Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
User movie #76340540518472326
I found a 6 frame improvement at the very end while taking a look at the run. Don't worry, it's not going to impact the fate of the submission as the rest of it is very very clean, but I'd recommend taking another quick look at the full run just to make sure there's nothing else left to improve.
I can replace the file with my improvement or any other improvement you might come across, just let me know and it'll be done.
EDIT: I've gone ahead and replaced the submission with my userfile at the author's request. Since it's a very small improvement with hardly any impact on the look of the run, I've elected not to take co-authorship credit.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
Fortranm wrote:
From what I understand - and please correct me if I’m wrong - the status of the player character in this game is, for the lack of better words, static, for most part. The acquisition of those 16 stars and the traverse inside Bowser stages, aka the absolute majority of this movie, are seemingly identical to their counterparts in a run 120 stars run (from what I vaguely remember) and simply arranged in a different order to my untrained eyes because of how “static” the player character is. In other words, it hardly provides anything not in an any% movie or an 120 star movie.
By that logic, we shouldn't carry any% runs of any game at all, because everything in any% would also be in 100%, just with the same "static" character.
Also, you may want to actually familiarize yourself with your arguments before you make them. Looking up logical fallacies on Wikipedia and trying to focus on arguing techniques can only get you so far if you don't even bother to research the other words you're saying, and honestly it just makes you look like a person who only cares about "winning" internet arguments.
Do I find these 16 stars runs enjoyable by themselves? I do,
You should've just stopped here, because this is all that should matter. If you claim to enjoy 16 star runs, why can't we have them published alongside the other movies? Why exactly do you come to TASvideos if not to watch entertaining content? That's been the goal of the site since the very beginning, and it's going to remain a goal going forward, so why argue against content that people, including yourself, find entertaining?
but that doesn’t mean I would be eager to watch them knowing how it they don’t add much of anything over any% and 100% movies in this game. If I’m a newcomer, I definitely would appreciate the fact that there isn’t a 16 star movie listed along the other ones.
How, exactly, would you "appreciate" it? Are you actually sitting there thinking "Boy howdy, am I sure glad TASvideos didn't publish a 16 star run of Super Mario 64"? And what makes you think other people would appreciate it? Surely there are people coming here specifically looking for a 16 star TAS, because the concept of a highly optimized 16 star run is appealing to them, and a site literally called "TASvideos" must surely have a TAS from arguably the most popular speedgame of all time, right? Would those newcomers appreciate the fact that we do not in fact have one, and haven't had one since 2007?
I don’t see how there is a tendency of “tell our audience what they want”, especially when that submission from 2011 has 36 No votes against 31 Yes votes.
2011 TASvideos was a cesspool. It was pre-Vault, still stuck in the days where the game itself had to be entertaining to even be published at all. The 2011 audience was made up of different people with different ideas about the site, and to be blunt, those ideas were absolute trash.
It doesn't surprise me that the previous 16 star TAS was rejected with a slight majority of No votes, because TASvideos was never going to accept it in the first place. Our rules did not account for it back then, those rules reflected on the community, and the community turned against the run as a result. We were a lot more strict on content 10 years ago, and speaking up against that was generally repressed by the dozens of people who were still deeply rooted in the mindset that we had to police everything that comes in as heavily as we did. I definitely tried to speak up, but I was always met with a flood of people who just followed the status quo to the letter. Becoming staff in 2015 was even worse, because I found myself having a bigger voice, but I was being repressed even more than before. Nach was gaslighting the staff into thinking that his views were the site's views, and that the site needed to stay that way or else it would die, that bounced around within the staff and only furthered a highly negative culture within itself, which once again reflected on the community.
There are merits in this category existing for RTA because, for obvious reasons, doing a 16 stars run is very different from doing a 120 stars run for a player. However, when the real time factor is removed, that simply doesn’t seem to be the case. “Incredibly popular in RTA” doesn’t make it a reasonable TAS goal choice. As much as RTA and TASing overlaps, they are still very different things. “This category is well-accepted for RTA” is a bad argument in general for this very reason.
You've pretty much proven my point here. Your posting here has been nothing but you trying to speak for the community and forcing everyone else to want what you want. You're literally saying a goal choice is "unreasonable", and that is the absolute last thing we should be telling people, especially newcomers to the site. In my opinion, there's merit to every category existing, in both RTA and TAS. New categories means new ways of thinking about a game, new strategies for dealing with the differences, potentially things that could make it into bigger categories, revolutionizing the game and the speedrun for years to come. There is nothing unreasonable about innovation.
With all these said, I do agree that we can be open to more categories,
Clearly you don't, given that you are literally calling them unreasonable and saying that you wouldn't support them despite how much you enjoy watching them.
Let me get this straight. You're not okay with Super Mario 64 "16 stars", a run that accomplishes a clear goal using a different, but slower route to other published runs, but you would be okay with multiple Super Metroid "low%" runs that accomplish the same clear goal using different, but slower routes? And you're also okay with both Aria of Sorrow 100% runs being published alongside each other, despite the fact that they accomplish the same clear goal but one uses a different and slower route to the other? How does this make any sense? Is there a key difference here aside from the goal choices? Why should the goal choice matter at all when you're perfectly fine with the concept in general?
Be honest with me: Your entire argument here is based off the fact that you don't like Super Mario 64, isn't it?
With all due respect, why such a bad example of all things was chosen to prove a point is beyond me.
I sincerely doubt you respect me, and that's fine. You don't have to pretend that you do.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
After years of work and months of public testing, we are finally ready to go live with the TASvideos rewrite! The new site will be launching on January 1st, at 4:00 PM (16:00) UTC. Transition time should take around 2-3 hours, during which the site will be down.
The site can be previewed and tested at https://staging.tasvideos.org, though it may be down frequently as we get closer to the go-live date. Please continue to test it as much as you can while it's up, though! Keep in mind that this staging site is strictly for testing, and is not meant to serve as an active replacement yet. Data can and will be overwritten while we test things, so don't put anything meant to be persistent on there.
Post your feedback and bug reports in the rewrite discussion thread and the Github repository.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
FitterSpace wrote:
I think people get too caught up in rules and category definitions, and they get too worried about whether or not categories are arbitrary. If it's fun and people enjoy it, let it be.
Agreed. We've had a long history of being too strict with what we accept, and I'm still not quite sure why we ever needed to be in the first place apart from just sticking to "tradition" or whatever.
I understand how we got to the point we did. TASing started off as an extreme niche that needed to find its own footing, it slowly accomplished that by selective curation of runs that would universally be seen as awe-inspiring. Where we went wrong, though, is not recognizing soon enough that we didn't need to keep doing that. Once the RTA and TAS communities started crossing over a little more, we should've embraced that immediately and cut out the elitism, but nahhhhhh, instead we kept that going for well over a decade. We pushed away a lot of people and refused to provide a proper home for several growing communities, and those people and communities continue to absolutely trash the site to this day, leading to a lot of misinformation and a steadily decreasing chance for the site to be able to grow and succeed in the future.
I've stated a few times now that my ultimate goal for the site isn't for it to be the authority on TASing, but for it to be the ultimate TASing repository. Ideally, we shouldn't be telling people how to TAS at all, we should just be telling them to TAS. We should be giving people an open space for their efforts to be seen, whether it's actual runs, WIPs, glitch-hunting exhibitions or resources like memory values and Lua scripts. On top of that, we can continue to provide a centralized community for TASers and TAS enthusiasts, while also serving as a jumping off point for anyone looking to get into the growing number of individual communities out there. Of course, we need to be supporting those individual communities as much as we can, without pushing them away by making choices that directly harm them and their methodologies.
The way I'm looking at it from now on is whether or not the site has anything positive to gain from our rules and standards. As it stands, we're only gaining negativity and a decreasing reputation from our Vince McMahon-like tendency to go out there and tell our audience what they want. Rule changes, whether it's adding new rules, rewording existing rules, or removing rules entirely, should always be done with the future of the site and the voice of the community in mind.
What do we gain by explicitly adding alternate routes as a Moons goal? We gain more great movies, we bring in new community members who want to see these movies, we bring in new TASers who want to make these kinds of movies, we bring in RTA runners who want to be inspired by seeing their routes absolutely perfected, we bring in communities that are more comfortable to submit their runs without being scared off by our often arbitrary restrictions on non-standard categories, and most importantly we show an openness for further positive changes down the road.
Are there any drawbacks? I'm not really sure. I can see an increase in submission count, leading to more pressure and work being put on us as a fairly small staff team. At the same time, though, us being more open should lead to more people being around the site, which means a larger pool of potential hires, which means a growing staff team that can account for the increase in work. Apart from that, I really don't think there's any drawback to openness. We might be pushing away some people who still maintain a bit of that old elitist mindset, but at the same time I also feel like those people kept that elitist mindset because it's what the site was actively promoting, and a change in the site would simply lead to a change in them.
I'm aware I'm being extremely optimistic over a simple change. Obviously, this by itself isn't going to make TASvideos perfect, but I think it's a good start.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
Hold those thoughts and toss 'em into the Tier Revamp thread, that's more of a suggestion for Standard as is, and it could definitely be something we implement in the future.
Speaking of revamping publication classes, we just had a very lengthy discussion on Discord over the Iconoclasts submission and its acceptability, and we seem to have come to a mutual conclusion regarding an update/clarification we can make to Moons guidelines: They currently imply that any goal choice can make it to Moons, but in my opinion I don't think that's explicit. The way I see it, Moons doesn't really account for possible branches that could (and, I would argue, should) be there, such as... Outdated any% routes. Yes, it sounds weird without explanation, but I can sell it pretty easily.
#2976: Kyman, MICKEY_Vis11189, Moltov, Nahoc, SilentSlayers, snark, sonicpacker & Eru's N64 Super Mario 64 "16 stars" in 13:28.40
There, done. I'm well aware this run in and of itself is very outdated, but I'm focused on the branch here. 16 star is a historic any% route for SM64, one that's still incredibly popular in RTA and one that is still being TASed to this day.
For a little more convincing: [1285] SNES Chrono Trigger "save glitch" by inichi in 21:23.98
This was a huge TAS when it was submitted. It was Starred, hugely popular, very entertaining to watch, and it was killed off by subframe input. Why shouldn't we have this in Moons when so many people enjoyed it? Same goes for [2588] NES Super Mario Bros. 3 "game end glitch" by Lord_Tom & Tompa in 02:54.98: Huge upon submission, hugely popular, very entertaining, and then killed by the DPCM glitch.
We don't really have an explicit home for these runs, though. They're considered "suboptimal" any% routes, meaning they can't be accepted to Standard, and one could easily argue or believe that they're not esoteric enough for Moons either, despite Moons being presented as a place where goal choice doesn't matter as long as the result is sufficiently unique and entertaining.
We can already apply Moons rules to these runs:
Your goal choice should be clearly defined and sensible, especially to those who do not know your chosen game. Assume that the audience is seeing the game for the first time.
"This was formerly the any% route" is clearly defined and sensible enough to me, and it can apply to a huge number of games... quite literally any game that has had drastic changes to the speedrun route.
Your goal choice should result in significantly different gameplay than other runs of the same game.
This is the trickier one, but it still honestly works here. The three examples I listed above are great examples of significantly different gameplay, but any significant route change should be able to apply to this as well. We wouldn't want, say, "1 key" SM64 and "0 star" SM64 published together, as they are functionally the same for the majority of the run, but there is quite a lot of difference between "1 key" and "16 stars".
So, in essence, the proposed change is... Just all of us agreeing that these runs are allowed under Moons, without needing to rewrite anything. There are other factors that could be worth mentioning, such as considering a route's RTA popularity or even its historical relevance, though I don't think those are necessary to be explicitly stated, as a good run should easily be able to speak for itself before we need to consider those things.
Discord was definitely in favor of this proposal, but I'm opening it up here so there's a public paper trail of approval.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
Wiki: Playground
UPDATE: We seem to generally be in agreement, or at the very least "i'm okay with anything", about feos' "Playground" proposal, so I'm bringing it to the top of this post and adding a poll to see whether or not there actually is a majority agreement. Staff will be discussing implementation during this time in order to hopefully have something ready as soon as possible. Poll will be open either until there's a definitive conclusion, or enough time passes that I feel comfortable there's no further feedback.
4. "Playground"feos wrote:
Any user can make a submission and set it to a certain status (not just New or Canceled) that would mean the same as sending it to the Showcase class. After that it won't have to be judged, but would still have its own dedicated discussion thread (you can't even subscribe to userfile comments right now), properly working submission page with all the usual stats, etc.
In the relevant game related page like http://tasvideos.org/Game/nes-battletoads.html such submissions would show up in their own tab. I think it would be fitting to call this tab User Playground. Or just Playground. And different branches would need to be grouped together somehow.
Yeah I suggest calling this hole concept Playground, and make it fully managed by users.
Pros: Strikes a fine balance between the above three options, being a completely user-curated class that essentially runs itself and gains proper promotion.
Cons: We'd definitely need to figure out exactly how it would operate, but that really isn't going to be hard at all.
Alternate Thread Titles:
* Oh No, It's Time To Talk About Demo Tier
* Call Me Ahab, I'm Hunting The White Whale
* "Is Demo Tier A Libertarian" - the greatest thread in the history of forums, locked by a moderator after 12,239 pages of heated debate,
* This Week's Showcase Showdown
* (i open this thread and thousands of bees fly out)
* LOOK, I JUST WANNA ACCEPT POKEMON PLAYS TWITCH IF WE CAN'T FIND A WAY OF ACTUALLY PUBLISHING IT
The concept of a "demo tier" has been in an eternal idea phase for years, possibly even upwards of a full decade. It's pretty much a site meme at this point with how much it's been talked about and how little has actually been done to work out how to implement it. Granted, we have moved out of a "tier" system since the idea was originally pitched, and "demo" isn't quite a good name, so for the purposes of explanation, I'll be calling this theoretical section of the site "Showcase". This name is subject to change, though.
The idea behind it is simple: For anyone familiar with SRC, Showcase would serve the same sort of function as Category Extensions, but with a little more leniency as to what's allowed. The only hard requirement would be technical quality. A Showcase movie could theoretically break any other rule we have, as long as what it does is optimized. Playarounds and alternate speedrun goals that don't beat the game, demonstrations of game-crashing glitches, perhaps even movies that use Game Genie, all of that and more would be allowed. It could also serve as grounds for alternate branches that can't make it to Moons for certain reasons, such as alternate any% routes and "human theory" TASes.
Sounds great, right? Simple concept, clears up a lot of restrictions, opens the site up a lot more... It's something that TASvideos desperately needs, in my opinion... so what's the catch?
Well... There's a lot of logistical weirdness to it in regards to how the site could handle the implementation. For example, were we to implement Showcase as a new formal class like Standard or Moons, people might naturally expect publication for Showcase runs. Given the wide range of acceptable runs under Showcase, this could add an insane amount of work for the Judges and Publishers. We'd have to figure out a new way to handle how to "publish" Showcase runs.
Not only that, but there does still need to be some limits. These limits have to make sense and not feel arbitrary, which is another can of worms in and of itself. For example, if we allow TASes with Game Genie codes, should there be a limit on how many can be stacked in a single run? Do they need to specifically alter the game in a major, noticeable way? Are we going to allow multiple runs that have codes in common? Could these runs obsolete each other? Is obsoletion even going to be a system in Showcase to begin with?
What needs to happen for Showcase to exist is a lot of groundwork, a lot of feedback, and a lot of community approval, and that's why this thread exists.
To start off, there are a few ideas that have been floating around about how Showcase would be implemented on the site itself. This is not a complete list, nor is it the only options we would consider. Feel free to expand upon these with your own ideas, or add completely new ideas of your own. Anything will help, even "I support this and don't mind how it's done!"
1. Moons becomes Showcase, or Showcase becomes a new class
In the same way that we overhauled Vault into being a standard area for publication, we would overhaul Moons into being a pure technical showcase area that functions in the same way, but allows so much more. It would still be handled in the same way we currently handle Moons - Judgement and full publication status.
Pros: This is the easiest way of actually implementing Showcase onto the site itself. It could theoretically happen immediately upon reaching a consensus, without any code changes needing to be made to the site. As a bonus, it might fix some of the problems that Moons currently has, such as being misleading with its purpose (people still think it's for "good movies") and continuing to be arbitrary with what is and isn't allowed.
Cons: As mentioned above, it comes with a lot of logistical problems regarding the implementation. We'd have to re-fit the current standards of both judging and publishing to be able to accommodate doing it this way, since Showcase would be treated in the same way as other publications. We also run the risk of either making Moons seem completely arbitrary (if Showcase is separate) or further complicating Moons (if it expands to fit Showcase content). Given the sharp increase in allowable content, this would also add a huge amount of work and stress for the Judges and Publishers.
2. Showcase is an extension of Userfiles
The idea of "ascended Userfiles" has been thrown around in private by the staff, essentially creating a new section of Userfiles with better promotion on the site to account for Showcase content. "Judgement" and "Publication" in this case could theoretically be completely user-curated. Judgement, in theory, would just be anyone else being able to sync the input file on their system. Publication would just be a good encode that can be provided by anyone, not even necessarily being up to the usual site standards.
Pros: This option makes it clear that the process of submission and publication does not fully apply to these runs, they won't be as strictly judged as other submissions and won't be formally published on YouTube by our publishing team. The logistics here would be smoother than option 1, for sure. The section can almost run itself, meaning the staff can continue to focus on formal submissions while these can be handled by anyone with a bit of spare time.
Cons: Given what we intend for Showcase, we'd have to change Userfiles in some way to account for this new purpose, and I think that would sort of ruin the purpose of Userfiles. Userfiles is already meant as a way to upload movies with no restrictions, elevating it would mean we need to add some sort of restrictions. This would also require the rewrite to go live before it starts being implemented.
3. Showcase waits for a new site system of organization
One of our proposed changes to the site involves adopting SRC's method of organizing runs by game. Ideally, we have game pages that list every possible resource we have for that game: Published runs, obsoleted runs, submissions, Userfiles, resources such as glitch explanations and memory addresses, forum threads, links to outside resources such as Discord communities... Showcase would, in essence, work exactly like Category Extensions under this system, they'd just be a separate part of the game page. In theory, individual communities would be able to curate their own game pages, including these sorts of runs.
Pros: This is probably the sanest and safest way of implementing Showcase. It would be treated as its own thing and could conform to any system the site currently has in place, or even have a new system dedicated to it.
Cons: Basically, a LOT of work is needed for this. This, naturally, has the same con as above, which is that this is impossible on the current site and requires the rewrite to go live before we can even work on it. On top of that, it would also require a community consensus on whether or not we should even adopt the SRC game page model at all, and assuming we do, we'd need to have a community consensus on how it should be implemented.
We'd also need to figure out what should be accepted and how it all should be handled. Once again, this is not a complete list, and these are not the only things we would consider, so please feel free to expand upon it.
1. Playarounds and Freeruns
Showcase playarounds would not be required to beat the game. The idea behind this is that a game will often be massively entertaining in shorter doses, but our usual requirement of needing the game to be completed causes a game to drag on, depleting the runner's creativity over time and leading to a result that could be seen as disappointing overall. This would also account for individual level "freeruns", such as the ones popular in the Super Mario 64 community.
Something to consider is obsoletion: Would it be done purely on entertainment value? Content? Should we even have obsoletion at all? Could we have multiple playarounds for the same game if they're all sufficiently unique enough from each other?
2. Alternate Speed Goals
Things like fastest game over, fastest crash/softlock, fastest 69% completion, pretty much any goal that can be reached in a fastest time. We get a lot of these kinds of runs on April Fools Day, perhaps we should actually do something about it.
This feels pretty straightforward, though I suppose the biggest thing to consider is how far should this be taken. "Any goal that can be reached in a fastest time" could lead to things like "fastest game start", so we would need to find a way to limit truly arbitrary goals like that without ruining the point of accepting new speed goals in the first place.
3. Game Genie/Action Replay
Alternate playthroughs using GG/AR codes. This is actually something I've personally experimented with in the past, so I already have some investment into how this could work and what things we need to consider with it.
The main points here are both what codes we allow, and how many we allow per movie. Should we allow any code here, or should we only allow certain ones? Should we allow multiple codes in a single movie? Can movies with different codes obsolete each other, and if so, how should that be handled? If a combination of codes literally leads to the game ending on frame 1, should we allow that? I've only ever thought about this in terms of any% obsoletion, where I would personally prioritize lower times w/ more codes over less codes w/ more time, but having grown out of being a dumb idiot teenager and into an idiotic dumb adult, I realize now that could just lead to a massive slippery slope where you could get movies with hundreds of codes that end the game in a single frame.
The safest bet would be one code per movie, and only codes that significantly change gameplay in some way (even if it makes it easier), but I also feel like that's still a bit too limited. This definitely needs some balancing to get it right.
There are some things mentioned above that I feel need to be discussed more than most. If you want to help out, I highly recommend starting here and discussing the following topics:
1. Obsoletion
How is obsoletion going to be handled in a class that can theoretically handle anything? Runs that aim for the same goals are straightforward, but what about runs that have similar goals? Game Genie runs, playarounds, single level freeruns, there's a lot more factors that have to be considered were we to actually use an obsoletion system for Showcase.
2. Presentation
How much exposure should these movies get on the site? Should they be publications on the same level as any other, or should they be closer to Userfiles?
3. Limitations
What should the limitations be here? Do we want to curate these movies or leave them unchecked?
4. Processing
Will these movies be judged and published by the current site staff? Will they be held to the same standards as any other submission?
I apologize for how wordy and disorganized this thread is, but there really is a lot to discuss and figure out, and I really do want to help make this happen. I'll put together a separate post of how I personally want to see this be implemented, but of course we'd love to see other peoples' ideals, in hopes that we can build something universally liked.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
As we close in on a go-live state, the link has once again changed, this time to: https://staging.tasvideos.org
It's a bit unreliable at the moment, but as I said, we're closing in on going live with the rewrite, so these links will become obsolete pretty soon anyway.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
EZGames69 wrote:
Did you have inspiration to make this after finishing SMT V?
SMT5 got me thinking about TASing Megaten in general. I was looking into the DS games, remembered I had a stalled project for this game, checked the SRC page on a whim and found the new route.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
That's a tricky one, because I think it'd require a different, more drastic change: We currently don't allow SRAM-anchored movies in Standard at all, which means we would have to judge movies that use SRAM just to skip cutscenes under Moons rules, despite them clearly being Standard categories. I'm not opposed to making that change, but it would still have to be defined in the right way for it to make sense. We're still working out what things to allow in Standard to begin with, this might have to wait until that particular revamp stabilizes a bit more before we work out details with allowing SRAM in it.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
As of the posting of this topic, our Movie Rules page has just received a full rewrite for readability and conciseness. This makes it easier not only on newcomers to the site to understand what we're looking for in submissions, but also makes it easier for staff to tweak and adjust these rules going forward. However, that rewrite did not change any of the actual rules. There are still some fairly outdated rules that could be updated, tweaked, or even removed entirely.
Naturally, since the rules are meant for the community, we want the community to be involved with fixing them! This thread is meant to collect suggestions, feedback, and discussion for any and all changes to the current rules. Any feedback you may have on any aspect of the rules is good: If you think we should be accepting things we currently don't accept, post about it and explain why you think we should! If you're confused on the wording of a certain rule and need it to be clarified, post about it and let us know so we can fix it! If you have any other feedback, post that too!
We'll be watching and maintaining this thread going forward with the site. Keep in mind that some major changes may rely on the rewrite going live before they are able to be implemented. Someone please remind me to edit that last line when the rewrite goes live.
Timeline of Recent Changes
Extended timeline available here: http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules/History.htmlNovember 27th, 2021: Movie Rules page completely rewritten from scratch.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
It's live!
Thanks to everyone who provided feedback and support. It's time to move into the second, much bigger phase, that I think may require a brand new thread. Watch this space.
EDIT: I've decided that the second phase of the rules rewrite is going to be permanent, and as such it will be its own thread. Discussion of the rules will continue there going forth. This thread has now completely served its purpose, and may rest in TAS Valhalla. It's like normal Valhalla but with Mario sliding on his butt in the background.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
APerson13 wrote:
Let's talk Pikmin 2:
Region
I am making an "All Treasures" TAS (based on the RTA category). Due to significant regional differences particularly with treasure values and weights, the JP version is overall the fastest category. However, the complexity of the carrying speed formula and random cave generation make it near impossible to pinpoint the exact timesave of one version over another. How exactly would this be handled?
The rules on region choice are better explained on this page, which should be replacing our current Movie Rules very soon. In short, we only really enforce 60hz NTSC over 50hz PAL, and we don't obsolete movies through text/cutscene/other unavoidable differences when different regions are used. In your case, it sounds to me like these JP version differences actually affect the gameplay in a way that makes it faster, so it makes sense to me to use it here.
Optimization
The main appeal of TASing this game for me is in the planning/routing. However, my actual gameplay, although faster than any RTA player, often leaves room for improvement, as has been shown by another TASer who focuses more on challenge mode. Would a completed run still be acceptable if a few seconds here and there could be saved with many more hours of fine optimizations?
That's fine. The idea is just that your TAS shouldn't be noticeably suboptimal or easily and greatly improvable, not that it has to be absolutely perfect in every way. If we required absolute perfection, this site wouldn't have any published runs. We expect effort to be put into optimizing, yes, but we absolutely do not force people to spend hours and hours of their free time trying to save every possible frame.
The most important thing is that you make it clear upon submission that there may be improvements here and there. There's a natural progression to TASing. Your skills will improve the longer you work on a game, including your ability to optimize. You'll also almost inevitably find new things throughout the process of working on a run. In some cases, you may find something groundbreaking after weeks or even months of work, something that could save tons of time all throughout the game. We do not force anyone to restart runs over things like this, and frankly we don't even expect people to. If we did, we'd be hypocrites. As long as these improvements are plainly explained in the submission text, they will be excused.
Dolphin Version
I am still planning on using Dolphin Lua Core for the run, despite upcoming TAS improvements to mainline Dolphin. Is Lua Core still an acceptable standard for TASvideos?
As far as I'm aware, Dolphin Lua Core is just the stable 5.0 release with Lua functionality added. It should sync with 5.0 Stable without any issues, and as long as it does, we definitely will accept it. If we decide to deprecate Dolphin 5.0 due to these upcoming changes, I'd imagine it would either be announced long in advance, perhaps even a full year or more, or we would run the idea by the community first. Either way, it's unlikely that we're going to disallow it anytime remotely soon.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
I'd like to ask everyone that if they have further comments on this run, please refrain from bringing up personal issues or issues related solely to the SPM community, and remain respectful to the author. These kinds of judgements can and should be used as helpful learning experiences in order for authors to improve their skills, not to demotivate them with comments that can be perceived as attacks on their character.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player
(2121)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
It's being slowly worked on in Team 8's Discord server. Pretty much every stage has to be redone from scratch and not everyone has the free time to put into it.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
