Jumpman - April 5, 2014

Edit history:

SDAVerification: 2014-04-05 09:43:56 pm

2014-03-23 03:15:23 pm

Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Jumpman (Any %) (Single Segment)

Decision: Reject

Reason: Had a couple of really ugly parts for such a short run

https://queue.speeddemosarchive.com/queue/verificationfiles/973/

This run will be available for a month. After that these link(s) will no longer work.

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2014-03-23 03:15:28 pm

Run Information

Jumpman (Any %) (Single Segment)

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/jumpman/

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by April 6, 2014.

Please post your opinions about the run and be certain to conclude your post with a verdict (Accept/Reject). This is not a contest where the majority wins - I will judge each verification on its content. Please keep your verification brief unless you have a good reason otherwise.

After 2 weeks I will read all of the verifications and move this thread to the main verification board and post my verdict.

lecorbak

2014-03-24 09:18:18 pm

Vanilla H is mai waifu

A/V looks good.

the run is good, but I think there is maybe too many deaths for a game this short.
don't know if that's acceptable or not.

ktwo

2014-03-25 07:04:09 am

I could spot a few platforming mistakes such as mistimed jumps or hitting the edge of a narrow hole before dropping down etc. It also looked like guiding some of the objects by rotating the levels could have gone a little smoother in a few places, but I also understand if the game mechanics make this hard to fully control. Even though I'm not really familiar with the game and that I might be overlooking some things, I'd say that these mistakes alone would not have prevented the run from being a pretty solid effort. However, there are also several deaths. It's possible that some were intentional (or at least didn't cost time), but it looked like some of them weren't.
3:49 - Possibly an intentional death, but it looks like it should be possible to follow in the wake of the orange ball and clear the level faster? If possible to avoid the death, 2-3 seconds could be saved.
4:36-4:47 - Multiple deaths. These look intentional (maybe not the last one though, but that only cost a second). You obviously need to wait for the yellow ball to hit the bomb. But would it have been possible to wait near the exit for this to happen or do you need the ball on screen for blowing up the bomb? I assume the latter.
5:27-5:46 - Multiple deaths. I watched this level in another run on the runner's twitch channel. There were a couple of deaths in that run as well and it wasn't perfect, but still 15 seconds faster than here (the submitted run is overall much faster though).
7:18 - Looks like an unintentional death. 4-5 seconds lost.
7:45 - Unintentional death. 1 second lost.

Overall, the run would have been acceptable with fewer unintentional deaths, but there is just a bit too much time that was lost because of them. If the other people here agree with rejecting this run, the runner shouldn't be discouraged. It looks like a pretty technical and fast-paced game and several sections in the run appear quite skillful. Just got to continue trying until the pieces fall into place for a whole run. That would be an entertaining watch, so I hope the runner decides to go for it.

weak REJECT

I could spot a few platforming mistakes such as mistimed jumps or hitting the edge of a narrow hole before dropping down etc. It also looked like guiding some of the objects by rotating the levels could have gone a little smoother in a few places, but I also understand if the game mechanics make this hard to fully control. Even though I'm not really familiar with the game and that I might be overlooking some things, I'd say that these mistakes alone would not have prevented the run from being a pretty solid effort. However, there are also several deaths. It's possible that some were intentional (or at least didn't cost time), but it looked like some of them weren't.
3:49 - Possibly an intentional death, but it looks like it should be possible to follow in the wake of the orange ball and clear the level faster? If possible to avoid the death, 2-3 seconds could be saved.
4:36-4:47 - Multiple deaths. These look intentional (maybe not the last one though, but that only cost a second). You obviously need to wait for the yellow ball to hit the bomb. But would it have been possible to wait near the exit for this to happen or do you need the ball on screen for blowing up the bomb? I assume the latter.
5:27-5:46 - Multiple deaths. I watched this level in another run on the runner's twitch channel. There were a couple of deaths in that run as well and it wasn't perfect, but still 15 seconds faster than here (the submitted run is overall much faster though).
7:18 - Looks like an unintentional death. 4-5 seconds lost.
7:45 - Unintentional death. 1 second lost.

Overall, the run would have been acceptable with fewer unintentional deaths, but there is just a bit too much time that was lost because of them. If the other people here agree with rejecting this run, the runner shouldn't be discouraged. It looks like a pretty technical and fast-paced game and several sections in the run appear quite skillful. Just got to continue trying until the pieces fall into place for a whole run. That would be an entertaining watch, so I hope the runner decides to go for it.

weak REJECT

UraniumAnchor

2014-03-25 09:05:55 pm

Not a walrus

Watched this a couple of times and I pretty much have to agree with everything ktwo said. The cluster of deaths looked especially bad, and in a run this short I'm not sure I can accept that.

Tentative reject unless some reasoning behind the deaths can excuse them.

bangerra

2014-03-26 05:06:26 am

Oh man, what a heartbreaker.
This run is absolutely amazing, but there's this one big eyesore of a level around 5:25 where the runner loses so much time with silly deaths.
I can confirm that this game is NOT easy. You have very little controll in the air, part from ridiculous acceleration in 1 direction, and once you start moving the game will infinitely hold your speed. If not for that one level, the other deaths would be excusable.

I'll have to REJECT like my fellow verifiers. (and yes, please keep at it)

ktwo

2014-03-26 12:47:45 pm

Off-topic question to UraniumAnchor:

Are the runners aware of these threads? If not, would it make sense to send out a pm when they're created? Like you say, if the runner had the chance to address things, it's possible that we'd see some of the mistakes in a different light (I have a hard time seeing how a run can be ready for publication here when it contains this type of 15s mistake in a 7 min run though, so I'm speaking generally).

UraniumAnchor

2014-03-26 06:02:14 pm

Not a walrus

Quote from ktwo:

Off-topic question to UraniumAnchor:

Are the runners aware of these threads? If not, would it make sense to send out a pm when they're created? Like you say, if the runner had the chance to address things, it's possible that we'd see some of the mistakes in a different light (I have a hard time seeing how a run can be ready for publication here when it contains this type of 15s mistake in a 7 min run though, so I'm speaking generally).

https://queue.speeddemosarchive.com/queue/editsettings/

Every runner with a login has the option to set these.

ZenicReverie

2014-03-26 06:12:05 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

FYI: Not on by default.

ktwo

2014-03-27 12:56:34 am

In my opinion, it would be better to have those settings in the submission form itself. Or just have them on by default. It's relevant information so I doubt many runners would feel they got spammed by an additional pm or two. It's not like anyone submits tens of runs to sda every week...

UraniumAnchor

2014-03-27 08:37:52 am

Not a walrus

When I originally brought the idea up people wanted it off by default. Combining it with another page is annoying from a code perspective because of the way Django handles forms (not impossible, mind, just extra steps). I'd like to, just not a terribly high priority for reasons I hope are obvious.

ktwo

2014-03-27 08:51:22 am

I don't know how big group of people you asked, but I'd still like to challenge the decision to have the option of receiving these notifications off by default (and changing so they're checked off by default can't take more than a minute of your time). I can't think why people would spend more time than absolutely necessary in the "queue page", so finding these options aren't evident otherwise.

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2014-03-27 09:42:30 am

2014-03-27 09:41:42 am

Not a walrus

Big enough. I'm not locked into the decision but enough people said so that it's what I went with.

Plus I'm of the mind that notification options should be turned to the minimum by default. ie the opposite of Facebook and G+, which notify you if a stray leaf blows past your page.

I should probably make a discussion thread about the queue in general so we stop derailing this thread, though. Maybe I'll do that after I get home.

SDAVerification

2014-04-05 09:44:00 pm

Decision posted.

solsword

2014-06-22 01:51:25 pm

Well, I've now turned on those verifications (checking in here 'cause of SGDQ, but I didn't see any of these comments until now; totally my fault though ^.^;.

It's encouraging to see such positive reviews, although I agree that there's a lot of unintentional death in the run (the deaths on the level with the yellow ball that has to come hit the bomb are the one big exception, those don't cost much time and trying not to die is likely to cost more since the ball has to hit the bomb before any level progress can be made). I'll keep running and when I get a run with many fewer deaths I'll submit again. The game is such that I don't think I'll ever get a run with 0 time lost to unintentional deths, but maybe someone else out there can, and I can probably get a run with only a couple of seconds lost due to unintentional deaths overall.

Thanks again for the encouraging comments; hopefully you'll be hearing from me again soon.