Posts for Warp


Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Mothrayas wrote:
the most critical difference here is that a lot more effort goes into a TASVideos publication (including encoding, front page publication, description, categorizing, and such) than into a speedrun.com leaderboard entry.
I believe that the image you are painting there about speedrun.com may be unfair. I don't know how they handle other games, but I do know that at least with Ocarina of Time, submissions are not simply published just like that, and instead somebody has to verify their validity (I do not know the specifics of what this verification process involves, but it is my understanding that it's more laborious than just five minutes of skimming through the run). This especially if you submit something claiming to be a world record, but if I understand correctly, it's actually done to all submissions. (I was one day watching the stream of an OoT speedrunner, who was running a category new to him, and he PB'd, and I asked him if he was going to submit it to speedrun.com. He said that since this was pretty much his first completion of the category, which he would very soon improve, he didn't want to bother the site because they would have to go through the verification process. I understood from this that speedrun.com verifies every single OoT submission, even if it's not a top one. I might be wrong, but this is what I understood.) Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but just wanted to clarify.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
While I appreciate the work put in the judgment text into the technical details of analyzing the speed differences in individual levels of the game between NTSC vs. PAL, I don't really understand why this analysis is there. The length of playable portions vs. non-playable portions has never been any sort of factor in determining whether a submission is publishable or not. Only the total length of the run has ever mattered (besides the submission not breaking any rules, of course).
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Nach wrote:
Keep the number of different branches per game minimal.
Perhaps this is a silly idea, but perhaps we could start slowly phasing that principle out. I'm not exactly sure why that principle exists. (I mean, I know the rationale; I'm just saying that perhaps said rationale is not so relevant, especially not on this day and age anymore.) Consider, for instance, that speedrun.com doesn't exactly shy away from having lots of categories for a single game. For example, consider http://www.speedrun.com/oot which has a whopping 13 categories. And if you go to http://www.speedrun.com/ootextras it has 24 additional categories for that same game. They don't shy away from having tons of categories for a single game. Why should we? Is there a good reason for that? The best reason I can think of is a technical one, one of site design: I think it would be best that, like them, tasvideos.org had a separate page for each game, listing all the TASes for that particular game in a sensible logical order. This way one game could have a dozen categories, and they would be listed in a logical order (like "any%" first, then "100%" if it has one, and so on and so forth.) This would, however, require a complete site redesign, including much of the backend code, and a lot of work. But besides such a reason of practical organization (which would require probably significant refactoring of the backend code), I don't think there ought to be any other reason. It's not like the site would become more confusing or run out of space, if different runs of the same game were logically organized in their own page.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
This is probably the most controversial rejection in the history of the site. Did you really want to create such controversy? Although, to be fair, if my opinion was asked, and the only two options given were to either reject this or make it obsolete the NTSC run, probably I would begrudgingly choose the rejection. (In other words, the obsoletion choice would have been even more dissatisfying, for me at least.) But for the record, I have yet not read the full judgment text (because I really have to go to sleep at this moment), only skimmed through it. I will read it with more thought tomorrow, to see if it will change my opinion.
Post subject: Re: Demon Lord
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
DrBaldhead wrote:
It's not about modding the console itself for easier TASing but rather modding its data input hardware. I don't really see much fundamental difference between the device used to acquire data from the player and the device to acquire data from an optical media. Both cases are about handling an unstable source of information which provides data at an undeterministic rate and the console has to get along with it. Sorry if I'm off topic.
The difference is that one requires physically modding the console, the other doesn't.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Habreno wrote:
The problem I have with them coexisting is that, as you stated yourself, it is a different version and not a different game
If a TAS of the Sega 32X version of Doom were faster than the PC version, should the latter be just dumped, in your opinion?
Post subject: Re: Demon Lord
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
DrBaldhead wrote:
Just as a bit of fantasy, I'm imagining an idea of rewiring a disc-based console to a device which could simulate it's CD drive
I'm not sure that physically modding the console goes with the spirit of TASing. If we go that route, what else could we mod, that helps with TASes?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Habreno wrote:
Because it should be obsoleted since it's beaten by a faster TAS.
A TAS for a different version of the game for a different console?
That that TAS changes regions to use different glitches which make the run faster should not be an issue, but because it's PAL, once again, this site has a hard time accepting this region.
Why should accepting a PAL version of the game mean that the NTSC version must go? What problem do you have with both co-existing? The discussion is not about rejecting this PAL version. You are making it sound like it is, with all that "we hate PAL" stuff.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Radiant wrote:
Habreno does have a point that the main argument for having both runs boils down to "really old runs may not be obsoleted because of nostalgia".
I don't think the age of the run has anything to do with it. But some games and their TASes do have more notoriety than others; that's just reality.
Habreno wrote:
Which is why it goes in Obsoletely Famous.
Why should a TAS that has not been obsoleted go there?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Habreno wrote:
Frankly the only real answer is to accept as improvement to the previous TAS
I think the NTSC version is way too valuable to do that. What problem, exactly, do you have with having both of them at the same time? Are we going to run out of categories or something?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
arandomgameTASer wrote:
...can we publish this already.
I'm sure we can, but some people are still debating on whether it should obsolete the NTSC version or not. Personally I don't really understand why. The site is not going to go down the drain if we have an NTSC and a PAL version of the game at the same time. There is merit to have both, with this particular game. (If somebody wants to have the same thing happen with some other game, they can make a post presenting their argument why.)
Post subject: Re: Highlighting GDQ runs, runs specifically for GDQ, game ideas
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Alyosha wrote:
I'm not purposely trying to be a downer here, but I'm pretty skeptical that just playing several normal TASes back to back will hold many people's attention.
Isn't that what the live commentary is for? The commentary is what makes the run interesting to the viewers.
One avenue of ACE that is untapped so far is sending information back to TASBot via controller pings.
I think that's precisely what "they have specifically asked us to avoid focusing on technical shenanigans for this event" is referring to. In other words, they want just speedruns, not technical shenanigans like that.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Kung Knut wrote:
If we do this, then all released versions of a game should be treated as its own "platform" too, meaning a game could have any% for NTSC 1.0U, NTSC 1.1U, NTSC 1.0J, PAL E, PAL A etc + all ports to other systems, including virtual console-ROMs where these are new builds.
Only if there's sufficient justification to do so. The differences in terms of TAS tricks must be substantial.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Well, I did say that there ought to be enough justification to accept both versions. Meaning that they should be different enough (and not just in completion time, but something more radical, such as different glitches). If the only relevant difference between the two versions is completion time, then there wouldn't be enough justification. Also, I don't understand what TASes of NTCS vs. PAL versions of a game has anything to do with quality. How does having TASes of both version decrease any sort of quality?
Post subject: Re: Highlighting GDQ runs, runs specifically for GDQ, game ideas
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
dwangoAC wrote:
As far as highlighting runs that have been at GDQ events is concerned, the biggest issue is that many, many things we have done cannot be submitted on the site.
My suggestion was about having a page at tasvideos.org that would be special. It would bypass the normal submission procedure. Those particular TASes would get there merely for having been showcased at GDQ.
I think perhaps people are going too far with saying no ACE at all - the problem is that things veered way too far into the technical showing-off realm
ACEs have already been demonstrated several times at GDQ. I'm not sure what else is there to demonstrate, other than making it for all intents and purposes a demo (rather than a game completion). But GDQ is not a demo compo, but a speedrunning marathon. I really think ACE demos have overstayed their welcome. But that's just my opinion. I suppose that the closest thing that it could be compared to is a glitch demonstration, which some runners may do after a run, if they have the time. But it's usually an extra, not the main attraction.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
feos wrote:
If we consider them different games, that would have to remove the limit entirely. We don't want this thing to lose limits. We want it to improve the movie base.
I didn't understand that paragraph at all. Could you please explain?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
If we want to encourage people to submit TASes specifically to be shown at GDQ for the first time, perhaps there could be a small incentive for that: After it has been shown at GDQ, it would then be permanently published at tasvideos.org on a special page dedicated to such runs. Even if the run is later surpassed by another (eg. by being faster), the original run would still remain on that page, forever (even if it's obsoleted in the regular runs list). It would be some kind of history of all runs that have been first shown at GDQ. Just an idea.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Further, I would strongly support allowing runs of NTSC and PAL versions of any game to be published as separate branches, or even separate games, if there are significant differences between the two that justify it. (If somebody submits a run for a game in the other format, he should be able to justify why it's different and/or notable enough to be published as its own branch or game. Or the public may endorse that as well, of course.) Considering them separate games would allow, even under current rules, both versions to exist at the same time in Vault.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Chef Stef wrote:
What if the TASBlock was entirely new TASes that haven't been shown anywhere yet? People could volunteer runs that are due to be finished within, say, the next two months, elect to delay submission to TASVideos, and show them for the first time at GDQ instead. We get the surprise factor from previous GDQs but with something much more reasonable and representative of typical TASVideos content.
I think it's unreasonable to expect the high standards of entertainment for runs that have been submitted within a couple of months prior to the marathon. At the very least there should be a list of backup TASes to fill in the list. (Also, I think another problem is that AFAIK the organizer need to know in advance what runs will be shown, with a detailed description. Thus they need to be prepared well in advance.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
dwangoAC wrote:
Another ACE might be old and tired at this point unless it's done in an interesting way or there's a particularly compelling (and not too technically difficult) payload.
I would agree that perhaps we should avoid ACEs. The marathon is, after all, about beating games as fast as possible, not about running your own code. It's a speedrunning marathon, not a demo compo. ACEs have been demonstrated several times already, there's no need to do the same again. Let's keep it simple and traditional: TASbot beats a game superhumanly fast (preferably on the actual console). No shenanigans, just superhuman speedrunning. (Although, of course, glitches are ok at least in some of the runs. After all, glitches are ok in regular speedrunning as well, so there's no problem there.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
TASeditor wrote:
I think we should focus on runs that don't break the game logic for casual viewers much, meaning no crazy end-level glitch setups and that sorts, so the focus for explanation can be on TASing not the game itself.
I think at least one of the runs should be a glitchfest. Those are always popular with the live audience. Variety should be good. One run with minimal glitching (perhaps preferably because the game simply doesn't have exploitable bugs) but which really showcases the superhuman aspect of TASes. One run that's a total glitchfest. One run that's highly humorous. Something along those lines.
Post subject: Re: Volunteers are needed to identify TAS content for AGDQ 2018
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
dwangoAC wrote:
(and reasonably short or otherwise varied)
On a somewhat of a tangent, I find it curious (even a bit odd) how both the GDQ people themselves, as well as the public, seem to be perfectly ok with having regular speedruns of a single game that take literally several hours, yet when it comes to TASes, it seems that anything that's more than a couple of minutes long apparently becomes quickly "boring". For example in the last SGDQ, the Earthbound run was 4 and a half hours long. The FF7 run was a whopping 7 hours 48 minutes long! Yet if a TAS goes on for 10 minutes, it somehow becomes boring. The chaotic nature of the human mind will never cease to amaze me.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
FractalFusion wrote:
7+5sqrt(2)=(1+sqrt(2))3
That equation seems less than self-evident...
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The final answer is correct, although you used a rather different route to get there. (Btw, the video I mentioned is here.)
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The youtuber blackpenredpen recently uploaded a video where he calculates on a whiteboard the result of (7 + sqrt(50))1/3 + (7 - sqrt(50))1/3 It has a real solution, and you don't need to calculate any square or cube roots. Of course if you are lazy you could just use a calculator, or watch the video. However, if you want to challenge yourself, maybe try deducing the answer by hand. I think the solution was interesting.