Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
EDIT: There is a potential consideration regarding if the game tracks completion of the Time Trial puzzles:
If all 64 unique TT puzzles must be completed before any are repeated, then it's likely tracked internally even if there's no indicator to the player that it's tracked.
From my poking around, it seems like it does not track puzzles completed. The internal counter just goes up every time you go into the Time Trial puzzle. The game does not care if you actually complete the puzzle or not. ie if you give up right away, it will give you the next puzzle on the list when you go back to the time trial (and it will not re-randomize the list until you enter Time Trial 134 times).
Also just want to say (again), the "randomization" relies solely on what should be (what should be) non-deterministic data, both uninitialized SRAM and WRAM are used to create the "random" list (cough cough DK94 cough cough). Since Gambatte just FF's the entirety of uninitialized RAM, you will end up with a constant list 100% of the time. The fact that Sameboy got a different puzzle is simply because it does not have the same behavior regarding uninitialized RAM like Gambatte (SRAM is FF'd but WRAM is 00'd).
(tl;dr the list isn't really random just due to how emulators treat uninitialized RAM, for the purposes of a TAS, it shouldn't be considered random)
For me, this data actually does more to support my position that the unique puzzles need solved to consider the game complete.
If all the TT puzzles will be presented before any are repeated, then completion of all unique content could be performed without unnecessary repetition.
That said, if the puzzle counter simply repeats after all the TT puzzles have been presented once; the mode is not really a 'random puzzle' mode and the repeating sequence effectively makes this game a never-ending game. Therefore, based on movie rules for non-ending games, all unique content must be presented for the game to be considered complete.
This unfortunately complicates the issue with another question. If the player is able to give up on any given puzzle and still advance on to the next puzzle in sequence, is simple display of the blank puzzle & numbers enough to be considered having the content shown...or would it be more appropriate to require the puzzles to be solved?
In my perspective, the latter is more appropriate. With other non-ending games we tend to require reaching some completion point (i.e. beating the stage) AFTER the final unique content has been presented by the game; simply seeing the content isn't enough. Thus I feel that solving of the puzzles, not just visualization of the blanks & numbers, is necessary.
ALL THAT SAID, there is yet another thought that needs consideration in regards to game completion:
The only equivalent I can make to advancing the counter by quitting a puzzle to get through them more quickly would be along the lines of skipping a bonus stage in any other game. But these aren't bonus stages. They're legitimate new puzzles/content exactly like any other standard stage in the game.
Further, the normal puzzles in the other modes can technically be solved in any order (or also given up then continued with a different puzzle), and all puzzles in any other mode need solved to consider that mode complete; making order of completion a non-factor for any game mode. Therefore the order in which the TT puzzles are completed doesn't technically matter, but they all still need solved to consider the mode complete.
From this perspective which disregards order of completion, the only way to consider the entire game complete is to have all modes of the game completed. This requires all the unique puzzles in all modes to be solved.
Pseudo minor edit: The fact that the game itself doesn't track completion of the TT puzzles doesn't matter when determining if everything in the mode has actually been completed. It's still a measurable completion metric even if we have to measure it manually.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
RetroEdit wrote:
I would argue the time trial puzzle(s) doesn't count towards full competition at all. It's just a single record; it doesn't keep track of each individual puzzle out of the 64 possible puzzles that was done.
This is in contrast to the clear way the other 192 puzzles are treated, each having an individual checkbox among other indicators showing each puzzle is complete.
With that perspective, we could potentially have a 2nd branch of this game:
This submission would be the any% branch.
A version that completes all the unique content would be a 100%/Full Completion branch.
My personal perspective: Given that this game (as presented) has no "end credits" with which to mark the end-point of game-play, the only other definitive end-of-game moment is to exhaust all unique content. The fact that the game uses the same high score (low time?) table for all the Time Trial puzzles is a moot point. The game, in my opinion, is incomplete.
I do not have enough experience with this game to know if there are credits offered after all the Time Trial puzzles are exhausted.
Something else to consider for a "full completion" run would be the "How to play" mode. If it's simply directions, then it may not be necessary. However, if there's any solving on the player's part that occurs in that mode, it could also likely be required for Full Completion.
EDIT: There is a potential consideration regarding if the game tracks completion of the Time Trial puzzles:
If all 64 unique TT puzzles must be completed before any are repeated, then it's likely tracked internally even if there's no indicator to the player that it's tracked.
EDIT 2: I just tested....after entering your name for the TT puzzle in this submission, the game continues directly on to the next puzzle. It doesn't go back to a menu of any type. Oops. It continues if you hit A, it goes back to a menu if you hit B. My mistake.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
Time Trial mode (the final mode unlocked) gives you a random puzzle from the Time Trial level set and notes the final completion time on the ranking board. Since all levels share the same leaderboard & individual level completion isn't tracked here I chose to "complete" this mode just by finishing the first level it gives me and registering the name "TAS".
Is the puzzle selected indeed random? Did you test if it was possible to manipulate RNG to yield a shorter puzzle for this mode?
EDIT: Are the Time Trial puzzles repeats of other puzzles in the game? If not, wouldn't all the Time Trial puzzles need completed to consider the game truly completed?
EDIT 2:
This page shows 64 puzzles are possible in Time Trial Mode. Scanning though them, there are unique puzzles in this mode compared to other modes in the game. Thus, I'd argue that all these unique puzzles also need solved to consider the game 'beaten' even if their order is randomized.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
I would like to point out that a nonogram is technically a paper & pencil game. As such, the Vault eligibility of this submission, which is exclusively about solving nonograms, is questionable.
The issue here is that the current wording in the Movie Rules refers to "board games" instead of "tabletop games". This may require a revision for consistency.
While this could, indeed, be classified as a "tabletop game" because it's based on a paper & pencil puzzle, there still exists potential for optimization in a picross game; namely, what order the black squares are filled in.
This presents a "routing" challenge as the fastest sequence of filing the black squares is not immediately or trivially identifiable even when the answer to the puzzle itself is previously known. Different TASers may find different routes that could yield the same time, but there are surely some solution sequences that are faster than others. This presents not only a TASing challenge, but also potential for improvement.
I see this as an acceptable game (though I haven't watched this specific submission so I can't comment as to it's optimization or acceptability).
Creating a TAS for this type of puzzle is no less of a TASing challenge than any other puzzle based game (i.e. Tetris Attack's Puzzle Mode) just because it is derived from a puzzle that can also be done on paper.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Timing Issues
Given that the pink vehicle stops at obstacles when they are in the way (and doesn't wreck); these stages are more akin to having a frame-rule (minimum frame count) than they are to auto-scroller from a timing perspective.
Auto-Scrollers will always end in the same amount of time regardless of optimization quality through the stage (unless there's a boss battle or end trigger that the character has to hit at the end of the otherwise equally timed auto-scroller).
But a stage that has a minimum frame count can take longer to complete due to poor play.
So as the pink vehicle in Road Worker stops for obstacles instead of wrecking...this game's timing leans more toward frame-rule. The minimum number of frames being how many it takes the vehicle to get to the end of the road without stopping for any obstacles.
It is the optimization of play in the TAS that allows for unhindered travel of the vehicle, thus making this minimum frame count achievable.
Thus from a strictly timing perspective, optimization of input is what yields the shortest possible time (even if that's easily achievable).
Yes, the game is absolutely boring to watch!
But the boring waits alone don't disqualify it from acceptance. While the final time may be achievable by humans, the cursor movement/actions both in-play and menus are obviously superhuman. Thus the game meets acceptance standards from a superhuman and optimization perspective.
What may make this game un-acceptable?
1) Triviality - Given the slow movement of the vehicle, there isn't only 1 possible fastest way to complete this game. There may be many variations in the TAS actions/solutions that could yield the same final time, thus no matter what someone does while TASing (so long as the vehicle isn't delayed) the final time will be equivalent. There's little to no opportunity for beating this run's time unless a glitch is found to end stages faster.
2) Bootleg - Held to higher standards than officially released games. I'm not familiar with all the requirements necessary and will thus defer to the judges.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
For some reason any kind of bread I bake comes out bitter... :( can anyone tell me what am I doing wrong?
Possibly too much baking soda. Bases can have a bitter taste.
Try baking a bread that uses yeast as a rising agent instead of one that uses baking soda.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Preface: I'm not a judge.
r-bin2 wrote:
The all bosses category seems to have the messiest rules, and they aren't even spelled out on speedrun.com. To my knowledge they are based on whether or not encounters had boss music, fanfares and loot.
You'd recommend to beat all these once? Or just actual bosses?
Don't confuse speedrun.com rule sets with what we look for here. While there are often similarities, our rule set is independent of what speedrun.com does. Our definition of 100% or full completion may be different than theirs. Theoretically, the respective definitions of any% between the two sites may vary as well for any particular game.
feos already linked to our requirements for full completion runs.
I'm not familiar with the game in question, but I'd agree with Patashu that all bosses would likely be necessary to fulfill those requirements.
The rules on full completion state:
Full completion can only consist of optional one-time, irreversible, or otherwise strictly limited accomplishments that can be objectively measured and maximized.
If the otherwise skippable bosses can only be fought once (or a unique reward is only given for fighting them the first time), they would fall under this sub-point in the rule.
This sub-point may also impact what needs to be collected vs what doesn't. It could be argued that only the items which can be collected only once need collecting. For example; if there are multiple places to get a particular piece of armor, and there's no restriction to re-acquiring it once it's already been acquired, it may not need collected to fulfill the requirements for a full completion run.
Part of the concept of full completion is to actually do measurable things that could otherwise be skipped, and thus add more content to the viewable result.
As far as determining a definition for what our site would require for a 100% run of the game, you might have a better chance of getting a community consensus by asking in the thread for the game.
EDIT:CoolHandMike wrote:
Maybe use a category like "all items"? or "all equipment"?
If full completion was deemed to require more than either of these options, the resulting video would have to warrant good enough reception for moon tier publication as the run wouldn't qualify for vault.
After a lot more discussion, private and public, it looks like my take on how similar these two games are wasn't shared by other judges, nor have my arguments convinced them. It was important in this case, because these games look at the very least borderline similar to me, so I needed more educated opinions.
The main argument is that the rules of the games are rather different. Not as different as "one has fighting and it's heavily used, while the other one doesn't"; mostly in how they tweak the basketball rules. Since the sports are played by different rules, and in-game controls are also different, they are most logically not the same game. Which means both this game and 1 on 1 can be published in Vault separately.
I don't know if re-skin was ever the main argument, pro or con, and I don't think we should invent a list of strict definitions, because it will mean we'll be adding more and more as new situations appear. Though if you guys have any other insights on how to make sure they are different enough, feel free to post. Difference in game rules is not always enough either, because it can vary.
Your judgement note does clarify how the rule is being applied for the 1-On-1 games, and judges could use your judgement note to better understand how to apply the rule in the future; but it doesn't do anything to clarify any perceived ambiguity in the rule's wording itself (which is my understand of what Thunderaxe was wanting input on). My post was in response to the request for input regarding the rule as it is written. I only referenced the 1-On-1 games as examples of my thoughts on the current rule. It was not my intent to suggest that you had done anything incorrectly, or that your judgement didn't make sense.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the 1-On-1 games in my examples and just stuck with the other game references I used.
As far as changing the rule or adding definitions: I can see where things could potentially get quite complex if we tried adding various definitions for each possible situation. I was simply posting my thoughts in response the request for input on possible clarification of the current rule's wording. I apologize if the examples I used to demonstrate this perspective made you feel that I didn't understand that your judgement note says both 1-On-1 games are indeed acceptable.
Truly, specific discussion on this rule might be split into a separate thread instead of being attached to this submission.
I think it would be valuable for the staff/community to discuss/answer the following questions (some reiterated from my previous post) before potentially rewording the rule. These are not meant to be a comprehensive list of ideas that need discussed regarding this rule, and further discussions doesn't necessarily need to be in the forums; but if it's possible that this discussion ultimately improves the readability of our rules, I feel it's worthwhile.
1) What qualifies as significantly different game-play?
2) Is this even definable in a way that would cover the majority of situations?
3) Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play from a mechanics perspective? (or some other differentiation).
4) If this a problem where we can't establish a more clearly defined/worded rule that would cover most situations, should we require a multiple judge consensus on whether a particular situation is applicable to the rule? (This may already be a common practice, at least as it seems to have been demonstrated with the 1-On-1 situation.)
I want our site to be the best it can be and am willing to discuss my opinions with anyone who wants them. I feel that asking questions (even when I may not have an answer myself) holds value in prompting the thoughts of others. Questions that don't get asked don't get answered.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
...it doesn't change my point about the fact that the rule is actually regulating games that propose variations that don't strictly involve gameplay mechanics. Maybe we could even suggest a better wording for the written rule itself, and I'd like anyone to share their opinion, if there are.
Regarding the current rule:
As I understand it, the spirit of the rule is to prevent publishing of multiple games that are little more than re-skins of one another; games where (as already mentioned) a team name or player image is different, but the game is otherwise played exactly (or almost exactly) the same way. This would be the case for many serialized sports games (examples: the Madden football series, NBA 2k series, MLB 2k series, Tiger Woods Golf, etc).
In these games, rosters change from year to year; but most of the game-play, modes, and mehcanics are similar (if not identical). For these type of games, this is a good rule.
Occasionally a particular year's release will have a new mode or a significant change in game-play/mechanics that warrants considering it different enough to be a 'different' game from a publication standpoint.
As an example, when considered side by side, John Madden Football released for the SNES in 1990 is a drastically different game than Madden NFL '21 released in 2020 for the Xbox One; yet they are technically part of of the same series published by EA Sports. These two iterations of the same series are comparably different and would be considered different enough to warrant two publications (assuming they were both TASable and all other rules were followed). These kind of differences are covered by the current rule. More thoughts regarding the current rule:
As written, the rule says that two games in the same series require significantly different game-play.
The distinction we need to decide is, what qualifies as significantly different game-play. Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play?
These two 1-on-1 may not appear to have very different game-play to a viewer; but the actual mechanics of game-play are different. Thus the challenge of TASing each requires a different approach between the two runs; not simply doing the same thing for a new set of skins.
If this submission had simply been a different skin, then it wouldn't be acceptable alongside the other version...however, it's not a re-skin, the primary mechanics of play are new. In my opinion, as the mechanics are significantly different, both should be acceptable publications regardless of a similar viewer experience.
The primary game-play portions of NFL 2k1 and Madden NFL 2001 look strikingly similar in game-play, but both would be acceptable (assuming all other rules could be followed for vault publication) because they are from different series. The mechanics of the primary play are also likely quite similar.
TL:DR
Arguing that two games from the same series (when they have different primary mechanics) can't both be accepted simply because they are from the same series, makes about as much sense to me as arguing that two games from completely different series/publishers can't both be accepted because they have nearly identical mechanics/game-play.
Rule Re-Wording Idea: (added italicized portion)
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. This is to prevent multiple games that are little more than re-skins with the same game-play mechanics from being published along side one another.
For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
*For games with different characters/groups/countries with different statistics, only the fastest run is accepted. Runs using suboptimal characters are not accepted.
Side Note: Grammatically speaking, the last sentence above is acceptable; but I'd consider rewording it to one of the following (simply because these all sound better to me while maintaining the same idea):
1) Runs using suboptimal characters will not be accepted.
2) Runs using suboptimal characters are not acceptable.
3) Runs using suboptimal characters will be rejected.
Side Note #2: I'm hoping someone actually has determined that PGA Tour II and PGA Tour III are little more than re-skins before using these two games as an example. Does the latter introduce anything new that would warrant consideration as a new mechanics/modes?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Patashu wrote:
So a slightly MORE interesting question would be to additionallyrequire every mine to be adjacent to a clue (so no mines entirely surrounded by mines/out of bounds). On a 15x15 board I get 96 (pretend the 1s are the appropriate numbered clue):
All bombs touch a number 8 somewhere.
EDIT: Sorry I somehow missed the requirement to have an instant win in one click.
EDIT #2: I'm guessing that 96 is the max possible, but there are other patterns that could still yield that number of bombs.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Philip wrote:
1. Is at least 2 sec faster than N64 Super Mario 64 (JPN) "1 Key" in 04:21.3 by Tyler Kehne, MKDasher, sonicpacker, Snark, SilentSlayers, Gaehne D, Eru, ToT, Plush & sm64expert (“SM642016”)
2. Is accepted+published by TAS videos in the same category as SM642016 and obsoletes SM642016.
I'm a bit confused (which may be due, in part, to lack of knowledge on the intricacies of TASing SM64); and I have a question for clarification.
Specifically, why 2 seconds?
Is there a particular reason to speculate that at least 2 seconds can be removed from the current publication, or is that an arbitrary value you chose simply hoping to push others to pursue this bounty?
I'm all for improving existing publications; but if this is an arbitrary value, it seems odd to me. If your goal is simply improving the publication, then why not allow a 1.5 second improvement (or 1 second, or even .5 seconds).
If there is a particular reason you believe a minimum of 2 seconds can be achieved, then I see no problem with that number.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
...I only say this because I believe TASing should be more than simply optimizations in speedruns. I believe it should be about expressing super human play, and that includes crazy playarounds you see in some older Battletoads TASes.
Playarounds don't necessarily need to be present for a TAS to be considered Superhuman play (or even to be considered entertaining).
While some viewers may prefer them (and find movies that lack playaround, less entertaining); other viewers can appreciate TASes that lack playaround just as much as (if not more than) a TAS that includes it.
There's nothing wrong with simply optimizing a speedrun.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
feos and I had some back and forth discussion on Discord regarding our respective perspectives and and the purpose of the vault, the following are as concise of a summary as I can provide:
feos: by your logic "as long as it's done optimally, no matter how trivial it is, it must be archived even for such games!!!!!!!"
The following is my response to that summation.
Me:This is close to how I feel, but not exactly.
I'm suggesting that the TASes of games that are not trivial to play casually deserve a place of recognition on our site as examples demonstrating what TASing can do compared to humans (i.e. 'superhuman') regardless of how trivial it is to make that TAS. I have no desire to have TASes of trivial-to-play games like Desert Bus or Color a Dinosaur on the site.
I see 3 levels of triviality. Trivial to play. Triviality of TAS Production. Triviality of resulting video.
feos:I mean you'd be arguing for those types of games I quoted just as well
(Here he was referenceing games such as Dragon's Lair, choose your own adventure stories, color a dionsaur, etc.)
Here's my response which hopefully provides more insight to everyone on why I feel some trivial-to-TAS games which are not trivial-to-play games deserve a place of publication in the Vault.
I can see where someone could use my basic perspective to try and argue for Dragon's Lair or a 'choose an adventure' type game, but the counter argument in many if not most of those cases would be that there's no in-game benefit/value derived by optimizing the input time.
Even in casual play, pressing a direction in Dragon's Lair on the first possible frame vs the last possible frame doesn't change the gameplay or progress; all obstacles to the predefined game progress remain the same regardless of when (in the appropriate time window) that direction is pressed. Time optimization is only affected by the frame delay within that window when the button is actually pressed (a direction press 5 frames later than the earliest possible frame adds exactly 5 frames to the overall time of the run). This isn't the case for games like Duck Hunt.
From a casual play perspective in Duck Hunt, the frame on which a duck is shot does result in changes to gameplay action and therefore adds potential for an in-game benefit/value of time optimization. If not shot immediately, the duck will fly around based on RNG; meaning the gun would need repositioned/aimed. Also the randomized position that the duck flies to before it's shot determines the fall distance and thus introduce another factor in time optimization beyond simply how much time it took the player to pull the trigger; a duck shot higher on the screen falls a further distance and costs extra time beyond the number of frames the player delayed before the shot (shooting 5 frames later than the earliest possible frame may result in greater than a 5 frame delay on the overall run). This means that the both aiming time and firing frame of the gun are actions that impact time optimization from a in-game benefit/value standpoint. This potential in-game variation due to game-play choices provides the in-game benefit/value of optimization: 'Shooting a duck lower on the screen, yields waiting less time before the next duck releases.'
Yes it's trivial to make the Duck Hunt TAS itself because of the tools available. Shots can be made to occur on the first possible frame with the gun pointed in the right place. It's not hard to optimize. But the in-game benefit/value optimization is still present This is the point in optimizing 1-duck mode in Duck Hunt; killing the ducks as quickly as possible to minimize fall distance. It just so happens that it's easy to do this optimization in a TAS environment.
The grey area with the in-game benefit argument is games like Deja Vu or Shadowgate. Speed of input doesn't necessarily affect the gameplay result or create in-game changes. However, those games still at least have the argument of cursor movement optimization beyond general menuing (where Dragon's Lair, choose an adventure, and such games do not even have this optimization challenge).
To put it shortly, there is a reason to optimize the shot frame in Duck Hunt beyond it was the first possible frame to do so.
This reason is the reason the game is not trivial and a speed record of it has value.
EDIT: I want our site to offer even more comprehensive picture of how TASing is superior to human play, but the current approach to triviality prevents some obvious superhuman TASes from being published.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Memory wrote:
I've personally felt conflicted in the past about this rule and its precise necessity. I believe that in an ideal world we would want to publish every game. However, that isn't practical. We have judges and publishers that are required to move the process along, so there is a need to limit what gets sent our way. From that, one of the most obvious subsets to limit is movies that have little effort put into them.
Additionally, a trivial record isn't just meaningless in the sense that there can be no competition. It is meaningless in that who set the record and therefore authorship doesn't matter. Anybody can create the inputs for a trivial movie.
Let's take Barney's Hide & Seek for an example. If left alone, the game will actually play and complete itself. The only required input to beat it is Power On.
Who came up with the TAS for that? The first person to submit? They didn't exactly come up with the inputs, power on is in the emulator by default. The emulator? The first person to ever play the game? The creators of the game?
When a movie requires effort to make, who made the movie becomes much simpler.
If one were to accept trivial records in order to merely document the fastest possible time, one would need to remove authorship or else one would run into a plethora of issues regarding attribution. This site is obviously not set up for that, nor do I know if anybody really wants that at this given time.
Games like Barny are trivial-to-play casually, thus TASing isn't even necessary. Other games like Duck Hunt aren't trivial to play (more on this later); and while the act of making the TAS may be trivial, the resulting video still demonstrates superhuman TAS ability.
A game being trivial-to-make, doesn't mean that effort hasn't been exerted in creation of the TAS. This is part of why I have previously emphasized that 'trivial to play casually' and 'trivial to make a TAS' aren't equivalent.
Implementation?
For such trivial-to-make TASes that would still demonstrate super-human ability, would it be impossible to publish them without authorship attribution? Or simply have authorship be attributed to "Many Tasers." Or even "Trivial to TAS"?
With any of those options, no one person has to be identified as the TAS author for attribution reasons. This would eliminate any player points comparison/headache that would result from any one member claiming they were first or that they should get the points for authorship.
The staff could even create a member with the name "Trivial to TAS" for such a purpose. Then when a trivial to TAS game is submitted, the game can be published under this authorship regardless of who actually made the submission. A note could be placed in the judgement notes describing this publication action. This would allow for publication of non-trivial-to-play superhuman runs even if they are trivial-to-make.
Regarding productivity and practicality: if a superhuman TAS is judged to have such simple optimization that it's deemed trivial-to-make, then judgement shouldn't be that hard on whether it's optimized or not (and since we're talking about Vault, there's not reason to consider entertainment). Judgments would essentially be mere formality and shouldn't require much effort on the judge's part.
I've had some private discussion with feos on discord and will be posting some of the thoughts from that discussion here in a moment in a separate post..
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
I realize that I'm challenging the status quo and the operating opinion of some (possibly many) in the community. Please don't read any of the following as anger, it's not intended that way.
feos wrote:
Distinction between trivial games and trivial movies is crucial and resolves your questions. If the game in its nature is trivial to TAS, any TAS of it is rejected, because it won't be a meaningful tool-assisted speedrun record. But if the game is complicated and affords serious TAS competition, its movies are accepted, even if human record matches a TAS, as long as there's nothing more to improve with the current knowledge.
You're debating from a perspective that appears to suggest that our site is primarily about competition. You're suggesting that a TAS of any game is meaningless simply because the act of obtaining the optimal method to win is obvious and easy to produce in TAS form and thus wouldn't have room for challenge by another TASer.
Is that all we care about as a site? Do we only care about TASing games that could, in theory, yield a frame-war? Are all other games that can't produce this potential for challenge really meaningless, or is that an arbitrary distinction we have created for some esoteric reason in hopes to spur such challenges?
As I understand things: In it's origin, the site was a showcase of TAS runs that were deemed entertaining to watch, not as a place to hold competition for who could TAS best. Then the Vault was added to archive the fastest known runs of games regardless of whether they were entertaining or not. In other words, the Vault was added to present the best that can be accomplished from a speed perspective even if it was dull to watch.
While this may have allowed opportunity for more competitive back and forth in the community, the results of the Vault TASes being published remained the same....presenting the fastest (known) possible outcome. Then the vault was further expanded to include 100% runs and max score TASes that still were required to do those two things in the fastest possible time, but that's kinda beside the point of my arguments.
Why then are we against presenting the fastest run that can be accomplished from a speed perspective simply because the available tools make it easy to present that particular result and there's no foreseeable way for someone to challenge that known best result?
Why claim that a tool-assisted speedrun record is not meaningful just because it's was easy to accomplish using the available tools?
I realize that competition/challenge can and does happen here, but I've never taken anything on our site to suggest that the purpose of our existence was to only present things that can breed competitive challenge.
Why is one game deemed less meaningful to TAS simply because it's easier to actually create the TAS than it would be for another game?
How much meaning/value any art form holds is not determined by the creators/curators, it's determined by the viewer/consumer.
There's a lot of art in the world that I personally feel is worth less than the individual media components it's created with, yet others would be willing to pay millions of dollars to acquire.
What I or any particular community member may see as a worthless/trash TAS, another viewer may see as one of the most amazing TASes ever created.
Acceptability of TASes that would be archived in the Vault shouldn't be judged based on some undefinable potential meaning that someone may or may not ascribe to the resulting video. Nor should it be determined on how difficult they were or weren't to create. Acceptability should simply be based on if it's the fastest known optimal TAS run (given current knowledge of the game).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
moozooh wrote:
When making a new (i.e. first-generation) TAS, it has to do better than what humans are doing at that time. Otherwise there is no point bothering with it when you can just watch the unassisted run and get the same experience.
...
Mandating that an improvement outperforms a human run across the board would have been impractical for cases where there are no further improvements to be found with existing knowledge. Enforcing such a rule would make some improvements unpublishable and have us stuck with even worse movies.
(rhetorically) So if a TAS already exists as published and humans manage to match it, that's ok; but if the best a TASer can do is to only match the absolute best human out there, it's not ok just because in the grand spectrum of time a human has already achieved that performance once? (end rhetorical question)
It doesn't make sense to hold a 1st generation run to higher standard than improvement runs simply because there happens to be 1 or a small handful of humans who have managed to attain the best possible performance at some point in time prior to the game being first TASed. If the majority of humans can match that performance, then it's a different story: the game is trivial and the restriction is valid.
Assuming that a game isn't trivial for most humans to play, the best possible TAS of that game based on known information is still the best possible result and deserves to be documented on the site as such.
Sure, if a TAS and the best human run are equivalent, someone could absolutely go watch the best human run instead of the TAS. But the fact that someone can see an equivalent performance elsewhere doesn't restrict TAS acceptance otherwise. If there's a TAS video of a game on YouTube or NicoVideo that achieves the best possible performance but that TAS was never submitted to our site, we'd accept a submission from a different author even if it only matched that other run for time. So why does it matter if the other run being compared to was human instead of someone else's TAS? If a submission in question matches the best known existing time (regardless of whether a human or TAS made the run), it should be acceptable. We'd never reject a submission solely because another TAS (which isn't published on the site ) is just as good as the submission in question.
People don't only watch our videos to see only what human's CAN'T do...some (probably quite a few casual watchers) watch to see what's the best that CAN be done. They don't care if a human can match it or not, they are simply trying to see what's the best possible (which, in-theory, is a key part of what TASing is all about).
The above quote specifically points out the dichotomy. In one case, you're arguing that updates to an already published TAS are allowed to be only as good as the best humans, but new TASes aren't allowed to be only as good than the absolute best humans.
We need to stop considering Vault runs from an "experience" standpoint. Vault is supposed to be a place that doesn't consider entertainment value. Thus, whether or not someone can obtain the same experience watching a run equivalent to a vault publication elsewhere is a moot point. The vault is effectively an archive for the fastest completions (or maximum score runs), it's not about the experience.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
The current rules for a vault run say
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial. Note that a game is considered trivial until proven otherwise. If getting perfect times everywhere is not challenging, such a game is considered trivial. If later a technique is found that makes TASing it challenging, that game becomes acceptable
The current rules for beating existing records say
If your tool-assisted movie is slower than the non-tool-assisted world record for the same game, aiming for the same goals, your movie will be rejected.
Given the recent change from "not faster than" to "slower than" for speed rules; these two criteria are now somewhat in conflict.
One criterion (in the rules on triviality) essentially says a run must stand out from human play to be acceptable, while the other criterion (in the rules on speed) essentially says a run simply can't be slower than human play to be acceptable.
This prompted a question in my mind: How do we define a game's triviality?
In my opinion, a game's triviality should be based on the ability of humans to present a perfect (or near perfect) performance, not how challenging it is to make a TAS of that perfect performance...especially when acceptability for Vault is in question.
If the majority of humans can easily beat a game unassisted with perfect or near perfect performance, a game can be argued to be inherently trivial (Desert Bus).
Duck Hunt is a good example of the triviality dilemma.
TASing a perfect time performance in 1-Duck mode is extremely easy to do as it's simply a matter of watching a timer and duck location in RAM then firing on the first possible frame. However, it'd be nigh impossible for a human to accomplish this same feat.
While it doesn't make a very interesting TAS to watch, it would still meet all other criteria for acceptance into Vault as the fastest completion of a game. On a side note, it's also obviously superhuman.Side note #2: I don't believe that a max score run would be trivial as the score per duck can vary (even in 1-Duck mode IIRC) and would require some RNG manipulation to accomplish.
Yet, this mode of the game is currently prohibited from vault based on triviality of how difficult it is to make the TAS.
As vault is meant to be the location of fastest known/possible TASes of games (when entertainment isn't considered), what argument is there to restricting games simply because the act of making the TAS is extremely easy?
Even when a game is extremely easy to TAS perfectly; if it isn't also that easy casually, it's not inherently a trivial game.
TL:DR
How challenging it is to actually make the TAS of a game shouldn't be the determining factor on whether or not a particular game is deemed trivial; triviality should instead be based on how simple the game is to play casually.
Should we modify the Vault rules in the following ways?
1) Eliminate the concept that game-play must visually stand out from human play For Moons, this requirement could be maintained.
2) Clearly define how triviality is determined
The point of our site is to publish impressive movies from a perspective of entertainment (moons/stars), speed only (vault), or both.
Therefore, I simply don't see any value or purpose in banning a game from publication(especially when a TAS shows obvious perfection or superhuman play) simply because the creation of the TAS was itself an easy (or easily repeatable) process.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
p4wn3r wrote:
OK, soft question now. Asking here because at another place I post about math there was some heated discussion about this and I want to know what people think.
Are -2, -3, -5, -7, ..., prime numbers?
Every definition I've ever read of prime numbers says a prime must be positive with itself (X) and 1 as the only divisors.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Tichnickle,
In less than 10 minutes of testing, I was also able to beat you on the first 3 enemies of the game. I'm not sure if it's as fast as Spike's, but it's close. (My scream input does occur on frame 1737 which appears the same a Spike's image above, but I'm not sure if the video he shared is from that particular input).
Both Spike and I attack the left two enemies first. I believe this yields a faster time due to death animation timing with the game only having to process 1 enemy on the 2nd scream...but that's speculation and I can't (currently) prove it.
Doing it this way requires walking right further before doing the first scream, hence the attack not happening until frame 1737.
I can't comment on the glider as I haven't tested that far (nor am I particularly interested in doing so).
Another question: I know you've at least tested one other character; but have you tested ALL the other characters to confirm that this is indeed the best character to use for the game?
TASing is not about just doing something fast and quickly submitting.
It requires doing something, then doing something else, then something else, then something else, and so on...until you've tested every possibility you can imagine to see which is actually fastest. It's a time-consuming process and not something that typically occurs in a short span of time. I'm not trying to discourage you...simply trying to get you to slow down and pay more attention to the quality of what you're submitting instead of rushing to do submissions as quickly as possible.
I'll reiterate what EZGames69 warned earlier: If you continue to submit runs that are noticeably sub-optimal, you'll put yourself at risk of being banned from submitting.
I'd encourage you to cancel this submission and once again re-evaluate it. Spend more time with it. Try different methods...even actions that may not initially seem faster can ultimately yield a better overall time as the above situation proves -- delaying the first scream and changing it's direction actually yields a faster time to moving onward.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
I have to disagree on Star tier.
While this run is rather well made, it's just not entertaining enough to warrant Stars, in my opinion. I wouldn't argue with Moon tier (as it seems to have good general entertainment response so far), but I definitely don't find it on-par with other star tier runs.
Frankly, I find the game itself rather awful and unentertaining to watch. I'd truly be surprised if post-publication ratings (after giving adequate time for them to accumulate) would warrant Star tier.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
SonicFan53 wrote:
OK, so, I wanna collaborate on a TAS of this game.
You'll be much more likely to find someone willing to collaborate with you (on any game - let alone this one) if you first prove you are capable of making a publishable (or at minimum, a relatively optimized) TAS on your own.
Otherwise--and this is somewhat based on your posts in other threads of the forum--it comes across that you're just wanting to split the glory from someone else's hard work.
Essentially, show us you're worthy of collaborating with.
Many of us have numerous projects we're working on (within and without the TAS community); and we either don't have the time or simply don't want to hold someone else's hand through the TASing process if they aren't going to be a beneficial collaborator.
I do not intend for this post to come across as rude, more just to-the-point.
Both Spike and I attack the left two enemies first. I believe this yields a faster time due to death animation timing with the game only having to process 1 enemy on the 2nd scream...but that's speculation and I can't (currently) prove it.
Doing it this way requires walking right further before doing the first scream, hence the attack not happening until frame 1737.
I can't comment on the glider as I haven't tested that far (nor am I particularly interested in doing so).
Another question: I know you've at least tested one other character; but have you tested ALL the other characters to confirm that this is indeed the best character to use for the game?
TASing is not about just doing something fast and quickly submitting.
It requires doing something, then doing something else, then something else, then something else, and so on...until you've tested every possibility you can imagine to see which is actually fastest. It's a time-consuming process and not something that typically occurs in a short span of time. I'm not trying to discourage you...simply trying to get you to slow down and pay more attention to the quality of what you're submitting instead of rushing to do submissions as quickly as possible.
I'll reiterate what EZGames69 warned earlier: If you continue to submit runs that are noticeably sub-optimal, you'll put yourself at risk of being banned from submitting.
I'd encourage you to cancel this submission and once again re-evaluate it. Spend more time with it. Try different methods...even actions that may not initially seem faster can ultimately yield a better overall time as the above situation proves -- delaying the first scream and changing it's direction actually yields a faster time to moving onward.