Official 2009 Rules Reworking Discussion [locked]

InsipidMuckyWater

2009-07-03 11:24:01 pm

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Lol. Spider, you have to be the most determined person I have ever met. Ever. Of all time.

Zealie

Edit history:

Zealie: 2009-07-04 12:09:10 am

2009-07-03 11:46:48 pm

Quote from VorpalEdge:

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

What rules does SDA currently have which it has ABSOLUTELY NO way of enforcing?

Uh, 99% of the single-segment runs on the site could actually be segmented runs spliced together with relatively simple video editing, so the answer to your question is... uh, most of them?

Is that so?
I thought it would be fairly difficult to edit the files you got on the dvd (.vob and what not) to make it 1 good looking movie on dvd.
I'm not master in editing so I maybe I just don't know howto, but I was fairly sure this is not an easy task.

P.S. I'm not saying it can't be done and with PC runs I think it's a lot easier with editing then on a recorded console run (maybe I'm wrong), I just didn't like you 99% number with the fact you claimed it could be done 'relatively simple video editing'.

[edit] I'll stop replying here because it's not really helping to bring forth new arguments/discussions.

VorpalEdge

Edit history:

VorpalEdge: 2009-07-04 12:18:29 am

2009-07-04 12:05:58 am

welcome to the machine

Quote from ZaibirQuild:

Is that so?
I thought it would be fairly difficult to edit the files you got on the dvd (.vob and what not) to make it 1 good looking movie on dvd.
I'm not master in editing so I maybe I just don't know howto, but I was fairly sure this is not an easy task.

P.S. I'm not saying it can't be done and with PC runs I think it's a lot easier with editing then on a recorded console run (maybe I'm wrong), I just didn't like you 99% number with the fact you claimed it could be done 'relatively simple video editing'.

[edit] I'll stop replying here because it's not really helping to bring forth new arguments/discussions.

Don't edit stuff on your DVD recorder. Rip all of the segments you want to merge to your harddrive, then use some Avisynth magic (the ++ operator) to merge two runs together at a fade-to-black or fixed-length cutscene. Pretty much any stage transition would work, for instance. Encode it with anri and torrent it to nate and voila. You'd have to watch for fluctuating audio levels and making scores match up and stuff like that, which could potentially make this much more complex than the simple act of editing a video, but...

I mean, there's not much point in doing this when you could just submit it as a segmented or IL run in most cases and get the exact same run on the site without being a cheating douchebag -- you'd still have to pull the segments off legitimately in the first place, after all, unless you go even further down the path of skulduggery -- but the point stands.

[quote="ZaibirQuild"]Is that so?
I thought it would be fairly difficult to edit the files you got on the dvd (.vob and what not) to make it 1 good looking movie on dvd.
I'm not master in editing so I maybe I just don't know howto, but I was fairly sure this is not an easy task.

P.S. I'm not saying it can't be done and with PC runs I think it's a lot easier with editing then on a recorded console run (maybe I'm wrong), I just didn't like you 99% number with the fact you claimed it could be done 'relatively simple video editing'.

[edit] I'll stop replying here because it's not really helping to bring forth new arguments/discussions.
[/quote]

Don't edit stuff on your DVD recorder.  Rip all of the segments you want to merge to your harddrive, then use some Avisynth magic (the ++ operator) to merge two runs together at a fade-to-black or fixed-length cutscene.  Pretty much any stage transition would work, for instance.  Encode it with anri and torrent it to nate and voila.  You'd have to watch for fluctuating audio levels and making scores match up and stuff like that, which could potentially make this much more complex than the simple act of editing a video, but...

I mean, there's not much point in doing this when you could just submit it as a segmented or IL run in most cases and get the exact same run on the site without being a cheating douchebag -- you'd still have to pull the segments off legitimately in the first place, after all, unless you go even further down the path of skulduggery -- but the point stands.

Zealie

2009-07-04 12:16:55 am

I know I just edited that I wouldn't reply but I can't help myself ask this question:

There is one thing that does bother me and either I forgot it's been addressed and answered before or it was just ignored.
Further down this thread there is also the mention of this game:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/BanjoTooie.html

Banjo-Tooie, and as you might know and can see there is a different category for the use of 'cheats'.
What I'm wondering about and what I still can't figure out is.
Why are these allowed? Is it purely because he has to 'enter' the cheats with his main character (instead of maybe pause the game and press up, down, up up, a, b, or whatever).
If so I find that kinda lame, and if so could you 'theoretical' allow a scripted run if you had to enter the scripts with your character?
As far as I know such game doesn't exist, but I'm really just wondering. And not I am not trying to compare cheats with scripts I'm just wondering. (cheats are further down the no-go line then scripts imho).

Oh, I don't really have a problem with this run being there, since it's a separate category, but my brain just cannot comprehend it's current status as to why this is accepted and other runs (with cheats) are not.

I know I just edited that I wouldn't reply but I can't help myself ask this question:

There is one thing that does bother me and either I forgot it's been addressed and answered  before or it was just ignored.
Further down this thread there is also the mention of this game:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/BanjoTooie.html

Banjo-Tooie, and as you might know and can see there is a different category for the use of 'cheats'.
What I'm wondering about and what I still can't figure out is. 
Why are these allowed? Is it purely because he has to 'enter' the cheats with his main character (instead of maybe pause the game and press up, down, up up, a, b, or whatever).
If so I find that kinda lame, and if so could you 'theoretical' allow a scripted run if you had to enter the scripts with your character?
As far as I know such game doesn't exist, but I'm really just wondering. And not I am not trying to compare cheats with scripts I'm just wondering. (cheats are further down the no-go line then scripts imho).

Oh, I don't really have a problem with this run being there, since it's a separate category, but my brain just cannot comprehend it's current status as to why this is accepted and other runs (with cheats) are not.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-07-04 12:18:22 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

Yes, but you see there ARE ways SDA can catch that, and there is significant work evolved, that's a high risk whiping your finger prints type job. I made these points specifically in my original posts. You people need to stop coming up with counter examples which violate key points I explicitly made. Read better please, really please.

Quote:

Thankfully your views are in the minority, so they can be safely dissected and then ignored.

So is this how things are decided around here? If that's the case I'll use that to my favor.

VorpalEdge

2009-07-04 12:20:07 am

welcome to the machine

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

Yes, but you see there ARE ways SDA can catch that

Not if done well, and with proper game selection. I could make a kickass Knytt run in about five seconds using this, and it'd be much easier than doing it legitimately... which I suppose contradicts what I said earlier, but oh well.

(you are replying to me, right?)

InstinctSage -alt

2009-07-04 02:20:30 am

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

4. dex, it's more like if all the drivers had to make their own car and there weren't any restriction on what they could make. Now the racing is less a product driving skill and more of how good of a car can you make. Rather than having it be this way, I'm saying it's better that the league supply every driver with their own car which is exactly the same as all the other cars.

You know why everyone's getting confused? None of these analogies seem to hold up. See, I read this, and to me, scripting a run is like building a car. If you can build a script that automates many tasks in the game that are otherwise very difficult to perform, and especially difficult to perform while you're concentrating on other things, then you're building a better vehicle than someone who hasn't put all that effort into scripts, or is using inferior ones.
If the league is supplying everyone with their own car, that's the game out of the box.

If you speedrun a platformer, you have to work out the enemy positions and behaviour, work out the ideal routes and timings for everything, and above all make sure you can actually execute your plan consistently - that's the part that takes the most practice. If you're making a TAS, you're focusing not on what you can execute, because you can execute anything that's in the game. You're not changing the game mechanics, but you're capable of creating a theoretical best performance by automating inputs that no human could replicate accurately, the end result of which looks inhumanly possible.

The only technical difference between TAS and Scripts is that TAS comes from external programs that add this functionality to the game, whilst scripts are primarily developer tools left in the game. Because it'd be an absolute pain to work with an engine where you couldn't call up a console and do this kind of stuff. That's often why cheats are there too. Utilising those tools in creative ways is really cool, and it presents a new challenge and opens new doors for a 3D shooter. They're complicated beasts and there's heaps you can do with them, but honestly, there is no way scripted runs can stand alongside unscripted runs. I don't care if scripted runs are hosted separately, but they are the functional equivalent of a TAS when you're making them do perfect jumps/spins/headshots, and bickering about where the line is between custom key configs and serious scripting automation just seems like clutching at straws.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]
4. dex, it's more like if all the drivers had to make their own car and there weren't any restriction on what they could make.  Now the racing is less a product driving skill and more of how good of a car can you make.  Rather than having it be this way, I'm saying it's better that the league supply every driver with their own car which is exactly the same as all the other cars.
[/quote]

You know why everyone's getting confused? None of these analogies seem to hold up. See, I read this, and to me, scripting a run is like building a car. If you can build a script that automates many tasks in the game that are otherwise very difficult to perform, and especially difficult to perform while you're concentrating on other things, then you're building a better vehicle than someone who hasn't put all that effort into scripts, or is using inferior ones. 
If the league is supplying everyone with their own car, that's the game out of the box.

If you speedrun a platformer, you have to work out the enemy positions and behaviour, work out the ideal routes and timings for everything, and above all make sure you can actually execute your plan consistently - that's the part that takes the most practice. If you're making a TAS, you're focusing not on what you can execute, because you can execute anything that's in the game. You're not changing the game mechanics, but you're capable of creating a theoretical best performance by automating inputs that no human could replicate accurately, the end result of which looks inhumanly possible.

The only technical difference between TAS and Scripts is that TAS comes from external programs that add this functionality to the game, whilst scripts are primarily developer tools left in the game. Because it'd be an absolute pain to work with an engine where you couldn't call up a console and do this kind of stuff. That's often why cheats are there too. Utilising those tools in creative ways is really cool, and it presents a new challenge and opens new doors for a 3D shooter. They're complicated beasts and there's heaps you can do with them, but honestly, there is no way scripted runs can stand alongside unscripted runs. I don't care if scripted runs are hosted separately, but they are the functional equivalent of a TAS when you're making them do perfect jumps/spins/headshots, and bickering about where the line is between custom key configs and serious scripting automation just seems like clutching at straws.

InsipidMuckyWater

2009-07-04 02:58:45 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Spider-Waffle, I don't think the difficulty of detecting scripts is really the issue. I mean, sure, the issue exists, but the debate is not (or should not be) about whether the script is easy to prevent or not. Since SDA is a trusting site, all they have to do is say, "No scripts," and hope for the best and do what they can in notably suspicious cases. As I wrote earlier, it's like saying "No crime" (if we consider scripting equivalent to a crime at SDA), even though we cannot expect to detect all crimes ever to be committed. That doesn't mean we should give up on the principle and officially allow crime. It's not about enforcing a law; it's about determining what is and is not a crime.
None of this means scripts should or should not be banned. I'm just criticizing the 'practicality argument.'

Lag.Com

2009-07-04 03:51:39 am

sda loyalist

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

You people need to stop coming up with counter examples which violate key points I explicitly made.

That's how debate works.

Also, you missed what I meant before. When I said 'dissect', I meant, to study and understand them. Of course, then the carcass has to be disposed of somehow.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2009-07-04 04:16:21 am

2009-07-04 03:57:55 am

In an attempt at brevity I'll stick to making points / expressing opinions that haven't already been given by others.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

1. It's a legitimate in-game feature which doesn't change the game mechanics much like customizing your config which the game makers intended to be used when playing the game in a regular manner.

Cabbage backs me up on this one also arguing that banning such a legitimate in-game feature is an arbitrary game-specific rule. I've yet to see a good counter to this.

And I'm yet to see why it even matters. When I made that point, I was less hoping to challenge the anti-scripting crowd and more hoping to challenge those who claim to want to get rid of arbitrary game-specific rules (basically, LLCoolDave). My view is the arbitrary game-specific rules are fine as long as they fit into one of the following two categories:
* Rules that somehow make life easier for the runner, result in better video quality, make timing easier or more consistent, etc., in a way that doesn't alter the gameplay in any way.
* Rules that either ban, or put into a seperate category, some game mechanic or trick that, while legitimate, trivialises running the game.

For me, scripts are the latter, and that makes banning them fine.

Quote:

2. They can enhance speedrunning as a display of human skill by shifting the focus onto human skills which are more readily noticed and appreciated.

People try to counter this by saying it's playing the game for you. I counter by saying scripts which do this SHOULD be banned as they are with quake.

Even the scripts you want to ALLOW are banned with Quake! And you keep saying you want to allow only certain scripts and ban others, but you're yet to suggest any objective rule to decide which scripts are allowed and which aren't (no, just saying 'those which require skilled human input' are allowed is not good enough, that's far too subjective). For someone who doesn't even know what he wants, you're remarkably determined to get it.

Quote:

4. Turbo scripts resolve the problem of speedrunning being focused on hardware and being a display of hardware rather than human skill. They put runners with different hardware on equal ground and you get to see their human skill shine forth.

I've yet to see any good argument against this. The counters are just people which don't know SDA's PC gaming hardware rules chiming in with fallacious premises.

Oh, fuck off already. SDA's PC gaming hardware rules are completely unclear and have never been spelt out, the only rules that actually exist are about console hardware and coming up with rules on PC hardware is something SDA has omitted to do and needs to be done in this thread. You're arguing from a 'fallacious premise' that all hardware is allowed - it isn't, we just haven't laid down the boundaries yet.

A subtler argument you could've made, and a point which I have raised earlier in this thread but which hasn't been answered - I guess most people don't see it as as big an issue as I do - is that laying down those boundaries is somewhat harder than it seems. You absolutely cannot limit runners for all games to mouse and keyboard. That would be perverse for, for example, flight sims and driving games, and there may be FPS games in which using a gamepad to have analogue control over movement as well as turning is somehow advantageous (okay, that last one is a stretch). But then, even if we ban turbo and micro functions, that opens the door to people using joysticks/wheels/gamepads purely because they have some superior alternative to a mousewheel on them - I gave the example of having something like an iPod touch wheel on a joystick. Should this be allowed or not? If not, where do we draw the line? If we're going to allow the use of hardware that allows the runner to continuously give an input at any speed he wants (which a mouse wheel DOES NOT - you cannot do it continuously, unless you have incredible dexterity or are using two hands or multiple mice, and multiple mice is something we can ban), then allowing turbo scripts would make much less difference to the runner's capabilities and would be much closer to just being an alternative to hardware as you have been constantly claiming.

The hardware and scripting debates are unavoidably linked (assuming we want to have our rules on hardware and our rules on scripting as consistent with each other as possible, which I think is a safe assumption to make) and perhaps the hardware side of the coin hasn't been given enough attention in this thread.

Quote:

5. It's counter productive to make a rule which you have NO way of enforcing. This strictly rewards dishonesty.

I've yet to see a counter argument to this.

Being dishonest costs you personal satisfaction and pride. That's enough of a cost to deter the kind of folks we have around here.

Quote from lag:

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

You people need to stop coming up with counter examples which violate key points I explicitly made.

That's how debate works.

I think he means your counterexamples are invalid because they don't satisfy all the conditions he gave. I can't remember where he's talking about and whether he's right and I can't be arsed to check.

In an attempt at brevity I'll stick to making points / expressing opinions that haven't already been given by others.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]1.  It's a legitimate in-game feature which doesn't change the game mechanics much like customizing your config which the game makers intended to be used when playing the game in a regular manner.

Cabbage backs me up on this one also arguing that banning such a legitimate in-game feature is an arbitrary game-specific rule.  I've yet to see a good counter to this.[/quote]

And I'm yet to see why it even matters. When I made that point, I was less hoping to challenge the anti-scripting crowd and more hoping to challenge those who claim to want to get rid of arbitrary game-specific rules (basically, LLCoolDave). My view is the arbitrary game-specific rules are fine as long as they fit into one of the following two categories:
* Rules that somehow make life easier for the runner, result in better video quality, make timing easier or more consistent, etc., in a way that doesn't alter the gameplay in any way.
* Rules that either ban, or put into a seperate category, some game mechanic or trick that, while legitimate, trivialises running the game.

For me, scripts are the latter, and that makes banning them fine.

[quote][quote]2.  They can enhance speedrunning as a display of human skill by shifting the focus onto human skills which are more readily noticed and appreciated.[/quote]

People try to counter this by saying it's playing the game for you.  I counter by saying scripts which do this SHOULD be banned as they are with quake.[/quote]

Even the scripts you want to ALLOW are banned with Quake! And you keep saying you want to allow only certain scripts and ban others, but you're yet to suggest any objective rule to decide which scripts are allowed and which aren't (no, just saying 'those which require skilled human input' are allowed is not good enough, that's far too subjective). For someone who doesn't even know what he wants, you're remarkably determined to get it.

[quote]4.  Turbo scripts resolve the problem of speedrunning being focused on hardware and being a display of hardware rather than human skill.  They put runners with different hardware on equal ground and you get to see their human skill shine forth.

I've yet to see any good argument against this.  The counters are just people which don't know SDA's PC gaming hardware rules chiming in with fallacious premises.[/quote]

Oh, fuck off already. SDA's PC gaming hardware rules are completely unclear and have never been spelt out, the only rules that actually exist are about console hardware and coming up with rules on PC hardware is something SDA has omitted to do and needs to be done in this thread. You're arguing from a 'fallacious premise' that all hardware is allowed - it isn't, we just haven't laid down the boundaries yet.

A subtler argument you could've made, and a point which I have raised earlier in this thread but which hasn't been answered - I guess most people don't see it as as big an issue as I do - is that laying down those boundaries is somewhat harder than it seems. You absolutely cannot limit runners for all games to mouse and keyboard. That would be perverse for, for example, flight sims and driving games, and there may be FPS games in which using a gamepad to have analogue control over movement as well as turning is somehow advantageous (okay, that last one is a stretch). But then, even if we ban turbo and micro functions, that opens the door to people using joysticks/wheels/gamepads purely because they have some superior alternative to a mousewheel on them - I gave the example of having something like an iPod touch wheel on a joystick. Should this be allowed or not? If not, where do we draw the line? If we're going to allow the use of hardware that allows the runner to continuously give an input at any speed he wants (which a mouse wheel DOES NOT - you cannot do it continuously, unless you have incredible dexterity or are using two hands or multiple mice, and multiple mice is something we can ban), then allowing turbo scripts would make much less difference to the runner's capabilities and would be much closer to just being an alternative to hardware as you have been constantly claiming.

The hardware and scripting debates are unavoidably linked (assuming we want to have our rules on hardware and our rules on scripting as consistent with each other as possible, which I think is a safe assumption to make) and perhaps the hardware side of the coin hasn't been given enough attention in this thread.

[quote]5. It's counter productive to make a rule which you have NO way of enforcing.  This strictly rewards dishonesty.

I've yet to see a counter argument to this.[/quote]

Being dishonest costs you personal satisfaction and pride. That's enough of a cost to deter the kind of folks we have around here.

[quote="lag"]
[quote="Spider-Waffle"]You people need to stop coming up with counter examples which violate key points I explicitly made.[/quote]
That's how debate works.[/quote]

I think he means your counterexamples are invalid because they don't satisfy all the conditions he gave. I can't remember where he's talking about and whether he's right and I can't be arsed to check.

dex

2009-07-04 04:32:04 am

Invisible avatar

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

1. Dex, you'll have to make that argument that input is the same as changing the game mechanics.

I meant that if you look at it the certain way, changing server variables is pretty much the same as pushing the mechanics of the game. Like, there's a level in Quake where a server variable is changed automatically, and it was clearly intended by the developers. So, who is to say they *haven't* intended you to change the server variables in the first place, to change what you can do in the game a little bit? Isn't that the exact same thing advanced scripts accomplish?

But that wasn't really my main point there; the main point is that using "it's in the game therefore the developers intended it to be used" as an argument is fallacious. Cheats might be intended, are they to be used as well?

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

I see this the same as changing your config from something that's non-default.

Use the menu. IIRC you can change the quick weapon switch and you can bind two buttons close to each other in the HL menu.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

2. Most people either are having a hard time understanding my argument here and/or they're being very closed minded.

I like how you say this when it's you who is ignoring the counter-arguments of almost every other participant in the discussion.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

3. SDA has to realize that if they don't appease the people which play these games and will make good speedruns for them, there won't be good speedruns for viewers to see. You can't just make rules to which only allow runs the majority of casual viewers will want to see and expect these runs to get made by non-casual skilled gamers.

Do non-casual gamers somehow need scripts to be skilled and make good speedruns? Some skilled gamers they are...

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

4. dex, it's more like if all the drivers had to make their own car and there weren't any restriction on what they could make. Now the racing is less a product driving skill and more of how good of a car can you make. Rather than having it be this way, I'm saying it's better that the league supply every driver with their own car which is exactly the same as all the other cars.

No, you are saying it's better that the runners do what they want.

Also, how do scripts 'level out' the input hardware? Wouldn't a person with better input hardware still have an advantage of almost the same magnitude? Like, if someone's keyboard doesn't register fast key-presses well, it could happen even with scripts.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

5. There's scripts like weapon changing, wav playing, and many others which I'd love to know how you plan to catch. Also jump spaming scripts like "jump;wait;jump" you can't distinguish between that and a mouse wheel.

Many people don't see the need to ban non-movement scripts like... weapon changing, wav playing and many others which you'd love to know how we plan to catch. And my point is, no mousewheel will let you bunny as well as a script on sloped terrain (pocari hit that problem when he wanted to do a script-free HL2 run).

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

In fact there was a HL run hosted on SDA which used one and no one knew it did until the runner said he used it later after scripts were made an issue.

That's because nobody cared because the scripts weren't an issue. Also, how do you know nobody noticed the scripts? Perhaps, since the scripts weren't banned, nobody cared enough to point it out.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

You people need to stop coming up with counter examples which violate key points I explicitly made.

Yeah, why don't we just go home and agree to everything you say without debating it at all.

Counterexamples are a weapon during debates. If you aren't able to defend against them other than by saying 'but I say this is incorrect', chances are your argument is flawed and you should rethink it.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]1.  Dex, you'll have to make that argument that input is the same as changing the game mechanics. [/quote]
I meant that if you look at it the certain way, changing server variables is pretty much the same as pushing the mechanics of the game. Like, there's a level in Quake where a server variable is changed automatically, and it was clearly intended by the developers. So, who is to say they *haven't* intended you to change the server variables in the first place, to change what you can do in the game a little bit? Isn't that the exact same thing advanced scripts accomplish?

But that wasn't really my main point there; the main point is that using "it's in the game therefore the developers intended it to be used" as an argument is fallacious. Cheats might be intended, are they to be used as well?

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]I see this the same as changing your config from something that's non-default. [/quote] 
Use the menu. IIRC you can change the quick weapon switch and you can bind two buttons close to each other in the HL menu.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]2.  Most people either are having a hard time understanding my argument here and/or they're being very closed minded.[/quote]
I like how you say this when it's you who is ignoring the counter-arguments of almost every other participant in the discussion.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]3.  SDA has to realize that if they don't appease the people which play these games and will make good speedruns for them, there won't be good speedruns for viewers to see.  You can't just make rules to which only allow runs the majority of casual viewers will want to see and expect these runs to get made by non-casual skilled gamers.[/quote]
Do non-casual gamers somehow need scripts to be skilled and make good speedruns? Some skilled gamers they are...

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]4. dex, it's more like if all the drivers had to make their own car and there weren't any restriction on what they could make.  Now the racing is less a product driving skill and more of how good of a car can you make.  Rather than having it be this way, I'm saying it's better that the league supply every driver with their own car which is exactly the same as all the other cars.[/quote]
No, you are saying it's better that the runners do what they want.

Also, how do scripts 'level out' the input hardware? Wouldn't a person with better input hardware still have an advantage of almost the same magnitude? Like, if someone's keyboard doesn't register fast key-presses well, it could happen even with scripts.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]5.  There's scripts like weapon changing, wav playing, and many others which I'd love to know how you plan to catch.  Also jump spaming scripts like "jump;wait;jump" you can't distinguish between that and a mouse wheel. [/quote]
Many people don't see the need to ban non-movement scripts like... weapon changing, wav playing and many others which you'd love to know how we plan to catch. And my point is, no mousewheel will let you bunny as well as a script on sloped terrain (pocari hit that problem when he wanted to do a script-free HL2 run).

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]In fact there was a HL run hosted on SDA which used one and no one knew it did until the runner said he used it later after scripts were made an issue.[/quote]
That's because nobody cared because the scripts weren't an issue. Also, how do you know nobody noticed the scripts? Perhaps, since the scripts weren't banned, nobody cared enough to point it out.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]You people need to stop coming up with counter examples which violate key points I explicitly made.[/quote]
Yeah, why don't we just go home and agree to everything you say without debating it at all.

Counterexamples are a weapon during debates. If you aren't able to defend against them other than by saying 'but I say this is incorrect', chances are your argument is flawed and you should rethink it.

Lag.Com

2009-07-04 05:17:08 am

sda loyalist

The conditions he made are pointless Roll Eyes

MMAN

2009-07-04 05:39:02 am

If scripts are banned, will non-script runs deemed to be of sufficient quality (I guess that goes without saying) still be allowed along with the grandfathered runs (which are presumably near-unbeatable)? I think it would totally suck if certain high-profile games get completely closed off future running because of a mistake SDA made in its early years (which this essentially amounts to if the ban happens).

dex

2009-07-04 06:17:57 am

Invisible avatar

Quote from MMAN:

If scripts are banned, will non-script runs deemed to be of sufficient quality (I guess that goes without saying) still be allowed along with the grandfathered runs (which are presumably near-unbeatable)? I think it would totally suck if certain high-profile games get completely closed off future running because of a mistake SDA made in its early years (which this essentially amounts to if the ban happens).

I think it would be something like a grandfather separate category for scripts. If the new run is very close it might obsolete the scripted run, but I don't know.

InstinctSage -alt

2009-07-04 07:33:11 am

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

A subtler argument you could've made, and a point which I have raised earlier in this thread but which hasn't been answered - I guess most people don't see it as as big an issue as I do - is that laying down those boundaries is somewhat harder than it seems. You absolutely cannot limit runners for all games to mouse and keyboard. That would be perverse for, for example, flight sims and driving games, and there may be FPS games in which using a gamepad to have analogue control over movement as well as turning is somehow advantageous (okay, that last one is a stretch). But then, even if we ban turbo and micro functions, that opens the door to people using joysticks/wheels/gamepads purely because they have some superior alternative to a mousewheel on them - I gave the example of having something like an iPod touch wheel on a joystick. Should this be allowed or not? If not, where do we draw the line? If we're going to allow the use of hardware that allows the runner to continuously give an input at any speed he wants (which a mouse wheel DOES NOT - you cannot do it continuously, unless you have incredible dexterity or are using two hands or multiple mice, and multiple mice is something we can ban), then allowing turbo scripts would make much less difference to the runner's capabilities and would be much closer to just being an alternative to hardware as you have been constantly claiming.

The hardware and scripting debates are unavoidably linked (assuming we want to have our rules on hardware and our rules on scripting as consistent with each other as possible, which I think is a safe assumption to make) and perhaps the hardware side of the coin hasn't been given enough attention in this thread.

The best answer I can think of is asking users to give hardware specs when submitting a run. It's handy information that could be thrown onto the run information, especially since with multiplatform games it's difficult to know if it's run on a PS2, PS3, 360, or a PC or what have you. Including any mouse/keyboard/joystick information would be a part of this, and it'd be neat information for the viewers.

At the same time, we can raise an eyebrow if someone is submitting a run using some kind of super turbo constant input device.
Again, doesn't stop people lying about it. But I never really saw that as a problem, nothing would ever get verified properly if we wanted to be 100% absolute about everything.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
A subtler argument you could've made, and a point which I have raised earlier in this thread but which hasn't been answered - I guess most people don't see it as as big an issue as I do - is that laying down those boundaries is somewhat harder than it seems. You absolutely cannot limit runners for all games to mouse and keyboard. That would be perverse for, for example, flight sims and driving games, and there may be FPS games in which using a gamepad to have analogue control over movement as well as turning is somehow advantageous (okay, that last one is a stretch). But then, even if we ban turbo and micro functions, that opens the door to people using joysticks/wheels/gamepads purely because they have some superior alternative to a mousewheel on them - I gave the example of having something like an iPod touch wheel on a joystick. Should this be allowed or not? If not, where do we draw the line? If we're going to allow the use of hardware that allows the runner to continuously give an input at any speed he wants (which a mouse wheel DOES NOT - you cannot do it continuously, unless you have incredible dexterity or are using two hands or multiple mice, and multiple mice is something we can ban), then allowing turbo scripts would make much less difference to the runner's capabilities and would be much closer to just being an alternative to hardware as you have been constantly claiming.

The hardware and scripting debates are unavoidably linked (assuming we want to have our rules on hardware and our rules on scripting as consistent with each other as possible, which I think is a safe assumption to make) and perhaps the hardware side of the coin hasn't been given enough attention in this thread.
[/quote]

The best answer I can think of is asking users to give hardware specs when submitting a run. It's handy information that could be thrown onto the run information, especially since with multiplatform games it's difficult to know if it's run on a PS2, PS3, 360, or a PC or what have you. Including any mouse/keyboard/joystick information would be a part of this, and it'd be neat information for the viewers.

At the same time, we can raise an eyebrow if someone is submitting a run using some kind of super turbo constant input device. 
Again, doesn't stop people lying about it. But I never really saw that as a problem, nothing would ever get verified properly if we wanted to be 100% absolute about everything.

arkarian

2009-07-04 11:01:02 am

gamelogs.org

Quote from ZaibirQuild:

Banjo-Tooie, and as you might know and can see there is a different category for the use of 'cheats'.
What I'm wondering about and what I still can't figure out is.
Why are these allowed? Is it purely because he has to 'enter' the cheats with his main character (instead of maybe pause the game and press up, down, up up, a, b, or whatever).
If so I find that kinda lame, and if so could you 'theoretical' allow a scripted run if you had to enter the scripts with your character?

it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a completely different thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.

ZenicReverie

2009-07-04 11:21:45 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Arkarian:

Quote from ZaibirQuild:

Banjo-Tooie, and as you might know and can see there is a different category for the use of 'cheats'.
What I'm wondering about and what I still can't figure out is.
Why are these allowed? Is it purely because he has to 'enter' the cheats with his main character (instead of maybe pause the game and press up, down, up up, a, b, or whatever).
If so I find that kinda lame, and if so could you 'theoretical' allow a scripted run if you had to enter the scripts with your character?

it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a completely different thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games have in-game cheats as well, and while not very interesting to watch, should those be allowed? I found it strange that Cheato's cheats are allowed in a run as well, even as a separate category, although I can't really judge them since I haven't played the game before. I think some of the cheats in THPS are close to what scripts can do, such as perfect manuals and grinds. There are others that would make sense to turn on only where it helps such as moon gravity.

Quote from dex:

Quote from MMAN:

If scripts are banned, will non-script runs deemed to be of sufficient quality (I guess that goes without saying) still be allowed along with the grandfathered runs (which are presumably near-unbeatable)? I think it would totally suck if certain high-profile games get completely closed off future running because of a mistake SDA made in its early years (which this essentially amounts to if the ban happens).

I think it would be something like a grandfather separate category for scripts. If the new run is very close it might obsolete the scripted run, but I don't know.

Aren't non-script runs already a separate category? We just don't have a run submitted that way yet for Half-Life.

[quote="Arkarian"]
[quote="ZaibirQuild"]
Banjo-Tooie, and as you might know and can see there is a different category for the use of 'cheats'.
What I'm wondering about and what I still can't figure out is. 
Why are these allowed? Is it purely because he has to 'enter' the cheats with his main character (instead of maybe pause the game and press up, down, up up, a, b, or whatever).
If so I find that kinda lame, and if so could you 'theoretical' allow a scripted run if you had to enter the scripts with your character?
[/quote]

it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a [i]completely different[/i] thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.
[/quote]

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater games have in-game cheats as well, and while not very interesting to watch, should those be allowed?  I found it strange that Cheato's cheats are allowed in a run as well, even as a separate category, although I can't really judge them since I haven't played the game before.  I think some of the cheats in THPS are close to what scripts can do, such as perfect manuals and grinds.  There are others that would make sense to turn on only where it helps such as moon gravity.

[quote="dex"]
[quote="MMAN"]
If scripts are banned, will non-script runs deemed to be of sufficient quality (I guess that goes without saying) still be allowed along with the grandfathered runs (which are presumably near-unbeatable)? I think it would totally suck if certain high-profile games get completely closed off future running because of a mistake SDA made in its early years (which this essentially amounts to if the ban happens).
[/quote]
I think it would be something like a grandfather separate category for scripts. If the new run is very close it might obsolete the scripted run, but I don't know.
[/quote]
Aren't non-script runs already a separate category?  We just don't have a run submitted that way yet for Half-Life.

dex

2009-07-04 01:46:42 pm

Invisible avatar

Quote from ZenicReverie:

Aren't non-script runs already a separate category? We just don't have a run submitted that way yet for Half-Life.

Yeah, but runs on new games utilising scripts are not banned right now, at least I believe so.

And if the THPS cheats changed the game sufficiently, then a cheats category is quite possibly a valid category. As long as they are in-game and stuff.

ZenicReverie

2009-07-04 02:35:40 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

On scripts a little, I'm not very familiar with them, and I'm wondering how they're added to the game. Is a script file (like a text file) put into some directory and then automatically loaded? Or, is the script entered into the console? Or, is it loaded through some other means? From where I stand, the first sounds like how mods are added, the second is through console commands (which I thought weren't allowed), and the third, loading some outside source through a menu seems closer to using other in-game resources.

I'm guessing it's the first, since I don't see 'loading x script..." in the videos, so the method of changing your key setup really can't be compared to loading a script in this way. At least in the second or third way we (the viewers) would get some indication that something other than the default settings are being used. Personally I'd like to see key setup changes included in the video as well because I like to know what changes have been made to the default setup, but that's probably asking a bit much since those are usually time consuming to change and saved between sessions.

On scripts a little, I'm not very familiar with them, and I'm wondering how they're added to the game.  Is a script file (like a text file) put into some directory and then automatically loaded? Or, is the script entered into the console? Or, is it loaded through some other means?  From where I stand, the first sounds like how mods are added, the second is through console commands (which I thought weren't allowed), and the third, loading some outside source through a menu seems closer to using other in-game resources.

I'm guessing it's the first, since I don't see 'loading x script..." in the videos, so the method of changing your key setup really can't be compared to loading a script in this way.  At least in the second or third way we (the viewers) would get some indication that something other than the default settings are being used.  Personally I'd like to see key setup changes included in the video as well because I like to know what changes have been made to the default setup, but that's probably asking a bit much since those are usually time consuming to change and saved between sessions.

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2009-07-04 03:35:41 pm

2009-07-04 03:23:38 pm

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Quote from Arkarian:

it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a completely different thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.

He has a point. Why were they allowed? I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps beyond what Arkarian said, it is also because the cheats were "earned" by the player and also were not totally ridiculous. I say the last part because I doubt Goldeneye cheats would be allowed even though they were earned...

So, I guess it's an unofficial combination of three things: they were activated in-game, they were earned, and they were NOT totally ridiculous. Though, I doubt these observations were used as criteria for creating the category, so I really have no idea.

dex: So, you think runs like HL2DQ would be grandfathered off to the side if the site eventually shifted to banning scripts? That makes sense (it's better than breaking 'Mike's Law' of removing runs and better than cementing them in-place so that non-scripted runs would not be hosted), however, does that mean that scripted efforts like HL2DQ would be permanently stuck on the page? I doubt non-scripted runs, pretty much regardless of the amount of skill and practice, could ever depose the HL2DQ run.

Furthermore, what happens if there's ever a HL2DQ2..? Should we replace the HL2DQ run with the improved version (since why host it at all if it's not even the fastest scripted run available.. it'd be weird to continue to host the 'old' scripted run), although that would violate the rule of banning scripts (and would probably encourage an extremely niche crowd of scripted-run-replacers to make their own portal at SDA)?

Maybe we would just grandfather that run, and similar scripted runs on SDA, off to the side and remove them entirely the day they are beaten by another scripted run (meaning we would then have no scripted run hosted on the site... this would give grandfathered script runs a time-limit of "Until they are beaten"). Of course, even then we'd have to keep track of competing efforts. Suddenly this is very complicated. lol

Just curious what you thought.

[quote="Arkarian"]
it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a [i]completely different[/i] thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.
[/quote]

He has a point.  Why were they allowed?  I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps beyond what Arkarian said, it is also because the cheats were "earned" by the player and also were not totally ridiculous.  I say the last part because I doubt Goldeneye cheats would be allowed even though they were earned...

So, I guess it's an unofficial combination of three things: they were activated in-game, they were earned, and they were NOT totally ridiculous.  Though, I doubt these observations were used as criteria for creating the category, so I really have no idea.

dex:  So, you think runs like HL2DQ would be grandfathered off to the side if the site eventually shifted to banning scripts?  That makes sense (it's better than breaking 'Mike's Law' of removing runs and better than cementing them in-place so that non-scripted runs would not be hosted), however, does that mean that scripted efforts like HL2DQ would be permanently stuck on the page?  I doubt non-scripted runs, pretty much regardless of the amount of skill and practice, could ever depose the HL2DQ run.

Furthermore, what happens if there's ever a HL2DQ2..?  Should we replace the HL2DQ run with the improved version (since why host it at all if it's not even the fastest scripted run available.. it'd be weird to continue to host the 'old' scripted run), although that would violate the rule of banning scripts (and would probably encourage an extremely niche crowd of scripted-run-replacers to make their own portal at SDA)?

Maybe we would just grandfather that run, and similar scripted runs on SDA, off to the side and remove them entirely the day they are beaten by another scripted run (meaning we would then have no scripted run hosted on the site... this would give grandfathered script runs a time-limit of "Until they are beaten").  Of course, even then we'd have to keep track of competing efforts.  Suddenly this is very complicated.  lol

Just curious what you thought.

dex

2009-07-04 03:57:15 pm

Invisible avatar

Quote:

The best compromise is probably to grandfather the games that have scripted runs like we've been doing with AHK (i.e. they're still allowed), but not to allow them for other games. Weapon change scripts are still okay I guess, because like dex said, they don't make much of a difference, and they can't be detected anyway.

By mike. I think this is the best way to proceed about it. You can't just delete them (people spent a considerate effort doing them, remember, script or not), and if a category exists, it wouldn't be the best of ideas to forbid running on it, either. I think the script discussion is more of a 'how to proceed about it for other games' thing.

Not writing anything else because I drank quite a bit today and by now am not exactly in a mood for longer posts ;).

InsipidMuckyWater

2009-07-04 04:39:29 pm

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Haha.

Okay, so we'd not just be grandfathering particular runs, we'd be grandfathering games which already have scripted runs and would continue to host scripted submissions just for those? My mistake.

DJGrenola

2009-07-04 05:32:03 pm

guffaw

Quote from InsipidMuckyWater:

Quote from Arkarian:

it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a completely different thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.

He has a point. Why were they allowed? I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps beyond what Arkarian said, it is also because the cheats were "earned" by the player and also were not totally ridiculous. I say the last part because I doubt Goldeneye cheats would be allowed even though they were earned...

This was in 2006, so you might be reading too much into things. Perhaps the runner had already recorded the run without asking if SDA wanted it, and Radix happened to be having a particularly good day.

[quote="InsipidMuckyWater"]
[quote="Arkarian"]
it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a [i]completely different[/i] thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.
[/quote]

He has a point.  Why were they allowed?  I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps beyond what Arkarian said, it is also because the cheats were "earned" by the player and also were not totally ridiculous.  I say the last part because I doubt Goldeneye cheats would be allowed even though they were earned...
[/quote]

This was in 2006, so you might be reading too much into things. Perhaps the runner had already recorded the run without asking if SDA wanted it, and Radix happened to be having a particularly good day.

ZenicReverie

2009-07-04 06:18:36 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from DJGrenola:

Quote from InsipidMuckyWater:

Quote from Arkarian:

it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a completely different thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.

He has a point. Why were they allowed? I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps beyond what Arkarian said, it is also because the cheats were "earned" by the player and also were not totally ridiculous. I say the last part because I doubt Goldeneye cheats would be allowed even though they were earned...

This was in 2006, so you might be reading too much into things. Perhaps the runner had already recorded the run without asking if SDA wanted it, and Radix happened to be having a particularly good day.

He does seem to have a particular place in his heart for N64 games.

[quote="DJGrenola"]
[quote="InsipidMuckyWater"]
[quote="Arkarian"]
it's because the "cheats" in banjo-tooie are a major in-game feature. that is, you collect "cheato pages" in the levels, then return them to a character named cheato, who tells you the cheats to enter.

there's no other way to enter the cheats besides doing it manually in-game. i would consider pausing the game and entering a code to be a [i]completely different[/i] thing entirely— that's not in-game and shouldn't be allowed on sda. same with scripts.
[/quote]

He has a point.  Why were they allowed?  I'm not entirely sure.

Perhaps beyond what Arkarian said, it is also because the cheats were "earned" by the player and also were not totally ridiculous.  I say the last part because I doubt Goldeneye cheats would be allowed even though they were earned...
[/quote]

This was in 2006, so you might be reading too much into things. Perhaps the runner had already recorded the run without asking if SDA wanted it, and Radix happened to be having a particularly good day.
[/quote]

He does seem to have a particular place in his heart for N64 games.

arkarian

2009-07-04 06:31:15 pm

gamelogs.org

i think there's a difference between banjo-tooie and tony hawk though. in tony hawk you can unlock cheats, but that's not the same thing as in bt. you still activate through a menu outside of the game (goldeneye's the same way, right?). in banjo-tooie, you collect actual pages in the levels that are counted on the pause menus just like any other ite. a 100% run even requires you to collect all cheato pages.
these items are clearly intended to be a main feature of the game, whereas cheats in tony hawk are just "extras". collecting the pages actually contributes to the story as well (you're helping cheato), and the cheats are generally benign stuff like double ammo.

that's how i think a banjo-tooie run with cheats can be justified, though the current run uses cheats that you don't get in-game from cheato, such as "jiggywiggyspecial". they're extra cheats put in by rareware, much like those in tony hawk or goldeneye, that i would equate with scripts. i'm against accepting more runs using such cheats.

i think there's a difference between banjo-tooie and tony hawk though. in tony hawk you can unlock cheats, but that's not the same thing as in bt. you still activate through a menu outside of the game (goldeneye's the same way, right?). in banjo-tooie, you collect actual pages in the levels that are counted on the pause menus just like any other ite. a 100% run even requires you to collect all cheato pages. 
these items are clearly intended to be a main feature of the game, whereas cheats in tony hawk are just "extras". collecting the pages actually contributes to the story as well (you're helping cheato), and the cheats are generally benign stuff like double ammo.

that's how i think a banjo-tooie run with cheats can be justified, though the current run uses cheats that you [i]don't[/i] get in-game from cheato, such as "jiggywiggyspecial". they're extra cheats put in by rareware, much like those in tony hawk or goldeneye, that i would equate with scripts. i'm against accepting more runs using such cheats.