I think it is very significant that rules about this tag must work exactly the same way and for improvement to ultra-mega-popular and famous games series like Mario, Sonic, Metroid or Zelda, and for improvement to the most boring runs from vault.
Why? This isn't a competition. We do this purely for the enjoyment of the public. Thus we should take into account what the public is most interested in.
Draconian strict rules that are the same for everybody are for competitions (especially ones with prizes or fame). This isn't one.
(With this I don't mean that we should start outright shunning or ignoring the less popular games/runs. I'm just saying that some flexibility in the interest of the public is perfectly acceptable and even desirable.)
Why? This isn't a competition. We do this purely for the enjoyment of the public. Thus we should take into account what the public is most interested in.
To emphasize public opinion we already have vault/moon/star tiers.
Double standards in using or not using other tags is bad idea.
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
moozooh's criteria are an excellent starting point. I may not agree with the fine detail on all of them but they encapsulate the purpose of the "notable improvement label" fairly accurately.
Archanfel wrote:
Notable changes is not the same as notable improvement. It would be wrong to use this tier for all MK tases and for all other playarounds..
I disagree, I think there are some playaround-style TASes which warrant the tag. Brain Age and Pokemon Yellow ACE are two such movies, though you could make an argument that they are demonstrations rather than playarounds. Gradius, which moozooh mentioned, definitely qualifies too. Not sure about Mortal Kombat because I can't remember too much about the TASes.
I disagree, I think there are some playaround-style TASes which warrant the tag. Brain Age and Pokemon Yellow ACE are two such movies, though you could make an argument that they are demonstrations rather than playarounds. Gradius, which moozooh mentioned, definitely qualifies too. Not sure about Mortal Kombat because I can't remember too much about the TASes.
For playaround TASes, I think the notable improvement tag is valid. For example, the first and the second Brain Age TASes, although having different art, were still using the same concept: hovewer, the TAS that is being worked on uses completely new techniques, pulls off new technicals stunts and can deserve an notable improvement.
Ultimately, if a playaround is much more impressive/technical (uses a lot of new techniques/stylistic choices the former TAS didn't use) it should get the tag.
For playaround TASes, I think the notable improvement tag is valid.
...
Ultimately, if a playaround is much more impressive/technical (uses a lot of new techniques/stylistic choices the former TAS didn't use) it should get the tag.
Agreed, some playaround improvement deserved notable improvement tag, however not all of them.
Playarounds be can infinitely different, especially for fighting games like MK, and notable changes not always equal to notable improvement. Sometimes one playaround is just better than other, but it is not notable improvement.
---
moozooh wrote:
4. Improvement uses more characters controlled at once (i.e. 2P where the previous run was only 1P, 3P/4P instead of 2P, or and so on)
Fix: Improvement uses more or less characters controlled at once
For example if somehow 2P run is faster than previous 3P/4P run - it can be count as notable improvement.
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
Using less (or the same amount of) characters is hardly a notability criterion. Simply because that's so much easier to do than adding more controllable player characters.
I would think that an improvement that does that still has to fulfill some other two criteria to be valid for the flag, same as any other improvement.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I would think that an improvement that does that still has to fulfill some other two criteria to be valid for the flag, same as any other improvement.
Yeah, but probably the "fulfill more criterias"-rule should be also applicable for switches to more amount of players too:
For example if switch to 2P give very little negligible advantage over 1P, like only slightly faster boss fights, without any new teamwork-tricks or route/gameplay changes, such improvement can not called notable imho.
Edit: After all, changing amount of players is just a one of methods to reach improvement. Result of such improvement can be notable, or not so notable.
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
Well, we could probably gauge some opinions on that, but objectively speaking a 2-player TAS 1) is more complex to execute (sometimes more than twice as complex due to the possible interactions), 2) has much more potential for various forms of entertainment and artistry.
For me that's easily worth as much as a boss skip or a new movement trick. An improvement is always going to be an improvement, but a improvement that is so much more complex has to have a better chance at being notable in my book.
Frankly though, I don't care as much as long as new guidelines are sensible and consistent, whatever they end up like.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Double standards in using or not using other tags is bad idea.
I was not suggesting double standards. I was suggesting fluidity rather than rigidity. Considering things on a case-by-case basis. After all, we are doing this for the benefit of the audience, so we should give them what they want.
Either way, what exactly would make it a "bad idea"? Bad idea how?
After all, we are doing this for the benefit of the audience, so we should give them what they want.
Don't worry, small imbalance in favor of more popular runs will take place even if guidelines will not support it.
But at first we need have this guideline.
moozooh wrote:
Frankly though, I don't care as much as long as new guidelines are sensible and consistent, whatever they end up like.
Exactly true.
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
just reminding it's a notable IMPROVEMENT tag,not a notable GAME improvement tag
clearly the tag has been misused and the thread should be used to denounce this situation where it happens
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto.
TAS i'm interested:
Megaman series, specially the RPGs! Where is the mmbn1 all chips TAS we deserve? Where is the Command Mission TAS?
i'm slowly moving away from TASing fighting games for speed, maybe it's time to start finding some entertainment value in TASing.
Do people still find this tag helpful? I honestly find myself at a loss for how to determine whether or not a run should get this tag.
[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
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Yes, I find this tag useful.
This tag should be used when major changes have been made to how the game is played compared to a previous run. Which is not necessarily obvious just by looking at how much time was saved.
Slightly better optimizations to a few areas should not get the tag, as it's basically the same movie. Completely new route through the game should get the tag.
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.
[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
This tag should be used when major changes have been made to how the game is played compared to a previous run. Which is not necessarily obvious just by looking at how much time was saved.
how do you determine that? because there's plenty of runs on this site that save major time but dont have the tag on it.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
How do you use it?
If I see the run has the flag, and I'm interested in the game, I add it to my list of things to watch. Otherwise I typically don't.
EZGames69 wrote:
Nach wrote:
This tag should be used when major changes have been made to how the game is played compared to a previous run. Which is not necessarily obvious just by looking at how much time was saved.
how do you determine that? because there's plenty of runs on this site that save major time but dont have the tag on it.
We can place it on runs that save a large % of the time, but there, notable changes are typically implied. One exception would be is if a run find a way to just skip a bunch of levels, in which case it's a large drop, but there's barely not changes at all in the rest of the movie and would be identical to the previous.
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.
From what I see in the thread, it seems that we really don't have a consistent definition of what counts as a notable improvement. Is it time based? Is it significantly different gameplay, or is it a marking of important breakthroughs and historical moments for TASes of that particular game? I believe it should be limited to just one of these; if we decide to even have the tag at all.
If it's time-based, then that one frame improvement on SMB definitely wouldn't count. one frame is a very small portion of any length TAS.
If it's significantly different gameplay, I also wouldn't give it to SMB. SMB runs have been about the same gameplay for a while. Jumping in different places really isn't enough for me.
If it's historical moments, I would probably be okay with giving it to SMB, although, I think in that moment the tag should go to things like the discovery of flagpole glitch and bullet bill glitch. Maybe 4-2 wrong warp as well.
Either way, for the tag to be at all useful, we need to come up with an agreed upon definition and go through the movie list to apply it in accordance with the idea we come up with.
I think a good definition would be "a timesave that's unexpectedly large, given the history of the game so far".
In the case of Super Mario Bros., a 1-frame improvement is unexpectedly large because any improvement at all (to what may well be our most optimised TAS) is unexpected.
I think a good definition would be "a timesave that's unexpectedly large, given the history of the game so far".
I wonder if it could also apply if, for example, the new TAS uses a very different route than the previous one, even if the timesave it gives isn't extraordinary. The "notability" in this case would be that it's very different as a viewing experience compared to the previous one, because of the different route.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
The "notability" in this case would be that it's very different as a viewing experience compared to the previous one, because of the different route.
That's the only point the tag is meant to convey.
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.
