Rules and FAQ revision

2010-09-23 01:41:09 am

"For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second."

What if the current run is so great that a whole second can't be chopped off and then someone is able to improve it with, say, 500 milliseconds (Or any number below 1 second)? According to the rules the new run wouldn't be accepted which in this case I actually don't agree with because the current run was very solid and thus barely improveable. I think that if a run is very solid, milliseconds should start to count. Maybe that's just me.

Oh also, I'm probably the only one but I get a little bit annoyed at the double space usage especially for something "official" like this Wink

arkarian

2010-09-23 02:22:13 am

gamelogs.org

lol no you're definitely not the only one. i wonder if they still teach that in schools.

ridd3r.

Edit history:

ridd3r.: 2010-09-23 04:45:18 am

ridd3r.: 2010-09-23 04:44:48 am

2010-09-23 04:44:04 am

we have lift off

Quote from groobo:

I'm still mildly upset about turbo controllers (and now turbo scripts) being banned - nothing to go ape shit about, though.

Can't say I'm thrilled about it either, it now means the episode 2 run which has been in progress for a few months will either have to be restarted or won't make it on the site.

Also I suggest making some sort of note on the game pages of runs which use scripts, so newcomers know they have to do a separate category run, without scripts now.

Solairflaire

Edit history:

Solairflaire: 2010-09-23 05:58:04 am

2010-09-23 05:57:21 am

Quote:

If a player creates a speedrun that's faster than a currently-published run and submits that run to us, the new run will obsolete and replace the old run.

That's not necessarily true. Even if a run is faster, it still needs to get a go ahead from verifiers. Something should probably be added to that sentence that mentions the run must pass verifier scrutiny.

It says in there that a game must be quickly beatable. That should be defined better. Less than 20 hours isn't quick in my opinion. It's mentioned in the 4th paragraph describing that not every game is speedrunnable.

Otherwise, I don't see anything that hasn't been mentioned.

Emptyeye

2010-09-23 06:01:53 am

Talk to the Hand

I take it DOSBox is still not allowed?

That's the one rule that still kind of annoys me. The reason being that some game collections (The Space Quest Collection, which I own, for one) have their main menu as basically just a fancy front-end running over the top of...DOSBox, which to me would make it an "official" emulator for the purposes of running that collection.

Not that I plan to actually run any of those games either way, mind you. This has just bugged me for awhile is all.

KlVis

2010-09-23 06:16:23 am

Le Prince Noir

Quote from najzere:

So I didn't notice anything about deathless vs. with deaths runs as different categories. Was this left out on purpose, meaning the distinction no longer matters? (If so, cool.)

I've seen an issue with this discussed for a game where the runner would die with his dead body triggering the end of the level. Is this really considered as a run with "deaths"? The separation between runs with respawns and no respawns seemed more appropriate.

typical

2010-09-23 06:51:43 am

^does not care for console's

Quote:

For all intents and purposes, this is the final draft, unless if there is something big we missed (I doubt it, but you never know).

So these are never going to change again? Especially the new rules on scripting?

Paraxade

2010-09-23 07:10:22 am

pretty sure he meant the final draft of this specific version of the page Tongue

it would make no sense whatsoever to say the rules are never going to change again. I don't see the new rules on scripting changing anytime soon though tbh.

Flip

2010-09-23 07:10:42 am

1-Up!

Quote from Solairflaire:

Quote:

If a player creates a speedrun that's faster than a currently-published run and submits that run to us, the new run will obsolete and replace the old run.

That's not necessarily true. Even if a run is faster, it still needs to get a go ahead from verifiers. Something should probably be added to that sentence that mentions the run must pass verifier scrutiny.

Uh, it says in that same paragraph that if a run is faster but could be better it can still be rejected. Also, the bottom paragraph of the introductory section is all about verification as well. Did you have something better in mind?

Quote from Solairflaire:

It says in there that a game must be quickly beatable. That should be defined better. Less than 20 hours isn't quick in my opinion. It's mentioned in the 4th paragraph describing that not every game is speedrunnable.

I take it your solution is to set a bar? Where would we set it? As I understand it, the Skies of Arcadia run coming in tops 12 hrs. Do we set it at 13? What happens if we have a valid run submitted that tops 13? Setting an upper limit is simply picking an arbitrary time. The only way for us (or anybody) to know if a run is too long is to wait for it to happen. SDA used to claim to have a "soft 7 hour limit," but as it turned out, there were plenty of games with good speedruns that came in over 7 hours.

[quote="Solairflaire"][quote]If a player creates a speedrun that's faster than a currently-published run and submits that run to us, the new run will obsolete and replace the old run.[/quote]

That's not necessarily true. Even if a run is faster, it still needs to get a go ahead from verifiers. Something should probably be added to that sentence that mentions the run must pass verifier scrutiny.[/quote]

Uh, it says in that same paragraph that if a run is faster but could be better it can still be rejected.  Also, the bottom paragraph of the introductory section is all about verification as well.  Did you have something better in mind?

[quote="Solairflaire"]
It says in there that a game must be quickly beatable. That should be defined better. Less than 20 hours isn't quick in my opinion. It's mentioned in the 4th paragraph describing that not every game is speedrunnable.[/quote]
I take it your solution is to set a bar?  Where would we set it?  As I understand it, the Skies of Arcadia run coming in tops 12 hrs.  Do we set it at 13?  What happens if we have a valid run submitted that tops 13?  Setting an upper limit is simply picking an arbitrary time.  The only way for us (or anybody) to know if a run is too long is to wait for it to happen.  SDA used to claim to have a "soft 7 hour limit," but as it turned out, there were plenty of games with good speedruns that came in over 7 hours.

Pootrain

2010-09-23 07:19:45 am

train kept rollin

It seems a bit unfair that after finally agreeing to run an sda legal version of Half-Life, Spider-Waffles team run would now be made illegal again. Same with Portal and HL2ep2.

Maybe the runs currently being worked on should be the last ones to get through?

Inexistence

Edit history:

Inexistence: 2010-09-23 09:53:55 am

2010-09-23 09:53:41 am

Yes, Inexistence is a word.

I don't think that's really a way for it to work. It might be harsh, but the only reasonable thing to do is to say no more from now, and that's from the guy running HL2:EP2 with scripts :P. If you want to say the runs currently being worked on should be allowed, then anyone can say they were working on a run before the rule came into place, so it should be allowed.

ZenicReverie

Edit history:

ZenicReverie: 2010-09-23 10:04:39 am

2010-09-23 10:03:14 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Inexistence:

anyone can say they were working on a run before the rule came into place, so it should be allowed.

that'd get kind of silly come 10 years from now...

Maybe have a time limit, anyone that doesn't come forward by the end of the month to Mike to let him know a scripted run is being worked on just doesn't get accepted. Has recording actually started on Spider-Waffle's team run?

KlVis

2010-09-23 10:07:05 am

Le Prince Noir

The list of projects that hope scripts to be allowed isn't that great, is it? Exceptions could be defined now.

ridd3r.

2010-09-23 10:38:37 am

we have lift off

Quote from ZenicReverie:

Maybe have a time limit, anyone that doesn't come forward by the end of the month to Mike to let him know a scripted run is being worked on just doesn't get accepted. Has recording actually started on Spider-Waffle's team run?

Yeah agreed, if anyone who has completed or is working on a scripted run comes forward within x amount of time that would be a reasonable compromise.

ZenicReverie

2010-09-23 10:52:11 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Does having a time limit still make sense? Slowly the games previously listed here in the thread of games too long to run are being completed, and probably accepted (I just noticed Vandal Hearts is on that list, and Skies of Arcadia). I mean if someone really took the time to do a run of Xenogears, and it was the fastest time, why would we turn it away only based on it being boring (that's how I translate "too long")? I thought entertainment was secondary. The only thing I can think of would be bandwidth concerns.

nate

2010-09-23 10:53:57 am

there are no bandwidth concerns.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-23 12:17:22 pm

ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-23 12:16:22 pm

ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-23 12:12:31 pm

2010-09-23 12:06:02 pm

Quote from najzere:

What a silly thing to argue about. Tongue

I disagree; even extreme pedantry of the sort arkarian was just showing is useful here since the rules page is one of the first things people who are new to the site and wondering what it's all about will look at; I imagine a fair few people probably click on the rules or FAQ before they even try to watch a run. The better-written and more precise it is, the better the impression they'll get of the site and the longer they're likely to stay.

Quote:

So I didn't notice anything about deathless vs. with deaths runs as different categories. Was this left out on purpose, meaning the distinction no longer matters? (If so, cool.)

I highly doubt that. Mike has expressed strong views about deaths in games like Contra in the past, and always made his Contra runs deathless, so as long as he's in charge of the rules I can't really see the deathless/with deaths distinction disappearing (and I suspect most of the community like the distinction too). Deaths should probably be mentioned in the rules, though.

Quote:

I also have a question about saving. The new writeup states there is no penalty for using save points and the time in the menu doesn't count. Does this mean timing stops on accessing the menu and resumes in the next segment when the player gains control?

Yes.

Quote:

I'm assuming that the menu time still counts in games that count it and the in-game timer is used.

I don't know the answer to this. I'm not sure if it's ever come up before; perhaps there's no ruling on it. I guess the two possibilities I can see are the one you just described (count the menu time) or switching to manual timing in order to factor the menu time out. Probably the first option.

Quote from TheVoid:

"For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second."

What if the current run is so great that a whole second can't be chopped off and then someone is able to improve it with, say, 500 milliseconds (Or any number below 1 second)? According to the rules the new run wouldn't be accepted which in this case I actually don't agree with because the current run was very solid and thus barely improveable. I think that if a run is very solid, milliseconds should start to count. Maybe that's just me.

I can't possibly imagine what game you might be thinking of to which such concerns would apply. Smiley

More seriously, I agree with you. It's probably okay to leave the rules in their present form, though, and just accept sub-second improvements of such games anyway - only guys who are familiar with SDA are likely to even consider trying to do a sub-second improvement to a run, and those guys will probably think to ask Mike whether an exception can be made.

Quote:

Oh also, I'm probably the only one but I get a little bit annoyed at the double space usage especially for something "official" like this Wink

I didn't even notice it before, but now that I have, I agree with you on that, too.

Quote from Emptyeye:

I take it DOSBox is still not allowed?

It's explicitly mentioned in the Virtualization paragraph as an example of a disallowed emulator, so I figure that yeah, it's not allowed.

Quote:

That's the one rule that still kind of annoys me. The reason being that some game collections (The Space Quest Collection, which I own, for one) have their main menu as basically just a fancy front-end running over the top of...DOSBox, which to me would make it an "official" emulator for the purposes of running that collection.

If a developer actually officially releases a version of a game that uses an emulator, like any of Sierra's 'Quest' Collections, then I agree that there's a case to be made for allowing people to submit runs done with that version. As far as I know, nobody has ever brought this point up with Mike. It might well be that he'd allow it. Whatever he decides, I don't think there's a need to note such a small detail on the main rules page.

Quote from VorpalEdge:

re: minor rules collection: this subject never came up, but I always thought that the right place to note things like that would be those rules' respective game pages.

I was thinking about rules that aren't quite game-specific but which are only relevant to a small number of runs. I think it would be good to just have a big collection of answers to questions like 'Am I allowed to modify the game's difficulty from the options menu mid-run?' or 'If I'm doing a single-segment run of a game with a long, unskippable intro, can I start the run from a save at the beginning of the first level instead of watching the intro again every try?' or 'How is timing of loading screens handled for games that have versions on different consoles where the loading screens last different lengths of time?' or 'Can I run a game on an emulator if the developers released an official version that uses that emulator?' all on one page, complete with links to the rulings by Mike if they can be found.

Quote from Pootrain:

It seems a bit unfair that after finally agreeing to run an sda legal version of Half-Life, Spider-Waffles team run would now be made illegal again.

Seeing as he hasn't even started recording yet, I don't see any unfairness here. Okay, well I guess if he really did change to an SDA-legal version purely because he wanted to submit to SDA, and not because he simply wanted to use that version, then he may have to replan some of his jumps if he swaps back to the version he originally was going to use which, only a few days after he was basically told he'd be able to submit as long as he used an SDA-legal version, is a little unfair. But personally, I don't care, because it's Spider-Waffle.

[quote="najzere"]What a silly thing to argue about. :P[/quote]

I disagree; even extreme pedantry of the sort arkarian was just showing is useful here since the rules page is one of the first things people who are new to the site and wondering what it's all about will look at; I imagine a fair few people probably click on the rules or FAQ before they even try to watch a run. The better-written and more precise it is, the better the impression they'll get of the site and the longer they're likely to stay.

[quote]So I didn't notice anything about deathless vs. with deaths runs as different categories. Was this left out on purpose, meaning the distinction no longer matters? (If so, cool.)[/quote]

I highly doubt that. Mike has expressed strong views about deaths in games like Contra in the past, and always made his Contra runs deathless, so as long as he's in charge of the rules I can't really see the deathless/with deaths distinction disappearing (and I suspect most of the community like the distinction too). Deaths should probably be mentioned in the rules, though.

[quote]I also have a question about saving. The new writeup states there is no penalty for using save points and the time in the menu doesn't count. Does this mean timing stops on accessing the menu and resumes in the next segment when the player gains control?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]I'm assuming that the menu time still counts in games that count it and the in-game timer is used.[/quote]

I don't know the answer to this. I'm not sure if it's ever come up before; perhaps there's no ruling on it. I guess the two possibilities I can see are the one you just described (count the menu time) or switching to manual timing in order to factor the menu time out. Probably the first option.

[quote="TheVoid"]"For manually timed games with an existing run, improvements must save at least one additional second."

What if the current run is so great that a whole second can't be chopped off and then someone is able to improve it with, say, 500 milliseconds (Or any number below 1 second)? According to the rules the new run wouldn't be accepted which in this case I actually don't agree with because the current run was very solid and thus barely improveable. I think that if a run is very solid, milliseconds should start to count. Maybe that's just me.[/quote]

I can't possibly imagine what game you might be thinking of to which such concerns would apply. :)

More seriously, I agree with you. It's probably okay to leave the rules in their present form, though, and just accept sub-second improvements of such games anyway - only guys who are familiar with SDA are likely to even consider trying to do a sub-second improvement to a run, and those guys will probably think to ask Mike whether an exception can be made.

[quote]Oh also, I'm probably the only one but I get a little bit annoyed at the double space usage especially for something "official" like this ;)[/quote]

I didn't even notice it before, but now that I have, I agree with you on that, too.

[quote="Emptyeye"]I take it DOSBox is still not allowed?[/quote]

It's explicitly mentioned in the Virtualization paragraph as an example of a disallowed emulator, so I figure that yeah, it's not allowed.

[quote]That's the one rule that still kind of annoys me. The reason being that some game collections (The Space Quest Collection, which I own, for one) have their main menu as basically just a fancy front-end running over the top of...DOSBox, which to me would make it an "official" emulator for the purposes of running that collection.[/quote]

If a developer actually officially releases a version of a game that uses an emulator, like any of Sierra's 'Quest' Collections, then I agree that there's a case to be made for allowing people to submit runs done with that version. As far as I know, nobody has ever brought this point up with Mike. It might well be that he'd allow it. Whatever he decides, I don't think there's a need to note such a small detail on the main rules page.

[quote="VorpalEdge"]re: minor rules collection: this subject never came up, but I always thought that the right place to note things like that would be those rules' respective game pages.[/quote]

I was thinking about rules that aren't quite game-specific but which are only relevant to a small number of runs. I think it would be good to just have a big collection of answers to questions like 'Am I allowed to modify the game's difficulty from the options menu mid-run?' or 'If I'm doing a single-segment run of a game with a long, unskippable intro, can I start the run from a save at the beginning of the first level instead of watching the intro again every try?' or 'How is timing of loading screens handled for games that have versions on different consoles where the loading screens last different lengths of time?' or 'Can I run a game on an emulator if the developers released an official version that uses that emulator?' all on one page, complete with links to the rulings by Mike if they can be found.

[quote="Pootrain"]It seems a bit unfair that after finally agreeing to run an sda legal version of Half-Life, Spider-Waffles team run would now be made illegal again.[/quote]

Seeing as he hasn't even started recording yet, I don't see any unfairness here. Okay, well I guess if he really did change to an SDA-legal version purely because he wanted to submit to SDA, and not because he simply wanted to use that version, then he may have to replan some of his jumps if he swaps back to the version he originally was going to use which, only a few days after he was basically told he'd be able to submit as long as he used an SDA-legal version, is a [i]little[/i] unfair. But personally, I don't care, because it's Spider-Waffle.

mikwuyma

Edit history:

mikwuyma: 2010-09-23 02:06:28 pm

mikwuyma: 2010-09-23 01:37:01 pm

2010-09-23 01:33:37 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I haven't really read everyone's responses but I should at least say this.

Scripted runs: I am considering letting in djcj's advanced chambers runs, and demonstrate's run, because they were both completed before this rule change was in effect. However, I'm not going make a sign-up sheet for runs in progress, because anyone could write in something and indefinitely extend the time limit for scripts. In fact, I'm not sure what runs are being planned aside from Inexistence's Episode 2 and Spider-Waffle's HL in 26 minutes (which is only being planned atm).

Emptyeye: This issue has been brought up once or twice before. The problem is that those games still use DOSBOX, which is an unofficial emulator (and it has savestates and everything else IIRC).

Sub one-second improvements: This is all because of "You Have to Burn the Rope", isn't it? Roll Eyes

Honestly, I don't really see the point in it unless if we want to get hyper excited about 10-frame improvements that maybe 2 people will notice. :-/

Deaths and deathless distinction: I'll admit it's a silly distinction for some games, but it really changes how other games are played. So yeah, it stays.

Time limit: Lag.com was complaining about this the other day too. I guess the rule is outdated, but at the same time, I doubt anyone is going to do a Xenogears run in a very long time. I'm neutral as to whether the time limit stays, but I don't think we'll have more than one or two games even going near Xenogear's length regardless.

Double-spacing: Really? I mean I don't do it myself, but I never thought of it as a big deal, even if it's not accepted by official APA/whatever academic writing standard guidelines.

Mods: Yeah, these count as modifications. I tried out accepting them by allowing the Half-Life Decay PC mod for verification, but I'll admit that was a mistake (still need to post results in the verification board).

I haven't really read everyone's responses but I should at least say this.

Scripted runs: I am considering letting in djcj's advanced chambers runs, and demonstrate's run, because they were both completed before this rule change was in effect. However, I'm not going make a sign-up sheet for runs in progress, because anyone could write in something and indefinitely extend the time limit for scripts. In fact, I'm not sure what runs are being planned aside from Inexistence's Episode 2 and Spider-Waffle's HL in 26 minutes (which is only being planned atm).

Emptyeye: This issue has been brought up once or twice before. The problem is that those games still use DOSBOX, which is an unofficial emulator (and it has savestates and everything else IIRC).

Sub one-second improvements: This is all because of "You Have to Burn the Rope", isn't it? ::) Honestly, I don't really see the point in it unless if we want to get hyper excited about 10-frame improvements that maybe 2 people will notice. :-/

Deaths and deathless distinction: I'll admit it's a silly distinction for some games, but it really changes how other games are played. So yeah, it stays.

Time limit: Lag.com was complaining about this the other day too. I guess the rule is outdated, but at the same time, I doubt anyone is going to do a Xenogears run in a very long time. I'm neutral as to whether the time limit stays, but I don't think we'll have more than one or two games even going near Xenogear's length regardless.

Double-spacing: Really? I mean I don't do it myself, but I never thought of it as a big deal, even if it's not accepted by official APA/whatever academic writing standard guidelines.

Mods: Yeah, these count as modifications. I tried out accepting them by allowing the Half-Life Decay PC mod for verification, but I'll admit that was a mistake (still need to post results in the verification board).

Josh the Funkdoc

Edit history:

Josh the Funkdoc: 2010-09-23 03:27:34 pm

2010-09-23 03:24:01 pm

spread the dirt to the populace

hmm, i wonder if someone could make a "SDA-friendly" version of dosbox - no savestates, proper CPU cycle settings for each game, etc. i mean hey, twin galaxies did it with wolfmame iirc

something needs to be done at some point, regardless. playing dos games on modern PCs sucks, plain and simple. i hate those doom videos we have on here with no music, and i'm sure as hell not going to run wolfenstein or anything else if that's what it would be like.

edit: i'd say drop the time limit, this is similar to the problem i've always had with tasvideos re: "entertainment". i view SDA and tasvideos as archives, and archives should be all-inclusive providing quality standards are met. i've been interested in runs that supposedly nobody cares about, so why deny the xenogears run if it ever happens?

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2010-09-23 03:33:05 pm

InsipidMuckyWater: 2010-09-23 03:26:14 pm

InsipidMuckyWater: 2010-09-23 03:25:39 pm

2010-09-23 03:24:48 pm

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Mike: Vorpal made it sound like mods were allowed in a previous post, just not as a run of the game from which the mod was created. So they're banned?

Sorry to belabor the point. Because I don't know what decision was ultimately made about Decay (accept/reject), I am not sure if you are saying that it was accepted-grandfathered, which is a mistake, or if even reviewing it was a mistake because mods should not be on the site.

ridd3r.

2010-09-23 03:33:47 pm

we have lift off

Quote from InsipidMuckyWater:

Mike: Vorpal made it sound like mods were allowed in a previous post, just not as a run of the game from which the mod was created. So they're banned?

Pretty sure they are yes. What's going to happen with the Decay run then? If it's accepted it wouldn't be like scripted runs which are at least on legal games, there would be NO contest allowed for the game anymore. Seems harsh but also pointless to accept it?

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2010-09-23 03:38:00 pm

2010-09-23 03:36:39 pm

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Well, someone could make a PS2 run. It would never be faster, but something at least could legitimately anchor the page until Decay was removed, assuming it was accepted in the first place.

I'm guessing they're banned outright and Decay ain't gettin' in, but I don't want to assume anything prematurely.

mikwuyma

2010-09-23 04:23:04 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

SDA Dosbox: Not a bad idea at all, especially since recording a dos game in this day and age is a real bitch to do.

Time limit: Okay I guess it can be lifted.

IMW: Yes, I'm rejecting the run. Accepting mods was a mistake because it opens too many possibilities for modifying game physics and the like. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're the only verifier who responded.

Manocheese

Edit history:

Manocheese: 2010-09-23 09:58:04 pm

2010-09-23 05:00:08 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from mikwuyma:

The Half-Life 2 Episode 1 run is the last scripted run we will be accepting.

Overall, I think the changes are improvements. I do have some suggestions, though.

Main Categories

Combining categories happens with both low% (e.g. Super Mario 64) and 100% (e.g. Conker's Bad Fur Day). I think that instead of mentioning it in the paragraph about low%, there should be a fourth paragraph explaining that similar categories may be combined. It might go like this: "Usually, a low% run is slower than an any% run, but with some games it turns out that skipping everything is the fastest way to go. In such cases, the low% and any% categories are combined. Similarly, the fastest way to beat a certain game might involve getting everything; in that case, the any% and 100% categories are combined."
I think the reference to "dummy items" raises more questions than it answers. I've never heard the term outside of that section of the rules and the forum post it came from.

Other Categories

A few things are missing from the description of single-segment, segmented, and IL runs:

1. I don't think the section adequately explains that the main purpose of segmented runs is to allow the runner to retry segments; it may leave people with the impression that a segmented run is just a single-segment run with savewarping allowed. At the least, I think a note should be added, such as "You can retry segments as much as you want in order to optimize them."

2. Single-segment runs on games like Diddy Kong Racing that require you to reset to finish the game are currently allowed with some sort of extra video camera proof. The way this section reads now, it seems like SS runs on these games are not allowed.

3. A new IL table for a game does not need to be done all by one runner. I think people have asked about this in the past, and it's in the current rules, so keeping it wouldn't hurt.

Timing

Quote:
At the end when control is lost, even if that's long after the final battle, timing stops. Possible movement that can occur during or after the ending does not count.

This is very confusing. First you say that timing doesn't stop until control is lost, even if it's after the final battle. Then you say that timing stops at the "ending", even if you have control afterward. I think the main problem is that "ending" is not defined. I think just saying that timing stops when you lose control would be better.
I think the "real" reason for the save penalty--that many PC game timers drop frames immediately after a load--should be mentioned here. Another problem with the save penalty rule (one that's been there for a long time) is that it doesn't make the distinction between games that let you save anywhere and reload in the exact same spot and games that let you save anywhere, but don't load you in the same spot. As far as I know, the save penalty doesn't apply to the latter. Also, I think the terminology in this section could be improved. "Quick save" is a term that a lot of console gamers are not familiar with.
Quote:
If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute, because seconds become less significant past the three-hour mark.

I think "are" would be a better word here. Personally, I don't think any justification for not accepting smaller improvements is needed.

Overall
I don't think this page should replace the FAQ page. There is still a lot of information there that is not found anywhere on the new rules page. I do think it's best to put all the rules on the rules page, though, as opposed to the current system with many rules that are only on the FAQ page. You did a good job of this for the most part, but I think the FAQ sections "May I pause while recording? What if the telephone rings or I need to go to the bathroom?" and "I'm using a DVD recorder, and the single-segment run I'm about to attempt is over two hours. Am I allowed to switch discs?" should be integrated into the rules page as well.

[quote="mikwuyma"]The Half-Life 2 Episode 1 run is the last scripted run we will be accepting.[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs

Overall, I think the changes are improvements. I do have some suggestions, though.

[b]Main Categories[/b]

[list][li]Combining categories happens with both low% (e.g. Super Mario 64) and 100% (e.g. Conker's Bad Fur Day). I think that instead of mentioning it in the paragraph about low%, there should be a fourth paragraph explaining that similar categories may be combined. It might go like this: "Usually, a low% run is slower than an any% run, but with some games it turns out that skipping everything is the fastest way to go. In such cases, the low% and any% categories are combined. Similarly, the fastest way to beat a certain game might involve getting everything; in that case, the any% and 100% categories are combined."[/li]

[li]I think the reference to "dummy items" raises more questions than it answers. I've never heard the term outside of that section of the rules and the forum post it came from.[/li][/list]
[b]Other Categories[/b]

[list][li]A few things are missing from the description of single-segment, segmented, and IL runs:

1. I don't think the section adequately explains that the main purpose of segmented runs is to allow the runner to retry segments; it may leave people with the impression that a segmented run is just a single-segment run with savewarping allowed. At the least, I think a note should be added, such as "You can retry segments as much as you want in order to optimize them."

2. Single-segment runs on games like Diddy Kong Racing that require you to reset to finish the game are currently allowed with some sort of extra video camera proof. The way this section reads now, it seems like SS runs on these games are not allowed.

3. A new IL table for a game does not need to be done all by one runner. I think people have asked about this in the past, and it's in the current rules, so keeping it wouldn't hurt.[/li][/list]
[b]Timing[/b]

[list][li][quote]At the end when control is lost, even if that's long after the final battle, timing stops.  Possible movement that can occur during or after the ending does not count.[/quote]

This is very confusing. First you say that timing doesn't stop until control is lost, even if it's after the final battle. Then you say that timing stops at the "ending", even if you have control afterward. I think the main problem is that "ending" is not defined. I think just saying that timing stops when you lose control would be better.[/li]

[li]I think the "real" reason for the save penalty--that many PC game timers drop frames immediately after a load--should be mentioned here. Another problem with the save penalty rule (one that's been there for a long time) is that it doesn't make the distinction between games that let you save anywhere and reload in the exact same spot and games that let you save anywhere, but don't load you in the same spot. As far as I know, the save penalty doesn't apply to the latter. Also, I think the terminology in this section could be improved. "Quick save" is a term that a lot of console gamers are not familiar with.[/li]

[li][quote]If a run is over three hours long, the minimum improvement allowed is one minute, because seconds [b]become[/b] less significant past the three-hour mark.[/quote]

I think "are" would be a better word here. Personally, I don't think any justification for not accepting smaller improvements is needed.[/li][/list]

[b]Overall[/b]
I don't think this page should replace the FAQ page. There is still a lot of information there that is not found anywhere on the new rules page. I do think it's best to put all the rules on the rules page, though, as opposed to the current system with many rules that are only on the FAQ page. You did a good job of this for the most part, but I think the FAQ sections "May I pause while recording? What if the telephone rings or I need to go to the bathroom?" and "I'm using a DVD recorder, and the single-segment run I'm about to attempt is over two hours. Am I allowed to switch discs?" should be integrated into the rules page as well.

Solairflaire

2010-09-23 08:12:21 pm

Quote from Flip:

Uh, it says in that same paragraph that if a run is faster but could be better it can still be rejected. Also, the bottom paragraph of the introductory section is all about verification as well. Did you have something better in mind?

That was kinda my point. You're contradicting yourself by saying the run will be published if it is submitted and then stating later on that there is an additional qualifier to publish the run. It's kinda like a sign in a store stating in big bold letters BUY 1 GET 1 FREE and then at the bottom of the sign in small fine print stating you must buy at least $50.00 worth of other stuff to get the free item. I'm not sure on exact proper wording but here goes:

If a player creates a speedrun that's faster than a currently-published run, submits that run to us, and the run passes verifier scrutiny, the new run will obsolete and replace the old run.

Scrutiny is probably too harsh a word, but it's all I can come up with.

I'm glad I brought up the timing thing. With that in there as it was without a definition, it was confusing to know what was considered too long. Just a reminder, since it's been decided to lift the ruling altogether, those lines need to be removed. Not sure if Mike was updating the first post to reflect what was being decided on in this thread or not. It's not changed there.

[quote="Flip"]Uh, it says in that same paragraph that if a run is faster but could be better it can still be rejected.  Also, the bottom paragraph of the introductory section is all about verification as well.  Did you have something better in mind?[/quote]

That was kinda my point. You're contradicting yourself by saying the run will be published if it is submitted and then stating later on that there is an additional qualifier to publish the run. It's kinda like a sign in a store stating in big bold letters [b]BUY 1 GET 1 FREE[/b] and then at the bottom of the sign in small fine print stating you must buy at least $50.00 worth of other stuff to get the free item. I'm not sure on exact proper wording but here goes:

[i]If a player creates a speedrun that's faster than a currently-published run, submits that run to us, and the run passes verifier scrutiny, the new run will obsolete and replace the old run.[/i]

Scrutiny is probably too harsh a word, but it's all I can come up with.

I'm glad I brought up the timing thing. With that in there as it was without a definition, it was confusing to know what was considered too long. Just a reminder, since it's been decided to lift the ruling altogether, those lines need to be removed. Not sure if Mike was updating the first post to reflect what was being decided on in this thread or not. It's not changed there.