...you do realize that there other staff on the site aside from you and the admins, right?
Other staff wouldn't matter (neither would I) if admins disagree with the change.
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.
...you do realize that there other staff on the site aside from you and the admins, right?
Other staff wouldn't matter (neither would I) if admins disagree with the change.
GoddessMaria is right. They all should matter. If not, what's the point in having a staff crew? The staff is here to relieve some duties of the admins. It would be great to have their input, but I think this doesn't require intervention of the admins since it's a tiny change (from my perspective) that can be reverted.
Eitherway, Mothrayas has showed some support on this tag. And I can't see this going into a huge debate if it's well defined.
"catch em all" or "diploma" feels like 100%,just saying
Also,"special goals" feels like "playarounds" lol
I've been thinking since near the start of this discussion that one of the key points that I don't believe has been properly emphasized is that movie tags aren't all that important to the website. That's not to say they're unimportant but rather if a movie is miscategorized, is it really going to drive anyone away from the site? Personally, I would rather see a tag implemented inconsistently (within reason) than not implemented at all. For example, I may not be able to pull up every movie that features heavy glitch abuse, but I like that I can see what is at least a representative sample.
Anyway, if I may steer the discussion on a tangent, this has gotten me thinking about how important various aspects are to the website. I don't think we would agree on everything's importance in absolute terms, but perhaps we can do the next best thing and mostly agree on relative terms. Here's my rough list of most to least important subjective aspects of movie publication, off the top of my head:
Judging
Emulation
Submission text
Encoding
Publication text
Discussion of the movie
Tags
User ratings
User votes
Game resource pages
Other forum discussions
(Did I miss anything?)
Entries near the top of the list are things that it is important the site both "does correctly" and "does not do incorrectly" (whatever that may mean in context), while entries near the bottom are less crucial to the reputation, popularity, and overall healthiness of the site.
I'm curious how other members might shuffle items around. How would you prioritize things?
(It may be appropriate to split this off into a separate thread if discussion picks up along these lines.)
I don't think it should. To my understanding, a "special goal" is a custom (acceptable) goal that has to be achieved, and done as fast as possible. This is quite distinct from a "playaround", where there is no requirement for it being "as fast as possible". Also, I think a "playaround" doesn't necessarily need any particular goal (other than getting to the end of the game).
"catch em all" or "diploma" feels like 100%,just saying
Indeed, Nach pointed this out too. When I did the list, I put it there because I considered "gotta catch em all" was the 100% movie and that coop diploma is kind of !100%, but with something added: a 2nd player". Now that I just checked, I just realized it hadthe 100% tag. So yeah I missed that and it shouldn't have been in the list from the start. My bad.
And that gotta catch em all doesn't have the 100% tag. So I should've added that one to the list since the start.
If both has the 100% tag, it should be fine. But what happen to the other movie like [2593] Genesis Sonic 3 & Knuckles "Knuckles, ring attack" by TheYogWog in 1:14:55.91
Where the tags are:
- Aims for in-game time instead of real-time
- Heavy glitch abuse
- Genre: Platform
A newcomer wouldn't be able to find it quickly if he isn't aware that this movie exists.
After some discussion on IRC, it seems that tags aren't used the way I would use them. (I don't even use them in the first place because most of them aren't useful or interesting to me, I use only about 8 of them. I feel most of the tags are there "just to be there")
I don't want to start a new debate on how to use Tags. An alternative would be to improve the filter feature to cut down the any% movies and the 100%. That way we would narrow down the movies to those who has a different goals than the usual any% and 100%.
Maybe it's just my selection of movies list that wasn't perfect from the start. Like you can see, I made a mistake with Coop diploma.
Bobo the King wrote:
I've been thinking since near the start of this discussion that one of the key points that I don't believe has been properly emphasized is that movie tags aren't all that important to the website. That's not to say they're unimportant but rather if a movie is miscategorized, is it really going to drive anyone away from the site? Personally, I would rather see a tag implemented inconsistently (within reason) than not implemented at all. For example, I may not be able to pull up every movie that features heavy glitch abuse, but I like that I can see what is at least a representative sample.
The (sad) thing is everyone here Doesn't like exceptions or ambiguous things. this community tries to follows rules to the letter with no exceptions. Some would even throw a fit or be very unhappy or disappointed if rules are bent or badly defined. I agree with you though.
Personally I don't find it that ambiguous or unclear: special movies :the movie doesn't do the usual any% and 100%.
Personally I don't find it that ambiguous or unclear: special movies: the movie doesn't do the usual any% and 100%.
So, would you include Playarounds or ACE exhibitions in this grouping?
Also (again), wouldn't this just be anything that doesn't qualify for Vault? That feels to me a bit too broad to be a useful search parameter.
I don't think it should be included.
But for the sake of a clear definition, they'd probably need to be included.
It is broad, however, it would allow to find movies like Ring attacks that doesn't have any tags for that. There are plenty of movies that does things differently than the any% and 100% that would be overshadowed by all the others movies. This tag would just group them together.
I don't think it should be included.
But for the sake of a clear definition, they'd probably need to be included.
I dunno about that.
Any% - Completes the game as fast as possible.
100% - Obtains all collectibles (or similar) as fast as possible.
Low% - Obtains the fewest collectibles, second priority is beating the game as fast as possible.
Playaround - No specific goal. Glitch exhibition.
ACE - Injects arbitrary code as fast as possible. Movie is longer to showcase the code and that it is, in fact, arbitrary.
Special goals - Anything not falling into the above list. Usually game-specific goals that that are not associated with tracked collectibles and achievements.
The default should be Any% and anything that isn't should tell you what it is. Note that this does not mean all of these are vaultable, what is vaultable and what is not is not the discussion here.
Any% and full completion are the only things that are vaultable, how can they not mean a run is vaultable?
I meant this to say that I am not discussing what is or is not vaultable- that aspect is unchanged and I'm not even going there. In other words, this entire discussion has nothing to do with what can go in vault and what should go in vault is not something I will be commenting on in this. In short: Vault/Moons/Stars is NOT what I am concerned with here as they aren't changing.
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
100% should be a tag that includes both 100% categories directly and categories that don't follow the % formula directly but still imply a full completion (120 Stars comes to mind as an example). I also feel that "obtain all pokemon" should fall under this category, though there may be a reason it does not.
100% is a "full completion" in that you get everything that generally matters. And I have another comment regarding 100% later, on the All Levels reply.
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Low% should be a tag for runs that complete the game with a minimum % of items or minimum amount of items, where this is slower than just beating the game normally (as failing this it would just be Any%). This should be applied. If more than one Low% is possible, you can use descriptions to differentiate the TASes.
I'm aware it is. This is a list of tags to show where the Special Goal tag would fit in with the other ones we already have on the site.
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
All Levels should be a tag for runs that complete all of the levels/dungeons/worlds/etc. that exist in the standard game in cases where this is not the 100% requirement and where skipping worlds/levels is a valid option. Note that this would not apply when you skip levels within a world but avoid skipping worlds, but *would* apply if you do all the worlds, but out of order (i.e. a warpless run for Mario would not be All Levels, but a run that beats all the levels, even if it does so out of order would be All Levels). As stated before, this also doesn't apply where skipping levels is not an option at all.
We combine this with 100%, as they are both full completion.
Except an "All Dungeons" TAS of a game may not be 100% and may not be Any% and yet still may be a valid TAS that does not fit in either Any% or 100%. In other words, All Levels does not necessarily have to be a full completion of the game, so for this reason should not be combined with 100%. It certainly would be a less used tag but it could have its uses.
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Playaround has been discussed prior, but should be more applied to TASes that don't aim for speed but instead show off technical capabilities of the game or console itself.
Max Score is a 100% alternative for games based on score and not a completion level, and should be the highest score obtainable in the game. This should not be used in cases where 100% is possible (i.e. Max Score and 100% should be mutually exclusive for a given game), even if score is different from 100%.
Best Ending, and its counterpart, Worst Ending, should be completion alternatives where the fastest ending is neither the best nor worst, assuming there are multiple endings. It's not necessary for this to be mutually exclusive with 100% or Max Score, but odds are it will be.
Once again, as stated on Low%, I'm already aware these exist and was including them for description purposes, so as to better show where Special Goal would fit with what already exists.
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Special Goal should be for cases that do not fit under the above tags nor Any%, and could include esoteric goals (such as max coins) that are still optimized for speed (this being a key difference between playaround and special goal).
So that's the only thing that we're completely lacking. But see, your definition of it already differs from Niamek's, who's nevertheless agreeing with you.
I differed on my opinion because I felt the definition was improvable, which is not a negative on the original idea- fleshing things out is a good thing.
feos wrote:
Habreno wrote:
This could include a completion that goes beyond 100% (such as All Permanent Flags, to use an example from Twilight Princess- in addition to 100% we aim to set every permanent flag in the game, which includes opening every chest as well as other things) as well as encompassing some rather obscure glitch categories that don't fall under the above tags.
This part perfectly describes full completion. If something has 101%, or additional tasks that add to completion, we still count these as full completion. You can't go for completion fuller than full, can you? You just have to define it.
If the game has a percentage counter and the game's community defines their 100% as some alternative percentage (like 101% or so) then that is the 100% for that game - whatever the percentage is, you got everything that mattered. A "beyond 100%" completion could, in addition to getting things that matter, also do things that don't matter but are still tracked. In other words, it gets what would be 100% and goes beyond that. As a different example, you can get 100% in Prime 3, but you can also dupe pickups and go beyond 100%, to 255% assuming my memory serves me right. Does this mean that a "100%" TAS of Prime 3 would have to get 255%? No, because the rules of 100% require getting all individual pickups, not simply setting the value to 100%. So 255% would not be a 100% completion, not an Any% completion, certainly not All Levels, absolutely not Low%, but yet could be a Special Goal, fitting into that category by being a completion that goes beyond 100%.
I don't think it should. To my understanding, a "special goal" is a custom (acceptable) goal that has to be achieved, and done as fast as possible. This is quite distinct from a "playaround", where there is no requirement for it being "as fast as possible". Also, I think a "playaround" doesn't necessarily need any particular goal (other than getting to the end of the game).
You understood well what I meant. I don't think it should include playaround since there is already a tag for it.
Bobo the King wrote:
Special goals - Anything not falling into the above list. Usually game-specific goals that that are not associated with tracked collectibles and achievements.
I like that. And I like also all Habreno's point. You all three got the idea behind the tag proposal.
100% - Obtains all collectibles (or similar) as fast as possible.
Low% - Obtains the fewest collectibles, second priority is beating the game as fast as possible.
Playaround - No specific goal. Glitch exhibition.
ACE - Injects arbitrary code as fast as possible. Movie is longer to showcase the code and that it is, in fact, arbitrary.
Special goals - Anything not falling into the above list. Usually game-specific goals that that are not associated with tracked collectibles and achievements.
Disagreement once again, how cute.
"Special goal" as a term means nothing other than not something. If you want it to include everything that wastes time compared to vaultable goal, it's at least definable. If you just want it to contain everything that's not yet present in the existing tags (or some other variant), it's undefinable, and arbitrary in where you draw the line.
The latter would be more useful if it could be defined, because it would contain stuff other tags miss, but I dunno how realistic it would be.
Habreno wrote:
If the game has a percentage counter and the game's community defines their 100% as some alternative percentage (like 101% or so) then that is the 100% for that game - whatever the percentage is, you got everything that mattered. A "beyond 100%" completion could, in addition to getting things that matter, also do things that don't matter but are still tracked. In other words, it gets what would be 100% and goes beyond that. As a different example, you can get 100% in Prime 3, but you can also dupe pickups and go beyond 100%, to 255% assuming my memory serves me right. Does this mean that a "100%" TAS of Prime 3 would have to get 255%? No, because the rules of 100% require getting all individual pickups, not simply setting the value to 100%. So 255% would not be a 100% completion, not an Any% completion, certainly not All Levels, absolutely not Low%, but yet could be a Special Goal, fitting into that category by being a completion that goes beyond 100%.
Then again what you're describing here is what makes an otherwise full completion run unvaultable, since it adds more content than required for 100%, which would mean it needs to 1) be entertaining and unique enough for Moons and 2) have a goal that still feels solid and not too arbitrary. This is fine, such runs must exist. The problem is the actual borderline you draw. Why do you only include the tags you described in the "not special goal" definition?
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.
"Special goal" as a term means nothing other than not something. If you want it to include everything that wastes time compared to vaultable goal, it's at least definable. If you just want it to contain everything that's not yet present in the existing tags (or some other variant), it's undefinable, and arbitrary in where you draw the line.
The latter would be more useful if it could be defined, because it would contain stuff other tags miss, but I dunno how realistic it would be.
Any halfway decent mathematician will tell you that a definition through negation is still a perfectly valid definition. The same should be true for this website; it's not enough to say, "This category is undefinable because the definition you've given me makes me uncomfortable."
"Not vaultable" is a definition through negation. "Not [random pile of tags]" is not a sensible definition of a movie tag. If it was, you'd come up with it without having to pretend it makes me uncomfortable. I'm not aucomfortable about arbitrary borderlines, I'm just saying they are arbitrary.
By undefinable I mean than it can't be put in a way equally meaningful for the vast majority of our users. You've probably never seen users raising flamewars over a definition. Since this place is in a way geek-oriented, you have to have solid rules for things.
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.
"Special goal" as a term means nothing other than not something. If you want it to include everything that wastes time compared to vaultable goal, it's at least definable. If you just want it to contain everything that's not yet present in the existing tags (or some other variant), it's undefinable, and arbitrary in where you draw the line.
The latter would be more useful if it could be defined, because it would contain stuff other tags miss, but I dunno how realistic it would be.
Any halfway decent mathematician will tell you that a definition through negation is still a perfectly valid definition. The same should be true for this website; it's not enough to say, "This category is undefinable because the definition you've given me makes me uncomfortable."
I understand that it comes down to "Not (tag1 or tag2 or ... tagn)", so, in other words, "special goal" means "other"?
I understand that it comes down to "Not (tag1 or tag2 or ... tagn)", so, in other words, "special goal" means "other"?
Yep.
feos wrote:
By undefinable I mean than it can't be put in a way equally meaningful for the vast majority of our users. You've probably never seen users raising flamewars over a definition. Since this place is in a way geek-oriented, you have to have solid rules for things.
If that's so true, shouldn't it concern you that you are literally the only person who has stamped his foot to say, "This is a bad idea?" I entered this thread saying I wanted to hear arguments against this idea from someone in addition to feos. I'm still waiting. You're operating under the assumption that all this bickering and flaming is going to come out of the woodwork after we implement a special goals tag. I appreciate a dose of skepticism and concern, but at some point, someone else needs to step forward in agreement with you.
What's the harm in it, really?
Wow, you can't stop aiming at my personality instead of my arguments. Doesn't look like what a "halfway decent mathematician" would do given the potential policy issues. Moth resolved most of my complaints. You resolved none.
Did you know that forum discussions are for people who care and at the same time have something to say? I've probably been a part of all policy discussions during the last few years. Some people even liked that. Some of my policytweaksuggestions have been implemented as final decisions. Not because I'm powerful. But because I cared, had something to say, and what I said appeared to be practical. So I dunno why things I say are automatically discredited by the fact that I'm the only person in the thread saying them.
you are literally the only person who has stamped his foot to say, "This is a bad idea?"
I never said the idea is bad. It'd be nice to have a list providing movies not present in any other lists, and/or a list of non-vaultable runs. But it has issues to resolve. If your solution to them is "only feos complained about them so it's all fine", I pity you.
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.
Wow, you can't stop aiming at my personality instead of my arguments. Doesn't look like what a "halfway decent mathematician" would do given the potential policy issues. Moth resolved most of my complaints. You resolved none.
Did you know that forum discussions are for people who care and at the same time have something to say? I've probably been a part of all policy discussions during the last few years. Some people even liked that. Some of my policytweaksuggestions have been implemented as final decisions. Not because I'm powerful. But because I cared, had something to say, and what I said appeared to be practical. So I dunno why things I say are automatically discredited by the fact that I'm the only person in the thread saying them.
you are literally the only person who has stamped his foot to say, "This is a bad idea?"
I never said the idea is bad. It'd be nice to have a list providing movies not present in any other lists, and/or a list of non-vaultable runs. But it has issues to resolve. If your solution to them is "only feos complained about them so it's all fine", I pity you.
Come on, man. Don't be a jerk.
As you said, Mothrayas has resolved most of your complaints, so what's my role here? You want me to address your arguments? Okay, let's return to this point:
feos wrote:
"Not [random pile of tags]" is not a sensible definition of a movie tag.
The tags I listed were not "random". I think they form a pretty comprehensive list of common tags that we affix to movies regarding their stated goals. Did I miss one? Fine, tack it on to the list. (I just checked. I guess I missed "Aims for maximum score". There are a few others, but I consider "Demonstration" synonymous with "Playaround" and tags like "Aims for in-game time instead of real-time" to be an augmentation of a primary goal.) So if my definition is "anything that doesn't fall under the other primary goal tags", it's not random and it's not arbitrary.
And I'll remind you, if someone wants to interpret the tag differently, hey, that's fine too. It's still a good tag even if it's not implemented in exactly the manner I would use.
Finally, I've worded this statement really carefully throughout the thread: I would like to see someone weigh in against this idea in addition to feos. I'm not disregarding your idea because you're saying it; if that's what I had meant, I'd have instead typed, "... instead of feos." But ultimately, your reasoning comes across as circular:
"People will complain about this!"
"Who?"
"I'm complaining about this!"
As of right now, you're the only barrier to this being implemented, and before you jump in to say "Nach and adelikat are barriers too", no they're not, they just haven't been consulted yet.
Special goals - Anything not falling into the above list. Usually game-specific goals that that are not associated with tracked collectibles and achievements.
Maybe it should be a bit more specific than that? "Anything not falling into the above list" sounds way too broad. Perhaps something like:
A run that aims to achieve a specific in-game goal, or that uses an in-game limitation, and completes the game as fast as possible while achieving that goal or being restricted to that limitation.
Examples:
- Completes all optional dungeons (if this is not in itself a 100% completion).
- Uses a suboptimal playable character.
- In a game that offers optional routes, chooses a suboptimal one.
- A specific normal game mechanic (such as running) is banned.
@Bobo the King
I have nothing to do with this being implemented, since I have no access to the site code. You can't know whether Nach and adelikat are barriers or not before you talk to them. I've been talking to them for years, which is how I got my habits when it comes to explaining stuff, in order to convince them to implement something.
For quite a few posts already, the only complain I still have is where you draw the line. And I already expressed it clearly. Moth resolved my other complaints, but the one about ambiguity he resolved with putting everything unvaultable under that potential tag. Several people disagree with this. You can not add a tag several parties disagree about. Do you not see this disagreement here? Or you think the only thing preventing the actual implementation is me mentioning this disagreement, and when I shut up it will automatically be resolved? I'll shut up now and see what happens.
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 gave up about the tag.
So here is a link with movies out of the place.
http://tasvideos.org/Niamek/specialmovie.html
Not complete indeed, and out of order.
That's the best I can do. If you see a movie not there, just post it here.
And I know how to make this thing work.
First of all, the idea was to have a list of movies that are NOT vaultable and NOT covered by existing movie classes. Because yeah, you won't find them unless you know they exist and where they are.
Second, with the current system there'd be no clear definition for such game group. So marking something in terms of belonging to some "special" category won't work.
To make everything work we need 2 things:
1. Ability to list all unvalutable movies. This was already proposed and by the nature of our movies it's probably easier to do for unvaultable branches than for any% runs (100% already has a class)?
2. Ability to list movie tokes with the not operator. That'd allow to exclude all branches that have movie goal classes behind them. And the list would finally become automatic.
However, there's a chance that keeping such list manually is more efficient in the end.
Now that I look at the list, the words that come to my mind are: "Arbitrary goal" and "Esoteric goal". Because they indeed are such goals, they just happened to be entertaining.
If you don't like these terms, what about putting all such runs into Demonstration category? Huh? I love this idea the most actually! The list might just need some cleanup.
The definition seems to be exactly what we needed:
http://tasvideos.org/MovieClassGuidelines.html#Demonstration
Dude... We were so stupid.
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 like that. You had the reaction I was looking for. You wrote basically what I meant since the start :)
I do like the terms.
"Arbitrary goal" or "Esoteric goal" that just happened to be (very) entertaining.
(From your writting with some modifications)
I don't really care at how it is tagged, as long as the Arbitrary goal are together. Although I'd rather not use the word demonstration. :)
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: 1/24/2018
Posts: 251
Location: Stafford, NY
I'm surprised "Secondary Game Mode" didn't already have a tag - there's plenty of games (both already with a submission and without one done yet) with that kind of thing!
c-square wrote:
Yes, standard runs are needed and very appreciated here too
Dylon Stejakoski wrote:
Me and the boys starting over our games of choice for the infinityieth time in a row because of just-found optimizations
^ Why I don't have any submissions despite being on the forums for years now...
