Addition of "one segment per map/level category" [locked]

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-07-10 08:52:16 am

2009-07-10 03:33:55 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

I strongly believe adding such a category would greatly improve SDA. Many, if not most PC FPS gamers already make their runs according to this rule. It's not arbitrary in any sense. It is a very logical way to to segment a run which makes sense for the runner and the viewers as the game itself is segmented in this fashion. It's very much in between the .5s segmentation category and the SS category, I honestly feel this is the PREFERRED category when it comes to FPS speedrunning and many other games. It's really a shame that SDA has no place for the preferred category. They have a category for segmenting every 8-20 seconds, and one for one segment for the whole 1-2 hour long game but nothing in between which I honestly feel is what most people want as runners and viewers.

The current two category system does not give either the runners or the viewers what they want. Saying "If .5s rule is too segmented for you that's what SS is for.", is like saying "If the 40 yard dash is too short for you, that's what the marathon is for." Where's middle the ground which is naturally preferred? No 100m, 200m, 300m hurdles, 400m, 400m hurdles, 800m, 1600m, steeple chase, 3200m, 5K, 10K? No we only get 40M and 26.2 miles, really?

I really don't see the downside to adding such a category. There's already an ample amount of runs which would fit into it straight away. Runners are currently working on such runs which would fit into it. Many runners would be working on, or have already made runs which would fit into if it existed, but they didn't because they were allowed to segment anywhere so the made a few mid level segments with much qualms. If this category existed I strongly feel it would be the most popular and highly contested category, earning runners the greatest respect from viewers and fellow runners.

The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games. It's really best suited for games which allow you save anywhere, but the games themselves are segmented into levels and/or maps. The details would have to be worked out but I think it'd be very easy for the community for each game decide exactly how they want it to work out. Most FPS games these days have clear cut new levels which need to be loaded. Like Quake series, Doom series, Far Cry, Pain killers, and many many more. Other games like HL have smaller maps which load pretty fast, but still the distinction between different maps is clear cut and well defined.

I really can't foresee any serious problems that could come as a result of this new category. If it would be an obscure category then it probably doesn't fit well with the game; I feel though most FPS and RTS games would do very well with this category and it would be more popular than either of the current categories. I can see a whole lot of good that would come immediately once this category was added to a lot of games.

I really don't think the case of runners making a worse run for a new category instead of improving the runs in the existing categories happens that much. Can anyone give an example of such a thing happening, I'm sure there's a few? it's most likely that if the runner made a bad run for the new category he wouldn't have been able to or willing to improve the existing run anyway. Also SDA has quality requirements for runs, if they accept the run as high enough quality it's hard to argue that it's hurting their site, they don't have to host if they don't want to.

Some things to ponder:

Is it worse to have two different runs both with high enough quality to get hosted or one run which is very slightly higher quality than either of the two?

If you stripped every game down to one category how much better do you think the run for that game would be than the best run on any of the existing categories.

Is there a strong relationship between the quality of runs for a game and number categories it has? Is this relationship even inverse?

Thread title:

I strongly believe adding such a category would greatly improve SDA.  Many, if not most PC FPS gamers already make their runs according to this rule.  It's not arbitrary in any sense.  It is a very logical way to to segment a run which makes sense for the runner and the viewers as the game itself is segmented in this fashion.  It's very much in between the .5s segmentation category and the SS category, I honestly feel this is the PREFERRED category when it comes to FPS speedrunning and many other games.  It's really a shame that SDA has no place for the preferred category.  They have a category for segmenting every 8-20 seconds, and one for one segment for the whole 1-2 hour long game but nothing in between which I honestly feel is what most people want as runners and viewers.

The current two category system does not give either the runners or the viewers what they want.  Saying "If .5s rule is too segmented for you that's what SS is for.", is like saying "If the 40 yard dash is too short for you, that's what the marathon is for."  Where's middle the ground which is naturally preferred?  No 100m, 200m, 300m hurdles, 400m, 400m hurdles, 800m, 1600m, steeple chase, 3200m, 5K, 10K?   No we only get 40M and 26.2 miles, really?

I really don't see the downside to adding such a category.  There's already an ample amount of runs which would fit into it straight away.  Runners are currently working on such runs which would fit into it.  Many runners would be working on, or have already made runs which would fit into if it existed, but they didn't because they were allowed to segment anywhere so the made a few mid level segments with much qualms.  If this category existed I strongly feel it would be the most popular and highly contested category, earning runners the greatest respect from viewers and fellow runners.

The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.  It's really best suited for games which allow you save anywhere, but the games themselves are segmented into levels and/or maps.  The details would have to be worked out but I think it'd be very easy for the community for each game decide exactly how they want it to work out.  Most FPS games these days have clear cut new levels which need to be loaded.  Like Quake series, Doom series, Far Cry, Pain killers, and many many more.  Other games like HL have smaller maps which load pretty fast, but still the distinction between different maps is clear cut and well defined.

I really can't foresee any serious problems that could come as a result of this new category.  If it would be an obscure category then it probably doesn't fit well with the game; I feel though most FPS and RTS games would do very well with this category and it would be more popular than either of the current categories.  I can see a whole lot of good that would come immediately once this category was added to a lot of games.

I really don't think the case of runners making a worse run for a new category instead of improving the runs in the existing categories happens that much.  Can anyone give an example of such a thing happening, I'm sure there's a few?  it's most likely that if the runner made a bad run for the new category he wouldn't have been able to or willing to improve the existing run anyway.  Also SDA has quality requirements for runs, if they accept the run as high enough quality it's hard to argue that it's hurting their site, they don't have to host if they don't want to.

Some things to ponder:

Is it worse to have two different runs both with high enough quality to get hosted or one run which is very slightly higher quality than either of the two?

If you stripped every game down to one category how much better do you think the run for that game would be than the best run on any of the existing categories.

Is there a strong relationship between the quality of runs for a game and number categories it has?  Is this relationship even inverse?

ShadowWraith

2009-07-10 03:42:59 am

.

You mean like IL tables? ¬_¬

Lag.Com

2009-07-10 03:43:34 am

sda loyalist

For once Spider-Waffle posts something I agree with, though it's hardly a massive surprise because I made this exact point before on IRC and possibly in 'that thread' too.

ridd3r.

2009-07-10 03:54:16 am

we have lift off

I don't know, I mean I at least haven't seen any runs that have been segmented every 20-30 seconds, thats really over doing it. Most are a few mins, or for really long runs 20min segments etc. Also we already have IL tables for PC games (Max Payne for instance). I at least already perceive there to be 3 categories, IL which will probably include a mix of players with some unmatched records on a particular level, segmented which is 1 player doing the run in as many segments as they see fit. Finally 1 player doing a SS run. As shadow said, there already is an IL category so I don't quite see what you are getting at.

Serris

2009-07-10 04:50:30 am

Since we're going back to the rules discussion thread: Has the Single Session suggestion been addressed anywhere by an admin? If so, I can't find it.

zoonel

2009-07-10 05:01:08 am

Go play spacechem !

I agree , there should be a "one segment per map/level category".

Of course some times the "one segment per map/level category" and the "IL tables" would be the same (like in starcraft?), but it would be (a lot) different for games where there are interactions between the levels (warcraft 3?).

I think this category is well suited for games like warcraft 3, HOMM 5, etc...

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2009-07-10 05:28:08 am

2009-07-10 05:22:57 am

For those asking 'isn't this the same as IL?', not really. The category Spider-Waffle is proposing would apply to games where there is no sensible way to define an IL category. For instance, there is no way you could do an IL run of Half Life, because you enter each level multiple times to do different things, so it's not clear what a run of a single level would consist of, and besides this there's the problem of what weapons, health and armour you should start with for an IL run. In some sense, then, Spider-Waffle's proposal would make the categories for games without a sensible IL category more consistent with those that do have one.

ridd3r, I've never seen a run of a save anywhere game with segments of several minutes length (except ones that only used autosaves). Can you point me to an example?

Although I agreed with this idea in the rules thread, I've since changed my mind. A summary of the arguments for and against, as I see them, is below.

Arguments for Spider's proposal:
* Greater consistency between games of what categories exist
* Many if not most PC runners have been informally following this rule anyway, and it isn't fair if their runs get obsoleted just because somebody else decided to submit a run with manual saves and SDA decides that both are simply 'segmented'. Equally, fear of causing an unfair obsoletion like this may deter people from doing heavily segmented runs of a game where a one-segment-per-level run already exists.
* It's arguably a more interesting category than unlimited segmentation, since runs with unlimited segmentation generally require lots of work but little to no skill.

Arguments against:
* Introducing more categories sometimes results in runners just submitting runs in a new category rather than improving runs that already exist, hurting the overall standard of runs on SDA. More categories is also more confusing for viewers, particularly ones who aren't familiar with SDA.
* It is arguably sufficient to leave the matter of whether to do unlimited segmentation runs or one-segment-per-level runs for a given game to the runners, and rely on their sense of honour to stop them from obsoleting a one-segment-per-level run with an unlimited segmentation run. That being the case, Spider's proposal would be unnecessary.
* It would lead to pointless arguments over whether to have an IL category for a given game, or a 'one segment per level' category, or both. For instance, Unreal allows you to start any level with 100 health and just the starting pistol, but the levels aren't really designed to be played this way and the site already has a 'one segment per level' run up that would become very out of place if an IL category was introduced for it. Similarly, Quake 2 has cheats to let you start a given unit with appropriate armour and weapons for that unit - so should we have a 'one segment per map' category, an 'individual unit' category, or both? And do we really want to open the gates to such arguments in the first place? Edit: These aren't isolated cases, either. There is some sort of argument to be had in every game I can think of where a 'one segment per level' category would apply.
* For many, if not most, games, the 'one segment per level' category would contain identical routes to the 'unlimited segmentation' category, just with worse execution.

For those asking 'isn't this the same as IL?', not really. The category Spider-Waffle is proposing would apply to games where there is no sensible way to define an IL category. For instance, there is no way you could do an IL run of Half Life, because you enter each level multiple times to do different things, so it's not clear what a run of a single level would consist of, and besides this there's the problem of what weapons, health and armour you should start with for an IL run. In some sense, then, Spider-Waffle's proposal would make the categories for games without a sensible IL category more consistent with those that do have one.

ridd3r, I've [i]never[/i] seen a run of a save anywhere game with segments of several minutes length (except ones that only used autosaves). Can you point me to an example?

Although I agreed with this idea in the rules thread, I've since changed my mind. A summary of the arguments for and against, as I see them, is below.

Arguments for Spider's proposal:
* Greater consistency between games of what categories exist
* Many if not most PC runners have been informally following this rule anyway, and it isn't fair if their runs get obsoleted just because somebody else decided to submit a run with manual saves and SDA decides that both are simply 'segmented'. Equally, fear of causing an unfair obsoletion like this may deter people from doing heavily segmented runs of a game where a one-segment-per-level run already exists.
* It's arguably a more interesting category than unlimited segmentation, since runs with unlimited segmentation generally require lots of work but little to no skill.

Arguments against:
* Introducing more categories sometimes results in runners just submitting runs in a new category rather than improving runs that already exist, hurting the overall standard of runs on SDA. More categories is also more confusing for viewers, particularly ones who aren't familiar with SDA.
* It is arguably sufficient to leave the matter of whether to do unlimited segmentation runs or one-segment-per-level runs for a given game to the runners, and rely on their sense of honour to stop them from obsoleting a one-segment-per-level run with an unlimited segmentation run. That being the case, Spider's proposal would be unnecessary.
* It would lead to pointless arguments over whether to have an IL category for a given game, or a 'one segment per level' category, or both. For instance, Unreal allows you to start any level with 100 health and just the starting pistol, but the levels aren't really designed to be played this way and the site already has a 'one segment per level' run up that would become very out of place if an IL category was introduced for it. Similarly, Quake 2 has cheats to let you start a given unit with appropriate armour and weapons for that unit - so should we have a 'one segment per map' category, an 'individual unit' category, or both? And do we really want to open the gates to such arguments in the first place? Edit: These aren't isolated cases, either. There is some sort of argument to be had in every game I can think of where a 'one segment per level' category would apply.
* For many, if not most, games, the 'one segment per level' category would contain identical routes to the 'unlimited segmentation' category, just with worse execution.

ridd3r.

2009-07-10 05:54:45 am

we have lift off

Far cry run, 1:07:02 in 21 segments, using console you can save anywhere. The old F.E.A.R run had 35 segments for 1:06:56. The HL2DQ does have some very short segments, I thought they were actually longer but there are still plenty of segments which are a few minutes long (given some will include long cutscenes).

My point is though, look at the goldeneye or perfect dark IL tables, the "segment" lengths there are from sub 20secs to a couple of minutes, basically the same as many segmented runs. I don't see how there is significant difference between IL and segmented runs aside from the fact that 1 splits it into levels and another splits it how they want. I don't claim any sort of vast knowledge on RTS games like warcraft 3 so I can't comment on how it would affect them. I guess my point is though, if you are going to segment a run then optimise the run as much as you can without using a segment every 10 seconds so there is at least some skill in it. By including a 1 segment per map category it is just further splitting up runs into pretty much useless categories, if you want to do 1 segment per map no one is stopping you, if it means longer segments but you can still beat the time it will just be a more impressive run on all fronts.

I see your 100m-3000m point but speedrunning is nothing like as popular as athletics and can't be directly compared. I just think if you started adding more categories you would get a vast mixture of quality of runs for any given game, especially more obscure ones. You could have a brilliant single-segment and multi-segment run, then a 10 segment run which is just the odd one out.

Far cry run, 1:07:02 in 21 segments, using console you can save anywhere. The old F.E.A.R run had 35 segments for 1:06:56. The HL2DQ does have some very short segments, I thought they were actually longer but there are still plenty of segments which are a few minutes long (given some will include long cutscenes).

My point is though, look at the goldeneye or perfect dark IL tables, the "segment" lengths there are from sub 20secs to a couple of minutes, basically the same as many segmented runs. I don't see how there is significant difference between IL and segmented runs aside from the fact that 1 splits it into levels and another splits it how they want. I don't claim any sort of vast knowledge on RTS games like warcraft 3 so I can't comment on how it would affect them. I guess my point is though, if you are going to segment a run then optimise the run as much as you can without using a segment every 10 seconds so there is at least some skill in it. By including a 1 segment per map category it is just further splitting up runs into pretty much useless categories, if you want to do 1 segment per map no one is stopping you, if it means longer segments but you can still beat the time it will just be a more impressive run on all fronts.

I see your 100m-3000m point but speedrunning is nothing like as popular as athletics and can't be directly compared. I just think if you started adding more categories you would get a vast mixture of quality of runs for any given game, especially more obscure ones. You could have a brilliant single-segment and multi-segment run, then a 10 segment run which is just the odd one out.

dex

2009-07-10 06:13:51 am

Invisible avatar

In my opinion this is neither different enough from IL nor different enough from normal segmented runs to be a worthwhile addition. I'm willing to wager most segmented runs with save anywhere already do pretty much just that, except with maybe a few saves mid-level over the course of the entire game, if that. It just seems like a suggestion of absolutely no importance.

Also, many games have loading zones every 20 seconds, and in fact if I did '1 segment per level' in Deus Ex I'd end up with over 120 segments. Which is pathetically dull, pathetically easy and I'm willing to bet you I wouldn't get a faster time than I'm getting with my current segmentation scheme (which also only happens on map loads, just not on every one). The argument that '1 segment per level WILL have less segments than unlimited segmentation' is therefore wrong for some games.

I think it's best to leave the segmentation at the discretion of the runner.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-07-10 06:19:15 am

Quote from ridd3r.:

Far cry run, 1:07:02 in 21 segments, using console you can save anywhere. The old F.E.A.R run had 35 segments for 1:06:56.

These are both one segment per level runs.

xXIkuto

2009-07-10 07:17:54 am

this is a good idea, but most likely won't be seriously considered until nate fucks a millionaire's daughter and gets the money for the bandwith. if he does suddenly get some money then i can see this happening. till then there's nothing really to debate about it, since the main reason there's pressure to keep only the most direct/necessary speedrunning categories (aside from the concept of "keep sda's unstated goal of competitive mastery and not unchallenged obscure categories") - is to afford the [expensive] bandwith to keep sda going.

just my 2$ Wink

ridd3r.

Edit history:

ridd3r.: 2009-07-10 07:35:43 am

2009-07-10 07:28:41 am

we have lift off

Quote:

These are both one segment per level runs.

Not true, F.E.A.R does not have 36 levels it has like 21, see http://www.archive.org/details/FEAR_low_10656. Also a 38 segment extreme difficulty run was done. Either way the runners could have done as many segments as they liked so I don't see how my examples are void, theres no IL table.

djcj

2009-07-10 11:10:16 am

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Quote from ridd3r.:

Far cry run, 1:07:02 in 21 segments, using console you can save anywhere. The old F.E.A.R run had 35 segments for 1:06:56.

These are both one segment per level runs.

The last level in Far Cry was done in two segments.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-07-10 11:28:19 am

You're both right, my mistake.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-07-10 09:12:11 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

I'd be willing to wager that if there were a one segment per level category those runs would have been made for that category. I know the far cry runner had many qualms about using two segments on the last level, but since the category didn't restrict him he took the easy route.

ninetigerr

2009-07-11 01:05:50 am

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

The current two category system does not give either the runners or the viewers what they want.

I don't understand. Runners are not offered "what they want" even though they currently are able to segment whenever they want?? And what do "viewers want" anyway? To see the game completed in the fastest time possible.

Quote:

I really don't see the downside to adding such a category. There's already an ample amount of runs which would fit into it straight away. Runners are currently working on such runs which would fit into it.

The automatic downside: it's *another* category which we don't need!

Quote:

If this category existed I strongly feel it would be the most popular and highly contested category, earning runners the greatest respect from viewers and fellow runners.

It will not. I don't expect too many runners will voluntarily limit themselves to specific segmenting. I absolutely will not participate in this category, simply because of its limitations.

Quote:

The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.

Therefore, your proposal counters the SDA goal to maintain a uniform set of rules for all games.

Quote:

I really can't foresee any serious problems that could come as a result of this new category.

Debates pertaining to "what's a 'level/map' in this game?" will constantly arise. Some games have multiple maps per level (eg. Jade Empire has "areas per chapter", Spyro the Dragon has "levels per world"). Hell, we can't even figure out what "low%" means for half of our games.

Quote:

Is there a strong relationship between the quality of runs for a game and number categories it has? Is this relationship even inverse?

There's zero correlation.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]
The current two category system does not give either the runners or the viewers what they want.  
[/quote]

I don't understand. Runners are not offered "what they want" even though they currently are able to segment [i]whenever they want??[/i] And what do "viewers want" anyway? To see the game completed in the fastest time possible.

[quote]
I really don't see the downside to adding such a category.  There's already an ample amount of runs which would fit into it straight away.  Runners are currently working on such runs which would fit into it.
[/quote]

The automatic downside: it's *another* category which we don't need!

[quote]
If this category existed I strongly feel it would be the most popular and highly contested category, earning runners the greatest respect from viewers and fellow runners.
[/quote]

It will not. I don't expect too many runners will voluntarily limit themselves to specific segmenting. I absolutely will not participate in this category, simply because of its limitations.

[quote]
The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.
[/quote]

Therefore, your proposal counters the SDA goal to maintain a uniform set of rules for all games.

[quote]
I really can't foresee any serious problems that could come as a result of this new category.
[/quote]

Debates pertaining to "what's a 'level/map' in this game?" will constantly arise. Some games have multiple maps per level (eg. Jade Empire has "areas per chapter", Spyro the Dragon has "levels per world"). Hell, we can't even figure out what "low%" means for half of our games.

[quote]
Is there a strong relationship between the quality of runs for a game and number categories it has? Is this relationship even inverse?
[/quote]

There's zero correlation.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2009-07-11 05:27:41 am

2009-07-11 05:18:08 am

Quote from ninetigerr:

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

The current two category system does not give either the runners or the viewers what they want.

I don't understand. Runners are not offered "what they want" even though they currently are able to segment whenever they want?? And what do "viewers want" anyway? To see the game completed in the fastest time possible.

Claiming that runners are allowed to segment wherever they want is misleading. Sure, there's no rule against it, just as there's no rule against, say, taking a random, slower detour to do something you think is cool but slows the run down, but just as the latter will result in SDA considering your run worse, so too will your run be worse, by SDA's standards, if you don't segment as much as is necessary to get the shortest possible time. The result of this is that runners are under pressure to segment heavily.

Quote:

The automatic downside: it's *another* category which we don't need!

This is true, and is the reason I agree with you despite disagreeing with all your other arguments here.

Quote:

I don't expect too many runners will voluntarily limit themselves to specific segmenting.

Uh... many/most already do? Off the top of my head, just listing from the handful of PC runs I've seen, there's the Unreal run, the Quake II run, the Warcraft III run, the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory run, and the Jedi Knight run, all of which voluntarily limited themselves to 1 segment per level.

Quote:

The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.

Therefore, your proposal counters the SDA goal to maintain a uniform set of rules for all games.

Rubbish. Every single category that exists on SDA except for single segment any% only applies to some games.

A suggestion: instead of actually making a rule change, instead we could put a line in the rules like this (the wording needs to be tidied up):
"Many SDA runners choose to limit themselves to only using one segment per level, or to only using autosaves, even when running games where they can save anywhere. Although these runs are treated no differently under the rules than runs with unlimited saves, there is an informal code of honour between runners that they should not obsolete a one-segment-per-level run just by using the same route, with more saves, and optimising it better."

I think giving some official recognition of the fact that some runners choose to do one segment per level, rather than the official stance just being that these runs are suboptimal due to their inefficient segmenting strategy, would be a compromise that would leave everyone happy. Your thoughts?

[quote="ninetigerr"][quote="Spider-Waffle"]The current two category system does not give either the runners or the viewers what they want.[/quote]

I don't understand. Runners are not offered "what they want" even though they currently are able to segment [i]whenever they want??[/i] And what do "viewers want" anyway? To see the game completed in the fastest time possible.[/quote]

Claiming that runners are allowed to segment wherever they want is misleading. Sure, there's no rule against it, just as there's no rule against, say, taking a random, slower detour to do something you think is cool but slows the run down, but just as the latter will result in SDA considering your run worse, so too will your run be worse, by SDA's standards, if you don't segment as much as is necessary to get the shortest possible time. The result of this is that runners are under pressure to segment heavily.

[quote]The automatic downside: it's *another* category which we don't need![/quote]

This is true, and is the reason I agree with you despite disagreeing with all your other arguments here.

[quote]I don't expect too many runners will voluntarily limit themselves to specific segmenting.[/quote]

Uh... many/most already do? Off the top of my head, just listing from the handful of PC runs I've seen, there's the Unreal run, the Quake II run, the Warcraft III run, the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory run, and the Jedi Knight run, all of which voluntarily limited themselves to 1 segment per level.

[quote][quote]The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.[/quote]

Therefore, your proposal counters the SDA goal to maintain a uniform set of rules for all games.[/quote]

Rubbish. Every single category that exists on SDA except for single segment any% only applies to some games.

A suggestion: instead of actually making a rule change, instead we could put a line in the rules like this (the wording needs to be tidied up):
"Many SDA runners choose to limit themselves to only using one segment per level, or to only using autosaves, even when running games where they can save anywhere. Although these runs are treated no differently under the rules than runs with unlimited saves, there is an informal code of honour between runners that they should not obsolete a one-segment-per-level run just by using the same route, with more saves, and optimising it better."

I think giving some official recognition of the fact that some runners choose to do one segment per level, rather than the official stance just being that these runs are suboptimal due to their inefficient segmenting strategy, would be a compromise that would leave everyone happy. Your thoughts?

ridd3r.

2009-07-11 05:37:30 am

we have lift off

Quote:

"Many SDA runners choose to limit themselves to only using one segment per level, or to only using autosaves, even when running games where they can save anywhere. Although these runs are treated no differently under the rules than runs with unlimited saves, there is an informal code of honour between runners that they should not obsolete a one-segment-per-level run just by using the same route, with more saves, and optimising it better."

I think giving some official recognition of the fact that some runners choose to do one segment per level, rather than the official stance just being that these runs are suboptimal due to their inefficient segmenting strategy, would be a compromise that would leave everyone happy. Your thoughts?

I like the idea, but unfortunately its not that simple and needs further clarification. Take the F.E.A.R run, groobo did 35 segments for the old run and 75 segments for the new one. As this was not a segment per level run does that mean its OK in all cases? Also if a runner is thinking of improving their own run they should be able to do whatever they want to improve it surely, if they feel it will be better just by segmenting more then they could do that, given its their own run they are beating. However, if you allowed this then why can't someone else do the same but with someone elses run? Basically, there may be many, can you think of any examples of where a good run was obsoleted just by adding more segments, is it a real problem on SDA that needs to be addressed?

[quote]
"Many SDA runners choose to limit themselves to only using one segment per level, or to only using autosaves, even when running games where they can save anywhere. Although these runs are treated no differently under the rules than runs with unlimited saves, there is an informal code of honour between runners that they should not obsolete a one-segment-per-level run just by using the same route, with more saves, and optimising it better."

I think giving some official recognition of the fact that some runners choose to do one segment per level, rather than the official stance just being that these runs are suboptimal due to their inefficient segmenting strategy, would be a compromise that would leave everyone happy. Your thoughts?
[/quote]

I like the idea, but unfortunately its not that simple and needs further clarification. Take the F.E.A.R run, groobo did 35 segments for the old run and 75 segments for the new one. As this was not a segment per level run does that mean its OK in all cases? Also if a runner is thinking of improving their own run they should be able to do whatever they want to improve it surely, if they feel it will be better just by segmenting more then they could do that, given its their own run they are beating. However, if you allowed this then why can't someone else do the same but with someone elses run? Basically, there may be many, can you think of any examples of where a good run was obsoleted just by adding more segments, is it a real problem on SDA that needs to be addressed?

ExplodingCabbage

2009-07-11 05:53:41 am

Quote from ridd3r.:

Take the F.E.A.R run, groobo did 35 segments for the old run and 75 segments for the new one.

While I don't know much about FEAR running, I imagine Groobo used lots of new tricks he'd found for the second run that weren't in the first. If the extra segmenting is justified by the discovery of new tricks that require it, I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

Quote:

can you think of any examples of where a good run was obsoleted just by adding more segments, is it a real problem on SDA that needs to be addressed?

No, I can't. To me I think the problem isn't the actual risk of someone coming along and obsoleting your run just by doing more segments (what would be the point?), but rather the lack of legitimacy that the decision to do one segment per level gets. If there was some kind of official recognition of these runs in the rules, I'd be a lot more comfortable doing one segment per level where I think it's appropriate, and less worried I'd get some verifier saying 'he should've saved here so he could optimise this boss better'.

[quote="ridd3r."] Take the F.E.A.R run, groobo did 35 segments for the old run and 75 segments for the new one.[/quote]

While I don't know much about FEAR running, I imagine Groobo used lots of new tricks he'd found for the second run that weren't in the first. If the extra segmenting is justified by the discovery of new tricks that require it, I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

[quote]can you think of any examples of where a good run was obsoleted just by adding more segments, is it a real problem on SDA that needs to be addressed?[/quote]

No, I can't. To me I think the problem isn't the actual risk of someone coming along and obsoleting your run just by doing more segments (what would be the point?), but rather the lack of legitimacy that the decision to do one segment per level gets. If there was some kind of official recognition of these runs in the rules, I'd be a lot more comfortable doing one segment per level where I think it's appropriate, and less worried I'd get some verifier saying 'he should've saved here so he could optimise this boss better'.

Lag.Com

2009-07-11 05:55:26 am

sda loyalist

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

<<<

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2009-07-11 06:33:23 am

2009-07-11 06:14:22 am

Invisible avatar

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

No, I can't. To me I think the problem isn't the actual risk of someone coming along and obsoleting your run just by doing more segments (what would be the point?), but rather the lack of legitimacy that the decision to do one segment per level gets. If there was some kind of official recognition of these runs in the rules, I'd be a lot more comfortable doing one segment per level where I think it's appropriate, and less worried I'd get some verifier saying 'he should've saved here so he could optimise this boss better'.

The legitimacy is there in that the runner is given the choice of how to segment. If they segment once per level AND play well I'm sure there's no danger of anyone rejecting the run. Most verifiers aren't overzealous, and pretty much every verifier will be pleasantly surprised, and hence give credit for not overusing the save feature. It's the 'informal code of honour' at work, precisely there. If you point out the informal code of honour in the rules, it stops being an informal code of honour and starts being perceived as a requirement. Then, runners that would want to save mid-level would face the same dilemma you are right now ('What if I segment here and the verifiers say "he shouldn't have saved here"'). Smiley

And to the main topic, I agree with ridd3r and Cabbage here: this would just be another category we don't need, without many differences from the normal segmented category in almost every game.

Edit: more thoughts, maybe rewrite the segments paragraph in the rules to something like:

Quote:

Games that allow you to save your progress and continue later can be done using segments. You can retry segments as much as you want, in order to optimize them. Keep in mind that the purpose of segmentation is not to make life easier for you or to reduce the amount of time it takes you to produce a run. A segmented run implies a higher level of risk-taking and a lower tolerance for mistakes. Use as many segments as you feel are necessary. Bear in mind, however, that we will not be more impressed if you use a small amount of overly long, unoptimised segments. In particular, do not feel like you must use roughly the same number of segments as a run you are attempting to obsolete.

Subtle, but I feel it gets the point that you can segment however you want across.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]No, I can't. To me I think the problem isn't the actual risk of someone coming along and obsoleting your run just by doing more segments (what would be the point?), but rather the lack of legitimacy that the decision to do one segment per level gets. If there was some kind of official recognition of these runs in the rules, I'd be a lot more comfortable doing one segment per level where I think it's appropriate, and less worried I'd get some verifier saying 'he should've saved here so he could optimise this boss better'.[/quote]
The legitimacy is there in that the runner is given the choice of how to segment. If they segment once per level AND play well I'm sure there's no danger of anyone rejecting the run. Most verifiers aren't overzealous, and pretty much every verifier will be pleasantly surprised, and hence give credit for not overusing the save feature. It's the 'informal code of honour' at work, precisely there. If you point out the informal code of honour in the rules, it stops being an informal code of honour and starts being perceived as a requirement. Then, runners that would want to save mid-level would face the same dilemma you are right now ('What if I segment here and the verifiers say "he shouldn't have saved here"'). :)

And to the main topic, I agree with ridd3r and Cabbage here: this would just be another category we don't need, without many differences from the normal segmented category in almost every game.

Edit: more thoughts, maybe rewrite the segments paragraph in the rules to something like:
[quote]Games that allow you to save your progress and continue later can be done using segments. You can retry segments as much as you want, in order to optimize them. Keep in mind that the purpose of segmentation is not to make life easier for you or to reduce the amount of time it takes you to produce a run. A segmented run implies a higher level of risk-taking and a lower tolerance for mistakes. Use as many segments as you feel are necessary. Bear in mind, however, that we will not be more impressed if you use a small amount of overly long, unoptimised segments. In particular, do not feel like you must use roughly the same number of segments as a run you are attempting to obsolete. [/quote]
Subtle, but I feel it gets the point that you can segment however you want across.

slowbro

2009-07-11 02:58:52 pm

In case this hasn't been mentioned, another difference from ILs is that single ILs can be obsoleted, whereas I think this run would have to be obsoleted as a whole.

I don't know PC gaming well enough to have any idea whether this category is a good idea.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-07-12 02:30:37 am

2009-07-12 01:11:16 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

Quote:

The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.

Therefore, your proposal counters the SDA goal to maintain a uniform set of rules for all games.

It wouldn't apply to all games in the same way IL doesn't apply to all games.

Quote:

Is there a strong relationship between the quality of runs for a game and number categories it has? Is this relationship even inverse?

There's zero correlation.

I would argue there's a slight direct relation because popular games more often than non-popular get any%, 100%, low%, SS, segmented, and/or training course runs in addition to more competition and better runners where as less popular games tend to only get one run without much competition and sometimes lacking skillful runners.

Regardless, if more categories has either no relationship or a direct relationship on the quality of runs what is the argument against more categories?

Can you point out any example where more categories lead to the best run for that game being worse?

I think I speak for most people that take pride in their speedruns when I say runners care more about the quality of their runs rather than making a run a just for the sake of it getting posted. I think the type of runner that makes a lesser run on another category instead of beating an existing run on a more prominent category most likely didn't think they could beat the existing run anyway because they lacked some combination of skill, discipline, patience, time. So they likely wouldn't have ever contributed a run at all if the different category never existed.

The one segment per level category would likely if anything condense the speedrunners efforts to that very category. For, example, a game which there would be one run for, it would most likely be on the one segment per level category. Nearly all save anywhere games, especially newer ones, runners aren't even willing or capable of making a SS run anyway. Think about it, how many save anywhere games have SS runs, I actually would really like to know which ones do? So the runners would basically be deciding between one segment level or segment anywhere; in the case of FPS, RTS, and puzzle (maybe other genres) save anywhere games, it seems to me that one segment per level is preferred, you would see a lot more runs for it if it existed.

Do you really want me to beat the Unreal run, the Quake II run, the Warcraft III run, the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory run, and the Jedi Knight run with mass segmentation to prove something is wrong? I'm serious do you?

[quote][quote]The category doesn't make sense for some games, and it doesn't need to and shouldn't exist for all games.[/quote]

Therefore, your proposal counters the SDA goal to maintain a uniform set of rules for all games.[/quote]

It wouldn't apply to all games in the same way IL doesn't apply to all games.

[quote][quote]Is there a strong relationship between the quality of runs for a game and number categories it has? Is this relationship even inverse?[/quote]

There's zero correlation.[/quote]

I would argue there's a slight direct relation because popular games more often than non-popular get any%, 100%, low%, SS, segmented, and/or training course runs in addition to more competition and better runners where as less popular games tend to only get one run without much competition and sometimes lacking skillful runners.

Regardless, if more categories has either no relationship or a direct relationship on the quality of runs what is the argument against more categories?

Can you point out any example where more categories lead to the best run for that game being worse?

I think I speak for most people that take pride in their speedruns when I say runners care more about the quality of their runs rather than making a run a just for the sake of it getting posted.  I think the type of runner that makes a lesser run on another category instead of beating an existing run on a more prominent category most likely didn't think they could beat the existing run anyway because they lacked some combination of skill, discipline, patience, time.  So they likely wouldn't have ever contributed a run at all if the different category never existed.

The one segment per level category would likely if anything condense the speedrunners efforts to that very category.  For, example, a game which there would be one run for, it would most likely be on the one segment per level category.  Nearly all save anywhere games, especially newer ones, runners aren't even willing or capable of making a SS run anyway.  Think about it, how many save anywhere games have SS runs, I actually would really like to know which ones do?  So the runners would basically be deciding between one segment level or segment anywhere; in the case of FPS, RTS, and puzzle (maybe other genres) save anywhere games, it seems to me that one segment per level is preferred, you would see a lot more runs for it if it existed.

Do you really want me to beat the Unreal run, the Quake II run, the Warcraft III run, the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory run, and the Jedi Knight run with mass segmentation to prove something is wrong?  I'm serious do you?

VorpalEdge

2009-07-12 02:05:10 am

welcome to the machine

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

Do you really want me to beat the Unreal run, the Quake II run, the Warcraft III run, the Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory run, and the Jedi Knight run with mass segmentation to prove something is wrong? I'm serious do you?

uh, yes

ShadowWraith

2009-07-12 02:09:10 am

.

Sure. Competition is always nice.

To counter your point, mass segmentation isn't a problem until somebody makes it a problem. So, uh, if you want to be the one that makes it a problem just to get a 'solution' (which probably won't be a new category) put in place, go nuts.