2 player's in the game will have more enemies.so, at the right time, I kill 1P or 2P to reduce the number of enemy or boss HP.Because in the game, the death of a character can mistake the program for a single-player game.
Also, the AB special attack damage of each character is different. LEO = 8, RAPH = 7, MIKE = 11, DON = 9. So, use more appropriate roles at different stages.
Another detail, MIKE's AB special attack can only hit two times, the damage is 22, DON's AB special attack in most cases hit three times, the damage is 27, this is particularly important, can save a lot of time. Specific can be seen in memory address 0628.
As for the score award, I don't pay much attention to it, because there are many points award in the later stage.
there are many reasons why they could be abandoned, one could be the author isnt working on it due to being demotivated, or if they are still working on it but havent posted updates recently, TASing should not be a quick and easy thing to do. they are projects that can take a long time to properly do. anyone who has actually done a tas before will tell you that it's not as easy as doing a speedrun.
This is a good reason to scrap this rule. Why should good submissions be held up by motivational issues on behalf of someone submitting a WIP? It's not like the publication cannot further be improved. It's not set in stone.
How it tends to work is that improvements are incremental. Small improvements beget further improvements. Knowing that your movie could be improved and then losing motivation is a bad outcome. We'd be far better off with a published improvement to an existing movie than waiting around for an abandoned WIP to get finished off.
I know I would be pretty demotivated if I spent time working on a TAS and then had it rejected even though I beat out the currently published run. Especially if I started it before the WIP improvements were published. I'd be like, "why bother"?
probably because some people choose to work on tases on their own, and splicing the inputs may not always work if the game isnt hex friendly. It's also imo very shitty to take someone's inputs without first asking for permission from the original author first. The author of the WIP not being active is a whole different story.
That the author of the WIP is inactive makes this pretty open and shut. This should be published as an improvement to the current publication.
This is TASing. Not RTA. You do not work from scratch. You look at what other people have done and can take inputs from them if needed. Not looking around at what others have done is lazy and bad research.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
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.
Mostly you are right, as I know, Hetfield90 and soig always made tas so quickly, and beat the recode. Though I agree making tas shoud be slowly.
Definitely agree with there being exceptions out there.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
The good quality of TAS is our the main priority. We strive to achieve optimal TAS, but cruel truth is that we never really achieve it. Most of published TAS are not perfect.
For many games is very common to have a ladder of 4-5 improvements. And these ladders will grow up in future yet futher. It is infinite sequence of improvement.
Previous publication is not optimal.
Current publication is not optimal.
This submission is not optimal.
Abandoned WIP is not optimal.
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Current projects: NES: Tetris "fastest 999999" (improvement, with r57shell)
Genesis: Adventures of Batman & Robin (with Truncated); Pocahontas; Comix Zone (improvement); Mickey Mania (improvement); RoboCop versus The Terminator (improvement); Gargoyles (with feos)
Well if the author is working on an improvement themselves I won't bother :)
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
It'd be hard to discuss the fundamental principles behind TAS rules without being aware of those pages.
Feos, yeah. Thanks for the reference. I've read it. As was posted there are quite a number of exceptions, publications that were accepted even with known improvements.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Thanks for reminding, even though it was canceled, I still need to go through that list and review/reply on each.
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 don't remember if there were faster records using 1 player. As for how improvable it was, I did consider this point, and the time loss mentioned in the thread seemed to be less than the time saved by the new glitch, so I accepted it, encouraging improvements.
mtvf1 wrote:
Soig's submission didn't exist when Heidman submitted his run, so there were no records the submission was losing to. Soig canceled, so I were unable to accept his movie while rejecting Heidman's. The rule doesn't mean the published movie shouldn't be improvable, it means the submission should account for existing records. It's impossible to account for them when they don't yet exist :)
mtvf1 wrote:
The judge addressed this as well, saying it's not known if the tricks from the video are reproducible for a movie, so we can't easily use such examples as records. Tricks that can be used to make the movie faster don't automatically translate to "existing records". They are just known improvements. If there was a movie implementing those tricks or routing decisions, and it was faster than the submission, then it'd be clearly losing to existing records.
mtvf1 wrote:
The decision was made before you brought up a faster TAS, and I think your post was somehow missed. The improvement should have been investigated, and if it was legitimate and reproducible, that submission would be rejected.
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'm late, but what I learned about TASvideos.com, is that here, the community/judges want quality. Work in progress or not, if something is too suboptimal or bad quality (this is judged by the judges) then it will be rejected. It's just the way the site works. The rule is there as a guideline, and I think it's good to have guidelines of quality.
I actually WANT my movie to get rejected if someone is doing better or if I can (easily) get it better ^^
And the autor can still publish it on Youtube or user files even if it's rejected ;)
