Official 2009 Rules Reworking Discussion [locked]

2009-06-14 01:05:17 pm

TIOLET!

Having a large penalty is contradictory to the entire idea of segmented runs. Segmented runs are supposed to be optimal in terms of playing and completion time, and in many cases completion time is more or less impossible to achieve without using a lot of segments. And then you get a huge addition to your completion time, which at this point isn't even completion time since you actually did it a lot faster than the SDA time states, and your run is no longer optimal in terms of that.

LLCoolDave

2009-06-14 01:06:50 pm

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Removing the segmentation penalty would stop me from contributing because what's the point in submitting a segmented run where you've not put in lots of unnecessary segments if someone can just double the segment count, copy the run and beat it by a few seconds through extra optimisation, and that will obsolete mine? When comparing runs of save-anywhere games we need to somehow capture the idea that extra pointless segments = a bad thing, and while the segmentation penalty does a pretty inadequate job of this, surely it's better than nothing?

Edit: Also, it's not just about the possibility for obsoletion. When I'm creating a run, I want to optimise it as much as possible, and when I'm watching a run I want it to be optimised as much as possible. If there isn't some objective measure of how the 'badness' of extra segmenting weighs in against the 'goodness' of making a faster run, there's no way to decide when to segment. Having a penalty makes segmentation decisions part of the strategy of the run, and that's a good thing.

3.) It certainly seems like the save penalty as it stands now is both unpopular and about to be changed. In fact, it's the one thing that inspired this topic in the first place. In any case, please keep in mind that doing away with the penalty completely leaves the timing issue associated with quicksaves and untimed (and for the biggest part, untimable) movement to be resolved. If we do away with it as a means of discouraging heavy segmenting (which, I'd like to point out again, is only half the reason it was introduced in the first place) we still need to figure out how to handle the timing, because it actually does matter for some games. On a somewhat related note, I've decided to put segment breaks in my new Jedi Outcast run to spots where I am waiting for something to move if possible, as there will be some (roughly 0.2 seconds estimated, but it also depends on how cooperative fraps is in that indivdual loading instance) movement that is not falling under the timer to reduce the wait, even if on a small scale. This is a case where extra segmenting ends up saving me some time without actually having any additional optimizing (at least, as a side effect of the save). That just feels weird to me.

Maybe we could find a way to discourage over the top unwarranted segmenting that does not involve adjusting the timing for the best of both worlds.

4.) While I agree that the entertainment value of some scripts are subjective, it still appears that the majority of the people, at least of those that have voiced an opinion so far, considers the quick turn script to be less entertaining.

5.) The reason I want to see the amount of game by game ruling to be reduced is because some of it doesn't really make too much sense. I am not against per game ruling concerning categories or the ruling of what counts as major skips and what doesn't. I am against game specific rulings that don't really seem to be justified by the run or game in question but are influenced by some meta-reason, for example the special treatment half-life gets concerning AHK-Scripts that doesn't stem from anything in the game or runs themselves but rather from the fact the game was the first to be added to SDA before the rules were really settled. The reason the half-life games keep being mentioned is that they are the most prominent of these, I am certain that searching through the archives, especially for older and long forgotten runs, would yield a couple more runs/games that have some special clause to them that feels arbitrary from today's standards.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
[i]Removing[/i] the segmentation penalty would stop me from contributing because what's the point in submitting a segmented run where you've not put in lots of unnecessary segments if someone can just double the segment count, copy the run and beat it by a few seconds through extra optimisation, and that will obsolete mine? When comparing runs of save-anywhere games we need to somehow capture the idea that extra pointless segments = a bad thing, and while the segmentation penalty does a pretty inadequate job of this, surely it's better than nothing?

Edit: Also, it's not just about the possibility for obsoletion. When I'm creating a run, I want to optimise it as much as possible, and when I'm watching a run I want it to be optimised as much as possible. If there isn't some objective measure of how the 'badness' of extra segmenting weighs in against the 'goodness' of making a faster run, there's no way to decide when to segment. Having a penalty makes segmentation decisions part of the strategy of the run, and that's a good thing.
[/quote]

3.) It certainly seems like the save penalty as it stands now is both unpopular and about to be changed. In fact, it's the one thing that inspired this topic in the first place. In any case, please keep in mind that doing away with the penalty completely leaves the timing issue associated with quicksaves and untimed (and for the biggest part, untimable) movement to be resolved. If we do away with it as a means of discouraging heavy segmenting (which, I'd like to point out again, is only half the reason it was introduced in the first place) we still need to figure out how to handle the timing, because it actually does matter for some games. On a somewhat related note, I've decided to put segment breaks in my new Jedi Outcast run to spots where I am waiting for something to move if possible, as there will be some (roughly 0.2 seconds estimated, but it also depends on how cooperative fraps is in that indivdual loading instance) movement that is not falling under the timer to reduce the wait, even if on a small scale. This is a case where extra segmenting ends up saving me some time without actually having any additional optimizing (at least, as a side effect of the save). That just feels weird to me.

Maybe we could find a way to discourage over the top unwarranted segmenting that does not involve adjusting the timing for the best of both worlds.

4.) While I agree that the entertainment value of some scripts are subjective, it still appears that the majority of the people, at least of those that have voiced an opinion so far, considers the quick turn script to be less entertaining.

5.) The reason I want to see the amount of game by game ruling to be reduced is because some of it doesn't really make too much sense. I am not against per game ruling concerning categories or the ruling of what counts as major skips and what doesn't. I am against game specific rulings that don't really seem to be justified by the run or game in question but are influenced by some meta-reason, for example the special treatment half-life gets concerning AHK-Scripts that doesn't stem from anything in the game or runs themselves but rather from the fact the game was the first to be added to SDA before the rules were really settled. The reason the half-life games keep being mentioned is that they are the most prominent of these, I am certain that searching through the archives, especially for older and long forgotten runs, would yield a couple more runs/games that have some special clause to them that feels arbitrary from today's standards.

Scepheo

Edit history:

Scepheo: 2009-06-14 01:28:00 pm

2009-06-14 01:20:27 pm

3) It's perfect the way it is. Short enough to avoid crappy long segments and long enough to avoid 1.243.512-segment runs.
Edit: Just re-read most posts. It seems the main argument against removing the penalty is that it would cause mass-segmenting. However, verifiers should look at quality, so that matter is already taken care of. Now go find a new argument.

4) Only allow stuff that remaps controls. Everything else is not humanly possible and therefor makes the run tool assisted. Which is not what you want.

5) Get rid of them. A game's a game, no game is special. 'Cept for Quake of course, but that's barely part of SDA anyway.

6) 100%, any%, low% and difficulty levels should get their own categories. Characters only when they influence the storyline (thus the length of the game). Otherwise, character choice is just part of the route planning, not doing a separate category.

7) Manual timing. In-game timer may often not accurately represent playing time, which, in my opinion, is the time you want to keep the lowest. Using the in-game timer may even cause a longer run (in real time) to obsolete a shorter one, due to abusing the way the game times itself.

And about allowing ALL scripts: Whoever said anything about this, it would allow making a TAS. Actually, making a TAS is creating an input-script.

Maybe do it like anri-chan, create a general program/script/macro that allows players to remap controls in any way they like, then just allow runners to use that. It's the easiest way to control what is allowed and what isn't.

3) It's perfect the way it is. Short enough to avoid crappy long segments and long enough to avoid 1.243.512-segment runs.
Edit: Just re-read most posts. It seems the main argument against [i]removing[/i] the penalty is that it would cause mass-segmenting. However, verifiers should look at quality, so that matter is already taken care of. Now go find a new argument.

4) Only allow stuff that remaps controls. Everything else is not humanly possible and therefor makes the run tool assisted. Which is not what you want.

5) Get rid of them. A game's a game, no game is special. 'Cept for Quake of course, but that's barely part of SDA anyway.

6) 100%, any%, low% and difficulty levels should get their own categories. Characters only when they influence the storyline (thus the length of the game). Otherwise, character choice is just part of the route planning, not doing a separate category.

7) Manual timing. In-game timer may often not accurately represent playing time, which, in my opinion, is the time you want to keep the lowest. Using the in-game timer may even cause a longer run (in real time) to obsolete a shorter one, due to abusing the way the game times itself.

And about allowing ALL scripts: Whoever said anything about this, it would allow making a TAS. Actually, making a TAS [i][b]is[/b][/i] creating an input-script.

Maybe do it like anri-chan, create a general program/script/macro that allows players to remap controls in any way they like, then just allow runners to use that. It's the easiest way to control what [i]is[/i] allowed and what [i]isn't[/i].

I.S.T.

2009-06-14 01:24:30 pm

*Disclaimer. I'm not a runner, so my point of view comes from that*

About the save penalty issue... I'm not in favor for it, and I never have been. It adds up to the run having an inaccurate time, which seems to be a contradiction of what the site is about. =\

However, there are those who would abuse segments. It's been pointed out many times in this topic and others.

I have two ideas on how to solve that. 1. Ban Segment Abuse. Obviously, it would have to be handled on a case by case basis. that might be too much work. 2. Make Segment Abuse a separate category. That seems to be the better solution in my eyes.

As for scripts, ban them. Turbo fire too. They push the site too close to TASes. I love TASes, mind you, but the whole point of the site is unassisted runs.

Sir VG

2009-06-14 05:10:48 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote:

7.) In-Game Timer vs Real Time
Issue: There are people who feel that every run should be timed manually. In-game timers are usually what dedicated communities use to compare their times, which helps making SDA runs comparable to runs done outside SDA. It is currently somewhat well understood what an acurate timer is, but not clearly defined in the rules.
Goal: Find a better definition of acurate timers (in SDA eyes) to avoid misconceptions. Discussing the benefits of using one timing over the other in specific situations.

For the most part, I actually agree with the current rules - if the timer is accurate, use it. If it's not, manual time. The biggest concern I have with a few of the games up right now mainly consist with the RPGs that the save timer doesn't display seconds. I know that a few out there drop seconds (I verified FFMQ a few years ago and brought up that concern) every time you save, so by the time the end is reached, you can easily drop off a few minutes. Then as I've brought up before about my own Legend of Mana runs, now that there's a desire to use the save timer it must be noted that the timer continues to run, even if the game is paused (plus it counts the ending, which is about 10 minutes). Granted I never paused in my Dragon Storyline run, but anybody attempting 100% can run into that issue if they need to take a break part way.

So I think the rule on timers should be tweaked just a bit:

Timers: If an in-game timer is accurate and reliable, it will be used. If it is inaccurate or not displayed at the end, it will be ignored and manual timing used instead. If there is concern about the in-game timer by either the runner and/or verifiers about the in-game timer being accurate, if evidence is provided that it is, then it will be ignored and manual timing used instead.

[quote]7.) In-Game Timer vs Real Time
   Issue: There are people who feel that every run should be timed manually. In-game timers are usually what dedicated communities use to compare their times, which helps making SDA runs comparable to runs done outside SDA. It is currently somewhat well understood what an acurate timer is, but not clearly defined in the rules.
  Goal: Find a better definition of acurate timers (in SDA eyes) to avoid misconceptions. Discussing the benefits of using one timing over the other in specific situations.[/quote]

For the most part, I actually agree with the current rules - if the timer is accurate, use it.  If it's not, manual time.  The biggest concern I have with a few of the games up right now mainly consist with the RPGs that the save timer doesn't display seconds.  I know that a few out there drop seconds (I verified FFMQ a few years ago and brought up that concern) every time you save, so by the time the end is reached, you can easily drop off a few minutes.  Then as I've brought up before about my own Legend of Mana runs, now that there's a desire to use the save timer it must be noted that the timer continues to run, even if the game is paused (plus it counts the ending, which is about 10 minutes).  Granted I never paused in my Dragon Storyline run, but anybody attempting 100% can run into that issue if they need to take a break part way.

So I think the rule on timers should be tweaked just a bit:

Timers: If an in-game timer is accurate and reliable, it will be used.  If it is inaccurate or not displayed at the end, it will be ignored and manual timing used instead.  If there is concern about the in-game timer by either the runner and/or verifiers about the in-game timer being accurate, if evidence is provided that it is, then it will be ignored and manual timing used instead.

MatrixTN

2009-06-14 07:38:00 pm

You got a deletion wish?

I agree with the time issue as well. Before I started doing The Bouncer, I found that the in-game timer didn't reset when I started a new game after either beating it previously or getting a game over. Basically, it wasn't fresh unless it was from a cold start (power on). Plus it continued to run if I sat on my hands (evidenced in the Kou run at endgame). In short, I wasn't sure it was acceptable initially.

CMiller

2009-06-14 08:39:34 pm

Realtime:
Especially now with backward compatible consoles and the fact that some 360s lack a hard drive, load times can be significantly different, and if you time the game in real time you're disadvantaging some people needlessly.

Game timer:
Things like timer manipulation come into play, such as the Resistance trick in MGS4. Curiously this was banned, and I don't see why (assuming all the segments used to activate the trick were shown in the final run). Other games like Mirror's edge have ways of manipulating the timer.

I favor real time, since most timer manipulation tricks result in a longer real time run, but of course make the game timer shorter.

I.S.T.

2009-06-14 09:55:32 pm

Load times generally aren't counted when runs are manually timed, correct?

ZenicReverie

2009-06-14 10:01:54 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from I.S.T.:

Load times generally aren't counted when runs are manually timed, correct?

load times from manually timed runs are only removed for PC games at the moment. should that be changed?

I.S.T.

2009-06-14 10:46:26 pm

if so, then I would say they need to be removed from manually timed console runs. After all, wear and tear on disc drives can drive up load times real quick.

najzere

2009-06-15 12:30:32 am

7) I'd like to see in-game time used whenever possible, for consistency's sake. I don't think it should matter whether the timer is inaccurate, does or doesn't time menu screens or cutscenes, or can be manipulated, as long as anyone running the game plays under the same set of rules. Real timing should only be used if in-game timing doesn't exist, isn't accurate enough to distinguish between like runs, or can produce different results for different runners outside of their control.

I feel exactly the opposite about Hitman: Blood Money, for instance - I'd hate to see someone with better/faster gameplay get obsoleted by someone who can click through menu screens faster. Any other issues with in-game timing should be stopped at the verification level, with runs where time is wasted in menu screens or the game is left paused for no reason being rejected by good verifiers.

gia

Edit history:

gia: 2009-06-15 01:01:48 am

2009-06-15 12:33:11 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote from LLCoolDave:

1. Treatment of currently published or in-submission runs affected by the proposed rule changes.

Not sure how many are affected, but there are only two fair options, you get rid of all of them or you keep them all. I gravitate towards removing them. In practice I would first wait to see how many they are, if 5 to 10 get rid of them.

Quote from LLCoolDave:

2. Reworking rules and faq text according to the new proposed rules, rewording parts of the rules and faq that are or have in the past been considered to be inaccurate or hard to understand.

Dunno

Quote from LLCoolDave:

3. Reworking the save penalty for manual saves in games that allow you to save anywhere

If it gets removed it's fine. If it is kept as is make it 5 seconds. When you segment you look for an edge over SS, right now the counterweight is the time it takes to save and the penalty, some games save "instantly" so as long as you gain over 0.5 seconds then you can segment as much as you want. Saving over five seconds worth of possible mistakes is still an attractive option for segmenting.

But then it should be tracked separately, tracking it as time to handle the competition aspect is fine but the run's time should not be displayed with it added. It could be something like Game X 3:00 in 3 segments (+15'' for segmenting). So to obsolete it you have to beat time+penalty with your own time+penalty, but the record is "time" so as to keep it comparable to a SS record. When? well if you save and use it, autosaves that aren't used not penalized. About timing the "time" I was speaking about, it would include all the video frames up to the point where you can turn off the console and still have your save like you wanted.

Quote from LLCoolDave:

4. Clearly specifying the scripts that are to be allowed.

Run of games that use internal scripting and that don't use external programs to make use of them could have an "abuses scripts" category akin to glitched when the configuration is done outside the game's menu (ie. ini files), if the game allows the mapping of multiple consecutive actions to a single button press from within the game's menu then its fair use for all categories but it must be configured through such menu and if it must be done during the run then it gets added to the time. Other types of scripting would be banned.

5.) Dealing with game specific rulings
Issue: Several games have gotten special rules and exceptions for various reasons in the past. Although, due to the variety of games and runs on the site, it is not possible to cover all cases with a set of basic rules, several games have special rules that appear to be unwarranted under the current ideology.
Goal: Getting rid of as many unwarranted game specific rules as possible to integrate them into the basic rules and avoiding arbitrary individual rulings.
a.) Half-Life
b.) Half-Life 2
c.) Portal
d.) If you find any other game with specific ruling that you feel should be removed, post it and I'll add it to this list. This list in no way claims to be comprehensive.

Quote from LLCoolDave:

6. Dealing with very similar categories

Nah just keep any% and 100% as a base regardless of how much different they are, any% is the speed record. 100% gains a place for finishing the job and being completionist.

Different characters are difficult, I guess different characters should be accepted unless all of them are clones.

Quote from LLCoolDave:

7. In-Game Timer vs Real Time

Both I guess, every run should have its real time, and the ones that can the ingame time. For consistency I think the real time should be the any% base and the ingame a special category. But out of that I find weird the sda ruling of timing in real time games that don't show the final time at the end of the game, I understand it and can't find better but again feels odd.

A good test case, Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds is an PC RTS game that has an ingame timer, but also has a game speed setting (slow, normal and fast), obviously slow helps achieve a better ingame timer while a bad real time. There is also a difficulty setting so the speed can't be considered (at least alone) as such.

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
1. Treatment of currently published or in-submission runs affected by the proposed rule changes.
[/quote]
Not sure how many are affected, but there are only two fair options, you get rid of all of them or you keep them all. I gravitate towards removing them. In practice I would first wait to see how many they are, if 5 to 10 get rid of them.

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
2. Reworking rules and faq text according to the new proposed rules, rewording parts of the rules and faq that are or have in the past been considered to be inaccurate or hard to understand.
[/quote]
Dunno

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
3. Reworking the save penalty for manual saves in games that allow you to save anywhere
[/quote]
If it gets removed it's fine. If it is kept as is make it 5 seconds. When you segment you look for an edge over SS, right now the counterweight is the time it takes to save and the penalty, some games save "instantly" so as long as you gain over 0.5 seconds then you can segment as much as you want. Saving over five seconds worth of possible mistakes is still an attractive option for segmenting.

But then it should be tracked separately, tracking it as time to handle the competition aspect is fine but the run's time should not be displayed with it added. It could be something like Game X 3:00 in 3 segments (+15'' for segmenting). So to obsolete it you have to beat time+penalty with your own time+penalty, but the record is "time" so as to keep it comparable to a SS record. When? well if you save and use it, autosaves that aren't used not penalized. About timing the "time" I was speaking about, it would include all the video frames up to the point where you can turn off the console and still have your save like you wanted.

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
4. Clearly specifying the scripts that are to be allowed.
[/quote]
Run of games that use internal scripting and that don't use external programs to make use of them could have an "abuses scripts" category akin to glitched when the configuration is done outside the game's menu (ie. ini files), if the game allows the mapping of multiple consecutive actions to a single button press from within the game's menu then its fair use for all categories but it must be configured through such menu and if it must be done during the run then it gets added to the time. Other types of scripting would be banned.

[b]5.)[/b] Dealing with game specific rulings
   [b]Issue:[/b] Several games have gotten special rules and exceptions for various reasons in the past. Although, due to the variety of games and runs on the site, it is not possible to cover all cases with a set of basic rules, several games have special rules that appear to be unwarranted under the current ideology.
   [b]Goal:[/b] Getting rid of as many unwarranted game specific rules as possible to integrate them into the basic rules and avoiding arbitrary individual rulings.
     a.) Half-Life
     b.) Half-Life 2
     c.) Portal
     d.) [i]If you find any other game with specific ruling that you feel should be removed, post it and I'll add it to this list. This list in no way claims to be comprehensive.[/i]

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
6. Dealing with very similar categories
[/quote]
Nah just keep any% and 100% as a base regardless of how much different they are, any% is the speed record. 100% gains a place for finishing the job and being completionist.

Different characters are difficult, I guess different characters should be accepted unless all of them are clones.

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
7. In-Game Timer vs Real Time
[/quote]
Both I guess, every run should have its real time, and the ones that can the ingame time. For consistency I think the real time should be the any% base and the ingame a special category. But out of that I find weird the sda ruling of timing in real time games that don't show the final time at the end of the game, I understand it and can't find better but again feels odd.

A good test case, Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds is an PC RTS game that has an ingame timer, but also has a game speed setting (slow, normal and fast), obviously slow helps achieve a better ingame timer while a bad real time. There is also a difficulty setting so the speed can't be considered (at least alone) as such.

Essentia

2009-06-15 12:37:23 am

Everything's better with Magitek

3) I just wanted to bring up something that sort of relates to the save penalty issue. It was mentioned that having a huge save penalty will force runners to create suboptimal runs (leaving out tricks that save only a little amount of time). Well, I've run into this very problem while working on my Final Fantasy XII run. Every time I save, I lose at least 20 seconds on the in-game timer (sometimes as much as 40 seconds), and so sometimes it's faster to have longer suboptimal segments than to have more segments that are optimized (which seems to contradict the idea of a segmented run). This is the same situation that the save penalty seems to be causing with other games. I'm not really for or against the save penalty; I just wanted to point out that some games seem to have their own built-in save penalty.

Riskbreaker Y

2009-06-15 01:01:54 am

berserker status

Quote from Essentia:

3) I just wanted to bring up something that sort of relates to the save penalty issue. It was mentioned that having a huge save penalty will force runners to create suboptimal runs (leaving out tricks that save only a little amount of time). Well, I've run into this very problem while working on my Final Fantasy XII run. Every time I save, I lose at least 20 seconds on the in-game timer (sometimes as much as 40 seconds), and so sometimes it's faster to have longer suboptimal segments than to have more segments that are optimized (which seems to contradict the idea of a segmented run). This is the same situation that the save penalty seems to be causing with other games. I'm not really for or against the save penalty; I just wanted to point out that some games seem to have their own built-in save penalty.

Thank you so much for pointing this out. No, seriously. I was waiting for someone with more clout around the forums to bring up this issue because i am experiencing the same thing with vagrant story. Apparently Yasumi Matsuno loves to torture the people who play his games by forcing them to wait almost half a minute just to save. this in turn leads to longer suboptimal segments which are actually faster as opposed to those which are more highly segmented and optimized. if that makes sense to anyone else.

[quote="Essentia"]
3) I just wanted to bring up something that sort of relates to the save penalty issue.  It was mentioned that having a huge save penalty will force runners to create suboptimal runs (leaving out tricks that save only a little amount of time).  Well, I've run into this very problem while working on my Final Fantasy XII run.  Every time I save, I lose [i]at least[/i] 20 seconds on the in-game timer (sometimes as much as 40 seconds), and so sometimes it's faster to have longer suboptimal segments than to have more segments that are optimized (which seems to contradict the idea of a segmented run).  This is the same situation that the save penalty seems to be causing with other games.  I'm not really for or against the save penalty; I just wanted to point out that some games seem to have their own built-in save penalty.
[/quote]

Thank you so much for pointing this out.  No, seriously.  I was waiting for someone with more clout around the forums to bring up this issue because i am experiencing the same thing with vagrant story.  Apparently Yasumi Matsuno loves to torture the people who play his games by forcing them to wait almost half a minute just to save.  this in turn leads to longer suboptimal segments which are actually [i]faster[i][/i][/i]  as opposed to those which are more highly segmented and optimized.  if that makes sense to anyone else.

Lenophis

2009-06-15 01:03:00 am

0-10

Wouldn't the penalty only apply to segments that have options to save anywhere?

gia

2009-06-15 01:05:12 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Essentia in that case adding a bit more wouldn't really be noticeable right? You are reducing segments already.

mikwuyma

2009-06-15 01:19:58 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Quote from Lenophis:

Wouldn't the penalty only apply to segments that have options to save anywhere?

Yes

Manocheese

Edit history:

Manocheese: 2009-06-15 05:27:09 pm

2009-06-15 01:49:58 am

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

1. I agree with what a few have already said: don't remove runs because they break rules that didn't exist when they were submitted, and hope that runs that follow the new rules will beat the old runs.

3. This is really a PC issue IMO. Most console games already have a built-in "penalty" when you save, and most don't let you save every few seconds and pick up exactly where you left off like many PC games. You can save almost anywhere in a lot of console games, but you can't load almost anywhere. You aren't going to get a bunch of five-second segments so the runner can perfectly optimize everything because saving takes time and you usually don't load where you save. The loading issue isn't relevant either (at least I can't think of a single game where it is). Because neither reason for the save penalty exists for console games, I don't think they should have a save penalty in most cases. Exceptions could make sense if the game has a savestate-like feature (like the games discussed in this topic).

4. I won't get into most of this now, but in response to the posters who said that turbo controllers should be allowed because internal scripts are allowed, one is built in to the game and one is not. If turbo controllers are allowed, what's preventing someone from programming a controller to feed a long string of input into a game to create a TAS? A turbo controller sends something like "AAAAAAAAAAAAA" instead of "ABXAY up right A...", but they are both just pre-programmed inputs that aren't possible on a real controller.

1. I agree with what a few have already said: don't remove runs because they break rules that didn't exist when they were submitted, and hope that runs that follow the new rules will beat the old runs.

3. This is really a PC issue IMO. Most console games already have a built-in "penalty" when you save, and most don't let you save every few seconds and pick up exactly where you left off like many PC games. You can save almost anywhere in a lot of console games, but you can't [i]load[/i] almost anywhere. You aren't going to get a bunch of five-second segments so the runner can perfectly optimize everything because saving takes time and you usually don't load where you save. The loading issue isn't relevant either (at least I can't think of a single game where it is). Because neither reason for the save penalty exists for console games, I don't think they should have a save penalty in most cases. Exceptions could make sense if the game has a savestate-like feature (like the games discussed in [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/forum/index.php/topic,10121.0.html]this topic[/url]).

4. I won't get into most of this now, but in response to the posters who said that turbo controllers should be allowed because internal scripts are allowed, one is built in to the game and one is not. If turbo controllers are allowed, what's preventing someone from programming a controller to feed a long string of input into a game to create a TAS? A turbo controller sends something like "AAAAAAAAAAAAA" instead of "ABXAY up right A...", but they are both just pre-programmed inputs that aren't possible on a real controller.

mikwuyma

2009-06-15 02:00:45 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Okay a couple of things:

Save penalty: We are only talking about games that let you save anywhere, which basically translates to most PC games and very few console games.

6. A lot of people are misunderstanding this one. This is a rare case that only applies when two categories are so similar that they should be merged (like if the difference between any% and 100% is one item). Difficulty, characters, etc. are still separate categories when applicable.

7. Using the in-game timer is easier 99% of the time, and as long as if it's reliable why not use it? Yes, this is what vg, Satoryu, Najzere, and probably some other people said.

I don't mind occasionally making real-time a separate category (or at least trying out the possibility of one), but there should be a very good reason for it. Mega Man 9 is a good example because menu switching takes up a lot of time when people play with in-game time as a goal (it might be over half the time spent in some of md9's ILs). The Mega Man Zero series is a bad example (no one suggested it, I'm just saying) because the in-game timer keeps track of everything important (gameplay), ignores things no one cares about (cutscenes), and there are very few spots where pausing can be abused.

Okay a couple of things:

Save penalty: We are only talking about games that let you save anywhere, which basically translates to most PC games and very few console games.

6. A lot of people are misunderstanding this one. This is a rare case that only applies when two categories are so similar that they should be merged (like if the difference between any% and 100% is one item). Difficulty, characters, etc. are still separate categories when applicable.

7. Using the in-game timer is easier 99% of the time, and as long as if it's reliable why not use it? Yes, this is what vg, Satoryu, Najzere, and probably some other people said.

I don't mind occasionally making real-time a separate category (or at least trying out the possibility of one), but there should be a very good reason for it. Mega Man 9 is a good example because menu switching takes up a lot of time when people play with in-game time as a goal (it might be over half the time spent in some of md9's ILs). The Mega Man Zero series is a bad example (no one suggested it, I'm just saying) because the in-game timer keeps track of everything important (gameplay), ignores things no one cares about (cutscenes), and there are very few spots where pausing can be abused.

Riskbreaker Y

2009-06-15 02:15:10 am

berserker status

Hey Mike I had a question for you regarding timing of runs:

In the rules, it states that if the in-game timer does NOT appear in the ending, then the run will be manually timed or in 'real-time', whatever terms are preferred.

Now let's say at the final save point of a segmented run you finish with a time of say 2:00 (two hours) for the sake of argument. If the last segment lasts about five minutes and there's no final time displayed in the ending (or even afterward if you save again), how exactly would you go about timing the run in question? Would you say, screw it, we'll manually time the whole thing or would you manually time it from the last save? Just extremely curious and i'm sorry for muddling up the thread. I promise i won't say anything else in this thread since i really don't have anything to contribute here.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-16 02:05:20 am

2009-06-15 03:51:57 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

>>>Actually, you raise a good point here - I don't think that the segmentation penalty should be included in the time shown on statids or on the game page, that just doesn't make any sense at all. The purpose of the segmentation penalty is to provide an objective way to compare the merits of runs with different numbers of segments, but it would make more sense to calculate the times including penalties in the verification threads to decide whether a run should obsolete another, and then on the game page to write the actual time, not including penalties.<<<

I said this like 4 years ago, around the same time when Wouter Jansen, formal GE #1 player, said he didn't think modifying someone's time made sense. The way I see it the run should have public information where the DL links are; this would be total time, number of segments, and possibly the "modified competition time" mct, the mct would be used to decide which segmented run is better.

I think the .5 second penalty is probably right about where it should be. This pretty much allows the runner to do the most optimal strategy and tactics assuming infinite segments were allowed, while still keeping average segment length reasonable. I think this is the best balance right now if runs have to either be SS or segmented. Now there is one other solution I see which may or may not be better.

That is to have two or three separate categories for segmented runs: One allowing infinite number of segments with no penalty (again, number of segments should be made highly public), another being current segment category, and a third being one segment per map/level category. Now whether or not the former two are good to both have I don't know, you'd probably just want of those two, if I could only pick one it'd be the current segmented category, but I really think the one segment per map/level category is a good idea. A lot if not must runners already try to do this as like an unsaid rule which they feel makes their segmented run seem more genuine or ethical. This level segmentation works really well for so many games and is already the only form, and assumed to be the only one there ever will be, of segmented runs for many games like: quake, quake 2, quake 3, goldeneye or other console FPSes, mario karts or other console racing games, ect, ect.

That's just my opinion on segmentation. I'll address the other subjects later (going to bed), but I share a very similar stance as groobo does.

>>>Actually, you raise a good point here - I don't think that the segmentation penalty should be included in the time shown on statids or on the game page, that just doesn't make any sense at all. The purpose of the segmentation penalty is to provide an objective way to compare the merits of runs with different numbers of segments, but it would make more sense to calculate the times including penalties in the verification threads to decide whether a run should obsolete another, and then on the game page to write the actual time, not including penalties.<<<

I said this like 4 years ago, around the same time when Wouter Jansen, formal GE #1 player, said he didn't think modifying someone's time made sense.  The way I see it the run should have public information where the DL links are; this would be total time, number of segments, and possibly the "modified competition time" mct, the mct would be used to decide which segmented run is better.

I think the .5 second penalty is probably right about where it should be.  This pretty much allows the runner to do the most optimal strategy and tactics assuming infinite segments were allowed, while still keeping average segment length reasonable.  I think this is the best balance right now if runs have to either be SS or segmented.  Now there is one other solution I see which may or may not be better.

That is to have two or three separate categories for segmented runs: One allowing infinite number of segments with no penalty (again, number of segments should be made highly public), another being current segment category, and a third being one segment per map/level category.  Now whether or not the former two are good to both have I don't know, you'd probably just want of those two, if I could only pick one it'd be the current segmented category, but I really think the one segment per map/level category is a good idea.  A lot if not must runners already try to do this as like an unsaid rule which they feel makes their segmented run seem more genuine or ethical.  This level segmentation works really well for so many games and is already the only form, and assumed to be the only one there ever will be, of segmented runs for many games like: quake, quake 2, quake 3, goldeneye or other console FPSes, mario karts or other console racing games, ect, ect.

That's just my opinion on segmentation.  I'll address the other subjects later (going to bed), but I share a very similar stance as groobo does.

MatrixTN

2009-06-15 03:54:59 am

You got a deletion wish?

Quote from RiskBreaker Y:

Hey Mike I had a question for you regarding timing of runs:

In the rules, it states that if the in-game timer does NOT appear in the ending, then the run will be manually timed or in 'real-time', whatever terms are preferred.

Now let's say at the final save point of a segmented run you finish with a time of say 2:00 (two hours) for the sake of argument. If the last segment lasts about five minutes and there's no final time displayed in the ending (or even afterward if you save again), how exactly would you go about timing the run in question? Would you say, screw it, we'll manually time the whole thing or would you manually time it from the last save? Just extremely curious and i'm sorry for muddling up the thread. I promise i won't say anything else in this thread since i really don't have anything to contribute here.

If it's seen again during the segment, it could be referenced with real time tacked on from there. This is what's used for several of the Final Fantasies (IV & VI for example) and Chrono Trigger (except for NG+); I have no objection to that.

[quote="RiskBreaker Y"]
Hey Mike I had a question for you regarding timing of runs:

In the rules, it states that if the in-game timer does NOT appear in the ending, then the run will be manually timed or in 'real-time', whatever terms are preferred.

Now let's say at the final save point of a segmented run you finish with a time of say 2:00 (two hours) for the sake of argument.  If the last segment lasts about five minutes and there's no final time displayed in the ending (or even afterward if you save again), how exactly would you go about timing the run in question?  Would you say, screw it, we'll manually time the whole thing or would you manually time it from the last save?  Just extremely curious and i'm sorry for muddling up the thread.  I promise i won't say anything else in this thread since i really don't have anything to contribute here.
[/quote]

If it's seen again during the segment, it could be referenced with real time tacked on from there.  This is what's used for several of the Final Fantasies (IV & VI for example) and Chrono Trigger (except for NG+); I have no objection to that.

UltimateDarius

2009-06-15 06:01:28 am

Back in the game!

Regarding Segmentation Save Penalty:

Most games already take more than half a second to go into a menu or whatever you need to do to save that particular game. The GBA Pokemon games take around 5 seconds or so to navigate to the save option, then wait for the game to save, and all the while, the in-game timer continues ticking. Wind Waker takes probably around two. Since there is not an in-game timer here, simply end the timing when the save is complete, rather than at the end of controlling Link like was previously done. If a save penalty is to be imposed, just let said penalty be however long the game itself takes to save. I'm thinking it should solve the arguement of "what's fair, what makes sense," and also solve the arguement between the pro-penalty and con-penalty.

mikwuyma

Edit history:

mikwuyma: 2009-06-15 08:13:47 am

2009-06-15 08:07:40 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

What Manocheese said: Yep, that's pretty much what I was thinking.

Riskbreaker Y: I use the in-game timer in that case, unless if the time is displayed in another area (like an rpg menu).

Spider-Waffle: No, the distinction between single-segment and segmented is enough. Having a separate no penalty category would hardly make a difference. Also, If people don't want to save in between levels then that's their choice, but if people want to feel more genuine or ethical, that's what single-segment is for (did I just channel a bit of Lucid Faia there?).

UltimateDarius: Do those games even let you save anywhere with all of your progress saved in the same spot? If not, then you're missing the point.

Groobo: Runs with scripts are a very small % of the site, and outside of a few communities (Half-life and Portal), not many people use them. The issue of scripts always brings up a lot contention and arguments, which is why it's being discussed whether it's worth allowing more runs with scripts. That and scripts are paradoxical to the other rules we have on the site.

I could also use the same "LET IN MORE RUNS" argument against verification and let in any run that was submitted because verification is preventing (not many, but some) runs from coming in. So yeah, verification is a paradoxical to what Enhasa wants :o.

What Manocheese said: Yep, that's pretty much what I was thinking.

Riskbreaker Y: I use the in-game timer in that case, unless if the time is displayed in another area (like an rpg menu).

Spider-Waffle: No, the distinction between single-segment and segmented is enough. Having a separate no penalty category would hardly make a difference. Also, If people don't want to save in between levels then that's their choice, but if people want to feel more genuine or ethical, that's what single-segment is for (did I just channel a bit of Lucid Faia there?).

UltimateDarius: Do those games even let you save anywhere with all of your progress saved in the same spot? If not, then you're missing the point.

Groobo: Runs with scripts are a very small % of the site, and outside of a few communities (Half-life and Portal), not many people use them. The issue of scripts always brings up a lot contention and arguments, which is why it's being discussed whether it's worth allowing more runs with scripts. That and scripts are paradoxical to the other rules we have on the site.

I could also use the same "LET IN MORE RUNS" argument against verification and let in any run that was submitted because verification is preventing (not many, but some) runs from coming in. So yeah, verification is a paradoxical to what Enhasa wants :o.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2009-06-15 09:50:24 am

2009-06-15 09:11:08 am

Quote from Scepheo:

Edit: Just re-read most posts. It seems the main argument against removing the penalty is that it would cause mass-segmenting. However, verifiers should look at quality, so that matter is already taken care of. Now go find a new argument.

You're missing the point. The problem is that you can't just have the verifiers say 'you used 500 segments more than you needed to optimise your 15 minute run, that's stupid, so this run is low quality, reject'. Indeed, many posters here don't even seem to agree with the idea that using loads of extra segments to make your life easier without saving any time is a bad thing, and given that on SDA a faster segmented run (after any penalties) will always obsolete a slower one regardless of segment count, the claim in the rules that 'if you use more segments, we expect a higher quality of play' is a total lie that doesn't apply in practice. Thus for competition (and verification) to be fair we need an objective rule (or at least a well-understood guideline) for balancing a lightly segmented run against a heavily segmented run that is a few seconds faster and deciding which has better 'quality'.

Quote from najzere:

I feel exactly the opposite about Hitman: Blood Money, for instance - I'd hate to see someone with better/faster gameplay get obsoleted by someone who can click through menu screens faster. Any other issues with in-game timing should be stopped at the verification level, with runs where time is wasted in menu screens or the game is left paused for no reason being rejected by good verifiers.

Huh? You can't have it both ways. If you time in game-time, people will optimise for game time, and that means wasting lots (potentially minutes, as in Blood Money) of real time. Why would the verifiers reject a run for doing what is needed to get the best time according to the timing method used? Huh?

Also, it has nothing to do with how fast you click through the menu screens, it's about changing the planning of the run to minimise the amount of stuff you have to do on the menu screens. Though actually I think fast clicking on menu screens is impressive too.

Quote:

But then it should be tracked separately, tracking it as time to handle the competition aspect is fine but the run's time should not be displayed with it added. It could be something like Game X 3:00 in 3 segments (+15'' for segmenting). So to obsolete it you have to beat time+penalty with your own time+penalty, but the record is "time" so as to keep it comparable to a SS record. When? well if you save and use it, autosaves that aren't used not penalized. About timing the "time" I was speaking about, it would include all the video frames up to the point where you can turn off the console and still have your save like you wanted.

I totally agree with this bit of gia's post. Maybe not 5 seconds, heck I can live with half a second, two seconds, five seconds, whatever as long as there's a penalty, but I agree with the principle it shouldn't show up on the game page.

Quote from mikwuyma:

Spider-Waffle: No, the distinction between single-segment and segmented is enough. Having a separate no penalty category would hardly make a difference. Also, If people don't want to save in between levels then that's their choice, but if people want to feel more genuine or ethical, that's what single-segment is for

Actually, I agree with Spider-Waffle on this (:o). I think that using one segment per level in games where the benefits of segmenting mid-level are very small is a good thing, and forcing runners to break up their segments to 'improve' their runs by not recognising that it's a good thing is a shame. I'll say this with one caveat, though - if a run already has SS, segmented and IL categories, don't allow a segmented-per-level category as well because that would be too similar to IL. (Indeed, for some games where levels don't affect each other, that's all that IL is). However where there exists no sensible IL category, it would be fairer on runners of such games to allow a one-segment-per-level category (and wouldn't create more categories than games that already have SS, segmented and IL anyway).

As an example, I was really strongly opposed to Groobo segmenting lab in his Quake II run because Quake games have a history of runs doing one segment per level and breaking from this tradition - especially to obsolete Q2DQ2, which was one segment per level - would have made the run feel invalid. He didn't segment, which IMO was the right call, but this should be reflected in SDA's categories.

Edit: Another example is the Call Of Duty 4 run on PC. It would've been totally retarded to use manual saves in that, since there's no tricks on show and as such the whole thing that makes the run good is the show of skill, which would've been destroyed by manual segmenting. Yet as the rules stand now, a heavily segmented run could (easily) beat it. Seeing as runners are already informally imposing these rules on themselves, I think SDA should either officially declare it a Bad Thing and reaffirm that runners should always use manual saves where possible if it allows a faster time, or make these informal rules official by way of a new category where applicable.

[quote="Scepheo"]Edit: Just re-read most posts. It seems the main argument against [i]removing[/i] the penalty is that it would cause mass-segmenting. However, verifiers should look at quality, so that matter is already taken care of. Now go find a new argument.[/quote]

You're missing the point. The problem is that you can't just have the verifiers say 'you used 500 segments more than you needed to optimise your 15 minute run, that's stupid, so this run is low quality, reject'. Indeed, many posters here don't even seem to agree with the idea that using loads of extra segments to make your life easier without saving any time is a bad thing, and given that on SDA a faster segmented run (after any penalties) will always obsolete a slower one regardless of segment count, the claim in the rules that 'if you use more segments, we expect a higher quality of play' is a total lie that doesn't apply in practice. Thus for competition (and verification) to be fair we need an objective rule (or at least a well-understood guideline) for balancing a lightly segmented run against a heavily segmented run that is a few seconds faster and deciding which has better 'quality'.

[quote="najzere"]I feel exactly the opposite about Hitman: Blood Money, for instance - I'd hate to see someone with better/faster gameplay get obsoleted by someone who can click through menu screens faster. Any other issues with in-game timing should be stopped at the verification level, with runs where time is wasted in menu screens or the game is left paused for no reason being rejected by good verifiers.[/quote]

Huh? You can't have it both ways. If you time in game-time, people will optimise for game time, and that means wasting lots (potentially minutes, as in Blood Money) of real time. Why would the verifiers reject a run for doing what is needed to get the best time according to the timing method used? ???

Also, it has nothing to do with how fast you click through the menu screens, it's about changing the planning of the run to minimise the amount of stuff you have to do on the menu screens. Though actually I think fast clicking on menu screens is impressive too.

[quote]But then it should be tracked separately, tracking it as time to handle the competition aspect is fine but the run's time should not be displayed with it added. It could be something like Game X 3:00 in 3 segments (+15'' for segmenting). So to obsolete it you have to beat time+penalty with your own time+penalty, but the record is "time" so as to keep it comparable to a SS record. When? well if you save and use it, autosaves that aren't used not penalized. About timing the "time" I was speaking about, it would include all the video frames up to the point where you can turn off the console and still have your save like you wanted.[/quote]

I totally agree with this bit of gia's post. Maybe not 5 seconds, heck I can live with half a second, two seconds, five seconds, whatever as long as there's a penalty, but I agree with the principle it shouldn't show up on the game page.

[quote="mikwuyma"]Spider-Waffle: No, the distinction between single-segment and segmented is enough. Having a separate no penalty category would hardly make a difference. Also, If people don't want to save in between levels then that's their choice, but if people want to feel more genuine or ethical, that's what single-segment is for[/quote]

Actually, I agree with Spider-Waffle on this (:o). I think that using one segment per level in games where the benefits of segmenting mid-level are very small is a good thing, and forcing runners to break up their segments to 'improve' their runs by not recognising that it's a good thing is a shame. I'll say this with one caveat, though - if a run already has SS, segmented and IL categories, don't allow a segmented-per-level category as well because that would be too similar to IL. (Indeed, for some games where levels don't affect each other, that's all that IL is). However where there exists no sensible IL category, it would be fairer on runners of such games to allow a one-segment-per-level category (and wouldn't create more categories than games that already have SS, segmented and IL anyway).

As an example, I was really strongly opposed to Groobo segmenting lab in his Quake II run because Quake games have a history of runs doing one segment per level and breaking from this tradition - especially to obsolete Q2DQ2, which was one segment per level - would have made the run feel invalid. He didn't segment, which IMO was the right call, but this should be reflected in SDA's categories.

Edit: Another example is the Call Of Duty 4 run on PC. It would've been totally retarded to use manual saves in that, since there's no tricks on show and as such the whole thing that makes the run good is the show of skill, which would've been destroyed by manual segmenting. Yet as the rules stand now, a heavily segmented run could (easily) beat it. Seeing as runners are already informally imposing these rules on themselves, I think SDA should either officially declare it a Bad Thing and reaffirm that runners should always use manual saves where possible if it allows a faster time, or make these informal rules official by way of a new category where applicable.