Rules and FAQ revision

2010-09-24 07:22:17 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Now that that section has been rewritten, I don't think an explicit distinction needs to be made. It's a lot clearer than it was in the original version.

Emptyeye

2010-09-24 10:49:06 pm

Talk to the Hand

RE: Main categories, I also consider Segmented versus Single-Segment to be the "main" categories, and will be treating them as such in the panel I'm doing in November (I'll have a handout that goes into Low/Any/100%, but for the panel itself, "Here are your two categories, SS/Segmented" it really the first distinction that should be made.).

Also, for the segmenting penalty, Mike once described it as "Half the people think it's too harsh. The other half think it's not harsh enough. That tells me that we probably have it just right", so yeah.

Breakdown

2010-09-25 09:30:18 am

Haters gonna hate

First off, big thank to VorpalEdge for taking it upon himself to do the rewrite. We've needed this for a long time, and he did a fine job with it. Thanks a lot man.

I do have to agree with the "main categories" thing, though. If anything, I'd think low/any/100% would be tertiary categories after the primary SS/segmented/IL (don't forget ILs people) and the secondary categories of with/without major breaks and deaths (maybe other people see those as the tertiary, but that's my view). Hell, the primary distinction is probably PAL vs. NTSC, but I think for the purposes of this page just explaining that they're tracked separately due to the speed difference is plenty.

And just to address the double spacing: I'm a double spacer, always have been, and I'm really surprised to see it called out as wrong here. Not to say (after a little research on the matter) that single spacing is wrong either, but I really don't think it's a big deal. Now that my attention's been drawn to it, I've been noticing a whole lot of what I read is done with the single spacing, but that's just it, my attention needed to be drawn to it. I think the only reason it's an issue now is because somebody commented on it, and now it looks wrong to all the single spacers, but the overwhelming majority of you would never have noticed otherwise. Just to drive this point home, since I've started as staff every one of my updates has used double spacing after periods and colons, and not one of you in the camp saying this is improper has called me out on in the last nine months. So if it gets fixed it'll look wrong to me, though I really don't care one way or the other, and had this debate not taken place I'd never have noticed at all.

First off, big thank to VorpalEdge for taking it upon himself to do the rewrite.  We've needed this for a long time, and he did a fine job with it.  Thanks a lot man.

I do have to agree with the "main categories" thing, though.  If anything, I'd think low/any/100% would be tertiary categories after the primary SS/segmented/IL (don't forget ILs people) and the secondary categories of with/without major breaks and deaths (maybe other people see those as the tertiary, but that's my view).  Hell, the primary distinction is probably PAL vs. NTSC, but I think for the purposes of this page just explaining that they're tracked separately due to the speed difference is plenty.

And just to address the double spacing:  I'm a double spacer, always have been, and I'm really surprised to see it called out as wrong here.  Not to say (after a little research on the matter) that single spacing is wrong either, but I really don't think it's a big deal.  Now that my attention's been drawn to it, I've been noticing a whole lot of what I read is done with the single spacing, but that's just it, my attention needed to be drawn to it.  I think the only reason it's an issue now is because somebody commented on it, and now it looks wrong to all the single spacers, but the overwhelming majority of you would never have noticed otherwise.  Just to drive this point home, since I've started as staff every one of my updates has used double spacing after periods and colons, and not one of you in the camp saying this is improper has called me out on in the last nine months.  So if it gets fixed it'll look wrong to me, though I really don't care one way or the other, and had this debate not taken place I'd never have noticed at all.

ridd3r.

2010-09-25 09:58:42 am

we have lift off

Your updates are single spaced like Flip and Dex's.

Flip

2010-09-25 10:15:30 am

1-Up!

Quote from ridd3r.:

Your updates are single spaced like Flip and Dex's.

Nah, I've double-spaced every sentence I've ever written. Not sure why it doesn't look more prominent in the updates but I assure you I've done it my whole life and never thought differently until this thread.

VorpalEdge

2010-09-25 10:25:20 am

welcome to the machine

I don't think HTML recognizes double spaces. Which, now that I think about it, makes the whole debate moot, since they won't be visible in the final product anyways.

Flip

2010-09-25 10:52:29 am

1-Up!

I was just coming to that realization also!

nate

2010-09-25 02:26:36 pm

thank god for white men in ivory towers in the early 1990s.

Darkwing Duck

2010-09-25 02:45:45 pm

Highly Evolved

Quote from Flip:

Quote from ridd3r.:

Your updates are single spaced like Flip and Dex's.

Nah, I've double-spaced every sentence I've ever written. Not sure why it doesn't look more prominent in the updates but I assure you I've done it my whole life and never thought differently until this thread.

You mean type, right?

I doubt I will ever use a single space after a sentence in anything I type. Ever. Even one word "sentences" like the previous sentence. It's how I was taught and damn kids need to get off mah lawn.

Kryal

2010-09-25 02:50:03 pm

from red to blue

Nah, I can't be bothered to double space my sentences. OWAIT.

PROTIP: Lack of consistency is key.

moooh

2010-09-25 03:02:29 pm

Exoray

You're consistent in not being it?

VorpalEdge

2010-09-26 05:16:25 pm

welcome to the machine

How's this sound to everybody who wanted to append caveats to the discussion of obsoletion?

"SDA only publishes the fastest speedruns submitted to us. Players are expected to use every method at their disposal, including glitches, to minimize time; side issues such as entertainment are secondary. If a player submits a run that isn't fast enough, it will be rejected outright. Similarly, if a player creates a speedrun that's faster than a currently-published run and submits that run to us, the new run will generally obsolete and replace the old run. In cases where a player cheats, runs will be rejected, and if a new run barely improves upon an old run when much more improvement is possible, we might tell the player to try again. However, if a run is extremely optimized already, like Contra or Super Mario Bros., tiny improvements are welcome."

Paraxade

Edit history:

Paraxade: 2010-09-26 07:16:21 pm

Paraxade: 2010-09-26 06:33:39 pm

Paraxade: 2010-09-26 06:32:48 pm

Paraxade: 2010-09-26 05:43:14 pm

2010-09-26 05:43:03 pm

That paragraph is a little confusing because it's jumping all over the place. "If you do this then it'll be rejected. If you do this then it'll be accepted. But if you do this or this then we'll still reject it." Should put everything that warrants rejection in the same spot in the paragraph. Also, "If a player submits a run that isn't fast enough, it will be rejected outright." and "if a new run barely improves upon an old run when much more improvement is possible, we might tell the player to try again." is somewhat redundant. It's also kinda weird to refer to SDA in third person in the first sentence then start using first person.

"We only publish the fastest runs submitted to us. Players are expected to use every method at their disposal, including glitches, to minimize time; side issues such as entertainment are secondary. Just submitting a run to us won't guarantee it makes it onto the site; if the run isn't fast enough, shows evidence of cheating, or has bad video or audio quality, then it will be rejected. If a player creates a speedrun that meets those standards and is faster than a currently published run, then the new run will generally obsolete and replace the old run. Note that being an improvement alone does not guarantee an accept; in some cases, a run might be an improvement due to a new glitch or strategy, and there might be a lot of room for improvement in the new run. In those cases, we might ask the player to try again. However, if a run is already extremely optimized, like Contra or Super Mario Bros., tiny improvements are welcome."

yeah still doesn't resolve everything i mentioned, ah well :/

That paragraph is a little confusing because it's jumping all over the place. "If you do this then it'll be rejected. If you do this then it'll be accepted. But if you do this or this then we'll still reject it." Should put everything that warrants rejection in the same spot in the paragraph. Also, "If a player submits a run that isn't fast enough, it will be rejected outright." and "if a new run barely improves upon an old run when much more improvement is possible, we might tell the player to try again." is somewhat redundant. It's also kinda weird to refer to SDA in third person in the first sentence then start using first person.

"We only publish the fastest runs submitted to us. Players are expected to use every method at their disposal, including glitches, to minimize time; side issues such as entertainment are secondary. Just submitting a run to us won't guarantee it makes it onto the site; if the run isn't fast enough, shows evidence of cheating, or has bad video or audio quality, then it will be rejected. If a player creates a speedrun that meets those standards and is faster than a currently published run, then the new run will generally obsolete and replace the old run. Note that being an improvement alone does not guarantee an accept; in some cases, a run might be an improvement due to a new glitch or strategy, and there might be a lot of room for improvement in the new run. In those cases, we might ask the player to try again. However, if a run is already extremely optimized, like Contra or Super Mario Bros., tiny improvements are welcome."

yeah still doesn't resolve everything i mentioned, ah well :/

Zeupar

2010-09-26 06:41:31 pm

Sonical!

I approve of Paraxade's paragraph.

VorpalEdge

2010-09-26 09:01:14 pm

welcome to the machine

That's what happens when you see one of my first drafts. Try this:

"We only publish the fastest runs submitted to us. Players are expected to use every method at their disposal, including glitches, to minimize time; side issues such as entertainment are secondary. To be published, runs must be fast enough, show no evidence of cheating, and have good audio and video quality. We also highly encourage players to attempt improving on our speedruns. If a player submits a run faster than a run we currently publish, the faster run will obsolete and replace the slower one provided it meets the above requirements for acceptance."

The whole thing has been annoying me for the entire time I tried rewriting it, and frankly I'm disappointed that it took me so long to cut the language entirely. The whole "it could be faster solely due to a new glitch or strategy" thing fits in much more with the verification guidelines...

Paraxade

2010-09-26 09:04:16 pm

Yeah, I agree. If I'm being nitpicky then they aren't really "our" speedruns, but really the new paragraph sounds fine to me.

cyghfer

2010-09-26 09:17:04 pm

yeah that sentence should read, like, 'We also highly encourage players to attempt to improve upon currently published speedruns.'

System Error

2010-09-27 01:16:05 am

Generic Text

Quote from Flip:

As in, refusing to use weapons/abilities at your disposal that would make your run faster will get your run rejected.

Contra low%

I rest my case Wink

Zeupar

2010-09-27 01:22:19 am

Sonical!

"As in, refusing to use weapons or abilities at your disposal (in the selected category) that would make your run faster will get your run rejected."

Fixed. I hate slashes. :/

System Error

2010-09-27 01:25:09 am

Generic Text

Quote from Zeupar:

"As in, refusing to use weapons or abilities at your disposal (in the selected category) that would make your run faster will get your run rejected."

Fixed. I hate slashes. :/

Ah, so low% Contra, and other such games that choose not to use certain abilities in the name of low% is still an option?

moooh

2010-09-27 02:40:48 am

Exoray

Yes, some games that doesn't have a Low% category already can do something like that where it would make enough difference from the Any% to warrant its own category.

System Error

Edit history:

System Error: 2010-09-27 03:43:34 am

2010-09-27 03:43:14 am

Generic Text

oic. Reason why I asked was because of the Megaman thing. I've actually done a few playthroughs of those games (particularly X3, which I can also throw in no upgrades) with buster only, and they've proven quite fun and interesting. It's more amusing than destroying everything and anything with their weakness.

IMO, as long as the goals are concise enough and prove entertaining (as well as different enough from an any%), such a run should be allowed - even if the items picked up are mandatory to obtain.

Breakdown

mikwuyma

Edit history:

mikwuyma: 2010-09-27 10:42:09 am

2010-09-27 05:40:25 am

Haters gonna hate

In the Mega Man games the weapons and abilities are forced upon you. In Contra you don't have to collect them. Even though you can get them without missing a beat, you have the choice not to. That's the distinction.

RandomEngy

2010-09-27 04:08:38 pm

A Crab

As long as we're re-writing the rules, I think it makes sense to revisit the segmenting time penalty for PC games. I know the argument: that there's no best value for the penalty. But that doesn't mean that any penalty is just as good as any other. Yes, for any given penalty time, there will be some games where it's too high, and some where it's too low. I can think of a lot of games where 0.5s is too low, but none where it's too high. My suggestion: bump it up to 2 seconds.

I think it would be a good idea to reward longer segments on average. Having a lot of segments is bad in a number of ways. For one there's more overhead and busy work that goes into the run: Keeping track of the videos, splicing together the segments and starting and stopping the recording. Another is that a heavily segmented run is just not as impressive to view. Yet another is that it's simply less fun to have really short segments. You're playing some tiny amount of the game over and over again, rather than getting a more varied experience with longer segments.

Can I guarantee it's the perfect penalty? No. But I'm pretty sure it's better.

And one note about disallowing all scripts: For PC games that allow binding an action to the mouse wheel that benefits from spamming, this essentially means "Buy a mouse that fires wheel events often". I don't know the ideal solution to this odd incentive; I'm just throwing it out there.

As long as we're re-writing the rules, I think it makes sense to revisit the segmenting time penalty for PC games. I know the argument: that there's no best value for the penalty. But that doesn't mean that any penalty is just as good as any other. Yes, for any given penalty time, there will be some games where it's too high, and some where it's too low. I can think of a lot of games where 0.5s is too low, but [i]none[/i] where it's too high. My suggestion: bump it up to 2 seconds.

I think it would be a good idea to reward longer segments on average. Having a lot of segments is bad in a number of ways. For one there's more overhead and busy work that goes into the run: Keeping track of the videos, splicing together the segments and starting and stopping the recording. Another is that a heavily segmented run is just not as impressive to view. Yet another is that it's simply less fun to have really short segments. You're playing some tiny amount of the game over and over again, rather than getting a more varied experience with longer segments.

Can I guarantee it's the perfect penalty? No. But I'm pretty sure it's better.

And one note about disallowing all scripts: For PC games that allow binding an action to the mouse wheel that benefits from spamming, this essentially means "Buy a mouse that fires wheel events often". I don't know the ideal solution to this odd incentive; I'm just throwing it out there.

ZenicReverie

Edit history:

ZenicReverie: 2010-09-27 07:28:29 pm

2010-09-27 07:28:10 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Any penalty (x) must be judged by this: "Yes I could have used this trick to save x or less time, but then I'd have to make a segment to mitigate the risk, and the penalty is too great."

Also, all risky tricks that save time are reduced in effectiveness by the save penalty when segmenting to ensure them. I think this increases the reliance on getting a lucky (longer) segment.