feos (I'm not gonna bother quoting again):
I understand that you're trying to find a halfway solution, and that's okay. The problem I have with your halfway solution is the way it labels the fastest run, that's why I keep coming back to it.
The problem is one of consistency. We have two ways of publishing movies: they're vault eligible (fastest any% or fastest 100%) or they're entertaining (moons/stars). The problem is that these two things are not mutually exclusive. This means that a movie can be both entertaining and fast.
Say, a new movie is submitted. It's any%, no restrictions, fast and looks optimal. Without looking at entertainment, this makes it suitable for the vault. This means that we're at the very least gonna label/branch/whatever it as the current Any% WR. For the sake of the simplicity of my argument, I'm gonna say we branch it as 'X'.
However, the movie uses a game breaking glitch that allows you to skip almost directly to the ending. There's still some gameplay left before that, and the glitch looks awesome, so the movie is considered entertaining. But hey, that means it's going to moons (at the least). And it's also 'game breaking glitch'/'glitched'/'Y'.
This is what I find weird. We're considering a run 'X' as long as it's in the vault, but if it's entertaining enough to go to moons, we suddenly need to distinguish it from all other movies so we branch it 'Y' [/i]instead[/i].
Yes, being consistent in this means that "if 4 branches avoid X and 1 uses it", we'll end up having a branch for those 4. But why is that such a problem? "Because it's not future-proof", you say. How is it not? I sure hope to god science that 5-7 is pretty much the maximum amount of runs we'd ever have for a given game (and I find that a bit much), so at most you'd label 6. That's still perfectly doable. Sure, you get a new run, you have to adjust 6 labels. Still doable. What's the big problem with this?
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
This topic has been one we were discussing for a while now over IRC. I also highlighted several issues with our current system in one of my recent judgments. The staff has reached a consensus over IRC.
1) The most important point is to give labels which properly define what the run is about. If the labeling needs to be edited upon obsoletion, it shows it was not defined correctly in the first place. Specific numbering should be avoided unless it defines a maximum. In the case of minimums, new minimums may always be discovered, or other routes which shows the wrong tagging was used to define some sort of minimum.
2) All significant differentiators should be tagged where applicable. Even if this means every run for a game now has several tags. However, we should try to find the most meaningful and least arbitrary tags, so we don't end up using multiple tags to take the place of a more generic but precise singular tag. Tags which define avoiding normal gameplay do not need to have counter tags listed in other branches. Meaning, tag walkathon and pacifist, do not tag uses running and kills enemies. However, something like warps and forgoes warps should be tagged on both sets of applicable branches.
3) Sub-tagging is an option, and should be used. For example, regular unrelated tags on runs could be "warpless, pacifist". But where one is a subset of the other, use sub-tags: "low% - grappling hook", "low% - skeleton key".
4) Arbitrary code is now a primary tag which should be used on runs which make use of them, and always has a sub tag. Examples of sub-tags and possible cases they may be used:
Arbitrary code - Scene (Pi)
Arbitrary code - Game ending (Fast Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Battletoads)
Arbitrary code - Level ending (Other Battletoads run)
Arbitrary code - New game(s) (SMW Snake & Pong)
Arbitrary code - Adds cheats (aforementioned rejected SMW run)
Note the above sub-tag naming is examples and can be further tuned. The important point here is the concepts, the wording is not set in stone. Don't take these examples as any anything more than examples either.
5) Arbitrary code is a kind of exception where its counterparts which avoid Arbitrary code don't need to be labeled as such.
6) Further amendments to adjust the above will be made as needed, but they should work within the above framework, and not try to replace it with something else.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
What if "Game ending" doesn't use "Arbitrary code"? Make it just "game ending"? Or maybe "game end glitch" or something?
SM with X-ray glitch would be "X-Ray" or "X-Ray glitch"? X-ray can be used without glitching.
How about using a movie flag to mark what was previously marked by dropping the label, a "fastest category" flag?
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.
I think this is a pretty good solution - certainly a big improvement on what we have now.
(But I'm confused about "Arbitrary Code - Level ending". Why would you just end the level when you have the power to do anything you want?)
(But I'm confused about "Arbitrary Code - Level ending". Why would you just end the level when you have the power to do anything you want?)
Battletoads apply both uses of memory corruption: skipping to game and, and skipping to the next level once. Both are Moons and different enough. Neither is arbitrary code though.
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.
4) Arbitrary code is now a primary tag which should be used on runs which make use of them, and always has a sub tag. Examples of sub-tags and possible cases they may be used:
Arbitrary code - Scene (Pi)
Arbitrary code - Game ending (Fast Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Battletoads)
Arbitrary code - Level ending (Other Battletoads run)
Arbitrary code - New game(s) (SMW Snake & Pong)
Arbitrary code - Adds cheats (aforementioned rejected SMW run)
Motion to split this into just "Game completion" and "Demonstration".
Agreed with only 2 kinds of options for ACE.
Possible names for not completing the game:
- demonstration
- payload
- playaround
For completing the game, it's either "game end" or "some other skip".
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
What if "Game ending" doesn't use "Arbitrary code"? Make it just "game ending"? Or maybe "game end glitch" or something?
Whatever makes the most sense according to rules 1 - 3.
feos wrote:
SM with X-ray glitch would be "X-Ray" or "X-Ray glitch"? X-ray can be used without glitching.
According to rule 1, X-Ray is most certainly not descriptive enough as you pointed out. The latter may also not be if there's more than one kind of X-ray glitch. So perhaps it should be something along the lines of X-ray bound breakingfeos wrote:
How about using a movie flag to mark what was previously marked by dropping the label, a "fastest category" flag?
According to what I laid out, branch names are closely related to the tags set. If a tag is very important, it probably needs to be in the branch. If the tag has polar opposites, they probably need to be mentioned in all branches.
I'll respond better when I have more time.
amaurea wrote:
But I'm confused about "Arbitrary Code - Level ending". Why would you just end the level when you have the power to do anything you want?
As I said, it's an example of a an AC sub-tag. Don't take the examples too seriously. But also see what feos said in reply to this.
Scepheo wrote:
Nach wrote:
4) Arbitrary code is now a primary tag which should be used on runs which make use of them, and always has a sub tag. Examples of sub-tags and possible cases they may be used:
Arbitrary code - Scene (Pi)
Arbitrary code - Game ending (Fast Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Battletoads)
Arbitrary code - Level ending (Other Battletoads run)
Arbitrary code - New game(s) (SMW Snake & Pong)
Arbitrary code - Adds cheats (aforementioned rejected SMW run)
Motion to split this into just "Game completion" and "Demonstration".
Except there can be a dozen different types of AC. Let's not be too hasty in minimizing the list.
feos wrote:
Agreed with only 2 kinds of options for ACE.
Possible names for not completing the game:
- demonstration
- payload
- playaround
For completing the game, it's either "game end" or "some other skip".
Every usage of AC has a payload. Let's really come up with the specific kinds of AC we've seen, not just some larger super sets where a run may end up getting multiple entries there that we all want to keep.
A large keypoint as said earlier is to not have to rename upon obsoletion. So keep that in mind with the suggestions.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
SM with X-ray glitch would be "X-Ray" or "X-Ray glitch"? X-ray can be used without glitching.
According to rule 1, X-Ray is most certainly not descriptive enough as you pointed out. The latter may also not be if there's more than one kind of X-ray glitch. So perhaps it should be something along the lines of X-ray bound breaking
As long as X-Ray glitch is complicated in its results, and quite similar to Crash Bandicoot 2's box glitch in that, and neither skips to ending, their meaning can be put into movie description, and the label be "X-Ray glitch" and "box glitch", telling it's still a game-breaking glitch by its wording.
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.
So the consensus is that the branch name should define the techniques/methods/glitches/routes used to complete the game (which is basically the opposite of what I suggested)?
I envision this causing obsoletion problems (which is one of the reasons why I think that the branch name should not fix any of the techniques used.) If a new run is submitted that uses a different set of the techniques than the old one used, should the branch name be changed or a new branch created?
This could be avoided if the branches, at least the "major" ones, are named in a more abstract manner, ie. in a manner that does not fix how the game was completed.
If you want to get rid of the "nameless branch" idea because the concept of a "default" TAS for a game is too controversial, that's not really the major problem IMO. I was just thinking that it would be nice if there were some kind of "special mark" for the "official speed record" branch, which could aid people in finding it. "This game can be completed in 23:15 using tool-assistance." If there are 10 branches, one of them ought to be the official speed record. It would be useful to mark is as such.
So the consensus is that the branch name should define the techniques/methods/glitches/routes used to complete the game (which is basically the opposite of what I suggested)?
I envision this causing obsoletion problems (which is one of the reasons why I think that the branch name should not fix any of the techniques used.) If a new run is submitted that uses a different set of the techniques than the old one used, should the branch name be changed or a new branch created?
This could be avoided if the branches, at least the "major" ones, are named in a more abstract manner, ie. in a manner that does not fix how the game was completed.
If you want to get rid of the "nameless branch" idea because the concept of a "default" TAS for a game is too controversial, that's not really the major problem IMO. I was just thinking that it would be nice if there were some kind of "special mark" for the "official speed record" branch, which could aid people in finding it. "This game can be completed in 23:15 using tool-assistance." If there are 10 branches, one of them ought to be the official speed record. It would be useful to mark is as such.
I think it's not possible to get rid of the fastest branch (reasons in the previous post). As for "techniques/methods/glitches/routes", it doesn't need to be as specific as Nach said. Instead check out what I was trying to do.
Warp wrote:
I was just thinking that it would be nice if there were some kind of "special mark" for the "official speed record" branch, which could aid people in finding it. "This game can be completed in 23:15 using tool-assistance." If there are 10 branches, one of them ought to be the official speed record. It would be useful to mark is as such.
That's what I suggest here and on IRC. At least a few more people agreed with the movie flag idea.
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.
I can only really speak to Zelda 2, the only game on that list I'm familiar enough with to understand what exactly is going on.
The way it is now, with the short run being unnamed and the long run being tagged as something that doesn't use every technique known is fine and makes a lot of sense in this case, I think.
I personally preferred "glitched" and unnamed because it was vague enough that we could use common sense to decide what to include in which run without having to explicitly define everything. Viewers can look at these two runs and see that, yeah okay, even though both of these use an any% route, one's obviously not as close to what zelda 2 usually looks like as the other.
If you want vague names for both and rely on the movie description to explain what's happening "glitched" and "no oob" or something along those lines is fine.
If you want more specific names, "uses l+r acceleration, wrong warps" and "no l+r acceleration or wrong warps" is good. I've come to prefer wrong warps to unintended exits, even though neither name perfectly describes what's going on I think WW is a more familiar kind of name for people.
"No l+r, no healer glitch, no fairy glitch, no scroll lock" is technically exactly what's intentionally left out of the longer run, but that's getting a bit wordy.
Additionally, unnamed and "avoids game-breaking glitches" with the movie description explaining what those are is sufficient as well.
1) The most important point is to give labels which properly define what the run is about. If the labeling needs to be edited upon obsoletion, it shows it was not defined correctly in the first place. Specific numbering should be avoided unless it defines a maximum. In the case of minimums, new minimums may always be discovered, or other routes which shows the wrong tagging was used to define some sort of minimum.
2) All significant differentiators should be tagged where applicable. Even if this
means every run for a game now has several tags. However, we should try to find the most meaningful and least arbitrary tags, so we don't end up using multiple tags to take the place of a more generic but precise singular tag. Tags which define avoiding normal gameplay do not need to have counter tags listed in other branches. Meaning, tag walkathon and pacifist, do not tag uses running and kills enemies. However, something like warps and forgoes warps should be tagged on both sets of applicable branches.
3) Sub-tagging is an option, and should be used. For example, regular unrelated tags on runs could be "warpless, pacifist". But where one is a subset of the other, use sub-tags: "low% - grappling hook", "low% - skeleton key".
(etc)
That sounds like a very workable approach, and "arbitrary code" is a clear and objectively defined term, so good to use here. It looks like this will settle the recent discussions well.
I can only really speak to Zelda 2, the only game on that list I'm familiar enough with to understand what exactly is going on.
The way it is now, with the short run being unnamed and the long run being tagged as something that doesn't use every technique known is fine and makes a lot of sense in this case, I think.
I personally preferred "glitched" and unnamed because it was vague enough that we could use common sense to decide what to include in which run without having to explicitly define everything. Viewers can look at these two runs and see that, yeah okay, even though both of these use an any% route, one's obviously not as close to what zelda 2 usually looks like as the other.
If you want vague names for both and rely on the movie description to explain what's happening "glitched" and "no oob" or something along those lines is fine.
If you want more specific names, "uses l+r acceleration, wrong warps" and "no l+r acceleration or wrong warps" is good. I've come to prefer wrong warps to unintended exits, even though neither name perfectly describes what's going on I think WW is a more familiar kind of name for people.
"No l+r, no healer glitch, no fairy glitch, no scroll lock" is technically exactly what's intentionally left out of the longer run, but that's getting a bit wordy.
Additionally, unnamed and "avoids game-breaking glitches" with the movie description explaining what those are is sufficient as well.
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.
Glad this is finally settled. And good work changing all those branches, feos!
I also support the idea of movie flags and think that icon is perfect. That would go up next to the Vault/Moon/Star logo for each movie, right?
Do the slower Takeshi no Chousenjou, Contra 3, Kirby's Adventure, Crash 2, and SML2 runs still need branch names now that you added something similar to "game end glitch" for each of their faster counterparts? If they don't, I can go ahead and remove them.
I also support the idea of movie flags and think that icon is perfect. That would go up next to the Vault/Moon/Star logo for each movie, right?
Yes, that sounds good.
Do the slower Takeshi no Chousenjou, Contra 3, Kirby's Adventure, Crash 2, and SML2 runs still need branch names now that you added something similar to "game end glitch" for each of their faster counterparts?
Maybe we should call them "End Game Glitch" (EGG for short) and then give them a little egg icon :D
Using the Contra 3 example:
SNES Contra 3: The Alien Wars (USA) "pacifist" - differs from any other (existing and possible) branch by being pacifist.
SNES Contra 3: The Alien Wars (USA) "game end glitch" - differs from them by skipping to end.
But how to call SNES Contra 3: The Alien Wars (USA) "no warp glitch", since it's just a regular completion, neither glitchy nor pacifist? If there is a 1-player run some day, it would be clear: call them 1 player and 2 players. But what to do now? Maybe 1 player never works out. Maybe REALLY leave it blank, and all the similar ones?
Even Super Metroid runs
SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch" and
SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch, ingame time"
ask for some fix. But they are also "no game end glitch" and "no GT code" as well as "no X-Ray glitch", which would make it sound imbecile altogether.
SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch, no game end glitch, no GT code, ingame time" in 39:15.3 by Saturn.
Hahahahahahaha!
While making them
SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) in 38:41.52 by Taco & Kriole
SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "ingame time" in 39:15.3 by Saturn
sounds the most mature and sane. Because really, they do nothing exceptional from all the other branches. They just beat it.
And for speed record geeks, we would flag the "GT code, game end glitch" branch, since GT code was suddenly considered legit.
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.
I also support the idea of movie flags and think that icon is perfect. That would go up next to the Vault/Moon/Star logo for each movie, right?
Only for branches that are really known to be fastest possible. Like Megaman X2 100%. It's faster than any lower amount of items. But things like Speedy Gonzales 100% would not get the flag, since there's a faster branch. Or if you asked about placing, then it will be right where all the other flags are.
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.
I envision this causing obsoletion problems (which is one of the reasons why I think that the branch name should not fix any of the techniques used.) If a new run is submitted that uses a different set of the techniques than the old one used, should the branch name be changed or a new branch created?
This is fine too.
Really, my main concern originally was that by getting more specific with the naming, we shouldn't conflate breaking the way Link moves within a room with breaking the way rooms connect any more. Especially considering the two things have nothing to do with one another. I just couldn't come up with a good suggestion for a name to encompass the various ways connections are broken.
In the past I was less concerned because "glitched" could mean anything, and how it was sold on the site didn't bother me.
(The descriptions still present l+r as the main thing, which is probably fine since moving at ~5x normal speed is the first thing that jumps out at you)
I envision this causing obsoletion problems (which is one of the reasons why I think that the branch name should not fix any of the techniques used.) If a new run is submitted that uses a different set of the techniques than the old one used, should the branch name be changed or a new branch created?
Has this been properly answered?
What was said by Nach was examples and possibilities. They can be used once we feel they work. And if without them it still works, those specifics aren't needed.
About obsoltions. The label actually needs to be common enough to allow obsoletions by using different techniques without changing the branch. Like, Super Mario World "warps". It was done with 11 exits, but can appear faster with 12 or 1, without game-breaking glitches (arbitrary code and whatnot). So "warps" includes all possible techniques within that branch. As does "game end glitch". It doesn't matter how it skips to ending, it matters how fast.
But still, there's a possibility that one branch obsoletes another different one, if people feel their content overlaps enough. It would be cross-branch obsoletions, as happened to Cross Fire "pacifist" (absoleted by any%).
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.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Let's not pollute the issue here.
This labeling issue should in no way affect what content is published to the site, and what content is obsoleted. Those should be decided as policy, and then we figure out the most logical naming system. Whatever is decided here isn't going to allow/disallow obsoletions.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
