Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Thanks Fog.
What about obsoleting the fastest in-game time run? This is the fastest in-game time, and doesn't do anything particularly crazy aside from messing with the Y coordinates (which our Metroid runs do too BTW). As is, in-game is rather arbitrary.
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.
Thanks Fog.
What about obsoleting the fastest in-game time run? This is the fastest in-game time, and doesn't do anything particularly crazy aside from messing with the Y coordinates (which our Metroid runs do too BTW). As is, in-game is rather arbitrary.
It doesn't use the RAM to modify the in game time, so I feel that it should obsolete that as well.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
Nach wrote:
Thanks Fog.
What about obsoleting the fastest in-game time run? This is the fastest in-game time, and doesn't do anything particularly crazy aside from messing with the Y coordinates (which our Metroid runs do too BTW). As is, in-game is rather arbitrary.
It doesn't use the RAM to modify the in game time, so I feel that it should obsolete that as well.
It is only faster than the ingame time run because it glitches straight to the end. It doesn't set the goal "minimal ingame time". It has
1) shortest real-time as a goal,
2) game breaking glitch as a method.
On the other hand, the ingame time run deliberately avoided game-breaking glitches. Because with them, old (current) X-Ray run's ingame time was still smaller.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Thanks Fog.
What about obsoleting the fastest in-game time run? This is the fastest in-game time, and doesn't do anything particularly crazy aside from messing with the Y coordinates (which our Metroid runs do too BTW). As is, in-game is rather arbitrary.
It doesn't use the RAM to modify the in game time, so I feel that it should obsolete that as well.
It is only faster than the ingame time run because it glitches straight to the end. It doesn't set the goal "minimal ingame time". It has
1) shortest real-time as a goal,
2) game breaking glitch as a method.
On the other hand, the ingame time run deliberately avoided game-breaking glitches. Because with them, old (current) X-Ray run's ingame time was still smaller.
It's a byproduct of those two goals.
Theoretically, someone could get to 0hp, then pause/unpause forever to get a lower in-game time.
Perhaps we should abolish the in-game time branch.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
Theoretically, someone could get to 0hp, then pause/unpause forever to get a lower in-game time.
Perhaps we should abolish the in-game time branch.
This is exactly why we rely on the audience's perception when judging Moons movies. Someone runs through the entire game pausing all the time? No problem! The crowd would just downvote it and it will be rejected. Because to obsolete something in Moons, the run must be either
- faster, and not too distracting, or
- more entertaining, and polished.
If it's faster, but it looks terrible, it can be either rejected, or published to Vault. If it's more entertaining, it can be actually slower (for example, have speed/entertainment trade offs), or even have a different goal, and still obsolete another Moons run.
To make sure one Moons run should obsolete another, if they have different goals, the direct question needs to be asked: which one is better and how. Well, I didn't ask "how" this submission is better than the 2 glitched runs, because it still can be understood and seen from the posts. But the fact that almost no one sees any similarities to other SM branches tells that they deserve separate branches. At least for now.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Theoretically, someone could get to 0hp, then pause/unpause forever to get a lower in-game time.
Perhaps we should abolish the in-game time branch.
This is exactly why we rely on the audience's perception when judging Moons movies. Someone runs through the entire game pausing all the time? No problem! The crowd would just downvote it and it will be rejected. Because to obsolete something in Moons, the run must be either
- faster, and not too distracting, or
- more entertaining, and polished.
If it's faster, but it looks terrible, it can be either rejected, or published to Vault. If it's more entertaining, it can be actually slower (for example, have speed/entertainment trade offs), or even have a different goal, and still obsolete another Moons run.
To make sure one Moons run should obsolete another, if they have different goals, the direct question needs to be asked: which one is better and how. Well, I didn't ask "how" this submission is better than the 2 glitched runs, because it still can be understood and seen from the posts. But the fact that almost no one sees any similarities to other SM branches tells that they deserve separate branches. At least for now.
Then why did no one downvote the ACE run where they did exactly that and got a 6 minute IGT?
The point I'm trying to make is that the IGT does not deserve to be in Moons if it can be easily exploited by multiple methods.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
Then why did no one downvote the ACE run where they did exactly that and got a 6 minute IGT?
Because it looked great within its goals.
Fog wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the IGT does not deserve to be in Moons if it can be easily exploited by multiple methods.
It can't. If some game-breaking glitch or super boring trick is added to that category run, it will be called "ingame, trick X". Have fun collecting votes for that to obsolete the normal ingame run.
Also, see my signature.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Then why did no one downvote the ACE run where they did exactly that and got a 6 minute IGT?
Because it looked great within its goals.
Fog wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the IGT does not deserve to be in Moons if it can be easily exploited by multiple methods.
It can't. If some game-breaking glitch or super boring trick is added to that category run, it will be called "ingame, trick X". Have fun collecting votes for that to obsolete the normal ingame run.
Also, see my signature.
We don't need to have a separate branch for each IGT. As it stands right now we have too many branches for Super Metroid. If this run is able to apply and obsolete three runs (which in my opinion it should), then that would reduce the amount of branches that we have, and streamline what the branch definitions should be.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
As it stands right now we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
"Too many" is subjective.
Fog wrote:
If this run is able to apply and obsolete three runs (which in my opinion it should), then that would reduce the amount of branches that we have, and streamline what the branch definitions should be.
Arbitrary obsoletions just to clarify branch names? Sounds silly. Once again, dealing with subjective things one needs to rely on statistics. Otherwise it well go like that.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
As it stands right now we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
"Too many" is subjective.
Fog wrote:
If this run is able to apply and obsolete three runs (which in my opinion it should), then that would reduce the amount of branches that we have, and streamline what the branch definitions should be.
Arbitrary obsoletions just to clarify branch names? Sounds silly. Once again, dealing with subjective things one needs to rely on statistics. Otherwise it well go like that.
How is it arbitrary? There are perfectly valid reasons to obsolete the x-ray glitch, game end glitch, and in game timer runs.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
How is it arbitrary? There are perfectly valid reasons to obsolete the x-ray glitch, game end glitch, and in game timer runs.
Can you list all the reasons to obsolete the ingame run again please? Community support should be among them (because it was the reason that branch was restored).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I think the ACE run should obsolete the 100% run since it gets even more than 100% collection rate and end the game fastern, and because we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
I problably made mistakes, sorry for my bad English, I'm French :v
I think the ACE run should obsolete the 100% run since it gets even more than 100% collection rate and end the game fastern, and because we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
Uses RAM manipulation to achieve it. Not even in the same ballpark of what I'm talking about.
I think the ACE run should obsolete the 100% run since it gets even more than 100% collection rate and end the game fastern, and because we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
Uses RAM manipulation to achieve it. Not even in the same ballpark of what I'm talking about.
This run uses RAM manipulation to get a better IGT than the current IGT run.
I problably made mistakes, sorry for my bad English, I'm French :v
How is it arbitrary? There are perfectly valid reasons to obsolete the x-ray glitch, game end glitch, and in game timer runs.
Can you list all the reasons to obsolete the ingame run again please? Community support should be among them (because it was the reason that branch was restored).
- Obtains the fastest in-game time (despite not being an initial goal)
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
- Is entertaining
I think the ACE run should obsolete the 100% run since it gets even more than 100% collection rate and end the game fastern, and because we have too many branches for Super Metroid.
Uses RAM manipulation to achieve it. Not even in the same ballpark of what I'm talking about.
This run uses RAM manipulation to get a better IGT than the current IGT run.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
- Obtains the fastest in-game time (despite not being an initial goal)
Probably.
Fog wrote:
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
It uses a game-breaking glitch that the ingame run deliberately avoids.
Fog wrote:
- Is entertaining
It's not more entertaining than the ingame run itself. If you say "no one just tried to compare", it's why they can't obsolete one another - they don't feel comparable.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
- Obtains the fastest in-game time (despite not being an initial goal)
Probably.
Fog wrote:
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
It uses a game-breaking glitch that the ingame run deliberately avoids.
Fog wrote:
- Is entertaining
It's not more entertaining than the ingame run itself. If you say "no one just tried to compare", it's why they can't obsolete one another - they don't feel comparable.
The current IGT run is also many years old. New tricks have been found since then (like ACE, 0hp pausing) that should have made that run obsolete a long time ago.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Fog wrote:
- Does not manipulate the timer in any shape
It uses a game-breaking glitch that the ingame run deliberately avoids.
The current IGT run abuses the IGT, unlike this run. In fact, the entire IGT set of runs seems to solely exist to show the IGT could be abused.
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.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3574)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
While I agree that the validity of the IGT branch is worth debating, isn't it a bit off topic in the context of this submission? The only plausible solution is a retroactive obsoletion by an existing movie, as it has no real intersect with this movie and shoudl be discussed in a another forum thread. (Unless I'm missing something).
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
I agree with adelikat. Obsoleting the current ingame-time run is a separate issue from obsoletions regarding this movie, as the arguments supporting this run obsoleting the ingame-time run also apply to other published movies, such as the currently published X-Ray run.
This should be discussed in another topic, probably split from this one.
(EDIT: Split has been done)
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
While I agree that the validity of the IGT branch is worth debating, isn't it a bit off topic in the context of this submission? The only plausible solution is a retroactive obsoletion by an existing movie, as it has no real intersect with this movie and shoudl be discussed in a another forum thread. (Unless I'm missing something).
The IGT for this submission is only 6 minutes (00:06). If there was a retroactive obsoletion to take place, it would be the current x-ray run obsoleting the IGT run.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1058
Location: United States
It always amazes me how complicated people have to make these obsoletion discussions. The submission sums up exactly how this run should be published, which coincidentally is how the majority of people feel too. Heck the author is basically laying out a perfect blueprint to obsolete 2 of his OWN runs. Why discuss further? Just publish this run and have it replace the 2 other glitch category runs. Leave all the other runs alone. This should be making people happy, since it lowers the amount of super metroid runs. It should not be an excuse to arbitrarily start removing the other non-glitch runs. I was originally against publishing the any% in-game run, but since it is here now, it would not be right to simply remove it because you feel there are too many super metroid runs. Ideally a new any% run will eventually be submitted which will also serve as a dual obsoletion for both the realtime and in-game time any% runs.
It always amazes me how complicated people have to make these obsoletion discussions. The submission sums up exactly how this run should be published, which coincidentally is how the majority of people feel too. Heck the author is basically laying out a perfect blueprint to obsolete 2 of his OWN runs. Why discuss further? Just publish this run and have it replace the 2 other glitch category runs. Leave all the other runs alone. This should be making people happy, since it lowers the amount of super metroid runs. It should not be an excuse to arbitrarily start removing the other non-glitch runs. I was originally against publishing the any% in-game run, but since it is here now, it would not be right to simply remove it because you feel there are too many super metroid runs. Ideally a new any% run will eventually be submitted which will also serve as a dual obsoletion for both the realtime and in-game time any% runs.
It's a valid discussion point if this run can possibly obsolete runs that aren't initially listed as goals in the description.
Also it's not arbitrarily obsoleting runs, like I posted earlier there are enough reasons that this could possibly obsolete the IGT run.
