Duly noted and appreciated.
I'm not trying to be difficult with the following, just throwing out some thoughts I feel should be considered when judging games.
Yes. Your tweak improved the character position by 2 pixels. I'll admit that your partial work is more optimal in the immediate sense, but I think it's unfair (and a bit of a speculation) to extrapolate out this minor positional/frame difference as a claim that my submitted complete run is less optimal than a complete run using this improvement would be. It very well may be an accurate assumption, but at this point we don't know that as fact.
Isn't it possible that taking one portion of game slightly slower can result in a faster overall run? Until a complete run using this improvement is submitted, my submission is the most optimal complete run known.
If it's valid to suggest that a run is sub-optimal based on one or two frames this early in the run, I feel that it's just as valid to suggest that even this minor improvement in the immediate sense could potentially have RNG effects that would lengthen the resulting complete video by those same couple frames.
I'll gladly tweak this game again, but in the meantime shouldn't my submitted run stand as the current best, given that there is not yet proof that this improvement demonstrated in a partial run will result in an overall improvement?
Forgive me if I sound like I'm complaining, I don't mean to. I just feel that a judgement of sub-optimal play should be based on full run times not on partials.
One of the rules of the site is that runs must be complete to be submitted. I always assumed that there were two reasons for this:
1) Because people are unlikely to want to watch partial games.
2) Because doing one part of a game faster than someone else doesn't mean you can do the whole game faster.
I realize that you're just trying to keep the best-of-the-best on the website, and rightly so. But isn't that what obsoleting previously published runs is all about? A complete run that is the best known gets published then when someone betters it with a new faster complete run it obsoletes the first.
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, but it does make me wonder how many games or runs have been rejected in the past due to "sub-optimal" play when there's no complete comparison to claim the submitted run as sub-optimal.
I understand that we don't want sloppy play on the site, but there's a HUGE difference between sloppy and sub-optimal play.
Thanks for reading this far, if you have. I'll step off my soapbox now.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Right. The inputs are still close together, but vary anywhere between 2-5 frames.
Overall the new submission saves 131 frames over my original. RNG changes brought the overall improvement down from your 150ish frame improvement of Stage 1.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
feos wrote:
...This run is also quite sloppy. Here's my 105 frame improvement of what looks like level 1.
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/36146295028709928
The jet controls are indeed shitty, but not shitty enough to lose so much time.
Thanks for pointing this out. Somehow I missed that attacking while airborne allows horizontal motion to continue while standing attacks don't.
I've reworked this submission and was able to further improve on even your time through stage 1 by an additional 33 frames. Varying the frame delay between "A" button presses while using the jetpack affects lift height and I was able to more smoothly traverse a couple of the high platforms in that stage.
I also discovered that there is a 1-frame window in which you can jump out of mid air after taking damage. I utilized this to speed up the final boss fight.
Spikestuff wrote:
Kinda disappointed you didn't playaround with the Kangaroo.
After rewatching the original submission, I agree; it is disappointing to see the character just stop. So this time I played along the whole time with the Aussie.
New submission - http://tasvideos.org/5356S.html
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Nicos wrote:
...but is it really a glitch or is a intended / left debug feature ? in the lion tamer / bear level you can clearly see the exit drawn on the screen
Fair question.
In my opinion; unless we could discuss the left-side exits with a developer to confirm that they were intentional for testing purposes, we have to (at the very least) assume that any undrawn left exits were unintentional.
Also, if it is an intentional/debug method, why would they not have included one for the 2nd part of Stage 1? Or why, if used a way to skip directly to bosses, wouldn't they have had the left exit of Stage 1 go directly to the Clown Boss skipping the second part entirely?
To be fair and consider both sides of the coin, if we're willing to speculate that the all the left exits were debug intended, then we also have to consider the possibility that none of the left exits were intended including the drawn ones. Perhaps they were intended to be simply graphical tie-ins to previous stages.
It's quite possible that it was these drawn left-side exits that prompted someone to try and leave an undrawn one in the first place.
Either way, it brings up an interesting question/concept for all games:
For any game, it seems to me more appropriate to consider an event like this a glitch as opposed to debug intent unless there is some sort of in-game indicator that it was debug intent--or unless a developer has (via interview or written confirmation somewhere) confirmed that the event in question was part of a debug process.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
So I've already found a few differences in playing around with both the Japanese and US versions that something is not equal between the versions.
The Japanese version has an added password system.
You have to press a button to clear the stage titles in the Japanese version.
In the first tower, it is possible to get by the 1st molecule enemy via the elevator on the Japanese version, but not on the US version using equal input (thus resulting in a longer wait and ultimately longer video. As I stated earlier, I wonder if the hitbox is different allowing for this or if it is just minor programming differences affecting spawn timing.
All that said, I'm still going to re-work my original using the other routing and re-submit.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
There doesn't appear to be much difference between the US and the Japanese version (other than the playable character appearance). Would the sprite difference affect hitbox? I'm not tech savy enough to know how to figure that out.
Given that the other video is faster (it appears that he has a couple faster routes than mine), I'll withdraw this submission and tweak it and re-submit if I can improve it.
Thanks for pointing out the other video. I did not come across that in my searches.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Hard to admit this about one's own submission; but based on the grand total of 1 vote, I'm guessing that its a rather unpopular game. It also makes me curious how many have even watched it to begin with.
Though that's probably not the type of feedback you were looking for.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
As noted by Feos in the rejection details for the non-warp version of this run, this submission may be better labeled as "Any %" instead of "warp glitches."
As a relative newcomer to the site, I didn't fully realize the depth of memory/code manipulation necessary for something to be a "warp glitch."
Anyway, I still think this is at minimum a vaultable run (if not moon worthy) for an "Any %" run. And with that consideration, it would be faster than the run rejected by Feos.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Feos,
The rejection note makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification/elaboration of what constitutes a warp glitch for the purposes of this website. It would have been nice to have understood this before making two different submissions (as it would have saved me a lot of time), but a good lesson learned nonetheless.
I'll try to be better about choosing my goals and labeling submissions in the future.
Thanks again!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
I believe roughly 10 or 11 glitches are used to speed up movement in the overhead view stages in the glitched version; which saves a little under two and a half minutes by doing the glitches.
I didn't go back and re-count them, so I might be off by one or two.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
As best as I can figure out, the initial location of the bugs in the top-down levels is determined to some degree on the frame timing of which you leave the previous room.
I did some manipulation of this to get favorable positions. However, with the few times I do the 'dance,' I could not find a worthwhile frame within a reasonable distance on the previous room before exiting that would yield an enemy setup that didn't require some delay.
Those enemies have a combination of predetermined movements and chasing the player.
So to simplify that explanation: As best as I could figure, the option became a trade-off between a delay before leaving a room, or a delay in the next room. I simply chose the later delay and spun Beetlejuice around in circles to have some character movement happening.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Hey guys,
I am amazed that no one has yet submitted this game.
I watched Randil's Youtube video. I think you should have submitted it way back when you guys were originally discussing this. Even with the subtle unoptimized things you pointed out, it was still entertaining. Unfortunately I could not get your .fm2 video to sync beyond getting into the first building (different emulator version?), so I couldn't really study your inputs very well.
Anyway, your 5-10 seconds estimate was quite accurate based on my recent submission http://tasvideos.org/5280S.html
...at least as far as a straight play-through is concerned.
While trying to beat your video, I discovered a glitch (or at least the beneficial use of a glitch) that allows for much faster completion of the top-view levels.
I also submitted a run using those glitches: http://tasvideos.org/5279S.html
Details on the glitch are given in the submission text.
I hope you guys like these.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
TheRealThingy wrote:
Frames 4252-4280: press A here. Frame 4281: press B here = 62 frames saved.
I checked into this. It also works on the set of stairs immediately following the ones you pointed out.
However, while it does save frames in the short term, the battle with griffon bosses at the end of the stage took longer. Even with pixel matched positioning and input at the beginning of the battle, I could no longer achieve the double hit on the first griffon. This resulted in additional jump-attacks (more frames) being necessary to kill the griffons; essentially negating the frames saved earlier in the stage.
I played around with the battle for a while and could never complete it in few enough frames to get benefit from changing the earlier inputs.
If you are interested in trying to solve this yourself, the memory location for the griffon hit-counts are 0481 for the left griffon and 0482 for the right griffon. Hopefully following stages wouldn't need to be altered (or very minimally so) due to RNG changes.
Thanks for pointing out the potential improvement anyway.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
To anyone else who decides to read this:
I understand that there may have been more optimized ways of doing this particular video. Please forgive my inexperience.
Seeing that there are 100% 'No' votes at the moment, I don't really expect this video to get published; nor do I care if it does or not. It was a learning exercise for me. I'm trying to improve my skills, and making mistakes is part of that.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
ais523
I fully understand your position and disappointment regarding this particular video of Battle Chess. However, I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make in my previous post.
My comments on not requiring a TAS to go beyond developer intent were not meant for JUST this particular video, but as a general approach to all games. For example, this awesome run of The Simpsons (which qualified for Star tier) doesn't utilize any glitches or use the game engine beyond developer intent.
http://tasvideos.org/1613M.html
Even the very rapid bonus stages are still within the developer intent of finishing them as quickly as possible. The only argument you could make over developer intent was how often co-op attacks are used. Even that would be speculative of what the developers expected.
I don't know if it was your intent or not, but I feel quite berated by your comments. While I normally appreciate constructive criticism and am encouraged to improve; your words are exactly the discouraging comments I was referring to when I said we should be cautious against alienating new players.
I'm sorry if my work has somehow "offended" and "disheartened" you. I guess i'm just not as spectacular as yourself when it comes to TASing games and choosing goals. Then again, I find it interesting that you have so much of a problem with the goal choice of my video, when your own submission was rejected for goal choice (even if it was an attempt at an April Fools joke).
If it wasn't obvious from my other posts, I'm new to this. I'm going to make mistakes, and I'm going to submit things that seem optimized to me but may be far from it due to my limited knowledge. If the fact that I'm new and an imperfect human is somehow offensive or disheartening to you, you're arrogant and have forgotten that you were new to this at one time as well.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
On a slightly unrelated note: I personally would love to learn more about the technological side of coding, video games, and TASing. But I like to do things methodically, and I honestly have no idea where or how to begin.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
I really respect the comments and philosophical questions raised by ais523. I also appreciate that he/she is willing to share his/her perspective. If this submission serves no purpose but to have drawn out these questions/comments/concerns about the deeper philosophical positions on TASing games, then I feel that it was a worthwhile submission regardless of the ultimate decision on the video.
That said, I have a minor issue with your suggestion that TAS videos have to somehow exhibit or exploit things about a game that the developers didn't want or didn't expect.
Some of us newer (and likely some older) players aren't as experienced with computers and/or programming as others in the community may be; yet we still have an interest in this hobby. As an example, I'm in healthcare and haven't deeply studied software and computers. I just enjoy video games and enjoy the challenge of TASing. It's essentially a puzzle to me.
For those of us who don't understand the various intricacies of the technology or aren't versed in coding, simply completing a game as absolutely fast as we find possible using TAS techniques is exciting enough of an accomplishment even if nothing was attained outside of the developers' intents.
Even if/when my TAS attempts are rejected by the community, I still feel a sense of accomplishment in something I approach as a hobby, because I've still done something I would never have been able to achieve while playing a game normally.
I'm simply suggesting that, as a community, we guard against potentially alienating current or future members by requiring that submissions perform something beyond developers intent.
Again I appreciate that ais523 shared his/her thoughts. It's communication than strengthens what we do. Just look at how many submissions have resulted from collaboration for proof.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Link_7777
I've added you for edit privileges. I'll let you switch the video file.
I like your RNG for archery too, and the idea about letting arrows fall with poor wind direction.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Before someone brings up the idea that Olympic Mode without the exhibition events is too incomplete to be considered for publication, I understand that perspective.
However, this run is primarily a vault tier attempt as no videos from this game have been published. (To my knowledge, the only video even submitted for this game was my previous one; which I withdrew due to poor optimization. This video is over 1.5 minutes shorter than that one.)
Others players may be considering a more entertaining run which would include those events omitted from this submission. I'll let those individuals claim it if they like. Discussion regarding this can be seen here...
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3985&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Kung Knut,
I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to be as entertaining as possible while still aiming strictly for vault on my current work. So it won't have the exhibition events after all. I'm just going to get to the end-game cut-scene ASAP.
I've already spent quite a bit of time on this game, and I'm not sure if I want to trudge through it yet again.
If you or Link_7777 are interested in completing a TAS in attempt for Moon tier, feel free to use any of my inputs that would benefit you. You could even mix and match your work with your favorite chunks of my earlier and current videos (once I submit it), tweaking where necessary to make it more entertaining.
As it stands, my current work is slightly more entertaining than my previous just due to subtle RNG variations.
