Hypothetical question...

2009-07-18 11:18:53 pm

zeldaspeedruns.com

What if someone found a glitch that reduced % for some game, but that glitch took hours/days to perform? Would that lower % run obsolete the previous Low %, or would the run not count?

Thread title:

Sir VG

2009-07-18 11:20:32 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Nobody wants to see a run that takes DAYS to perform.

NoiseCrash

2009-07-18 11:36:08 pm

@_@

Even if we ignore the hours/days (days would be blatantly unacceptable anyway) and knock the time required to perform said glitch down to one hour, I REALLY would hope that we'd have enough common sense to label the glitch "impractical for speedrunning" or something like that and disqualify it. As VG said, nobody wants to watch that.

gia

2009-07-19 01:13:28 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

yes in general, but it may be rejected by sda depending on the actual case, not the hypothetical one

xXIkuto

2009-07-19 02:54:31 am

if the glitch involved moving the clock on the game timer it would be up to mike since it's in a weird void between glitch and cheat. fable for example can be abused by moving the xbox dashboard clock ahead as much as you want, and since you gain money even when not playing the game you could instantly gain a ton by skipping a year or something.

if the glitch would take less time than it would to run the game without it...then sda would obviously take it. now depending on what your talking about, it may warrant it's own separate category. i can't really imagine any glitch taking a long time because after practicing i would imagine someone would be able to do it fairly precisely in a short amount of time, or else the lack of skill alone would result in rejection. if the glitch happens to be boring and repetitive, then that's just too bad for the viewers if it allows the game completion time [actual time to run the game, not just breaking the game clock] to be shorter than running the game without it.

remember, this site is not about "that would be boring to watch." it is about the fastest way to complete a game, period. if a really boring glitch happens to be the answer to that, then most likely sda would have it as a separate category [i would hope] and it wouldn't make a difference how boring it was. when it goes into "cheating" then that is a different story that is to be judged by mike. but if it's an acceptable glitch then...uh...that's life.

if the glitch involved moving the clock on the game timer it would be up to mike since it's in a weird void between glitch and cheat.  fable for example can be abused by moving the xbox dashboard clock ahead as much as you want, and since you gain money even when not playing the game you could instantly gain a ton by skipping a year or something.

if the glitch would take less time than it would to run the game without it...then sda would obviously take it.  now depending on what your talking about, it may warrant it's own separate category.   i can't really imagine any glitch taking a long time because after practicing i would imagine someone would be able to do it fairly precisely in a short amount of time, or else the lack of skill alone would result in rejection.  if the glitch happens to be boring and repetitive, then that's just too bad for the viewers if it allows the game completion time [actual time to run the game, not just breaking the game clock] to be shorter than running the game without it.

remember, this site is not about "that would be boring to watch."  it is about the fastest way to complete a game, period.  if a really boring glitch happens to be the answer to that, then most likely sda would have it as a separate category [i would hope] and it wouldn't make a difference how boring it was.  when it goes into "cheating" then that is a different story that is to be judged by mike.  but if it's an acceptable glitch then...uh...that's life.

Daniel

2009-07-19 04:43:27 am

If it's slower than the higher % it probaly won't be accepted.

Right?

ExplodingCabbage

2009-07-19 10:31:49 am

Quote from Daniel:

If it's slower than the higher % it probaly won't be accepted.

Well, that's tricky. Technically if you find a way to get lower % than was previously acheived, the low% definition has to change, and now the old runs weren't actual low% runs any more. Then there's really many ways to proceed. As I see it there's potentially four questions to be answered, leading to several possible outcomes:

1) Do we create a new category for the new, lower low%?
This would basically depend upon whether the new category is interesting or just retarded. If the whole run consists of performing some hypothetical several-hour glitch, the answer is probably 'just retarded' and there probably would be no new category.
2) Assuming we have created a new category, do we accept the run?
Obviously, it's possible a run will highlight the possibility of getting a lower % but not actually be good enough to be accepted by SDA.
3) Do we keep the old low% category?
Generally, the answer to this will be no, even if the new low% category is too retarded for us to accept submissions in it, since it's not actually low% any more. If it's a very popular and contested category, however, and the new low% category would be really stupid, the SDA admins might decide to grandfather it and allow further submissions anyway.
4) Assuming we've abolished the old category, do we keep the old run up?
If a new low% category has been created and a run submitted into it, that would presumably obsolete the old run regardless of whether it's longer. If no new run has been accepted, the old run would probably stay up (but no further submissions in that category would be allowed) since the admins here are really reluctant to take runs off the site unless they've been obsoleted.

Personally, the fact that these scenarios are possible at all, even if they've never occurred, makes me somewhat wary of the whole low% category.

[quote="Daniel"]If it's slower than the higher % it probaly won't be accepted.[/quote]

Well, that's tricky. Technically if you find a way to get lower % than was previously acheived, the low% definition has to change, and now the old runs weren't actual low% runs any more. Then there's really many ways to proceed. As I see it there's potentially four questions to be answered, leading to several possible outcomes:

1) Do we create a new category for the new, lower low%?
This would basically depend upon whether the new category is interesting or just retarded. If the whole run consists of performing some hypothetical several-hour glitch, the answer is probably 'just retarded' and there probably would be no new category.
2) Assuming we have created a new category, do we accept the run?
Obviously, it's possible a run will highlight the possibility of getting a lower % but not actually be good enough to be accepted by SDA.
3) Do we keep the old low% category?
Generally, the answer to this will be no, even if the new low% category is too retarded for us to accept submissions in it, since it's not actually low% any more. If it's a very popular and contested category, however, and the new low% category would be really stupid, the SDA admins might decide to grandfather it and allow further submissions anyway.
4) Assuming we've abolished the old category, do we keep the old run up?
If a new low% category has been created and a run submitted into it, that would presumably obsolete the old run regardless of whether it's longer. If no new run has been accepted, the old run would probably stay up (but no further submissions in that category would be allowed) since the admins here are really reluctant to take runs off the site unless they've been obsoleted.

Personally, the fact that these scenarios are possible at all, even if they've never occurred, makes me somewhat wary of the whole low% category.

mzxrules

2009-07-19 08:23:57 pm

zeldaspeedruns.com

Quote from xXIkuto:

...
i can't really imagine any glitch taking a long time because after practicing i would imagine someone would be able to do it fairly precisely in a short amount of time, or else the lack of skill alone would result in rejection.
...

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Guay Hover to Mirror Shield Chest trick, which takes over 20 minutes to do if you TAS it (Though it's only useful in a NMS any %).

arkarian

2009-07-19 09:15:34 pm

gamelogs.org

Quote from Daniel:

If it's slower than the higher % it probaly won't be accepted.

Right?

low% is low%. 22% run of metroid prime is slower than a 23% but 22% is what's accepted.

xXIkuto

2009-07-19 09:18:57 pm

Quote from mzxrules:

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Guay Hover to Mirror Shield Chest trick, which takes over 20 minutes to do if you TAS it (Though it's only useful in a NMS any %).

seems perfectly acceptable to me