The DSS sumoning glitch is not a warp. It is just a high-speed movement that ignores any obstruct in the path. You can tell this with frame-advance, memory watch and/or just the exploration status (colorization) of the in-game map.
Neither are the OoB room-transitions using the DSS sumoning warp glitches. These normal room exits are always working just as expected, in-bound (see below). It's the DSS sumoning glitch that catapults the character out of bound.
There are indeed glitched warping spots in this game but they are all located in a particaular room in the Arena Area, and this run has nothing to do with them.
Yeah, you can safely assume that I am an expert of this game. ;-)
I think I was confused by the movie description, it says "allowing the player to warp directly to Dracula". However, "warp glitch" describes any way to get into later in-game point in a moment, warping around the map at the light speed delivers you to such points, so I think the branch is correct.
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 still say "password". Any particular reason why I would think "warps" means I aim to take the maximum number of warps possible in a run? I agree that "password" has a minimum of description, but I ask to be convinced that "warps" is enough to specify fastest path using warps but "password" isn't enough to specify fastest path using password.
I think it also has to do with how traditional the "warps" goal is: it's instantly clear to most of the people who understand what warps do in the game.
What do you think of simply "final track"? It's inaccessible without a password, so the latter is implied. And it seems we can't formalize in a branch what is it's goal about equipment, so we can rely on mentioning that in the description.
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.
It's clear to me what "password" means to me... but I'm not everyone. Probably what skews my own view is what I did one April Fools'.
It's more a set of tracks than a single track. A set of five tracks. The game refers to it as Round 6, so "final round" might be a better fit than "final track".
To break things down, the method is "password", the effect is "final round", in some terms that makes sense to me. We're preferring the effect in this case, then?
If it explicitly chooses several goals for entertainment, and there are counterpart runs different by one of its internal conditions (including speed-based and obsoleted), such condition needs to be mentioned in each counterpart run.
To break things down, the method is "password", the effect is "final round", in some terms that makes sense to me. We're preferring the effect in this case, then?
We prefer the end goal, something that represents the primary condition and implies the secondary ones.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
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'm accepting this, since it's a lot tighter than your any% submission and the audience liked it a lot, though I still disagree with the "100%" category. Since enemies can be respawned by moving far enough back and coming forward again, it doesn't exactly "kill every enemy", though it does kill every unique enemy due to the fact that spawns are preset.
Though, with no one else bothering to put forth serious category names, let alone any at all, I'm just going to leave the name as "100%". It can still be changed at any time if someone happens to actually come up with something legitimate.
EDIT: also think this got lost in all the SMW discussion:
Memory wrote:
[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
"All kills"? I think only aiming to kill enemies that spawn as you progress through the game is implied, it doesn't make sense to keep respawning the same enemy for eternity in order to kill literally everything possible. Or maybe "maximum kills", since it's impossible to kill literally everything? And it's clearly not full completion and not vaultable.
Memory wrote:
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.
"All kills"? I think only aiming to kill enemies that spawn as you progress through the game is implied, it doesn't make sense to keep respawning the same enemy for eternity in order to kill literally everything possible. Or maybe "maximum kills", since it's impossible to kill literally everything? And it's clearly not full completion and not vaultable.
I'd lean towards the latter I think. Feel that "maximum kills without respawning" enemies sounds better than "all kills without respawning enemies". Not that you would use "without respawning enemies" in the branch name itself, but I'd personally sooner associate "maximum kills" with "oh there might be some other restriction in play" than "all kills".
[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 think I was confused by the movie description, it says "allowing the player to warp directly to Dracula". However, "warp glitch" describes any way to get into later in-game point in a moment, warping around the map at the light speed delivers you to such points, so I think the branch is correct.
While it's very fast (though actually less than 1 screen-height per frame) moving through the long shaft room, it's completed in more than one frame and is slowing down in the procedure, and its trace is even visible to the watcher, which is contrary to the daily impression of "light speed" that light travelling any distance should arrive instantaneously before its trace can be observed.
And to skip into later in-game point is a sequence-break/major-skip, but unnecessarily a warp. Such skips are just ignoring obstructs in the path of the movements, but not a leap from a point in the game space to a logically disconnected one e.g. from one level to another.
Examples:
* [2420] NES King Kong 2: Ikari no Megaton Punch by max12187566 in 02:58.07: skips most of the game but is not (described as) "warped". BTW the previous movie should have the " Major skip glitch" label too.
* [3653] SNES Super Metroid by Sniq in 35:58.31: I have no idea about the weird Moonfall/Superjump things abused in this run, but at least they don't put this movie on a "warp glitch" branch.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
klmz, what definition of "warp" are you using, and where does that definition come from?
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.
klmz, what definition of "warp" are you using, and where does that definition come from?
That Italic text "a leap from a point in the game space to a logically disconnected one". It's my own definition. Some other definitions like this (Wikipedia) seem less appropriate (no restrictions on the "two locations" so what if they are contiguous?).
EDIT: Honestly I have to admit that in video games every movement is discrete and can be considered a micro-warp per frame. But then the point of the "warp" label would be lost. We have to somehow draw a line.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
When I first suggested the term "warp glitch" I used this logic:
- We're getting more and more runs that skip directly to the game end using some glitch. Let's call it "game end glitch".
- What about runs that use glitches to skip very far ahead, but not straight to the game end? Let's calls it "warp glitch".
I don't think it matters how you skip to there precisely. You arrive to a point you weren't supposed to visit that soon, and it's not a game end. Even if it happens consecutively instead of instantly, you still do skip to there. So you effectively warp. The key here is not whether physics engine is used or ignored, but the result of arriving to some completely unrelated area. Does it make sense?
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.
When I first suggested the term "warp glitch" I used this logic:
- We're getting more and more runs that skip directly to the game end using some glitch. Let's call it "game end glitch".
- What about runs that use glitches to skip very far ahead, but not straight to the game end? Let's calls it "warp glitch".
I don't think it matters how you skip to there precisely. You arrive to a point you weren't supposed to visit that soon, and it's not a game end. Even if it happens consecutively instead of instantly, you still do skip to there. So you effectively warp. The key here is not whether physics engine is used or ignored, but the result of arriving to some completely unrelated area. Does it make sense?
Makes sense to me. Also removes the necessity of differentiating in the branch whether or not the physics engine is used to effect the warp. The submission text should be valid enough to differentiate.
Truly, using 'warps' vs 'warp glitch' in the branch should be enough to differentiate between whether or not the physics engine was used (as an intended warp isn't really a glitch).
'Game End Glitch' is a pretty straightforward description.
So "major skip glitch" = "game end glitch" + "warp glitch"? It would be weird to me that "glitching-warping to the end" is not a "warp glitch".
EDIT: And then hypothetically:
* You skip a large chunk of levels with a double-damage-boosting trick in midair, and it's not a "warp glitch".
* Later you start over and skip the same large chunk of levels by the same with a double-damage-boosting trick in midair, this time using a glitched out healing item between the two boosts to survive from dying due to skipping an armor earlier in the game, and now it's a "warp glitch".
That would sound kind of... inconsistent (my vocabulary is limited).
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
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.
No, I haven't got one. Such situation may come true sometime in the future though.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Wouldn't 'major skip glitch' depend on what was accomplished?
Those runs that jump to the end game would fall under 'game end glitch.' Those that only skip part of the game but don't skip to the end would fall under 'warp glitch.'
In essence, 'major skip glitch' is less descriptive than either of the other two.
The only benefit to 'major skip glitch' is that it helps to indicate that a large chunk was skipped whereas 'warp' glitch doesn't indicate how much was skipped.
Is there a "warp glitch" by feos's definition ("to skip very far ahead") not a "major skip glitch"? "Very far" can be in either space or timeline.
I am under the impression that we are all comfortable to call any form of "unintended skip" a "skip glitch", but at least for myself not comfortable to call such a skip like "damage-boosted to a higher place" a "warp glitch". If we agree that is a problem, then I think we can use "major skip glitch" to indicate "biggy unintended skips" that aren't specialized as "game end glitch" or so.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
The other option is to eliminate using the word 'warp' in relation to glitches altogether.
Reserve 'warp' for developer intended game warps, and use 'skip glitch' or 'major skip glitch' in branch labels to indicate unintended skipping of game portions otherwise intended by the developers.
Then you'd end up with the following:
If 'warp' is in the branch, viewers know it wasn't a glitch.
If 'skip' is in the branch, viewers know it was a glitch.
This would allow for easy identification of warped/warpless runs as well as glitched ones.
If a TAS happens to use both intentional warps and unintentional glitched skips, the branch would/could contain both labels. Here's a hypothetical example of this:
For SMB3, someone could use the warp whistles to get to world 7 and perform the game end glitch. This would be a 'warped, game-end glitch' branch. OR someone could play through all the worlds up to world 7 then perform the glitch; this would be a 'warpless, game-end glitch' branch.
Another hypothetical (although insanely unlikely given the game) would be if someone discovered a way to skip from the beginning of each stage directly to the flagpole of that stage in SMB1. Again, both a 'warped' and 'warpless' version would be possible--and depending on the time save of the glitch, the 'warpless' might even be faster, as warped would actually require playing through some of the stages instead of directly skipping to the flagpole. Thus this hypothetical could also use 'warped, skip glitch' or 'warpless, skip glitch' as a branch. Both indicating the use/non-use of intended warps and the use/non-use of glitched skips.
Essentially, the ambiguity of 'warp glitch' would be eliminated.
The other option is to eliminate using the word 'warp' in relation to glitches altogether.
...
Essentially, the ambiguity of 'warp glitch' would be eliminated.
This works for me.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Major skip glitch is a movie class describing a phenomenon that was used in "glitched" branches initially. About 40% of the viewers liked it that way. Another 40% said that it's not descriptive. So we came up with something more descriptive.
First of all, the very term "major skip glitch" was used because it was already common to use the term "major skip" in the RTA world. But that alone doesn't tell anything about glitches such skips originate from. So we used "glitch" to indicate fundamental difference from intended major skips.
Major skip commonly means that some huge chunk of gameplay is skipped entirely. Independently from each other, TAS people and RTA people used to have branches with and without major skips. It is obvious that it's impossible to strictly define the term "major" here. So I added a mention to the movie class description that movies using such techniques skip something like 50%+ of the run that avoids the techniques.
It is also important to know that when 2 runs are judged to be published alongside each other, they are required to represent compelling differences in how they are played. No strict definitions again. But when all other aspects are factored in, we usually end up with a branch that we used to call "glitched" (and RTA people describe it "with major skips") along side a branch that avoids such glitch (or a set of glitches). They indeed have significant differences in gameplay and in final time. In most obvious cases it's more than 50% of the movie.
"Game end glitch", "warp glitch", "SRAM glitch" are branch names. Whenever it's not possible to classify the glitch, we invent a name for it or borrow the name it already has. Like I said, it's important to understand what is accomplished: major chunk of the game is skipped by using some glitch. Avoiding that glitch results in a completely different movie that is usually accepted as a separate branch. This difference is described by the word "glitch" in the branch label: it means we are looking at something fundamentally glitched that isn't even trying to look like regular play.
When the word "warps" (or "warpless") is used as a branch name, it describes intended gameplay element. When the branch name is "warp glitch", it describes unintended gameplay element. I don't understand how it can be confusing to anyone.
klmz wrote:
So "major skip glitch" = "game end glitch" + "warp glitch"? It would be weird to me that "glitching-warping to the end" is not a "warp glitch".
EDIT: And then hypothetically:
* You skip a large chunk of levels with a double-damage-boosting trick in midair, and it's not a "warp glitch".
* Later you start over and skip the same large chunk of levels by the same with a double-damage-boosting trick in midair, this time using a glitched out healing item between the two boosts to survive from dying due to skipping an armor earlier in the game, and now it's a "warp glitch".
That would sound kind of... inconsistent (my vocabulary is limited).
It only makes sense to compare it to a run that avoids this technique, even if it doesn't yet exist. "Warp glitch" doesn't describe game engine mechanics, it describes the result: the glitched major skip. And it skips to something other than game end.
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.
^Thanks for the clarification. The confusion was centered around the incorrect perspective that it was all for branch names.
To make sure I understand this correctly: We should never see 'major skip glitch' in a branch name. There we would either see 'warp glitch' or 'game-end glitch.'
Then 'major skip glitch' would be one of the movie classes listed in the publication.
Yes. And as mentioned, other types of major skip glitches can require other branch names, but indeed this movie class should never go to the branch labels as is (because it's not descriptive).
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.
