Posts for Omnigamer

1 2
11 12
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
Hey all, I just wanted to provide some awareness of Game Ventures, a platform created specifically for managing crowd-funded gaming contests, including Bounties. Though intended mostly for real-time contests, TAS and related goals are also supported. Full disclosure, I am co-owner and president of the org. Some headline features:
  • Trusted intermediary for contest awards; all award funds are held on-platform so payouts are guaranteed
  • Easy crowdsourced contest award funding, with user-directed management of individual contributions
  • Special Chase system to still support community collaboration and mitigate discovery shocks
  • Support for tracking related streams and stream history towards a given contest
  • Robust review process for winning Claims
Given that the official policy of TASVideos is that it doesn't endorse, recognize, etc for any Bounties, nor is it aiming to provide specific facilitation of such, it felt reasonable to highlight Game Ventures as an alternative for coordinating bounties. We can support most typical kinds of contests at present, and plan to launch additional products later to cover other scenarios, such as trick- and glitch-hunting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I was not at all expecting to see somebody revisit this game! Great work on the improvements. Some further comments and quick responses to other comments: - Water movement is controlled by your motion prior to leaving the ground. It's dumb, but having neutral direction input when jumping up will allow you to move fastest through the water. This may actually allow for some immediate improvement. - Something that's not apparent from watching normally is that enemy hitboxes are only active every other frame. This is really annoying, as it creates many instances where you end up trading with an enemy that should have been hit a frame earlier (in RTA at least). For a TAS I assume it also confounds certain strategies. - Building movement momentum is excruciating in this game. It takes Jo a while to reach her max normal speed on her own, and all that momentum is lost instantly when taking a hit, parrying, or using the dash. - Jo's actual max speed (where she gets chibi-fi'd) is only possible to reach with slopes. Along with the prior point, that makes slopes and stretches to "preload" speed crucial. This is why in some cases it is beneficial to forego a dash, or spend extra time building speed, such as in Stage 6, as slopes are fairly scarce. - Dashes are only slightly faster than regular running, and since they reset momentum, are usually not good choices. Given that they run off of a scarce resource (HP) it is almost always better to save them for a boss or miniboss. - Taking hits actually has a random (I think?) knockback animation, some of which are quite long. The few hits Samsara takes in the last stage I think use the optimal animation. - There are differences with the original Japanese version of the game, most of which are graphical (shorter skirt) and some SFX (voice lines). As far as I know there aren't any gameplay differences, but I never explored that extensively. There are probably some timing differences on the cutscenes, but nothing that would make it worthwhile to explore that release over this one. The non-translation also just makes this version feel more endearing, honestly. - I'm curious if one more death could somehow be used to further speed up the refights in Stage 7. I guess probably not since you sacrifice quite a bit for it (momentum and some raw time), but that may be a place to focus for later improvement. I'm a little conflicted over whether this TAS obsoletes the prior one, strictly due to the difficulty difference. The play is superior, but there are differences in decisions due to the difficulty that make it difficult to directly compare. It's been a long while since I've been involved with the game so I can't remember exactly, but at the very least regular enemies and minibosses have higher HP, which changes up the strategy somewhat (as mentioned in the notes). I seem to remember enemies moving faster on Hard as well. Some rice bowls are removed, but I think this only really affects Stage 3. The only other difference might be in the number of lives it grants, but I think this is the same on Normal, and may only effect the final stage anyway. All in all, great work!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
How do you mean? The formula for crits is known. (TECH + LUCK/2)/16 = critical hit rate This was originally why Nanami was selected as one of the better Kindness Bearers, at least for as long as she's available. Tech can be improved from quite a few pieces of equipment, though Luck is harder. With proper leveling, most characters should be in the range of 10-12% crit rate. This isn't awful for manipulating double crits, given how often the RNG changes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
Which bosses do you think need violence? The only special case I can think of is Luca, who can't be defeated completely in one turn no matter what. Of the bosses, assuming you have double beat... Star Dragon Sword - 1x crit Abomination - 1x crit + 1, or 1x fury crit Pest rat - 2x crit, or 1x fury crit + 1x fury hit Harpy - 2x crit + 1x crit (2T), or 2x Fury crit Worm - same as Abomination Luca - discussed below Sierra - 1x crit Golem - 1x crit + 1 + magic, or 2x fury crit Neclord - same as Abomination Lucia 1 - N/A Lucia 2 - 1x crit + 1 + magic Bone Dragon - 3x crit + 1 (2T), or 2x fury crit + extra Lucia 3 - 2x fury crit Seed & Culgan - 2x Fury crit Beast Rune - more complicated. Luca is a special case because it is split up into multiple fights no matter what, but you only have one place to drop the kindness bearer. This has to be approached somewhat delicately, and there's some research that hasn't been done yet (such as whether double beat effect triggers Luca phase change). But in any case, the most benefit comes from doing most of his effective 13000 HP in phase 1, which skips phase 2, and ends phase 3 very quickly. There are several ways to do this, but it depends a lot on the rune load out beforehand. Beast Rune is an entirely separate entity which will require rune unites, but a 1T solution should definitely be viable. I can try to run some calculations soon for different most monster fights, also factoring in a battle with Cut Rabbits for the double beat. I know I checked this before and there were possible solutions, but they didn't work well for RTA because the Most Monster was too inconsistent, and a low level Riou is very inconsistent in the Flik duel. EDIT: I looked through the possibilities, and there's not a lot of great options on the table assuming Jowy goes through the Fort battles. If you still include a battle in Ryube, then there are options for a CutRabbit x3 fight and a 3-4 person victory against Mist Monster. Otherwise, you'd either have to prevent Jowy from joining in the Fort (which makes those battles take longer) or do something really out there like recruit Nanami in Kyaro. The last option is to take a non-optimal experience route such that Jowy is level 10 after the Fort. In this case, he has a manageable chance (~40%) to hit 100 MAG at level 26 with a Salamander battle. This isn't ideal because they are a longer fight than the MegaWatts, but may be a fair trade-off to avoid the extra Ryube battle entirely.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
For a TAS, Violence should be unnecessary. The prerequisite for Violence is taking enough damage in turn 1, and then activating on the 2nd turn. With crit manipulation, I don't think any boss fight should ever last to the 2nd turn, including Beast Rune. Double-strike and Fury are close to the same thing as far as damage purposes. There might be a slight difference in the damage calculation formula (when the boost is applied relative to when enemy DEF is subtracted) but I don't recall right now. The catch is that Fury is only available in Muse rune shop for a rather large sum at that time, and double-strike is available as soon as soon as completing Hix & Tengaar's quest as a drop in Kobold Forest. Fury is ideal if you can accumulate that much potch in about ~30 seconds of loss (good drops, or selling Magic Drain from Sindar Ruins), but realistically isn't needed until Luca if you already have Double Beat. The only other variable in that is proper timing for a Rune Shop visit, and accounting for Kindness point accumulation. I agree that Rina is probably the best bet, however there's still plenty of room to play around with different strategies. For example, to switch from one Kindness bearer to another, you need to prepare them with deaths and actually transfer the runes. This is done in RTA because it's necessary for consistency, but there are possible setups for the late-game that don't involve Kindness at all (such as 5 Squirrels Unite). It's probably slower, but those kind of things still have to be thought through and assessed. As far as optimally building up deaths on possible bearers, the early game is the best opportunity for this. Deaths to the Sindar mob and Double Head are freebies, and you can possibly build up another during the Border investigation. The only ones that can make use of that opportunity, though, are Millie and Kinnison. To get deaths on Rina and/or Eilie, you need to account for that during the Matilda power-leveling trip, or somehow manipulate it in the Mist Monster fight. Mist Monster is actually a very valid point, because it could possibly be used to get Riou & Jowy into the correct level range for the Fort without the extra battle in Ryube. This isn't reliable enough for the RTA, but is definitely possible for the TAS. It would likely require a third turn against Mist Monster, but could save time in the long run if it gets rid of both an extra battle and accumulates some deaths for Eilie/Rina. This is my point about planning - there's so much that affects the entire route based on decisions even at the very beginning of the game. If you don't have a full plan for the whole game, it will absolutely come back and bite you later.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
Reviving this thread to discuss updated route ideas in an effort to improve the existing TAS. An encode of the WIP is here, up to the Muse War Battle: Link to video There are some minor improvements possible in this WIP, including getting a counter in the first fight to finish the battle sooner. However, the main thing I'd like to discuss is long-term planning for boss battles and theoretical strategies for dealing with them. Current RTA routes currently plan around consistent damage output setups - ones that should work no matter what a boss does, or have relatively little chance of failure. The TAS can go in the complete other direction - rely on (mostly) extreme luck to get critical hits and perfect boss patterns where necessary. This mainly comes from abusing the Kindness glitch in conjunction with other powerful runes and unites. This all has long-term benefit in cutting out longer spell animations from enemies and allies alike. A major issue is to decide which runes/abilities to lean on throughout different sections of the game. Several are captured below:
    Double Beat - attacks 2 independent times Fury - 1.5x damage multiplier Double-Strike - 1.5x damage multiplier Kite - 0.5x damage to all enemies Violence - when conditions met, grants Berserk status and 3x multiplier to next attack (total 4.5x) Down - 30% to cause Unbalance status Spark - other party members will execute their actions at the same time as the user 100 Kobold Attack - Gengen/Gabocha Unite. 3x damage to all enemies 5 Squirrel Attack - Chance to cause instant death even to bosses
Most "unique" runes that provide 2x or 3x damage multipliers don't really matter here, since a crit (x3) is at least on par with them for no rune slot cost. The most versatile of these options is the famed Double Beat, which is available early in the game for the cost of one extra battle. It stacks well with crits (though makes twice as much to manipulate) and also works with Fury, Double-Strike, and Violence. This seems like a bit of a no-brainer, though the benefits may not show up until Abomination. On the flip-side, crits often have a side-effect of inflicting Unbalance on enemies, including bosses. If the main goal is to limit animations (especially from bosses), then Double Beat might be skippable in favor of causing Unbalance with the first crit. The cost is some extra menu-ing time, but should make consecutive crits easier. This can be further improved with the Down rune, but that may be unnecessary since you can cause Unbalance without. 100 Kobold Attack and 5 Squirrel Attack can only really apply in the very late game to spread damage among all targets, or to completely end the Beast Rune fight faster. I haven't really thought that far ahead, but there's a possibility for 100 Kobold Attack to shine in L'Ren if other alternatives will take too long to set up. In the early- and mid-game, there's also the option of attempting to pick up a Fury rune. For a TAS the luck in getting it to show up isn't a factor, but having enough potch on-hand to buy it will take some planning. It would help in making Kindness crits hit 50% harder, allowing for quick kills on some of the mid- and late-game bosses. In particular, it would make for some unique strategies against Luca, and otherwise reduce number of hits or crit manipulations on other bosses. Now the question of who should be the Kindness bearer. The RTA route plans around minimizing rune setup trips and maximizing benefit from a given bearer. Through the earlier portion of the game, this is usually Nanami or Eilie. Eilie is beneficial because she is available during the North Window segments, and can eventually also get Kite. Nanami is often a required character through the rest of the game, and her stats are amenable to good hit rate and crit rates. Rina is another strong contender, since she has 3 available slots and can also use Kite. Millie also has potential here. Meg and other generally good bearers don't shine as well in the TAS since their special runes actually count against them. Above is just some rambling thoughts toward figuring out this puzzle - don't regard the ideas as complete. But I think answering these questions up-front are necessary to properly plan the revised TAS.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
To be clear, I'm not saying the movie should be taken off the site whole-sale. But it should not be regarded at Moon level, at least. Being only 3.5% faster than an RTA run which cannot manipulate perfect luck, have perfect dialogs and menus, and have ideal movement alone is not distinguishing it from the best of RTA.
That would still be less than 4% of the whole duration of this movie.
OK, I was being fairly conservative with my initial estimate. Summing up just the improvements from small errors and strategy omissions in the current run would net around 10 minutes without changing anything about the route. More realistically, after building on an improved route, the total improvement could be 30 minutes or more. I also just want to say that it's somewhat deceptive to just look at the percentage of total runtime, especially for RPGs. Some 25-50% of the total runtime is unskippable dialog, cutscenes, and other non-optimizable content. I recognize that the full runtime is all an end observer has to go on, but it misses the point that saying 15 minutes of gameplay optimization is actually a significant overall improvement over the portions of the game that the player can influence. I also want to note that my comments were not a sleight on the judges for accepting this initially. A lot of this was very specific information that couldn't have been known or followed without staying on top of what the RTA communities had been developing for the game, especially in the last several years. You went on your best judgment, and parsing 7 hours of content for optimization is rough, with or without the extra nuance from domain knowledge. In the end, I just want to see a great TAS for this game. That starts with listing the known flaws in the current one, so that either the author or somebody else can recognize opportunities for improvement later on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I only saw this submission once it was up on the TASVideos YouTube, but I have a lot to add about its optimization and planning. The briefest way I can summarize this run is that the planning it used was naive, or at least quite outdated as compared to current RTA strategies. This has a significant impact on the entire course of the run. For comparison, consider the current RTA record in the same category: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SrKeb3AlKU With a comparable route and further luck abuse I think a more optimized TAS could be about 10-15 minutes faster than this submission. I've listed some specific points for improvement below. General Comments: -The recruitment order is fundamentally different in this run from very early on, so it is difficult to directly compare the strategy. However, I believe that the order chosen in this submission is not optimal because of several forced revisits, party composition issues, and some wasted opportunities for multitasking. -Early-game movement is not optimal. About halfway through, it looks like the author noticed that proper-timed diagonal shifting can save frames over normal non-bounce movement. However, they did not use this in earlier parts of the run and only started appearing about 3 hours in. -One of the largest and most beneficial bugs is the Kindness underflow, which I believe is completely absent from this run. This is the keystone glitch that is abused in RTA for significantly faster boss fights. In a TAS, this is even more potent since you can manipulate critical hits and significantly cut down on preparation time vs what's done in this submission. -Another critical bug that is not utilized is the Rune Unite bug, which lets characters piggy-back off of a single Level 4 spell to cast the powerful Unite magic. I don't think this is used a single time over the course of the run, and would stand to significantly speed up boss fights from the midgame onward. -Speed is seldom utilized in this run. One key component of speeding up boss fights is making sure you can attack before they can. For many characters this isn't practical, but the Spark rune helps with this by matching all following characters turn orders to the Spark user's. I don't think this was utilized anywhere. -Somewhat related to the prior two points, a special bug for abusing Rune Unites to grant a 30% speed boost is not used. This is a very tricky bug to explain, but it is understood, and is planned for in the current RTA routes. It does require careful control of item and equipment slots. -Spell animation times are a significant source of time loss throughout the run. The current RTA route heavily optimizes for this, and in fact leans on combining the Kindness underflow with a specific, very fast rune ability to clear out the enemy mobs quite a bit faster. -Experience routing is a critical element in this game, throughout the entire course of the run. While the author does abuse some power-leveling in the earlier portion, they miss other significant opportunities that would have cut down on the number of battles, and also had benefits in later boss fights with a slimmer character pool. -Because this route relies heavily on magic for raw damage, there is a huge amount of inventory and character management going on that eats up a lot of time. It could be significantly improved if the strategy were changed. -Using L or R buttons in War Battles lets you jump between units. In several cases, the author would have saved time from using these instead of manual cursor navigation. Specific points of improvement, separate from route: -1st fight in Rakutei Mountain: could have finished the fight sooner by manipulating a counter against the Commander. -Farming double beats is generally inefficient compared to power-leveling and using the Kindness underflow. -Picking up the Peeing Boy statues serves an additional purpose for recruiting Gordon, but I still question whether there would have been a better opportunity elsewhere. -The very first War Battle can end sooner if Solon Zhee is taken out. It requires some mild cooperation and luck from the NPCs though. -In RTA routes for all categories, the standard is to prepare Jowy to get a power-leveled boost in Sindar Ruins to level ~30. This significantly speeds up the Double Head fight, and reduces time spent in some of the other encounters. -It is hard for me to imagine the early Matilda Gate being beneficial overall. The Harpy fight is painfully slow, and you have better opportunities to power-level in the region later. The actual strategy of letting the Birdmen carry members away was clever, but still wholly too slow compared to other options. -Bosses throughout the entire midsection are quite slow. This is from relying on magic, rather than optimized Kindness and Violence strategies. -Some recruiting order choices are questionable. Again, it's hard to compare the strategies, but for example getting Sid on the return trip from Greenhill is a costly choice for just one additional castle level 2 star. -There was an instance to save several seconds in Banner Pass with an Escape Talisman on the last screen. -Ridley War Battle could have gone somewhat better, considering there's fewer things to control and manipulate for. -The Luca fight was extremely slow, due to relying heavily on magic. There are also new-ish bugs abused in the RTA route that significantly speed up this fight and abuse certain characteristics. -The author could have skipped the entire Sierra introduction cutscene. This is a new trick as of ~2 years ago, and saves a minute at almost no cost. -The author does not utilize an Escape Talisman in Tinto Mines after the Golem for the "Zombie Skip." It's estimated to save about a minute. -The author gets into an extra battle in Greenhill that can be avoided with just movement. -All battles in the latter half of the game are quite slow, including regular enemy battles, due to not abusing faster spells, rune unites, or Kindness underflow. -Could have removed Hoi during the Vincent recruitment to remove an additional cutscene in the Castle. -Could have included Pasmerga in the party instead of upgrading weapons with the Silver Hammer to recruit Gen. There's plenty more I can say, but with the above comments it should be clear that this run is not optimized, even to the best of current knowledge. This is a very tough game to optimize since there are so many decisions that have impacts throughout the run duration, but I would at least like to see the run be up-to-date with the current best known strategies, glitches, and movement. One last thing that I'd like to add is that the author should connect with the rest of the speedrunning community for this game if they'd like to improve this submission. As far as I know, despite being credited in the notes, myself and the active portion of the RTA communities were not consulted for this TAS which would have aided its quality and planning significantly. As it stands, it needs a full rework from beginning to end. That said, the few runners of this game have invested years in understanding all the different mechanics, time tradeoffs and otherwise. I'd really love to see what the limits of running this game are, and am happy to provide my knowledge towards that, but this run is not it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I don't think it's quite so simple as fidgeting with the currently-available video options. I ran an experiment today, recording AVIs from both snes9x 1.57 and BizHawk 2.4.0. I had both accepting background input and loaded Super Mario World. BizHawk was using the snes9x core, and full-screen hacks were turned off with Direct3D rendering. BizHawk had focus during recording. I entered Yoshi's Island 2 and then walked forward to hit the shell, and jumped once. Using the "Mario Start!" text as a synchronization point and comparing the video files afterward, the video from snes9x with default settings had actions occur 2-3 frames before BizHawk. I ran a second test with "Reduce Input Lag" selected in snes9x - counter to its claim, it actually slowed down input processing and made it run even with BizHawk. This is a case of a very similar core responding slower between different implementations - unless the core used within BizHawk is compiled with whatever the "Reduce Input Lag" feature is by default. I can try with a few other cores for other systems, but just wanted to report that here first in case I don't get to it this weekend.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I haven't thought of a precise way to measure this - it's largely based on the "feel" of the responsiveness. Another example is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-xZXSa3zck There are plenty of other minor discussions on this scattered around the net, but most seem content to say "yeah, BizHawk has a lot of input delay, but RetroArch/snes9x/other feel pretty good. Use those instead." That's part of the reason I wanted to bring this up - I swear there was a note or comment on one of the BizHawk releases that due to a change in how rendering was handled, there was added delay between user input and registered input. My memory says it was at the 2.0 release, but I haven't been able to find any comments or notes confirming that. Knowing where the cutoff is can at least point folks to something a bit more playable. There are other mechanisms that some emulators try that reduce this further - RetroArch has a sort of read-ahead mode that calculates future frames and applies the input there - but I think there are probably some tweaks that can have an impact on playability in BizHawk without going to that level of complexity.
Post subject: Player Input Delay - Status and Future
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
A long while back, I thought one of the major BizHawk revisions announced significant changes to the rendering pipeline - with a side effect that user input from gamepad or keyboard now had an additional several frames of delay globally. I haven't been able to find any mentions of this in the Release Notes - does anybody recall what version this change was made, or if I'm simply misremembering things? On the other side of things, I'd like to start a discussion about what it would take for having options within BizHawk to lower this delay, even if at the loss or interference with other features. I get a lot of value from developing and testing with BizHawk, but as a player it leaves a lot to be desired when actually practicing, or just playing casually. I actually keep quite a few very old versions of BizHawk around to get a compromise between tools and real-time playability - but ideally I would like to stick with modern versions for all the other improvements they bring to the table. So I'm interested in: 1) What is the last version of BizHawk before the major change that enforced additional input delay? 2) Is it feasible/realistic to create modern versions or options that reduce input delay for real-time players?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
A couple things come to mind from watching: -I'm really curious if having the 2nd character is actually faster. It seems like there are very few points where it's actually beneficial to have them providing cover fire versus how much additional lag they might add. -Also on the subject of 2P, why not mix in Bob instead of having both pistol characters? While the pistol users might be better on average throughout, having the option of shotgun for specific bosses may allow further improvement. -I'm not sure if it's possible in the SNES version, but the arcade version has a bug on Paco Loco where you can skip the small dynamite cutscene (12:18 in the video): Link to video -Is there any particular reason you bother to shoot during the minigames at all? It seems like a time/entertainment tradeoff, although I'd say the entertainment of it is dubious. You can avoid the point count-up by just not shooting anything.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
As I already wrote in this post, using a completely blank image resulted in an irreversibile desync for the submitted movie.
I don't quite follow what you did in your prior attempt; of course it will de-sync if it is completely blank. If it is just a single empty volume, the TOC won't match the values it needs. Most CD creation programs I've encountered don't allow you to make a TOC yourself, it is instead handled automatically after you've set up the track structure. The contents of those tracks shouldn't matter here, as the data in the TOC is the only thing used in generation. If you know what you want the TOC to look like, it is easy to make blank tracks of specific length that will make it match up to the necessary values. Edit: Re-read it closer, I think I have a better idea now but it's still not clear. Note that the generation scheme mainly relies on the track times (and full disc time) in seconds and minutes. This means that you need a fairly large change with any kind of padding scheme to make a notable difference.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I don't understand how this glitch is achieved?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
You should be able to take the current disc's TOC and graft it onto an otherwise blank disc for identical performance. The code I used for my MR1 generator can be used with minor modifications to build a comparable image based on TOC data.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
The last point was meant as a soft guarantee that a generated solution exists. Or for authors that attempt to use a copyrighted or otherwise unreasonable image, it is the justification that some reduced form of that image can be created that reaches the same outcome. I don't think you can require that it uses only the relevant bytes, as that can be difficult to prove or setup in some cases.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I think the rules written in feos's post are fair. The only thing that would be good to clarify is that an image may not just be a disc image - other unique games might use special peripherals for physical media such as barcodes, pictures, audio waveforms, and more. Assuming that the emulator was suitably developed to interact with this content, they seem like identical cases to CDs. Part of a response I started preparing for the other thread is below; some points may not be relevant to the specific rule discussion, but they provide clarifying comments on the game:
I think I finally realized one way in which feos and I were talking past each other, although the details may not matter to the discussions at hand. He repeatedly refers to content unlocked elsewhere in the game, but in fact the generated monsters are extremely unlikely to have perfect parity with monsters obtained through other methods. For most casual players of the game, a monster is differentiated by its breed (type and subtype) alone. For example, the monster used in this submission is a Pixie/Dragon. Without using CDs, it would take probably 1-2 hours of effort to be able to create a monster of the same breed. However, the stats would be very different from most generated monsters due to differences in stat distributions from combining and generation. You could get to stat parity by training, but each week that passes decreases a monster's lifespan. Thus, it would be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to wind up with a monster through combination that perfectly matches a generated monster. All that aside, I do agree there should be more discussion about what constitutes secret codes. Using feos's interpretation, games that feature procedural generation also constitute secret codes in that the user has no knowledge of how the input (even if it's just game state) affects the end content. Most such games require you to exercise that randomization to complete the game, so they get a pass under the current ruleset. One such example is Syvalion on SNES, where the gameplay progression is randomized. I do not think it is fair, however, to force a playstyle when the game gives an option to exercise such randomization content or not. MR2 is an example that gives the choice of either: you can use the generation, or you can select pre-formed. You must choose at least one of the two, but either is viewed by the game as equally valid. You are required to get a monster; the way you acquired the monster is not important.
Other points and musings relevant to posts in this thread: -For the quoted game specifically, we do know what data it looks for on the disc, and it is possible to generate a disc with a specified outcome -There are a few caveats about system architectures that should let you scope the rule better. At least for older systems, the size of a disc far outscales the size of memory. Any algorithm relying on data from a disc (or most any other secondary media) must only utilize a small subset of the data, or build a suitably small set of data by combining disc contents. In either case, the disc data used by the algorithm can be identified and specially crafted to create the desired outcome. -It is reasonable to ask any submitter for their reasoning in using a particular image, if for nothing else than as supporting evidence of optimality. If an image was selected without adequate knowledge of what the game was pulling from it, I think that's a fair case to make that the play is non-optimal. You can go a step further and treat it exactly the same way as controller inputs - it's non-optimal if you can find an image that demonstrates a more optimal outcome - but that may be hard to prove, given the variety of different outcomes and strategies.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
Subjectivity and ambiguity are faults of the rules as they are currently written, not of the game. The game is simply an example that highlights shortcomings of the current rules, so they can be more clearly defined, added to, or amended. Hence the reason this discussion is occurring at all. Only after that ambiguity is resolved does it make sense to discuss whether the gameplay is outside of those clarified rules. It is possible that no exception is required at all.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
Points 5, 6, and 7 in your list are the main points of contention. You lay out in 1 and 2 that data from the CD-ROM is usual, and part of the data set a user sends to the game. 4 establishes that advancing the game in a usual way is sending that data to advance state. Again, no distinction is being made between controller data and disc data. The flaw or ambiguity in 5 though is asserting that the content resulting from using the input is not available at the start. It is available from the start - exactly through reading the nonstandard input. This is no different from the content that can be accessed from game start through controller input alone. There is gated content from game start - many monsters are not allowed to be used without meeting other in-game requirements, such as upgrading ranch facilities, hitting a specific trainer rank, or obtaining special items. From a new game, that content is locked away and not usable. I will also challenge that the input sets used to determine a monster are "specific" for most cases. Using a specific data will lead to a specific effect, but that's not functionally different from having a specific bit in controller data correspond to jumping. The data given is arbitrary, and it handles a broad range (if not all) possible data values. "Specific input combinations," as it relates to rules for playing a game in an unusual way, needs to be scoped appropriately, for example exercising sequence matching to enable gated content. For numbers 6 and 7, I don't see these as reasonable or enforceable limitations. Plenty of games have content that is not explicitly detailed in-game or in user documentation, including special moves, secrets, and otherwise. Are all such content also not vault eligible? Or looked from the other perspective, if a developer explicitly lists a cheat code in a game manual, can using it be vaultable? There's nothing wrong with 8 and 10 by themselves. 9 I believe is scoped too broadly, as the definition of "secret code" is overly broad. 11 is not a clear concept. What is the functional difference between a set of inputs to generate content and a set of inputs to select pre-formed content? For MR2 specifically, it is not required to obtain a monster from the Market (pre-formed) to complete the game. It is optional to visit it at all, as you can obtain similar outcomes from the Shrine (generated). The only difference is that one method requires nonstandard input, while the other can be accessed with only controller data. If the nonstandard input is already regarded as part of the input set, the cases are identical. I don't think 12 and 13 really matter for the purposes of discussion.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
There was a longer discussion on IRC recently, but I think the current debate boils down to these two questions: 1. Is the CD drive an acceptable path for nonstandard input for vault submissions? 2. Are the monsters that result from the generation process considered "special" with respect to the current rules on vaultability?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
The game image is not input. Input is not the game image. Using the hardware parts that connect us with the game image, as a source of user input, is objectively not usual. Not giving the user direct control over the outcome is even less usual. This way to obtain user input is unpredictable for a regular user. And this approach is overall moot when it comes to classifications. Moot scenarios are not for Vault.
I don't agree with this characterization. The game image is the program, and yes, it is not seen as user input. It is the medium on which user input is exercised. Using an interface of the hardware to gather other data is itself unusual compared to other games, but not unusual in the context of playing the game. Playing the game should not be inhibited because it exercises unique functionality. I don't view the secondary images as different from games that rely on polling RTC, or have embedded enhancement chips. They are unusual in the broad view of games, but are accepted because special effort has gone into making them work with the tools we have. In the case of RTC, a typical user also doesn't have direct control of it and doesn't have much indication of how it is used by game software, but it is still required input to make a consistent movie. A TASer can (and should) control that value to create optimal outcomes. I don't think this case is different. The user does have control over the outcome of monster generation, for all practical purposes. A consistent input set will lead to consistent results. The fact that it doesn't give the user direct knobs to tweak to their liking should not be limiting here, as those knobs can be studied and crafted, much like anything else in the game. Once they've sampled an input set once, they understand that outcome and it will remain the same.
Another important point is that the rule already lists exactly our case ("unlock a special character"), and only then generalizes ("or otherwise play the game in some unusual way") for cases that are similar in nature, but different in the details. There's no point in speculating about usuality when it's already namely covered.
With the way the rest of of that rule is written, I don't believe the vast majority of monsters unlocked from discs to be "Special Characters." They are typical characters, generated from individual pieces of the secondary input data. There are "special" monsters in the game that correspond to pre-defined input sequences - rather than being generated, the input sequence is matched against a table that defines an exact monster with fixed (possibly superior) stats. Such monsters were tied to promotional giveaways or as secret rewards for owning developer-designated discs. Exercising that table would qualify as a special character for the purposes of the rule, but the general case does not.
This is only true for this particular game. When setting precedents, we should foresee possible ways to shoot ourselves in the foot that may be discovered if we don't account for enough aspects. If we allow this for this game, tomorrow someone finds a game that uses arbitrary CDs in infinitely more cryptic (creative) ways, and it'd be impossible to simulate having them for real. And it's impossible to build a rule around real world possibilities you have literally no control over. "Arbitrary" means that it might as well be absolutely anything else, and we won't be able to draw an objective borderline.
I agree that care should be taken when deciding precedent to cover as many cases as possible, but I don't think an overabundance of caution should prevent setting new precedent. It is possible that some other software might challenge any recommendations decided upon here, but such a game software may not and may never exist. Should such a software turn up in the future, I don't see a problem with opening new discussion on how to handle that particular software as well, much as we're doing here. For this game and similar titles though, I think there is enough to define an objective boundary that does not conflict with past submissions.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
For the purpose of that rule, I think the usual/unusual specification can only be scoped to the game in question. If it's scoped to gaming as a whole, "unusual" is too broad to effectively classify. MR2 may use an unusual method of gathering input compared to other games on the platform, but that would also extend to any game that requires unique controller/peripheral data handling. If the difference is that other games happen to support the data natively over the controller bus, that's a limitation of the tools, not a fault of the game. It doesn't seem like an enforceable distinction when scoped outside of the gameplay of the game alone. I also disagree with the continued focus on "arbitrary" when applied to discs being a factor; the data pulled from the discs is no more arbitrary than the set of controller inputs. The data gathered from any given image is small, can be generated/simulated, and leads to a finite and fully handled set of outcomes in the game. This is not a case of hijacking a peripheral IO port and injecting program-altering instructions. It is loading data from a fixed medium using intended and expected game functionality. The data that's loaded in this manner is limited and fair, but currently not included as part of a movie file. I don't see why including this information as part of a submission makes it not objective when everybody has the same ability to craft and introduce data. Concerns for legal and content safeguards were addressed in a prior post, and I think a reasonable rule can cover those aspects. I don't know the full history of your interactions with educational games and past rulings, so I will decline to comment on that. You bring up Moons and Stars, but in your personal estimation, how far is this current submission from meeting Moons criteria? I don't know the future, and other individuals are far more creative than I can envision, but I personally doubt a movie for this game could be significantly more entertaining than what has been shown by NK. I don't think such a movie will ever meet the bar for Moons just by virtue of how the game progresses and the limited options available to a player.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
Sure it doesn't, but that doesn't stop me from feeling that way :) I know it doesn't have any impact on a ruling, but it is discouraging to me as a player if I am forced to play a neutered version of the game due to differing interpretations of the rules.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I disagree that the rule applies here because it specifically denotes playing the game in an unusual way. Using discs or otherwise is in fact the usual way of playing the game. Not using discs and otherwise would, for purposes of casual play and developer intent, be unusual. This gets into the grayer area that I mentioned though, and a lot of it is tied to experience. I played this game a fair bit when I was growing up, and all I can say is that playing the game without the ability to use discs feels wrong. It may as well not be the same game at that point, since it so drastically limits your options. From a TASing/speedrunning perspective, it also takes away a huge chunk of the routing challenge. Those are not objective things that can be part of any set of rules, but in this case do matter a lot for the competitiveness of the game down the road. For your specific question, the game can be completed from scratch without needing any external images. There is a Market you can go to that will have a selection of 3 pure monsters, 2 of fixed type and one that changes with the season. Their stats are also fixed. Pure refers to their breed and sub-breed being the same. You can use one of such monsters to complete the game. However, for the reasons stated in the prior paragraph, this is not nearly as interesting of a problem to solve, nor does it reflect how a typical player would experience the game. It may not make a difference in trying to keep rules consistent, but in my opinion makes any disc-less submissions far less interesting/entertaining to perform or watch.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player (37)
Joined: 2/16/2012
Posts: 282
I have some issues with feos' major points, but I don't have a perfect solution to provide either. One of the biggest points of contention is the presence of a secondary image. Precedent declines opportunity to use non-game images for program integrity purposes, as feos has stated. This is fair, but comes from the angle of not disrupting execution flow in an otherwise contiguous program spread across multiple media. The case here is different in that the primary media bus is instead used as a peripheral to collect other data. In that context, I don't view it any different from controller input. The core program reaches for external input, and a typical user has a means to provide that input using standard system hardware. Core game program code is not interrupted. The functional difference between the input data provided from the image and the data provided from a controller is the fact that movie files are not currently built to support disc bus data input (and for typical cases, should never need to). This is different yet from SRAM because it and other long-term memory mechanisms build state directly through gameplay, although their natural state is blank. As far as the disc images go, we know that the core information needed for this game (and likely just about any game to use a similar system, due to memory restrictions) is the TOC. The TOC can be stripped out from any disc image, be it commercial or homegrown, and used to re-create an equivalent input set for the game. This means that even when sourcing from arbitrary full images, you can reduce the data needed for the submission to just the disc layout information. This doesn't invite any legal problems (since no copyrighted or objectionable content is present) and provides a consistent way to generate an equivalent supporting input set for a movie. It shouldn't introduce physical factors that can't be properly emulated/simulated. On the topic of taking input from other peripherals as being "extra" content for the purposes defining primary branches, I don't know think it's sustainable to prohibit unusual/peripheral input sources from contributing. It's fine as a policy choice to say that vaultable movies should only be composed of controller input information, but over time I think there will be more cases that push against that restriction and will be unfairly inhibited. Several have been mentioned in the thread already, across a variety of platforms. Monster Rancher 2 is kind enough to allow for playing even without using the disc generation feature, but there are likely other games that cannot be completed without exercising their special input functionality. Rules clarity is certainly important, but I think there should be an agreeable way to make allowance for these unusual input types without granting new capability to existing branches of typical games. There are other arguments that can be made as to whether using data from these other input methods constitutes accessing hidden content versus expected standard use, but it's much harder to be objective on that topic, so I'll pass on it for now. As far as "most optimal disc" is concerned, it's not possible to assert that a given input set is broadly optimal. After all, if it's viewed as input, it's no different from questioning movement optimization or otherwise. A TASer can support that their chosen disc was the most optimal available for their selected strategy through a variety of reverse engineering and testing efforts, and I feel it is reasonable to expect a player to be able to back up their choice. Trying to set up a precedent where only one or a small, curated subset of supplemental input sets is not a reasonable solution. Finally, I just want to say that if the criteria listed at the end of feos' longpost are taken up as official policy, then it is unlikely any disc-based Monster Rancher game will ever be acceptable on the site. The game, while interesting to optimize, does not allow enough expressive freedom or content diversity to meet Moon entertainment requirements. If that's the way that it has to be, then so be it, but it effectively kills off an otherwise reasonable game choice from competitive consideration.
1 2
11 12