I do not agree with this run being rejected because of Ticker's Tower. I think you should have skipped termite, but it isn't the end of the world that you didn't. However, I agree with the final verdict.
The run looks sloppy. Having raced this game a lot, I know how difficult it is to not make any mistakes, but the run is almost characterized by a bunch of small mistakes. Your movement is poor, and when we talked to you about it, you said that it was just for show and said it didn't really matter. TASers say otherwise, and despite what you think, they know more about the game mechanics than you do. In fact, this attitude that you know more about the game than anyone else is probably one of the major factors towards this rejection. You ignored people when they suggested you to redo. You refused to discuss your routes with us. You didn't listen when we said certain things were faster. And guess what? Your run got rejected.
As has been said plenty of times, SDA is not purely about keeping records. We are an archive of speedy videos. We are not obligated to accept a run just because it is faster – we want a run that looks good. You may have not made any major mistakes, and you may have done some hard tricks, but overall the run is not as impressive as it could be. We say to reset at the missed flip at the start because first impressions mean a lot. I personally tried that trick before writing this…with a bit of work, I managed to get it about 80% consistent. With as much practice as you had on it, surely you can get even better. A lot of people are harping on this trick because it is so early on, but don’t think this is the only example of a sloppy point. It is just one of the most obvious and easily correctable ones.
Next, effort actually matters considerably. However long you played this game beforehand, the fact remains you were only recording for five days. Now, sometimes, if you get really lucky, this is enough to crank out a good run. But as the response obviously shows, that is not the case here. If you truly have been playing the game for so long, why is it so hard to just keep trying? Your goal time was 2:25-2:30, you got over 3 minutes above that and said “okay, I’m done.” If you had no more time left, I’d understand. But you said in the topic afterwards your next project would be some BK ILs. If you have time for another project you surely have time for more attempts to iron out your mistakes. You may be the best BK player ever, you may have years and years of practice, but this run didn’t show the kind of optimization you brag about.
Moving onto routes…in many places your routes were better. You used some new tricks and strategies that I’ve never even seen before. You put back in the RBB window trick and used the more optimal FP/GV route. However, you also ignored a lot of possible improvements. Unique strategies are great, but often times the established route is the best one.
Your MMM was worse than packattack’s. You claim it is because of being turned into a pumpkin and a mishap with the running shoes. But remember, he wasted a full minute from just one mistake, significantly more than your two “major” mistakes combined. The fact that you still lost to him by a noticeable margin points to the fact that either A] your play is much sloppier, or B] your route is much worse. I haven’t done an in-depth comparison between the two runs, but you must have lost a lot of time in this level alone. Although your run is faster, there is definite room for improvement, as cases like this show.
So, why accept packattack’s run over yours? For one, he spent a longer time recording the run, which alone obviously isn’t enough to warrant acceptance. However, at the time, skipping Brentilda was a big novelty, so that weighed in his favor. The run before his wasted over a minute on the RBB window trick, so people understood why he cut it out. He had some huge blemishes (MMM comes to mind), but overall he was pretty consistent. He collaborated with people, did route research based on previous runs and the TAS, and took input from others on what he could improve. In the end, his run looked like it could be a finished product. Yours, partially because of the run, and partially because of your attitude and circumstances, does not.
To top it all off, there is a quality issue. Your run was not recorded in the way outlined by the knowledge database, and it suffers because of it. As said earlier, this site is about videos, and the video/audio aspect of your run is not up to par. This wouldn’t be fatal, but when combined with the other issues, is a pretty convincing nail in the coffin.
In conclusion, you refused to collaborate (and apparently continue to do so judging by your recent posts), you did not spend as much time as we know you could on the run (and considerably less than the site average), you have some audiovisual problems, and your run looks sloppy, uses unoptimized movement, and ignores better routes. Decision: reject.
I really, really, really hope you do another run. The fact that you beat the old run by almost 3 minutes shows that you are really fucking skilled. Please consider trying more on this, listening to others, and hopefully your next submission will be accepted. Being secretive as you said before may lead to this same controversy all over again.
And as one final note, I’ve done quite a few tests with the in-game timer today. I have determined that time stops for some amount of time during transitions between two areas (such as entering and exiting mumbo’s skull). If your routes utilize more transitions, that also might explain some of the improvements. It is something new for everyone to think about as we start trying to fuse your route improvements with existing ones.
The run looks sloppy. Having raced this game a lot, I know how difficult it is to not make any mistakes, but the run is almost characterized by a bunch of small mistakes. Your movement is poor, and when we talked to you about it, you said that it was just for show and said it didn't really matter. TASers say otherwise, and despite what you think, they know more about the game mechanics than you do. In fact, this attitude that you know more about the game than anyone else is probably one of the major factors towards this rejection. You ignored people when they suggested you to redo. You refused to discuss your routes with us. You didn't listen when we said certain things were faster. And guess what? Your run got rejected.
As has been said plenty of times, SDA is not purely about keeping records. We are an archive of speedy videos. We are not obligated to accept a run just because it is faster – we want a run that looks good. You may have not made any major mistakes, and you may have done some hard tricks, but overall the run is not as impressive as it could be. We say to reset at the missed flip at the start because first impressions mean a lot. I personally tried that trick before writing this…with a bit of work, I managed to get it about 80% consistent. With as much practice as you had on it, surely you can get even better. A lot of people are harping on this trick because it is so early on, but don’t think this is the only example of a sloppy point. It is just one of the most obvious and easily correctable ones.
Next, effort actually matters considerably. However long you played this game beforehand, the fact remains you were only recording for five days. Now, sometimes, if you get really lucky, this is enough to crank out a good run. But as the response obviously shows, that is not the case here. If you truly have been playing the game for so long, why is it so hard to just keep trying? Your goal time was 2:25-2:30, you got over 3 minutes above that and said “okay, I’m done.” If you had no more time left, I’d understand. But you said in the topic afterwards your next project would be some BK ILs. If you have time for another project you surely have time for more attempts to iron out your mistakes. You may be the best BK player ever, you may have years and years of practice, but this run didn’t show the kind of optimization you brag about.
Moving onto routes…in many places your routes were better. You used some new tricks and strategies that I’ve never even seen before. You put back in the RBB window trick and used the more optimal FP/GV route. However, you also ignored a lot of possible improvements. Unique strategies are great, but often times the established route is the best one.
Your MMM was worse than packattack’s. You claim it is because of being turned into a pumpkin and a mishap with the running shoes. But remember, he wasted a full minute from just one mistake, significantly more than your two “major” mistakes combined. The fact that you still lost to him by a noticeable margin points to the fact that either A] your play is much sloppier, or B] your route is much worse. I haven’t done an in-depth comparison between the two runs, but you must have lost a lot of time in this level alone. Although your run is faster, there is definite room for improvement, as cases like this show.
So, why accept packattack’s run over yours? For one, he spent a longer time recording the run, which alone obviously isn’t enough to warrant acceptance. However, at the time, skipping Brentilda was a big novelty, so that weighed in his favor. The run before his wasted over a minute on the RBB window trick, so people understood why he cut it out. He had some huge blemishes (MMM comes to mind), but overall he was pretty consistent. He collaborated with people, did route research based on previous runs and the TAS, and took input from others on what he could improve. In the end, his run looked like it could be a finished product. Yours, partially because of the run, and partially because of your attitude and circumstances, does not.
To top it all off, there is a quality issue. Your run was not recorded in the way outlined by the knowledge database, and it suffers because of it. As said earlier, this site is about videos, and the video/audio aspect of your run is not up to par. This wouldn’t be fatal, but when combined with the other issues, is a pretty convincing nail in the coffin.
In conclusion, you refused to collaborate (and apparently continue to do so judging by your recent posts), you did not spend as much time as we know you could on the run (and considerably less than the site average), you have some audiovisual problems, and your run looks sloppy, uses unoptimized movement, and ignores better routes. Decision: reject.
I really, really, really hope you do another run. The fact that you beat the old run by almost 3 minutes shows that you are really fucking skilled. Please consider trying more on this, listening to others, and hopefully your next submission will be accepted. Being secretive as you said before may lead to this same controversy all over again.
And as one final note, I’ve done quite a few tests with the in-game timer today. I have determined that time stops for some amount of time during transitions between two areas (such as entering and exiting mumbo’s skull). If your routes utilize more transitions, that also might explain some of the improvements. It is something new for everyone to think about as we start trying to fuse your route improvements with existing ones.