage of members voting pre-publication aren't going back and rating the videos post-publication? Using myself as an example: I feel comfortable voting pre-publication on whether or not I find a run entertaining; but I don't feel I have the requisite degree of knowledge/skill to determine a published movie's technical rating. Thus I'll likely never rate a movie post-publication. Further, the only way I know to see how many different members have even rated any published movies is to go through each publication individually and catalog who rated. Regardless, I'm assuming that the group of members actually doing ratings is a significantly smaller percentage of members than those voting pre-publication. If this assumption is found to be true, shouldn't the pre-publication votes be more heavily considered when determining entertainment tier? Isn't that the point of the tiers in the first place; to point any interested viewer in the direction of entertaining/high quality videos (whether they know anything about making a TAS or not)? Stars are special runs that most people will find entertaining and contain something extra that sets them apart from all others. Moons are runs in which many viewers will find entertaining, but don't necessarily contain anything to set them apart for Stars. Entertainment value is not even considered for Vault. Just because a run isn't technically spectacular, doesn't make it any less entertaining to the average viewer. A second assumption I'm going to make is that those who are rating post-publication videos are a group of members with higher levels of experience. I fear this may unintentionally skew entertainment (and likely technical) ratings downward as it inherently takes a more impressive run to satisfy players of higher experience.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Mothrayas wrote:
It was moved to the Vault post-publication after ratings turned out to be poor.
That mostly makes sense.
Mothrayas wrote:
In fact, there's a topic for that.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully explore the forums (even if I probably should to a greater degree) unless there's a particular topic I'm seeking. So I did (mostly) read through the linked topic and I want to know if I understand correctly: When it comes to tier-shifting a movie, the site considers post-publication ratings as more important than pre-publication voting. Correct?
Mothrayas wrote:
...publications can be moved across tiers at all times whenever deemed appropriate.
When this kind of tier shifting occurs, should a note be made in the submission notes to prevent others from being confused the way I was?
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
For my own understanding/enlightenment, I'm going to throw a wrench into the engine and see if it causes problems...
Mothrayas wrote:
What makes Virtual Pinball max score and Desert Bus bad are repetitiveness to enormous ends, and the fact that practically nobody is seriously interested in watching playthroughs of their nature in their entirety. But those are still subjective qualifiers in the end, and creating a speedrun archive without subjective qualifiers was the whole point of the Vault.
^emphasis mine. I recognize that no one (or very very few people) will be even remotely interested in watching one of these runs in its entirety. However, for Desert Bus, using score as a 'point of completion' was not the reason for rejection. Similarly, length of the run was also not the stated reason for rejection. It was rejected from Vault publication because it wasn't distinguishable from a human speedrun. Isn't determination of whether or not a run appears to be different than a human speedrun a subjective qualifier? If we use this subjective reason for rejecting the Desert Bus submission, perhaps all the other Vault-tier publications (as well as any submissions rejected for this same reason) should be reassessed, since "...creating a speedrun archive without subjective qualifiers was the whole point of the Vault" As an example (and at risk of having one of my own publications un-accepted), NES Castelian is perhaps technically distinguishable from a human run (menu management). But, regarding game-play itself, the Castelian TAS is hardly distinguishable from what a human speed-run would look like if the human player knew the enemy spawn positions/movement speeds and the path to take to the goal. These are things many human speedrunners do know about the games they run. Should this Castelian run then have been rejected for the same stated reason as Desert Bus? If so, I am in a position to potentially lose a published movie. And maybe others are too, as there may be other current vault publications whose game-play isn't necessarily distinguishable from human speedruns other than the technical management of arbitrary things like menus. If Castelian was acceptable without distinct evidence indicating it wasn't a human speedrun (other than arbitrary stuff like menu management), then acceptance/rejection of Desert Bus unfortunately needs reassessed as well as any other submissions rejected for the same reason. Please understand, I'm NOT trying to advocate for Desert Bus to be accepted. In fact, the rule for judges regarding triviality may be an even better rejection reason for both Desert Bus and Virtual Pinball.
The run must not be seen as trivial. If a run consists of doing a trivial strategy, made only nontrivial by having to do it over the course of several rounds, it will still be judged as trivial. For example, bowling games where the player gets a strike with ten pins every time.
Then again, one could argue that 'triviality' could be considered a subjective assessment also. I guess what I question about something being 'distinguishable from a human speedrun' centers on whether or not arbitrary technical actions (pre-game menu management, frame perfect clearing of level intro-screens, frame perfect skipping of cutscenes which are intended to be skipable, selection of action icons in an adventure game, etc.) are enough to deem a TAS run distinct from a human run when all other aspects of game-play aren't distinguishable; especially when considering that many human runs don't even consider pre-game menu management as part of the timed events, and options are usually selected before time starts--which is usually upon pressing start or sometimes at the first control opportunity after an initial cutscene when starting the game. Human timing also often ends on certain in-game events (i.e. boss death animation, credits roll, "the end"), not on button presses that initiate that event, so this could also be considered a technical distinction not a game-play distinction. As a side note: A2600 Dragster is a game currently published in the Vault tier even though the judgement was for Moons. This should probably be fixed. Anyway, Dragster is an example where the in-game time is considered over total game time--this is fine for vault purposes--but the best in-game time of 5.57 achieved by the TAS has been matched in real-time by a human. Should this disqualify the TAS from vault tier publication (had it not been accepted as a moons quality)? Please don't make the argument that it wasn't accepted as a Vault run to disregard this hypothetical question. I guess my perspective is that the fastest/best TAS is exactly that, the fastest/best TAS. It should be acceptable as long as it isn't sub-optimal or trivial, regardless of whether or not it can be distinguished from a human speedrun. Example: A2600 Adventure is a mere .4 seconds faster than the current real-time record. The only distinguishing characteristics of the TAS is the wobbly movement. But if you showed both videos to someone who didn't know one was done by TAS, they wouldn't necessarily assume it was. Or they would assume both were. A TAS shouldn't necessarily be rejected just because a human is able to match the game-play aspects of the run once technical arbitrary details are disregarded (i.e. Dragster, Adventure). If that were the case, then TAS runs that only appear to showcase faster speed than a human due to non-gameplay technical aspects should be rejected and/or removed if already published (i.e. Castelian). These thoughts aren't meant to be restricting what runs get accepted, nor are they meant to have current publications removed. If anything, it's advocating for a slightly broader definition of runs deemed Vault worthy by softening/eliminating the 'distinguishable from human speed run' requirement so that more games can be showcased. Side note #2: If this post would be better suited to a different area of the forum, please let me know and I'll copy it to that area for discussion.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Thank you very much for the clarifications and perspective. My own comments weren't meant as advocating for the inclusion of Score-based TAS videos on the current site, just voicing thoughts/concerns that I (and likely others have) had regarding the concept. Your arguments regarding the current approach to such submissions are exactly why I suggested that a completely separate website would likely be the best option for score based TASing instead of speed based TASing.
Mothrayas wrote:
Sorry, but I am going to instantly reject any proposal that would force us to publish a 74-hour pinball run, or a 792-hour long Desert Bus run.
LOL! I had thought about Desert Bus myself before I posted the list of game examples above, but forgot to include it. I fully expected it to be used as a key argument against ungodly long score based TAS videos. Thanks again!
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
FatRatKnight wrote:
We commonly use time as a criteria for obsoletion. Is there a reason we can't use a score value as a criteria for obsoletion as well?
Does the following hypothetical example explain what you mean? Current publication of game X = 11270 frames with final score of 148765 New submission of game = 11270 frames with final score of 153972 Should the new submission with better score obsolete the old publication even though they are equal on time?
FatRatKnight wrote:
...but that run was accepted in another tier. It therefore did not have to deal with Vault definitions.
Though I'm sure it would be a pain to implement, perhaps a completely new tier or vault sub-tier needs to be considered for runs of maximum known achievable score (assuming the score can't be run to infinity). This would require modification to the current rules. Specifically the following: * The maximum score is easily defined and absolute - it must not be possible to gain a higher score, even theoretically. It must be definable without being dependent on precise time, speed, or similar requirements. This would need modified to allow games where a maximum score isn't as easily defined. Also the requirement to not have a theoretical improvement to score would need eliminated. Honestly, this site accepts speed runs as the best known that have theoretical (yet unproven) speed improvements (many submissions even detail these potential improvement possibilities in the submission text!). If unproven theoretical speed improvements don't restrict a know submission from being accepted as fastest, why should an unproven theoretical score improvement restrict a run of highest known achieved score from being accepted? (Assuming there's a tier/sub-tier for it). * The maximum score is limited by not being able to gain any more points, not by hitting a score cap or overflow. If it is possible to score points infinitely, score cannot be used to define full completion. The restrictions on cap/overflow could be changed to accept reaching the cap/overflow point as the maximum attainable score. Also this rule suggests a question on when a game is considered completed. Currently for endless games, a point of no-new-content is considered completion for TAS purposes. If a maximum score is attainable but long after the game has reached a point of no-new-content, which of these is considered the actual completion point? This question also supports a reason to have a separate tier/sub-tier from speed based runs. Again, I anticipate that implementation of these ideas would likely be a significant amount of work for the operators of the website. Even if the general community accepted these ideas, It would ultimately fall on the site admin to determine whether or not new tier/sub-tier system would be created and implemented. If these "maximum score" ideas could somehow be implemented as simply new branches, implementation would be easier. But I think that would be a harder sell to the community. Perhaps the best solution would be a completely separate website (which could be linked as a sister site) which contains only TAS runs of known highest scores. This would again be more work to implement, but would eliminate the congestion of current tiers and movie lists. "TAS" would then gain yet another evolution to it's definition as "Tool-Assisted Score-run." ____________________________________________________________________ I recently read Mothrayas's judging comments of Submission 5560 which addresses arbitrary goals. Perhaps it would be good to get his perspective on these "maximum score" ideas.
Post subject: Further thoughts on TAS and Scoring
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Some further thoughts regarding this concept. 1) If "max score" becomes a valid publishable category, timed sports games could theoretically become a valid game choice with a goal of maximum score. Examples: Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Football, etc. for any system. Though there is no maximum score in many of these sports, the video game mechanics would determine a maximum potential score in the set playtime. I can imagine there's a subset of TASers who would be interested in some of these type of games. 2) There are games with theoretical maximum scores that would end in longer runs and showcase more game (even if it's somewhat repetitive). Examples: Many athletic and non-timed performance based games. (Track & Field type games, Mario Party type games, gambling games) 3) There are some games where the endgame/"game over" animations vary depending on final score (whether it is a maximum or not). Examples : Gameboy Tetris, NES Track & Filed II 4) There are some games where the endgame credits are only shown if a certain score level is achieved even if it's not the theoretical maximum. Example: NES Open Golf 5) If this becomes a publishable category, I feel sorry for the judges who have to sit through these potentially very long, potentially very repetitive videos necessary to achieve some of these score based goals. 6) To my understanding, TAS originally meant "Tool-Assisted Speedrun;" with the original intent of TASing games being strictly speed-running. TAS has since evolved to also mean "Tool-Assisted Superplay" as in the title of this website. This evolution allows for speed to not be the only consideration of what makes a great TAS video. The simple fact that we have additional categories beyond the absolute fastest "any%" run demonstrates this idea. It seems to me that effective definition of "Superplay" for the purposes of this site is the following: A run that accomplishes X goal(s) as fast as possible while also attempting to provide some degree of entertainment value. Some speed/entertainment trade-offs are acceptable. If that is an acceptable definition, "maximum score" runs should qualify. It also, unfortunately, means that goals such as "fastest death" or "fastest 'Game Over'" screen should also be acceptable. Which I guess brings us back to the crux of this discussion...is "maximum score" a category we want to accept for publication on this site?...And more generally, which goals are worthy of publication and which ones aren't?
Post subject: Re: TAS and scoring.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
FatRatKnight wrote:
...I see the goal in a similar way as 100% runs, as you are trying to max something out on the way to clearing the game...
I agree that achieving a maximum score (on games with a definable maximum) seems comparable to "100%" or "100+%" run. In those "100%" type runs, the goal is collecting all possible items and/or completing all dungeons/levels/etc. in the fastest time. However, that still acknowledges that time is sacrificed when compared to absolute fastest "any %" endgame runs. Setting a goal of "maximum score" is similarly acknowledging that you're (most likely) going to sacrifice time to attain the highest score. In that way, I can see "maximum score" being feasibly considered a publishable category like "100%," "any %," etc. That being said, the primary difference between most "any %" runs and "100%" runs is that "100%" runs show more of the game than the "any %" runs. Unfortunately, setting a goal of "maximum score" for a run doesn't guarantee it's going to show any more of the game than any other (lower score) run. The only assumption that can be immediately made is that the run will be longer because extra time will be spent to achieve a higher score. In my opinion, a higher score run based simply on score value that doesn't also show some new game content is unnecessary for this site. Watching such a TAS would essentially be watching a longer version of a shorter TAS with the only satisfaction for watching the extra time being a difference in a displayed digit sprite. If new worthwhile game content is also showcased while achieving the (theoretical) maximum score, I'm for acceptance as a separate category.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Ready Steady Yeti wrote:
...Though I would have liked a bit of messing around on the wait times, the run is still quite impressive technically. Unfortunately, the run itself was not really very entertaining for me due to an extreme amount of repetitiveness. I voted meh, as the run still satisfied me in a general sense.
Unfortunately many C64 games are probably doomed to fall under the 'meh' category due to repetition; games of that era were often simply about beating the previous high-score, not completing a story line to an endgame. As such, many of them are endless (infinite repeating levels), and the entertainment value from a TAS perspective is limited. Where modern gaming often relies on the visual quality and detail of games to supplement the entertainment value of the game-play itself, older games during the C64 era were often more concerned with the act of playing rather than the visual presentation for entertainment purposes. All that being said, I may have been able to consider messing around during wait times a bit more with this run. Though even that would most likely have been limited to horizontal movements on turtles/logs as any vertical movements (and possibly some horizontal) would introduce delayed arrival at the goal. In my opinion those entertainment improvements would not be enough to validate increasing game length. It's likely that many (if any) C64 games submitted in the future will have their entertainment value judged heavily on mess-around quality; especially when they are of repetitive nature and score based instead of having a definite endgame.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
Bump of interest.
I was surprised there was no submission for this game, then I found this thread... I may attempt this game after thoroughly reading through everything.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Yea. I understand. Not much interest in a 35 year old system.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
You should be the first and the main person to judge your runs as you make them, and be hungry for anything that looks suboptimal. It's not a basic skill, but if enough effort is invested, it's always better than less effort :D
Effort isn't the problem; experience is. I have no problem putting in the time. I'm just nowhere near as good at recognizing sub-optimal situations as you more experienced players. Sure, it's a bit frustrating when you work hard on something and think you've made it the best it can be, only to have someone else point out something that can be improved. But what is even more discouraging is the self-realization that a much more experienced eye can see improvement possibilities that to them are obvious, while I would never see or even contemplate trying it.
feos wrote:
Improvements like this one...stand out as obvious to try.
This is an example...I would never have considered trying that method. I understand that it's due to my inexperience. But while it may have been obvious to you, it wasn't to me.
feos wrote:
Are you planning to redo this run again?
I don't know. I'm not really excited about it at the moment, but that doesn't mean I won't look at it again in the future.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
That's one less game to completely redo...at least until feos finds something else I can majorly improve in the run.
Yeah, like spawning the second (?) boss 98 frames earlier. http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/40941449469328028
I'm going to go cry now.
Post subject: When human skills are just not enough...
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Unfortunately the one human skill a TAS can't compensate for is planning and observation. So now i'm frustrated with myself for missing something that seems like it should have been obvious. The longer I think about it...the delay in Shaft 12 may in fact not be the most optimal method. The yellow cart could delay the turn into the transporter instead of doing a double direction change. This may allow for arrival of the yellow cart at the processing center just as the door closes after the blue cart leaves. It would shave a few frames off the overall time. I hate finding stuff like this so long after a submission. It frustrates me that it takes someone else pointing out the possible optimization instead of me realizing it on my own in the first place. That said...I will be revisiting this game using NTSC settings. Even though changing the yellow cart's movement is a seemingly small fix, doing so would force re-doing the timing of everything thereafter. I personally don't see a reason to spend time fixing this small flaw in the PAL run when an NTSC run will likely be faster anyway. I'll spend my time there. If you need to reject the submission for this flaw, go ahead. If you're ok accepting it knowing it will likely be obsoleted by and NTSC run in the future, I'm ok with that too.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
Can you also describe vertical positioning?
Vertical position was usually adjusted to minimize the necessary vertical movement of enemies as they enter the screen (as you suggested a while back with the abobo fight). It was also adjusted if necessary to position Billy to knock enemies off a ledge. There are a couple other instances where vertical position somehow affected screen scroll. Most notably at the end of Mission 2. Any closer to the bottom of the screen and it won't scroll correctly for Billy to climb down the ladder to mission 3.
feos wrote:
...but sometimes how much you walk diagonally affects how far you can walk horizontally. Did you notice that?
I'm not even sure what you mean with this. I didn't notice anything odd with diagonal movement. I may have just missed it. If there's an example in the submission, give me a time/frame # and I'll try to see what you are referring to.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
...on shaft 12 that the yellow miner goes back and forth immediately before entering the processing center for seemingly no reason. ...
The wiggle from the yellow miner happens for two reasons: 1) Only one player can be in the processing center at any time. As one player is leaving, the other cannot enter until the first has left completely (with all its diamonds) and the door shuts. Then the second can enter to process his diamonds. The timing of the blue cart leaving forces the delayed arrival of the yellow cart. The wiggle could have been done at any point. I just arbitrarily chose that spot. 2) Direction changes can only happen at the center of grid points on the map. So a full block wiggle is necessary to reverse direction twice to delay the arrival of the yellow cart at the processing point. Simplifying the branch to "All Diamonds" makes sense to me. And I'd expect a 1P "all diamond" run to be at least 45 minutes long if not an hour or more. As far as RNG, the only thing I can see to try and manipulate is the enemy movements. However, they are typically easily dealt with without messing around with manipulating RNG.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
Please tell how do you choose what attack type to use.
From what I could figure out, the back-elbow was typically the fastest method when I first started playing the game. After finding it most useful across the first few battles of Mission 1, I essentially made it my default attack. I couldn't easily find the ram values for enemy life to see if there was a faster way to decrease damage than the elbow. I couldn't even figure out if enemy deaths were based on total damage or number of knockdowns to determine when an enemy died. On the assumption that enemy death was knockdown based (each enemy's costume color variation seemed to take the same number of hits), I tested and found the elbows seemed to be able to hit faster than headbutts or other 1-hit knockdown attacks. Especially when moving back and forth between two enemies while attacking both. I only did this basic testing for attack options on the first few enemies to see which attacks knocked them down fastest. I'll freely admit that I didn't try every possible attack combination on every individual enemy...because that would have taken years! Exceptions to using the back-elbow: -When enemies would otherwise duck/jump to doge the elbow attack. In these situations, I used a different attack; usually jump kick because the enemy would often also dodge other ground based attacks. -Landing an elbow during Abobo battles was much more difficult to get the timing and tended to take longer than using the headbutt attack instead. The glitch to control Abobo's flight helped too. -In general jump kicks were only used as substitutions for elbow/headbutt. If I remember correctly without re-watching the whole video, there is an instance or two where jump kicks are also used to improve position for screen scrolling.
Post subject: Re: new C64 policy
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Mothrayas wrote:
Regarding PAL runs currently on the queue (assuming NTSC is valid), it's up to the author if they want to cancel the submission and redo on NTSC, or let the PAL run be accepted for now and obsoleted with NTSC later.
PAL/NTSC info for the current queued C64 runs: C64 Jungle Hunt in 02:28 -- faster NTSC run similar to current published PAL run C64 Diamond Mine "2 player, 100%" in 17:51 -- This is PAL. Accept/reject as is for now, I'll look at obsoleting via NTSC later. C64 Double Dragon "OCEAN Port" in 12:53 -- This is a PAL release of the game (graphical glitches in NTSC) accept/reject as is. C64 Congo Bongo in 00:29 -- faster NTSC run similar to current published PAL run C64 Frogger "Parker Brothers Port" in 04:12 -- I canceled the original submission that was made in PAL mode. I then tweaked the run in NTSC and uncanceled requesting in the author's comments that the submission .bk2 be updated to the faster NTSC version i uploaded to WIPs (link in comments). Thanks to all of you for the discussion...it will help with TASing C64 in the future.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Not sure if there's someone specific I should suggest this to, but I assume if there is, someone here will tell me. I have a thought/suggestion for future BizHawk versions regarding utilizing fastloaders. I have extremely little coding experience/understanding, so I have no idea how difficult the following suggestion would be (if it's even possible). But here goes... Could a section be added in the C64 firmware settings for a fastloader cartridge rom? If it is loaded in as part of the firmware, couldn't other games/disk images then be opened just as they are now, while still benefiting from the faster loading times resulting from of the fastloader cartridge? Again, I have no idea if this is even possible in an emulated environment.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Mothrayas wrote:
Of course, then it might be complicated what to do with obscure media that release info can't be tracked down for. Maybe allow NTSC anyway in such cases? I don't think there's any better option there.
If it is impossible to determine the release information for a particular rom, and there are no noticeable differences in gameplay (other than music/sound pitches and speed); wouldn't it be acceptable to consider either setting option as valid and select whichever results in a faster play-through for that particular rom? The other option that needs to be considered by the site managers, would be to not allow any runs for publication unless the release region information can be confirmed for a particular rom file....And yes, I realize if this decision was made, it would negate most of the submissions and the few publications I have in the C64 section of the site. Enacting this policy, however, may also deter people from TASing for the C64 in the future.