Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
WarHippy wrote:
I know it’s pretty late for this, but there are several levels where on the final screen you simply land and walk all the way to the end. Is there a reason you don’t try using up fuel during these sections? And does it cost time to fire the laser? Just another way to use up fuel before the end. (I’m assuming less fuel equals faster level end)
The power/fuel meter is simply a timer. Hovering doesn't cause it to reduce any more rapidly than standing still.
I tested hovering on the very first stage of the game. Simply starting the stage and standing still results in death due to power loss at frame 6526. Staring the stage and hovering upward continuously until the power meter is drained also results in death at frame 6526.
I honestly didn't check this aspect of the other two ports (probably should have, and I will do so then update this post as I'm able.)I did not test continuous firing the laser, but I will and include the info when I update this. EDIT: Firing the laser did not impact the rate of power decrease either.
EDIT 2:
For both Coleco and Atari, the Power meter is also just a timer; Hovering and laser firing have no impact on rate of decrease.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
I don't agree with the maximum lives classification.
The lives value clearly rolls over; and thanks to the additional overlay, we can see what the equivalent RAM value is. While this does stop increasing briefly at -8, it restarts increasing later on.
Unless I'm missing something, this movie doesn't achieve maximum lives...it only (apparently) achieves the maximum obtainable lives before the first stage timer runs out.
Given that the lives counter completely rolls over at least once through all 256 possible values in this video, it can be assumed that further rolling over of this RAM value would be possible using subsequent lives on the same stage.
Therefore, this movie fails to achieve what it claims it is because a maximum cannot be defined.
Further, as already mentioned. this doesn't beat the game.
While interesting, I don't believe this video is publishable.
I would be interested to find if increasing the lives value above 0xFF affects the next RAM address value in such a way that may lead to a glitch.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Radiant wrote:
Yay! That's the version I was hoping for when this site got its first HERO run. Plus I always like being able to compare various ports of a game.
Yes vote!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Maybe my recent DK run can stand as a pseudo-example.
While it has now been console verified, it took extra preparation work (involving pre-seeding the system's wRAM using a different cart) to make happen.
Thus, the inputs in the publication alone aren't always going to work on console.
This results from the fact that BizHawk uses a standard initialization of wRAM (for determinism sake) before the game code is run. However, the game itself uses uninitialized wRAM to seed its RNG as opposed to a preset RNG seed value. As this uninitialized wRAM can vary from console to console (or even on the same console depending on the previous game played), the published movie isn't going to console verify consistently without actively preparing the wRAM before each and every console verification attempt.
This means that even if the game completely syncs a run on the console without issue, shutting the system down and restarting will likely result in a desync on a subsequent verification attempt, as the wRAM most likely won't match what it needs to for the run. Doing multiple console runs in sequence would require additional human intervention beyond the power cycle and TAS start. Namely, between runs the wRAM would have to be actively pre-seeded by cart swapping once again before the system could be power cycled for the TAS run.
By contrast; typically once a NES game has been console verified it can be reasonably consistently repeated without any extra intervention from a human beyond simply power cycling and then restarting the TAS.
EDIT: Sadly, I don't believe this type of desync issue is something that can be rectified from an emulation or TAS creation standpoint. So it doesn't really help much from a development perspective.
EDIT 2: (Much Delayed) My DK run has been verified.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
GJTASer2018 wrote:
I previously tried to improve the current submission for this game in BizHawk 2.3, but got stymied on the first "U-Turn" hover (on Level 8). For some reason, I couldn't get the player to "snap" to the ground at the end and had to manually land him instead, wiping out the previous gains I had accomplished. I gave up at that point because I assumed that the previous submission took advantage of an emulation bug (and that "proper" emulation would result in a slower submission as a result), so I would like to know if my initial conclusion was wrong or if there really WAS an emulation problem in that version...
I'm not sure exactly all the ways the emulation differences affect the run. What I do know for sure is only at the beginning of the run. There are 5 lag frames at the beginning in the old run. There is only 1 lag frame in the new one. This allows for a faster start in the new version.
As far as improving the old run. I copied the inputs from the old TAS and put them into the newer BizHawk version. I then went through every single screen making improvements everywhere I could (NYMX then found further improvements). So I don't even know if our improvements would carry over and work in the older versions of BizHawk.
I suppose it could be theoretically argued that all the frames we saved from minor movement optimizations could be attributed to emulation differences; but I strongly doubt that's the case.
In the comparison video, I dumped the current publication video from BizHawk 1.11.9.1 and the video for this submission from BizHawk 2.5. Even still, if you look close, it's possible to see some instances where the current publication gets closer than necessary to the rock walls before dropping bombs. So there was some optimization done beyond emulation differences.
All that said: Without seeing your inputs, I can't explain why you had trouble with the hovering "U-turn" in stage 8 on your attempts.
NYMX understands the flying mech a bit better than I do, so maybe he'd have some insight.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
>DrD2k9 & NYMX's Coleco H.E.R.O. in 09:20.42
>DrD2k9 & NYMX's A2600 H.E.R.O. in 09:48.27
>NYMX & DrD2k9's C64 H.E.R.O. in 10:07.03
This annoys me to no end.
The one who did the bulk of the work for each port was listed first.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Something else to consider with TASing a DOS game for TASvideos.org is that some DOS games need to be run at native CPU speeds in order to be eligible for publication.
Here is the pertinent rule.
In the youtube video linked above, DOSBox is set to Maximum 100% cycles for CPU speed. This means that the emulated CPU may be running faster than a CPU that was actually available at the time of the game's release. This could potentially be allowing for faster movement/actions in-game than could have been done on a proper era CPU.
All that said, it's possible that a JPC-rr TAS could match or even be faster than the video posted. Primarily, the RNG would be knowable and the inputs could be planned in order to eliminate any time loss from unknown RNG events. Also, it may be possible to manipulate the RNG; either through altered input or possibly by altering the emulated real time clock settings (as has been done in other DOS games published here).
Further, JPC-rr (with TAScript) allows for sub-millisecond precision with inputs, which may provide opportunity for an even faster run.
Sadly, I don't know of a way to convert what you have to a JPC-rr movie/input file. To TAS this game in a way that would be publishable using JPC-rr would likely require a complete redo.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Chakratos wrote:
EZGames69 wrote:
You need to get an NTSC console.
But then i had to rebuy all the expensive and "rare" games i already own :(
Isn't there any other way? Or maybe some PAL Tas M64 files?
While TASvideos.org is the one of the primary places regarding creation and archiving of TAS runs; console/hardware verification is not as big of a part of this particular community. We do mark runs that have been verified on consoles, but the actual work of console verification isn't heavily discussed here typically.
If you're wanting more information on running TASes on original hardware, look into the TASBot community. Individuals there are more heavily involved in running TASes on real hardware, and they can likely give you some good direction on how to proceed in achieving what you're desiring.
https://tas.bot/http://discord.tasbot.net/
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
psychicide wrote:
no... i know there's no game page, but what i''m asking is: how do i get a game page to be created?
It depends on whether you are wanting a publication page, or a resource page created?
Publication Page: Submit a TAS worthy of publication and the publication page will be created by a publisher.
Resource Page: A staff member can create the page for you, but it will be blank. It'll require editor rights to add anything to that page. If you don't have any pertinent info for the resource page, there's not much reason to create one.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
The biggest deterrent when it comes to various sports games is that many of them have a clock that runs for a preset amount of time. Thus there's no real way to "speedrun" them from the standpoint of two runners competing for the fastest time; because no matter what is done in-game, the final run time can be matched fairly easily.
This is one reason that it's difficult to get the TAS of a sports game eligible for vault publication. Moon tier publication would require a certain level of audience entertainment value for publication, but wouldn't be as restricted by the time factor.
If you can prove that there are indeed methods to reduce the overall time of this game somehow and prove that it's not trivial to do so, there MAY be a chance it could be published in vault.
But I think vault publication would be a very tough argument for Tecmo Super Bowl as it sounds like the only way to minimize time is to avoid clock stoppages. While it may not be exactly easy to accomplish (even in a TAS), the minimum possible time is still limited by the game clock. Thus, no matter what any TAS author chose to do in-game, as long as the clock never stops, the minimum possible TAS time will be achieved and is effectively pre-determined.
Ultimately, the decision would be up to the site's judging team (of which I'm not part).
So to answer your question as directly as possible:
A TAS of Tecmo Super Bowl may be rejected as un-publishable in vault if it doesn't attain a high enough entertainment response from viewers of the submission to warrant publication in the Moon tier.
EDIT: Please do not let this response deter you from TASing the game if it's something you want to do.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Arc wrote:
I'm just saying I think that the movie should be rejected because the gameplay lacks user creativity rather than rejected for not being a game at all.
Obviously you're not claiming this should be accepted, but your comments regarding considering this submission as a "game" did make me pause and think.
Disclaimer: I understand the site's current stance on the following topic. While I don't completely agree with it, I can respect the perspectives which guide the current rules.
I'm not looking to start a debate, I'm truly just curious.
So how do these intentionality and user creativity perspectives affect your thoughts regarding board game/edutainment titles validity for publication on our site?
They are currently not allowed, but many of them could easily offer an opportunity for user creativity.
Paraphrasing your own comments; because the software in this submission has been treated as a game, you believe that it can be considered a game.
While I can follow your logic, it does introduce a comparison point regarding intention of software like this submission vs. Board Game/Edutainment titles...Namely, what its intended use actually is. This submission's "game" is simply software intended to test a system and wasn't intended by the developers to be a game from the perspective of the user achieving some goal that challenges the player. Board game/edutainment titles, however, typically are intended to be games with defined challenges that must be overcome (even if the purpose of the game itself is to reinforce the learning of some educational topic).
End of curiosity question.
My thoughts regarding this submission.
I tend to lean toward a more inclusive perspective of what our site should consider publishing. However, when we are considering whether or not something should be deemed a game for the purposes of our site, I feel that a developer's intended purpose for a particular piece of software takes precedent over what the user actually does with that software.
In my opinion, this submission's ROM should not be considered a game by our site as the software wasn't intended to be a game by the developer. It is software designed to challenge the system, not to challenge the user who happens to be operating the software.
I have a copy of that run with both parts 1 and 2 combined together.
As best as I can figure...from power-on to the input for the final throw is actually roughly 56:14. Even adding the times of the two individual parts directly on the nicovideo site yields approximately 56:14 for the final input (so nothing was changed when I combined them).
I'm not sure how that author calculated the 53:46 time, but this submission is faster. While some of the stages in that run may beat the equivalent stage in this run, the two runs start with different RNG seeds/sequences which is visible as early as the 2nd stage (the fireballs jump the opposite direction out of the barrel).
For what it's worth, I believe I know the RNG value that the nicovideo run starts with. I also believe that it may be the same value that TiKevin83's hardware initializes to.
I've already begun working on a new version of the TAS which will use this starting RNG seed/sequence in hopes that it will console verify. Obviously that version wouldn't be able to be submitted because the RNG seed would need poked into RAM at the onset of the run (using GBC in GBA core mode).
There is a possibility that a run that syncs on the console could be converted to the SGB mode (as I believe the RNG seed for SGB core may match the console). If so, I may consider converting it and ultimately submitting an SGB run if the result happens to be faster than this submission. It is only that theoretical submission that could be directly compared to the nicovideo run.
As an interesting side note: I have no idea what emulator that the nicovideo run was made with. It appears to have been done in an emulator that uses the SGB border, but it doesn't have the SGB enhanced sound of Pauline screaming for help. It also lacks the non-enhanced tones that are used for her scream on standard GB or GBC hardware.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
So for those who would have rather had this TAS in Super GB mode (for the sound of Pauline yelling "Help!"), a simple conversion of movements isn't going to work.
The RNG is different due to the initial value in the RAM at power-on.
Thus, I can't do a simple conversion by converting frame inputs to the other format.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
Thanks for the info! Might be worth confirming this 150 seconds threshold for a potential future update though.
Confirmed through testing.
I tested by poking values into the timer RAM address just before the end of stages.
The threshold does appear to be 150 across all stages. Even with ones that start with only 150 seconds on the clock; poking a value above 150 yields a shut door, poking anything below 150 yields an open door.
Whew! One less thing to worry about (multiple thresholds) on any future TAS.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
One thing I've always wondered about this game is what causes Mario to shut the door behind him sometimes at the end of a level. This appears to be a source of time loss, so I'm surprised to see it often in this TAS. Is that event not RNG-based?
So I feel like a bit of an idiot in not even noticing that those two options happen. That said, I've gone back and looked into it a bit.
There is no advancement of RNG for either animation, and I've googled and found a couple sites claiming the same as what fsvgm777 mentioned regarding it being related to the time left on the timer.
For what it's worth, the animation that closes the door is 38 frames longer than the one that doesn't. So the only potential improvements in this run would be stages that finish with less than 38 frames until the next timer tick that would break the threshold that determines which animation is played.
If that threshold is indeed always 150, then only levels that finished with a 150 remaining on the timer would be improvable.
I checked, and none of the stage times in this run were exactly 150 remaining; so I don't think trying to save time this way is worth pursuing further for this particular TAS.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
EDIT: There is a potential consideration regarding if the game tracks completion of the Time Trial puzzles:
If all 64 unique TT puzzles must be completed before any are repeated, then it's likely tracked internally even if there's no indicator to the player that it's tracked.
From my poking around, it seems like it does not track puzzles completed. The internal counter just goes up every time you go into the Time Trial puzzle. The game does not care if you actually complete the puzzle or not. ie if you give up right away, it will give you the next puzzle on the list when you go back to the time trial (and it will not re-randomize the list until you enter Time Trial 134 times).
Also just want to say (again), the "randomization" relies solely on what should be (what should be) non-deterministic data, both uninitialized SRAM and WRAM are used to create the "random" list (cough cough DK94 cough cough). Since Gambatte just FF's the entirety of uninitialized RAM, you will end up with a constant list 100% of the time. The fact that Sameboy got a different puzzle is simply because it does not have the same behavior regarding uninitialized RAM like Gambatte (SRAM is FF'd but WRAM is 00'd).
(tl;dr the list isn't really random just due to how emulators treat uninitialized RAM, for the purposes of a TAS, it shouldn't be considered random)
For me, this data actually does more to support my position that the unique puzzles need solved to consider the game complete.
If all the TT puzzles will be presented before any are repeated, then completion of all unique content could be performed without unnecessary repetition.
That said, if the puzzle counter simply repeats after all the TT puzzles have been presented once; the mode is not really a 'random puzzle' mode and the repeating sequence effectively makes this game a never-ending game. Therefore, based on movie rules for non-ending games, all unique content must be presented for the game to be considered complete.
This unfortunately complicates the issue with another question. If the player is able to give up on any given puzzle and still advance on to the next puzzle in sequence, is simple display of the blank puzzle & numbers enough to be considered having the content shown...or would it be more appropriate to require the puzzles to be solved?
In my perspective, the latter is more appropriate. With other non-ending games we tend to require reaching some completion point (i.e. beating the stage) AFTER the final unique content has been presented by the game; simply seeing the content isn't enough. Thus I feel that solving of the puzzles, not just visualization of the blanks & numbers, is necessary.
ALL THAT SAID, there is yet another thought that needs consideration in regards to game completion:
The only equivalent I can make to advancing the counter by quitting a puzzle to get through them more quickly would be along the lines of skipping a bonus stage in any other game. But these aren't bonus stages. They're legitimate new puzzles/content exactly like any other standard stage in the game.
Further, the normal puzzles in the other modes can technically be solved in any order (or also given up then continued with a different puzzle), and all puzzles in any other mode need solved to consider that mode complete; making order of completion a non-factor for any game mode. Therefore the order in which the TT puzzles are completed doesn't technically matter, but they all still need solved to consider the mode complete.
From this perspective which disregards order of completion, the only way to consider the entire game complete is to have all modes of the game completed. This requires all the unique puzzles in all modes to be solved.
Pseudo minor edit: The fact that the game itself doesn't track completion of the TT puzzles doesn't matter when determining if everything in the mode has actually been completed. It's still a measurable completion metric even if we have to measure it manually.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
RetroEdit wrote:
I would argue the time trial puzzle(s) doesn't count towards full competition at all. It's just a single record; it doesn't keep track of each individual puzzle out of the 64 possible puzzles that was done.
This is in contrast to the clear way the other 192 puzzles are treated, each having an individual checkbox among other indicators showing each puzzle is complete.
With that perspective, we could potentially have a 2nd branch of this game:
This submission would be the any% branch.
A version that completes all the unique content would be a 100%/Full Completion branch.
My personal perspective: Given that this game (as presented) has no "end credits" with which to mark the end-point of game-play, the only other definitive end-of-game moment is to exhaust all unique content. The fact that the game uses the same high score (low time?) table for all the Time Trial puzzles is a moot point. The game, in my opinion, is incomplete.
I do not have enough experience with this game to know if there are credits offered after all the Time Trial puzzles are exhausted.
Something else to consider for a "full completion" run would be the "How to play" mode. If it's simply directions, then it may not be necessary. However, if there's any solving on the player's part that occurs in that mode, it could also likely be required for Full Completion.
EDIT: There is a potential consideration regarding if the game tracks completion of the Time Trial puzzles:
If all 64 unique TT puzzles must be completed before any are repeated, then it's likely tracked internally even if there's no indicator to the player that it's tracked.
EDIT 2: I just tested....after entering your name for the TT puzzle in this submission, the game continues directly on to the next puzzle. It doesn't go back to a menu of any type. Oops. It continues if you hit A, it goes back to a menu if you hit B. My mistake.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
Time Trial mode (the final mode unlocked) gives you a random puzzle from the Time Trial level set and notes the final completion time on the ranking board. Since all levels share the same leaderboard & individual level completion isn't tracked here I chose to "complete" this mode just by finishing the first level it gives me and registering the name "TAS".
Is the puzzle selected indeed random? Did you test if it was possible to manipulate RNG to yield a shorter puzzle for this mode?
EDIT: Are the Time Trial puzzles repeats of other puzzles in the game? If not, wouldn't all the Time Trial puzzles need completed to consider the game truly completed?
EDIT 2:
This page shows 64 puzzles are possible in Time Trial Mode. Scanning though them, there are unique puzzles in this mode compared to other modes in the game. Thus, I'd argue that all these unique puzzles also need solved to consider the game 'beaten' even if their order is randomized.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
I would like to point out that a nonogram is technically a paper & pencil game. As such, the Vault eligibility of this submission, which is exclusively about solving nonograms, is questionable.
The issue here is that the current wording in the Movie Rules refers to "board games" instead of "tabletop games". This may require a revision for consistency.
While this could, indeed, be classified as a "tabletop game" because it's based on a paper & pencil puzzle, there still exists potential for optimization in a picross game; namely, what order the black squares are filled in.
This presents a "routing" challenge as the fastest sequence of filing the black squares is not immediately or trivially identifiable even when the answer to the puzzle itself is previously known. Different TASers may find different routes that could yield the same time, but there are surely some solution sequences that are faster than others. This presents not only a TASing challenge, but also potential for improvement.
I see this as an acceptable game (though I haven't watched this specific submission so I can't comment as to it's optimization or acceptability).
Creating a TAS for this type of puzzle is no less of a TASing challenge than any other puzzle based game (i.e. Tetris Attack's Puzzle Mode) just because it is derived from a puzzle that can also be done on paper.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2120)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1032
Location: US
Timing Issues
Given that the pink vehicle stops at obstacles when they are in the way (and doesn't wreck); these stages are more akin to having a frame-rule (minimum frame count) than they are to auto-scroller from a timing perspective.
Auto-Scrollers will always end in the same amount of time regardless of optimization quality through the stage (unless there's a boss battle or end trigger that the character has to hit at the end of the otherwise equally timed auto-scroller).
But a stage that has a minimum frame count can take longer to complete due to poor play.
So as the pink vehicle in Road Worker stops for obstacles instead of wrecking...this game's timing leans more toward frame-rule. The minimum number of frames being how many it takes the vehicle to get to the end of the road without stopping for any obstacles.
It is the optimization of play in the TAS that allows for unhindered travel of the vehicle, thus making this minimum frame count achievable.
Thus from a strictly timing perspective, optimization of input is what yields the shortest possible time (even if that's easily achievable).
Yes, the game is absolutely boring to watch!
But the boring waits alone don't disqualify it from acceptance. While the final time may be achievable by humans, the cursor movement/actions both in-play and menus are obviously superhuman. Thus the game meets acceptance standards from a superhuman and optimization perspective.
What may make this game un-acceptable?
1) Triviality - Given the slow movement of the vehicle, there isn't only 1 possible fastest way to complete this game. There may be many variations in the TAS actions/solutions that could yield the same final time, thus no matter what someone does while TASing (so long as the vehicle isn't delayed) the final time will be equivalent. There's little to no opportunity for beating this run's time unless a glitch is found to end stages faster.
2) Bootleg - Held to higher standards than officially released games. I'm not familiar with all the requirements necessary and will thus defer to the judges.
