Posts for Warp


Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
Look at it this way. Say you have a movie with the following rules: - USES L+R
Should not be possible with the standard controller and thus basically no game takes it especially into account. Thus if it does have some speeding up effect, it was clearly not intended.
- USES the ladder glitch
Programming error/oversight: Not intended.
- Passes through enemies without taking damage due to crappy collision detection
Could be a matter of opinion. It's probable that the person who programmed the bounding box collision routines knew about the possibility of the playing character jumping through an enemy without activating the collision, but he considered it way too unlikely for a regular player playing in the console to be able to abuse it that he didn't bother making the routine any more complicated than necessary. Even if the player happens to jump through an enemy once in his lifetime, by pure chance, that's no big deal. Thus this is probably something left deliberately in the code because it was considered too unlikely to be a game breaker. Of course a TAS can exploit these "too unlikely for a human to perform" feats.
- DOES NOT use the save corruption glitch
Save corruption abuse is clearly an unintended way to play the game.
- USES damage boosts to sequence break
Not a glitch/programming error. At most an oversight in level design. (Of course one could argue that the "intended route" should be the one planned by the level designers, not the programmers.)
- USES savewarping
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. If it's something you can do normally in a console without abusing any glitch...
- USES the select trick
Don't know what that is.
- DOES NOT use the murder beam glitch at the end
Programming error which beats the boss in an unintended way. Makes the movie look crappy too. Doesn't actually save any time at all.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Raiscan wrote:
This seems like it could just start nothing but arguments.
That's a rather self-fulfilling prophecy: Start an argument about why the suggestion is a bad idea, because it will start arguments. Since when has tasvideos.org stopped being a website were people have fun and are entertained by both watching and creating TAS videos as well as everything that is related to this activity, and started being a totalitarian politically correct regime where everything that has even the slightest chance of becoming even a bit controversial and cause discussion is immediately shot down as a "bad idea" which must not be implemented and carefully avoided? I mean, seriously. If someone wants to make a list of games, who cares if someone else disagrees on a few of the entries in that list? If someone is such a huge prig that he will start complaining about some movie being in some list, I think he can go f*** himself. This website and hobby is for fun and entertainment, not political fanatism about terminology.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
AQwertyZ wrote:
nfq wrote:
i used to believe that the earth was round, but then i looked it up somewhere and i found that it was flat.
I am trying to understand how anyone can live in the real world and yet at the same time have such a poor grasp of reality.
Are you sure he wasn't simply joking? (I have hard time believing any sane person would write such a sentence seriously.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bisqwit wrote:
Arf, I already wrote 75% of the answer once, then I accidentally closed the tab before posting it. I'll write it again.
Ever considered using the tabmix+ extension for firefox? It has, among other things, a very handy "Undo Close Tab" option. (This is actually not the first time I suggest it to you. I find it a bit strange that you use firefox and have many extension installed (which you recommend in your profile), but don't seem to be willing to try tabmix+.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
ElectroSpecter wrote:
nineko wrote:
ElectroSpecter wrote:
FM2... is that really a movie file? I can't seem to get it to run.
The FAQs are there for a reason.
Gimme a break, I don't keep up with every little thing that happens on the site (I don't mean to make out the new emulator to be a "little thing" but I haven't been paying attention to NES TASes recently)
I think you misunderstood the statement: The FAQ is there for a reason. You had a question ("what is an FM2 file?") and your first intuition should have been to check if it's explained somewhere, and the FAQ is the most probable place. It doesn't mean you need to be constantly following the contents of the FAQ in a regular basis.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bisqwit wrote:
Movies for First Time Viewers was a great idea in my opinion too, but it was ultimately removed because there was too much argument on which movies should be recommended ("starred") and by which policies.
Personally I still find this decision rather stupid. Rather than give new visitors at least *some* list of recommended movies for first-time view, now there's *nothing*. Only a big list of almost 500 random movies from which the new visitor has absolutely no idea what could be cool to watch. And this only because some people disagree on which movie should be included in the list or not. IMO some list, no matter who decides what it contains, is much better than no list at all. If someone doesn't like it, he can go and... I'll leave it at that.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Silent_Slayers wrote:
This is something that confuses me about time travel. Say, someone, it doesn't matter who; travelled back in time and altered something that majorly changed the future. How would you experience the change because of his actions?
What's with all these questions about time traveling?
Why did god make sinful actions pleasureful if he doesn't want you to do them? What if an athiest, a few days away from death decided to be a Christian and seriously believed in God and went to church and begged forgiveness for his sins etc. Would he go to heaven or hell? Do you believe there are flaws in believing in Christianity even though you yourself are Christian?
Argh, not this subject again.
Since the universe is ever expanding, what if you were going faster then the expanding of the universe, where would you be if you passed the "boarder" of the universe?
I didn't know Bisqwit was a physicist.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Continuing with the interesting x^x function: Warmup problem: Calculate the two solutions for: x^x = 2*x^2 (when x > 0). A bit harder: For which value of n the equation x^x = n*x^2 has exactly one solution (when x > 0)?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Raiscan wrote:
In this case, I believe arbitrary categories exclusively set for the game are a benefit rather than a problem.
And then we end up with 8 different runs of the same game, exactly because every runner wants to use his own arbitrary goals.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Blublu wrote:
It's one of those ideas that sound okay at first, but then when you think about how to go about implementing it, you realize it is much harder than you thought. For example, what would be the "intended route" of The Legend of Zelda?
"Intended route" does not mean "a single fixed route, even in open-ended games with multiple paths". I don't even understand why several people have brought up that. I don't really see what the problem is here that people are seeing. "Intended route" means, for example, that you don't warp through a wall abusing a programming error, in order to bypass mandatory elements of the level/game. Warping through a wall was clearly not intended to be possible by the creators, and you have to abuse a programming error to do that. Maybe the confusion is between "the intended route" and "an intended route". I am talking about the latter. A route, any route, which is clearly valid by the regular rules of the game and its level design, is acceptable, of course.
Is there even one?
Of course there is. Anything that doesn't abuse programming errors to go through things which you are not supposed to go through.
How about Super Mario Bros.? Do you use warps?
Warp screens in SMB have been specifically programmed into the game to be used by normal play, so they are very much an intended route. I don't even understand how they could *not* be an intended route. They have been purposefully added to the game by the creators to be used. You don't abuse a programming error to get to them.
Do you glitch through walls, since it doesn't technically alter the overall "route"?
If you abuse a programming error to get through a wall, which you should not be able to do (and not intended by the creators), then you are breaking the route.
I guess it would be decided on an individual game basis
Other categories are judged on a game-by-game basis (such as "entertainment/speed tradeoffs"). My idea was to make a "uses the intended route" an official category so that people could make submissions for it. Whether it's acceptable for that category or not is then up to the judges.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Derakon wrote:
Frankly, I say that we need to just allow for more runs, period. If someone makes a run and other people find it entertaining, it should be available on the site somewhere - not necessarily along with the fully-published runs, but linked in somewhere.
This is something I, among others, have suggest long time ago: I suggested having (up to) four major categories: 1) Anything-goes any% runs, where the only important factor is minimizing the number of frames. (Priority #1 is minimizing the number of frames, priority #2 is entertainment.) 2) Runs with alternate goals (such as 100% item collection) besides getting to the end of the game, but doing so as fast as possible. (So priority #1 is completing the goals, priority #2 is minimizing the number of frames and priority #3 is entertainment.) 3) Runs where the goal is to complete the game, but not as fast as possible, but achieving something else (for example showing off cool moves in fighting games), but still without sloppy play. So-called superplays. (Priority #1 is entertainment, priority #2 is superhuman perfection.) 4) Machinima videos, where the goal might not be to complete the game at all, but do something else, for pure entertainment. This idea never caught on. Maybe too much work.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I think that the question of what is the "intended route" or not can be decided by the judges/voters. It's no more controversial than "contains entertainment/speed tradeoffs". One could argue to death what is an acceptable "entertainment/speed tradeoff" and what isn't, but that seldom has caused too many problems. In the end it's the voters and judges who decide if it's acceptable. My goal with this idea is to give a clear category for TASers. Someone could go and make a submission of a game under this category, so everyone would know what is it all about. He wouldn't need to present too many arguments why he is making such a submission which is neither the fastest possible nor a 100% run. It's then up to the voters and judges to decide whether it fulfills the category properly or not. Some generic rules of thumb (not necessarily strict ones) can be formalized so TASers will have an idea of what to do and not to do. They can then argument their choices in their submission text. TASers aren't too afraid of submitting runs with "entertainment/speed tradeoffs" because it's an existing category and semi-officially recognized as acceptable in many cases. I think "uses intended route" should be such an acceptable category as well.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
AngerFist wrote:
Nice write-up but I think the idea is bad. Enough as it is.
You are entitled to your opinion, but some arguments would be nice. Currently the two customs in regard to this subject are: 1) We just *don't* accept any "intended route" (or "non-glitched") runs. Those who would like to see one will have to live with the fact. 2) If the demand for such a run is *way* too big, then we invent some completely arbitrary rules for the game in question in order to basically just achieve "uses the intended route". (Eg. I think this is the case with Super Metroid, and the newest OoT submission.) Would it be so bad to even attempt to formalize this a bit and establish some consistent ground rules (or even rules of thumb) which most people can agree with?
Post subject: New category proposal
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Ok, this isn't really a novel idea, as it has been discussed to death over the years, but I just got an idea which I think could work, and which should summarize what people really want. As we know, many people, while they might like overly glitched runs, would still like to see a version of the run which doesn't abuse glitches. They would like to see the game *played* with perfect accuracy rather than *broken* to smithereens. In some cases a "100%" run of the game achieves that goal somewhat, but might still not be the perfect solution (it can be way too long, or the game doesn't have a good concept of "100%" completion). Defining a "non-glitched" run is extremely difficult because it falls down to the definition of what is glitch abuse and what isn't, and what is an "acceptable" glitch in a "non-glitch" run and what isn't. It quickly becomes too arbitrary to be any good. So how about this category: "Uses intended route" The idea is that the run plays the game using the (minimal) route intended by the creators of the game. Everything is allowed (eg. luck abuse) except glitches which allow skipping relevant parts of this route (or allow traversing the route way faster than the creators intended, by abusing a glitch). Also glitches which give the player objects too early (or without having to go get them from their actual location in the game) are prohibited, because that was not intended by the creators. Of course there might still be controversy about what is "a relevant part" and what isn't, but I believe it should be less ambiguous than a "doesn't use glitches" category. Not everything which the creators didn't really expect has to be prohibited. For example beating the boss clearly faster than what the creators believed would be possible would still be ok, because it's not a route change nor a glitch per se, just regular play but with superhuman accuracy and skill. After all, the idea is to show how the game can be beaten with superhuman prowess (without breaking the game). The good thing about this category is that it can be applied to most games (of course it's relevant only for those which do have glitches which allow skipping parts of the intended route). For example creating a run of Super Mario 64 under this category would mean that it has to collect those 70 stars intended by the creators of the game. A run of megaman would mean that no glitched warps nor zipping (especially no zipping through walls). It would also be a good category for SuperMetroid and LoZ:OoT runs because it's less controversial than other suggestions.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
There seems to be only one problem with the Rumblepad2 compared to the Precision Gamepad: In the former it feels more difficult to get diagonals with the d-pad.
After playing with it for several hours, it's much easier to naturally get those diagonals. It seems that it's just a question of getting accustomed to it. I actually like this controller. Besides being sturdier and firmer than the other one, the buttons have somehow a lighter and "smoother" feeling to them. Also controlling a playable character with the analog stick has a much more enjoyable smooth feeling to it. It's cool.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Something cool you can do with Super Mario Bros 3... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDmTmDLa-9c
Screamers are so old already that they are not funny anymore. Besides, this one didn't work for me at all (even though I was not expecting it).
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
arflech wrote:
in fact, it can be proven that if f and g are meromorphic functions of a complex variable z and f(c)=g(c)=0≠f(b) for some b and c in their common domain, then lim(z->c)f(z)^g(z)=1.
I suppose proving that is much more difficult because you can't use the same chain of deductions with generic functions f(x) and g(x).
Bob A wrote:
x^x = exp(ln(x)x), and since ln(x) varies logarithmically with x, it approaches negative infinity more slowly than x, and therefore ln(x)x approaches 0, so x^x approaches 1.
That may be an intuitive proof, but not a formal one, and thus not mathematically valid. (Besides, even intuitively your deduction is not sound: We are not examining how the two functions behave when they approach infinity, but instead how they behave when they approach x=0. ln(x) actually starts approaching -infinity faster and faster as x gets closer to 0, and it's not at all clear whether x approaches 0 "faster" than ln(x) approaches -infinity.)
by the way, i'm in the camp that defines 0^0 = 1.
Except that you can't use that opinion for anything relating to limits. In other words, if you have this: lim(x->c) f(x) = 0 lim(x->c) g(x) = 0 lim(x->c) f(x)^g(x) = (lim(x->c) f(x))^(lim(x->c) g(x)) = 0^0 = ? Even though both functions approach 0, you can't just use your "0^0 = 1" rule and say that the result is 1. There's a simple counter-example: f(x)=0, g(x)=x, for which lim(x->0) f(x)^g(x) = 0.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Another idea would be to append the alternate ending to the end of the official avi, with an introductory text screen (and of course a note in the movie's page so that people will know it's there).
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
If the two movies only differ in the last few minutes, would it be a bad idea to publish the shorter run as the official publication, and those differing last minutes as a separate bonus avi?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Cpadolf wrote:
It is about 34 seconds longer.
In a run which is over 1 hour long that doesn't seem like anything at all. If the 34 seconds longer movie adds significantly to the entertainment, I'd say it's a worthy price to pay. I suppose the only question is whether it adds so much to the entertainment or not.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Randil wrote:
and let z := ln(y) = lim(x->0+) x*ln(x) which I happened to remember that it approaches 0.
"I happen to remember" is no proof.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Here's an easy one, but which might require a bit of ingenuity (I loved this one at school): lim(x->0+) x^x = ? ("x->0+" means that x approaches zero from the positive axis.) Give your entire deduction process, not just the plain answer. For additional fun, try imagining how the graphical representation of the x^x curve looks like before actually checking it.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
There seems to be only one problem with the Rumblepad2 compared to the Precision Gamepad: In the former it feels more difficult to get diagonals with the d-pad. The latter has a more distinct feeling between the straight directions and the diagonals, while in the former you often don't feel the difference almost at all, and it's difficult to get the diagonal. For example if you are pressing up and want up+right, it often goes straight to right instead.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Warp wrote:
If I'm not constantly watching what happens to the torrents I'm seeding, I might be actually doing more harm than good: I'm being seen as a seeder, but I'm not uploading anything (for whatever reason).
This is what I mean: http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/seeding.png
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
How much longer is the latter version of the run? Maybe a poll should be made about the subject?-)