Portal - March 27th, 2011 [locked]

2011-03-27 09:08:55 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/Portal.html

run without oob skips.

Quote:

this is a great run, so it's a shame it uses scripts. doesn't matter when he did the run, he submitted it after scripts were banned. reject.

Quote:

In his segmented in-bounds run (current SDA run), the runner relied mainly on auto saves rather than quick saves. The author of this run has a total disregard for that and takes advantage of auto saves like twice, total. Both runs were made using about the same number of segments so when the quick save penalty kicks in, even though this run is a lot shorter in length, it just BARELY beats the current run. Not being so careless could result in a much lower time.

Not even touching the "run was submited after the ban" argument - it's a reject from me based on this being too small of an improvement to the current run on SDA, given SDA's ruleset.

Quote:

I have to agree with the first verifier. Just bad timing on the runners part.

Quote:

I don't see a problem with the run, it was completed before the ban was put into place, and I know we need to have a limit, but the run really is excellent. I don't think it fair to reject the run on the basis of it being against rules that weren't in place when it was completed. The scripts used were a bunnyhop, nothing special, and a wallclimb, for one little part.

While I don't think it fair to argue that the rules weren't broken that severely, I'd still accept it on the basis of it being an absolutely incredible, breathtaking run of a brilliant game, and it not breaking any rules at the time of completion.

Decision: Reject

Reason: Moreso than (this run was completed before using scripts was banned so that doesn't really apply), this run doesn't end up being much faster than the current SDA run because of the rules.

Yeah I'm aware this is probably controversial.

Thread title:

Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/Portal.html

run without oob skips.

[quote]this is a great run, so it's a shame it uses scripts. doesn't matter when he did the run, he submitted it after scripts were banned. reject.[/quote]

[quote]In his segmented in-bounds run (current SDA run), the runner relied mainly on auto saves rather than quick saves. The author of this run has a total disregard for that and takes advantage of auto saves like twice, total. Both runs were made using about the same number of segments so when the quick save penalty kicks in, even though this run is a lot shorter in length, it just BARELY beats the current run. Not being so careless could result in a much lower time.

Not even touching the "run was submited after the ban" argument - it's a reject from me based on this being too small of an improvement to the current run on SDA, given SDA's ruleset.[/quote]

[quote]I have to agree with the first verifier. Just bad timing on the runners part.[/quote]

[quote]I don't see a problem with the run, it was completed before the ban was put into place, and I know we need to have a limit, but the run really is excellent. I don't think it fair to reject the run on the basis of it being against rules that weren't in place when it was completed. The scripts used were a bunnyhop, nothing special, and a wallclimb, for one little part.

While I don't think it fair to argue that the rules weren't broken that severely, I'd still accept it on the basis of it being an absolutely incredible, breathtaking run of a brilliant game, and it not breaking any rules at the time of completion.[/quote]

[b]Decision[/b]: Reject

[b]Reason[/b]: Moreso than (this run was completed before using scripts was banned so that doesn't really apply), this run doesn't end up being much faster than the current SDA run because of the rules.

Yeah I'm aware this is probably controversial.

ExplodingCabbage

2011-03-28 03:23:23 am

Since when was a run being a small improvement grounds for rejection? Just how small an improvement are we talking about here?

There was also the whole unfortunate issue with the runner choosing to use manual saves at the start of levels for aesthetic reasons (because the autosaves happen a couple of seconds in and create an ugly visible discontinuity in the video, or something; I don't really remember the details so maybe somebody can provide more info here) under the assumption that these saves would be treated as autosaves and not penalised. Mike chose not to allow this and said he should have used the autosaves and the manual saves would still attract the half second penalty. As such several seconds of lost time in this run was effectively due to a rules misunderstanding over the segmenation penalty. I'm not saying Mike should or should not have agreed to treat these saves as autosaves, or that the runner was or was not stupid to do that without asking Mike beforehand if he wanted to submit to SDA. I am saying, though, that it was a pretty unfortunate turn of events regardless of where any blame may lie.

Since when was a run being a small improvement grounds for rejection? Just how small an improvement are we talking about here?

There was also the whole unfortunate issue with the runner choosing to use manual saves at the start of levels for aesthetic reasons (because the autosaves happen a couple of seconds in and create an ugly visible discontinuity in the video, or something; I don't really remember the details so maybe somebody can provide more info here) under the assumption that these saves would be treated as autosaves and not penalised. Mike chose not to allow this and said he should have used the autosaves and the manual saves would still attract the half second penalty. As such several seconds of lost time in this run was effectively due to a rules misunderstanding over the segmenation penalty. I'm not saying Mike should or should not have agreed to treat these saves as autosaves, or that the runner was or was not stupid to do that without asking Mike beforehand if he wanted to submit to SDA. I am saying, though, that it was a pretty unfortunate turn of events regardless of where any blame may lie.

Paraxade

Edit history:

Paraxade: 2011-03-28 06:13:18 am

Paraxade: 2011-03-28 05:56:35 am

Paraxade: 2011-03-28 05:53:49 am

Paraxade: 2011-03-28 05:32:06 am

2011-03-28 05:31:45 am

Uhh yeah, I have to say I'm kinda confused by the rationale behind this reject too. Two of the verifiers rejected it solely based on the run using scripts, which Mike already greenlighted, so if we disregard those two then we end up with a split - one reject because the run only just barely beats the current run, and one accept. Regarding the "just barely beating the current run" bit, I'm not going to spend too much time making sure this is completely accurate, but taking the time listed on his YouTube video of the run (9:25), adding ~36 seconds for the ending (10:01), and then factoring in the penalties for 22 manual saves (estimate), then we still end up with 10:12; current run is 14:27, so still a massive improvement. Beyond that, like ExplodingCabbage said, I don't understand why a run with fantastic gameplay quality can be rejected for not being enough of an improvement, despite still being an improvement. Let alone being rejected over a minor rules technicality that barely has any impact on the run.

So yeah, what?

Uhh yeah, I have to say I'm kinda confused by the rationale behind this reject too. Two of the verifiers rejected it solely based on the run using scripts, which Mike already greenlighted, so if we disregard those two then we end up with a split - one reject because the run only just barely beats the current run, and one accept. Regarding the "just barely beating the current run" bit, I'm not going to spend too much time making sure this is completely accurate, but taking the time listed on his YouTube video of the run (9:25), adding ~36 seconds for the ending (10:01), and then factoring in the penalties for 22 manual saves (estimate), then we still end up with 10:12; current run is 14:27, so still a massive improvement. Beyond that, like ExplodingCabbage said, I don't understand why a run with fantastic gameplay quality can be rejected for not being [i]enough[/i] of an improvement, despite still being an improvement. Let alone being rejected over a minor rules technicality that barely has any impact on the run.

So yeah, what?

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-03-28 05:59:06 am

2011-03-28 05:58:05 am

If what Paraxade has posted about the time (i.e. over 4 minutes were shaved off a run less than 15 minutes long), which I have to say was roughly the impression I had prior to seeing this thread (though I don't follow Portal running really) then it would seem Mike has been drastically misinformed by the second verifier listed in the OP and rejected primarily on the basis of that misinformation.

Which would make this the clearest-cut case for a reverifcation ever, IMO.

Can anyone confirm the times Paraxade posted?

moozooh

2011-03-28 07:27:25 am

Hail Discordia!

I would like to express my vocal disagreement with this decision. Sad

ridd3r.

2011-03-28 10:36:20 am

we have lift off

I make it 10:10 + 11s = 10:21. Current record to compare this with is the 13:06 by groobo so yeah this is at least a 2:45 improvement which is 20%. Conclusion - Verifier no.2 should be shot, he implies it beats it by a few seconds which is a load of crap. This decision should have no controversy what so ever, it's just plain wrong thanks to some serious misinformation.

Flip

2011-03-28 10:47:48 am

1-Up!

Quote from ridd3r.:

Conclusion - Verifier no.2 should be shot

Yeah that's not completely over-the-top Undecided

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-03-28 10:55:06 am

2011-03-28 10:53:34 am

Quote from ridd3r.:

he implies it beats it by a few seconds which is a load of crap.

Yeah, saying that the run is 'a lot' shorter pre-penalty but 'barely' shorter after the penalty pretty unambiguously suggests that the majority of the time saving is lost after applying the 11 second penalty. From that any reasonable reader would infer that the time difference post-penalty was a small fraction of 11 seconds, when in fact it is minutes.

I can't really see this ending any other way than SDA's second ever reverification.

ridd3r.

2011-03-28 10:54:28 am

we have lift off

Quote from Flip:

Quote from ridd3r.:

Conclusion - Verifier no.2 should be shot

Yeah that's not completely over-the-top Undecided

It boggles my mind you thought I was being serious. The reason it's so over the top is because it's a joke

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-03-28 11:01:41 am

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-03-28 11:00:03 am

2011-03-28 10:59:09 am

Quote from ridd3r.:

Quote from Flip:

Quote from ridd3r.:

Conclusion - Verifier no.2 should be shot

Yeah that's not completely over-the-top Undecided

It boggles my mind you thought I was being serious. The reason it's so over the top is because it's a joke

Lol, I don't think Flip saying it was over the top means he thought you literally meant that it would be right and just for the verifier to be shot dead. I think he just means that saying that you were expressing a disproportionate amount of anger at the verifier by saying that.

It was a pretty bad fuck-up on the verifier's part, though.

Edit: Yeah I'm not sure after your reply to Flip whether you meant to express anger at the verifier or were just observing neutrally it was a bad fuckup.

ridd3r.

Edit history:

ridd3r.: 2011-03-28 11:21:30 am

ridd3r.: 2011-03-28 11:10:51 am

2011-03-28 11:02:30 am

we have lift off

I know what he meant, but it seems like a totally pointless statement given it was clearly a joke and therefore not meant in an angry way. It's a play on how people used to be lined up and shot for relatively minor offences, it may be a bit of a dark joke but it's not like I'm wishing a disease on him and his family which would of course be out of line.

So to answer your edit, yes it was observing it was a bad fuckup.

Kryal

2011-03-28 11:03:42 am

from red to blue

oh mike, you had to have two controversial verification threads in a row...

romscout

Edit history:

romscout: 2011-03-28 11:20:23 am

2011-03-28 11:16:18 am

that Metroidvania guy

I'm in if there's a reverification (which there should be).

ridd3r.

2011-03-28 11:46:03 am

we have lift off

Quote from Kryal:

oh mike, you had to have two controversial verification threads in a row...

I don't think it's fair to compare the two. This actually deserves a reverification due to clearly false information from 1 verifier, and 2 others who rejected it based on a rule that didn't apply.

Kryal

2011-03-28 12:04:01 pm

from red to blue

i never did compare the two. you're looking too deep into it

Flip

Edit history:

Flip: 2011-03-28 01:17:06 pm

2011-03-28 12:19:11 pm

1-Up!

Quote from ridd3r.:

It boggles my mind you thought I was being serious. The reason it's so over the top is because it's a joke

Quote from ridd3r.:

I know what he meant

If you knew what I meant then I guess your first post was just an attempt to take a shot at me. OK, whatever makes you happy.

Regardless, looks like this is heading for a reverification, so we'll see what happens there. ~~Would have been a non-issue if the runner hadn't waited quite so long to submit.~~ see below.

mikwuyma

Edit history:

mikwuyma: 2011-03-28 01:17:58 pm

mikwuyma: 2011-03-28 01:14:25 pm

2011-03-28 01:14:00 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

BTW, for anyone wondering. I should state this ISN'T demonstrate's run.

He just tried submitting that this saturday, which is way too late, I have to say.

Also ask Groobo about the saves thing.

Paraxade

Edit history:

Paraxade: 2011-03-28 01:32:00 pm

2011-03-28 01:31:14 pm

...so wait, which run is this then? I assumed it was DemonStrate's because I don't recall hearing about another Portal run other than his :x

I guess everything I said about the time is irrelevant then though the verification still seems iffy either way.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-03-28 01:51:13 pm

2011-03-28 01:48:01 pm

Quote from mikwuyma:

this ISN'T demonstrate's run.

Ha, wow. That's an interesting turnaround. I think everybody viewing this thread assumed it was Demonstrate's run.

Edit: D'oh, we all should've figured out this wasn't Demonstrate's because in the OP Mike said it was a

Quote:

run without oob skips.

We should all be shot.

ridd3r.

Edit history:

ridd3r.: 2011-03-28 01:52:56 pm

2011-03-28 01:52:03 pm

we have lift off

Quote from mikwuyma:

run without oob skips.

Might help if I could read, though clearly there's been nothing posted about this and it seemed about the right time to be Demon's run. Oh well...

Quote from Flip:

If you knew what I meant then I guess your first post was just an attempt to take a shot at me. OK, whatever makes you happy.

I wasn't taking a shot at you, it boggled my mind that you called me out on what was clearly a joke.

Edit: and yes to complete the joke we should all be shot.

arkarian

Edit history:

arkarian: 2011-03-28 08:19:00 pm

2011-03-28 08:18:34 pm

gamelogs.org

i'm verifier 1.

Quote from ridd3r.:

I don't think it's fair to compare the two. This actually deserves a reverification due to clearly false information from 1 verifier, and 2 others who rejected it based on a rule that didn't apply.

why doesn't the rule apply? why would it matter when he did the run? imagine if this run were completed while scripts were allowed, but then the runner submitted it years later -- would sda still accept it then? of course not. scripts were banned when this run was submitted. it should be rejected.

Quote from Paraxade:

Uhh yeah, I have to say I'm kinda confused by the rationale behind this reject too. Two of the verifiers rejected it solely based on the run using scripts, which Mike already greenlighted

he did? afaik, neither mike nor anyone else ever said we should ignore the fact that it was done with scripts. when mike gave verifiers the links he said:

Quote from mikwuyama:

This a run without oob, but it has scripts. It was actually completed before we put the ban into effect, but it took the guy forever to submit the run. So you be the judge.

and that's what i did.

i'm verifier 1.

[quote="ridd3r."]I don't think it's fair to compare the two. This actually deserves a reverification due to clearly false information from 1 verifier, and 2 others who rejected it based on a rule that didn't apply.[/quote]
why doesn't the rule apply? why would it matter when he did the run? imagine if this run were completed while scripts were allowed, but then the runner submitted it years later -- would sda still accept it then? of course not. scripts were banned when this run was submitted. it should be rejected.

[quote="Paraxade"]Uhh yeah, I have to say I'm kinda confused by the rationale behind this reject too. Two of the verifiers rejected it solely based on the run using scripts, which Mike already greenlighted[/quote]
he did? afaik, neither mike nor anyone else ever said we should ignore the fact that it was done with scripts. when mike gave verifiers the links he said:

[quote="mikwuyama"]This a run without oob, but it has scripts. It was actually completed before we put the ban into effect, but it took the guy forever to submit the run. So you be the judge.[/quote]
and that's what i did.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2011-03-29 02:50:33 am

2011-03-29 02:50:19 am

Quote from arkarian:

why doesn't the rule apply?

Well, I figure ridd3r said the rule doesn't apply because Mike said

Quote:

this run was completed before using scripts was banned so that doesn't really apply

However, given the 'you be the judge' quote at the end of your post (which we, obviously, haven't seen until now) clearly that was a factor in his decision.

KhanFusion

2011-03-29 04:58:27 am

I think this is the run in question:

It seems it is 20 seconds faster than the current run, so with all penalties applied it is actually slower.

Mission

2011-04-17 10:42:56 pm

Now looking at the actual run:

With penalties applied, it's 13:19 + 0:36 + 0:11 = 14:06

This is 21 seconds quicker than the current run on SDA by Demonstrate. For such a short run time, this doesn't seem to me like a small improvement.

It looks like it is extremely unlucky timing for the runner but this run is crazy regardless of acceptance.

gia

2011-04-18 12:46:10 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

I missed the new rules discussion, the published run uses scripts, are you removing it when a run without them is submitted? or are they going to stay there forever.