13:
Well, I did it with not global state, but instead state attached to the robot object itself. Same deal, though.
I'm almost sure that the way I solved it (ie. make the robot mirror the player's moves) is the "main" intended solution. (It's also pretty short. Requires about 5 lines of code.)
given the level of respect and understanding you are showing to a user's opinion.
Right, I don't respect users enough to devolve their opinions to a mere number. It must be a wonder that I even allow users to discuss submissions with a unique thread dedicated to each and every one. :eyeroll:
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem, or are you deliberately twisting what I'm saying? (I'm assuming it's the latter.)
I was talking about you not respecting my opinion on this issue (I'm a user of the website as anybody else, and it should have been quite clear I was referring to myself.) Instead you twist what I say, you build straw men, and you make childish remarks like "Oh, I wholeheartedly agree! You stubbornly want to..." when I was talking about you being stubborn.
And now you have made this ridiculous "poll" that seems to be nothing more than mockery.
You're right, let's also allow them to vote for favorite color, favorite breakfast cereal, favorite in-game character, favorite boss, and all the other multiple things they would want to vote on, if only given the option to do so.
Now you are just being childish. You understand perfectly well the rationale behind my suggestion, but still deliberately straw-man it to a ridiculous level. It almost feels like you are deliberately trying to make me lose my temper.
You really aren't helping alleviate the impression that you are just arguing for the sake of stubbornness. Fine, you don't want to hear my suggestion and you won't budge. That part has become clear. I suppose it's useless to continue to discuss the matter, given the level of respect and understanding you are showing to a user's opinion.
It seems like you don't understand what I'm saying.
What a highly ironic statement, given that you followed it by:
Your line of thought is that viewers should be making that determination, and the judges should just follow the majority
Nowhere did I say anything like that.
"Give the people the option to express their opinion on what they want to" != "judges should just follow the majority".
You keep repeating that a "should not be published" vote would be "useless". I do not think so. It would be the only natural thing for people to vote if they see a problem with the submission, and it can give information to a judge and to other people at a quick glance. What exactly is the harm in providing this option? I just can't see it.
Bobo the King wrote:
Do we really need to have this argument every few months?
The very fact that the subject regularly comes up is an indication that the poll does not fully reflect what people want to vote.
I honestly cannot comprehend what the problem would be if the users would be given the option to vote what they want to vote. The only option given currently, if voting "yes" or "no" feels awkward (as I described earlier) is to abstain from voting, which in itself feels like some kind of protest against the system, which is not necessarily what one wants to do.
I really have come to the conclusion that this has become a question of pure stubbornness.
None of your arguments presented any rational reason against my suggested voting options.
The options I suggested provide the best of both worlds: You want the votes to express if the submission should go to the vault or the moons. It does. People want to be able to express if the submission ought to be published or not. It allows doing that. I don't see any rational argument from you against those options.
At this point it seems to me that this whole issue is more a question of stubbornness than pragmatism. You won't budge because... I don't even know. Just because.
I'm trying to express that since the poll exists, it would be most useful as a tool for people to express what they want to express with it.
In the past the "no" option has always been a very strong indication that there's a problem with the submission. A large number of "no" votes ought to draw attention to this fact at a quick glance. This ought to be useful even for a judge: When they see that there are lots of "no" votes, this will quickly give them information that there might be a problem.
The usefulness of the "no" vote has been largely devalued, for no good reason.
I have suggested this compromise before, and I'm suggesting it again: Change the options to (something equivalent of):
- Liked it, and it's ok for publication.
- Didn't like it, but it's nevertheless ok for publication.
- Not ok for publication (explain in comments why.)
(Perhaps add the 'meh' option if needed.)
Although I have repeated this at least two times by now, here's nevertheless it again. Perhaps third time's the charm.
There are two things with the current voting system: What the admins would want it to mean, and what actually people use it for.
You want it to mean "this doesn't decide publication, this just tells us whether it's a moon candidate."
However, that's not what it means in practice, nor how many people use it. It instinctively means "is this worthy of publication?" and that's how many people use the voting system.
Voting "yes" when you think it cannot be published (eg. because it has some significant issue) feels unnatural. Likewise if you think it's ok to publish it, voting "no" also feels unnatural.
Personally I have not voted on many submissions because of this conflict. This kind of renders the entire voting system moot.
I almost always agree that a TAS should be the hardest difficulty possible, but in the case of Doom, the games often have an exceedingly unfair highest difficulty.
This is TASing. It doesn't matter how "unfair" the difficulty level is. That's the point. The "perfect" player doesn't care how difficult it is.
Playing on the easiest setting makes little sense.
While giving those details in advance was quite unnecessary and many people (like me) would prefer for them to be a surprise, it was nevertheless not an enormous spoiler.
Anyway, there's no need to make that kind of spoiler. The people who are interested are going to watch the episode. There is no point in spoiling anything at all. It serves no purpose. It's not like some people will watch an episode only if someone pointed out in advance that there would be a cameo.
Start from where one of your videos starts from power on and either hex edit or text edit the movie files together into one file. I always start one file and just keep using that same file to continue and just keep making progress. If you make a mistake early on, your movie file then becomes a reference video to take inputs from and improve upon.
Are you being serious?
The OP was asking about using savestates.
Mothrayas pretty much nails it. You can't have the same input play the same game two different ways. Otherwise this site couldn't exist as every game would be desync-prone. Slight variations are needed, but then it's not really the *same* game now is it?
What stops it being played back from reset and from a savestate?
I think it can be argued that if the only difference between two input files is that one has a savestate and the other does not, they can be considered the same input for the purposes of this kind of run.
The reasons why I and some others deeply dislike the episode were discussed in length somewhere in this thread (I could find the first post if you like.) It goes well beyond simply "Twilight is an alicorn now!" (although that in itself was quite bothersome, especially since it was a complete ass-pull.)
I think they kind of failed at how they handle the new Twilight in S4 though.
Most of the episodes of S4 seem to have been written as Twilight still being her old unicorn self. The fact that she's a princess, or the fact that she has wings and can fly, is completely ignored in those episodes, even in situations where it could have very well played a role.
There's a fan hypothesis that the drafts of those episodes were actually originally intended for S3, but never materialized because the season was kind of cut short, so they were rehashed in S4. If this is indeed so, then they didn't bother trying to shove the new Twilight into them, and instead treat her as just the unicorn Twilight.
Arguably, however, some of the episodes were very much intended for S4 (eg. most prominently the key episodes), yet still completely disregard the "alicorniness" of Twilight having any kind of relevance or effect on anything. She's still treated mostly as a regular unicorn.
This makes me think that the ass-pull of MMC can be seen even in the writing of S4. Even the writers themselves don't know what to do with her anymore.
We have some TASes where the one and same input is fed to two or more games, and it completes them all (in the best of cases it completes them all at the same time.)
Suddenly this crazy idea came to my mind: What if we had one single input that completed the same game in different ways? Yeah, sounds silly, but hear me out.
Some games may have alternate routes or alternate playable characters. Wouldn't it be cool if the same input could be used to complete the game with eg. two different characters? These two completions could be encoded side-by-side, like with the multiple-games version.
Of course for this to work something would have to be done to allow the same input to deviate at the beginning of the game, else it would be technically impossible. Perhaps one of the completions could start from reset, while the other starts from a savestate (that has been taken from as early in the startup of the game as is possible, but allows the input to deviate. In other words, the savestate does as little as possible; its only goal is to allow the input to be offset in time by just a few frames or so.)
(While starting from a savestate is technically speaking against the rules, I think it would be perfectly justifiable to exceptionally allow it in this case, especially since the savestate is doing nothing more than "offsetting" the input by some frames.)
