Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
I was wondering about the fact that you called the ingame time run "several years behind". How can it be so if it's "much superior" over the current branchless run?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Radiant wrote:
as a movie, it is several years behind in discovered tricks and exploits.
Errrrr....
hero of the day wrote:
Saturn's run is actually much superior to the real time any% run on a technical level. He actually saves frames in every single room of the run. The only and I mean only reason he did not crush the real time run was because he went for the plasma beam at the very end of the run and lost a lot of real-time. Because of this I cannot endorse removing the technically superior run, and I cannot endorse removing the technically faster real-time run. They should both remain until a single run beats them both.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
It seems to depend on the same thing that makes Ryu freeze for 1 frame when jumping onto corners. If the leopard hits the red block while his forward BG collision hitbox if far enough into that ejecting block, he will run over it. If he jumped into its beginning, he will turn back.
$488 - BG collisions address.
0 - in air.
30 - normal ground.
20 - farther half of the red block, keep running.
70 - closer half of the red block, run back.
So you need to try spawning him at different screen positions (spawns+interrupts) and make run into that red block somewhere.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
You mean, why does it sometimes turn back?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Warp wrote:
Does the CPU execute unintended opcodes in RAM that were put there by the runner (usually through glitches in the game, but it doesn't really matter exactly how)? If yes, I'd classify that as arbitrary code execution.
Non-ACE memory corruption would be when data in RAM is corrupted somehow, and this causes the game to do unintended things, but those corrupted values are never executed as opcodes by the CPU.
There are execution pointers you know. A game stores them in RAM and uses them to jump to instructions to execute. If one corrupts the pointer address, the game will jump to wherever it points it to, and execute there as a code. Even if it's data, or some non-existent values such as in open bus. They will be executed until they end and some sane code starts, or until such false code makes it jump to something sane.
That can be called "executing false code", but not "executing arbitrary code". And it isn't directly related to executing RAM as opcodes. As long as human can't directly affect/manipulate what is being executed, it's not ACE.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
Most games don't have any of those "large skips", we do obviously have some exceptions like OoT and Super Metroid. In these cases I'd like there to be some more clear names in the branches so we don't have these endless discussions of obsoletion because the branches would be clear and concise.
Yeah, so you notice that using "large glitchy skips" is very rare. It's so rare it's an exception to all the rest completion approaches. But it is the same term that can be used in many games as long as such skips become possible (probably after 10 more years most of our Mooned games will have a glitched branch). So if those are avoided (which is so common it's default), it's not because some particular trick was banned, it's because the very skip is banned for such runs. As a result, we only need to mention if "large glitchy skips" are used, and not mention anything about them otherwise.
On the other hand, if some exclusive trick is banned, we assess the common use of it and apply "no X" if it is used in most cases. See SM64 "no BLJ".
The only thing that can confuse now is the obsoleted branches that I didn't take time to rename.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
It should be noted as such in the branch name then, because it opens it up for obsoletion if it's not.
You want all our runs that don't use "large skips" to be labeled "no large skips"?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
If you need a level map to plan the glitched route, I can make it.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Now we're talking! I don't care if the new branchless submission obsoletes ingame or not, but that is when that question should be directly asked, not now.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
I don't see the difference between "good ending" and "best ending" as long as they state the same thing in the game.
Judging by my own words there, we really should make sure the label is consistent. Well, then so be it. Make the label "best ending". But I don't think encodes should be redone each time someone edits the label.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes.
At the time, this run did not exist.
Yeah. X-Ray glitch run exists since 2008. No X-Ray glitch run (traditional any%) exists since 2004. In-game run existed since 2008, then it was obsoleted by [1368] SNES Super Metroid by Taco, Kriole in 38:41.52, back when we supported the branch limit. Then, in 2011, the new in-game run was submitted. Even before we added tier system. Look how people post and vote there, and read the judge's decision.
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one.
They were never asked. Well, they are asked, in this thread. Where the majority is pro obsoletion. I'm not saying that means the obsoletion should happen, I'm just saying you might want to reconsider basing your community-opinion on the unrelated votes of a 3 year old run. Make a poll or something.
They were never asked if the X-Ray run should be obsoleted. They were never asked if the ACE run should be obsoleted. Yet all of them, for some reason, posted that they want them both obsoleted. Why? Because they are aware which runs exist and what obsoletions make sense. If among all who voted for some obsoletion there were, say, 10 people who voted for ingame being obsoleted (without even being asked), it would mean community partially supports that option. As of now, people only mention it due to seeing the obsoletion obsession notion being actively spammed.
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
Not on purpose, who did I miss?
I'll collect exact counts in a few days.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Added [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "ingame time" by Saturn in 39:15.3 (2011-10-30)
- obsoletes [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch, ingame time" by Cpadolf in 41:02.4 (2008-03-02)
I see. This is only confusing because some people were retroactively changing the labels of the runs in such obsoletion chains. Those runs didn't have these labels back then.
When the current in-game run was published, all the previous runs of that branch were also just "ingame".
Then, we had a branch poll, where half the crown disagreed with having "no X glitch" branches opposite to "any%". The decision was made, it looks how it's written in the judges guideline. But I applied the current labeling system only to the current runs, I didn't touch the recently-retroactively-changed obsoleted labels.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
How can we judge the community's support when they're not actively talking about this particular issue? All the discussion regarding in-game time obsoletion for this submission was split into here because it was seen as "off-topic", although I feel otherwise about that.
You have tens of people posting about how they expect things to be done. If tens of people voted for publishing the in-game run, it was what the community and the judge decided. It's not like, we can revert that decision as many times as we want if some 3 people agree about something. To obsolete something, you need those tens of people saying "yes, I agree it should obsolete that". This is what happened with #2240: inichi's SNES Chrono Trigger "glitched any%" in 21:23.98http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8001
Read and see how community support looks like.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
Then why did the IGT run obsolete the ingame, no x-ray run and not keep the branch name? Surely it should have kept the no x-ray part of the name.
Did you at least read how branches work now? Also, I don't get what you're saying. Which run obosoleted which? What was wrong with their labels?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
As far as I understand this thread:
People against obsoletion:
- feos
People pro obsoletion:
- Nach
- Fog
(- me)
As it stands, the community is for obsoletion. If anybody's ignoring community support, it's you.
You must be kidding me. Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes. Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one. Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
#3316: Saturn's SNES Super Metroid "any%, ingame" in 39:15.30
The branch name is "any%, ingame" in the submission, and "ingame time" in the publication.
Nowhere in the branch name does it explicitly state that it's a non-game breaking branch. Perhaps if it was named "in game, no x-ray" like the previous submissions that it obsoleted, there would be more plausibility with it.
Branches don't need to list everything they avoid compared to existing possibilities. It's based on statistics: if some trick type is rarely used, it's use is labeled in the branch, and when it's not used, it's the default, common condition that doesn't need a label. See http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#Branches
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
The IGT for this submission is only 6 minutes (00:06). If there was a retroactive obsoletion to take place, it would be the current x-ray run obsoleting the IGT run.
Exactly. When all the people were voting for publishing the ingame run, the X-Ray run was present and well-known. No one seemed to think that all the unique content the ingame run represents already is represented in the X-Ray run. Though it has a lower ingame timer. Did you try to think, why? Why all the crowd doesn't seriously think about X-Ray obsoleting ingame? Because game-breaking glitch spoils the legitimacy of any% run for half of our audience. That many people disagree with mixing the concepts of any% run and glitched run together. Ingame run looks like "traditional" any% completion, and satisfies the expectations in that regard. X-Ray and ACE runs don't look like it, and don't satisfy that expectation.
This is why some other run should be discussed to obsolete ingame run, say, the branchless one. Because they can have the most content overlap between each other. But again, when ingame was published separately, the branchless run was also there. And the community decided to have both.
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Manipulating memory and code is basically the very thing one needs to do to glitch a game to the ending. But it doesn't mean one has total control on the game's execution. Only the run that obsoleted 1945M used total control explicitly. Otherwise, most game end glitch runs we have just confuse the execution pointer to jump to the ending routine, not command it entirely.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
- Obtains the fastest in-game time (despite not being an initial goal)
Probably.
Fog wrote:
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
It uses a game-breaking glitch that the ingame run deliberately avoids.
Fog wrote:
- Is entertaining
It's not more entertaining than the ingame run itself. If you say "no one just tried to compare", it's why they can't obsolete one another - they don't feel comparable.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
How is it arbitrary? There are perfectly valid reasons to obsolete the x-ray glitch, game end glitch, and in game timer runs.
Can you list all the reasons to obsolete the ingame run again please? Community support should be among them (because it was the reason that branch was restored).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
As it stands right now we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
"Too many" is subjective.
Fog wrote:
If this run is able to apply and obsolete three runs (which in my opinion it should), then that would reduce the amount of branches that we have, and streamline what the branch definitions should be.
Arbitrary obsoletions just to clarify branch names? Sounds silly. Once again, dealing with subjective things one needs to rely on statistics. Otherwise it well go like that.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fog wrote:
Then why did no one downvote the ACE run where they did exactly that and got a 6 minute IGT?
Because it looked great within its goals.
Fog wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the IGT does not deserve to be in Moons if it can be easily exploited by multiple methods.
It can't. If some game-breaking glitch or super boring trick is added to that category run, it will be called "ingame, trick X". Have fun collecting votes for that to obsolete the normal ingame run.
Also, see my signature.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
