21/n is irrational for any integer value of n > 1. I wonder if that's true also for any rational value of n > 1.
If 21/n is rational then 21/n = a/b where a and b are coprime integers. Then 2 = an/bn With an and bn still coprime integers.
I don't know how (if at all) the RNG can be manipulated in a single segment run.
If getting favourable RNG is good, then a run which power cycles to reset RNG to a favourable state is permissible, and thus the practice is not a bad thing.
This second video is a speedrun of Might and Magic 8. It casts a Renegade Spell within the first twenty seconds of the video. My question right now is, do you consider using Renegade Spells to be abusing a metafeature of the game (something that the programmers released), or abusing a regular feature of the game (something that the designers created)?
This third video is a speedrun of Might and Magic 6 that does not use the Swap Glitch. It spends roughly the first thirty seconds creating a party with stats that are known to survive the early part of the game while still optimizing for speed (granted, new strats has been discovered since the video was made in 2008; this was just the first result). Would you consider that a metafeature or a regular feature?
(As a point of curiosity, Might and Magic 6 is the game I was referring to with my scenario where favorable RNG can save tens of minutes, and where the segmenting would be determined by when RNG manipulation is necessary
You didn't answer this question. In the specific hypothetical case of Super Mario World, would you approve of the methodology if it were used to skip to "Back Door"?
Movies ideal for newcomers isn't necessarily a subset of movies that are ideal for the Star tier.
The way I see it, with "gameplay", is that every input press you make while the game is on, is playing the game. As the game consists of the cartridge/disc/whatever, when you feed it controller inputs, you are playing the game. Not matter if this is moving around on the overworld, equipping your character or deleting a savefile. They are all part of the game, they are all playing the game.
Please disregard the payload, and comment only on the methodology used in the second example (the Super Mario World one). Do you consider the manner in which the exploit was reached to be entirely "Gameplay?"
If so, would you approve of the methodology if the payload was jumping to the level named "Back Door" instead of to a completely unexpected series of instructions?
I think I've reached an understanding of what you're saying. If I understand you correctly, you would always disapprove of an RTA run that replicates the Pokemon Yellow π% ACE movie because it takes advantage of what happens when you interrupt a non-gameplay action, in this case saving the game.
Navigating the menus is often an indistinguishable part of playing the game
Except that the biggest thing that you are arguing against, ACE, is triggered /by gameplay/. Which suggests that gameplay issues are something that you have a problem with.
But the reason I don't like ACE to be considered a proper completion of the game is quite different from the subject I'm talking about in this thread (ie. non-gameplay tricks being used in speedruns. After all, ACE is (usually) done purely via gameplay, so it's a different issue.)
You don't like category D runs
Now, would you find these same exploits to be unacceptable if the final boss is not fought?
You find design oversights acceptable to take advantage of, but you dislike when programming oversights are taken advantage of.
Based on the points brought up on the "worrying" side, I can only conclude that the "trends" in question are those which lead players to not play the game that the developers intended, full of its exploits and glitches and bugs that get ignored because they are not the pre-designed route that some team came up with, routes which were rigorously tested to be safe and beatable.
Let us propose a game, say Ocarina of Time, with a clearly defined "time" point by the running community - in this case, the point of the final hit on Ganon. Let us also suppose that there exists an exploit that can be done in real-time that puts you in a position where you skip the majority of the game - in this case, a wrong-warp that requires ten minutes' worth setup that moves you from decidedly early in the game to roughly five scenes (room transitions) before the battle with Ganon in which you can reach the clearly defined "time" point. Is that exploit something you would approve/disapprove of?
Now, let us suppose that, with a slightly different setup, the same exploit can instead be used to jump to roughly the halfway point of the game as opposed to near the end.
It seems to me that Warp's stance is, in practice, that we should pretend that games do not have bugs when we run them. Does that seem accurate to you, Warp?
I understood your argument, in fact the first two words in my post were 'I understand. Your position is that one you change the code you are no longer playing the same game. That position is totally valid and has technical merit. That said I still disagree with it.
I'm sure this has gotten quite frustrating and has largely strayed from the intended topic, but I did intentionally try to pick an example in use by rta runners
