Official 2009 Rules Reworking Discussion [locked]

2009-06-22 11:33:18 pm

1-Up!

Quote from Serris:

One of the questions is: Would it make sense to allow one and not the other, and is there a reason to not allow both?

I don't see why any run should be able to be called "single-segment" if there is a save and quit involved. Note that single-sitting does not mean the same thing as single segment. I'm not sure if pulling from the rules in this thread is necessarily appropriate, since this is the rules reworking thread; however, the rules state that "Runs that don't use saves are referred to as single-segment (SS) runs." By contrast, a run must be considered segmented if it utilizes save and quits of any sort.

Unless you plan to challenge the very definition of single-segment and segmented as previously laid down by the site (and maybe you do), this idea of saving and quitting in a SS run seems rather absurd.

Perhaps I'm missing the point all together, but I just dont understand how a SS run could involve a quit and reload.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-22 11:48:33 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Flip714:

Quote from Serris:

One of the questions is: Would it make sense to allow one and not the other, and is there a reason to not allow both?

I don't see why any run should be able to be called "single-segment" if there is a save and quit involved. Note that single-sitting does not mean the same thing as single segment. I'm not sure if pulling from the rules in this thread is necessarily appropriate, since this is the rules reworking thread; however, the rules state that "Runs that don't use saves are referred to as single-segment (SS) runs." By contrast, a run must be considered segmented if it utilizes save and quits of any sort.

Unless you plan to challenge the very definition of single-segment and segmented as previously laid down by the site (and maybe you do), this idea of saving and quitting in a SS run seems rather absurd.

Perhaps I'm missing the point all together, but I just dont understand how a SS run could involve a quit and reload.

There are a couple of runs that are dubbed SS and have a save, quit, and reload involved. The only one that comes to mind at the moment is the Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen Elite 4 Round 2 run, which requires it to get to that content. I believe there are a couple more where people wanted to do 100% SS, but it requires quitting and reloading. Mike would probably know better because I believe he's required video proof that it was done in one sitting.

[quote="Flip714"]
[quote="Serris"]
One of the questions is: Would it make sense to allow one and not the other, and is there a reason to not allow both?
[/quote]

I don't see why any run should be able to be called "single-segment" if there is a save and quit involved.  Note that single-sitting does not mean the same thing as single segment.  I'm not sure if pulling from the rules in this thread is necessarily appropriate, since this is the rules reworking thread; however, the rules state that "Runs that don't use saves are referred to as single-segment (SS) runs."  By contrast, a run must be considered segmented if it utilizes save and quits of any sort.

Unless you plan to challenge the very definition of single-segment and segmented as previously laid down by the site (and maybe you do), this idea of saving and quitting in a SS run seems rather absurd.

Perhaps I'm missing the point all together, but I just dont understand how a SS run could involve a quit and reload.  
[/quote]
There are a couple of runs that are dubbed SS and have a save, quit, and reload involved.  The only one that comes to mind at the moment is the Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen Elite 4 Round 2 run, which requires it to get to that content.  I believe there are a couple more where people wanted to do 100% SS, but it requires quitting and reloading.  Mike would probably know better because I believe he's required video proof that it was done in one sitting.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-23 03:23:23 am

I agree that Serris is raising a point worth addressing here.

While allowing saving and reloading in SS runs of most games seems kind of ridiculous to me and probably others (since continuity of play is a vital part of what SS runs are about, at least to me), what is less clear is why, in a game where death results in you respawning at the start of the room or level, the player shouldn't be allowed to use a restart command instead of killing themselves if something goes wrong, since these acheive the same result and the continuity is being broken either way. Indeed, some games have a 'suicide' command that can be used to restart levels instead of an actual 'restart' command, and it is clearly inconsistent that SS rules treat these differently (assuming that they do - I don't know much about the rules on such games).

Of course, there are two ways to clear up this inconsistency, assuming we think clearing it up is a worthwhile thing to do: the one Serris suggested, of allowing retries, or the alternative of not allowing deaths. Arguably, the latter is more consistent with the fact that saving and loading isn't allowed in other SS runs.

Serris: one of the most impressive things about SS runs of e.g. an FPS is that the runner has to survive the whole game in one sitting, which is often no mean feat of itself let alone when playing at speed. Your proposals would fundamentally change the category for such games.

I agree that Serris is raising a point worth addressing here.

While allowing saving and reloading in SS runs of most games seems kind of ridiculous to me and probably others (since continuity of play is a vital part of what SS runs are about, at least to me), what is less clear is why, in a game where death results in you respawning at the start of the room or level, the player shouldn't be allowed to use a restart command instead of killing themselves if something goes wrong, since these acheive the same result and the continuity is being broken either way. Indeed, some games have a 'suicide' command that can be used to restart levels instead of an actual 'restart' command, and it is clearly inconsistent that SS rules treat these differently (assuming that they do - I don't know much about the rules on such games).

Of course, there are two ways to clear up this inconsistency, assuming we think clearing it up is a worthwhile thing to do: the one Serris suggested, of allowing retries, or the alternative of not allowing deaths. Arguably, the latter is more consistent with the fact that saving and loading isn't allowed in other SS runs.

Serris: one of the most impressive things about SS runs of e.g. an FPS is that the runner has to survive the whole game in one sitting, which is often no mean feat of itself let alone when playing at speed. Your proposals would fundamentally change the category for such games.

Serris

2009-06-23 09:54:23 am

Yes, this is about either fundamentally changing the category or adding an alternative category that implements said changes. Here's my first post:

Quote from Serris:

How about remaking the idea of "single-segment" runs? The whole point of this category is greater challenge and a more impressive display of skill, so I see no reason to ban saving & quitting and save warping as long as it's done in a "single session" - which would also be an example of a more appropriate-sounding name for the "new" category. If anyone insists on keeping the current form of "single-segment" runs, just make "single session" yet another category.

Sorry if this was already addressed in here, I didn't really follow the thread.

Maybe I should add that the current definition of SS ("doesn't use saves") was, as far as I know, created with the Metroid series of games in mind. Until very recently, Metroid games didn't have checkpoints, and there is no save warping, either. Dying in a Metroid game without saving meant having to start over. Because of this, the rule effectively doesn't take games with different save systems into consideration. At SDA, SS and segmented runs using the same stipulations are listed alongside each other if the SS is slower. Since this site is about speed, what would be the point of keeping a slower run? The answer to this question is the key. Is it "greater challenge and a more impressive display of skill" (I really can't help repeating myself)? A Metroid game following the SS rule surely accomplishes this - but what about other games? In a game with checkpoints, auto-saves, etc, dying isn't automatically the end of the run, so a death is merely considered a mistake, and if the run is otherwise fantastic, it may not even be a reason for rejection. In Metroid games, saving always costs time, and it's only used if the resulting optimization outweighs the time loss. However, in many other games, saving may not only not cost any time, it can actually save time on top of allowing for optimization - it can even allow for routes that simply aren't possible without saving. Why apply a rule made for a few specific games to all games? In the end, it always comes down to case-by-case definitions - it's the only way to deal with it. Do we even need any rules aside from a very basic outline? You have to contact the admins, anyway, so why not ask them directly? No stiff set of rules can ever replace a benevolent admin who knows his stuff.

Yes, this is about either fundamentally changing the category or adding an alternative category that implements said changes. Here's my first post:

[quote="Serris"]
How about remaking the idea of "single-segment" runs? The whole point of this category is greater challenge and a more impressive display of skill, so I see no reason to ban saving & quitting and save warping as long as it's done in a "single session" - which would also be an example of a more appropriate-sounding name for the "new" category. If anyone insists on keeping the current form of "single-segment" runs, just make "single session" yet another category.

Sorry if this was already addressed in here, I didn't really follow the thread.
[/quote]

Maybe I should add that the current definition of SS ("doesn't use saves") was, as far as I know, created with the Metroid series of games in mind. Until very recently, Metroid games didn't have checkpoints, and there is no save warping, either. Dying in a Metroid game without saving meant having to start over. Because of this, the rule effectively doesn't take games with different save systems into consideration. At SDA, SS and segmented runs using the same stipulations are listed alongside each other if the SS is slower. Since this site is about speed, what would be the point of keeping a slower run? The answer to this question is the key. Is it "greater challenge and a more impressive display of skill" (I really can't help repeating myself)? A Metroid game following the SS rule surely accomplishes this - but what about other games? In a game with checkpoints, auto-saves, etc, dying isn't automatically the end of the run, so a death is merely considered a mistake, and if the run is otherwise fantastic, it may not even be a reason for rejection. In Metroid games, saving always costs time, and it's only used if the resulting optimization outweighs the time loss. However, in many other games, saving may not only not cost any time, it can actually save time on top of allowing for optimization - it can even allow for routes that simply aren't possible without saving. Why apply a rule made for a few specific games to all games? In the end, it always comes down to case-by-case definitions - it's the only way to deal with it. Do we even need any rules aside from a very basic outline? You have to contact the admins, anyway, so why not ask them directly? No stiff set of rules can ever replace a benevolent admin who knows his stuff.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-23 10:33:41 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

A set of rules takes the place of someone needing additional knowledge on each game people want to run. Having different rules for all games makes sense because each game has its own quirks, but logistically it's a nightmare to keep track of individual rulings and the reasoning behind them all. This is why there are a basic set of rules, such as defining segmented and single-segment separate from each game.

One of the reasons for banning (as you said) saving and quitting, and thus save warping, in a single-segment is that it would then be very difficult to tell the difference between SS and segmented. Most games stop or restart the music during loading, so splicing segments and calling it SS would be easier if saving and quitting were allowed. This is why external (video camera) proof is required beyond the run video to show saving and reloading was done during a SS, but it's a hassle and acceptable when deemed the only alternative.

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting with deaths and restarts. Can you provide some example games?

A set of rules takes the place of someone needing additional knowledge on each game people want to run.  Having different rules for all games makes sense because each game has its own quirks, but logistically it's a nightmare to keep track of individual rulings and the reasoning behind them all.  This is why there are a basic set of rules, such as defining segmented and single-segment separate from each game.

One of the reasons for banning (as you said) saving and quitting, and thus save warping, in a single-segment is that it would then be very difficult to tell the difference between SS and segmented.  Most games stop or restart the music during loading, so splicing segments and calling it SS would be easier if saving and quitting were allowed.  This is why external (video camera) proof is required beyond the run video to show saving and reloading was done during a SS, but it's a hassle and acceptable when deemed the only alternative.

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting with deaths and restarts. Can you provide some example games?

arkarian

2009-06-23 10:37:04 am

gamelogs.org

don't runners who save and quit during a run have to film themselves to show it's legit?

Serris

2009-06-23 11:31:08 am

Quote from ZenicReverie:

A set of rules takes the place of someone needing additional knowledge on each game people want to run.

Yes, but it should be reduced to a small set of rules that can be applied to every game no matter what (no hardware modification, etc). This isn't the case with the SS definition, since it addresses saving, which exists in many shapes and forms.

Quote:

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting with deaths and restarts. Can you provide some example games?

I currently can't remember suggesting anything of what ExplodingCabbage wrote. However, here is a fresh example of things that make me sad. Sad

Quote from Jiano:

My new SS should be up soon. You can't skip fishing rod in SS, since you can't get through the first tunnel in LBT without a savewarp or water bombs.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-23 11:54:30 am

Quote from Serris:

I currently can't remember suggesting anything of what ExplodingCabbage wrote.

Eh, what? And what was with the quoting of your first post as if I didn't understand you? What exactly have I misunderstood / do you think I've misunderstood?

Quote:

saving ... exists in many shapes and forms.

That's a crucial point right there and well put.

Serris

2009-06-23 12:23:11 pm

I quoted my first post again in order to show that "fundamentally changing the category" was my intention from the start, in response to

Quote:

Your proposals would fundamentally change the category for such games.

I don't know what you've misunderstood, I only know that I wasn't opposing deaths to restarts like you did - I'm fine with anything as long as the run's quality doesn't suffer. I didn't address it since you are very much allowed to interpret things in your own way and come up with new ideas - I just don't agree with banning anything to maintain consistencies that aren't there to begin with because every game is different.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-23 12:43:28 pm

Quote from Serris:

I don't know what you've misunderstood, I only know that I wasn't opposing deaths to restarts

Nor was I. I'm deliberately not taking sides in this thread any more. I was just pointing out that there are two ways to make the rules on deaths/saving and loading in SS runs consistent, which are the one you proposed (allowing saving and loading) or the alternative I brought up (not allowing deaths in runs where dying takes you back to the start of the level / is otherwise equivalent to saving and loading).

How far this consistency matters and which of the two ways of acheiving it is best is something that needs to be debated.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-23 03:15:53 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

So, what you're suggesting is that saving and reloading the saved game should be allowed in a SS run if it's done in one sitting to allow save warping for SS runs?

That would require the runner to film himself running the game in such a way that the runner is visible and the screen is readable while the run is going in order to show there isn't a break during play. There are probably also timing concerns, manual or game timer? Should timing stop while the game is reloading? There's also the standard that's been laid out that says there isn't any restarting the game during a SS run (again except where noted to achieve 100% clear.)

Personally I like the distinction of SS meaning no saving/loading, and I dislike the current runs that use it to get 100% because I find it inconsistent: why not just segment those runs? A single session run (I guess that's what it would be called) wouldn't be as interesting as if a no save option is available. If such a run type is introduced it should probably be a new category; otherwise, some current runs could easily be outclassed by save warping. An example of this is my Jak and Daxter run, so I'm probably a little biased, where Gol and Maia's Citadel can be completely skipped (probably the most stressful place with instant death pits everywhere) saving at least 10 minutes in addition to other places it could be helpful.

I feel it's better to keep save warping to segmented runs where such a thing is expected. I'm still thinking about the various rules and have yet to make a full post on everything, but in the meantime I threw out my ideas about getting rid of the deaths category (which btw was as ignored as your posts were) where in most cases serious death abuse warping could be considered a glitch and treated as such. The same could be said for save warping. Maybe a side category for warping should be added, or any warping should be considered low%, or without warping would be 100%? I really don't have a lot of supporting reasons for these as I haven't thought about them indepth, but maybe we could consider them as alternatives.

So, what you're suggesting is that saving and reloading the saved game should be allowed in a SS run if it's done in one sitting to allow save warping for SS runs?

That would require the runner to film himself running the game in such a way that the runner is visible and the screen is readable while the run is going in order to show there isn't a break during play.  There are probably also timing concerns, manual or game timer? Should timing stop while the game is reloading?  There's also the standard that's been laid out that says there isn't any restarting the game during a SS run (again except where noted to achieve 100% clear.)

Personally I like the distinction of SS meaning no saving/loading, and I dislike the current runs that use it to get 100% because I find it inconsistent: why not just segment those runs?  A single session run (I guess that's what it would be called) wouldn't be as interesting as if a no save option is available.  If such a run type is introduced it should probably be a new category; otherwise, some current runs could easily be outclassed by save warping.  An example of this is my Jak and Daxter run, so I'm probably a little biased, where Gol and Maia's Citadel can be completely skipped (probably the most stressful place with instant death pits everywhere) saving at least 10 minutes in addition to other places it could be helpful.

I feel it's better to keep save warping to segmented runs where such a thing is expected.  I'm still thinking about the various rules and have yet to make a full post on everything, but in the meantime I threw out my ideas about getting rid of the deaths category (which btw was as ignored as your posts were) where in most cases serious death abuse warping could be considered a glitch and treated as such.  The same could be said for save warping.  Maybe a side category for warping should be added, or any warping should be considered low%, or without warping would be 100%?  I really don't have a lot of supporting reasons for these as I haven't thought about them indepth, but maybe we could consider them as alternatives.

UltimateDarius

2009-06-23 03:59:36 pm

Back in the game!

I think this SS topic should be left alone. Unless the game FORCES a save/quit before you've completed whatever it is you're going to be doing (E4R2 in Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen, Facing Red/Blue in Gold/Silver, etc.), then save/quits should be banned from SS play.

ninetigerr

2009-06-23 09:20:43 pm

Quote from UltimateDarius:

I think this SS topic should be left alone. Unless the game FORCES a save/quit before you've completed whatever it is you're going to be doing (E4R2 in Pokemon FireRed/LeafGreen, Facing Red/Blue in Gold/Silver, etc.), then save/quits should be banned from SS play.

I'm surprised to hear this is a point of contention at all. By definition, 1 Save + 1 Quit = 1 segment, with exceptions...

Quote:

Any save and quit from the game will count as a segment. It doesn't matter if you use this to warp around and then keep playing without stopping; your run is no longer single-segment. The only exception is a game that forces you to reset to progress.

Scepheo

2009-06-24 01:35:25 am

Quote from ninetigerr:

Quote from UltimateDarius:

...

I'm surprised to hear this is a point of contention at all. By definition, 1 Save + 1 Quit = 1 segment, with exceptions...

Quote:

Any save and quit from the game will count as a segment. It doesn't matter if you use this to warp around and then keep playing without stopping; your run is no longer single-segment. The only exception is a game that forces you to reset to progress.

You're saying we shouldn't change rule "A" because rule A says so.

I'd say we'd either keep it this way, or simply overhaul the complete definition of Single Segment and change it into Single Session. Which would mean that completion time simply is the real time from pressing "new game" until the credits roll. Minus loading times. Regardless of how it's done. Saving/loading to retry a trick as often as you want? Go ahead. Dieing? Just load your last save (if it's faster, that is).

Which means that SS would go from "game x is beaten, at once, within bla:bla by person y" to "it took person x bla:bla time to beat game y".

Or just make them separate categories. They both have their charms.

[quote="ninetigerr"]
[quote="UltimateDarius"]
...
[/quote]
I'm surprised to hear this is a point of contention at all. By definition, 1 Save + 1 Quit = 1 segment, with exceptions...
[quote]Any save [i]and quit[/i] from the game will count as a segment. It doesn't matter if you use this to warp around and then keep playing without stopping; your run is no longer single-segment. The only exception is a game that forces you to reset to progress. [/quote]
[/quote]
You're saying we shouldn't change rule "A" because rule A says so.

I'd say we'd either keep it this way, or simply overhaul the complete definition of Single Segment and change it into Single Session. Which would mean that completion time simply is the [b]real[/b] time from pressing "new game" until the credits roll. Minus loading times. Regardless of how it's done. Saving/loading to retry a trick as often as you want? Go ahead. Dieing? Just load your last save (if it's faster, that is).

Which means that SS would go from "game [i]x[/i] is beaten, at once, within bla:bla by person [i]y[/i]" to "it took person [i]x[/i] bla:bla time to beat game [i]y[/i]".

Or just make them separate categories. They both have their charms.

Kabuto_

2009-06-24 01:40:08 pm

I'm rather against an additional "single session" category. The problem I see that it's not too different in style from segmented playing except that it more or less limits the use of risky techniques:

* In games where you savewarp or can't save anywhere lots of tricks are avoided if the player would have to progress for a minute before getting the chance of trying that trick again after failure

* In games where you can save anywhere a player could save immediately before an ultra difficult jump and then try 20 times before finally succeeding, being a pain to watch.

Serris

2009-06-24 02:14:57 pm

The only difference is the use of the save system. What you said is just as true for current SS runs. Depending on the actual difficulty, a run retrying so many times would likely be rejected. The only extreme exception I can think of right now is the Metroid Prime 22% SS run, but reloading is pointless there because, well, it's Metroid.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-24 02:35:49 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

I'm in favor of either a single session category or changing the single segment category into single session. I think not allowing save warping in SS is just as arbitrary as not allowing death warping in any run was. I don't think the distinction between segmented and SS was meant to fundamentally change the way the game is played, but just to allow a category for beating the game all at once and one for breaking it down into pieces. At least this is how I always thought of it, and it doesn't seem I am alone.

And you know for certain games you are REQUIRED to reset the game in order to beat it, like x-men for genesis. This game can't be segmented so if you want SS to mean no resetting there can exist no speedrun on SDA for this game.

If your SS run could easily have been segmented due to breaks in game play or some other reason, some sort of additional proof should be required, such as ADEQUATE webcam footage. This has already been done for certain speedruns, SDA just needs to write the official rules.

I'm in favor of either a single session category or changing the single segment category into single session.  I think not allowing save warping in SS is just as arbitrary as not allowing death warping in any run was.  I don't think the distinction between segmented and SS was meant to fundamentally change the way the game is played, but just to allow a category for beating the game all at once and one for breaking it down into pieces.  At least this is how I always thought of it, and it doesn't seem I am alone.

And you know for certain games you are REQUIRED to reset the game in order to beat it, like x-men for genesis.  This game can't be segmented so if you want SS to mean no resetting there can exist no speedrun on SDA for this game.

If your SS run could easily have been segmented due to breaks in game play or some other reason, some sort of additional proof should be required, such as ADEQUATE webcam footage.  This has already been done for certain speedruns, SDA just needs to write the official rules.

andrewg

2009-06-24 02:56:40 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Regarding topic #7 - real-time vs. in-game timer being used...

Basically I'm just interested about runs like these:
- Super Metroid for Super NES (0:32)

Say 32 minutes in-game time was a perfect time. In that case, could the run be improved? What I'm asking is: Could a new (0:32) speedrun replace the current (0:32) speedrun?

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-25 02:20:17 pm

2009-06-24 05:26:23 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Quote from andrewg:

Regarding topic #7 - real-time vs. in-game timer being used...

Basically I'm just interested about runs like these:
- Super Metroid for Super NES (0:32)

Say 32 minutes in-game time was a perfect time. In that case, could the run be improved? What I'm asking is: Could a new (0:32) speedrun replace the current (0:32) speedrun?

That's a really good question. Fortunately For TASes they can use the memory addresses to get the exact in-game time. Manually timing the in-game time should possible with fairly good accuracy though (plus or minus 4 seconds easily), would be a bit of work though. You'd want to look at the video frame by frame. For comparing one video to another you might not have to time that much if the runs used the same strat, just the parts where game-time is stopped and the runs took different amounts time on these parts. Things like door events might be the same always.

For a 32 minute run I really don't think it's fair to require someone beat it by 59 seconds, I think if you beat it by 50 seconds that's quite a bit better and deserves to be added.

[quote="andrewg"]
Regarding topic #7 - real-time vs. in-game timer being used...

Basically I'm just interested about runs like these:
- Super Metroid for Super NES (0:32)

Say 32 minutes in-game time was a perfect time. In that case, could the run be improved? What I'm asking is: Could a new (0:32) speedrun replace the current (0:32) speedrun?

[/quote]

That's a really good question.  Fortunately For TASes they can use the memory addresses to get the exact in-game time.  Manually timing the in-game time should possible with fairly good accuracy though (plus or minus 4 seconds easily), would be a bit of work though.  You'd want to look at the video frame by frame.  For comparing one video to another you might not have to time that much if the runs used the same strat, just the parts where game-time is stopped and the runs took different amounts time on these parts.  Things like door events might be the same always.

For a 32 minute run I really don't think it's fair to require someone beat it by 59 seconds, I think if you beat it by 50 seconds that's quite a bit better and deserves to be added.

DJGrenola

2009-06-27 06:55:28 pm

guffaw

In general, I would prefer legislation that keeps the number of different categories as small as possible. There are two main reasons for this preference.

Firstly, I suspect that fewer categories are likely to lead to greater competition for those categories. I would prefer to watch one well-optimised run of a game using one character than I would watch three mediocre runs of the same game using three different characters.

Secondly, I think that having fewer categories makes the site more accessible to the casual speedrun viewer. Occasional site visitors may not understand the meaning of numerous obscure categories. They may not even know what they want to see, beyond "something that has some fiendish trickery in it", and they are highly unlikely to want to download and watch all the categories just to find out. This is the Internet, home of the short attention span, where "tl;dr" reigns supreme.

zoonel

2009-06-28 03:06:04 am

Go play spacechem !

Quote from DJGrenola:

In general, I would prefer legislation that keeps the number of different categories as small as possible. There are two main reasons for this preference.

Firstly, I suspect that fewer categories are likely to lead to greater competition for those categories. I would prefer to watch one well-optimised run of a game using one character than I would watch three mediocre runs of the same game using three different characters.

Secondly, I think that having fewer categories makes the site more accessible to the casual speedrun viewer. Occasional site visitors may not understand the meaning of numerous obscure categories. They may not even know what they want to see, beyond "something that has some fiendish trickery in it", and they are highly unlikely to want to download and watch all the categories just to find out. This is the Internet, home of the short attention span, where "tl;dr" reigns supreme.

I dont agree :
Popular games will have a lot of runs and obscure game will have one or zero run, restricting categories will change nothing.
If i take diablo2 Lod as an exemple, i'm interested in 100%, any%, all difficulties, normal difficulty, the 7 characters ; if you dont consider team runs it can lead to 2x2x7 = 28 runs and they have all some interest for me.
On the other hand i wont download a run done on easy if it exist on hard, same if it involves adding a mod or heavy script vs none, same for the game+ categories. But if i'm a fan of a particular game i would still watch them (except for the easy difficulty)

Just let the people choose what they want and maybe make the distinction between the different categories more clear if its confusing (maybe type the any% segmented in bold ?).

[quote="DJGrenola"]
In general, I would prefer legislation that keeps the number of different categories as small as possible. There are two main reasons for this preference.

Firstly, I suspect that fewer categories are likely to lead to greater competition for those categories. I would prefer to watch one well-optimised run of a game using one character than I would watch three mediocre runs of the same game using three different characters.

Secondly, I think that having fewer categories makes the site more accessible to the casual speedrun viewer. Occasional site visitors may not understand the meaning of numerous obscure categories. They may not even know what they [i]want[/i] to see, beyond "something that has some fiendish trickery in it", and they are highly unlikely to want to download and watch all the categories just to find out. This is the Internet, home of the short attention span, where "tl;dr" reigns supreme.
[/quote]
I dont agree :
Popular games will have a lot of runs  and obscure game will have one or zero run, restricting categories will change nothing.
If i take diablo2 Lod as an exemple, i'm interested in 100%, any%, all difficulties, normal difficulty, the 7 characters ; if you dont consider team runs it can lead to 2x2x7 = 28 runs and they have all some interest for me.
On the other hand i wont download a run done on easy if it exist on hard, same if it involves adding a mod or heavy script vs none, same for the game+ categories. But if i'm a fan of a particular game i would still watch them (except for the easy difficulty)

Just let the people choose what they want and maybe make the distinction between the different categories more clear if its confusing (maybe type the any% segmented in bold ?).

DJGrenola

2009-06-28 04:19:48 am

guffaw

I definitely think something ought to be done to make the categories more transparent to casual site visitors. Having context-sensitive help on the run pages would be hugely useful. It would be nice to have a "Notes on Categories" section displayed under the blurb on the game pages, and have terms like "single-segment" pop up a tooltip explaining them. I had plans to do these things, but they came to nothing.

I'm not saying categories should be abolished, but I am in favour of changes that simplify them. I would prefer to see scripts (or at least movement scripts) banned altogether. I think dex's experiment demonstrates why. It would however mean that certain runs would have nowhere to live, since I guess TASvideos wouldn't accept heavily scripted PC game runs either. Effectively, SDA needs to decide whether it wants a piece of the TAS pie or not.

The 0.5s save-anywhere penalty I'm fairly happy with. There seems to be a healthy amount of complaint about it from both the increase-the-penalty and the remove-the-penalty camps, which suggests to me that the figure is probably in the right place where it is now, although I will admit that I've never seriously attempted to run a PC game. I don't really like the idea of having a separate category for save spam runs, for reasons already discussed. I agree that it is a little stupid for the SDA-listed time to be incorrect, so I'd make it explicit on the game page ("1:23:45 +0:01:15 save penalty = 1:25:00."). Again, this could be made clearer by improving the site's functionality, but this isn't really the place to talk about that.

I should also add that I am in favour of hard and fast rules rather than relying on verifier discretion. If I'd spent time on a run that used scripts or heavy segmentation and appeared to conform to the rules but was rejected by verifiers for being "too TAS-like", I'd be furious.

As others have commented, implicit in all this is deciding at what sort of gamers the site's content should be aimed. I doubt there will be a consensus on this, but my view is that it should be aimed at as many of them as possible. Since there are surely many more gamers who do not run games than there are gamers who do, the rules in my view should be geared towards a non-speedrunning audience rather than the alternative.

I definitely think something ought to be done to make the categories more transparent to casual site visitors. Having context-sensitive help on the run pages would be hugely useful. It would be nice to have a "Notes on Categories" section displayed under the blurb on the game pages, and have terms like "single-segment" pop up a tooltip explaining them. I had plans to do these things, but they came to nothing.

I'm not saying categories should be abolished, but I am in favour of changes that simplify them. I would prefer to see scripts (or at least movement scripts) banned altogether. I think dex's experiment demonstrates why. It would however mean that certain runs would have nowhere to live, since I guess TASvideos wouldn't accept heavily scripted PC game runs either. Effectively, SDA needs to decide whether it wants a piece of the TAS pie or not.

The 0.5s save-anywhere penalty I'm fairly happy with. There seems to be a healthy amount of complaint about it from both the increase-the-penalty and the remove-the-penalty camps, which suggests to me that the figure is probably in the right place where it is now, although I will admit that I've never seriously attempted to run a PC game. I don't really like the idea of having a separate category for save spam runs, for reasons already discussed. I agree that it is a little stupid for the SDA-listed time to be incorrect, so I'd make it explicit on the game page ("1:23:45 +0:01:15 save penalty = 1:25:00."). Again, this could be made clearer by improving the site's functionality, but this isn't really the place to talk about that.

I should also add that I am in favour of hard and fast rules rather than relying on verifier discretion. If I'd spent time on a run that used scripts or heavy segmentation and appeared to conform to the rules but was rejected by verifiers for being "too TAS-like", I'd be furious.

As others have commented, implicit in all this is deciding at what sort of gamers the site's content should be aimed. I doubt there will be a consensus on this, but my view is that it should be aimed at as many of them as possible. Since there are surely many more gamers who do not run games than there are gamers who do, the rules in my view should be geared towards a non-speedrunning audience rather than the alternative.

arkarian

2009-06-28 12:53:45 pm

gamelogs.org

i agree with everything in the above post. while this might not be the place to discuss changes as described in dj's first paragraph, i think changes like that could solve many of the rules problems. imo sda has a long way to go before it's very newb-friendly, and unlike some i feel being newb-friendly is important.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-28 06:43:37 pm

2009-06-28 06:29:31 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

So I just found out a certain TM2 run was rejected because of two verifiers. Here was my response.

"How could this run be rejected? It's probably better than at least 75% of the runs on this site. What are the rules on whether a run is accepted or not, clearly something needs to be changed if all it takes is two people (or one imposture claiming to be two) with nothing but internet access to say no for bad reasons. If this is all it takes, one person could single handily make sure a new run is never accepted at SDA ever again for as long as he lives."

If the rules are such that this is possible and no one at SDA has the power to do anything about this, clearly something is wrong and needs to be changed. If a run is better than most of the runs at SDA, SDA should have the right to accept it, two people with internet access (or one person with two accounts) shouldn't be able to deny SDA of this right.

I for one would not have any problem if say Mike had the power to override verifiers who rejected a run for QUALITY reasons. I trust Mike's judgment wouldn't let in any runs that weren't high quality enough.

Quote:

I should also add that I am in favour of hard and fast rules rather than relying on verifier discretion. If I'd spent time on a run that used scripts or heavy segmentation and appeared to conform to the rules but was rejected by verifiers for being "too TAS-like", I'd be furious.

I'm proposing a rule change here, the TM2 is just an example of why it's necessary, don't get side tracked onto the TM2 run.

So I just found out a certain TM2 run was rejected because of two verifiers.  Here was my response.

"How could this run be rejected?  It's probably better than at least 75% of the runs on this site.  What are the rules on whether a run is accepted or not, clearly something needs to be changed if all it takes is two people (or one imposture claiming to be two) with nothing but internet access to say no for bad reasons.  If this is all it takes, one person could single handily make sure a new run is never accepted at SDA ever again for as long as he lives."

If the rules are such that this is possible and no one at SDA has the power to do anything about this, clearly something is wrong and needs to be changed.  If a run is better than most of the runs at SDA, SDA should have the right to accept it, two people with internet access (or one person with two accounts) shouldn't be able to deny SDA of this right.

I for one would not have any problem if say Mike had the power to override verifiers who rejected a run for QUALITY reasons.  I trust Mike's judgment wouldn't let in any runs that weren't high quality enough.

[quote]I should also add that I am in favour of hard and fast rules rather than relying on verifier discretion. If I'd spent time on a run that used scripts or heavy segmentation and appeared to conform to the rules but was rejected by verifiers for being "too TAS-like", I'd be furious.[/quote]

I'm proposing a rule change here, the TM2 is just an example of why it's necessary, don't get side tracked onto the TM2 run.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-28 06:41:33 pm

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

I for one would not have any problem if say Mike had the power to override verifiers who rejected a run for QUALITY reasons.

He can, but I think he tries to only do so when the verifiers are clearly either misinformed or being unfair, and to go with their judgement in borderline cases.