Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
I think when speed is the dominant factor of the goal that's not just "warps" or just "warpless", the author doesn't care if it's warped or warpless: whichever is faster is used. Neither warps nor warpless is essential to fastest "game end glitch" Battletoads or SMW. Warp usage in GEG is moot.
Agreed.
feos wrote:
When entertainment is the dominant factor, the author picks whichever adds more unique content and variety, while also better showcasing the goal. So I think SMB "walkathon" cares about being warpless: it's essential to its goal, which is demonstrated by the fact that as soon as warpless route became possible, such a run immediately obsoleted warped walkathon (per your decision). Warp usage in walkathon is not moot.
I agree with your argument. It's not moot. Therefore it should say "walkathon, warpless", so it informs the viewer that it completes everything by walking, and that its aim is to complete as many levels this way, and not to beat it as fast as possible with warping. (Likewise the obsoleted should say "walkathon, warps" so it's clear what it is.)
feos wrote:
But I honestly don't know if it's essential or moot for these runs:
Let me try to analyze each one then, and you can tell me if you agree with my reasoning for it or not.
[1868] SNES Super Mario World "no powerups, maximum exits" by PangaeaPanga in 1:18:23.22
Small only doesn't imply much. Is it showing off the fastest way to beat the game only as small? Or does it describe that as many levels as possible is beaten as small, similar to what you said about Walkathon? What its actual objective is appears to be unclear without additional information.
Using the same logic you mentioned about Walkathon, I think it should probably be "small only, 86 exits". If someone manages to make a small only with more than 86 exits, it will be labeled appropriately and obsolete this one.
[2977] NES Super Mario Bros. "maximum coins" by TEHH_083, HappyLee & CuteQt in 26:10.25
Maximum coins aims for maximum coins however you get it. I don't think warping here ties into the equation. It's not about speed to completion, it's not about some minimum or maximum levels. Since it focuses on coins, the levels played is moot.
[3640] NES Super Mario Bros. 2 "warps, princess only" by mtvf1 & chatterbox in 08:20.83
Completing the game using the princess character could be done with either warps or without it. We can publish both. The title alone just saying princess does not tell me what to expect from the run, does it aim for fastest completion with princess or to show off as many levels as possible completed using the princess? Therefore this should mention it uses warps in order to clarify the matter.
[3648] NES Super Mario Bros. "all items" by Mars608, chatterbox & HappyLee in 19:50.04
If you're getting all items in a game, then I think that implies you're visiting every level in order to get the items in it. No additional information is required.
feos wrote:
And most importantly, how do I as a layperson/newcomer understand this difference between moot and essential? I also need to understand it as a judge. And as a publisher.
The layperson/newcomer obviously does not understand the differences between the various points in this fine discussion we're having. However, different descriptions will mean something to him, and we should ensure what we write conveys information which will leave the viewer mostly informed of what a run is about without misconceptions.
As staff, I think we need to put ourselves into these people's shoes. Most cases should be clear. For the trickier cases, we need use logic above like you did above for Walkathon and I did for the other cases you pointed out.
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
2) More clarity is always preferable. (But avoid information overload, because that obfuscates)
I need to understand this borderline as well.
I don't necessarily know that there is a line. With what we laid out above, I think we demonstrated that "princess only", "walking only", or "small only" lacks information as to whether it's fastest with this criteria or as many levels with this criteria, and requires further clarification. Runs of both kinds are likely to exist on the site (even if some are obsoleted).
On the other hand, something like "No spazer, no wave, no mother-brain constant-kill, yes grapling, no out of bounds, no x-ray, save the animals, no SRAM corruption, pacifist" is complete and utter overkill. We want to avoid these. We also don't want to mention things that should be implied unless explicitly stated otherwise. For this kind of thing, we need to come up with some encompassing names that perhaps don't tell you the full details about the run, but at least point out what the key criteria for the run are.
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.
[1868] SNES Super Mario World "no powerups, maximum exits" by PangaeaPanga in 1:18:23.22
Small only doesn't imply much. Is it showing off the fastest way to beat the game only as small? Or does it describe that as many levels as possible is beaten as small, similar to what you said about Walkathon? What its actual objective is appears to be unclear without additional information.
Using the same logic you mentioned about Walkathon, I think it should probably be "small only, 86 exits". If someone manages to make a small only with more than 86 exits, it will be labeled appropriately and obsolete this one.
Yet I still don't know if "small only" minimizes time or maximizes entertainment with its amount of exits used. Does it sacrifice time and add entertainment by using more exists than needed for fastest completion? I deliberately picked this game, because I don't know it at all, even after having read your rejection of Masterjun's "anti-11-exits". So I think we're not done with this particular run.
Nach wrote:
[3640] NES Super Mario Bros. 2 "warps, princess only" by mtvf1 & chatterbox in 08:20.83
Completing the game using the princess character could be done with either warps or without it. We can publish both. The title alone just saying princess does not tell me what to expect from the run, does it aim for fastest completion with princess or to show off as many levels as possible completed using the princess? Therefore this should mention it uses warps in order to clarify the matter.
I feel like I agree, but I can't formulate why.
Nach wrote:
The layperson/newcomer obviously does not understand the differences between the various points in this fine discussion we're having. However, different descriptions will mean something to him, and we should ensure what we write conveys information which will leave the viewer mostly informed of what a run is about without misconceptions.
As staff, I think we need to put ourselves into these people's shoes. Most cases should be clear. For the trickier cases, we need use logic above like you did above for Walkathon and I did for the other cases you pointed out.
I'm basically asking for a guideline suggestion. This is why I need to have a formula that'd help me figure out whether it's moot or not. Most importantly, if I get hit by a truck, how do new staff members that need to handle this labeling know if it's moot or not? What do I say as I record my valediction to them (before I die on that road), teaching them how to resolve this problem?
Nach wrote:
I don't necessarily know that there is a line. With what we laid out above, I think we demonstrated that "princess only", "walking only", or "small only" lacks information as to whether it's fastest with this criteria or as many levels with this criteria, and requires further clarification. Runs of both kinds are likely to exist on the site (even if some are obsoleted).
On the other hand, something like "No spazer, no wave, no mother-brain constant-kill, yes grapling, no out of bounds, no x-ray, save the animals, no SRAM corruption, pacifist" is complete and utter overkill. We want to avoid these. We also don't want to mention things that should be implied unless explicitly stated otherwise. For this kind of thing, we need to come up with should encompassing names that perhaps don't tell you the full details about the run, but at least point out what the key criteria for the run are.
Same rant about the lack of guideline example. If I can't teach others how to handle something, it means I don't know that myself. Which in turn means I have to run to authorities and ask for their help for each and every case when I don't have exhaustive info about the game.
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:
Nach wrote:
Using the same logic you mentioned about Walkathon, I think it should probably be "small only, 86 exits". If someone manages to make a small only with more than 86 exits, it will be labeled appropriately and obsolete this one.
Yet I still don't know if "small only" minimizes time or maximizes entertainment with its amount of exits used. Does it sacrifice time and add entertainment by using more exists than needed for fastest completion? I deliberately picked this game, because I don't know it at all, even after having read your rejection of Masterjun's "anti-11-exits". So I think we're not done with this particular run.
I agree with your problem. Mothrayas solved this on IRC:
<Mothrayas> Nach: for the branch label discussion, for the SMW small only example, would "small only, maximum exits" be preferred over "small only, 86 exits"? that'd seem clearer to me
I think "small only, maximum exits" tells us that it aims for as many levels as possible within the criteria of small only. It's clearer than my poor 86 exit suggestion.
feos wrote:
I'm basically asking for a guideline suggestion. This is why I need to have a formula that'd help me figure out whether it's moot or not. Most importantly, if I get hit by a truck, how do new staff members that need to handle this labeling know if it's moot or not? What do I say as I record my valediction to them (before I die on that road), teaching them how to resolve this problem?
The first suggestion I can give is that if in doubt, ask staff, ask people familiar with the game for help. This can be in the rules, and IINM, already is.
You are also correct we need more than just ask for help.
For the simpler cases I think we can all agree on what we're looking for. For the more complex cases, I think it ties into understanding why a run was accepted, what are the criteria the run itself aims for, how would we handle other runs that are submitted that aim for much of the same criteria but are not identical. Now obviously we cannot always predict what other kinds of crazy runs may be submitted, but I think even in our more complex cases, at least 90% of the time, we do know what to expect, and at the very least can aim for the correct direction. Our goal here isn't to absolutely 100% prevent never having to adjust things, but to minimize the need to adjust and further clarify as often as we humanly can.
I don't have exact wording of a rule for you, but I think in terms of level completion, we can understand it's tied to how important the levels are to the run, and if the intention is to minimize them or maximize them, or whether it simply isn't relevant for the run in question. Other things like "1p" or "2p" probably is important enough to always mention whenever a game supports that kind of thing, unless an ACE run is submitted which beats the game before player selection even begins.
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.
Most importantly, if I get hit by a truck, how do new staff members that need to handle this labeling know if it's moot or not? What do I say as I record my valediction to them (before I die on that road), teaching them how to resolve this problem?
Interesting choice of arbitrary way to disappear from the site....I'm a bit surprised you didn't come up with a more obscure method.
For what it's worth, I'm hoping you don't leave anytime soon.
Other things like "1p" or "2p" probably is important enough to always mention whenever a game supports that kind of thing, unless an ACE run is submitted which beats the game before player selection even begins.
Amount of players in "game end glitch" is just as moot as warp usage. That's how good my examples are: they address a whole bunch of problems at once.
This is what I observe so far.
When a run aims for showcasing internal goals of the game, it needs a label. Regardless of counterpart runs present or absent. Even if it's a combination of independent internal goals, then we make a compound label.
When a run aims for showcasing external goals, such goals also need to go to the label. But only if they're uncommon. Still, regardless of counterparts. And still allowing compound labels, if each goal has unique nature and is explicitly chosen.
When a run uses a combination of internal and external goals, we need to find out which of them it prioritizes, and which of them it only happens to have as a result of the primary goal.
If it explicitly and independently prioritizes more than one, and each of them is chosen for the sake of unique entertaining content, each needs to go into the label.
If it aims for fastest speed for the primary goal, and doesn't particularly care which other goals happen to be faster, such extra goals don't need to be mentioned in 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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
If it aims for fastest speed for the primary goal, and doesn't particularly care which other goals happen to be faster, such extra goals don't need to be mentioned in the label. -> If it aims for fastest speed for the primary goal, and doesn't particularly care which other goals happen to be encountered, such extra goals don't need to be mentioned in the label.
Aside from the wording which needs some tweaking, I think you've put together something fabulous.
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.
Alright. And what about situations when we have a Major skip glitch run that uses several independent major skip glitch techniques? If we put each, it'd be "information overload", because the goal is already to use major skip glitches, which ones it happens to have used isn't important anymore.
The old "glitched" branch label worked for such cases, but it got retired.
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
We might want a sub tag clarifying the nature. Major skip glitch - maximum, major skip glitch - individual levels.
Again, I'm not saying exactly what we should be looking for, I'm just aiming for a direction. We put on that which best describes the run in question and differentiates it from others.
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.
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
I don't have good answers for you at the moment.
We probably won't be accepting every variation. We should work with the experts of the appropriate games to figure out which branches we're likely to accept and boil them down to clear names for the casual players.
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
This might be a simple question. But, can't we use the RTA community's branch descriptions where appropriate?
They're hardly ever appropriate.
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.
This might be a simple question. But, can't we use the RTA community's branch descriptions where appropriate?
Publisher Guidelines wrote:
Descriptions for branch names which are already well known and in popular use in gaming communities should only be used if they accurately depict the focus and achievements of the run, fit in with the same branch name as used elsewhere on the site, and properly differentiate a particular run from other runs that exist or may appear for a said game.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
I don't have good answers for you at the moment.
We probably won't be accepting every variation. We should work with the experts of the appropriate games to figure out which branches we're likely to accept and boil them down to clear names for the casual players.
I don't mean that they can co-exist, we can only have one major skip branch published. It just can happen to use several glitches that are all major and all save tons of time. But they can all be special and weird, preventing uniting them under one descriptive label. We just can't infinitely stack them in the label. So we need a way to group in one label several independent major skip glitches that we can't otherwise group under existing terms.
If Crash Bandicoot: Warped (JPN) "item glitch, gate clip" is beaten by a run that uses a few more unique major skip glitches, that'd be an example of what I'm talking about. Just remember how "glitched" label was able to unite indefinite amount of major skip glitches in itself. We need a new version of it. Something like "various glitches", except that sounds crappy.
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.
That one is too similar to our "already standard" glitch abuse:
http://tasvideos.org/MovieClassGuidelines.html#HeavyGlitchAbuse
Major skip glitch movie class at least tells what's special about it:
http://tasvideos.org/MovieClassGuidelines.html#MajorSkipGlitch
So while the latter is a subset of the former technically, their difference can at least be comprehended from descriptions of those classes. And we use specific labels for the latter too. So they won't be confused for the former. With "glitch abuse" branch they will. It also doesn't tell that several independent glitches are used at once (which is why I have this question).
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 "small only, maximum exits" tells us that it aims for as many levels as possible within the criteria of small only.
I really like that approach. I always thought that branch names describing the number of exits, stars, etc. used for TASes that aim for 100% completion were vague for people unfamiliar with the games in question. By that logic, I think that the movies I referred to previoulsy should have their branches updated from "# X" to "maximum X". I am willing to do so myself if there are no objections.
feos wrote:
If Crash Bandicoot: Warped (JPN) "item glitch, gate clip" is beaten by a run that uses a few more unique major skip glitches, that'd be an example of what I'm talking about. Just remember how "glitched" label was able to unite indefinite amount of major skip glitches in itself. We need a new version of it. Something like "various glitches", except that sounds crappy.
I don't think that making guidelines or decisions around rare extreme hypothetical cases is sound. I personally like the current approach of listing the individual glitches, since it gives more information.
AzumaK wrote: I swear my 1 year old daughter's favorite TASVideo is your R4MI run :3
xxNKxx wrote: ok thanks handsome feos :D
Help improving TASVideos!
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Zeupar wrote:
By that logic, I think that the movies I referred to previously should have their branches updated from "# X" to "maximum X". I am willing to do so myself if there are no objections.
We should also do the same for minimums.
Super Mario World 11 exits is misleading in that people have no idea why 11. We've had people submit 12 because they think it's a random number.
Although saying SMW minimum exits in this case at least is also misleading, because if someone finds a faster route which uses 15 exits, it'd obsolete the 11 exits. We'd need a solution for this case which informs us it aims for fastest completion without using memory corruption of some kind.
I can give my blessing to renaming the cases where we can make it clearer regarding maximums and minimums. We need to be aware of cases like the SMW 11 I just described though.
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.
I am willing to do so myself if there are no objections.
I agree, just post here what you've changed so we could discuss when needed.
Zeupar wrote:
I personally like the current approach of listing the individual glitches, since it gives more information.
Would you like listing 4 at once? 5?
My take is that we either haven't fully figured out what such glitches do (which would let us use common labels on them), or we're not ready for potential mess. Or both.
Yesterday I also rewrote the whole Structure chapter of Publisher Guidelines, summarizing what we've discussed here lately:
http://tasvideos.org/PublisherGuidelines.html#Structure
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've had a talk with Really_Tall (lasting for 2+ hours) about SM64DS. Turns out, the same main techniques that are used in the current TAS branch to cut down the time by more than 50% are also used in RTA 100% run. They just don't save so much time there, because all stars need to be collected.
https://www.speedrun.com/sm64ds
"Any%" there is what our current TAS aims for.
"8 Star" is what the first TAS did. Obsoleted. by the above
"50 Star" is an arbitrary set of restrictions that only allows some major skip glitches. Probably not even publishable here.
"80 Star" bans all major skip glitches. Also called "intended any%", feels like our trunk/blanck branch on the first glance. Publishable.
"150 Star" allows them again, and also requires all stars. Publishable.
And a few more arbitrary branches.
So if someone makes TASes of other branches, we're only likely to accept 80 stars and 150 stars alongside the current branch.
Overworld/Castle skips are the thing that makes any% so different and short. They are activated by some OoB techniques, which are in turn used in all the less glitched runs as well, just not to that extent. The only branch that completely bans this is 80 stars. Not even 100% run does (I repeat that because it's very notable imo).
What I'm getting at, Castle skips are the same thing as zips in Sonic, BLJ in sm64. Using them is common. Avoiding them is not. So we will label an 80 star run something like "no Castle skips" and remain accurate, as well as correct judging by our system.
Bottomline: The currently published runs of SM64DS are trunk and don't need 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.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Nach wrote:
Using the same logic you mentioned about Walkathon, I think it should probably be "small only, 86 exits". If someone manages to make a small only with more than 86 exits, it will be labeled appropriately and obsolete this one.
Amaraticando recently found an extra exit is possible, and an 88 exit TAS is coming.
Some people are suggesting "maximum exits'', that's not a good label though, as 4 more exits are obviously possible (the switch palaces) and they are forbidden in this category.
4 more exits are obviously possible (the switch palaces) and they are forbidden in this category.
Why? Can you tell the rules and goals so we understand better what to put in 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.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
feos wrote:
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
4 more exits are obviously possible (the switch palaces) and they are forbidden in this category.
Why? Can you tell the rules and goals so we understand better what to put in the label?
Well, I didn't read most of the replies here, but if what you want is to make the label to communicate every goal of the run, you would end up with ''small only, no riding yoshi, maximum exits, no switch palaces''. I'd say staying with ''small only'' is best.
So the extra exits are forbidden because of those 2 forbidden techniques? We don't want to list the rules in the labels, only critical differences and unique goals. If there's a cherry-picked set of tricks that are forbidden to make it more entertaining, we could also list them in the movie description (if we haven't already). I'd need to know if those extra exits are sacrificed for speed or for entertainment.
As for reading the discussion, here's the result everyone seems to agree with:
Post #468111
I think it's important to talk to actual people who run this game before putting labels, so please try to help us keep it accurate and sane while improving the system.
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.
