Solar 2 - May 26, 2014

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2014-05-26 03:57:29 am

SDAVerification: 2014-05-26 03:57:02 am

2014-05-22 11:22:22 pm

Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Solar 2 (Any %) (Single Segment)

Decision: Cancelled

Reason: Runner has requested we pull the submission and they don't want to send in their replacement

https://queue.speeddemosarchive.com/queue/verificationfiles/1075/

This run will be available for a month. After that these link(s) will no longer work.

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2014-05-22 11:22:23 pm

Run Information

Solar 2 (Any %) (Single Segment)

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/solar2-v_HQ.mp4

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by June 6, 2014.

Please post your opinions about the run and be certain to conclude your post with a verdict (Accept/Reject). This is not a contest where the majority wins - I will judge each verification on its content. Please keep your verification brief unless you have a good reason otherwise.

After 2 weeks I will read all of the verifications and move this thread to the main verification board and post my verdict.

ShadowDraft

2014-05-23 12:05:48 am

Get over here!

Decision: Reject

No audio. No cheating.

Gameplay is way too safe compared to other runs. Also there's a weird graphic on the right side which doesn't belong to the game.

UraniumAnchor

2014-05-23 12:24:38 am

Not a walrus

I just downloaded the raw and it looks like Yua has some issues with this file, since the audio track is there (overpeaked, but it's there) and the corruption on the right side of the video is non-existent.

That said, if the gameplay is still poor then it's not worth worrying about.

MAS8705

2014-05-23 01:04:28 am

SDA Apprentice -- (3-1)

Going off of what Anchor said, I'll take the lack of audio as something that happened during the creation of the video in Yua. That said though, I have to agree with Shadow in regards of the execution of the run, as it feels like the runner is being too careful to not many alot of mistakes, whereas if the run is as short as this, the runner should be throwing some caution to the wind in order to get the rocks and grow bigger. Not to do the whole "post a better video" like I did in another verification, but once again, if you go on youtube, you can find runs that show how people being less cautious being able to build themselves faster than the run submitted. If the run was outdone by a few seconds, then it would be fine, but there are apparently runs that beat this one by a few minutes by many people on youtube. (one example inside the hidden to help illustrate the point)

Because of this, I feel that the runner's time can be improved greatly and would benefit by observing what others have done in order to get the times they did. I'm sorry, but this is a reject.

Going off of what Anchor said, I'll take the lack of audio as something that happened during the creation of the video in Yua.  That said though, I have to agree with Shadow in regards of the execution of the run, as it feels like the runner is being too careful to not many alot of mistakes, whereas if the run is as short as this, the runner should be throwing some caution to the wind in order to get the rocks and grow bigger.    Not to do the whole "post a better video" like I did in another verification, but once again, if you go on youtube, you can find runs that show how people being less cautious being able to build themselves faster than the run submitted.  If the run was outdone by a few seconds, then it would be fine, but there are apparently runs that beat this one by a few minutes by many people on youtube.  (one example inside the hidden to help illustrate the point)

[hidden]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSGXyP6Y_VQ[/hidden]

Because of this, I feel that the runner's time can be improved greatly and would benefit by observing what others have done in order to get the times they did.  I'm sorry, but this is a reject.

CyberBotX

2014-05-23 06:32:16 pm

Insane Killer Robot

Video good, audio missing, but that's already been mentioned. No cheating detected. While I have never done a serious speedrun of this, I can tell this is faster than any times I have done. But I agree with ShadowDraft and MAS8705, the play seems too cautious, but at the same time, too many hits were taken. The player also didn't always absorb asteroids or planets as soon as possible and this caused some slowdowns. I'm also going to have to reject it.

Thehealbus

Edit history:

Thehealbus: 2014-05-24 02:51:35 am

Thehealbus: 2014-05-24 02:47:43 am

2014-05-24 02:06:06 am

I'm going to preface this by saying I understand that public verification allows people who have no idea what they're talking about to make a decision, but posting things like you know what's happening in a run without running/researching/talking about the run is just going to come off as random theories that don't actually make any sense.

Quote from CyberBotX:

The player also didn't always absorb asteroids or planets as soon as possible and this caused some slowdowns.

Not absorbing planets immediately changes absolutely nothing in the run in any shape or form, save near the end when you turn into a black hole and no longer need planets. I don't know why you would assume this was a slow down, but it's not.

Quote from MAS8705:

as it feels like the runner is being too careful to not many alot of mistakes

What are you talking about?
The speedrun of this game consists of moving in a direction until RNG gives you whatever matter you can absorb, I literally cannot be doing anything with more risk for any kind of payout. If you would like to provide actual examples of me being to cautious, instead of just saying I am, I would love to hear them.

Quote from MAS8705:

you can find runs that show how people being less cautious being able to build themselves faster than the run submitted.

This not only proves my first point of you not understanding what "caution" means in this game, it also proves you didn't even bother watching the faster runs on youtube to understand why they are faster.

For your information I do have the current fastest time at 7:55, which is for a number of reasons, all would be actual reasons to reject the run, and since I'm also participating in this verification thread, I'll help you out and list them.

1. New strats found
It is slightly faster to sit at the planet cap and travel with a slightly larger field of view and gravity field and adsorb planets only when you get to a new one, this saves about a minute and a half.

2. New glitch found
I found a glitch where you can crash into another star as a small star and have a random chance to spawn as a half full medium star (in essence, death warp), this is a massive time save, well over a minute, maybe more depending on luck.

These would be actual grounds to reject the run, due to outdated gameplay... if only for the fact that these were all found AFTER I SUBMITTED TO SDA. When I submitted this run, it was the 'WR' at the time. If the verification process were a timely ordeal, we would have a much easier time deciding on if this run is up to par now wouldn't we?

But it's absolutely insane to hold the standard of a run submitted months ago to all times past then isn't it?

Because every run that I will ever submit to this website will always be outdated. When I submit a run to sda, it's not a "completed product" like some people think speedruns are, my games are never complete because I can always go faster. I'm always looking to improve a time by any means possible, and locking submissions into a multiple month process can in no way ever reflect that. I submit runs to sda as a courtesy back to the site that inspired me to speedrun many of the games I do today.

But the fact of the matter is that if you're going to compare a run to anything past the time I submitted it, you are NEVER going to approve any of my runs. My AC0 submission was a 20 minute improvement over the previous sda time, and you know what? Right after I submitted I found a new glitch that saved plenty of time and invalidated the run, if that would have been rejected they would never have a better run for that game on the site, because my runs are ALWAYS outdated from the time of submission.

So please, continue to link my better times I got after submission, when I submit a sub 8 run I'm sure we can have this same argument again where that run is outdated and I'm breaking a sub 7 on youtube.

I'm going to preface this by saying I understand that public verification allows people who have no idea what they're talking about to make a decision, but posting things like you know what's happening in a run without running/researching/talking about the run is just going to come off as random theories that don't actually make any sense.

[quote="CyberBotX"]The player also didn't always absorb asteroids or planets as soon as possible and this caused some slowdowns.[/quote]
Not absorbing planets immediately changes absolutely nothing in the run in any shape or form, save near the end when you turn into a black hole and no longer need planets. I don't know why you would assume this was a slow down, but it's not.

[quote="MAS8705"]as it feels like the runner is being too careful to not many alot of mistakes[/quote]
What are you talking about?
The speedrun of this game consists of moving in a direction until RNG gives you whatever matter you can absorb, I literally cannot be doing anything with more risk for any kind of payout. If you would like to provide actual examples of me being to cautious, instead of just saying I am, I would love to hear them.

[quote="MAS8705"] you can find runs that show how people being less cautious being able to build themselves faster than the run submitted.[/quote]
This not only proves my first point of you not understanding what "caution" means in this game, it also proves you didn't even bother watching the faster runs on youtube to understand why they are faster.

For your information I do have the current fastest time at 7:55, which is for a number of reasons, all would be actual reasons to reject the run, and since I'm also participating in this verification thread, I'll help you out and list them.

1. New strats found
It is slightly faster to sit at the planet cap and travel with a slightly larger field of view and gravity field and adsorb planets only when you get to a new one, this saves about a minute and a half.

2. New glitch found
I found a glitch where you can crash into another star as a small star and have a random chance to spawn as a half full medium star (in essence, death warp), this is a massive time save, well over a minute, maybe more depending on luck.

These would be actual grounds to reject the run, due to outdated gameplay... if only for the fact that these were all found AFTER I SUBMITTED TO SDA. When I submitted this run, it was the 'WR' at the time.  If the verification process were a timely ordeal, we would have a much easier time deciding on if this run is up to par now wouldn't we?

But it's absolutely insane to hold the standard of a run submitted months ago to all times past then isn't it?

Because every run that I will ever submit to this website will always be outdated. When I submit a run to sda, it's not a "completed product" like some people think speedruns are, my games are never complete because I can always go faster. I'm always looking to improve a time by any means possible, and locking submissions into a multiple month process can in no way ever reflect that. I submit runs to sda as a courtesy back to the site that inspired me to speedrun many of the games I do today.

But the fact of the matter is that if you're going to compare a run to anything past the time I submitted it, you are NEVER going to approve any of my runs. My AC0 submission was a 20 minute improvement over the previous sda time, and you know what? Right after I submitted I found a new glitch that saved plenty of time and invalidated the run, if that would have been rejected they would never have a better run for that game on the site, because my runs are ALWAYS outdated from the time of submission.

So please, continue to link my better times I got after submission, when I submit a sub 8 run I'm sure we can have this same argument again where that run is outdated and I'm breaking a sub 7 on youtube.

UraniumAnchor

2014-05-24 03:33:47 am

Not a walrus

If you have a better run, there's nothing stopping you from asking us to reopen the keys and sending in your new files, since this is still in verification. We do that all the time. If your run really is that much better now then we can replace the files.

Also you submitted this run in early April, it hasn't been "months" yet.

Crow!

2014-05-24 03:58:12 am

What's that gemma?

The first thing that came to my mind when I watched the submitted video was, this game clearly designed its engine intending the player to keep objects in orbit; is there some reason that doing this is sub-optimal, that inspired this runner to desperately avoid using that tool? Then I watched some of the more recent runs, where it turns out that, indeed, the obvious play is the correct one.

It is amusing that the person whose videos we can link for cold, hard proof that this is the case is the same person whose current run gets clearly rejected because of that fact. But it's also convenient - it means we don't have to go through a long argument about whether the correct strategy was sufficiently obvious to warrant rejecting the run, and we can instead just wait a day or two for him to upload the better run, accept that one, and be done with it.

ShadowDraft

2014-05-24 04:27:54 am

Get over here!

Quote from Crow!:

The first thing that came to my mind when I watched the submitted video was, this game clearly designed its engine intending the player to keep objects in orbit; is there some reason that doing this is sub-optimal, that inspired this runner to desperately avoid using that tool? Then I watched some of the more recent runs, where it turns out that, indeed, the obvious play is the correct one.

It is amusing that the person whose videos we can link for cold, hard proof that this is the case is the same person whose current run gets clearly rejected because of that fact. But it's also convenient - it means we don't have to go through a long argument about whether the correct strategy was sufficiently obvious to warrant rejecting the run, and we can instead just wait a day or two for him to upload the better run, accept that one, and be done with it.

I agree.

I'm also running this game myself so I can make a decent judgement about it. At least I like to think that. This game is easy to pick up and a little harder to master. Rest is RNG.

As stated by UA please consider uploading the most recent run which is a 7:55 I believe.

[quote="Crow!"]The first thing that came to my mind when I watched the submitted video was, this game clearly designed its engine intending the player to keep objects in orbit; is there some reason that doing this is sub-optimal, that inspired this runner to desperately avoid using that tool?  Then I watched some of the more recent runs, where it turns out that, indeed, the obvious play is the correct one.

It is amusing that the person whose videos we can link for cold, hard proof that this is the case is the same person whose current run gets clearly rejected because of that fact.  But it's also convenient - it means we don't have to go through a long argument about whether the correct strategy was sufficiently obvious to warrant rejecting the run, and we can instead just wait a day or two for him to upload the better run, accept that one, and be done with it.[/quote]

I agree.

I'm also running this game myself so I can make a decent judgement about it. At least I like to think that. This game is easy to pick up and a little harder to master. Rest is RNG.

As stated by UA please consider uploading the most recent run which is a 7:55 I believe.

Onin

Edit history:

Onin: 2014-05-24 04:40:13 am

2014-05-24 04:35:18 am

But the 7:55 run is a different category! Kappa

that's an in-joke

Considering the verification video is of reject-worthy quality in A/V alone, and it'll have to be replaced anyway, might as well sneak a better, more recent run in.
Sufficiently outdated strats are a reason to reject, even if the new developments are more recent than the submission. Just depends on how significant the difference is. That's the risk of submitting a game that's not fully developed yet.

SDAVerification

2014-05-26 03:57:23 am

Decision posted.