If score attacks are to be accepted by default, how would leeching be handled?
You're referring to milking certain patterns, right? If so, I believe they should be fair game if it can't be done indefinitely. Otherwise, they'd probably go to Moons.
Those rules are in movie rules, not Standard rules. All movie rules still apply (tho they do need to be updated).
Thanks for the quick reply, Memory. I agree, there'll have to be some changes to the movie rules as they currently explicitly separate rules into 'vault' and 'moon' rules. My question then is, how are the movie rules changing in light of the new class system? If it's not determined yet, is there a way to be part of the conversation in determining the changes?
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
c-square wrote:
My question then is, how are the movie rules changing in light of the new class system? If it's not determined yet, is there a way to be part of the conversation in determining the changes?
Updating the movie rules is a separate beast. We're actively planning on doing so, but apart from some terminology updates we're holding off until we get these changes ironed out first. Ideally, we'd like to go through every rule with the community and figure out what's worth keeping and what needs to be changed/removed. It'll be a new thread, so look out for that in the near future.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Updating the movie rules is a separate beast. We're actively planning on doing so, but apart from some terminology updates we're holding off until we get these changes ironed out first. Ideally, we'd like to go through every rule with the community and figure out what's worth keeping and what needs to be changed/removed. It'll be a new thread, so look out for that in the near future.
Great! I'll definitely keep watch for that. Thanks, Samsara!
Last thing for now: I'm absolutely in favor of a Score Attack goal. It's an easily definable and measurable metric by which to judge a run, and is a standard way video game records have been historically captured.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
andypanther wrote:
The requirement of having to prove that there is a definitive maximum score. That might work for games where you can easily score high enough to max out a counter at something like 999999, but not for other situations. I never understood why score runs should be judged that way, it's like asking people to proof that the time for a speed-oriented TAS can never possibly go lower.
When was the last time you looked at that rule? I can't find the requirement you mentioned.
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.
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 meant the actual Movie Rules page rather than the class description page.
[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 requirement of having to prove that there is a definitive maximum score. That might work for games where you can easily score high enough to max out a counter at something like 999999, but not for other situations. I never understood why score runs should be judged that way, it's like asking people to proof that the time for a speed-oriented TAS can never possibly go lower.
When was the last time you looked at that rule? I can't find the requirement you mentioned.
I think they're referring to the 2019-era wording on how scoring goals were handled. Which—I completely agree—was silly.
Thankfully, we've already moved beyond that, and the current intention is to move further towards unbinding score attacks from full completion rules and eventually treat score as a standalone optimization metric just like time.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I see my suggestion was ignored. Can anyone please at least implement the Moons icons? As the site is now, it's only displaying Stars icons, effectively putting Moons tier on the same visibility as the new Standards tier. We don't want to hide Moons just to make the lowest tier look less crappy, so pretty please implement the Moons icon in the recent publications list.
Bigbass wrote:
I'm not sure Fastest Completion is necessary, at least not right away. Perhaps as more categories are published, this will become a more notable flag. Of the 106 non-obsoleted movies published this year, 67% of them have this flag.
In my opinion Fastest Completion is the only flag that makes it cluttered, and I think it would be perfect without that one.
I see my suggestion was ignored. Can anyone please at least implement the Moons icons? As the site is now, it's only displaying Stars icons, effectively putting Moons tier on the same visibility as the new Standards tier. We don't want to hide Moons just to make the lowest tier look less crappy, so pretty please implement the Moons icon in the recent publications list.
I agree with this.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Bigbass wrote:
I'm not sure Fastest Completion is necessary, at least not right away. Perhaps as more categories are published, this will become a more notable flag. Of the 106 non-obsoleted movies published this year, 67% of them have this flag.
In my opinion Fastest Completion is the only flag that makes it cluttered, and I think it would be perfect without that one.
I disagree with this one tho. Even if the flag was probably introduced too soon and that it is not really useful right now, It really helps to differentiate the fastest from full completion categories and later when it will be implemented other categories that might end up in Standard. I see no reason to delete the flag and then re-introduce the flag when there are more categories acceptable in Standard.
I'm not sure Fastest Completion is necessary, at least not right away. Perhaps as more categories are published, this will become a more notable flag. Of the 106 non-obsoleted movies published this year, 67% of them have this flag.
In my opinion Fastest Completion is the only flag that makes it cluttered, and I think it would be perfect without that one.
I disagree with this one tho. Even if the flag was probably introduced too soon and that it is not really useful right now, It really helps to differentiate the fastest from full completion categories and later when it will be implemented other categories that might end up in Standard. I see no reason to delete the flag and then re-introduce the flag when there are more categories acceptable in Standard.
My original point was talking about what flags should be displayed on the main page's list of new publications. In that, displaying the Fastest Completion flag seemed insignificant. 2/3rds of the publications that would show up in that list from this year, had that flag (at the time of my search). That doesn't really seem like a unique quality. Even now, 2 months later, that stat remains the same: 67.4% of the 138 non-obsolete TASes from this year, have that flag. However, if people feel that it is a highly valued quality nonetheless, then I've got nothing against it being displayed along side the others. I don't hold strong opinions on it either way.
And to clarify, I never said I wanted to delete the flag, as in getting rid of it completely. I was just responding to the suggestion about what flags to display in that particular list of new publications.
My original point was talking about what flags should be displayed on the main page's list of new publications. In that, displaying the Fastest Completion flag seemed insignificant. 2/3rds of the publications that would show up in that list from this year, had that flag (at the time of my search). That doesn't really seem like a unique quality. Even now, 2 months later, that stat remains the same: 67.4% of the 138 non-obsolete TASes from this year, have that flag. However, if people feel that it is a highly valued quality nonetheless, then I've got nothing against it being displayed along side the others. I don't hold strong opinions on it either way.
And to clarify, I never said I wanted to delete the flag, as in getting rid of it completely. I was just responding to the suggestion about what flags to display in that particular list of new publications.
Oh sorry I misunderstood both of your points about the fastest completion flag and thought it was about to delete it from the all site ^^', you understood my misunterstanding. Then, about it in the newest publication list, I also agree that it is pointless to have it.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I see my suggestion was ignored. Can anyone please at least implement the Moons icons? As the site is now, it's only displaying Stars icons, effectively putting Moons tier on the same visibility as the new Standards tier. We don't want to hide Moons just to make the lowest tier look less crappy, so pretty please implement the Moons icon in the recent publications list.
The problem is that it would make the Moons class look special again, kinda above Standard which doesn't have an icon. The two classes are equal now. Stars are above both, so they are highlighted.
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 the site is now, it's only displaying Stars icons, effectively putting Moons tier on the same visibility as the new Standards tier. We don't want to hide Moons just to make the lowest tier look less crappy, so pretty please implement the Moons icon in the recent publications list.
This is missing the point of the revamp altogether. Standard is not the lowest class, movies can be accepted to that class regardless of entertainment. Moons is exclusively for movies with odd goals or odd games. Read Movie Rules / History for details.
[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
I see my suggestion was ignored. Can anyone please at least implement the Moons icons? As the site is now, it's only displaying Stars icons, effectively putting Moons tier on the same visibility as the new Standards tier. We don't want to hide Moons just to make the lowest tier look less crappy, so pretty please implement the Moons icon in the recent publications list.
The problem is that it would make the Moons class look special again, kinda above Standard which doesn't have an icon. The two classes are equal now. Stars are above both, so they are highlighted.
Memory wrote:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
? As the site is now, it's only displaying Stars icons, effectively putting Moons tier on the same visibility as the new Standards tier. We don't want to hide Moons just to make the lowest tier look less crappy, so pretty please implement the Moons icon in the recent publications list.
This is missing the point of the revamp altogether. Standard is not the lowest class, movies can be accepted to that class regardless of entertainment. Moons is exclusively for movies with odd goals or odd games. Read Movie Rules / History for details.
Sorry if I sounded aggressive, I was concerned and jumped to conclusions.
I see there was quite a huge change in how things work. It's very revolutionary, but I don't see problems with it. Well done.
Still, I think that the list of recently published movies should be more informative, by displaying the movie flags. Except for the fastest-completion flag, for which I'd rather suggest to have a separate list for it, as well as a separate list for full-completion. That way, there would be three lists of recently published movies: fastest-completion, full-completion, Moons (or "other-goals"). Opinions?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Still, I think that the list of recently published movies should be more informative, by displaying the movie flags. Except for the fastest-completion flag, for which I'd rather suggest to have a separate list for it, as well as a separate list for full-completion. That way, there would be three lists of recently published movies: fastest-completion, full-completion, Moons (or "other-goals"). Opinions?
I would support having links to those specific lists, presented on their respective pages.
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.
Still, I think that the list of recently published movies should be more informative, by displaying the movie flags. Except for the fastest-completion flag, for which I'd rather suggest to have a separate list for it, as well as a separate list for full-completion. That way, there would be three lists of recently published movies: fastest-completion, full-completion, Moons (or "other-goals"). Opinions?
I would support having links to those specific lists, presented on their respective pages.
Wasn't that there already? There's this "More..." link at the end of publication list in the home.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
That's one link to one page containing everything. Not links to pages containing specific lists.
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.
This kind of change to modules on the current site is probably not going to be a high priority for obvious reasons.
[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
That's one link to one page containing everything. Not links to pages containing specific lists.
Yeah but I mean, when there were two separate lists before, each had a separate link to its own extended list of published movies, chronologically ordered from the most recent.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
And now this is the first movie goal that's being allowed for Standard class that wasn't allowed for Vault tier! Everyone in staff seems to agree that it should be the next step with the whole tier/class revamp, so now we need community consensus on where we should draw the line.
Forgoes major skip glitch
Definition
http://tasvideos.org/MovieTagGuidelines.html#ForgoesMajorSkipGlitch
Applicable for movies where Major skip glitch is possible, but was not used for entertainment purposes.
Movies with the tag
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3041N.html
Reminder what Major skip glitch means
http://tasvideos.org/MovieTagGuidelines.html#MajorSkipGlitchOur plan
We want to allow for Standard, movies whose only difference from Fastest completion (any%) is the "Forgoes major skip glitch" goal. This goal is meant to represent TAS records that don't break the game into pieces on the most fundamental level. It was the standard any% goal before major skip glitches were discovered in a bunch of games, and people always wanted to see it, which is why it was in Moons almost always.
Situation
While most of the time, there's a single glitch that makes all the difference, there are cases when it's not trivial (or even possible) to draw a clear line.
If wall clipping may result in a major skip glitch, some people might want to limit wall clipping in some way not to skip most of the game, while others might want to ban wall clipping entirely for "Forgoes major skip glitch".
Memory corruption often results in a major skip glitch, but there are cases when it doesn't. Some people might want to ban memory corruption entirely from "Forgoes major skip glitch", others might want to only ban it if it's how you skip most of the game.
I personally think that whether major skip glitch is caused by memory corruption or breaking in-game physics, exact borderline will always need to be defined as a case-by-case consensus, depending on the game, how severe the skip is, and what the nature of the technique is. There can't be a simple clear-cut rule that resolves every known scenario nicely.
Opinions?
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 that the more powerful the major skip glitch, the more problematic it is to draw the line. I'm imagining something like Final Fantasy III, where with memory corruption the game can be beaten under 6 minutes. The same trick can be used to glitch jobs to one shot every fight in the game, which in its own way skips a major part of the game. It can do some other things as well to skip great portions of the game.
Another thought is that sometimes a fun and useful minor glitch turns out to be of the same sort of a later discovered major skip glitch. Or it may be that the same sort of minor glitch is much more major in another game (I think some Zelda OoT glitches are sort-of-but-not-fully fixed in MM?) I don't see the use of banning the whole type of glitch in such a situation, other than keeping the ruleset clear and concise.
Because of such situations, I'd define "forgoes major skip glitch" as in principle forgoing all instances of the glitch that enables the major skip for that specific game.
Most glitch avoidance runs I can think of outright disallow the action that causes the glitch even in situations where the glitch doesn't trigger. I think I'm more in favor of this line of thinking. "I used the major skip glitch, but not in the way that causes a major skip" feels not right in my opinion. Also, I feel there's a need to be able to properly define things. I'm not sure if that needs to be a hard rule, though. I think the nature of the thing requires a case-by-case basis.
The problem here can be a little bit tricky.
In the case of only one major-skip glitch I also think that not only in the situation where it causes a major skip glitch but also in any other situations, the glitch needs to be forbidden. Because I feel it unjustifiable to avoid a glitch only in a situation where it leads to a major-skip. But maybe we will need to call it differently if we go on this because other situations where it's not a major-skip, we could argue that the glitch isn't a major skip so maybe "Forgoes glitch that leads to major-skip" ?
In the case of a combination of glitches that leads to a major-skip, there will need some more discussions but maybe if there are 3 glitches used alltogether that leads to a major-skip, only the use of the 3 alltogether needs to be forbidden and using 2 of the 3 during the all run is acceptable.
Example : glitch A, glitch B, glitch C : the TAS is only allowed to use "A, A+B, B" or "B, B+C, C" or "A, A+C, C".
Another possibility is the disallowing of any of the glitches of the combination in all situations of the game.
This is then a case by case basis and hard to define preciselly.
EDIT: This is probably out of context but does the use of a glitch in many situations that aren't major but the accumulation of the use of it making it major can be considered as well here ?
EDIT: This is probably out of context but does the use of a glitch in many situations that aren't major but the accumulation of the use of it making it major can be considered as well here ?
To me this is a different category entirely. That is "Heavy Glitch Abuse/Forgoes time-saving glitches". We want to implement new goals one at a time. I'd definitely be interested in considering such a goal but with each goal we add we need to revisit the entire list of rejected publications. In order to not completely overwhelm ourselves and try debating about too many different things at once, I limited things to one at a time.
[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
