Official 2009 Rules Reworking Discussion [locked]

Lag.Com

2009-07-08 06:26:18 am

sda loyalist

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

What do you think about the name "Comparison Quotient"?

I think it makes no sense. What do you think about the name 'save penalty'?

65

2009-07-08 09:13:11 am

Quote from gia:

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

What the hell is that supposed to mean?!

ninetigerr

Edit history:

ninetigerr: 2009-07-08 11:23:49 am

2009-07-08 11:18:07 am

Could we eliminate any rules that are enforced "because Radix doesn't/didn't like them?"

ZenicReverie

2009-07-08 11:50:48 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

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.

I've only played Portal and I had no idea what scripts really were at the time I watched the videos, but I would actually prefer a non-scripted run. Also, you appear to be saying that your scripted runs obsoleted non-scripted runs. Should we resurrected those runs? After learning what the scripts did for the player, I've chosen to not watch those runs. I may be a minority in that respect, but I'm sure there are people who see scripted runs on the site and think, "oh, another TAS site."

Most of the script talk I've heard has to do with bunny-hopping. How about banning bunny-hopping? Wink

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]
[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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
I've only played Portal and I had no idea what scripts really were at the time I watched the videos, but I would actually prefer a non-scripted run.  Also, you appear to be saying that your scripted runs obsoleted non-scripted runs.  Should we resurrected those runs?  After learning what the scripts did for the player, I've chosen to not watch those runs.  I may be a minority in that respect, but I'm sure there are people who see scripted runs on the site and think, "oh, another TAS site."

Most of the script talk I've heard has to do with bunny-hopping.  How about banning bunny-hopping? ;)

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-07-08 01:11:54 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FDI&q=Half-Life+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ctc&q=Half-Life+2+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1

Google is my statistics. I don't believe any of the other HL runs made the front page of digg either. You don't think the HL2DQ run was featured in any magazines?

Manocheese

2009-07-08 01:18:03 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I've only played Portal and I had no idea what scripts really were at the time I watched the videos, but I would actually prefer a non-scripted run. Also, you appear to be saying that your scripted runs obsoleted non-scripted runs. Should we resurrected those runs? After learning what the scripts did for the player, I've chosen to not watch those runs. I may be a minority in that respect, but I'm sure there are people who see scripted runs on the site and think, "oh, another TAS site."

This is one reason I think scripts should get the same treatment as the Banjo-Tooie cheats run; keep the runs up with a note that they were made under a different rule set, but don't allow further runs. Allowing scripted runs to be submitted, even on just a few games, is basically saying, "we made a mistake, but we're going to keep things the same in order to be consistent with that mistake." It's one thing for new viewers to see an old run in an antiquated category; it's another if they see that runs are being posted that violate the rules just because certain games get special treatment (which is how they'll see it, at least).

Quote from ninetigerr:

Could we eliminate any rules that are enforced "because Radix doesn't/didn't like them?"

I agree that these rules should either be removed or reworded to give better reasons. Here are some things that could be changed (please offer suggestions for different ways of changing them):

Quote:

Why do you allow glitch X to be used but not glitch Y?
We strive for a universal set of rules that apply to all games, to avoid explicitly laying out rules for every game. In practice though, some games need rule adjustments, and there isn't anything that can be done about it. Things like the "4 minute" Zelda glitch aren't allowed because Radix doesn't like them.

This might be changed to 'Extreme glitches like the "four-minute" glitch in A Link to the Past [might as well specify the game] are banned because they are very boring to watch.' That sounds pretty bad, so suggest something different if you have an idea.

Quote:

Some games that allow you to save at any time (usually in a menu) will not place you at the same spot when you resume the game. This is referred to as save warping. Radix doesn't really like this, so he didn't allow it at first. Now you can use save warping as much as you want. Most runners save warp in games where it is possible, since most people don't care to watch backtracking.

This goes along with your other point about removing references to old rules. I think the bold part should be removed.

Quote:

In some games you might be able to commit suicide in order to save time, either by teleporting back to a location you've been already and must return to, or by refilling your character's resources such as weapons or health. This is referred to as death abuse. Radix never liked this either and used to impose small but inconsistent penalties when it was used. Death abuse is usually encouraged to avoid backtracking.

Same thing here. I'd just delete the part in bold.

Something unrelated:

Quote:

Do you post everything that's submitted?
Obviously, cheated runs or runs with inconsistencies such as missing segments are rejected. If a run's video quality isn't good enough, such as a run captured with a webcam, that's not posted either. Finally, if the verifiers think that a submission could be a lot faster, then the run is rejected. Note that it is possible for a run to be faster than the previous run in the same category and still be rejected. Perhaps the runner used a faster system, but otherwise the play quality was worse.

Wouldn't using a different system create a separate category? If so, this should probably say something like "Perhaps the runner used a new route or sequence break, but otherwise the play quality was significantly worse."

It seems like a good time to propose getting rid of separate categories for death abuse and save warping (if that one still has a separate category). I can't think of a single run that didn't use these things when it could have (but please point them out if they exist). The original purpose of separate categories for these was so that old runs wouldn't be disadvantaged IIRC, but I think that this problem is solved simply by having verifiers compare the play quality of submitted runs to that of existing runs (which they do anyway). Keeping separate categories here just seems like an awkward relic of the old rules.

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FDI&q=Half-Life+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ctc&q=Half-Life+2+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1

Google is my statistics. I don't believe any of the other HL runs made the front page of digg either. You don't think the HL2DQ run was featured in any magazines?

A Google search lists the newer runs first... Shocking and compelling, but not enough to prove or even suggest your statement that scripted runs are popular because they're scripted.

[quote="ZenicReverie"]I've only played Portal and I had no idea what scripts really were at the time I watched the videos, but I would actually prefer a non-scripted run.  Also, you appear to be saying that your scripted runs obsoleted non-scripted runs.  Should we resurrected those runs?  After learning what the scripts did for the player, I've chosen to not watch those runs.  I may be a minority in that respect, but I'm sure there are people who see scripted runs on the site and think, "oh, another TAS site."[/quote]

This is one reason I think scripts should get the same treatment as the Banjo-Tooie cheats run; keep the runs up with a note that they were made under a different rule set, but don't allow further runs. Allowing scripted runs to be submitted, even on just a few games, is basically saying, "we made a mistake, but we're going to keep things the same in order to be consistent with that mistake." It's one thing for new viewers to see an old run in an antiquated category; it's another if they see that runs are being posted that violate the rules just because certain games get special treatment (which is how they'll see it, at least).

[quote="ninetigerr"]Could we eliminate any rules that are enforced "because Radix doesn't/didn't like them?"[/quote]

I agree that these rules should either be removed or reworded to give better reasons. Here are some things that could be changed (please offer suggestions for different ways of changing them):

[quote]Why do you allow glitch X to be used but not glitch Y?
We strive for a universal set of rules that apply to all games, to avoid explicitly laying out rules for every game. In practice though, some games need rule adjustments, and there isn't anything that can be done about it. [b]Things like the "4 minute" Zelda glitch aren't allowed because Radix doesn't like them.[/b][/quote]

This might be changed to 'Extreme glitches like the "four-minute" glitch in A Link to the Past [might as well specify the game] are banned because they are very boring to watch.' That sounds pretty bad, so suggest something different if you have an idea.

[quote]Some games that allow you to save at any time (usually in a menu) will not place you at the same spot when you resume the game. This is referred to as save warping. [b]Radix doesn't really like this, so he didn't allow it at first. Now you can use save warping as much as you want.[/b] Most runners save warp in games where it is possible, since most people don't care to watch backtracking.[/quote]

This goes along with your other point about removing references to old rules. I think the bold part should be removed.

[quote]In some games you might be able to commit suicide in order to save time, either by teleporting back to a location you've been already and must return to, or by refilling your character's resources such as weapons or health. This is referred to as death abuse. [b]Radix never liked this either and used to impose small but inconsistent penalties when it was used.[/b] Death abuse is usually encouraged to avoid backtracking.[/quote]

Same thing here. I'd just delete the part in bold.

Something unrelated:

[quote]Do you post everything that's submitted?
Obviously, cheated runs or runs with inconsistencies such as missing segments are rejected. If a run's video quality isn't good enough, such as a run captured with a webcam, that's not posted either. Finally, if the verifiers think that a submission could be a lot faster, then the run is rejected. Note that it is possible for a run to be faster than the previous run in the same category and still be rejected. [b]Perhaps the runner used a faster system, but otherwise the play quality was worse.[/b][/quote]

Wouldn't using a different system create a separate category? If so, this should probably say something like "Perhaps the runner used a new route or sequence break, but otherwise the play quality was significantly worse."

It seems like a good time to propose getting rid of separate categories for death abuse and save warping (if that one still has a separate category). I can't think of a single run that didn't use these things when it could have (but please point them out if they exist). The original purpose of separate categories for these was so that old runs wouldn't be disadvantaged IIRC, but I think that this problem is solved simply by having verifiers compare the play quality of submitted runs to that of existing runs (which they do anyway). Keeping separate categories here just seems like an awkward relic of the old rules.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FDI&q=Half-Life+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ctc&q=Half-Life+2+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1

Google is my statistics.  I don't believe any of the other HL runs made the front page of digg either.  You don't think the HL2DQ run was featured in any magazines?[/quote]

A Google search lists the newer runs first... Shocking and compelling, but not enough to prove or even suggest your statement that scripted runs are popular because they're scripted.

cortez

2009-07-08 01:28:05 pm

Stalker!

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FDI&q=Half-Life+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ctc&q=Half-Life+2+speedrun&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g%3As1

Google is my statistics. I don't believe any of the other HL runs made the front page of digg either. You don't think the HL2DQ run was featured in any magazines?

A Google search lists the newer runs first... Shocking and compelling, but not enough to prove or even suggest your statement that scripted runs are popular because they're scripted.

they are more popular because with scripts you can do stuff which is normally extrem hard to do or impossible. that makes them look smother and also harder which impresses the viewer more

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2009-07-08 01:41:47 pm

2009-07-08 01:34:14 pm

Invisible avatar

Or throws the viewer away.

A google search is not exactly a 'statistic'; of course newer runs will be higher in google search. Since they obsolete older runs, most of the people that talked about the old runs will also talk about the new ones. With time, taking into account also the growth of the initial site, the google's algorithms will favour pages talking about the new run. Also, the bigger the community doing the initial digging, the more diggs a certain item will garner. Finally, it's an issue of publicity: perhaps the initial digger posted in more places about digging in the case of the new run? I know RandomEngy posted the digg link in the HL thread and many people there dugg; that's like 40 diggs right off the bat. The number of diggs is not a good way of quantifying 'popularity', it's a good way of quantifying publicity.

In short, none of those prove or suggest any kind of 'scripted runs are liked more' conclusion.

And I wasn't implying that HL2DQ didn't get posted in any magazines; I was merely showing you that they didn't do so in this country, and it might have been because of the AHK usage. Either way, it is a good example of how hard popularity is to measure, and even if it were measurable, how useless it can be when other factors are probable to have influenced it more than the debated subject.

Or throws the viewer away.

A google search is not exactly a 'statistic'; of course newer runs will be higher in google search. Since they obsolete older runs, most of the people that talked about the old runs will also talk about the new ones. With time, taking into account also the growth of the initial site, the google's algorithms will favour pages talking about the new run. Also, the bigger the community doing the initial digging, the more diggs a certain item will garner. Finally, it's an issue of publicity: perhaps the initial digger posted in more places about digging in the case of the new run? I know RandomEngy posted the digg link in the HL thread and many people there dugg; that's like 40 diggs right off the bat. The number of diggs is not a good way of quantifying 'popularity', it's a good way of quantifying publicity.

In short, none of those prove or suggest any kind of 'scripted runs are liked more' conclusion.

And I wasn't implying that HL2DQ didn't get posted in any magazines; I was merely showing you that they didn't do so in this country, and it might have been because of the AHK usage. Either way, it is a good example of how hard popularity is to measure, and even if it were measurable, how useless it can be when other factors are probable to have influenced it more than the debated subject.

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2009-07-08 02:39:13 pm

2009-07-08 02:12:20 pm

Invisible avatar

Mike gave me a go-ahead to lock this thread.

Reason: it has already ran its course. Practically everyone stated their opinion, everything important has been said, and by now, pretty much no new points are being made; the thing dominating the thread now is an inane conversation of no significance between people who are not going to change their opinion, even when their points are refuted. So, it gets a lock before another 2 pages of repetitive arguments come around.

Stay tuned for the post with the final decisions by Mike. It might take him a little to sift through all the opinions and thoughts, so don't be impatient. Smiley

mikwuyma

2009-07-08 04:38:48 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

Relating back to the first post:

1. I'm not taking any runs down. Taking a run down would just cause a lot of confusion and complaints.

2. What Arkarian and Manocheese have said about the rules is a good idea. Radix doesn't participate anymore, and those Radix clauses obscure the rules more than anything else. Also, alttp 4-minute bug is due to up+down, not big glitchiness (someone can do a run if they can do it without up+down).

3. I'm keeping the save penalty the same.

a. There is zero consensus on whether the penalty should be increased or eliminated

b. The people who want the save penalty increased can't agree on how to increase it.

4. Weapon-change scripts are allowed because they don't make much of a difference and they're undetectable anyways. No other scripts are allowed.

5. The Banjo-Tooie Cheato category will be frozen. Scripts will still be allowed for the games that have them (Half-Life series, Portal) because there will be mass bitching otherwise. Undecided

Manocheese does have a good point about scripts and favoritism, but we'll just see how it works out.

6. Case-by-case basis really. Normally one category is favored over the other.

7. I'm keeping this the same. The in-game timer should be used unless if there is something very wrong with it (like Turtles in Time).

Spider-Waffle: I never said turbo-controllers were allowed for PC runs. I'm not sure where you came up with that.

Relating back to the first post:

1. I'm not taking any runs down. Taking a run down would just cause a lot of confusion and complaints.

2. What Arkarian and Manocheese have said about the rules is a good idea. Radix doesn't participate anymore, and those Radix clauses obscure the rules more than anything else. Also, alttp 4-minute bug is due to up+down, not big glitchiness (someone can do a run if they can do it without up+down).

3. I'm keeping the save penalty the same.

a. There is zero consensus on whether the penalty should be increased or eliminated

b. The people who want the save penalty increased can't agree on how to increase it.

4. Weapon-change scripts are allowed because they don't make much of a difference and they're undetectable anyways. No other scripts are allowed.

5. The Banjo-Tooie Cheato category will be frozen. Scripts will still be allowed for the games that have them (Half-Life series, Portal) because there will be mass bitching otherwise. :-\

Manocheese does have a good point about scripts and favoritism, but we'll just see how it works out.

6. Case-by-case basis really. Normally one category is favored over the other.

7. I'm keeping this the same. The in-game timer should be used unless if there is something very wrong with it (like Turtles in Time).

Spider-Waffle: I never said turbo-controllers were allowed for PC runs. I'm not sure where you came up with that.