Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
CoolKirby wrote:
I'm still seeing the original Photobucket images on that page, they haven't turned into the large "Please Upgrade" images for me. Should they be replaced anyway?
In any case, yes. Even if an image isn't already no longer visible for some people (like in this case, as JosJuice noted), it may just be a matter of time before that happens.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
(If the counter-argument would be that it wouldn't be very interesting to most people... well, I'm sure that from the thousands of TASes that have been published, you can find some that most people aren't interested in. I don't think that should automatically be grounds for rejection.)
We can't please everybody, but we can aim to at least provide a reasonable set of TASes that are generally considered entertaining, or at least interesting/worthwhile as speed records for the Vault. Board games largely fail both criteria, so that's why they're not accepted for the Vault.
Radiant wrote:
Obviously that's the point: we're suggesting that a relevant rule be changed. Stating that it has not so far been changed is not much of a counterargument :)
Your reaction to the topic was "but that was 2.5 years ago", as if the passing of time had made that topic irrelevant. The point is it did not become irrelevant, because no relevant factors changed.
Radiant wrote:
Well, that's a good distinction; it would help if the Vault rules page actually mentioned that. It seems that the rule against board games hasn't been updated in years.
It has never been updated because it had never needed an update. Until today, nobody was confused about what was meant by "board game" when examples of Monopoly and Chess were given.
andypanther wrote:
The problem is that those two runs are extremely short. Yes, they are in the moon tier, but it's questionable if that is due to how entertaining they are or due to the popularity of those particular games. A Mahjong TAS that is just as fast would be very likely to get a lower rating just because it's Mahjong. In the worst case, we would see a TAS rejected that is technically much more impressive.
If a Mahjong movie really is technically impressive and interesting (comparable to at least the Monopoly runs), it would have a viable shot at reaching Moons. If it has no hope outside of the Vault, then chances are it really just is not technically impressive or interesting enough to begin with.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Radiant wrote:
Sure, but that was 2.5 years ago.
No relevant rule has changed since then.
Radiant wrote:
Also, that discussion is primarily about reworking the tier system, and only secondarily about board games. Clearly one can allow board games without having to change the tier system.
The idea of accepting board games to the Vault came up a lot in that topic. It's still relevant.
Radiant wrote:
The definition of board game, for Vault rule purposes, is a game which is a board game in its original form - hence its examples of Chess and Monopoly.
The games you mention, like Mario Party, are not board game adaptations, they are video games first and foremost.
Radiant wrote:
I see no reason why the vault should have a clause agaist board games (other than perhaps two-player non-random board games like chess).
Read the linked topic, which you clearly decided to dismiss before reading. It provides plenty of reasons for why that rule is as it currently is.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Me neither - if, like those runs you quote, a Mahjong TAS can make it to Moons, I'll gladly support it.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Challenger wrote:
I don't know exactly if a full TAS still could be possible to accept, because since the published run is in the vault, probably the ''demo%'' could be considered to a fastest ''any%'' run (I think).
Yeah, a demo% run would be considered a faster any% for Vault purposes, and obsolete the published run and this submission.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
While it is your legal right to republish movies (following the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license), it is not something we will endorse, and it will not do you any favors in the community. Especially if you intend to monetize videos, as most people are not at all happy about other people leeching money off of their work. I wouldn't recommend doing it.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
While it's a bit repetitive (although fortunately reasonably short), I like the idea of a soldier distorting physics and warping through space-time just to get to his target objective as fast as possible. I voted yes, it amused me for long enough.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
It was rejected for being trivial, in the sense of that it is impossible to have a different outcome in terms of being a speed record. The game runs on a fixed time, so there's not much to speedrun, or any way for a TAS to get a faster time than a speedrun or regular playthrough. That's what that rule means.
By the way, no movie is going to be unpublished. We've never done that, nor do we have any intent to start doing it.
DrD2k9 wrote:
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.
It was moved to the Vault post-publication after ratings turned out to be poor. In any case, tier judgments in a submission have no long-term say on what tier a movie is in - publications can be moved across tiers at all times whenever deemed appropriate. In fact, there's a topic for that.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
I don't really understand. I thought all of the suggested runs were rejected, and there will effectively be no TAS block.
dwangoAC wrote:
<snip> after talking to the GDQ submission committee it's clear that they really wanted us to have the opportunity to show content that is representative of what can be found on TASVideos and they felt Super Monkey Ball was a better choice. Kaizo nearly made it in but they opted to go with Super Dram World 2 instead. To that end, I'm working with the team in #tasbot to try to do a donation incentive TAS for Super Dram World 2 and anyone here is welcome to help out with that.
That's all the time I have to respond, but I did want everyone to know that I will be attending in person. More later!
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
The stage -3 ending SMB run. It was first submitted as an any% run, then there was some drama over whether it should have obsoleted the warps (any%) run, and in the end it was put in its own category.
Well, in the end, the definition did not change, as -3 ending had to be published to a separate branch instead. The SMB ending definition always has been to save Princess Toadstool, and that has never changed. The definition was tested and clarified a bit, but not changed.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Note that you said "vaultable category", not vaulted movie, and any% is a vaultable category. Besides, I don't think that "any%" and "100%" should change definitions depending on whether the run is being considered for vault or not.
I agree, but my point on specifying vaultable categories was that those categories are supposed to be unchanging. Non-vaultable categories may have their conditions change, like low% taking a lower percentage, and the like.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Let me ask you this: what, exactly, makes Pinball and Desert Bus so bad? What constitutes an undesirable game, worthy of molding the vault rules specifically to keep them out? I'm not saying I want to see these movies published; I agree that publishing these movies would be a ridiculous violation of common sense. I'm saying that every objective rule has a subjective sentiment behind it, and it's better to simply describe the sentiment, rather than building rules to enforce and obfuscate it. This is transparency. Is Desert Bus unpublishable because it is too long? Then why not state that outright?
I like the vault and I'm a huge proponent for its existence, but edge cases with the vault bring out some of the worst of bureaucracy of this site.
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.
If we introduce qualifiers of things like "repetitiveness" or "watchability", we ruin the purpose of the Vault as an speedrun archive. It just becomes yet another tier of subjective content, where content would need to be rejected and accepted on people's whims rather than on a sizable but consistent set of rules.
So, instead of putting up such qualifiers, score capping or non-full-completion score maxing are just considered not full completion and considered outside the scope of the Vault.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
It's so much simpler when we can just collectively say something is fun to watch or not.
I would say I agree, but implementing that would mean removing the Vault entirely, and I imagine that's not what you want either. That also would still mean Punch-Out max score gets rejected for the same reason it is now - poor audience response.
That's a common pattern with these sorts of discussions, by the way - people often want to expand the Vault rules because a recently rejected or submitted Vault-ineligible is "fun" or "interesting", even though if that were really the case for the broader audience, then they would not need to qualify for the Vault anyway. Vault rules always have only applied to runs that fail to get the audience's support.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
This was answered in the Punch-Out submission thread - you're comparing apples and oranges, or to be precise, you're comparing optimization level (which cannot be precisely defined) with completion criteria (which can be precisely defined, and which have to be precisely defined for any movie to be publishable - any movie that does not reach a clearly defined goal or end-point is rejected). Remember that the Vault only allows any% and full completion runs - if a max score run isn't full completion nor can prove itself to be such, it does not count as full completion, nor any%, so it cannot be accepted for the Vault.
I don't think this is an unfair comparison. What if a vault submission aims for 100% completion, but it is later discovered that 101% completion is possible? It implies that the first submission's goal wasn't precisely defined. I seem to remember a "105%" Donkey Kong run recently which begged this question.
I think that "full completion" is just as subjective and fluid to define as any other goal -- for instance, Zelda 1 "full completion" doesn't toggle every save flag such as bombing open all the secret doors. The community came to a consensus that collecting all items counts as 100% for the game. Every game is going to involve this kind of consensus at some level.
Even "beating the game" can be controversial, such as in the SMB -3 stage ending, which "beats" the game simply by setting a flag (Beaten castle level in world 8 or higher) rather than beating Bowser. This could be considered the same kind of memory corruption we're trying to avoid in score-attack runs.
This whole argument rests on the idea that because categories are humanly defined, they're subject to change. In practice though, that doesn't really happen - at least not to any relevant capacity. Name a single publication on this site for a Vaultable category that ended up having its goalposts moved for what constitutes any% completion or full completion.
Also, games like the Donkey Kong Country series with completion percentages like 101%, 102% or 105% are still following clearly defined in-game maximums, the only unusual part being they don't add up to "100". But that's still a clear and fixed game design choice, not an evolving definition.
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Vault rules wrote:
Maximum points or score is allowed as a full-completion category, provided that:
There is no better way of defining full completion in the game.
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.
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.
Can you give an example of a published movie on this site which falls under these rules? Personally, I feel that this wording is very poor and does not convey the spirit of what it was intended to mean. If we have no movies which fall under these rules, I'd advocate changing this wording to something more clear, such as "Score attacks are not allowed in the vault"
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. This is one of the main reasons we require entertainment voting support for publishing movies with goals like this.
Add a disclaimer: "We reserve the right to reject any movie which is unreasonably long, even if it meets all other requirements for publication, on the basis of reducing stress on our server and our publishers. Such movies generally include those which are over ten hours long and largely consist of no meaningful content."
This violates our Vault rule directive of being minimally subjective, on top of being practically impossible to define. Where do you put the limit on what's acceptable or not?
Also, I don't think "we reserve the right to randomly reject movies from the Vault that meet all requirements for publication" is a very favorable rule.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
N3rdsWithGame wrote:
https://puu.sh/y7npZ/2a8d2f6faa.png
The little summary on the OoT page says that the specific Japanese version was chosen for version elusive glitches and faster text, and thats kinda misleading. The only difference between the two NTSC roms (Japanese
English) is 1 byte in the rom header which determines whether or not to load the Japanese or English text, with Japanese being the faster one. How ever NTSC 1.0 was chosen for version exclusive glitches to the 1.0 build.
If someone with the ability could update that summary to reflect that it was the 1.0 version chosen for version exclusive tricks, and Japanese was chosen for the language. The way its worded now implies that Japanese 1.0 has version exclusive tricks, which it does not.
Fixed.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
andypanther wrote:
I still don't get why score should not be vaultable in all cases.
The Vault is founded on two categories - any% fastest time, and full completion fastest time. A max score run would have to count as full completion to be a viable goal choice, but it is not full completion if there is no consistently viable way to know it's full.
andypanther wrote:
If there isn't an obvious max score, just go for the highest possible, the TAS could then be obsoleted by one that gets a higher score or gets the same one faster. And if the score just overflows? Define the point of the overflow as the max score.
That could lead to boring strats being used to score? Well, that's the point of the vault, TASes in that tier don't have to be entertaining.
There's unentertaining, but there's also being borderline unpublishable. If we had to follow this metric, we would have to accept and publish 792 hours of Desert Bus.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
DrD2k9 wrote:
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?
This is already a thing. When a category such as low% or max score gets a new movie that achieves its goal better, it obsoletes it regardless of any time change. For instance, the last Super Metroid low% publication is a few minutes slower than the one it obsoletes, but it gets 1% less items so it's considered an improvement.
In general, questions like this are already answered in the history of site publications for these types of goals.
The only issue here is that max score is not a Vaultable goal in many of these cases. The Vault is a speedrun archive - TASVideos is still primarily a site for tool-assisted speedrun records, after all - and it demands either any% fastest completion, or full completion, as qualifiers. If a max score cannot logically prove itself to be full completion, it is not full completion.
Now, it could be possible to think up a separate category system or whatever (not "tier", as it would contradict the definition of tier) where we could accept score runs, but I don't really see it being in the interest of the site. Score runs are not our primary focus, never have been, and since we're talking about runs that aren't accepted in our current framework (in which they would be allowed if they qualified for Moons given sufficient entertainment votes), we're talking about runs that are typically boring, repetitive, and long - amplifying publishing work, for relatively little gain.
DrD2k9 wrote:
* 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).
This was answered in the Punch-Out submission thread - you're comparing apples and oranges, or to be precise, you're comparing optimization level (which cannot be precisely defined) with completion criteria (which can be precisely defined, and which have to be precisely defined for any movie to be publishable - any movie that does not reach a clearly defined goal or end-point is rejected). Remember that the Vault only allows any% and full completion runs - if a max score run isn't full completion nor can prove itself to be such, it does not count as full completion, nor any%, so it cannot be accepted for the Vault.
DrD2k9 wrote:
* 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.
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. This is one of the main reasons we require entertainment voting support for publishing movies with goals like this.
DrD2k9 wrote:
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.
That is entirely unrelated to this discussion, which is about the limits of acceptability of score runs for the Vault. That judging comment is about arbitrary branches that can be accepted to Moons or Stars. Max score runs already can get published to Moons or Stars easily, provided they have the audience support - and when they do, they can make for some of the greatest movies on the site. But they have to be considered interesting and entertaining enough.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
FatRatKnight wrote:
Essentially, the question I have in mind is: If it can't be proven the achieved score is the highest possible, and after significant effort a higher score wasn't achieved, is this still grounds for rejection with no other consideration?
"Significant effort" is a very vague term, so it's hard to build a straight answer on that. But even if you assume a very thorough definition of effort, with the game disassembled, researched and simulated to Dragster-tier levels, my answer would still be no.
The plainness requirement exists for a few reasons, including logistics and consistency. If we were to accept a max score TAS based on such thorough research, we would have to do the same for any such TAS, and that's just plain not feasible - not to mention that it would ironically make such TASes way harder to be acceptable. We do not want to go down that road.
(Also keep in mind that this is a Vault rule only - if the run is considered interesting and entertaining enough, these restrictions need not apply)
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
andypanther wrote:
And it's once again shown why the vault rules are too strict. Highscore should always be a vaultable goal.
Derakon wrote:
It should be clear that in the case of this game, there is a definable maximum score, because the player is limited by round timers and health in terms of how many points they can milk out of each match. Round timers, health, and number of matches are all finite, ergo maximum score is also finite. Whether the max score is easily definable is a different question, but also not a relevant one IMO.
How do you go about defining full completion of a game through maximum score, without being able to prove conclusively that it is the maximum score?
Note that the "conclusive" part is exactly why the rule has qualifiers about precise time or speed requirements. "As long as you do everything perfectly optimized within the timer's limits" is not conclusive, because the optimality of a TAS is very rarely provable in itself.
Derakon wrote:
We don't require speed-oriented TASes to have an easily-defined fastest possible time. Just because we don't know for certain that this TAS achieves the maximum possible score doesn't mean we shouldn't accept it as a score-oriented TAS, which could possibly be obsoleted in the future by another TAS with a higher score.
Apples and oranges. The speed at which you beat a game has nothing to do with criteria of completion, and those should be clear and unambiguous for any sort of TAS. A speedrun's goal is "beat the game", with some conclusive proof that it beats the game. Likewise, a full completion run must have conclusive proof that it beats the game with full completion.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
FitterSpace wrote:
Is there any chance that a TAS made with this could be accepted here? From what I've heard, it generates a single input file that starts from power on and syncs up even on multiple consoles.
The main hurdles with it are that it's hard to judge and encode/publish such a movie, as neither could be done on a PC, and our staff of judges and publishers may not have the tools to playback/verify such a movie and losslessly capture it, respectively.
That said, I do like this application and it would be great to see some full TASes made with it.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Put an = in front of it, like so:
[=Addresses-111|Address Set #111: Target Earth]
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Our published Brain Age movie aims to impress by drawing meticulous images instead of numbers, and having the images be read as the correct numbers anyway.
What is your movie supposed to go for?
Also, why DeSmuME 0.9.4? That version is ancient and deprecated.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
I did the same thing for Chip Chan Kick a few months ago. The rule here generally is: your published movie just has to reach the credits, but you can supply an additional file for post-credits stuff like name entries, which can be used for encodes.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
The silliest thing in my opinion is that the one thing that's accepted as a bonus incentive is essentially just one half of what has already been done at HRDQ.
I would not bother showing up if that's all you're going to do.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
TaylorTotFTW, any chance you could post a version of the movie file that properly reaches the credits? Or should someone else fix it?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Moderator, Published Author, Expert player
(4141)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
grassini wrote:
so this was suboptimal? McBob just suggested this to gruefood delight,
It's suboptimal and its gameplay is slower than the published run, it just gains time from dialogue language changes.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
