Post subject: Standard Class Discussion (formerly Vault Expansion)
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Senior Judge, Skilled player (1671)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2487
Location: Northern California
Exotic platforms TAS of 2020Sega TAS of 2016
EDIT (8/15/2021): Instead of being expanded, the Vault system has officially been retired as of today! We are moving away from tiers and into just general acceptance and archival, no longer dividing the runs on our site by entertainment value or using it as a metric for judging every single run that comes in. Victory is ours! This thread will now be used to collect and discuss feedback on the implementation of this new system. Implementation is currently still in progress, so any and all feedback is appreciated! We'll be continuing to collect feedback going forward as well, so if I forget to remove this message after several years, feel free to pretend it's still relevant and post your feedback anyway!
Huh, this feels familiar. So, we've had this tier for nearly a decade now. There's definitely been some opinions on it, some positive, some negative, and not all of the negative ones even belong to me! In fact, there's kind of a growing sentiment in general about Vault not quite being a perfect system, to the point where it's about to replace Communism as the average college freshman's go-to "It's a good idea in THEORY, but in PRACTICE..." argument. The current nature of Vault is that it's supposed to be a completely objective tier, one that cares only about speed and completion. Play a game in the fastest way possible, and do everything in a game in the fastest way possible. A good idea in THEORY, but in PRACTICE... It's still incredibly restrictive: "any%" being the pure "fastest completion" category means that it is entirely possible for something like a "game end glitch" run to be the only acceptable run for a game, assuming that game allows it and doesn't meet entertainment standards. "100%" is extremely hard to define for certain games (RPGs come to mind), and may not even apply at all, meaning that once again there could only be one acceptable run for a game under our current Vault ruleset if a game just doesn't have a proper "full completion" definition. Games aren't exactly objective to begin with, limiting our objectively accepted categories in such a way is, almost ironically, one of the more subjective things we're doing on the site. How do we look at games more objectively, then? This is something that's going to take some community discussion to really iron out, but we've started coming up with a potential new system that should greatly expand Vault in a satisfying way, allowing for more runs to be accepted without opening the doors wide enough to accept absolutely everything: Instead of strictly only allowing fastest and full completions in Vault, we would allow any objective goal for a game. By objective goal, we mean "something that is defined or limited by the game itself". Here are some big examples, but definitely not EVERY example:
  • Pure fastest completion (GEG, ACE, etc)
  • Warps (or fastest "intended" completion)
  • Warpless/All levels (warps are an intended shortcut so not using them counts as an objective goal)
  • 100% (assuming it can be defined objectively)
  • Score attack (an objective goal with room for improvement in the same vein as fastest completion)
And here's a list of smaller things that are more dependent on the game, but still objective:
  • Gameplay modes (including things like New Game +)
  • Number of players
  • Character choices
  • In-game defined goals (i.e, achievements, things that reward the player with content)
Now this sounds like a lot. In fact, this sounds like several thousand of the runs on the site. You're entirely correct to think that, person I invented for this paragraph! The long term goal here is redefining the tiers in a more standardized way. Currently, Moons is treated as the "default" tier, a relic of the site's past where entertainment was a strict requirement for publication. Even with the addition of the Vault to open the site up, we still limited it pretty heavily at the time, and to this day it's not exactly a welcoming place. It's not fun to be a Judge and have to say "Well, people think your run is boring, so we're gonna put it in the part of the site most people ignore". It reeks of the exact same elitism that the Vault was meant to mitigate. Expanding Vault in this proposed way would effectively bring it up to the "default" tier of the site. A change as big as this would lead to the following: Redesign Vault would no longer be Vault. It doesn't sound like a big change on paper, but it's arguably the most symbolic. Given that this would be the biggest tier by thousands of movies, it shouldn't carry the same sort of aesthetic as it currently does. This could either be getting a new name and logo, or it could be removing the concept of "tiers" altogether and just having "Vault" be a set standard. In that case, Moons would just be a tag in the same vein as Console Verified or Commentary, denoting that the run is "non-standard" and was voted on by the audience to be a part of the site. Branch discussion "Too many branches" would have a much higher cap, since most games would automatically gain several publishable branches due to this change. This would also smooth out the debates over particular games getting more attention than others: Gone are the days where SMB1 or Super Metroid can have 10 branches a piece while other games can only ever have one, so there's less implied favoritism over certain games. Of course, Moons would be treated the same way as before, favoring audience reaction heavily, but even these days we don't get many submissions that would have to be Moons under this new system. There's a point to be made that "objective criteria" can lead to a massive number of branches for certain games, particularly fighting games with multiple characters, gameplay modes, and difficulties. We would still limit this in some way, even though it does kinda directly go against this proposal. The difference here is that it wouldn't be an unwritten, undefined, arbitrary limitation this time around. We're still a fairly small staff team, and this could be a change that drastically increases our individual workflows, so we want to find the right balance between allowing as much as we can, and not overworking ourselves trying to keep up. We'd find a way, with the help of y'all as the community, to pin down a limit that works for everyone here. A change in the culture For me, personally, this is the most exciting change. Entertainment would no longer be a metric for every single submission that comes in, only movies that wouldn't qualify for the new Vault. Vault would no longer be seen as a burial ground for movies that weren't entertaining enough, there's no stigma for making a movie that's "too boring" anymore. I've seen the current sort of "entertainment culture" negatively affect a lot of newer TASers on the site throughout my time here and it would be really very nice if that could stop, thank you very much. Demonstrations There's a discussion to be had about what can be allowed as a Moon as well, perhaps even opening that up more, relaxing some of the strict requirements that have prevented completely legitimate TASes from being showcased on the site. A lot of the reason we never had something like a "Demonstration Tier" is the fact that it was hard to define what would be allowed as a demonstration. Ironically, I think the discussions surrounding that were looking at it a little too objectively, as opposed to just being "Well, if the audience wants it on the site, it should be on the site." With a massive increase in the range of content we explicitly allow, it seems fair that we can encourage similar variety here.
So what do you all think? Does the general idea sound like a good step forward for the site? What needs to change, if anything? Any comments, suggestions, questions, or ironic joke posts you may have, (Samsara,) post away and let's get this discussion rolling.
TASvideos Senior Judge <3 Ask me anything! Twitter
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Noxxa
Any
Admin Assistant, Experienced Forum User, Expert player (3698)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4030
Location: The Netherlands
Exotic platforms TASer of 2018Exotic platforms TAS of 2018Exotic platforms TASer of 2017Exotic platforms TAS of 2017Exotic platforms TAS of 2017Exotic platforms TASer of 2016Exotic platforms TAS of 2016Gameboy TASer of 2013
I've talked about this in some private discussions, that the inherent nature of a strict tiering system is that some tiers will be seen as lesser and some seen as superior. For something like that to be fixed, I would like to scrap the idea of a strict tiering system entirely, and do something akin to old TASVideos were publications were just publications, with just Stars representing the top publications (with some hand-picked Moons representing a larger group of top publications). The way I see something like this suggestion pan out, we'd still have Stars for the top, a Demo grouping for esoteric goals, and the other movies with standard goals being just standard publications. Just scrap the nomenclature of Moons and Vault, I think they just make things harder to understand and give implicit preferences that shouldn't exist for one of the two types of publications. That aside I do like the ideas that are presented.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa (formerly known as Mothrayas) <dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects. <Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits <adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Player (230)
Joined: 12/14/2006
Posts: 701
Sega TASer of 2018
Right, if the large majority of publications are going to be standard or default, why have an official label at all? Just make them "publications"
Memory
She/Her
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1249)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1631
Location: Dumpster
GBA TASer of 2020GBA TAS of 2020GBA TASer of 2019Exotic platforms TAS of 2018
I agree with both the main post and also the suggestions to remove labels. I'll probably have more to say in the future but for right now, this is the kind of change I've been wanting to see out of tasvideos for a while.
[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
fsvgm777
She/Her
Experienced Forum User, Player, Senior Publisher (174)
Joined: 5/28/2009
Posts: 1094
Location: Luxembourg
I wholeheartedly agree with the proposal to remove the tiering labels entirely, and we should absolutely shift away from entertainment being a factor when a movie gets submitted. It's just an arbitrary factor to me.
Twitter account - Steam Community page Oh, I'm just a concerned observer.
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1058)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10494
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
The concept of "objective goal" is actually already used on the site, in branch labeling.
Publisher Guidelines wrote:
The point of branches is to highlight specific goals that runs may conform to. These goals are highlighted, because they introduce gameplay differences into TASes that are significant enough to be published as separate branches. Two kinds of goals exist:
  • Internal condition - something the game directly and unambiguously offers as an optional component of play which significantly affects what is seen from the game (warp usage, player amount, character choice).
  • External condition - something the players limit themselves to (exact completion percent, pacifist, certain glitch set).
In this post by Warp, those 2 concepts are called "goals" and "restrictions". The proposal I had in mind is that we have more branches allowed for Vault (or whatever it ends up becoming) based on objective/internal goals, and then all the subjective/external restrictions intended for Moons would need to be entertaining to be published.
The good thing about objective/internal goals is that they have objective limit for every game. It's not like allowing them all would automatically mean that we need to accept infinite amount of arbitrarily esoteric branches. Sure the number could be really high if there's a variety of options and their types, which leads to insanely high number of all possible permutations for compound goals. For example, all characters and their combinations for 1P, 2P, 3P, 4P, warps, warpless, hard, normal, easy, etc - that would be crazy to allow it all. Yet, as long as it's not limited to just "fastest combination of all options" (the thing we call any%), it may become a nightmare to determine the borderline of acceptability. The borderline when "now it's actually too many branches".
"Too restrictive" is what we have now. It's painful to handle in way too many situations, and limits TASers in creativity. It depends on whatever the current judges agreed about, which may change over time and with different judges. "Too loose" on the other hand results in indefinite amount of branches, even if it's tied to something objective. It may disappoint people because they feel it doesn't "make sense" to publish that many.
So maybe instead of defining hard rules for fine borderlines, we should instead come up with generalized guidelines for blurred borderlines? After all, the actual borderline between clear record and entertaining side goal is never this but something closer to this For the extremes, if it's a super clear record, we don't need it to be entertaining (game end glitch), and if it's super entertaining, we don't care about its record value (playarounds). But in the middle, there's some overlap of uncertainty (dunno how to draw it), when we're not sure about acceptace on either ground. And those are the worst to deal with. Which kinda means, if we invent a way to handle this middle ground gracefully, the system will be more satisfying and robust.
Indeed it looks like we just want to go back to pre-tier system, because those aren't even layers anymore, just 2 separate entities that sometimes have overlap. But what we need to adjust compared to old TASVideos is lowering the entertainment cutoff and increasing the branch count cap. This is probably a nice reason to try switching from global and absolute rules to per-game rules? Per-game rules decided by judges and the TASers and the audience? Per-game rules that would reflect what makes sense for a given game? At this point it's obvious that we can't come up with rules that work for all games. I've been doing this for years, together with admins and judges, and there's some progress. But it's at the cost of Movie Rules constantly expanding, making it impossible to remember them all for judges and to comprehend them all for TASers. And it gets gradually harder to adjust, because by becoming more complex, the system becomes more fragile. More aspects have to be considered every time, more mental resources are required to wrap your head around it. And finding the right balance between technicality and entertainment also becomes more difficult as fundamentally new situations pop up. And we can never be sure we have enough outlook and expertise to handle everything in a future-proof way.
So I'm starting to think that asking ourselves "What should be fine to accept?" is a question impossible to answer in a satisfiable way. And making rules out of it won't ever be an enjoyable endeavor. Coming up with generalized guidelines based on "What we all agree we should keep rejecting?" is a much more helpful solution, that could then be applied on a per-game basis depending on what a given game has to offer.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 2/11/2015
Posts: 41
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
I agree with this too. Vault quickly sort of became synonymous with "oh it's just there so there's a movie on the site" which implied there was hardly any quality control (which obviously isn't true) Personally though for me I've never paid attention really to any of that stuff
Editor, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 2/2/2021
Posts: 103
Location: Midwest
This is a change I've been hoping for, for a long time. The stigma I've seen around Vault movies has become really annoying. Just because it didn't happen to be entertaining to the people who watched it at the time of submission, doesn't mean it's a waste of time to watch and appreciate. You could have an extremely technical TAS, on a game that's inherently very boring to watch (maybe there's slow movement, or a lot of walking/waiting, long transitions, etc). It's always seemed to me that people generally regard Vault as more of a dumping ground for boring movies that are still acceptable for technical reasons. A sentiment akin to "This is so boring, just put it over there with the others, out of the way." I recall coming across this movie where the focus on entertainment was so strong, someone argued that it shouldn't have been made at all. As I understand it, and believe, besides superplays, TASes are supposed to be about making the perfect/fastest speedrun for any given game/goal. There have been numerous movies that did just that, but then are ignored or overwhelmingly-criticized because it wasn't also entertaining. Consider, that the shorted TAS accepted on this site, is in the Vault, solely because it was not entertaining enough. (hard to be entertaining when the run is less than 1 second long, and yet it got 63 yes votes)
TAS Verifications | Twitter | Github | Discord: Bigbass#9631
Memory
She/Her
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1249)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1631
Location: Dumpster
GBA TASer of 2020GBA TAS of 2020GBA TASer of 2019Exotic platforms TAS of 2018
...WAIT I JUST REMEMBERED THE ONE THING THIS DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS. OK so currently there is a split between moons and vault where speed/entertainment tradeoffs are not encouraged for vault (it is said that a run without said tradeoffs would obsolete one with) but encouraged for moons. How would we handle that with this new system?
[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
InputEvelution
She/Her
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/27/2018
Posts: 110
Location: Australia
So there's an interesting borderline case in regards to "in-game defined goals" I'd like to bring up, particularly in regards to low% categories. Taking a look at the Portal series, it's reasonable to argue that "Least Portals" is an internal goal in both games. Portal has a "Challenges" mode where players explicitly attempt to reduce their completion time, portal count or step count in chambers, and Portal 2 adds online leaderboards to increase competition over these metrics (though step count is dropped). In this case, would Least Portal runs of the main campaigns in these games be considered applicable for the Vault/"objective goals tier" under the proposed changes?
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Senior Judge, Skilled player (1671)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2487
Location: Northern California
Exotic platforms TAS of 2020Sega TAS of 2016
Memory wrote:
OK so currently there is a split between moons and vault where speed/entertainment tradeoffs are not encouraged for vault (it is said that a run without said tradeoffs would obsolete one with) but encouraged for moons. How would we handle that with this new system?
It wouldn't be Vault anymore, so I see no reason not to allow them across all publications. Obsoletions would still need to be faster and have actual gameplay improvements (i.e, you can't just remove the tradeoffs and get accepted), but tradeoffs should freely be able to obsolete no tradeoffs (and vice versa). Vault in its current state kinda stifles creative freedom, where depending on the game, you almost have to make a choice between trying to be entertaining and having your movie published at all. This is kind of another major flaw of the Vault in my opinion: When it was implemented, the site went from "you MUST be entertaining at all costs" to "you MUST be entertaining but only if the game is entertaining, otherwise you can't be entertaining at all".
InputEvelution wrote:
So there's an interesting borderline case in regards to "in-game defined goals" I'd like to bring up, particularly in regards to low% categories. Taking a look at the Portal series, it's reasonable to argue that "Least Portals" is an internal goal in both games. Portal has a "Challenges" mode where players explicitly attempt to reduce their completion time, portal count or step count in chambers, and Portal 2 adds online leaderboards to increase competition over these metrics (though step count is dropped). In this case, would Least Portal runs of the main campaigns in these games be considered applicable for the Vault/"objective goals tier" under the proposed changes?
If the game is keeping track of it, then I say it's completely fair game. That's one of the beauties of this new system, actually: Games are afforded some individual freedom just based on what they are and how they handle things. A game that keeps track of completion percentage can have an objective low% run, a game that keeps track of enemies killed can have an objective pacifist run, and Portal can have objective "least portals" runs if it's explicitly tracking portal usage throughout a playthrough. Granted, "least portals" would be a category I feel would make Moons under the current system as well, but with the new system it would be a definite and not just a feeling.
TASvideos Senior Judge <3 Ask me anything! Twitter
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Memory
She/Her
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1249)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1631
Location: Dumpster
GBA TASer of 2020GBA TAS of 2020GBA TASer of 2019Exotic platforms TAS of 2018
Samsara wrote:
Memory wrote:
OK so currently there is a split between moons and vault where speed/entertainment tradeoffs are not encouraged for vault (it is said that a run without said tradeoffs would obsolete one with) but encouraged for moons. How would we handle that with this new system?
It wouldn't be Vault anymore, so I see no reason not to allow them across all publications. Obsoletions would still need to be faster and have actual gameplay improvements (i.e, you can't just remove the tradeoffs and get accepted), but tradeoffs should freely be able to obsolete no tradeoffs (and vice versa). Vault in its current state kinda stifles creative freedom, where depending on the game, you almost have to make a choice between trying to be entertaining and having your movie published at all. This is kind of another major flaw of the Vault in my opinion: When it was implemented, the site went from "you MUST be entertaining at all costs" to "you MUST be entertaining but only if the game is entertaining, otherwise you can't be entertaining at all".
I completely agree with all of this! Especially how the current implementation of Vault stifles creativity!
[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
CoolHandMike
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Player (209)
Joined: 3/9/2019
Posts: 400
For those that want to have a lot of branches for a game, let them have them. They will enjoy making them and there will probably be people that enjoy watching it. Besides, the more work goes into a game the more current "main branch" runs could be made even faster and / or more entertaining. There are several examples of tases that should have been accepted imo, but were rejected by "arbitrary goal choice".
discord: CoolHandMike#0352
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Reviewer, Skilled player (1438)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 913
Location: US
Exotic platforms TASer of 2020First edition TAS of 2020Gameboy TAS of 2020Exotic platforms TASer of 2019Computer TASer of 2017
I firmly stand behind the idea of opening things up and attempting to remove/reduce any negative 'stigma' of the Vault. I'm all for entertainment in TASes, and I also believe that fastest completion TASes should be just as celebrated as entertaining ones simply for the TASing achievements they are (regardless of their entertainment value). Eliminating any degree of negative perception--that Vault publications are somehow less important to the TASing community, just because they may be less entertaining--is a worthwhile endeavor. Edit: Out of curiosity; how would this affect things like Board Games and Edutainment? Would these titles still be restricted from the site, or would the proposed changes also potentially open publication opportunity for these types of games?
Samsara
She/They
Experienced Forum User, Senior Judge, Skilled player (1671)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2487
Location: Northern California
Exotic platforms TAS of 2020Sega TAS of 2016
DrD2k9 wrote:
Out of curiosity; how would this affect things like Board Games and Edutainment? Would these titles still be restricted from the site, or would the proposed changes also potentially open publication opportunity for these types of games?
This would be part of a separate discussion about our Movie Rules and how they need to be updated and simplified, and it is absolutely one I would like to have at some point. I've got another thread planned for that once this one runs its course.
TASvideos Senior Judge <3 Ask me anything! Twitter
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1058)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10494
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
Since I constantly ponder important tasvideos related puzzles offline, here's the system proposal I just came up with.
  1. Turn Moons into a flag. Assign it to all external goals/player imposed restrictions/concepts that don't explicitly and officially exist in the game. Require them to meet acceptability reasons based on entertainment. As long as a side goal branch meets them, accept. Obsolete a different branch if needed.
    • If we're not sure whether we want it or not, reject.
    • If it contradicts some guidelines but we agree that we need it to be an exception because it's so impressive, accept. Probably that's when the Demo flag should come in.
  2. Remove Vault as a tier with an icon, and turn it into a default movie collection. Movies without player imposed restrictions go there. Keep accepting new branches until rejectability reasons based on record value are met. Obsolete a different branch if needed.
    • If we agree that this is too many branches now, reject.
  3. Turn Stars into a flag and assign it based on some automated rules. We have a concept of franchises in the code, so it can be arranged.
  4. Turn submission polls into a 0-10 scale and carry over poll results to publications. That way the crowd that votes on submissions is no longer completely different from the crowd that rates publications.
  5. Change the poll question back to "Should this be published?" and treat poll results according to presence of external goals, which is finally a clear borderline.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Editor, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 2/2/2021
Posts: 103
Location: Midwest
Is #1 saying that categories like any% wouldn't have any chance of having the Moons flag?
feos wrote:
4. Turn submission polls into a 0-10 scale 5. Change the poll question back to "Should this be published?"
I like the idea of #4, but does a scale really fit the question "Should this be published?" As in, would people be likely to primarily use 0 and 10 in place of no and yes? Additionally, if these results were to carry over as publication ratings, does that question also fit with what ratings are supposed to represent? Perhaps more importantly, would judges prefer having a "Should this be published?" metric or an entertainment/enjoyment metric (like we have now, but as a scale)?
TAS Verifications | Twitter | Github | Discord: Bigbass#9631
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1058)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10494
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
Bigbass wrote:
Is #1 saying that categories like any% wouldn't have any chance of having the Moons flag?
Since it wouldn't be tiers anymore, but 2 independent concepts, there's no negative connotations in "not having player imposed goals".
Bigbass wrote:
feos wrote:
4. Turn submission polls into a 0-10 scale 5. Change the poll question back to "Should this be published?"
I like the idea of #4, but does a scale really fit the question "Should this be published?" As in, would people be likely to primarily use 0 and 10 in place of no and yes? Additionally, if these results were to carry over as publication ratings, does that question also fit with what ratings are supposed to represent? Perhaps more importantly, would judges prefer having a "Should this be published?" metric or an entertainment/enjoyment metric (like we have now, but as a scale)?
I forgot to mention that I also want technical an entertainment rating to be combined somehow, so it's one scale for submissions and a similar scale for publications, not 3 scales (submission's yes/no/meh, publication's technical 0-10, publication's entertainment 0-10). The scale would represent how strongly you feel in either direction. For low entertainment games, the poll is almost irrelevant, and there's little to no feedback needed to determine if we want another record branch, because it's not allowed at all. If we want branch limit for records to be less strict, we need viewers' opinions, and we need a poll to represent them better.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1058)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10494
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
Regarding per-game rules. We already have game based navigation, it's just not fully developed yet. There could be a tab that contains rules relevant to a specific game, and tags that describe which guidelines they are based on. And then there'd be a page listing those guidelines with a way to list all the relevant games/movies. Technically similar to the current movie class system. That would make it easy to find precedents and catalog judgment reasons better.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Editor, Experienced Forum User
Joined: 2/2/2021
Posts: 103
Location: Midwest
feos wrote:
Bigbass wrote:
Is #1 saying that categories like any% wouldn't have any chance of having the Moons flag?
Since it wouldn't be tiers anymore, but 2 independent concepts, there's no negative connotations in "not having player imposed goals".
So say there was an any% submission, that was acceptable and had feedback that showed it was a very enjoyable movie, would there be any flags available to recognize that it had high entertainment value?
feos wrote:
but 2 independent concepts
Wait, I think I'm a bit lost, which independent concepts are you referring to?
TAS Verifications | Twitter | Github | Discord: Bigbass#9631
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1058)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10494
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
Bigbass wrote:
So say there was an any% submission, that was acceptable and had feedback that showed it was a very enjoyable movie, would there be any flags available to recognize that it had high entertainment value?
Since entertainment is also a scale, there's no sensible borderline for "okay now we certainly need to add this flag". What we do with this info in terms of site code depends on what the viewer wants with relation to this info.
Bigbass wrote:
Wait, I think I'm a bit lost, which independent concepts are you referring to?
Internal goals that the games explicitly represent/track and player imposed restrictions that don't relate to in-game concepts. I linked the text from Publisher Guidelines that describes this.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Arc
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Experienced player (694)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 527
Location: Arizona
NES TAS of 2021
I concur with ending the current Vault/Moon distinction. By default, just publish or don't. I would incorporate Stars and Moons into the yearly Awards. Stars are the top 5% of all publications. Let's imagine that there were 2232 publications and 111 Stars on 1 Jan 2021. Let's estimate that there will be 2432 publications on 1 Jan 2022. 5% would then be 121 Stars. So there would be room for 10 new Stars. (a) There could be nominations specifically for Stars, and the 10 with the most votes would get Starred, or (b) If you demand "console diversity" in Stars, you could just Star the 10 movies that get the most votes in the final TAS of the Year voting. But yeah Stars and winners would heavily overlap. The logical continuation of this thought is that Moons could be every movie that gets (legitimately) nominated for an award in any category. Thus, Stars and Moons would both have a clear, indisputable meaning, and it would be based on the whole community's evaluation of those movies. Since we have the full archive of the Awards, these could also be partially or wholly applied retroactively, if desired.
Memory
She/Her
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1249)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1631
Location: Dumpster
GBA TASer of 2020GBA TAS of 2020GBA TASer of 2019Exotic platforms TAS of 2018
Arc wrote:
I would incorporate Stars and Moons into the yearly Awards. Stars are the top 5% of all publications. Let's imagine that there were 2232 publications and 111 Stars on 1 Jan 2021. Let's estimate that there will be 2432 publications on 1 Jan 2022. 5% would then be 121 Stars. So there would be room for 10 new Stars. (a) There could be nominations specifically for Stars, and the 10 with the most votes would get Starred, or (b) If you demand "console diversity" in Stars, you could just Star the 10 movies that get the most votes in the final TAS of the Year voting. But yeah Stars and winners would heavily overlap. The logical continuation of this thought is that Moons could be every movie that gets (legitimately) nominated for an award in any category. Thus, Stars and Moons would both have a clear, indisputable meaning, and it would be based on the whole community's evaluation of those movies. Since we have the full archive of the Awards, these could also be partially or wholly applied retroactively, if desired.
Given how easy it is to nominate a TAS (literally takes only 1 suggestion) I don't think making moons "is nominated" is a good idea. The stars suggestion is a bit more complicated and honestly out of the scope of this current thread.
[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
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Reviewer, Skilled player (1438)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 913
Location: US
Exotic platforms TASer of 2020First edition TAS of 2020Gameboy TAS of 2020Exotic platforms TASer of 2019Computer TASer of 2017
feos wrote:
4. Turn submission polls into a 0-10 scale 5. Change the poll question back to "Should this be published?" and treat poll results according to presence of external goals, which is finally a clear borderline.
Won't whether a not a movie is published still ultimately be determined by the judge (even if allowing for more flexibility based on viewer feedback from the forum/poll)? I like your idea of condensing all 3 current polls (workbench yes/no/meh, post publication entertainment rating, and post publication tech rating) into a single rating. However, given that "Should this be Published?" doesn't really ask for a rating that fits on a variable scale; perhaps we could instead present viewers of workbench movies with a simple poll that just asks to "Rate This Movie" on the 0-10 rating scale? Regardless of the poll question another consideration from a rating standpoint would be a 1-5 scale as that is another format many (if not most) users would be familiar with for rating things.
Experienced Forum User, Site Admin, Skilled player (1058)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 10494
Location: RU
NES TAS of 2011
DrD2k9 wrote:
Won't whether or not a movie is published still ultimately be determined by the judge (even if allowing for more flexibility based on viewer feedback from the forum/poll)?
Sure.
DrD2k9 wrote:
I like your idea of condensing all 3 current polls (workbench yes/no/meh, post publication entertainment rating, and post publication tech rating) into a single rating. However, given that "Should this be Published?" doesn't really ask for a rating that fits on a variable scale; perhaps we could instead present viewers of workbench movies with a simple poll that just asks to "Rate This Movie" on the 0-10 rating scale? Regardless of the poll question another consideration from a rating standpoint would be a 1-5 scale as that is another format many (if not most) users would be familiar with for rating things.
Maybe there's a better way to word the poll question. The main thing is it should be a unified thing. For example, I got an idea about assigning meaning to entertainment based rating options: 0 - watching this makes me suffer [...] 10 - this is one of my favorite movies on the site Though this wouldn't address what record value the audience sees in an objective/internal goal/record movie. I think if we agree on principle, wording can be figured out later, so we don't cook a hare before catching him.
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. If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!