Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
simillarian wrote:
Thinking of it this way, it seems we either have 2 out of 5 events designed for high score and 3 out of 5 events designed for speed. Would the best run be one that aims for high score on the first 2 and speed on the next 3? I'm not sure how switching goals in the middle of the run would be any better than a run where 2/5ths of it is essentially waiting for the event to end.
For a high score TAS: If speed is the only metric for score on an event, then the fastest time = the best score. If there are other ways of earning points, attempting to maximize score takes priority over speed to the end point. It could theoretically end up being a balance point between speed and other score earned in-stage that yields the maximum score.
So for Freestyle and High Jump, just max the score.
For Downhill and Jam, you'd need to maximize points by balancing speed and points from tricks, pickups, etc.
For Joust, it's probably still a 'win as fast as possible' situation.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Memory wrote:
My question essentially comes down to the section of the rules defining games which have achievable goals. Is simply ending the gameplay segments as quickly as possible the same thing as completing them? As you pointed out it's not "losing them" but it's not clearly winning them either. Typically in a video game you play it well to progress further into them but here progression happens regardless of performance. That signals to me that "progression" seems like a trivial goal.
I am not against accepting this kind of run despite feeling that a score oriented run would be more interesting, but I would like clarification on a rather ambiguous section of the rules.
This feels similar to my C64 Decathlon submission. It similarly didn't require good performance for progression. Granted it was rejected because the aim for max score didn't allow for true fastest completion (which would have been effectively done by just failing all non-timed events). That game's judgment has been suggested to be rejudged given the clarified vault rules for max-score runs (as somewhat discussed here).
Skate or Die may be a similar situation where only a max-score run can be vault eligible and there's no feasible way to have a speed only related vault eligible submission (barring perhaps ACE).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
WarHippy wrote:
So it's been almost a month since I put forward this suggestion. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
I'm fine with having it rejudged. If optimization is in question under a new judgement, I have no problem revisiting the project and improving optimization if a high score run will now be vault eligible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Memory wrote:
Is this completion?
You could say this movie completes all new content according to endless games rules, but is this completion if the game does not care about how well you do in the slightest?
Individual events (Downhill and Jam) certainly can be considered non-trivial in that they have a clear goal: complete as quickly as possible. Compete all does not have such a clear goal.
Can losing an event that is only intended to be 'beaten' and isn't time based actually be considered as 'completing' it?
It's more of a 'participated-in' status instead of 'completed'.
Sure, losing may be the fastest way to show the content, but I'd argue that only losing in such a competition event doesn't really count as 'completion'.
Even if the game ultimately doesn't care how you perform in the task presented; the general assumption can be made that the game still expects you to try to succeed in that task. Thus losing intentionally isn't 'completing' the task presented.
EDIT: This would really only apply to the last stage for this game. My comment was more generalized and not specific to this game.
The first two modes of this game are done satisfactorily for a fast finish.
As presented, this final stage is good as well.
EDIT#2: Regarding completion of this game: If the two poorly performed events are the beginning aren't included because they don't have a clear completion goal, the run wouldn't show all unique content of the game. Therefore, even though the game doesn't care how poorly they are done, they are necessary for a 'full-completion' run of this game. These events, as presented, still appear optimized for time.
The only other option would be to allow multiple publications of individual events as 'complete' runs (which in my opinion, isn't full completion of the game).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
dekutony wrote:
Ok so apparently someone made a full TAS of this game:
video removed
And uh... I dont really know what to say about it. I'm not too familiar with this game speedrun wise, and the description is... interesting.
Just in watching the first few levels, the run linked by Grincevent is clearly more optimal.
On that note, I have been occasionally working on a TAS of this game myself, and have managed to improve a couple things over the nicovido run. At this rate though, it's going to be quite a while before I can have a submission ready (and that assumes when I'm all done, it's actually better than these two videos).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Memory wrote:
I understand that people want movies to be appreciated for their technical accomplishments, but I don't feel a technical rating is the right way to go about that. Ultimately, only those who understand the ins and outs of a game can truly appreciate the amount of effort that goes into making the TAS. Ultimately what actually gets appreciated is the documentation of said process rather than the actual achievement.
This is exactly why a technical rating doesn't provide much information to a casual viewer or even another TASer unfamiliar with the game.
Speaking of casual (non-member) viewers of our publications...they aren't even given an option to rate movies. They can see the rating value, but can't contribute to the rating. Thus only members can have impact on the resulting rating; and when most members do actually contribute to how a movie is perceived, it's in the pre-publication discussion/voting.
I'd speculate that a fair number of our members simply feel that going back and rating a run post-publication is an unnecessary extra (if not also tedious) step, if they've already given their opinion on a particular run. This also explains the possibility that most of our members don't care much about the post-publication ratings to begin with or they'd do them.
Further, if a particular member has shown no interest in providing a simple yes/no/meh vote, how can we ask/expect that individual to want to provide an even more complex assessment of a run that they were never interested in to begin with?
So the question becomes, who/what are the ratings intended for?
If for displaying generalized perception of entertainment value: a simple 5 star rating system (as has been already brought up) would be sufficient to display this metric. And there's little reason to restrict this assessment to only members; we could allow the general public offer their entertainment perspective as well.
If for rating technical prowess of runs/authors...this accomplishes little more than stroking the egos of our members while providing little to no pertinent information to a casual watcher. A technical rating based on anything other than what's visible to a casual watcher is meaningless to that casual watcher. I'd suggest that even for other TASers, the technical accomplishments/ratings of movies are rarely the reason they choose to watch a particular run over other reasons such as entertainment or general interest in the game being TASed.
We claim that the underlying purpose of this site is entertainment. People don't want to have to work to be entertained. In general, people simply want entertainment provided to them. So doing (or even understanding) a technical rating takes extra work that most people aren't going to mess with when they're simply looking to be entertained.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
To add to Radiant's list of how to rate a movie:
The voting/rating guidelines tell viewers to consider the technical production of the run not just how technical it appears on-screen.
Therefore, There are additional steps required to do an appropriate technical rating.
*Click to open a new web page with the authors comments/submission notes to see how they made the TAS to begin with.
*Hope that those comments are fully developed and not simply a reference to an earlier version's submission notes (which would then require opening yet another web page to read those notes, or even more if it's the run's been updated multiple times)
*Read said note to hopefully understand what the author actually did to make the TAS from a technical standpoint.
*Have enough knowledge of the game to know if what the author did really was very technically impressive or not. (While this may not truly be a requirement, many viewers will feel this way in regards to rating technical quality.)
*Return to the original movie rating spot to actually do the rating itself.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Memory wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
Who actually cares and pays attention to these ratings other than those doing the ratings? (legitimate non-rhetorical question)
It's one of the factors used in determining tiering. In fact it's pretty much the only factor post publication that can result in a tier change. Of course you could argue about how much tiering matters, but it very much affects whether or not certain TASes can be published here at the very least.
EDIT: I would not be against the idea that ratings should be phased out and other methods be used to determine tier.
Ratings are also used in calculating player's points but your mileage may vary on whether or not those matter.
I mostly understand what the ratings are used for regarding the site. But if so few are concerned with the ratings to begin with, should we really be using them to determine these things on the site?
Disclaimer: I don't have any other suggestions for tier changes. But I don't like the idea that ratings affect player points. I personally feel player points (as a quantitative value) should be based more on the quantity of currently published content that person has produced, not on how others qualitatively perceive the content that's been produced; I have no problem with losing points due to obsoletion.
Minor Side Note: You're accurate in assuming that the player points don't mean a whole lot to me either.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Memory wrote:
I've been talking and wondering why exactly people haven't been rating as much. I would like for people that don't rate post-publication to explain why.
I enjoy creating TAS content much more than I enjoy simply watching TAS movies. Therefore, I'd rather spend my free time creating new TAS content or updating an old one than watching runs of already published games simply to rate them.
With how little attention is paid by members in regards to doing the rating post publication, it does beg the question of how important post-publication ratings are in the first place.
Who actually cares and pays attention to these ratings other than those doing the ratings? (legitimate non-rhetorical question)
Frankly, I don't.
If I'm interested in watching a particular movie, a low rating will not discourage me from watching it. Likewise, if I have little to no interest in watching a particular movie, a high rating won't miraculously make me suddenly decide to watch it. My limited viewing of TASes is based on game interest not movie rating.
For that matter, I don't really care much how my own movies are rated (pre or post publication). If they are good enough for publication, I'm satisfied. Even when one gets rejected, I can still feel a sense of accomplishment for completing the project.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
I personally prefer auto-pilot mode.
I like the idea of ending input as soon as possible and letting the game finish itself even if getting to the credits takes longer.
I'd argue that the majority of what we publish here is based on this method (i.e. jumping into an end trigger to allow momentum to carry the character to the end trigger instead of having to have directional input all the way to the end-point). It's not universal on the site; but we're typically focused on shortest input, not shortest time to the credits screen itself.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
So it doesn’t seem like a 3rd person is going to sign up to form a 4th team. I haven’t given up on it yet but it’s probably a good time to think of some plan Bs.
So there’s a few options we can choose, and I’d like to know what everyone thinks:
we force two 5 player teams and have one 4 player team
one person leaves their team to join team 4, making two 3 player teams and two 4 player teams
the two individuals drop all together
Personally I would prefer the 2nd option but dont want to force someone out of a team unless they’re willing to do it. So what would everyone think is the best option?
Keep in mind if a 3rd player does sign up (or a 4th player shows up if we’re really lucky), we’ll disregard all of these options.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
I'm in.
NYMX and I are teaming up but open to a couple more teammates. I've asked one other person, but am waiting on a reply. So currently I'd say we have one teammate slot open, which may become two slots.EDIT 1: We have two slots open.
EDIT 2: NYMX decided it'd be better if he didn't do this years DTC. And thus I'm now all alone. Who wants a teammate?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Svimmer wrote:
Just look at Super Mario Bros and tell me the amount of interesting stuff going on doesn't far outweigh what's present here.
Firstly, SMB is a MUCH more well known and well studied game than this submission.
Secondly, just because it's possible to do all the special stuff you see in SMB doesn't mean it's possible to do similar special things in Monty on the Run (or any other game for that matter).
Thirdly, much of the special stuff in SMB has been developed and found over many years worth of time since it was first published on this site. This submission is the first accepted and published run of this particular game. Future versions (if anyone is even willing to try) may find new tricks to show off. But considering the vast difference in how many man-hours have been put into dissecting/TASing these two games, to expect an equivalent level of 'tricks' or game mastery to be visible on-screen between these two games is absurd.
Fourth, you could make this same argument about SMB having much more going on than numerous other games in moon tier.
If you don't feel the game should be in moon tier, go rate the move as EZGames69 mentioned above. While tier evaluation of runs is based initially on entertainment feedback received pre-publication, the ultimate determination of tier tends to rely more heavily on post-publication rating.
If enough people agree with you that the run is unentertaining and rate it as such so that the overall entertainment rating becomes significantly low, it will likely be moved out of moons and over to vault tier (as it is an eligible submission for that tier).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Svimmer wrote:
Hmm... totally disagree on the moons tier here: I mean the game has nice music but the run has absolutely minimal tricks AFAICS. Even the luck manipulation is far from flashy stuff.
Svimmer wrote:
This is EXACTLY the same situation when that recent GTA TAS came out: it had one significant trick (which is one more trick than I noticed here) and tons and tons of luck manipulation. I mean... at best this is double standards*.
You seem to be suggesting that a game played without abusing some glitch/gimmick or containing some special flashy visual 'trick' can't be entertaining.
Have you never considered that entertainment can be gleaned by some people through simply watching a game beaten as fast as possible even when it only uses methods of play exactly as the developers intended?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
It is indeed possible for RNG to be completely unaffected by player inputs (at least directly). It's also possible for RNG to be directly manipulable by input. It just depends on how the game was coded.
Regarding your recordings not playing back: recorded inputs will typically only yield the same result for RNG (and the resulting video) if the recording was performed starting from a deterministic memory state (i.e. power-on), and then the playback is also started from the same deterministic point. Simply being on the title screen when starting input playback often isn't enough as a difference as small as 1 frame in where the input playback is started can affect RNG changes.
Others here can probably provide further information/details on a more technical level.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2144)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1038
Location: US
Radiant wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
I'm actually planning on doing the C64 version also.
Nice! How about the (non-junior) Jumpman? IIRC that's 30 levels with original gimmicks.
Yep...I'm open to that as well.
I've also got a copy of the DOS Jumpman Lives! floating around somewhere. Might do that someday too....but will be more of a tedious TASing process. Jumpman Lives! contains levels from both Jumpman and Jumpman Junior as well as some original levels.
There is even a 2014 official sequel available called Jumpman Forever. I'm guessing it would take libTAS or Hourglass (unlikely as the game is designed for Win 7 or higher) to TAS it though.
