Username:
B
I
U
S
"
url
img
#
code
sup
sub
font
size
color
smiley
embarassed
thumbsup
happy
Huh?
Angry
Roll Eyes
Undecided
Lips Sealed
Kiss
Cry
Grin
Wink
Tongue
Shocked
Cheesy
Smiley
Sad
<- 123
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
sda loyalist
That was the part I replied to. i.e. your whole post
just( •_•)>⌐■-■ ..... (⌐■_■)wing it
I don't understand one of the verifyers was clearly not fit to be a verify


Quote:
Cheating: None

A/V : Fine

the run is under SDA and TASvideos standards by a mile. Nightmares are impossible to escape from, he tries to do otherwise only to lose minutes. multiple ambushes, forgetting he had something, bad puzzles, a majority of the bosses being trolls and extremely high encounter rates make the run an easy REJECT. Also, you could have used BANE sword on Chaos, the 4 rematches and Kary 1st battle, which would have put it into the accept pile.

EDIT: Names referring to NES version


This verifier was clearly not adequate when offering to verify for this game and thus this should be given a re-verificaton.  It is absurd to believe this was factored into why the PSP version was a REJECT.  Also there is no reason to EVER compare an rpg speedrun to a TAS because the majority of TAS's get 0 encounters or get damn good encounter luck to boost xp/gold gain. 

If anything there should be a way to make it so when people offer to verify they know the game in question ESPECIALLY the version of that game (here it would be PSP and not NES). 
Quote from zewing:
I don't understand one of the verifyers was clearly not fit to be a verify


Quote:
Cheating: None

A/V : Fine

the run is under SDA and TASvideos standards by a mile. Nightmares are impossible to escape from, he tries to do otherwise only to lose minutes. multiple ambushes, forgetting he had something, bad puzzles, a majority of the bosses being trolls and extremely high encounter rates make the run an easy REJECT. Also, you could have used BANE sword on Chaos, the 4 rematches and Kary 1st battle, which would have put it into the accept pile.

EDIT: Names referring to NES version


This verifier was clearly not adequate when offering to verify for this game and thus this should be given a re-verificaton.  It is absurd to believe this was factored into why the PSP version was a REJECT.  Also there is no reason to EVER compare an rpg speedrun to a TAS because the majority of TAS's get 0 encounters or get damn good encounter luck to boost xp/gold gain. 

If anything there should be a way to make it so when people offer to verify they know the game in question ESPECIALLY the version of that game (here it would be PSP and not NES). 



While this is clearly correct does it matter here?  the other 2 of 3 verifiers said reject so it would've lost anyhow, right?
Edit history:
Lag.Com: 2013-04-26 10:03:32 am
sda loyalist
A little more information from the verification thread which I think is relevant.

Both verifier #1 and #2 submitted their verifications before I did because I was having a hard time of it. I asked for a little more time to think about it and some more input from them because I felt like there wasn't much to go on yet.

Flip also pointed out that even though both of them had already said no, my verification would also have an effect, so don't assume that a simple majority is what precipitates the result.
HELLO!
My understanding is that verification has never been a simple vote.
Quote from presjpolk:
My understanding is that verification has never been a simple vote.


Ah, never actually verified before, so my apologies for the misunderstanding.  So who does determine the final outcome in the rare split vote? 
.
A single reject vote in a page of accepts can cause a reject if the reasoning is sound.

f.ex: https://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/super_monkey_ball__january_24th_2012.html
Edit history:
Melodia: 2013-04-26 12:09:16 pm
I'll admit I may have been a bit biased from reading the other verifier's bit of comments first (he posted --- calling the money thing at the beginning cheating -- then deleated and reposted after I posted). I'll note said verifier was called out on another thread and told to "go back to lurking" so I agree with everyone else that his comments are invalid. When I saw him mention the BANE sword, which even if it DID work in the PSP version would be such a rediculos thing to even attempt (a 1/256 chance), I almost regretting doing to verifyinf alongside someone who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
I was also probably biased from the runner's comments -- especially in reguards to the encounter rate. But again, it really seemed liked it was much worse than normal compared to my own recent playing of the game and me memory of it over the years.

Now I'll also admit that I'm probably not as....good...at verifying as most people. I've just had to go with my own observations of other peoples' comment on how I should look at things.  In all honestly, I'd be happy to see the run on the site, as seeing FF1 beat that fast outside of a TAS, even with the glitch, is a wonderful thing. I just figured what I knew -- or at least thought I knew -- of SDA's current standards tilted it toward reject. Perhaps this discussion can sway things in the other direction, as clearly a number of people thing I and the other veryfier are being way too harsh. If other people really think the puzzle slowness and the running issues -- the main problems -- aren't that big a deal, well I'm ok with that.
spread the dirt to the populace
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.


if i wanted to play a lottery i'd get back into tournament poker

at least i could actually make a CPM-free living off of that
sda loyalist
It's every runner's choice what sort of games they run.
Bert = Too Stronk
Looking at this run and going back to my exp with the game I have to say this run should be accepted. I was very impressed with the Marrilith fight and a few other points in the run that have been stated previously. There should be some leeway here with things like the bad luck on encounters as this game is one of the kings of trolling with the encounter rate. I can look past the menu botch ups since if it were me in that situation I would probably do the same thing (Maybe I looked too quickly and lost sight of what I was looking for).

I mean sure the nightmare thing is probably the "Big Botch" Imo, but with how it turned out and how much of a time save was made I can definitely look past it in this case. (I mean its not like it was 7 attempts at running from Nightmare and back to back.) I can also somewhat look past the puzzle slowness because I personally hate that thing but the run did it faster than I have. (though you can ignore my thought on the puzzle as I'm no good at it personally).

This is just me stating what I personally thought about what I saw while looking at a few things on my PSP myself
Quote from Josh the Funkdoc:
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.


if i wanted to play a lottery i'd get back into tournament poker

at least i could actually make a CPM-free living off of that


This is a straw man and you know it.  Think about it, you reset constantly in your game runs due to RNG.  You could have a perfect few stages in Batman and then get horrible jumper luck and then reset.  Lag's argument is that this should be the same for a 90 minute run as in your 30 minute runs, and they should be held to the same standard.  If you took bad jumper luck causing say 10 seconds of loss in batman, or hell 15 seconds, it would look bad, but you still would probably beat your original submitted run for Batman at this point. 

Now I think you should get more leeway for bad luck in a 90 minute run and that unless it looks blatantly bad - which no one seems to think that it is - it should go up there.  But you can't deny the role of resetting due to luck in speedrunning.
I want off the ride....
My problem is... RNG in RPGs are not always manipulatable.

You tell me BAD RNG in FF4 The After Years, and I"ll be "Ok" and take that as a thing, but that game is a stretch as its RNG is completely set fromt he moment you start the game and is 100% human manipulatable (see all of the guides on how to force drops for people).

You tell me BAD RNG in ff4, and that comes down to two things. Did you get D. Machine quickly? and Did you get screwed over by back/surprises over the run. Both of which can not really be guarded against safely. D. Machine depends on two factors, the frame the game starts on, an all of the steps you ever take. And the SS/RTA route both vary steps in a few spots to pick up some items.. They may or may not be needed. Along with NPCs who after a while seem to step randomly. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The big thing happens about 3 hours into a run, with no safety wall and no one ever really seems to blame the runner/run... its just accepted as a fact.
In fact the above is probably the #1 barrier for a SS run to go sub 40.

But from what I can see in this run, it just seems like its nit picking wayy to much. I am no graceful god who never screws up a menu over a run. I can say everyone here is not immune to this fact. There are slip ups in all ty pes of runs (SS,RTA,SEG,ETC). But if your going to go on about luck in this regard and the run isn't RTA/SEG then i see no point in bothering. I might as well just TAS/SEG/RTA it and pray to abuse everything in my power to mitigate factors that can't be mitigated easily in a single sitting.

But alas, I guess i'm one of the screwy ones for running an RPG. Especially one that requires RNG all throughout, but mostly at the end. Or even the RNG hell that is Sweet Home (~1 hour run) that is 100% menu navigation, and all of the screw ups there.

I just dont see the point.
1-Up!
I think everything has been said that needs to be said, I'll address this when I'm not on my phone. I will say quickly that further discussion in the verification thread nullified verifier #2's response, but I didn't edit his response out before posting.
1-Up!
From the Verification Guidelines-

Quote:
Improvements of existing runs should generally be accepted unless there's a severe decrease in overall play quality.


To me it seems like there is not a severe decrease in overall play quality here. For some reason only verifier 3 verified both this run and the previously accepted (slower) run. Because the previously accepted run hasn't been posted yet, it is understandable that the other verifiers and myself had forgotten about it. I don't know why my previous verifiers didn't offer again or why certain members of the community who are knowledgeable about this game didn't step up to verify either time. Verification is only as good as the verifiers I get, so I consider it an insult for somebody to purposefully not verify when they are qualified to do so and then loudly proclaim their unhappiness when the decision is posted.

I'm relisting the run so that it can be verified again. To anybody who has experience with this game, I recommend you volunteer. This will not become the norm for all runs where the runner/community is upset over a Reject decision, but we feel that it's necessary given the guidelines above.

To all the people who are trying to use this as a pedestal to denounce the verification system either on this forum or IRC or Twitter or wherever, just stop. You're making yourself look bad. In a week or so I believe we will have an Accept verdict and ultimately the verification system will have done its job. This isn't some majority vote run by robots. We have a staff here that is dedicated to making the right decisions, including this one.

I'm unlocking this thread now that I've had the opportunity to have my say, but I won't hesitate to lock it again in an instant if I see any more arguments or bullshit posts.
You might as well just lock it again, I think. The run is back up for verification, anyone who hasn't verified before who is in this thread (including myself) will verify the run (we hope), and ultimately the correct decision will be made.

And just to be clear, I am NOT, whatsoever, denouncing the verification system at all. I do believe that in cases such as this, a runner should be given an opportunity to challenge a verification, but as a verifier of many previous runs, I think the system works just fine. This is an exceptionally rare case where perhaps the wrong decision was made, and I don't think it will happen very often going forward either. So, I think the system has done its' job well.

And for the record, I think you did a superb job handling this, Flip.
Willing to teach you the impossible
^^ This is why SDA thrives. The community as a whole and the admins are reasonable. If an error was made, they are almost always willing to listen and then intemperate all the arguments of both sides and mesh them with SDA policy to make the best choice.

I think this thread did not go where I was hoping it would go... but I guess this is a start in the right direction...
sda loyalist
Well, I guess it could have been worse.
HELLO!
Quote from Eternalspirit:
And for the record, I think you did a superb job handling this, Flip.
Fucking Weeaboo
Thank you, Flip. This is why I appreciate the openness of the verification process. By allowing us to see the verified runs for ourselves, if a mistake (or what we feel is a mistake), we can speak up and have an open discussion about it

Most of the time, the verifiers to a great job and there's nothing to worry about. But having this as a bit of a check is important to keeping SDA going strong.
raising the stakes on being bad!
As a new addition to SDA, and someone who has thrown every thing at verifying for SDA, I find this thread very enlightening.
It has made me reconsider the way I look at verification and the way I will execute it in the future.
I have watched about a 1/4 of this run and having played all version of this game (not speed running) and watching the other run that was referred to in this thread, I have no idea why the faster run was rejected.
I hope that I will never do a disservice to the runners that submit to SDA, those that come hear to watch the speed runs it hosts, and SDA's expected level of quality.
I still need to read this entire thread, but rest assured if I am unsure of a run I would sooner back out of a verification then reject a run I feel I am not qualified to verify, and I hope anyone in the future who is unsure of wither they are qualified to verify a run should take this as a positive example and admit they are unable to do it rather then reject a run on faulty or dated info. 
If I have said more then needs to be said admins feel free to edit my post if need be I would in no way want to speak for SDA out of turn due to my greenness on this site.