Question about using continues in a speedrun

2009-03-31 09:35:55 am

I know "deathless" and "with deaths" are separate categories, but is there a policy regarding the use of continues or is it just "do whatever it takes to complete the game as fast as possible" ? As was pointed out to me, one of the runs for Blaster Master that just got accepted uses continues, but I couldn't find anything in the "rules" section about it. The reason I ask is because of the game Addam's Family (NES), where it looks like using a continue would save a couple of seconds.

Thread title:

mikwuyma

2009-03-31 10:24:40 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

There's nothing in our rules against continuing, just make sure you're doing it to save time and not because you're lazy. Then again, I know the Cobra Triangle runner would never be lazy. Wink

ZenicReverie

2009-03-31 03:37:54 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

I'm guessing you mean that you lost all your lives and so you get the continue screen? Seems like it'd be the same as a with deaths run, no need to specify 'with continues' or some such nonsense.

I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but I had a question in a similar vein. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway. A deathless run will knock off a with deaths run if it's faster, and a SS will knock of a segmented if it's faster, but will a SS with deaths knock off a segmented deathless? I'm guessing not, but I thought I'd ask. Do think this should have it's own topic?

UltimateDarius

2009-03-31 04:25:43 pm

Back in the game!

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I'm guessing you mean that you lost all your lives and so you get the continue screen? Seems like it'd be the same as a with deaths run, no need to specify 'with continues' or some such nonsense.

I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but I had a question in a similar vein. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway. A deathless run will knock off a with deaths run if it's faster, and a SS will knock of a segmented if it's faster, but will a SS with deaths knock off a segmented deathless? I'm guessing not, but I thought I'd ask. Do think this should have it's own topic?

No, this follows the same basic topic. I think that a SS with deaths really SHOULD knock off a segmented deathless. The whole reason of segmenting is to utilize luck manipulation or else pull off time-saving tricks/techniques that would be much more difficult/impossible in a SS run. The same principle (usually) applies to dying vs. not dying. If a SS with deaths beats a segmented deathless, the segmented deathless did SOMETHING wrong and should be bumped off, in my opinion.

[quote="ZenicReverie"]
I'm guessing you mean that you lost all your lives and so you get the continue screen?  Seems like it'd be the same as a with deaths run, no need to specify 'with continues' or some such nonsense.

I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but I had a question in a similar vein.  I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway.  A deathless run will knock off a with deaths run if it's faster, and a SS will knock of a segmented if it's faster, but will a SS with deaths knock off a segmented deathless?  I'm guessing not, but I thought I'd ask.  Do think this should have it's own topic?
[/quote]

No, this follows the same basic topic.  I think that a SS with deaths really SHOULD knock off a segmented deathless.  The whole reason of segmenting is to utilize luck manipulation or else pull off time-saving tricks/techniques that would be much more difficult/impossible in a SS run.  The same principle (usually) applies to dying vs. not dying.  If a SS with deaths beats a segmented deathless, the segmented deathless did SOMETHING wrong and should be bumped off, in my opinion.

ZenicReverie

2009-03-31 04:56:09 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from UltimateDarius:

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I'm guessing you mean that you lost all your lives and so you get the continue screen? Seems like it'd be the same as a with deaths run, no need to specify 'with continues' or some such nonsense.

I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but I had a question in a similar vein. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway. A deathless run will knock off a with deaths run if it's faster, and a SS will knock of a segmented if it's faster, but will a SS with deaths knock off a segmented deathless? I'm guessing not, but I thought I'd ask. Do think this should have it's own topic?

No, this follows the same basic topic. I think that a SS with deaths really SHOULD knock off a segmented deathless. The whole reason of segmenting is to utilize luck manipulation or else pull off time-saving tricks/techniques that would be much more difficult/impossible in a SS run. The same principle (usually) applies to dying vs. not dying. If a SS with deaths beats a segmented deathless, the segmented deathless did SOMETHING wrong and should be bumped off, in my opinion.

I see your point, but I was thinking that 'with deaths' usually means you're doing it because dying is faster, since SDA doesn't distinguish anymore between time saving deaths and deaths because the game is hard plus avoiding death is more time consuming than dying to get back to full health. If it's true that a deathless run that's slower is allowed to exist next to a faster 'with deaths' run, I guess the question is, is it more impressive to SS vs segmenting or deaths vs deathless.

Specifically I'm thinking of the current Jak and Daxter run, where I'm going to attempt to knock the current run off due to a couple of easy fixes that would make the run faster on their own by about 10 minutes. I listed them on the topic I revived, turning game hints off and unnecessary backtracking in the swamp level. I'm also changing the route a little, but I had this question because I don't know how likely it'll be to avoid death in a SS and the segmented run is deathless. However, I thought the question was general enough to deserve asking without the specific case.

Is there a handy list of SS bumps a slower segmented run, and deathless bumps a slower with deaths run list somewhere? To go further into it, would a SS run bump a slower IL table or would it fill the table maybe? Knowing it's SS I think is more impressive than seeing it as ILs though, right? I'm not sure how much this has been discussed, so if it's somewhere in the KB or forums, please point it out.

[quote="UltimateDarius"]
[quote="ZenicReverie"]
I'm guessing you mean that you lost all your lives and so you get the continue screen?  Seems like it'd be the same as a with deaths run, no need to specify 'with continues' or some such nonsense.

I don't mean to hi-jack the thread, but I had a question in a similar vein.  I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway.  A deathless run will knock off a with deaths run if it's faster, and a SS will knock of a segmented if it's faster, but will a SS with deaths knock off a segmented deathless?  I'm guessing not, but I thought I'd ask.  Do think this should have it's own topic?
[/quote]

No, this follows the same basic topic.  I think that a SS with deaths really SHOULD knock off a segmented deathless.  The whole reason of segmenting is to utilize luck manipulation or else pull off time-saving tricks/techniques that would be much more difficult/impossible in a SS run.  The same principle (usually) applies to dying vs. not dying.  If a SS with deaths beats a segmented deathless, the segmented deathless did SOMETHING wrong and should be bumped off, in my opinion.
[/quote]

I see your point, but I was thinking that 'with deaths' usually means you're doing it because dying is faster, since SDA doesn't distinguish anymore between time saving deaths and deaths because the game is hard plus avoiding death is more time consuming than dying to get back to full health.  If it's true that a deathless run that's slower is allowed to exist next to a faster 'with deaths' run, I guess the question is, is it more impressive to SS vs segmenting or deaths vs deathless.

Specifically I'm thinking of the current Jak and Daxter run, where I'm going to attempt to knock the current run off due to a couple of easy fixes that would make the run faster on their own by about 10 minutes.  I listed them on the topic I revived, turning game hints off and unnecessary backtracking in the swamp level.  I'm also changing the route a little, but I had this question because I don't know how likely it'll be to avoid death in a SS and the segmented run is deathless.  However, I thought the question was general enough to deserve asking without the specific case.

Is there a handy list of SS bumps a slower segmented run, and deathless bumps a slower with deaths run list somewhere?  To go further into it, would a SS run bump a slower IL table or would it fill the table maybe?  Knowing it's SS I think is more impressive than seeing it as ILs though, right?  I'm not sure how much this has been discussed, so if it's somewhere in the KB or forums, please point it out.

Ver Greeneyes

2009-03-31 05:09:45 pm

I think the only reason it -wouldn't- knock the segmented run off is if the new SS skips major parts of the game and the segmented run doesn't, making them into different categories. I don't think they'd leave the segmented run up just as a placeholder just so there's incentive to improve it. (the only other motivation I can think of)

Hattori HANZo

2009-03-31 05:48:08 pm

contraddicted

Quote from UltimateDarius:

I think that a SS with deaths really SHOULD knock off a segmented deathless.

I'd say yes, if the advantage from abusing death is not that great.
But I'd oppose if the death abuse is a big advantage and the SS therefore doesn't show the same amount of skill.

mikwuyma

2009-03-31 06:07:49 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

ZenicReverie: About your question, it depends. If the SS run with deaths is obviously better in every way, then of course it should obsolete the segmented run. If the only reason why the SS is faster is dying, then it would get its own category?

NoiseCrash

2009-03-31 06:20:16 pm

@_@

I think it would get its own category regardless. Runs with death and runs without deaths have been seperate categories, and in order to preserve continuity it should be left as such.

As long as SDA continues to label all runs with deaths as "abuses death" or "with deaths" then an SS death run isn't even close to the same category as a segmented deathless. If you choose to distinguish between death abuse and unintentional deaths then it would obsolete the segmented run providing the deaths are accidental. It's really a call that has to be made by the higher-ups.

Personally, if possible I would vote to make the distinction between accidental and abusive and obsolete the segmented run if this scenario came up.

ZenicReverie

2009-03-31 09:21:14 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from mikwuyma:

ZenicReverie: About your question, it depends. If the SS run with deaths is obviously better in every way, then of course it should obsolete the segmented run. If the only reason why the SS is faster is dying, then it would get its own category?

I guess it'd be taken on a case by case basis and maybe even voted on by the verifiers? In the run I'll be doing, all deaths will be accidental, as dying in most cases returns you back to an earlier location, which is only beneficial in one or two circumstances I can think of.

Quote from NoiseCrash:

I think it would get its own category regardless. Runs with death and runs without deaths have been seperate categories, and in order to preserve continuity it should be left as such.

As long as SDA continues to label all runs with deaths as "abuses death" or "with deaths" then an SS death run isn't even close to the same category as a segmented deathless. If you choose to distinguish between death abuse and unintentional deaths then it would obsolete the segmented run providing the deaths are accidental. It's really a call that has to be made by the higher-ups.

Personally, if possible I would vote to make the distinction between accidental and abusive and obsolete the segmented run if this scenario came up.

This is how I thought it would be decided, since the distinction was removed, but if it's only the label that was removed and the distinction can be decided upon verification if a run should obsolete another, then I'm fine with that. If it ends up not obsoleting the run, it just means I'll have to make a segmented attempt basically using the same strategy in order to remove the deaths from the run.

[quote="mikwuyma"]
ZenicReverie: About your question, it depends. If the SS run with deaths is obviously better in every way, then of course it should obsolete the segmented run. If the only reason why the SS is faster is dying, then it would get its own category?
[/quote]

I guess it'd be taken on a case by case basis and maybe even voted on by the verifiers?  In the run I'll be doing, all deaths will be accidental, as dying in most cases returns you back to an earlier location, which is only beneficial in one or two circumstances I can think of.

[quote="NoiseCrash"]
I think it would get its own category regardless. Runs with death and runs without deaths have been seperate categories, and in order to preserve continuity it should be left as such.

As long as SDA continues to label all runs with deaths as "abuses death" or "with deaths" then an SS death run isn't even close to the same category as a segmented deathless. If you choose to distinguish between death abuse and unintentional deaths then it would obsolete the segmented run providing the deaths are accidental. It's really a call that has to be made by the higher-ups.

Personally, if possible I would vote to make the distinction between accidental and abusive and obsolete the segmented run if this scenario came up.
[/quote]

This is how I thought it would be decided, since the distinction was removed, but if it's only the label that was removed and the distinction can be decided upon verification if a run should obsolete another, then I'm fine with that.  If it ends up not obsoleting the run, it just means I'll have to make a segmented attempt basically using the same strategy in order to remove the deaths from the run.

NoiseCrash

2009-03-31 09:50:38 pm

@_@

Quote:

This is how I thought it would be decided, since the distinction was removed, but if it's only the label that was removed and the distinction can be decided upon verification if a run should obsolete another, then I'm fine with that. If it ends up not obsoleting the run, it just means I'll have to make a segmented attempt basically using the same strategy in order to remove the deaths from the run.

Yeah, it's really like you said that it'd most likely be a case by case basis so there's not really one correct answer here. My best advice would be to listen to Mike over me. Wink

gia

2009-03-31 11:22:36 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

If you prefer a simple explanation if death/deathless is not a category then "what would happen if a ss with deaths is faster than a segmented deathless" is not correct. Take it out like it should and it becomes "what would happen if a ss is faster than a segmented run". Do the same for whatever comparison you want to make.

dont mind this, I typed as I thought... lets call the categories strong categories and weak categories. Strong categories are enough on their own to differentiate runs (strong reason to exist), weak categories have to be faster for them to stay around.

Game: A game X is a strong category (different than another game Y).
Difficulty: Not sure about difficulties, I assume the hardest difficulty gets preference -> strong, the easier ones -> weak.
Segments: SS is strong, segmented is weak, IL is weak too I guess
Number of players: iirc single player is strong and multiplayer(coop) weak.
Completion: 100%,any%,low% are strong
Glitch Abuse: no glitches is strong,w/glitches,major skips are weak
etc

When mike says it has to be better in every way it means that if you compare two runs on all their "category groups" and one ends with more strong categories then it gets its right to stay no matter what. The other one has to be faster to stay, otherwise it is obsoleted. If they have the same number of strong categories, if all their categories (strong and weak) are the same then the faster stays, if any category is different then both stay.

Testing that:
SS with major skips versus SS major skips. Both have 1 strong 1 weak, and their categories are the same: the faster one stays.
SS with major skips versus Segmented no glitches. Both have 1 strong 1 weak, but at least one category is different: both stay.
SS with major skips versus Segmented with major skips. The first has 1 strong 1 weak, the other 2 weak. The first stays, the second is weaker, it is obsoleted if it is slower as well.
Segmented with major skips versus IL no glitches. First has 2 weak, second 1 strong 1 weak, in theory(according to my "program") the IL stays, the segmented has to be faster to stay. Sounds ok to me.
Segmented no glitches versus IL no glitches, both have the same strenght but at least one category is different, in theory both stay regardless of time. Hmm, I dont know, when compared to the previous test it doesn't seem consistent. Is this even possible (segmented cmpeting IL), a racing game could have both ILs and segmented, a game could have th eILs segmented, maybe they belong to different groups... IL with continued play but it still fails, hmm I can force it (SS,seg,ILSS,ILseg and more weights than strong/weak) but it stops being simple, whatever Smiley

If you prefer a simple explanation if death/deathless is not a category then "what would happen if a ss with deaths is faster than a segmented deathless" is not correct. Take it out like it should and it becomes "what would happen if a ss is faster than a segmented run". Do the same for whatever comparison you want to make.

dont mind this, I typed as I thought... lets call the categories strong categories and weak categories. Strong categories are enough on their own to differentiate runs (strong reason to exist), weak categories have to be faster for them to stay around.

Game: A game X is a strong category (different than another game Y).
Difficulty: Not sure about difficulties, I assume the hardest difficulty gets preference -> strong, the easier ones -> weak.
Segments: SS is strong, segmented is weak, IL is weak too I guess
Number of players: iirc single player is strong and multiplayer(coop) weak.
Completion: 100%,any%,low% are strong
Glitch Abuse: no glitches is strong,w/glitches,major skips are weak
etc

When mike says it has to be better in every way it means that if you compare two runs on all their "category groups" and one ends with more strong categories then it gets its right to stay no matter what. The other one has to be faster to stay, otherwise it is obsoleted. If they have the same number of strong categories, if all their categories (strong and weak) are the same then the faster stays, if any category is different then both stay.

Testing that:
SS with major skips versus SS major skips. Both have 1 strong 1 weak, and their categories are the same: the faster one stays.
SS with major skips versus Segmented no glitches. Both have 1 strong 1 weak, but at least one category is different: both stay.
SS with major skips versus Segmented with major skips. The first has 1 strong 1 weak, the other 2 weak. The first stays, the second is weaker, it is obsoleted if it is slower as well.
Segmented with major skips versus IL no glitches. First has 2 weak, second 1 strong 1 weak, in theory(according to my "program") the IL stays, the segmented has to be faster to stay. Sounds ok to me.
Segmented no glitches versus IL no glitches, both have the same strenght but at least one category is different, in theory both stay regardless of time. Hmm, I dont know, when compared to the previous test it doesn't seem consistent. Is this even possible (segmented cmpeting IL), a racing game could have both ILs and segmented, a game could have th eILs segmented, maybe they belong to different groups... IL with continued play but it still fails, hmm I can force it (SS,seg,ILSS,ILseg and more weights than strong/weak) but it stops being simple, whatever :)

NoiseCrash

2009-03-31 11:46:26 pm

@_@

Well, right off the bat IL is basically its own individual group. If a segmented run is segmented at each level, it's an IL table, not a segmented run. You can't obsolete an SS run with an IL either, unless there's some miracle exception out there.

I'm guessing the first one was supposed to be SS with major skips and SS without major skips. If that's the case, if the SS with major skips is faster than the SS without major skips, since the glitches are large enough to be differentiated as "major skips" both runs will stay as seperate categories. On the other hand if an SS without major skips is faster than an SS with major skips, then the run with major skips is obsolete. It's one of those instances where you have to think logically, which one should be faster? Obviously a major skips run should be faster. If it's not, it gets the boot.

With SS major skips versus Segmented no skips, they're two completely different categories on every level and there's no reason that both wouldn't stay no matter which one was faster. If the SS run is faster, segmented stays because it's major skips vs. no skips, which means that logically it SHOULD be faster. If the Segmented run is faster, SS stays because it's segmented vs. single-segment, which means that logically it SHOULD be faster. This is one of the true cases where it's a 50/50 decision by the administration in determining which is more important. Personally, I'd keep both due to the skips/no skips difference, and that they're two completely different strategies and both equally deserve to be on SDA.

SS with major skips vs. Segmented with major skips is the same as the basic SS vs. Segmented. Both stay if Segmented is faster, SS stays if it's faster. I think that's what you were saying anyway though.

It's a complicated issue, but one where if you look at it closely, most cases have a halfway logical answer.

Finally, deaths/deathless IS its own category. Quoted straight from the Rules page:

Quote:

Because it can be hard to measure intent, any run with deaths is considered a separate category from a deathless run.

Well, right off the bat IL is basically its own individual group. If a segmented run is segmented at each level, it's an IL table, not a segmented run. You can't obsolete an SS run with an IL either, unless there's some miracle exception out there.

I'm guessing the first one was supposed to be SS with major skips and SS without major skips. If that's the case, if the SS with major skips is faster than the SS without major skips, since the glitches are large enough to be differentiated as "major skips" both runs will stay as seperate categories. On the other hand if an SS without major skips is faster than an SS with major skips, then the run with major skips is obsolete. It's one of those instances where you have to think logically, which one should be faster? Obviously a major skips run should be faster. If it's not, it gets the boot.

With SS major skips versus Segmented no skips, they're two completely different categories on every level and there's no reason that both wouldn't stay no matter which one was faster. If the SS run is faster, segmented stays because it's major skips vs. no skips, which means that logically it SHOULD be faster. If the Segmented run is faster, SS stays because it's segmented vs. single-segment, which means that logically it SHOULD be faster. This is one of the true cases where it's a 50/50 decision by the administration in determining which is more important. Personally, I'd keep both due to the skips/no skips difference, and that they're two completely different strategies and both equally deserve to be on SDA.

SS with major skips vs. Segmented with major skips is the same as the basic SS vs. Segmented. Both stay if Segmented is faster, SS stays if it's faster. I think that's what you were saying anyway though.

It's a complicated issue, but one where if you look at it closely, most cases have a halfway logical answer.

Finally, deaths/deathless IS its own category. Quoted straight from the Rules page:

[quote]Because it can be hard to measure intent, any run with deaths is considered a separate category from a deathless run.[/quote]

ExplodingCabbage

2009-04-01 03:58:47 am

gia, I don't think trying to create a system like yours is a useful exercise, because there will always be exceptions and so every case will have to be considered on its own merits anyway. Some games have major skips that skip 95% of the game; the idea that a segmented any% major skips run with deaths could obsolete a single-segment deathless 100% run without the skips because it has two fewer 'strong categories' is absurd in such circumstances, because the time lost due to each strong category doesn't match up. Ultimately, the test that should be imposed is what NoiseCrash said:
1) Are the two runs completely different due to their categories? If so, both stay.
2) Otherwise, based upon the differences in speed and difficulty that each category causes, compare the two runs and determine if one shows a significantly higher level of play, or whether one is significantly faster during sections where the runs can be directly compared. If so, the better run stays.

And no, I deliberately haven't defined 'significantly faster' because I can't think of a definition that would apply all or even nearly all of the time and provide a useful insight into how to judge which run is best. Leave it to the judgement of the verifiers and Mike.

NoiseCrash, just to be pedantic, a segmented run segmented at each level isn't necessarily an IL table, since in some situations you'll have a game where you can play through the whole game retaining your equipment from previous levels (producing a segmented run if you segment at every level) or you can choose to start from a particular level with default equipment (which would produce an IL table).

Also, I think gia did mean SS with major skips vs SS with major skips in his first test; he was just showing that his system works in the case where two runs are in the same category and demands that the faster one obsolete the slower.

gia, I don't think trying to create a system like yours is a useful exercise, because there will always be exceptions and so every case will have to be considered on its own merits anyway. Some games have major skips that skip 95% of the game; the idea that a segmented any% major skips run with deaths could obsolete a single-segment deathless 100% run without the skips because it has two fewer 'strong categories' is absurd in such circumstances, because the time lost due to each strong category doesn't match up. Ultimately, the test that should be imposed is what NoiseCrash said:
1) Are the two runs completely different due to their categories? If so, both stay.
2) Otherwise, based upon the differences in speed and difficulty that each category causes, compare the two runs and determine if one shows a significantly higher level of play, or whether one is significantly faster during sections where the runs can be directly compared. If so, the better run stays.

And no, I deliberately haven't defined 'significantly faster' because I can't think of a definition that would apply all or even nearly all of the time and provide a useful insight into how to judge which run is best. Leave it to the judgement of the verifiers and Mike.

NoiseCrash, just to be pedantic, a segmented run segmented at each level isn't necessarily an IL table, since in some situations you'll have a game where you can play through the whole game retaining your equipment from previous levels (producing a segmented run if you segment at every level) or you can choose to start from a particular level with default equipment (which would produce an IL table).

Also, I think gia did mean SS with major skips vs SS with major skips in his first test; he was just showing that his system works in the case where two runs are in the same category and demands that the faster one obsolete the slower.

NoiseCrash

2009-04-01 01:57:49 pm

@_@

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

NoiseCrash, just to be pedantic, a segmented run segmented at each level isn't necessarily an IL table, since in some situations you'll have a game where you can play through the whole game retaining your equipment from previous levels (producing a segmented run if you segment at every level) or you can choose to start from a particular level with default equipment (which would produce an IL table).

Also, I think gia did mean SS with major skips vs SS with major skips in his first test; he was just showing that his system works in the case where two runs are in the same category and demands that the faster one obsolete the slower.

Good point. That was probably a bad choice of words on my part to imply "always". Still between the both of us we effectively established that segmented and an IL table are two completely different things so that works for me.

And yeah, the second thing makes sense too. Didn't think about it that way.

It's amazing how far off the original topic this discussion has become. Cheesy

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
NoiseCrash, just to be pedantic, a segmented run segmented at each level isn't necessarily an IL table, since in some situations you'll have a game where you can play through the whole game retaining your equipment from previous levels (producing a segmented run if you segment at every level) or you can choose to start from a particular level with default equipment (which would produce an IL table).

Also, I think gia did mean SS with major skips vs SS with major skips in his first test; he was just showing that his system works in the case where two runs are in the same category and demands that the faster one obsolete the slower.
[/quote]

Good point. That was probably a bad choice of words on my part to imply "always". Still between the both of us we effectively established that segmented and an IL table are two completely different things so that works for me.

And yeah, the second thing makes sense too. Didn't think about it that way.

It's amazing how far off the original topic this discussion has become. :D

gia

2009-04-01 03:03:21 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Its only four posts, I dont know, I just let my thoughts go and typed and made a small pseudocode and then tried to test it trying to break it, which I did, it was fun until I met the last two tests then it was like aww too bad. If I am going to defend it is because you understood the logic wrong.

NoiseCrash, according to the program as I defined an IL wont beat a SS, but an IL without glitches deathless will obsolete a SS with glitches with deaths if it is faster, otherwise both stay (it isnt totally wrong according to my logic, but isnt easy to accept, but anyway a revision could be that SS cant be obsoleted by other segmentation types if my logic isn't the common logic).

i didn't check and fix typos and stuff, explodingcabbage is right I was testing the same exact category. Ah, sorry I read wrong the deaths part. You, the program and me agree on the rest of your post (really, run your examples with the "program" and compare with your post).

ExplodingCabbage, sure it was, I keep reading sda doesnt want any 2.0 stuff though, so it's probably useless here, not like mike needs a replacement anyway. I was solving a puzzle, I assure I (anyone) could make it work, it isnt necessary but it was a good exercise.

If you try to run the program a segmented any% major skip with deaths (everything there is weak except any%) wouldn't ever obsolete the other one (where everything is strong). Anyway, I'd never leave it to the judgement of the verifiers but mike's final judgement is usually good. We agree on the rest.

As curiosity, if this was ever possible, a ss with glitches on easy (ie mario kart cups) slower than a segmented with glitches on normal (lets say segmented per cup) that is slower than a IL without glitches on hard (time trials i guess), would the first be obsoleted, the second, both?, or all stay. I say first probably stay as harder difficulty faster kart and ss better than il, segmented goes away, program says first and second are obsoleted, what do you think.

Its only four posts, I dont know, I just let my thoughts go and typed and made a small pseudocode and then tried to test it trying to break it, which I did, it was fun until I met the last two tests then it was like aww too bad. If I am going to defend it is because you understood the logic wrong.

NoiseCrash, according to the program as I defined an IL wont beat a SS, but an IL without glitches deathless will obsolete a SS with glitches with deaths if it is faster, otherwise both stay (it isnt totally wrong according to my logic, but isnt easy to accept, but anyway a revision could be that SS cant be obsoleted by other segmentation types if my logic isn't the common logic).

i didn't check and fix typos and stuff, explodingcabbage is right I was testing the same exact category. Ah, sorry I read wrong the deaths part. You, the program and me agree on the rest of your post (really, run your examples with the "program" and compare with your post).

ExplodingCabbage, sure it was, I keep reading sda doesnt want any 2.0 stuff though, so it's probably useless here, not like mike needs a replacement anyway. I was solving a puzzle, I assure I (anyone) could make it work, it isnt necessary but it was a good exercise.

If you try to run the program a segmented any% major skip with deaths (everything there is weak except any%) wouldn't ever obsolete the other one (where everything is strong). Anyway, I'd never leave it to the judgement of the verifiers but mike's final judgement is usually good. We agree on the rest.

As curiosity, if this was ever possible, a ss with glitches on easy (ie mario kart cups) slower than a segmented with glitches on normal (lets say segmented per cup) that is slower than a IL without glitches on hard (time trials i guess), would the first be obsoleted, the second, both?, or all stay. I say first probably stay as harder difficulty faster kart and ss better than il, segmented goes away, program says first and second are obsoleted, what do you think.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-04-01 04:42:30 pm

Oops you're right, I got confused with my example. What I should have said is something like it's absurd in games where skips skip 90% of the game that a single-segment, deathless run with skips could obsolete a segmented run with deaths and no skips, since the former has 2 strong categories and the latter only 1. I stuck all my strong categories in the wrong place.

Anyway, I think we're agreed that a) ultimately the decision can't be made by any entirely objective system because the 'weight' of different categories varies too much between runs and b) we're way off topic. Tongue

NoiseCrash

2009-04-01 04:53:47 pm

@_@

True what EC said, so I'll just post a reply to gia's last post and we can all agree that we're basically just using guesswork. I wasn't ever trying to argue anything, just inserting other observations in hopes that it would eventually lead to more discussion and a more educated guess.

Quote from gia:

NoiseCrash, according to the program as I defined an IL wont beat a SS, but an IL without glitches deathless will obsolete a SS with glitches with deaths if it is faster, otherwise both stay (it isnt totally wrong according to my logic, but isnt easy to accept, but anyway a revision could be that SS cant be obsoleted by other segmentation types if my logic isn't the common logic).

I'm pretty sure that an IL table will never obsolete an SS, regardless of any other glitches/deaths stipulations that are tacked on. I think what you said about SS not being obsoleted by other segmentation types is the most accurate statement of the way things actually end up.

Quote from gia:

As curiosity, if this was ever possible, a ss with glitches on easy (ie mario kart cups) slower than a segmented with glitches on normal (lets say segmented per cup) that is slower than a IL without glitches on hard (time trials i guess), would the first be obsoleted, the second, both?, or all stay. I say first probably stay as harder difficulty faster kart and ss better than il, segmented goes away, program says first and second are obsoleted, what do you think.

The difference in difficulty levels would make all of them seperate categories, meaning that none of the rest of the stuff would really make a difference. At least that's how I see it.

And now, I think I'll stop pretending the rules are rigid and unchanging and instead say as the final statement that every run is treated on a case-by-case basis. Whatever is decided in terms of categories and obsoletion is perfectly fine by me as long as there's any (reasonable) defense that can be made for it.

True what EC said, so I'll just post a reply to gia's last post and we can all agree that we're basically just using guesswork. I wasn't ever trying to argue anything, just inserting other observations in hopes that it would eventually lead to more discussion and a more educated guess.

[quote="gia"]
NoiseCrash, according to the program as I defined an IL wont beat a SS, but an IL without glitches deathless will obsolete a SS with glitches with deaths if it is faster, otherwise both stay (it isnt totally wrong according to my logic, but isnt easy to accept, but anyway a revision could be that SS cant be obsoleted by other segmentation types if my logic isn't the common logic).
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that an IL table will never obsolete an SS, regardless of any other glitches/deaths stipulations that are tacked on. I think what you said about SS not being obsoleted by other segmentation types is the most accurate statement of the way things actually end up.

[quote="gia"]
As curiosity, if this was ever possible, a ss with glitches on easy (ie mario kart cups) slower than a segmented with glitches on normal (lets say segmented per cup) that is slower than a IL without glitches on hard (time trials i guess), would the first be obsoleted, the second, both?, or all stay. I say first probably stay as harder difficulty faster kart and ss better than il, segmented goes away, program says first and second are obsoleted, what do you think. 
[/quote]

The difference in difficulty levels would make all of them seperate categories, meaning that none of the rest of the stuff would really make a difference. At least that's how I see it.

And now, I think I'll stop pretending the rules are rigid and unchanging and instead say as the final statement that every run is treated on a case-by-case basis. Whatever is decided in terms of categories and obsoletion is perfectly fine by me as long as there's any (reasonable) defense that can be made for it.

MegaMecha

2009-04-20 07:57:22 pm

Training to achieve noob status

There should be no differentiation between a run that uses death to do the game faster and deaths caused by other sources. Character death is universal. And if dying makes the game faster, then by all means it should be accepted. It's just a way to bend the rules without breaking them.

I'm reminded of one situation I encountered during my Oracle of Ages practice recently: In the dungeons, after you beat the mini-boss there's a portal that takes you back and forth between the mini-boss room and the entrance. Well, after pursuing a super-aggro strategy, I just picked up the Roc's Feather in the second dungeon, but I underestimated the amount of damage I was taking in the process. (Didn't know the big Thwomps took out a full Heart instead of half of one...)

Anyway, I died, and out of instinct and disgust I turned the game off, but something occurred to me when I finally hit the hay: After a death, you're given the option to continue with or without saving. Either way, it dumps you at the entrance to the dungeon at 3 Hearts or half of your maximum rounded down to the nearest full Heart, whichever is greater. Having just got the feather, I could have gone back to the entrance at 3 out of 4 Hearts, warped to the mini-boss room, and proceeded from there with not too much skin off of my nose, maybe 20-30 seconds. And it was still early in the game, which meant I could have still done a decent run (as we all know, late-game deaths are run killers, but at least you can recover from a death in the early game).

Hell, the way the game handles falls into pits is that you're returned to the entrance of the room with half a Heart gone, so the possibilities for using this to get back to the start of a room after getting what you need out of it are numerous. (Similar logic applies to such hazards as lava and deep water.) Character death to speed up a run is merely the logical conclusion to the practice of self-destructive but time-saving maneuvers.

(For the record, I did attempt a Three Heart Challenge of OoA once and managed to complete the game, but Link died 3 times in the process. As for its companion game, I still have a deathless Three Heart Challenge game saved on that cart. ;D)

There should be no differentiation between a run that uses death to do the game faster and deaths caused by other sources.  Character death is universal.  And if dying makes the game faster, then by all means it should be accepted.  It's just a way to bend the rules without breaking them.

I'm reminded of one situation I encountered during my Oracle of Ages practice recently: In the dungeons, after you beat the mini-boss there's a portal that takes you back and forth between the mini-boss room and the entrance.  Well, after pursuing a super-aggro strategy, I just picked up the Roc's Feather in the second dungeon, but I underestimated the amount of damage I was taking in the process.  (Didn't know the big Thwomps took out a full Heart instead of half of one...)

Anyway, I died, and out of instinct and disgust I turned the game off, but something occurred to me when I finally hit the hay: After a death, you're given the option to continue with or without saving.  Either way, it dumps you at the entrance to the dungeon at 3 Hearts or half of your maximum rounded down to the nearest full Heart, whichever is greater.  Having just got the feather, I could have gone back to the entrance at 3 out of 4 Hearts, warped to the mini-boss room, and proceeded from there with not too much skin off of my nose, maybe 20-30 seconds.  And it was still early in the game, which meant I could have still done a decent run (as we all know, late-game deaths are run killers, but at least you can recover from a death in the early game).

Hell, the way the game handles falls into pits is that you're returned to the entrance of the room with half a Heart gone, so the possibilities for using this to get back to the start of a room after getting what you need out of it are numerous.  (Similar logic applies to such hazards as lava and deep water.)  Character death to speed up a run is merely the logical conclusion to the practice of self-destructive but time-saving maneuvers.

(For the record, I did attempt a Three Heart Challenge of OoA once and managed to complete the game, but Link died 3 times in the process.  As for its companion game, I still have a deathless Three Heart Challenge game saved on that cart.  ;D)

MASTER-88

2009-04-28 04:54:51 am

Master-88

If you play games like Contra or Jackal. You are never allowed losts any continues. This looks absolutely too rough if runner die end of last level and lost continue and level start over again. Huh Tongue

But games like Zelda you are allowed die but this are still category death abuse (save warping) I not personally not have any more examples with continue losts runs. IMO this is same category as death abuse. Wink