page  <- 1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14 -> <- 1 ... 13, 14 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
ninetigerr
2009-07-07 01:40:19 am
From the FAQ:

Quote:
Using glitches is simply trying to use whatever is within the rules of the game to your advantage. When you use a cheat device or outside alteration, then you're breaking the game's rules. As for cheat codes and debug codes, they differ from glitches in being intentionally programmed, so they are naturally outside the rules of the game as defined by the designers.


I believe this is the source of the confusion.

Developers intentionally program cheat codes, so they are naturally inside the rules of the game, no?
Glitches, on the other hand, are "unintended side effects" of programming, and so are definitionally outside of the game's "rules," correct?

--edit--

By the way, you could say Cheato runs in Banjo-Tooie are a form of alternate mode.

Quote:
If a game has an unlockable character, bonus weapon, etc. that you collect as a reward, or other such alternate modes, a run on this mode will also be treated as a separate category. We used to only allow alternate mode runs when there was already a completed new game run for that game, but now this is just a recommendation. Keep in mind that the new game category is typically the most popular, and most people would prefer that such a run be available.


--edit again--

The FAQ and rules should eliminate all references to "what we used to do."
InsipidMuckyWater
InsipidMuckyWater
Edit history:
InsipidMuckyWater: 2009-07-07 02:50:54 am
2009-07-07 02:38:59 am
Visit my profile to see my runs!
Quote from ZaibirQuild:
Quote from DJGrenola:
2. No PC games can be run


Halfway through I realised that all these 'problematic' rules almost all existed because of PC runs.
So just shovel them to the quake corner or something. Tongue

Anyway, when looking at the games list, and going to half-life game, it says PC/PS2. (also Half-Life 2 and the PC/Xbox)

Now I was wondering, how much of that scripting that's happening in the PC run can be done on the PS2 version?
I really have no idea how the PS2 version works when it comes to console script making and such and if you then need to save it to your memory card or something?
Or is it just impossible all together?


No scripts in the PS2 version.  If anyone had ever seen the Half-Life: Decay two player run out of context which my friend and I performed, they'd probably have no idea it was related to Half-Life.  No hopping, terrible aiming, awful controls (Seriously, it's a PS2.. not the most elegant console for First Person Shooters.  Not sure what they were thinking.)

Btw, I doubt DJGrenola meant that we should ban PC runs... I think he was just suggesting that Spider-Waffle's rules make the enterprise of running/hosting a PC run practically unsalvageable.

Above Post: That second portion of the faq seems more clear than I anticipated.  Though there's still a gray area when it comes to games like Goldeneye.  While it does specify one must collect those rewards, it doesn't specify how they must be activated, which is about the only thing which separates Goldeneye's cheats from Banjo-Tooie's... that and the latter's not being preposterously powerful. 

While banning run categories like Cheato when they aren't already grandfathered makes sense (btw, it's funny to have "Verified:  No CHEATING!" just moments before someone activates a 'Cheato' code), it's never really felt wrong to have the Cheato category (except for JiggyWiggySpecial).  Of course, that's far from an argument for allowing them... it's just that they do really seem more like moderately helpful powerups than cheats when one has had to find all the Cheato pages to unlock them in the first place.  But whatever, banning them from future games for the sake of the rule seems fine as well.
DJGrenola
2009-07-07 03:54:28 am
guffaw
Well, I was joking, but many a true word is spoken in jest. PC games are a minefield. There is no standardisation of hardware on the PC platform, and scripts erode the standardisation of software on that platform as well. (In fact, it was the lack of hardware standardisation which originally led me to buy a GameCube, since I was sick and tired of having to download the latest video drivers and fiddle around with .INI files for two hours before I could get <insert new PC release here> to run on my setup.) I think my point was that if you try to prioritise being fair to the runner, you quickly get into a situation where PC runs just become illegal altogether. I think the decision should be taken based on other criteria instead, such as simplicity, ease of rule enforcement, and viewer satisfaction.

Having said that, I'm not sure how I feel about the earlier suggestion that PC hardware should be standardised (e.g. "you must run with a 2-button + scrollwheel mouse and one standard keyboard"). It is true that you could build a USB input device that would execute any set of commands you wanted, and then the scripting debate just moves to the hardware rather than the software -- although I am not sure why anyone would bother. Does SDA want to be that specific? This has the potential to be a somewhat thornier problem than scripts (which can simply be fully or partially banned).
ExplodingCabbage
2009-07-07 04:29:57 am
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
I'm assuming turbo joysticks for PC aren't banned, as there is no rule on this, is this not a fair assumption.


No, it isn't. In fact assuming they are banned is probably the more reasonable position; of COURSE if push came to shove, SDA wouldn't allow, say, the use of a macro controller to TAS a PC game, even though that's not banned by the current rules either. Extrapolating, it seems likely that if, prior to the creation of this thread, someone has posted on the forums asking whether turbo controllers were allowed for PC, the answer from Mike and Enhasa would've been 'no'. At any rate, there is no rule because the need for a rule was not realised and so the discussion has not been had, so whatever the position right now is, it's definitely open to change so using it as a basis for argument - from either side - seems foolish.

Quote:
These rules might seem arbitrary but they both are intended to ban ONLY scripts which could strictly be detracting from the display of human skill while not banning any scripts that could aide in the display of human skill.

Quote:
decided if a script is okay or not and runners could run scripts by the committee before they even use them.


Such a decision just by looking at a script would be impossible with your rules. As I already noted, your rules don't ban scripts, they ban specific applications of scripts. This isn't mere semantics, its a major and important difference; with your rules, you can't just post a script on the forum and ask if it's allowed, you have to post a full video showing the context in which you use the script. Rule 1 also has the unfortunate consequence that it would be possible for one attempt of a segment to be legal, and another attempt, using exactly the same route but where one script is triggered a fraction of a second earlier or later, could be illegal. Depending on what the script does, it may not even be possible to determine from the video whether the rule has been violated or not, which means even a runner making an effort to comply with the rule might find doing so impossible.

Quote:
Scripts which spam jump don't do XY-plane movement for you, I would argue these are spamming scripts not movement scripts.


Ah, my mistake. When I last posted I was under the impression that your bunny-hopping script in Half Life did more than just spam jump, checking the Opposing Force page where you posted your scripts, I see that I am wrong.
65
2009-07-07 06:13:29 am
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
I'm assuming turbo joysticks for PC aren't banned, as there is no rule on this, is this not a fair assumption.


No, it isn't. In fact assuming they are banned is probably the more reasonable position; of COURSE if push came to shove, SDA wouldn't allow, say, the use of a macro controller to TAS a PC game, even though that's not banned by the current rules either. Extrapolating, it seems likely that if, prior to the creation of this thread, someone has posted on the forums asking whether turbo controllers were allowed for PC, the answer from Mike and Enhasa would've been 'no'. At any rate, there is no rule because the need for a rule was not realised and so the discussion has not been had, so whatever the position right now is, it's definitely open to change so using it as a basis for argument - from either side - seems foolish.


Am I the only one who finds this debate ridiculous? The standard equipment to control a PC (with which it often comes bundled with) is a keyboard and a mouse. Neither of those, in their basic form, have any sort of turbo. Following that, turbo would not be allowed. However, stuff like joysticks, game pads and steering wheel are allowed because they are merely used to accomplish the same things you could do with a mouse and a keyboard. Granted, these peripherals might be more accurate, but that's just the stigma PC gaming has - compare different mice, for example.
ExplodingCabbage
2009-07-07 07:01:13 am
Quote from 65:
stuff like joysticks, game pads and steering wheel ... are merely used to accomplish the same things you could do with a mouse and a keyboard.


Completely untrue. They allow analogue control of things that would otherwise have to be controlled by keyboard. This doesn't make much difference in an FPS (okay, so a few allow analogue control of your movement as well as your turning if you use a gamepad, which could theoretically be helpful in stealth sections or for avoiding falling off edges, but it's basically irrelevant), but analogue steering in a driving game makes a huge difference, and many flight sims or space sims have no mouse control meaning you'd have to aim with a keyboard in those games if you didn't use a joystick or gamepad, which would be many, many times harder.
65
2009-07-07 07:35:05 am
Quote from 65:
However, stuff like joysticks, game pads and steering wheel are allowed because they are merely used to accomplish the same things you could do with a mouse and a keyboard. Granted, these peripherals might be more accurate, but that's just the stigma PC gaming has - compare different mice, for example.


Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Quote from 65:
stuff like joysticks, game pads and steering wheel ... are merely used to accomplish the same things you could do with a mouse and a keyboard.


Completely untrue. They allow analogue control of things that would otherwise have to be controlled by keyboard. This doesn't make much difference in an FPS (okay, so a few allow analogue control of your movement as well as your turning if you use a gamepad, which could theoretically be helpful in stealth sections or for avoiding falling off edges, but it's basically irrelevant), but analogue steering in a driving game makes a huge difference, and many flight sims or space sims have no mouse control meaning you'd have to aim with a keyboard in those games if you didn't use a joystick or gamepad, which would be many, many times harder.


You can achieve analogue control with mouse, it just isn't supported in some games. At any rate, it would be indeed be many times harder (at least for most people who are accustomed to joysticks). Playing Mega Man X games with a keyboard is much more difficult, too, but you could still play it as well as you could with a game pad if you happen to be accustomed to do such a thing.

And again, the degree of control varies from one peripheral to another, but that's just how PC gaming is. Also, I don't see much of a point in that argument regarding macro/turbo/regular controllers, but if it's just for the sake of argument, then yes, I agree with you that one can achieve better precision in some cases where controllers that are actually meant to be used with a game, rather than using just a keyboard.
ExplodingCabbage
2009-07-07 08:24:38 am
Quote from 65:
You can achieve analogue control with mouse


Well, no. Not as much analogue control as with a wheel or joystick anyway, both of which have 3 analogue axes (forward, sideways, twist for a joystick, the wheel itself and two pedals for a wheel) whereas a mouse only has 2. A gamepad, of course, has up to 4 analogue axes.

Also, you can't keep a mouse moving forward permanantly without a break, but you can hold a joystick in a forward position as long as you want.

I'm not sure whether this has any impact on your argument or not, since I don't really understand your argument in the first place. If a joystick is just a substitute for a mouse (an idea I completely reject), surely a turbo controller is just a substitute for a mousewheel?
arkarian
2009-07-07 10:00:30 am
gamelogs.org
Quote from ninetigerr:
The FAQ and rules should eliminate all references to "what we used to do."


possibly the most useful thing anyone has said in this topic so far. i can see why that stuff was put into the rules—to reduce confusion after recent rule changes—but the new rules have been in effect for years now. keeping references to old rules just adds confusion now.
65
2009-07-07 10:14:06 am
Are you suggesting we should ban game pads and joysticks?

Turbo makes up for one's lack of skill, while, say, a joystick just makes the controls more proper for the game they're intended to be played with. Like I said, joystick's precision could be considered superior to that of a keyboards, but the principle is essentially the same (compare ball mouse to a laser one). I'm sure you might try and counter the difference with some sort of slippery slope argument for debate's sake, but I really don't want to hear it. My arguments are mainly establishing the reason not to allow turbo rather than allowing joysticks.

The reasoning behind my argument in the above posts is that based on the rules the controllers should not be capable of doing something the original is not. Following my keyboard-mouse combo analogy, it would mean that PC equipment should not be capable of things like macro and auto fire, but they should be capable of analogue control.

Quote:
Third-party controllers: You must only use features that are available on any controllers that were officially bundled with the system.


Turbo is not featured in anything that even remotely resembles an official controller. Thus, it should not be acceptable to use them for SDA purposes. However, based on my arguments above among other things, it certainly is not necessary to ban regular game pads, for example.

I must wonder why you keep arguing on what seems to me like mere semantics, especially my post directly supported your previous argument that I quoted in post #304.
Spider-Waffle
(user is banned)
2009-07-07 10:31:53 am
Don't think!  feeeeeal
Most PC gaming mice come with micro abilities standard now.
65
2009-07-07 11:28:22 am
Most PCs don't come with a gaming mouse.
ExplodingCabbage
2009-07-07 12:56:40 pm
Quote from 65:
Are you suggesting we should ban game pads and joysticks?


No, I'm suggesting that arguing that mouse and keyboard are the 'official' controllers of the PC and then applying the 'only use features from the original controller' argument is perverse precisely because it would lead to banning gamepads and joysticks.

Quote:
Turbo makes up for one's lack of skill, while, say, a joystick just makes the controls more proper for the game they're intended to be played with. Like I said, joystick's precision could be considered superior to that of a keyboards, but the principle is essentially the same (compare ball mouse to a laser one).


It's not the same AT ALL. A joystick is analogue, a keyboard is not. Keeping aim on a small, slow-moving target in a flight sim is possible with a joystick but not a keyboard. Braking through a tight corner gently enough to avoid skidding can be possible with pedals when, in the same situation, a single tap of the brake key on the keyboard would cause a skid. And if you're playing a driving game where there's ever some kind of speed limit to observe (maybe it's a GTA-type game, maybe you're in the pits in a racer and speeding is possible but attracts a penalty) then maintaining an exact speed is only possible with an analogue controller. These controllers allow things that are physically impossible with mouse and keyboard.

Quote:
Following my keyboard-mouse combo analogy, it would mean that PC equipment should not be capable of things like macro and auto fire, but they should be capable of analogue control.

Quote:
Turbo is not featured in anything that even remotely resembles an official controller. Thus, it should not be acceptable to use them for SDA purposes. However, based on my arguments above among other things, it certainly is not necessary to ban regular game pads, for example.


This simply doesn't follow. With mouse and keyboard, you have two analogue axes. With a gamepad, joystick or wheel, you have three or four. That's not to mention the fact I've already raised that a joystick can be held in a given forward position indefinitely, but a mouse can only be moved forward so far before you have to stop and pick it up if you want to keep going. That's a major difference in what's physically possible with the controllers. In fact, it's more of a difference in capabilities than the difference between a keyboard and a turbo keyboard; at least it's theoretically possible that a robot player could hammer a key perfectly regularly at high speed, but for it to keep a mouse moving forward forever at a constant speed is theoretically impossible - if nothing else, eventually it would run out of cable. So using the 'official controller' argument, it makes more sense to allow turbo controllers than joysticks.

Quote:
I must wonder why you keep arguing on what seems to me like mere semantics


Try playing a flight sim with mouse and keyboard, then with a joystick, and tell me the difference is 'mere semantics'.

Quote:
especially my post directly supported your previous argument that I quoted in post #304.


We may have reached the same conclusion (allow joysticks, gamepads and wheels, but not turbo or macro controllers) but I disagree with every step in the argument you've made to get there.
65
2009-07-07 02:48:29 pm
Well, as long as you keep arguing for our joint goal I have no qualms with it. I prefer to keep my wasted time on minimum as long as the result is the same.
Emptyeye
2009-07-07 08:45:13 pm
Talk to the Hand
Quote from DJGrenola:
Well, I was joking, but many a true word is spoken in jest.


I, too, was joking (Hopefully that was obvious). Although, as you say, actually going through with "no PC games" would, indeed, end the scripting debate. I think we can agree that that isn't really an optimal solution, though.
InstinctSage
2009-07-07 09:20:56 pm
Ur-Quan. You're for dinner.
Honestly, I don't think it's ever going to be simple enough to make a ruleset that covers everything WRT PC runs.

I'm essentially for having a 'clean' category, script free/cheat free/turbo free. Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't think we should really need to elaborate much on that. If people are unsure about what's allowed, a specific controller or usage of such for e.g. a decision can be made. But it's considered clean for a reason. If someone tries to sneak something illegal in, verifiers checking the run might say "The runner is emptying 30 rounds in semi-auto mode in under 4 seconds. That's insanely fast, it looks off to me", and that will be questioned. All we can ask for is honesty, which is all we've asked for in runs previously.

I'm not really interested in watching semi-script runs, tbh. a complete TAS is neat, going halfway about it seems odd, to me. But whatever floats your boat. I think it's just always going to be tricky business trying to draw a line anywhere, and I think the discussion thusfar shows that. But I do see a secondary category as a good idea, in theory. I'm simply not confident that you can make rules about it without getting bogged down by exceptions & clarifications for everything.
gia
2009-07-07 11:49:13 pm
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
about your crap about mouse joystick touch screens power gloves and etc, "macros and or turbo provided by hardware or its drivers or software other than the game being run is disallowed", then you only have to keep worrying about the script crap that so far only affects valve's games? maybe you should ask gabe what he thinks

the only turbo i want to preserve is that of a game that allows you to set it on the options menu for whatever reason, am i missing something with that?, even then maybe just disallow macros and turbo altogether then people have to fight to make special cases for their 1 game out of one million.
ZenicReverie
2009-07-08 01:32:42 am
Waiting hurts my soul...
Quote from Lord_VG:
Quote from DJGrenola:
2. No PC games can be run


Well, there goes my hope of seeing The Typing of the Dead run then. ^^;;

Typing of the Dead is on Dreamcast, so no worries Wink
Spider-Waffle
(user is banned)
2009-07-08 01:52:37 am
Don't think!  feeeeeal
Quote:
I think this is a really bad idea. Having seperate categories just for the use of turbo scripts is ridiculous - they wouldn't make anywhere near enough difference. Either ban them (my preferred solution, despite the fact that this requires some very careful rulemaking about what hardware is allowed and the result is likely to be imperfect) or allow them, don't make different categories for something that makes so little difference to the resulting run video.


They don't really make a huge difference compared to the best hardware solutions and there's still much room for better hardware solutions to exist; however, I think there's a lot of people that want a non-turbo script category for various reasons I have a hard time understanding and don't particularly agree with.  I don't think it's that bad to have two separate categories though, it really doesn't make that big of an impact either way.  Also I think it's fine to combine the AHK turbo scripts into the in-game script category.  So basically the too categories are in-game and AHK turbo scripts, and no scripts.  I strongly feel this is the best solution that will make SDA the most popular and appease the speedrunners themselves the most as well.
Spider-Waffle
(user is banned)
2009-07-08 02:08:56 am
Don't think!  feeeeeal
Quote:
Have you ever considered that maybe the runs are popular because they are on some of the most popular PC Games of all time? Half-Life got over 50 GOTY Awards and over 9 million copies sold, Half-Life 2 has over 35 GOTY Awards and over 6.5 million copies sold, Portal got several GOTY Awards and was an internet pop-culture phenomenon. These are probably the three most played PC Games that have runs hosted on SDA, of COURSE they are going to be popular. It has absolutely nothing to do with the scripts or the play quality.


There is some truth to this; however, it's really not that true.  There were HL and HL2 runs before the current ones which weren't nearly as popular as the current ones are.  Once the current runs came and obliterated the old ones then the runs for these games became extremely popular.  I would argue that has a lot do with their play quality and the script usage I feel helped them be more popular overall as well.
ShadowWraith
2009-07-08 03:04:46 am
.
...and you're pulling these statistics from which particular orifice exactly? :|
ExplodingCabbage
2009-07-08 04:05:59 am
InstinctSage's approach sounds sufficient without losing simplicity or fairness. I support it.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Also I think it's fine to combine the AHK turbo scripts into the in-game script category.  So basically the too categories are in-game and AHK turbo scripts, and no scripts.


You've just totally changed the issue. My point was in regard to games without scripts, and you've tried to make it seem as though the AHK vs non-AHK difference is greater than it is by bringing in-game scripts into it. What would even be the point of allowing AHK in a game that has in-game scripts anyway? :S
Spider-Waffle
(user is banned)
2009-07-08 04:30:16 am
Don't think!  feeeeeal
Quote from Scepheo:
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
About the issue of save penalty time, it seemed to me that most everyone thought the actual time the run took was the most important time for viewers to see.  I argue that viewers should most readily see the actual time of the run, including adjustment for save gaps, and the number of segments it uses.  Then if they dig further they can find out the COMPETITION BASED QUOTIENT, which would be the actual run time in seconds (including adjustment for save gaps) plus .5 for every non-forced save, this could be in units not seconds so as not to confuse people of the actual time of the run (not that calling it the COMPETITION BASED QUOTIENT isn't clear enough)

What do people think of my proposed solution?

Maybe reconsider the name, but the general idea seems perfectly fine. It wouldn't be confusing for newcomers, and people who actually care enough about why run A obsoleted run B, they can find out.


Ya that's basically the idea.  Casual viewers can quickly see the run's actual time (with adjustment for save gaps) and the number segments.  Then people who really care (maybe they're thinking beating the run) can find out this quotient which takes into account .5 units per unforced segment.

What do you think about the name "Comparison Quotient"?  And it's explanation of how it's calculated should be reworded.  Instead of using "For games that let you save anywhere (i.e. without save points), a half second save penalty is added for each save."  It should say "For games that let you save anywhere (i.e. without save points) a comparison quotient is calculated by adding .5 units to the run's actual time (with adjustment for save gaps) in seconds.  This quotient will be used to determine whether or not a run should be obsoleted."
ExplodingCabbage
2009-07-08 05:02:20 am
Whatever my views on this, Mike has already said he doesn't want to change how the segmentation penalty is implemented (I think only dex supports him on this, but hey, it's not a democracy), so this is probably a pointless discussion.

Though if we were to have two times shown, I feel to see a problem with 'Real time' and 'Time after save penalty'. Y'know, like, terms that actually indicate what they are, rather than being deliberately obscure.
dex
dex
Edit history:
dex: 2009-07-08 07:51:39 am
2009-07-08 05:04:45 am
Invisible avatar
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
There is some truth to this; however, it's really not that true.

....What. The. Hell. "Yes, but no". You're basically admitting your point doesn't make sense, yet you keep digging.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:
There were HL and HL2 runs before the current ones which weren't nearly as popular as the current ones are.  Once the current runs came and obliterated the old ones then the runs for these games became extremely popular.  I would argue that has a lot do with their play quality and the script usage I feel helped them be more popular overall as well.

First; why do you assume the old runs weren't that popular? Second, even if they were less popular, that's easy to explain by outside factors. SDA was less popular, hence the older runs which used less/no scripts were less popular.

Also, just to give an example, the run by Marsh in HL2 got 2 whole pages in the biggest gaming magazine in Poland. The run by the HL2DQ team didn't receive such a luxury, and it might have been due to the admitted usage of outside tools (the guy who wrote the HL2 by Marsh article is opposed to the idea of scripting), though I'm not sure of that. So, at least in Poland, the run by Marshmallow was way more popular. Don't pull 'statistics' out of your ass to prove your point, especially ones that can be easily explained by factors other than what happens in the runs themselves even if they are true.

The reasons HL/HL2/Portal runs are more popular stems from the very fact of them being popular games, and of SDA getting more and more known.

And the "comparison quotient" will probably only achieve the goal of being confusing, like Mike said. Also, people like to throw the 'actual time' argument around, but due to the warping during loading in many games, the time with penalty included would actually be closer to the real time of the gameplay input in the run. (Example: Deus Ex). Also, in many games, the warping time is random and hard to measure. (example: Deus Ex). It would just become more confusing "oh this is the real time, but we've added an arbitrary amount of time because there's warping after saves. Oh and also there's 0.5 seconds added too, but that doesn't actually matter unless you want to run the game". It's way simpler to just add a small penalty that doesn't skew the time in a huge factor and be done with both the oversegmentation issue AND the warping issue. That is an important part of why the penalty is around.

Jump scripts may not make you move in the X and Y axes, yeah. But they make you move in the Z axis. Therefore, movement scripts.