I thought this would be a good idea for "obsoleting" outdated publications.
The discussion about unpublication has been brought up before but think this could be a good compromise. If this were published, any movie could be set as "obsoleted by" the publication grue. This can be useful in some publications where a movie is indeed obsolete (due to an abundance of new tricks, or a change in TASVideos quality standards) but has no movie for which to replace it.
The currently published any% version of Ocarina of Time is a good example where the current run is heavily outdated and improvable by about an _hour_! Yet we are nowhere near seeing an improvement. In such a case it could be obsoelted by the publication grue. This way the movie stays on the site (and treated just like any other obsoleted movie) but is not displayed as a current "record".
The actual movie file for this submission is moot. I picked .fm2 since it was text and allows me to explain the purpose of it. I chose rerecord counts and movie length as such that they wouldn't mess with site statistics in any meaningful way. If published it would be in its own unique "Grue" category so it would not interfere with movie lists.
I could have brought this up in a discussion thread but I thought a submission would be more appropriate and a better attention getter. Voting yes on publication of this is voting for this implementation of "unpublication". Any movies it would obsolete, however, should have their own poll or discussion beforehand.
Commence discussion.
On a side note, if published, I think we could have a lot of fun with the video file & screenshot ^_^
adelikat: Rejecting this submission due to not being popular by the audience.
adelikat: Changing system ID so that I can "grue" the Grue ID
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
So far, the only arguments that seem logical:
1. Return the stated published submissions, and any others that might qualify, to the submission queue for a second round of voting.
2. Create a list similar to the "Movies to Obsolete from 2004" list, and list the known improvements.
Personally, I'd like to see both happen. If the submissions are re-published, add them to the list and link the list in the submission text.
I believe I've said "list" more than this submission has said "grue".
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a list.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Perhaps it all boils down to how much the run is known to be improvable by. This raises the question, when is a run "very improvable" and would fit such a list? If it has 20 seconds of known improvements? 10? 5? 1 minute? This discussion raises many deep questions... :)
I'm not taking any stand here, I'm just bringing up some points.
I think neither absolute nor relative improvablity should be a standard; instead, it should be defined on a per-game basis like most other things here.
There would be several purposes for the list. The first is to provide an easy and accessible index for improvement bounties together with expected goals and links to new information. The second is to inform that there have been new developments since the last movie was published. The third is to encourage beginners and undecided players to make something a bit more productive than shaving off a few frames from a movie that is good already.
Maybe we could assign some kind of bounty points since that would go in line with certain directions the site has been taking the last couple years. Personally I would take cash out of the equation.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I vote no on simply the merits that there is a better solution to "un-publish" or whatever you decide to do. Don't be lazy programmers and use this as a way to perform this kind of classification.
On the subject of un-publishing, I think it should only be done if:
Poor choice for a game
Poor choice for goals
Emulator is broken
un-publishing should not happen because:
sub-optimal run
run not sufficiently entertaining (but still a good choice for goals and game)
If you want add tags to runs for quality:
Needs significant improvement
Needs improvement
(No tag)
Well optimized
In regards to the bounty points I brought up earlier, the bounties can be decided as an automatic process involving the following formula:
bounty = (publ. uptime in days) / (avg. tech rating)
Additionally, it would only kick off when any two of the following conditions are met:
1) 2 years of uptime;
2) average tech rating below 6.0;
3) the resulting bounty is above 100 points.
Thus, it is designed in a way to promote large improvements (and to get rid of substandard movies in a correct way) in favor of frame-shavings on movies that are old but already deemed good.
Examples:
Rockin' Kats (full game) — 369 points,
Super Castlevania IV — 251 points,
OoT (any%) — 221 points,
Yoshi's Island (full game any%) — 197 points,
Atlantis no Nazo — 173 points,
Mega Man 5 — 167 points,
SMW (96-exit) — 140 points,
Sonic 2 — 136 points,
NES Marble Madness — 99 points (movie is still good enough but will be eligible for a bounty in a few days),
Bubble Bobble — 385 points (not eligible anymore, though!).
Please note that a large amount of technical ratings is by itself outdated at this point, otherwise most of these bounties would have been higher. Maybe we could urge the users to re-evaluate their ratings in some way?
Also, this:
<Dacicus> Also, what would be the point of these bounty points?
<mzh|lap> well, see, the current trend is to fuel the competition with lots of numbers.
<mzh|lap> first we had ratings, then awards, then formula-based player ranks.
<Dacicus> oh
<Dacicus> and next would be points acquired for obsoleting certain TASes?
<mzh|lap> haha, hope not.
<mzh|lap> this already has a feel of "Achievement unlocked!" to it.
<mzh|lap> to be honest i would prefer it if none of that would happen, but a bounty system still feels a lot better than obsoletions by a grue.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In regards to the bounty points I brought up earlier, the bounties can be decided as an automatic process involving the following formula:
bounty = (publ. uptime in days) / (avg. tech rating)
Additionally, it would only kick off when any two of the following conditions are met:
1) 2 years of uptime;
2) average tech rating below 6.0;
3) the resulting bounty is above 100 points.
Thus, it is designed in a way to promote large improvements (and to get rid of substandard movies in a correct way) in favor of frame-shavings on movies that are old but already deemed good.
Unfortunately, this is also designed to encourage delayed submissions of improved runs.
If the author TASes at a slower pace, they will receive more bounty points, as long as nobody beats them to it.
I judge a mediocre submission as rejected for poor game choice. Soon after I submit a movie of a far worse game choice which gets accepted and published. What was the difference? My movie was an improvement to another movie that was a bad game choice.
I've been confronted with this with a more or less "How is that fair?" kind of argument. Or a "why should that movie get a free pass that way?"
Xkeeper wrote:
"how is that fair" is solved by moving towards inclusionist, i.e. publishing good runs of any game regardless of the actual game's quality or fitness for a "speedrun"
I agree with xkeeper.
Holy shit, that felt weird to type.
I don't like the OP's idea, but I am intrigued by the idea of a bounty system. Encouraging people to go back and look over and possibly improve on the oldest submissions is obviously better, since in the majority of cases new tricks are found, especially with a fresh pair of eyes working on it.
I might also be correct in assuming the submission process is more rigorous these days, so submissions which were accepted previously and are still on the site now would not be accepted if they were submitted today (the B.O.B. submission being a good example). I disagree with just grueing them just as a matter of time, but encouraging people to obsolete the current submissions is obviously the way to go, as I see it. The standards will naturally improve over time, so having a bounty system and encouraging people to revisit previously submitted games and find new improvements keeps the site fresher and more up-to-date.
In regards to the bounty points I brought up earlier, the bounties can be decided as an automatic process involving the following formula:
bounty = (publ. uptime in days) / (avg. tech rating)
Additionally, it would only kick off when any two of the following conditions are met:
1) 2 years of uptime;
2) average tech rating below 6.0;
3) the resulting bounty is above 100 points.
Thus, it is designed in a way to promote large improvements (and to get rid of substandard movies in a correct way) in favor of frame-shavings on movies that are old but already deemed good.
Unfortunately, this is also designed to encourage delayed submissions of improved runs.
If the author TASes at a slower pace, they will receive more bounty points, as long as nobody beats them to it.
The bounty doesn't have to get bigger with time though. Anyway that system sounds like to much work just to get some old runs out of the way
If you want add tags to runs for quality:
Needs significant improvement
Needs improvement
(No tag)
Well optimized
I just said this a few pages back. Next time, look before you post. :/
I'm not finding the post where you said this. In any case I don't want to spend the time though thoroughly read though every post and make sure I don't repeat anyone. If you did say this earlier, then I'm simply agreeing with you, no problem with that.
How about this:
Any published run which meets these two criteria:
1) Has been published over a year ago, and
2) presents any of these problems:
- does not comply with the site rules,
- is speed-oriented, but there's a regular speedrun that is faster,
- would clearly not be accepted if submitted today (for some definition of "clearly")
will be included in (or nominated for) a yearly reconsideration poll.
Just an idea for more precise rules. Fine-tune as needed.
I'm voting no because I would like to see the Grue submission be eaten by a Grue. Except that it would be pitch black and thusly impossible to see.
I'm opposed to unpublishing just because there are improvements that can be made. I agree that the one track F-Zero and Top Gear should be unpublished since they violate the rules.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Actraiser. The real time run is faster than the published TAS. If the run had been unpublished because of that, I wouldn't have had a reference video to look at.
I agree with the idea of tags that say "there are known improvements" or to that effect.
As for the bounty system, I think assigning a mostly static point value that is based on how much the community wants to see an improved run (and perhaps also difficulty) and then having awards for the top bounty hunter would be a good way to encourage obsoleting runs.
as i said, instead of unpublishing runs, we should focus on improving them
I agree 100%
However, people aren't. So what am I supposed to do as an admin? Just live with runs that hurt the site's image until someone gets around to doing it?
I would like a way to handle the situation.
I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of a casual viewer: someone who doesn't make TASes, but sometimes watches them. (I'm also using OoT as my main example, here, so please bear with me!)
Most people don't know that much about TASing. They won't look at the OoT run and see the optimizations that could be made, they'll look at it and think, "wow! Look at how this guy went this game that I like! Crazy!"
But someone knows enough about TASing to find the OoT to be lackluster, they would most likely understand the whole thing: "new tricks get discovered, it takes time to make a run, someone hasn't done it yet," and so on.
Neither of these situations would result in the site having a tarnished image in these hypothetical viewers' eyes.
I think that the above applies to most of the other runs that are under consideration for this Grue Grue Grueing. Casual viewers of this site would be negatively impacted by it, because there would be more digging required for them to get to the video funtimes. I like the idea of putting a positively-worded label on these videos, like the one Bisqwit mentioned a few pages ago. "We are aware there are improvements to this movie; in case you still want to watch it, go ahead, enjoy" or something to that effect would work perfectly.
to be honest casual viewers hardly manage to follow movies longer than 15 min, exept some games that realy marked their "lives" (like OoT)
usualy , when i show a run to someone,i show them the 0star mario 64 run on my phone, they all like the "ninja" effect but i know that none of them would seat to watch another run...
those who manage to pass that "cap" usualy become active viewers / members and begin to "see" the optimisations, and i agree with you, a simple label saying that the movie is obseletable is far enough for me.
no, your idea is good, but im against unpublishing published movies. If you want to get rid of top gear announce that you are willing to accept a tas of the full game :P
