This thread has been dead since I've been tied up in other projects for years but I'd like to post an update given recent developments.
in 2022, sniq was inspired to test further options using this wall clipping technique I discovered in ~2015 and found multiple useful applications
stage 2: caverns wall clip, downard zips A: https://youtu.be/-M1Edn4qEF0
stage 2: cavern wall clip, downard zips B: https://youtu.be/IlyEDrFzOqQ
stage 4: 1 tile ceiling clip through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkIid7WUbf0
stage 6: Downward Wall zip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPh-wTyjpAU
There was an upward wall zip but it specifically required the water gargoyle and doesnt at this time seem to have any practical application: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNk5c5akW4o
Since my previous publication, the RTA runners have been devising improved routes and recently created one that looks like it may be an improvement over the TAS.
https://www.speedrun.com/demons_crest/run/yol7dl7y
although application of the sniq zips would require further route changes, the potential for better routes is there regardless.
@feos it looked like you your self voted for 'no oob' which was actually shocking but 9 is an awful lot of haters 8)
At this point, I have done all the advocating I need to for this title.
for posterity:
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
feos wrote:
The Brookman wrote:
feos wrote:
Actual reply now. We're not discussing whether we should use an abbreviation or not (guidelines say we shouldn't). We're discussing a less wordy synonym, which "no backwards long jump" doesn't have, but "no out of bounds" does have.
this was already adressed. "in bounds" does not label the absence. regardless of whether it is or is not synonymous.
I spent a lot of words explaining why your argument against it is not applicable. Please quote and disprove it properly.
it's fine, I give up.
I stared at "Earthbound "in bounds"" for long enough that I just got over it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
feos wrote:
see what other people feel about this.
re:
feos wrote:
seems subjective to me
ok, I'm only trolling a little bit and I know what you really mean.
I think I have logically made the case to the best of my ability and at least ThunderAxe31, as the judge of the submission, has already agreed with my distinction.
I'm sure I would have made similar arguments had I been involved with discussion in the past and I think it's ok to challenge the precedent involved with the EB/CV cases as I previously suggested or just treat AC as a unique case.
edit after seeing your previous edit:
feos wrote:
Actual reply now. We're not discussing whether we should use an abbreviation or not (guidelines say we shouldn't). We're discussing a less wordy synonym, which "no backwards long jump" doesn't have, but "no out of bounds" does have.
this was already adressed. "in bounds" does not label the absence. regardless of whether it is or is not synonymous.
feos wrote:
If most branches use OOB, then we handle it like zips in Sonic and BLJ in SM64, meaning we label their absence.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
feos wrote:
I didn't mean this as a confrontation either (see my sig).
ya, I'm not intending this to be a fight where people are left with hard feelings, you know I love this community and all the staff who work diligently to keep it running.
feos wrote:
So how we label the 2 AC runs is going to depend on which techniques are more common across all AC branches. If OOB is only featured in one branch, and most others avoid it, we'll add "out of bounds" to it. If most branches use OOB, then we handle it like zips in Sonic and BLJ in SM64, meaning we label their absence.
this 1,000,000% supports my position, as every AC speed run that aims for fastest completion would otherwise utilize the OOB. "no zips", "no blj", "no oob".
and typing out "no backwards long jump" is longer than "no out of bounds" so that argument is dead.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
this seems needlessly complicated but I've already chosen to die on this hill so I'll proceed as best I can because I fully believe there is a distinction to be made between the terms and if I make the correct points you will change your mind.
feos wrote:
The point of branch labels is describing goals not featured in other acceptable branches for the same game.
I think this a hinge of the debate here.
"no out of bounds" is not describing a goal of the movie.
The goal of the movie is 100% completion.
"no out of bounds" is a restriction on the strategies used to reach the goal. This is why it is a relevant disclaimer to the movie while "in bounds" is not.
As i said in the previous post, "in bounds" does not at face value preclude the use of out of bounds just as out of bounds does not preclude the use of in bounds.
This may be a highly technical distinction of the language which is being used colloquially but it is true.
Theoretically, if I decided to produce an AC movie that ONLY plays out of bounds, strictly labeling the movie "out of bounds" would not be sufficiently informative.
You would need to label the movie "no in bounds".
I can probably rest my case here but I'll go on.
-
In comparison, when Zinfidel submits his TAS there are no addendums to the title.
it is just "armored core in xx:xx".
Why not stipulate "aborts missions, goes out of bounds" in this case?
because those aren't restrictions of the movie, they are features of the fact that there are no restrictions.
conversely, regarding my submission.
Why not label it "completes missions, in bounds"? Again, because neither term explicitly defines a restriction that precludes it's opposites.
Explicit: adjective: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
To fully expand the terms I have applied to my submission would be "Does not abort missions, does not go out of bounds" it does not get more explicit than this.
reduced to "no mission aborts, no out of bounds"
further "no aborts, no oob"
"in bounds" is more characters than "no oob"
case closed.
-
I'm sure I could go on if I tried but this is likely sufficient for now.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
The Brookman wrote:
If you're worried the term is more unclear than superfluous you clarify by using "No Mission Aborts".
Yeah, I like this better, because it's more friendly for unfamiliar audience. Same reason why I'd prefer to keep "no out of bounds" instead of using "inbounds".
totally agree with the distinction between "no out of bounds" and "in bounds". I suggested to feos that all movies should be changed to "no oob" instead of "in bounds" :p
"in bounds" is vague and does not preclude the use of out of bounds strategies at face value.
"no out of bounds" is a highly specific restriction.
it is egregiously arbitrary to choose the former simply to spare two syllables at the expense of being explicit.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Thank you, your explanation was exhaustive for me. I have another question though: would allowing OoB result in a much faster or different movie?
Yes, if you review the end of Zinfidel's movie, say, his "Destroy Floating Mines": https://youtu.be/_sBD0SFQTME?t=1597 (26:37 - 28:05) ~90 seconds
compared to my no oob "Destroy Floating Mines": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmdd4qCQxbw (0:00 - 3:00) ~180 seconds
you can extrapolate pretty easily how much faster it is to use oob for the longer missions.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
feos wrote:
The main question is whether aborts (and/or fails) are excluded by the definition of the main goal (100%), and whether there's a chance that a 100% run with aborts (and/or fails) gets done and accepted. If a part of the branch label is implied by another part of it, the former is indeed redundant, so we don't have to list every single implied condition (which would otherwise result in branches consisting of dozens of words). Which part of the goal are implied can be described in the publication description, so there won't be any real confusion.
I tried to cover everything in the previous post as clearly as possible but I'll try to reiterate.
Failing a single mission is required to attain 100%. There is no 100% category that is also "no fails". (i tried)
"no aborts" is not implied by 100% and, as detailed above, aborting missions may have viable application in saving time in the context of the 100% category.
Again, since I began the project with the stipulation of not testing or using any abort strategies I think it is a relevant distinction to this movie and the 100% category.
From a broader perspective, as an average viewer who has no concept of AC speed running strategies, I don't think it would matter to apply either the "no abort" or "no oob" to the title since they wouldn't know the difference either way going into the viewing experience.
In that context, and since this will likely be the only 100% movie, if you guys chose to strictly label it "Armored Core 100%" i think that would also be fine.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Is it necessary to mention in the label the "no aborts" part? Would allowing aborts allow to save time anywhere?
It's a contrast to Zinfidel's movie which features almost none of the game as he aborts every mission possible till he gets to the mandatory 3 missions at the end of the game.
The RTA leaderboard uses "no fail missions" which is effectively the same thing except I'm forced to fail a single mission to acquire an AC part, so "no aborts" is more applicable.
Since every mission is required for 100% it's unlikely that spending time aborting missions would save time.
Theoretically, it could be used to progress through the story mode "faster" where in post-game the open ended mission selection could be taken advantage of but that would just increase loading/menu time so it seems dubious.
There are some missions where going out of your way to get a hidden part takes a significant amount of time and it might be faster to complete the mission and revisit it after the fact just to get the part and abort. Conversely, there are some parts that are valuable and it might be faster to get them and abort and complete the mission successfully later on (the first mission "Eliminate Strikers" featuring the Large Rocket comes to mind).
Again, with added menu/loading time it's hard to say and I probably wouldn't have bothered testing it in most cases even if I had not gone in with the "no abort" stipulation from the start.
All that said, I do believe it is a relevant definition of the category.
If you're worried the term is more unclear than superfluous you clarify by using "No Mission Aborts".
While I'm posting here
ShesChardcore wrote:
TAS of the year.
Thanks, it definitely stands beside my Demon's Crest 100% as one of my favorite gaming achievements.
Zinfidel wrote:
Big huge obvious yes vote from me! Brookman is being very gracious by including me as an author and I'm honored to be listed.
Like I said in the submission text, this would not have been possible without your significant contributions and support. In my opinion, you were the gracious one.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
omg i posted this in the wrong thread after looking at the discussion for the currently published run
anyway...
I've been consuming a lot of RTA ff7 (no slots, no major skips, all bosses, and 100%) so this is an easy yes for me.
back when the "slots" run was being produced i know I was a pretty big proponent for "no slots" since i think the strategies are generally more entertaining. That said, with the proficient RNG abuse Tifa does become about as over centralizing. In spite of that, it still feels like there are real stakes and you play so many boss battles close to 0 HP it does add a layer of excitement. Having virtually zero ranom encounters (Except when otherwise mandatory) is also dream come true.
Made Demon's Gate look easy
Dazers on Jenova Death was a nice touch.
Carry Armor was easily my favorite.
the only way this gets better for me is if it's a 100% or all bosses.
really amazing work.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
I actually had this game on my list but I'm glad someone else got to it. Well executed and straightforward. Yes vote, between the slow loads and linear action, probably for vault.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
I would personally expect the "as fast as possible" aboort/OOB completion would not be the place to showcase cosmetics.
https://i.imgur.com/b16ITcg.png
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
yes vote.
Naturally not as mind blowing as the Samus TAS, This is still an impressive display of gameplay.
Yoshi is a uniquely "over powered" character that does not see a lot of human play because his steep learning curve, demanding frame precision, and apm requirements, even when compared to Fox.
(I think Moth said this in the comments already, but it bears repeating. )
While not every segment is "as fast as possible" there are a lot of creative strategies featured, and a significant showcase of incredibly difficult techniques that most players will not even notice are happening.
In fact, Mothrayas has made it look so easy, the casual players in the comment section believe they too, could play like this.
In light of of these comments:
YES - humans can execute some of these techniques, sure, but
No - they can't play like this.
I don't think there is a single segment that a player could reproduce in an RTA setting. (BTT?)
Even if you cede that the hyrule segment is "repetitive" - someone trying to complain about "a human player would just tech" is ridiculously off base when appraising a TAS.
10/10 extremely well organized and impressively executed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
I got someone to send me an image of the manual for project phantasma: https://i.imgur.com/Gr7oUjc.png
I'll continue with my current TAS which will be a "no abort/no oob" and I'll consider 100% aspect if we can agree on how that could have a "proper" ending point that would be fit for publication?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
Zin has a "fastest completion" run which has been published to Vaullt.
Unless you're suggesting you would want a submission that qualifies for moons before an anchored run would be considered?
In regard to additional categories there are several options:
1. vanilla "no abort/any%"
2. anchored "100%"
3. anchored "human plus/no abort/any%"
4. anchored "H+/100%"
"out of bounds" is an option for every category but would create similar gameplay to Zin's run during the final missions (mandatory build, similar routing)
As far as gameplay is concerned, I think the "H+/100%" would make the most interesting contrast to Zin's run but it conforms least to the rules:
1. Start from an anchored "new game+" file
2. Complete 1 branch
3. Saves the game upon completion
4. Load into post game
5. Complete remaining content
an un-anchored H+ category would not be worthwhile.
regarding the concept of "300%":
I don't have access to game manuals but I'm sure they mention file transfer from the preceding games.
All the main line AC games (1,2,3,4,5) have companion/expansion titles and this is very much a "core" aspect of the series.
"#"(expansions) https://i.imgur.com/qWcTWNe.png
I don't personally know any other (console) series that has this sort of continuation potential but I understand if a "3 game completion file" is beyond the scope of this site.
as for 100%, Zin's explanation is correct for AC1 and PP/MOA would have similar requirements (rank 1, collect all parts, complete all missions).
example of 100% in AC1: https://i.imgur.com/EXoMwfC.png
example of continued 100% file in PP: https://i.imgur.com/mHxA90S.png
I don't have a file for MOA atm
thanks again.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
Hi Judges,
With Zinfidel's recent Armored Core any% publication and my "sudden" abundance of free time I've taken to TAS a larger scale play of the AC1 series.
At first I was planning on a more traditional "no abort/no OoB" but I've been considering some of the game's more unique options.
Specifically, there is a mechanism in the game where by going 50,000 credits into debt (through ammo and repair expense) you become a "test subject" where you are granted various upgrades and the game resets to the first missions (eliminate strikers, eliminate squatters).
Undergoing this procedure 6 times results in several upgrades, most notably: 50% energy consumption. https://i.imgur.com/PlDOsvN.png
This process also allows you to effectively start a "new game" with any parts obtained from the suicide runs, custom build, and ( most importantly ;D ) a custom paint job.
Further, save files from AC1 can be loaded into the extension games Project Phantasma and Master of Arena - where the "human plus" upgrades are not attainable.
I think Armored Core is VERY Unique in these capacities so I wanted to ask the judges how they feel about these options.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#MovieMustPlayTheGameFromTheBeginning
In attempt to be more clear about my questions, in regard to the "start from the beginning" section of the rules:
1. Armored Core has a "hidden" upgrade feature that is based on repeatedly failing missions and going into debt. The process of suiciding is not entertaining and relatively time consuming but upon completion starts you squarely at the first missions of the game, similar to a "new game+".
Although it does not introduce any "new gameplay" inherently, I believe that these upgrades and the potential to start with a pre-optimized build would offer greater entertainment value to a standard "new game" play through.
Q: Would A save file starting from such a point be acceptable or would a vanilla "new game" file be preferred?
2. Due to Mission Branching, AC1 can not attain 100% completion without first completing the game and reloading into a "post completion" state - which would then have no "clear" completion credits/end screen.
Further, Armored Core 1 Data can be transferred to the expansion games, Project Phantasma and Master of Arena, creating the potential for a "300% completion" file across all three games. However, there is never a point where the game "prompts" you to change discs.
Q: would it be acceptable to submit a "300% completion" of all 3 games or would 3 vanilla "new game" files be preferred? Perhaps 3 separate recordings with the expansions loading from the previously completed movies?
I think that covers everything I was wondering. This seems like a pretty loaded series of nebulous inquiries so feel free to ask if you need any clarification and thanks in advance.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
I'm going to settle on this. Again, I think it can be improved but it has become VERY challenging to reproduce let alone beat.
https://i.imgur.com/RBIyiQK.mp4
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
working on raven test, I think it can be improved still, possibly to a 2:51.0x with extreme manipulation but without the technical knowledge to discern WHAT movements are influencing them, I'm gonna just press for a 2:50.50 and try to move on.
https://i.imgur.com/N0a1YZJ.png[/img]
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(181)
Joined: 10/8/2006
Posts: 145
I'm with Patashu on this.
This is ultimately what a TAS is supposed to look like.
Barely recognizable from a human perspective and then suddenly you fall out of no where into the final "boss", destroy it with one melee attack and the game ends leaving you completely unsatisfied and in the best way possible. (a la sm64 1 key)
My favorite part is, while in the midst of aborting 30 something missions, Zin takes a few extra seconds to grab a secret part to bolster his supplies for later on. Almost missed it scrolling through the video the first time I watched it.
As for the bit of actual gameplay that does exist (raven test, destroy justice, mop up chrome remnants, destroy floating mines) The navigation and destruction of targets were all very swift and impressive.
I honestly want to suggest moons for how well executed the OOB sections are but 20 minutes of aborting missions is inarguably boring and as such does not fit.
That said, I think this publication would be important to open the door for a more "entertaining" categories, like "100%" or "No Abort, no OOB". Still, this is a 10/10 TAS for me.
Throw this thing in the vault.
