Post subject: Re: smw-96 goals
Joined: 11/26/2010
Posts: 444
Location: New York, US
bahamete wrote:
Thanks for everyone's input! We didn't assume that everyone would want the same thing so we used our best judgement on the goals. Here's what we're currently talking about but we need to speak to Kaizoman first, anyway: Avoid Start + Select and don't abuse death. We're most concerned about this goal as we don't all agree on it, but I'll write it down anyway. The only reason we'd use either of these is returning to levels to get a goal-sphere in reserve. We wanted to exclude many map transitions and thus these two goals remove the possibility, but allow for chuck-eat maybe 5 or 6 times in the run. As for the secondary effects, we're unsure right now. Use stun bug. We're including this bug because the general view seems to view it as entertaining, and it saves time. Besides, it will only be used up to 5 times maximum. Get 96 original exits. Exclude fake exits, such as using goal sphere to get exits not originally programmed. We hope these goals are at least somewhat clear. We want to avoid being arbitrary but maximise entertainment.
I agree with all of these conditions. I'll be looking forward to this run it should be incredibly entertaining, Good Luck on the run guys!!!!!!!!!!!
My name is 4N6/Forensics.
Expert player (2453)
Joined: 12/23/2007
Posts: 822
I don't prefer the idea of using Chuck-Eat glitch in 96-exits run. Although I loved it when it was used in %any run, using it in 96-exits run would totally mess it up. Strategies would be bloody difficult, and we would also lost the true meaning of this branch. Getting a goal sphere in the previous stage can open an exit, but I think the exit doesn't truly belong to this level. It was 'stolen' to me, and it would bring lots of misgivings and confusion. Dragon coin glitch doesn't have the same confusion, and way more interesting, so I have nothing against it. Only my opinion, though.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Joined: 5/12/2009
Posts: 748
Location: Brazil
I'm in favor of not using glitches to finish the levels before it was intended to. I'd rather you guys to find only improvements to cross the stages faster, not skipping them. So i think it would be a true 100% run. My opinion.
Joined: 6/26/2011
Posts: 167
Eye Of The Beholder wrote:
I'm in favor of not using glitches to finish the levels before it was intended to. I'd rather you guys to find only improvements to cross the stages faster, not skipping them. So i think it would be a true 100% run. My opinion.
Agreed. While I can understand skipping stages in any% runs or glitched runs, one of the points of many 100% runs is to showcase as much of the game as possible in an orderly fashion. While it's certainly possible to cleave off a couple of minutes by fabricating level-clear spheres, we lose a lot of the endearing humorous antics.
First a movie gets submitted, and ends up accepted despite breaking rules other runs have been rejected for. And when I vote less than spectacularly on this movie, I become the victim of harassment and threats. Yay, favoritism.
Skilled player (1706)
Joined: 9/17/2009
Posts: 4952
Location: ̶C̶a̶n̶a̶d̶a̶ "Kanatah"
To the people who think a "glitchless"/ less glitched run is better for the 100% run, what happens if sometime in the future, a heavily glitched 100% run is made? Would it obesolete the less-glitched 100% run? Or branch off another catagory? Edit: Oh, btw, I'm against not using certain glitches; this game doesn't really need another branch in my opinion.
Active player (421)
Joined: 3/21/2011
Posts: 127
Location: Virginia (United States)
In my opinion, restricting early level ending would greatly hamper the entertainment of the run, since the majority of the run would end up just being flying over the levels and doing hardly anything interesting. I personally prefer allowing early exits, like YW, stun glitch, or the chuck glitch (without backtracking for it, that is). It would only cut short about 15 levels or so, so it'd be a nice little spice to the run.
YouTube Channel - Twitter Current projects: Sutte Hakkun, Hyper VI, RTDL, own hacking projects
Joined: 5/12/2009
Posts: 748
Location: Brazil
jlun2 wrote:
To the people who think a "glitchless"/ less glitched run is better for the 100% run, what happens if sometime in the future, a heavily glitched 100% run is made? Would it obesolete the less-glitched 100% run? Or branch off another catagory?
That's exactly what i think. If a heavy glitched 100% run is made, i feel like it would have to be published, if accepted, in a new cathegory. It's something like if the new Super Metroid 100% run would use the X-Ray Glitching to skip somethings and just worry about collecting the 100 itens. It would show 100% in the end, like mario would show 96 exits, but lot's of things would be skipped, even the final boss could be skipped. I'd feel kinda cheated cause i didn't see as much of the game as i was supposed to in a 100% run. I wouldn't like a havy glitched Super Metroid 100% run to obsolete a less glitched run. Again, that's just my opinion.
Active player (421)
Joined: 3/21/2011
Posts: 127
Location: Virginia (United States)
Well, with that idea, then why can't our run be this "glitched" run? Though I doubt a new category would be made anyway, since it'd be redundant. If you want a "glitchless" 100% run, just watch Fabian's. But I'm almost certain few TASers would want to beat Fabian's run without all these new glitches due to how similar it'd be, so there wouldn't be much of a point to watching it.
YouTube Channel - Twitter Current projects: Sutte Hakkun, Hyper VI, RTDL, own hacking projects
Former player
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 1711
I don't know what exactly you qualify as "these new glitches", but an improved run without "new glitches" would be pretty damn different anyway, imo. That doesn't mean people wouldn't be interested in doing a run like that of course, which very well might be true. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing an improvement. It's about time!
Zoey Ridin' High <Fabian_> I prett much never drunk
Joined: 8/5/2011
Posts: 7
If you want a glitchless run, there's still the "small only" category, which I find more entertaining than normal 100% category.
Joined: 9/22/2009
Posts: 18
All these unwritten glitch constraints cause cognitive dissonance.
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (749)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
I would much prefer a run with all glitches except those that cause the game to end prematurely (null-spit on a platform has been mentioned as being off-limits). The restriction on 96 original exits is eminently sensible, but it would be nice to use the Japanese ROM and get 99 exits; perhaps an add-on/companion run could do it. I think that the rule to avoid Start + Select and death abuse is iffy, but I can understand it if the movie is more entertaining with it.
Marzo Junior
Editor
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
I say go all out. Otherwise, those glitches won't get used/seen by most people.
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war. The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Joined: 9/12/2009
Posts: 42
+1 to go all out I want to see routes optimized for fastest (abusing world map stuff, start +select, grabbing goal spheres, etc.) would be amazing.
Player (79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
I'm of the opinion that a 96 exit or 100% run should show the game more completely than a shorter, more glitched run would. As such, I'd like to see as much of the game as reasonably possible. If there is an exit, the player should physically reach it, not just glitch the game into "thinking" that it's been reached.
Joined: 5/29/2004
Posts: 757
Bobo the King wrote:
I'm of the opinion that a 96 exit or 100% run should show the game more completely than a shorter, more glitched run would. As such, I'd like to see as much of the game as reasonably possible. If there is an exit, the player should physically reach it, not just glitch the game into "thinking" that it's been reached.
The odd Yoshi wings glitch ending isn't bad once in a blue moon mind you either.. but I agree otherwise. Or the scroll screen over and end level a few seconds quicker isn't bad either as it can't be constantly abused. Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin Just another random gamer ---- <OmnipotentEntity> How do you people get bored in the span of 10 seconds? Worst ADD ever.
marzojr
He/Him
Experienced player (749)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Bobo the King wrote:
I'm of the opinion that a 96 exit or 100% run should show the game more completely than a shorter, more glitched run would.
Even the most glitched 96-exit run possible would show more of the game than a completely glitch-free any% run would by the simple fact that it involves showing all maps and all levels at least once (and most levels multiple times), so this isn't a good argument for making it low glitch.
Marzo Junior
Post subject: YoshiIIIIIIIIII
JXQ
Experienced player (750)
Joined: 5/6/2005
Posts: 3132
If you decide to go all-out with the glitches, and there ends up being demand or inspiration for a lower glitch full run after it's finish (which seems like it would be received favorably - compare to the recent Sonic 1 low-glitch submission), it sounds like you could do so very cleanly with just a "No Yoshi" restriction. (We also have the small-only run to show a lot of the other parts of the game without heavy glitching in the mean time.)
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Experienced player (512)
Joined: 7/23/2011
Posts: 108
marzojr wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
I'm of the opinion that a 96 exit or 100% run should show the game more completely than a shorter, more glitched run would.
Even the most glitched 96-exit run possible would show more of the game than a completely glitch-free any% run would by the simple fact that it involves showing all maps and all levels at least once (and most levels multiple times), so this isn't a good argument for making it low glitch.
To be fair, it doesn't sound like Bobo was saying a 100% should simply have more content than even an any% with no glitches. He was saying it should have as much content as possible. I agree with seeing as much of the game as possible, rather than orbs farmed over and over (there are only a few reasonable levels to get them in, I believe...) though the small-only run certainly does deliver a lot of this so I would be happy either way. The route for a full-glitch run would surely be interesting as well.
Active player (421)
Joined: 3/21/2011
Posts: 127
Location: Virginia (United States)
Carl Sagan wrote:
To be fair, it doesn't sound like Bobo was saying a 100% should simply have more content than even an any% with no glitches. He was saying it should have as much content as possible. I agree with seeing as much of the game as possible, rather than orbs farmed over and over (there are only a few reasonable levels to get them in, I believe...) though the small-only run certainly does deliver a lot of this so I would be happy either way. The route for a full-glitch run would surely be interesting as well.
Well, we're planning on minimalizing the Chuck glitch to only what lies ahead (aka no backtracking of any kind for it). Mostly what we want to know about is the stun glitch or the Yoshi Wing glitch, which few of you seem to be discussing (possibly due to the small number of levels either glitch is used in, but...). It'd really help to get a firm answer on these as they're usable right from the beginning of the run.
YouTube Channel - Twitter Current projects: Sutte Hakkun, Hyper VI, RTDL, own hacking projects
Experienced player (512)
Joined: 7/23/2011
Posts: 108
kaizoman666 wrote:
Well, we're planning on minimalizing the Chuck glitch to only what lies ahead (aka no backtracking of any kind for it). Mostly what we want to know about is the stun glitch or the Yoshi Wing glitch, which few of you seem to be discussing (possibly due to the small number of levels either glitch is used in, but...). It'd really help to get a firm answer on these as they're usable right from the beginning of the run.
My apologies for not reading very clearly before giving my opinion. I am fully in favor of using interesting glitches especially since they only appear in a small selection of levels. My opinion is to go with whatever the people making the run want to do :P
Post subject: Re: YoshiIIIIIIIIII
snorlax
He/Him
Joined: 5/20/2007
Posts: 174
Location: Wisconsin
JXQ wrote:
If you decide to go all-out with the glitches, and there ends up being demand or inspiration for a lower glitch full run after it's finish (which seems like it would be received favorably - compare to the recent Sonic 1 low-glitch submission), it sounds like you could do so very cleanly with just a "No Yoshi" restriction. (We also have the small-only run to show a lot of the other parts of the game without heavy glitching in the mean time.)
This is a great post and a great solution to the problem. I really want to see the full game pushed to its limits. However, that will really leave a lot of it unexplored, and no Yoshi is a great restriction to let us see every level. I'd take a medium-ground choice like it sounds like you're leaning towards now, but I think there's plenty of room here to split the 100% into two categories. It's not like people are going to come to the site and be upset at seeing five different Super Mario World movies (less than or equal to Super Metroid). On the contrary, they'll be in awe at how entertaining yet unique each of the runs is.
Editor, Experienced player (608)
Joined: 11/8/2010
Posts: 4012
I agree that a 100% run that uses all of the glitches, including stun and Yoshi Wing glitches, would be more entertaining. And as JXQ said, the small-only category will still be there to show nearly all of the game with no major glitches.
Active player (263)
Joined: 4/15/2010
Posts: 197
Location: England
The idea to go all out seems like a decent one, but then does "all out" mean we can write 96 to the exit counter and be finished possibly faster than the glitched run? Obviously not but you see that "all out" doesn't really mean so, and we have to draw a line somewhere. It seems no matter what choice we make, it's either inherently boring or arbitrary. Regardless the run is going to be terribly arduous to perform and we know we can't make everyone happy, though we're still discussing ideas. I think the team currently agrees (and dare I say, most of the community) on: Get 96 original exits. Use stun bug. Use chuck-eat in some form. The latter is obviously the biggest issue and we can't decide whether to backtrack for spheres or not. The only way to fully judge I guess would to be to make a testrun of both routes but I'm not sure any of us are willing to. I think it's almost certain that if/when we finish I wouldn't want to be a part of a "no Yoshi" 96-exit run. But I'd enjoy the run certainly.
Retired smw-96, smw any%
Post subject: how to slide through slope
Player (172)
Joined: 12/28/2007
Posts: 235
Location: Japan, Sapporo
This is a summary of Post #300393 (written in Japanese).
  /
/
■
■ ← Let mario's x position be zero when touching it from the left
If you want to slide through the slope, you have to make your x movement small and y movement large at a gap of the slope. More precisely, your x-pos must vary like 19→21 and y-pos must decrease by 3 at that time (this is possible because holding A or B makes y-speed -35; usual y-speed on slope is -32). Thus for this x-speed needs to be 47 or less (and maybe over 40 or so, I'm not sure). This is performed at DSH in the current any%, or at Wiggler's Iceberg in my wip of TSRP2 (frame 82000). This trick is useful in such a narrow space that we can't jump/fly through slope, as performed in the above wip.
Retired because of that deletion event. Projects (WIP RIP): VIP3 all-exits "almost capeless yoshiless", VIP2 all-exits, TSRP2 "normal run"