Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Just as a note: the extra frame before input response has been given a issue in the BizHawk dev github. https://github.com/TASEmulators/BizHawk/issues/4227
Looks like this was added about 3 weeks ago after HappyLee first brought it up. So it's a known issue, but there doesn't seem to be a solution yet, as it doesn't appear to be consistently reproducable across multiple users.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
TheOnlyOne wrote:
Hi there, I just want to say that what I meant by frame advance is Tas-studio, so I am actually using that. Soon I'm making a Tas of Sonic R on the saturn, Hope it can be published!
Might want to look into a previous submission that was rejected. You could potentially get some help and insight from both the previous work and the judgement notes.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Walgrey wrote:
In February, I submitted a 201 frame publication for Famidash. On February 28th, a new version of the game released, adding more content, and I created another submission for that version.
My question is, do I cancel the first submission? I’m going to be honest, I think the current publication is poor in quality. It isn’t optimized and there is little interesting playaround, despite the game offering a lot of opportunity for it. I’d like to have the 201 frame improvement accepted, as there would at least be an optimal TAS of version 1.1 before it gets obsoleted by the 1.2 TAS. Does the 201 frame improvement have any chance of getting accepted?
Additionally, will the version 1.2 TAS get accepted? Figured I’d ask since I don’t think I’ve seen any other examples of a game on TASVideos being given more content in an update, although I could be wrong. The 1.2 TAS is longer, but it’s more representative of the game in its current state (and more interesting than the 1.1 TAS in my opinion). Is there any sort of written policy on this?
We have this in our rules:
Any release version or update patch of a game may be used, though you should be able to explain why you chose that version.
If there is a significant difference in content between the versions, there is a possibility we may allow both versions as separate publications. That said, I can't guarantee that version 1.2 wouldn't obsolete version 1.1 if all the content from v1.1 is seen in v1.2. I will state that 1.2 would likely be the prefered version (as the more complete version of the game) if we were only going to accept one of the versions for publication.
The current v1.1 TASon the workbench still can be accepted even if it would ultimately be obsoleted by a v1.2 run. (I've gone ahead and claimed both of the workbench runs). Assuming the v1.1 run is acceptable, I'll make sure to delay judgement on the v1.2 run until the updated v1.1 is published. That way, even if v1.2 does end up obsoleting the v1.1 runs, the obsoletion tree will show the better of the v1.1 runs as having been accepted/published.
I'll have to discuss with other staff regarding whether or not the v1.2 run should obsolete v1.1 or be split into a separate publication. If you haven't already, please explain, in detail, the differences betwee the versions in your v1.2 submission notes. That will help us as staff to better decide on what to do with the various versions of the game.
Walgrey wrote:
I’d also hate to get pedantic, but the collectable coins in Geometry Dash are called “Secret Coins” in-game. Famidash technically doesn’t have a name for them, but I’d assume the same name applies, considering it’s a demake of the Geometry Dash. Is “main levels, all Secret Coins” a better branch name or is “main levels, all coins” still accurate?
Either is valid in my opinion. If you feel that specifying "secret" is preferred, you can edit the submission yourself and change the goal name.
Walgrey wrote:
Would “main levels” without the coins be accepted? When you collect a coin, you are forced to wait for it to get tallied on the score screen. Sure it’s technically fastest completion, but it doesn’t offer anything different from “main levels, all coins” other than intentionally missing the coins and getting free timesave at the score screen from it. The level route and skips are still the same.
Potentially, though again, I can't guarantee. A no-coins/minimal coins run would likely be the fastest way to beat the game due to managing less time counting on the score screen. The improvements in time may only appear to occur on the score tally screens, but they would result from different gameplay. So it could be argued that getting the coins and beating the game as fast as possible is a different goal than just beating the game as fast as possible due to different gameplay optimization techniques.
It could also be noted that runs obbtaining coins aren't going for the baseline fastest possible optimization of the game (Standard Class) and would thus be Alternative goals; I'll bring this point of difference up with other judges when I bring up the version issue in staff chat as I'm able.
Walgrey wrote:
Lastly, I’m working on an “all levels, all coins” TAS of the game. Is this an acceptable branch, or is just “all levels” preferable? I’m reusing my inputs from the “main levels, all coins” TAS I made to save time. Is this allowed? Frowned upon? Should I change the inputs in the main levels to make it more visually distinct from the existing submission I made? Should I just make a “custom levels, all coins” TAS instead?
An "all levels" or "all levels, all coins" TAS would probably fall under our standard class definition for "full completion," and it would likely be acceptable along side a baseline "main levels" run. Re-using input is absolutely fine to do for overlapping content. Given how much we are about trying to optimize games here; it would seem odd to tell someone to do more work than necessary just to make overlapping aspects of two separate runs be slightly different visually, yet to also maintain the same level of optimization. Re-using the inputs saves you time and work!
As mentioned above, I can't say if a separation of publications between obtaining or foregoing coins would be the case; so I can't currently make a recommendation on "all levels" vs. "all levels, all coins" run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
The submission notes state: "this is my first actual TAS using frame advance"
It's awesome that you are using a new TASing tool that you haven't with your prior TASing. I'd strongly encourage you to investigate the TAStudio tool. It makes visualizing/setting inputs on a frame-by-frame basis for any frame in your TAS. In my opinion, it makes TASing a bit easier as backing up and re-doing portions of a run can be performed while maintining future inputs (that may or may not need changed depending on the game).
Also, make sure your submitted runs are meeting our rules; specifically in this instance (as Spike mentioned), making sure that the submission gets to the point where the game starts to loop. The guidelines would also be a good resource to read through.
Keep working at your skills, and you'll (hopefully soon) produce something publishable!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
CoolHandMike wrote:
feos wrote:
Some time ago Masterjun suggested a neat solution to this problem that would prevent complete chaos. Allow third-party approved savegame files if the respective community considers it legit and relies on it, but if a movie is made on a full verification movie, it'd obsolete. We haven't decided anything yet, for example can the latter even be slower and still obsolete, but this case sounds like a perfect reason to start this discussion for real.
I have differing opinions on third party saves for ones that are solely used to unlock a character or mode, versus a third party savefile that uses data like carryover equipment and abilities for NG+. Also do not want a slower tas to obsolete a faster one unless there is some emulation or regional difference reason.
1) Third Party saves that are used just unlocking characters or modes without a verification movie should be acceptable. Very low chance of hex editing since it is only unlocking a mode or character and nothing from the savefile otherwise would effect the time of the tas.
2) Tases that use a third party save that carry over equipment or character statistics and abilities I do not want to be acceptable without a verification movie. I would suspect them of hex editing especially if there is a long period of grinding. Think Chrono Trigger NG+ for example. Would still want a verification movie since I would not trust it. There is a large incentive for the player or taser to try and make the "optimal save". They could make the save then post it to the community for use and after a period it would be "legitimized". Basically laundering hex edited saves to make them legit.
While in certain cases obsoleting a faster tas exists, but those are for reasons like emulation or region differences. Here it would just be a matter of trust. I know if I was a new user I would get really upset if one of my tases was obsoleted by a slower tas just because my savefile which I had trusted was seemingly deemed unacceptable after publishing. As a judge I would understand, but thinking those kind of obsoletions would just spread confusion and anger. We know most users do not even read the full movie rules and it is foreseeable that drama would result from allowing slower tases obsoleting actual faster ones.
I would be open for tases that use a third party saves that carry over equipment or character statistics and abilities for the non-publishable playground class though.
If it’s written in the rules (that the longer run that uses the verified save file will obsolete an unverified save run) and someone complains/starts drama because they didn’t read the rules before submitting, we point them to the rules and say (as politely as possible) “it’s been written there since before your submission, you have no grounds for complaint.”
EDIT: I don’t particularly like the idea of unverified/third-party saves, but I’m not going to argue strongly one way or the other
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
feos wrote:
How does jpc-rr work with those?
JPC-rr uses time for inputs. Each keypress/key release/mouse click/mouse movement takes a certain amount of time (in the sub milliseconds range…can’t remember the exact value off the top of my head). How quickly keys can be pressed for a given game is dependent on how the game itself processes the inputs. Some games may only process a keypress every few frames, other games can process many many keypresses within a single frame. Some games are weird combinations of those possibilities, where multiple inputs can be given all within one frame but the game won’t process that series of inputs for a few frames.
So strictly speaking for the emulator itself, input can be completely separate from video frames.
For NetHack, I’m guessing multiple inputs can be entered and processed within a given frame, so the run could be extremely fast based strictly on time. FWIW, finding the shortest sequence of necessary inputs would most likely also be the fastest way to progress through the game time-wise. But a slowed down version would likely be necessary for a viewer to follow what’s happening; because it may be theoretically possible to beat the game in a single frame once the game has actually loaded/started after bootup.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
Since I've been enjoying working on a Buster Only TAS for Mega Man X1, I've considered the possibility of doing buster only runs for other Mega Man games (not committed to anything yet).
However, I learned that not a lot of Mega Man games (with the exception of the X series as far as I understand) allow you to play through the entire game with only buster. For example in Mega Man 1, you need to switch out your weapon for something that can break certain walls in Wily stages 1 and 4 (using either strong arm or Thunder Beam works). I did check the RTA runs for buster only and it seems like a special exception is made that allows runners to briefly switch weapons just to get past those sections of the game, so long as they switch back to buster sometime after.
If such a TAS were to be made, would such an exception to the category be allowed? There doesn't seem to be any glitches that could bypass these sections of the game.
Seems fine to me.
I’d say it’s a similar situation to an otherwise pacifist run killing bosses that require being killed in order to progress the game.
For “Buster Only”, the exception to use a different weapon can be made where gameplay is not capable of progressing without using that different weapon, so long as the Buster is re-armed immediately once the other weapon has done its work.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
a bunch of stuff about a round 2 run
Seems to me that an otherwise any % + round 2 TAS would be fine as a separate branch from a base any % run. I’d say that it could be argued as standard class, but making it Alternative class would make an easier distinction from the baseline run; this would also be a way to ideally prevent obsoletion issues.
As far as starting point, i understand the concern about not only considering the post any% content from an optimization standpoint, so it might be better to consider doing the entire run from power-on instead of doing an SRAM start.
As far as an encode that just shows the round 2 portion: I don’t see why it would be a problem to have that as a secondary encode. We could even potentially have it be the main encode with the full run be an alternate encode, but that ultimate decision would probably fall to the publishing team.
These are my thoughts, I think it would be good for order judges to weigh in as well.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
nymx wrote:
Greetings Walgrey. As you have stated, this run is in fact slower than the WR....which can be found here: https://youtu.be/k4VwTVoWFlc.
Since this run is so short, I'm extending the opportunity for you to further experiment and see if a faster result can be found. Because the WR times it from the start of the race...we may be looking at a rare situation here that needs to be handled differently. But first...please see if you can find a situation that can be accept without community disagreements.
I'm placing this submission on Delayed, pending your response and/or further optimization.
Who knows how many resets are necessary (and when they are necessary) to get to that particular maze layout. In my opinion, this is a situation where we shouldn't hold a TASer to beat a human WR when they have different timing procedures. If the human run was timed from power-on instead of race start and had to include however many resets/time delay was necessary to produce that maze, it would likely be slower than this submission.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
KusogeMan wrote:
i know it's mostly player choice:
naruto clash of ninja a fighting game for GC has 3 difficulties and a 4th unlockable difficulty, should a story mode TAS be done on diffiulty 3? i really wanna do it on 4th the real hardest because enemies counter attack more and showcases more of the game interactions not just the best combo or strat, but more adaptation!
The 4th difficulty is probably fine. Depending on how it’s unlocked would likely determine how it’s published/categorized.
In my opinion:
If it’s unlocked with a code, it’s its own valid power-on based branch separate from the other difficulty branches.
If it’s unlocked via a prior playthrough, it’d be an SRAM start based run and should still be valid.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Mikewillplays wrote:
WarioWare Gold. The final input of the final boss is a blowing input, which isn't currently supported, rendering the completion of the game's campaign mode impossible
Are you using BizHawk? If so, it supports mic-volume as one of the inputs. Wouldn't blowing into the DS be activating the microphone? Or is there some other sensor blowing impacted?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
dekutony wrote:
From what I was able to understand, Mario stops on a dime. I never really gave acceleration much of a consideration. When you stop holding left or right, Mario stops moving horizontally seemingly instantaneously. Every time I hugged a wall, Mario stopped moving seemingly instantly. When I stopped hugging the wall, Mario continued moving forward at seemingly the same speed he normally goes forward every time. To me, personally, I didn't notice a difference in movement speed. I don't even think this game has an in depth movement system like in the official games (although I could be very wrong about that).
This makes it sound like acceleration is not a factor for this game, so wall hugging shouldn be fine.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
JD wrote:
As of now, there are 60 submissions marked as Playground. None of them have been given their own dedicated "Playground" page on the site, and there hasn't been a new entry in this list since September 21, 8 days before the submission acceptance threshold was loosened as per Post #532024. I would suggest going through all the Playground submissions and changing them to either accepted or rejected, but what do you guys think?
This thread is not for playground runs as they aren't runs that have been rejected. How the site deals with those runs is not pertinent to this thread.
Also, I'd ask that people not use this thread to suggest for us to go through generalized groups of runs (gruefood delight, playground, etc). The focus with this thread is more to review specific runs people believe need rejudged as the reasons for their rejection may no longer be valid due to rule changes. If anyone is suggesting a run here, please link the specific submission(s) you feel needs revisited and list the reasons why you think that particular run needs rejudged.
It's not that we don't care about the large general groups, we can plan to go through those once we've made it through the specific runs requested in this thread first; but we don't need recommendations to look through these kind of general groups.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
dekutony wrote:
In this game (as well as the prequel) Mario has a fixed altitude when he jumps. More importantly, it doesn't matter how long I press the jump key, it could be 1 frame or a whole 60 frames, my altitude will always be the same every time.
Say for instance I jump from one platform to the other and they're close to each other. I have to wait to land onto the next platform despite the rather short distance. After this platform, there's a higher floor I have to jump on again and the same rules apply.
I hug the walls from time to time because I have no other choice but to wait to land on the ground.
I hope this answers your question.
Unfortunately it doesn't. Even with fixed altitude jumps, it appears you can control horizontal movement during the duration of a jump. What I don't know and can't easily see from the encodes is how horizontal acceleration works in the game. If there is acceleration and not instantaneous increase to max horizontal speed, then hugging the wall may delay such acceleration.
For a theoretical example:
If Mario instantly increases to max horizontal speed once he is allowed to move horizontally after clearing a ledge vertically, then how far he moves in X frames will always be equal so long as his horizontal position is right at the corner of the wall when he clears the ledge vertically. With this style of movement, hugging the wall is not a problem.
However, if acceleration is a component of movement and Mario is only allowed to begin accelerating horizontally after clearing the ledge vertically, then hugging the wall means that the horizontal acceleration can't start until after he clears the ledge. Thus, jumping right against the wall will have a slower initial horizontal speed upon clearing the ledge vertically which will take time to build to max speed. This will limit how far he can travel horizontally in a given number of frames. By jumping from farther away from the wall, the acceleration can be exploited to have Mario's horizontal speed be already maxed out at the moment he clears the ledge vertically; this should yield a farther horizontal travel in the same number of frames than a jump that hugged the wall could, due to Mario's horizontal speed already being maxed out when he clears the ledge vertically.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Regarding optimization. I noticed a few places through the run, where Mario jumps to a new platform while right against a wall or ledge before progressing over the corner onto a new platform; for example around 12 seconds into the embeded encode. I know that in many games this method of jumping to a new platform can actually be slower than the common TAS strategy of jumping further away from the wall due to the advantage of horizontal acceleration.
As I'm not set up to use linux/libTAS, I am unable to test this particular game. Was there any testing done to confirm that the method used isn't slower than jumping further away from the wall?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Good to see you diving into this game. After doing the judgement for the original submission, I was hoping someone would pick it up eventually. I knew there would be further room for improvement, and it sounds like you're definitely finiding it!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Thornstrom wrote:
I'm new to attempting to play C64 games in Bizhawk, and got stuck immediately. I tried to load a .T64 game, and arrived at the READY-prompt. When a game doesn't load automatically, I read that I should type either "RUN" or "LOAD" or something like that. But how do I type? Keys are assigned to different hotkeys, and there's no input when typing anyway. Should I change input settings first somehow, or how do I use the keyboard in Bizhawk?
Firstly, BizHawk doesn't support .t64 files.
This guide should get you started with TASing/playing C64 games in BizHawk.
https://tasvideos.org/Bizhawk/C64
You can use the virtual pad to visualize/use the C64 keyboard. Its in the menu under Tools>Virtual Pad.
You can define keymapping in the menu also Config>Controllers, then in the "console" tab.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
DJ_Incendration wrote:
I'm glad he returned for a bit, and sad about his latest ban. Even I'm not the most positive at times, I argue about things, but in his last submission's discussion thread, I didn't notice anything bad.
As Samsara mentioned in the judgement notes, Logan’s ban resulted from his actions on discord, not from activity in a submission’s discussion thread.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
In verifying sync on this run, I noted that there are some places where Mario swims while there's still air above him (for example, in the second portion of 1-4). Since obtaining and maintaining P-Speed is done through much of the run anyway, I'm curious if it would be faster to do these sections with a flying suit (i.e. racoon) and fly past the water instead of swimming?
While I can see how they are used watching the run, I don't know how critical it is to have both the fire flower and hammer bros. suits throughout the run instead of swapping one of those for a flying suit at times.
Just an observation of something that at a glance made me curious if there was a potential way to get through some areas faster. Though without doing any in-depth testing on my own, I can't be sure that it would save time over the course of the entire run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
web2000 wrote:
Hi DrD2k9,
Letter world should be accessible via this method on original hardware as the game adds a star to your save file when loading the ending music in 8-4 and as long as you have 8 stars on the title screen you are able to access Worlds A-D.
Ok
I did also double check with other staff and we agree that it’s a valid use. If a game stores progress across the reset, it’s probably a valid feature to use.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
Good work. Yes vote.
My only concern is the use of soft-reset after 9-4, because previously it's done by dying in 9-1 with "You are a super player" screen. Is it allowed in this TAS? Personally I'm OK with it.
If the letter stages are validly/equivalently reachable via either method (death or reset), the soft reset should be okay. I will double check with other judges to be sure, but i agree with you.
I’d be surprised if we don’t have other games on the site that use soft resets instead of losing lives to get back to a title screen.
I personally used soft resets in Gameboy Donkey Kong to save time on world transitions.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2262)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1113
Location: US
Mikewillplays wrote:
If a judge isn't being able to sync a movie, despite it being already sync verified, is that a good reason to unclaim the judging?
It could also simply be that a particular judge isn't willing to actively judge a run based off someone else's sync verification. Meaning they don't want to judge a run that they can't personally sync.
