My friend received this medallion with what seems to be an Asian character for her birthday. So she wants to know if it means anything.
Here is the photo she sent me:
And here it is flipped horizontally, just in case:
Any help? Thanks in advance.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I agree with Grunt in regard to posting links where it's most appropriate. However, doing it more than once in the same thread is redundant and pointless. Keep this in mind, GGG.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In regards to the bounty points I brought up earlier, the bounties can be decided as an automatic process involving the following formula:
bounty = (publ. uptime in days) / (avg. tech rating)
Additionally, it would only kick off when any two of the following conditions are met:
1) 2 years of uptime;
2) average tech rating below 6.0;
3) the resulting bounty is above 100 points.
Thus, it is designed in a way to promote large improvements (and to get rid of substandard movies in a correct way) in favor of frame-shavings on movies that are old but already deemed good.
Examples:
Rockin' Kats (full game) — 369 points,
Super Castlevania IV — 251 points,
OoT (any%) — 221 points,
Yoshi's Island (full game any%) — 197 points,
Atlantis no Nazo — 173 points,
Mega Man 5 — 167 points,
SMW (96-exit) — 140 points,
Sonic 2 — 136 points,
NES Marble Madness — 99 points (movie is still good enough but will be eligible for a bounty in a few days),
Bubble Bobble — 385 points (not eligible anymore, though!).
Please note that a large amount of technical ratings is by itself outdated at this point, otherwise most of these bounties would have been higher. Maybe we could urge the users to re-evaluate their ratings in some way?
Also, this:
<Dacicus> Also, what would be the point of these bounty points?
<mzh|lap> well, see, the current trend is to fuel the competition with lots of numbers.
<mzh|lap> first we had ratings, then awards, then formula-based player ranks.
<Dacicus> oh
<Dacicus> and next would be points acquired for obsoleting certain TASes?
<mzh|lap> haha, hope not.
<mzh|lap> this already has a feel of "Achievement unlocked!" to it.
<mzh|lap> to be honest i would prefer it if none of that would happen, but a bounty system still feels a lot better than obsoletions by a grue.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Perhaps it all boils down to how much the run is known to be improvable by. This raises the question, when is a run "very improvable" and would fit such a list? If it has 20 seconds of known improvements? 10? 5? 1 minute? This discussion raises many deep questions... :)
I'm not taking any stand here, I'm just bringing up some points.
I think neither absolute nor relative improvablity should be a standard; instead, it should be defined on a per-game basis like most other things here.
There would be several purposes for the list. The first is to provide an easy and accessible index for improvement bounties together with expected goals and links to new information. The second is to inform that there have been new developments since the last movie was published. The third is to encourage beginners and undecided players to make something a bit more productive than shaving off a few frames from a movie that is good already.
Maybe we could assign some kind of bounty points since that would go in line with certain directions the site has been taking the last couple years. Personally I would take cash out of the equation.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I agree with fruitbane and CtrlAltDestroy wholeheartedly.
Obsoleting movies this way is really no much different from unpublication, because this would effectively open the gates to saying "we don't want this movie here" to any outdated movie the staff doesn't particularly like, retroactively calling their publication a mistake.
Mukki wrote:
F-Zero and Top Gear should both be removed. The publications should be deleted and the submission files grued. This should be done because this site hosts complete and finished TASes, these are, in my view, nothing more than published WIP runs. Publishing them was a mistake.
This argument is not much better. Instead of inviting players to obsolete an incomplete run with a full one, we're calling it a mistake and are done with it.
Mukki wrote:
For the record, I strongly dislike the idea of having a "Highly Unoptimised" tag. To me it just creates a "this is a shit movie" impression, which may well be the case, but I don't think it should be labeled as such. It is both extremely disrespectful to the author and doesn't represent the ways in which improvements can arise.
That pretty much depends on the wording. TASVideos is a competitive scene so it's obvious that improving existing publications is a goal in itself, and every author knows that and realizes that one day their movie will be obsoleted (and if they did their best in making it, normally they would look forward to that day).
So instead of calling a movie improvable, we could make some kind of a "wanted" tag that would lead to a page listing major improvements in movies together with conservative estimations of time saved that would make them eligible for publication (i.e., if the unassisted run of OoT clocks in at around an hour, a conservative estimate for a submission would be, say, 0:55). This should be done to avoid the fiasco of large improvements that remain very improvable upon submission we've seen twice with that particular movie.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I was browsing some Japanese blog of a player I know, and there were a couple links to interesting programs that I had not heard of before.
First, Flash-based tests meant to measure your average reaction time to visual stimulus:
http://70.84.61.34/~fundotn/Games-D5-140406/reaction.swf (can be used offline);
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php (online with leaderboards).
I have an average of 175 ms on those two tests.
The second is a Windows-only ABX (blind test) program that measures your sensitivity to input lag. When you start, you need to choose the test variable. "1 or 8" means one subject will have 1-frame latency and the other 8-frame. You can switch between them using spacebar. When you determine the lagged subject, press enter to write down your choice. Repeat until 20 results.
So far I've managed to pass 1 or 3 test with 100% confidence, but in 1 or 2 I can only guess.
Disclaimer: I'm using a CRT monitor, USB mouse and PS/2 keyboard.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Resetting does not provide a power-on state. Power-on implies the power had been off prior to turning it on; reset doesn't do anything to power supply.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
It does indeed make more sense, but sadly it won't be possible. The time gained will be lost later, because of not being able to use Disc Armor on a Werewolf. I'm very certain Bone Pillar won't make it out of the Study without reaching 0 mana. Well... you cannot use Bone Pillar under 2 mana, so I guess that is impossible, but that doesn't really change my point.
You mean even if you manipulate more [big] hearts from the candlesticks? Is mana concern the only reason you won't be able to use Disc Armor on the Werewolf?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you can substantiate the need of speed upgrades for increased entertainmant value, then by all means, go ahead. Personally, I'm fine with using savestates for a game like this, but you may want to consult with judges first.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I also think it would make more sense to skip Catoblepas. It's very unlikely mana problems will sum up to over two seconds of killing it and switching to and fro' between the souls.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I do too, but I think only for this category. Many categories did not have a whole lot to choose from. This is the best of the best so I think it's reasonable to have a second place.
On the other hand, every run presented here already has a golden award for the best TAS of its respective system, so I'd say it's probably the least warranted of all categories. :D
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Whoa, that was unexpected. The level of polish you're aiming for with this run is amazing, best of luck in redoing it! I guess I don't have anything left to suggest because this looks perfect.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Both any% are about as good as they get. As far as I know there are no new tricks known for them aside from frame-scale optimizations.
100% is pretty good already, but a new one is in the works (see a couple pages back).
Low%-speed is close to perfect. Low%-ice is good for the most part, but I don't think there's anyone planning on improving it. Even in that case there aren't that many known improvements for it (probably 25-30 seconds in total, NameSpoofer should correct me on this).
I think an RBO run is in the works.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
AoS, with SotN coming close second. I guess I'm a castlevania nut after all. :V
Though in all honesty, all presented runs were great.
For the record, I second the notion of awarding silver trophies.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
And here it is flipped horizontally, just in case:
Any help? Thanks in advance.