Final Fantasy Anniversary Edition

Mercury.Com

Edit history:

Mercury.Com: 2013-04-26 12:06:15 am

2013-04-26 12:03:56 am

Sea of Green

Quote from Sir VG:

As somebody who's done FFAE glitched runs, I should have stepped up and verified this. I will say, the time is extremely impressive.

Quote:

losing 13 seconds because of forgetting you have something (also runners fault)

You're upset over THIRTEEN seconds in a 89 minute run? That's 0.2% of the run.

Fine, I'm obviously an idiot, but it doesn't matter since I wasn't a verifier.

Also, where where you all hiding when this was actually up for verification?

Heidrage

2013-04-26 12:08:56 am

Willing to teach you the impossible

1st, no... I met you. You are FAR from that.

Only VG said he missed it. The rest of us are not familiar with the game, but dont understand why the reject, and just want solid clarification as this run looks really good (again, coming from someone who never played it)

UraniumAnchor

2013-04-26 12:11:45 am

Not a walrus

This thread is getting heated. Dial it back a bit, please.

Melodia

2013-04-26 12:15:04 am

My thought was that a couple of time wasting mistakes, on top of the the really sloppiness in the waterfall (run or don't....choose one) and then on top of that the encounter rate to me seemed really high especially considering I've been playing the game myself in the last few days.

As for what I base my claim on average runs getting less encounters? Eh it was a guess. Maybe I'm way off and there was less than normal, or it was right on. The boss thing, well the main issues were the waste of hasting three times....whhile yes it was just bad luck, it again seems a little sloppy.

Yes this would make for an utterly excelent marathon run, but I figured based on what I've seen at SDA everything added up -- I rejected it but only barely in my mind. Really I think without the inconsistancies with the Nightmares and if the puzzle had been done better I would have given it an accept.

JackintheBox333

2013-04-26 12:29:17 am

Professional Shaq Fu Speedrunner

Yeah, I'm never played this game, but did know that BANE sword trick is not present in the PSP remake. So yes, I did not offer to verify this, because I've never played it, nor do I own a PSP. No I just want an answer as to how this reject is valid when one verifier based a reject on tricks that do not work on the remake and another what they claim to be excessive encounters in a run that has fewer battles than a run that was accepted two months prior.

Sir VG

2013-04-26 12:34:47 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from Heidrage:

Only VG said he missed it.

I didn't say I missed it. I knew it was there, but I had chose not to verify because I was doing awful at getting verifications done in a timely matter. (Still am. I was the last one to complete their verification on an easy accept because I wanted to write something clever and was slow as hell at doing it.) That's what I mean by not "stepping up".

Quote from Mercury.Com:

Fine, I'm obviously an idiot, but it doesn't matter since I wasn't a verifier.?

No, you're not. But I am curious as to why 0.2% of a run matters in a run like this. This isn't Contra or Super Mario Bros where frames matter. If the run was, say, 30 minutes long, yeah, I can see 13 seconds being an issue. But we're talking a nearly 90 minute run. We're all human and thus prone to mistakes. I'm willing to let an error that small slide because it's just that...small. An RPG can be an incredible complex beast to run. The amount of glitching ALONE in this game is incredible, since it takes a lot of decision making and testing to determine which stuff to take and what isn't worth it. I knew about a lot of the items that were used, until the runner came up with about 3x as many as what I was using, which was great for stuff like increasing evade, allowing for a much higher chance of running.

Yes, the Nightmare issue in the Waterfall was dumb, but to me it was still minor, probably costing what...a minute? Two? A bit could be avoided by having an emergency exit there (possibly holding it until then instead of using it at Earth Shrine, which while longer has much easier to escape encounters?). I know the one was gotten from doing the puzzle mini-game, but is there another for doing it? I see something in the bestiary about Purple Worms dropping it. Wonder what the chance of it is. Small? Large?

Yes, I'm probably overreacting to the reject. But I still stand by my feelings that it's a bad reject and should be reversed.

[quote="Heidrage"]Only VG said he missed it.[/quote]

I didn't say I missed it. I knew it was there, but I had chose not to verify because I was doing awful at getting verifications done in a timely matter. (Still am. I was the last one to complete their verification on an easy accept because I wanted to write something clever and was slow as hell at doing it.) That's what I mean by not "stepping up".

[quote="Mercury.Com"]Fine, I'm obviously an idiot, but [i]it doesn't matter since I wasn't a verifier[/i].?[/quote]

No, you're not. But I am curious as to why 0.2% of a run matters in a run like this. This isn't Contra or Super Mario Bros where frames matter. If the run was, say, 30 minutes long, yeah, I can see 13 seconds being an issue. But we're talking a nearly 90 minute run. We're all human and thus prone to mistakes. I'm willing to let an error that small slide because it's just that...small. An RPG can be an incredible complex beast to run. The amount of glitching ALONE in this game is incredible, since it takes a lot of decision making and testing to determine which stuff to take and what isn't worth it. I knew about a lot of the items that were used, until the runner came up with about 3x as many as what I was using, which was great for stuff like increasing evade, allowing for a much higher chance of running.

Yes, the Nightmare issue in the Waterfall was dumb, but to me it was still minor, probably costing what...a minute? Two? A bit could be avoided by having an emergency exit there (possibly holding it until then instead of using it at Earth Shrine, which while longer has much easier to escape encounters?). I know the one was gotten from doing the puzzle mini-game, but is there another for doing it? I see something in the bestiary about Purple Worms dropping it. Wonder what the chance of it is. Small? Large?

Yes, I'm probably overreacting to the reject. But I still stand by my feelings that it's a bad reject and should be reversed.

puwexil

2013-04-26 12:49:49 am

Professional Second Banana

I'm reading from verifier #3's comments that the ~90 minute run had 5-10 minutes of possible improvement through a combination of better execution and more attempts at a run with better RNG, so I'm not following these arguments that the verification isn't valid because it mentioned second counts for specific execution mistakes.

Lag.Com

Edit history:

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 01:39:29 am

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 01:31:43 am

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 01:25:35 am

2013-04-26 01:19:12 am

sda loyalist

Indeed, my second counts were based on the idea that adding them up actually leads to a sensible, usable number. I wasn't doubly penalising stuff.

I stand by what I've decided. Because I've run this game myself, I think I have a fairly good grasp on what a reasonable encounter rate entails, and this is not it.

I never said 'this is not as good as a TAS would be'.

I compare the run against an impossible ideal, THEN cut out the parts that are unreasonable for a single-segment run.

It was brought up in the verification thread that the BANE sword is pretty much unusable for a run. I guess #2 didn't know enough about the game. That wasn't included in my 'time losses' chart because that was only meant to be a list of things using this current route, that were slowed in some way.

I wasn't counting forced encounters/grinding in my stats, because those are part of the route.

If I have time, I'll do the same set of 'mistakes' against the previous run, and post them here.

Lag.Com

Edit history:

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 02:53:35 am

2013-04-26 02:52:31 am

sda loyalist

Ok, this is what I observed in the previous, accepted, run:
178 random encounters ~ 14:50
12 ambushes ~ 2:00
10 failures to run ~ 1:40
29 casts of Flare ~ 2:54
23 melee kills ~ 1:09
8 unnecessary menu uses ~ 0:22
7 hard to run away ~ 0:35
TOTAL ~ 23:57

So, what can we gather from this? 1 less encounter, but that's not important. The main thing this information shows me is that despite the number of encounters being roughly the same, they were more difficult encounters, because they often had to be Flared or fought normally. Also, the run is much more aggressive with attempting to run away - I only saw one attempted escape in this run that was impossible (3x White Dragon), every other was just unlucky.

I estimated about 20:31 of 'mistakes' for this new run, and 23:57 for the older one. This additional 3:26 is mostly made up of the time spent using Flare. 9 minutes of improvement between the old run and the new one, 5:30ish of which is from new strategies.

Note that these numbers only account for battle-related time losses. I should have been more thorough and also counted stuff like NPCs getting in the way.

Ok, this is what I observed in the previous, accepted, run:
178 random encounters	~ 14:50
12 ambushes		~  2:00
10 failures to run	~  1:40
29 casts of Flare	~  2:54
23 melee kills		~  1:09
8 unnecessary menu uses	~  0:22
7 hard to run away	~  0:35
TOTAL			~ 23:57

So, what can we gather from this? 1 less encounter, but that's not important. The main thing this information shows me is that despite the number of encounters being roughly the same, they were more difficult encounters, because they often had to be Flared or fought normally. Also, the run is much more aggressive with attempting to run away - I only saw one attempted escape in this run that was impossible (3x White Dragon), every other was just unlucky.

I estimated about 20:31 of 'mistakes' for this new run, and 23:57 for the older one. This additional 3:26 is mostly made up of the time spent using Flare. 9 minutes of improvement between the old run and the new one, 5:30ish of which is from new strategies.

Note that these numbers only account for battle-related time losses. I should have been more thorough and also counted stuff like NPCs getting in the way.

garik16

2013-04-26 07:40:31 am

Quote from Lag.Com:

Ok, this is what I observed in the previous, accepted, run:
178 random encounters ~ 14:50
12 ambushes ~ 2:00
10 failures to run ~ 1:40
29 casts of Flare ~ 2:54
23 melee kills ~ 1:09
8 unnecessary menu uses ~ 0:22
7 hard to run away ~ 0:35
TOTAL ~ 23:57

So, what can we gather from this? 1 less encounter, but that's not important. The main thing this information shows me is that despite the number of encounters being roughly the same, they were more difficult encounters, because they often had to be Flared or fought normally. Also, the run is much more aggressive with attempting to run away - I only saw one attempted escape in this run that was impossible (3x White Dragon), every other was just unlucky.

I estimated about 20:31 of 'mistakes' for this new run, and 23:57 for the older one. This additional 3:26 is mostly made up of the time spent using Flare. 9 minutes of improvement between the old run and the new one, 5:30ish of which is from new strategies.

Note that these numbers only account for battle-related time losses. I should have been more thorough and also counted stuff like NPCs getting in the way.

So do I have this right - the run is better than an accepted run, but has much worse luck? Because if that's the case, why isn't this an accept? I understand wanting the runner to go for better luck in the future, but you have a run here played with superior skill and you're rejecting it?

I don't see how that makes sense.

[quote="Lag.Com"]Ok, this is what I observed in the previous, accepted, run:
178 random encounters	~ 14:50
12 ambushes		~  2:00
10 failures to run	~  1:40
29 casts of Flare	~  2:54
23 melee kills		~  1:09
8 unnecessary menu uses	~  0:22
7 hard to run away	~  0:35
TOTAL			~ 23:57

So, what can we gather from this? 1 less encounter, but that's not important. The main thing this information shows me is that despite the number of encounters being roughly the same, they were more difficult encounters, because they often had to be Flared or fought normally. Also, the run is much more aggressive with attempting to run away - I only saw one attempted escape in this run that was impossible (3x White Dragon), every other was just unlucky.

I estimated about 20:31 of 'mistakes' for this new run, and 23:57 for the older one. This additional 3:26 is mostly made up of the time spent using Flare. 9 minutes of improvement between the old run and the new one, 5:30ish of which is from new strategies.

Note that these numbers only account for battle-related time losses. I should have been more thorough and also counted stuff like NPCs getting in the way.[/quote]

So do I have this right - the run is better than an accepted run, but has much worse luck?  Because if that's the case, why isn't this an accept?  I understand wanting the runner to go for better luck in the future, but you have a run here played with superior skill and you're rejecting it?

I don't see how that makes sense.

jape

2013-04-26 08:05:03 am

much faster than current run on site, people that actually play the game in thread saying accept, one verifier rejecting because it didn't use an nes glitch not doable in this version, ridiculous reaching to find reasons to reject... i know we have the SDA standard to uphold but if this doesnt get accepted than i don't know i just don't know . . .

Josh the Funkdoc

2013-04-26 08:06:35 am

spread the dirt to the populace

Quote from Mercury.Com:

This isn't the first time a run that is faster has been rejected. If the time saved could be even more than this because of poor execution and luck, why not wait for a better run? Forgetting to use a useful item to kill (some) enemies faster is a BIG mistake, and to me that alone would be reject-worthy.

sorry but i'm going to call bullshit on that last part, given that i just recently had a run accepted and posted (Jim Power) that had at least 5x more egregious mistakes than this. AND that game is a sidescroller, and it wasn't an improvement to an established run. comparing these two there is a definite double standard in action, even if that wasn't a conscious decision. my holy diver run i just submitted loses more time to mistakes than the black robe thing did, in a game that is the fraction of the length. oh yeah, my initial CV3 trevor-only run had a mistake that cost over 30 seconds alone, and that wasn't during the dark ages...

stuff like this is why people think sda has bias issues; even if that wasn't the intent, it sure makes it look that way. looking at all this i came away thinking "i can't be positive this wouldn't have been accepted if it had my name on it."

last thought: making luck this big of a factor in accept/reject decisions is EXACTLY what i didn't want SDA to become, but what i was afraid it would. i still see speedrunning as just a test of execution, strategizing, and perhaps adjusting on the fly - the rest is just gravy, and i would absolutely never factor luck into a verification of mine. SDA should be simply about the demonstration of skill, imo; that's why i loved things like darkwing duck submitting a cleaner startropics run that was only slower because it didn't get the random final boss glitch.

[quote="Mercury.Com"]This isn't the first time a run that is faster has been rejected. If the time saved could be even more than this because of poor execution and luck, why not wait for a better run? Forgetting to use a useful item to kill (some) enemies faster is a BIG mistake, and to me that alone would be reject-worthy.[/quote]

sorry but i'm going to call bullshit on that last part, given that i just recently had a run accepted and posted (Jim Power) that had at least 5x more egregious mistakes than this. AND that game is a sidescroller, and it wasn't an improvement to an established run. comparing these two there is a definite double standard in action, even if that wasn't a conscious decision. my holy diver run i just submitted loses more time to mistakes than the black robe thing did, in a game that is the fraction of the length.  oh yeah, my initial CV3 trevor-only run had a mistake that cost over 30 seconds alone, and that wasn't during the dark ages...

stuff like this is why people think sda has bias issues; even if that wasn't the intent, it sure makes it look that way. looking at all this i came away thinking "i can't be positive this wouldn't have been accepted if it had my name on it."

last thought: making luck this big of a factor in accept/reject decisions is EXACTLY what i didn't want SDA to become, but what i was afraid it would. i still see speedrunning as just a test of execution, strategizing, and perhaps adjusting on the fly - the rest is just gravy, and i would absolutely never factor luck into a verification of mine. SDA should be simply about the demonstration of skill, imo; that's why i loved things like darkwing duck submitting a cleaner startropics run that was only slower because it didn't get the random final boss glitch.

Sir VG

2013-04-26 08:22:22 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from jape:

much faster than current run on site, people that actually play the game in thread saying accept, one verifier rejecting because it didn't use an nes glitch not doable in this version, ridiculous reaching to find reasons to reject... i know we have the SDA standard to uphold but if this doesnt get accepted than i don't know i just don't know . . .

Correction: There is nothing currently on the site. The only versions of FF on the site are the original NES and PS1 "Origins" edition. There is one accepted, but it's not on the site yet. (Origins can't do the glitch used in this run.)

Lag.Com

Edit history:

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 08:24:53 am

2013-04-26 08:24:30 am

sda loyalist

After factoring in the effect of runner skill and good planning on RPG runs, the only thing left is to shoot for is good luck. Josh, while I agree with some of your views on speedrunning, the whole point is that SDA is an archive of the best speedruns. Streams and live performances are for good speedruns.

jape

2013-04-26 08:26:11 am

Quote from Sir VG:

Quote from jape:

much faster than current run on site, people that actually play the game in thread saying accept, one verifier rejecting because it didn't use an nes glitch not doable in this version, ridiculous reaching to find reasons to reject... i know we have the SDA standard to uphold but if this doesnt get accepted than i don't know i just don't know . . .

Correction: There is nothing currently on the site. The only versions of FF on the site are the original NES and PS1 "Origins" edition. There is one accepted, but it's not on the site yet. (Origins can't do the glitch used in this run.)

i had dessyreqt's post about the run already in verification queue in my mind, ty for correction my friend.

Quote from Lag.Com:

After factoring in the effect of runner skill and good planning on RPG runs, the only thing left is to shoot for is good luck. Josh, while I agree with some of your views on speedrunning, the whole point is that SDA is an archive of the best speedruns. Streams and live performances are for good speedruns.

i thought sda wasn't a records site and was a site to showcase cool nice videos of gaming skill? good quality runs, that can still be improvable but impressive?

[quote="Sir VG"][quote="jape"]much faster than current run on site, people that actually play the game in thread saying accept, one verifier rejecting because it didn't use an nes glitch not doable in this version, ridiculous reaching to find reasons to reject... i know we have the SDA standard to uphold but if this doesnt get accepted than i don't know i just don't know . . . [/quote]

Correction: There is nothing currently on the site. The only versions of FF on the site are the original NES and PS1 "Origins" edition. There is one accepted, but it's not on the site yet. (Origins can't do the glitch used in this run.)[/quote]

i had dessyreqt's post about the run already in verification queue in my mind, ty for correction my friend.

[quote="Lag.Com"]After factoring in the effect of runner skill and good planning on RPG runs, the only thing left is to shoot for is good luck. Josh, while I agree with some of your views on speedrunning, the whole point is that SDA is an archive of the best speedruns. Streams and live performances are for good speedruns.[/quote]

i thought sda wasn't a records site and was a site to showcase cool nice videos of gaming skill? good quality runs, that can still be improvable but impressive?

Lag.Com

Edit history:

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 08:30:06 am

Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 08:29:12 am

2013-04-26 08:28:14 am

sda loyalist

Well fair enough, it's understandable to equate 'the best' with 'the record', that wasn't explicitly my intention. I was also trying to relate the idea that other things that aren't as important in streamed runs like video quality and presentation (statids, informative commentary, etc.) are part of 'the best'.

'The best' runs are still improvable. Watching the runner attempt impossible escapes then fail them, screw up menus a bit... is not impressive.

The time is lower but it's less impressive.

Onin

Edit history:

Onin: 2013-04-26 08:31:47 am

2013-04-26 08:29:36 am

Whether the run can be further improved is not relevant. What's relevant is how well executed the run is, especially in comparison to the previous run already in queue. You can argue that it has better skill in executions, you can argue it has worse luck and should've been reset at some point because of that... But really, it's a 10% improvement. I don't see how there's even an argument.

At the end of the day, chances are the runner isn't satisfied either and will continue aiming for better and better times. In fact, that's the only reason this run exists in the first place. Odds are a better run will get finished before this one passes through the queue. In that case the only difference an accept or reject makes here, is in the runner's morale.

I feel sorry for him Sad

garik16

2013-04-26 08:34:27 am

Quote from Josh the Funkdoc:

Quote from Mercury.Com:

This isn't the first time a run that is faster has been rejected. If the time saved could be even more than this because of poor execution and luck, why not wait for a better run? Forgetting to use a useful item to kill (some) enemies faster is a BIG mistake, and to me that alone would be reject-worthy.

sorry but i'm going to call bullshit on that last part, given that i just recently had a run accepted and posted (Jim Power) that had at least 5x more egregious mistakes than this. AND that game is a sidescroller, and it wasn't an improvement to an established run. comparing these two there is a definite double standard in action, even if that wasn't a conscious decision. my holy diver run i just submitted loses more time to mistakes than the black robe thing did, in a game that is the fraction of the length.

I agree with nearly everything Josh, except perhaps this part -- In more obscure games, i think the acceptance of mistakes is made greater than it is in less obscure (CV3 doesn't fit this theme but Jim Power and Holy Diver definitely do). Whether or not this counts as an "obscure game" is debateable.

[quote="Josh the Funkdoc"][quote="Mercury.Com"]This isn't the first time a run that is faster has been rejected. If the time saved could be even more than this because of poor execution and luck, why not wait for a better run? Forgetting to use a useful item to kill (some) enemies faster is a BIG mistake, and to me that alone would be reject-worthy.[/quote]

sorry but i'm going to call bullshit on that last part, given that i just recently had a run accepted and posted (Jim Power) that had at least 5x more egregious mistakes than this. AND that game is a sidescroller, and it wasn't an improvement to an established run. comparing these two there is a definite double standard in action, even if that wasn't a conscious decision. my holy diver run i just submitted loses more time to mistakes than the black robe thing did, in a game that is the fraction of the length.  [/quote]

I agree with nearly everything Josh, except perhaps this part -- In more obscure games, i think the acceptance of mistakes is made greater than it is in less obscure (CV3 doesn't fit this theme but Jim Power and Holy Diver definitely do).  Whether or not this counts as an "obscure game" is debateable.

Lag.Com

2013-04-26 08:40:29 am

sda loyalist

As for the double standards, yes, you are absolutely right! I didn't think to reply to this point at first, but... yes, there are two sets of verifiers. None of us can agree completely on what 'a good run' or whatever means, which is precisely why SDA grabs as many verifiers as it can to make a decision.

MrLonghair

2013-04-26 08:58:36 am

Audio-guy. twitchtv:ohgoddamnit

Speedruns.

jape

2013-04-26 09:00:45 am

Quote from MrLonghair:

Speedruns.

is this for or against the run in question? it's the fastest completed run of the game, and 9 minutes faster than a run deemed speedy enough to be accepted onto the site, so i hope for. if so, great point, mate.