Username:
B
I
U
S
"
url
img
#
code
sup
sub
font
size
color
smiley
embarassed
thumbsup
happy
Huh?
Angry
Roll Eyes
Undecided
Lips Sealed
Kiss
Cry
Grin
Wink
Tongue
Shocked
Cheesy
Smiley
Sad
123 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
Edit history:
mikwuyma: 2009-08-22 07:24:50 pm
My feelings on The Demon Rush
Note: This is NOT a rules discussion thread. The purpose of this thread is to update the rules and faq pages to match the current site rules.

It's obvious the rules need to be updated because we've had a few changes on the site since the last rewrite. There are two ways the rules can be rewritten.

1. As Nate suggested, put the rules up on the knowledge base wiki, edit them for a week or two, if anything is wrong or unclear, then someone can point it out and possibly edit themselves. When the rules are finished, I lock/protect the page. The only problem with this method is incorrect edits while the page is open to edits. I honestly don't think anyone will try to vandalize the rules while we're editing them.

2. We keep the basic html format and I revise the rules myself. I would have no problem with doing this, but I know if I went this route, it would take more time than just using knowledge base, especially if we're reformatting the layout of the rules.

Rules that need to be added/clarification

-Add the rules to the front page. I seriously don't know why they aren't on the front page right now.
-We now no longer require real name.
-Frame rate abuse tricks
-The stuff in this thread. No more scripts except for Half-Life series and Portal, Banjo-Tooie Cheato category is frozen, take out references to Radix)
-do a better job of explaining saves and save penalty
-possibly allow certain freeware on a case-by-case basis (i.e Cave Story, no flash crap)
-Revise the multiplayer rule to make it more reasonable
-BACON!

Feel free to add more items to this list.
Thread title:  
Wiki sounds like a good idea to me.

Deciding on the format/layout of the page before we start the editing free-for-all would be a good idea, though. Are we going for a numbered list of rules, or a few paragraphs under various subheadings describing all the rules on a various area? (I'd suggest the latter). What are those sub-headings going to be?

Also, are we going to explain the reasons behind the rules on the rules page? I think it would be a good idea to do this, since it would help see off people starting uninformed rules debates, as well as giving people a better idea of when allowing exceptions to rules would be sensible.
Quote from mikwuyma:
[b]
-BACON!


Best Rule ever.
You got a deletion wish?
Quote from Rattlingjoint:
Quote from mikwuyma:
[b]
-BACON!


Best Rule ever.


Seconded.
Hi! I'm andrewg!
Quote from MatrixTN:
Quote from Rattlingjoint:
Quote from mikwuyma:
[b]
-BACON!


Best Rule ever.


Seconded.


Eaten.
I'm going to agree with the wiki. The brains of many working together > mike's brain. Sorry.
Back in the game!
We briefly discussed this over IRC the other day:  the save penalty for save anywhere games.  Change it from half a second to "however long it takes you to find and select save, and for the game to register said save.
Quote from UltimateDarius:
We briefly discussed this over IRC the other day:  the save penalty for save anywhere games.  Change it from half a second to "however long it takes you to find and select save, and for the game to register said save.


That's ridiculous. All that means is that now instead of opening the menu and doing a save that can be recognized by a viewer I will hit the quicksave button instead, get no penalty whatsoever, and be able to load the quicksave as usually. I'm sorry, but of all the suggestions concerning this much debated rule, this has got to be the worst, because I can clearly not see any good reason behind it.
Quote from mikwuyma:
Note: This is NOT a rules discussion thread.


(I suggest a mod unlocks and bumps the old rules discussion thread because this thread is bound to provoke more rules arguments and they need somewhere to go.)
My feelings on The Demon Rush
Sorry I haven't been on this yet, I've been busy with other stuff (arranging the SDA charity event, working on the site), but I'll try to post a wiki page within a couple of days.

Also, one more change is the 2-player rule here: http://speeddemosarchive.com/forum/index.php/topic,9328.75.html

Smilge, that's what I thought, the only thing is that I'll have to monitor who changed what, just in case if someone changes a rule by accident (or on purpose).

ExplodingCabbage: No, you try reading another 20 pages of arguing. If such debate happens in this thread then I'm simply going to ignore it.
O Zlda?
- Scrap the bullet structure of the rules and rewrite them using a format of standard paragraphs followed by specific bulleted points in the few places they apply. In other words, use indentation instead of bullets for superior structuring. Some bullets can also be combined to help group similar information: Death Abuse and the following bullet about unintentional deaths should merge into a single "Special Considerations" subheading "Deaths", and then have an explanation of the two types in a short paragraph. Essentially the same text as now, but arranged smartly.

- A problem with timing information right now is that it's spread across two pages: FAQ and Rules. Remove the paragraphs under the current FAQ's "How are runs timed?". Change this to a quick sentence linking to the Rules. Incorporate all the information present in those paragraphs into the Rules subheading Saving and Timing.

- For timing clarifications... I think it's basically this: Explain what a save-anywhere game is better (maybe with a note that most games of this type are PC games). Explain where timing starts and stops in various instances better.
I think there's some semantic issues going on. Here are some "Frequently Asked Questions" that I believe are actually citing rules.

What are the different categories like any%, low%, 100%?
What about unlockable rewards and alternate modes?
What about games with more than one playable character?
Can I do a multiplayer speedrun with some of my friends?
* How are runs timed? (this one, especially)
Don't think!  feeeeeal
Not really a "rule" thing per say.  But I think the game pages could feature a little more specific information about the runs--

Difficulty for one thing, I think if there was a difficulty indicator in numerical form it'd help a lot people who don't know all the difficulties for the game instead of just saying w/e the game calls it like "realistic" or "uber dooper" or not saying anything all because the game only features one difficulty which a viewer wouldn't necessarily know.  So it'd simply be putting "difficulty: realistic (4/5)" or "difficulty: (1/1) or something like that, then maybe somewhere else it could explain what (4/5) meant but I think it's pretty obvious.

Also I think runs which do certain things like a segmented run that uses only one segment per level like the quake2 run should be noted that it was segmented in this way.  So a viewer doesn't have to count the number of levels and segments and see if there the same, then always speculate if the runner used 1 segment for 2 short levels and spilt up some of the harder levels or used segments that started and/or ended in the middle of levels.

Then run times for .5s save penalties should be shown in a more accurate way on the game pages.  When you have game pages with the modified times as hyper-links to DL the runs it's extremely misguiding to viewers, most actually think the run itself is that long when really it's something much less.  I think EVERYONE but dex really wanted the run's real time without "save penalties" to be shown on the game page.  You can include the time with "save penalties" as well but the only reason it exists to have a comparable quotient, not to tell viewers how long the run is, because that isn't how long the run is and it's just misinformation.
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Also I think runs which do certain things like a segmented run that uses only one segment per level like the quake2 run should be noted that it was segmented in this way.  So a viewer doesn't have to count the number of levels and segments and see if there the same, then always speculate if the runner used 1 segment for 2 short levels and spilt up some of the harder levels or used segments that started and/or ended in the middle of levels.

Then run times for .5s save penalties should be shown in a more accurate way on the game pages.  When you have game pages with the modified times as hyper-links to DL the runs it's extremely misguiding to viewers, most actually think the run itself is that long when really it's something much less.  I think EVERYONE but dex really wanted the run's real time without "save penalties" to be shown on the game page.  You can include the time with "save penalties" as well but the only reason it exists to have a comparable quotient, not to tell viewers how long the run is, because that isn't how long the run is and it's just misinformation.


Simple solution to the first problem: Actually show the segmenting in the run? Just a quick leftover of the save/loading procedure (maybe half a second for each) would be enough to clearly state that the game is being segmented there. I feel that cutting out all saving/loading is some sort of misadvertisement, making the run look single segment when it is not. It's not against any rule, but I think it's sort of in bad tone or unsportsmanship. Especially if the run ends up on youtube, where the average attention span and knowledge (and intelligence) is significantly lower than for the SDA viewer base. I know it would certainly break up the action in your heavily segmented half-life run, but for most segmentation, I think it ADDS to the run to show exactly where the saves actually happen. Personal opinion, though. Also, stating "Uses one save per level" as an additional comment could lead to the misconception that it is a seperate category. It could work in the way TASvideos labels the runs, but it would likely just be confusing on SDA in its current form.

As for the second problem, as I have stated numberous times before, part of the save penalty is actually used to compensate the lack of precise timing on loading (because most of the relevant games have engines that process movement for a few frames before the first visual clue, again, has been discussed before). As such, even cutting out all the penalty is in some sense not an exact meassurement of time, because doing the same exact stuff single segment would result in a slightly longer time. Besides, the way start and endpoints are chosen on SDA, cutting out system dependant loading times and the likes make sure that the final official SDA time is not necessarily what other people would get if they timed the run themselves. What is important for timing is consistency (and to a certain degree, transparency). For most runs, the exact second count ends up being somewhat arbitrary due to the way SDA sets the timing guidelines anyway, so it doesn't really matter too much for most runs anyway. Other people could reasonably consider the tram ride in Half-Life as part of the run and end up with a significantly larger number even without save penalty. I personally would like to have the penalty  specified on the game pages as well (mostly because the penalty doesn't necessarily apply to ALL saves in a run), but I think mike declined already, not sure what his argument was.
(user is banned)
Edit history:
Spider-Waffle: 2009-08-26 01:40:13 am
Don't think!  feeeeeal
So if someone saw "NOTE: run uses one segment per level" they'd be confused?  Show me this person Tongue  Even if there is such a dense person is that reason not to give a great piece of information to the 99% of the population who would interpret it correctly?

Well the time adjusted for save/loading actually affecting game time is treated as something different than the .5s penalty.  This would be included in the run's actual time.


Ya Mike didn't really give any good reasons, it went against what everyone wanted except another SDA staffer.  A theory is they just don't want to do the work to make the site better is this area as they're busy with other things and this a way of prioritizing, though why wouldn't they just say they'll do it at a later time?  But prove the theory wrong please Smiley

I think the showing the segmentation is a good idea for certain runs, that's probably something best left for the runner's discretion.

I know what your saying about segmented runs getting posted without any indication they're segmented, it's kind of unethical in a way, but not as bad as TAS getting posted without saying they're TASes.  That's why I went to the special effort to say my HL run was segmented at the start of the video.
My personal thoughts on the above:

Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Difficulty for one thing, I think if there was a difficulty indicator in numerical form it'd help a lot people who don't know all the difficulties for the game instead of just saying w/e the game calls it like "realistic" or "uber dooper" or not saying anything all because the game only features one difficulty which a viewer wouldn't necessarily know.  So it'd simply be putting "difficulty: realistic (4/5)" or "difficulty: (1/1) or something like that, then maybe somewhere else it could explain what (4/5) meant but I think it's pretty obvious.


Would be fine with this in principle, although I'm not too bothered and putting (1/1) to indicate there's only one difficulty option is pretty ugly.

Quote:
Also I think runs which do certain things like a segmented run that uses only one segment per level like the quake2 run should be noted that it was segmented in this way.  So a viewer doesn't have to count the number of levels and segments and see if there the same, then always speculate if the runner used 1 segment for 2 short levels and spilt up some of the harder levels or used segments that started and/or ended in the middle of levels.


Again, I'm not too bothered, I just wish runners would always note this kind of thing in their comments, though (like Groobo did).

Quote:
A theory is they just don't to do the work to make the site better is this area as they're busy with other things and this a way of prioritizing


Another theory is that, since the number of frames dropped upon reloading isn't constant for some games, for each game they'd probably need to get people to test it and work out an average, and that could be disputed if the time dropped is slightly system-dependent or area-dependent or some-other-variable-dependent or if one of the people doing the calculations is just stupid or if by chance people get slightly different average numbers of frames dropped or if it's a game without any easy way to measure how many frames are dropped. Even if the number of frames dropped on saving and loading was constant for some game, there's still so much potential for confusion and arguments when deciding what that number is that it's probably just not worth the effort considering that the difference between the two times will be small anyway.

Quote:
I think the showing the segmentation is a good idea for certain runs, that's probably something best left for the runner's discretion.


Agree.
Invisible avatar
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Difficulty for one thing, I think if there was a difficulty indicator in numerical form it'd help a lot people who don't know all the difficulties for the game instead of just saying w/e the game calls it like "realistic" or "uber dooper" or not saying anything all because the game only features one difficulty which a viewer wouldn't necessarily know.  So it'd simply be putting "difficulty: realistic (4/5)" or "difficulty: (1/1) or something like that, then maybe somewhere else it could explain what (4/5) meant but I think it's pretty obvious.

Awesome suggestion, you have my support here. We could explain it in the FAQ, or just do 'realistic (4th difficulty out of 4)' or 'realistic (highest difficulty)'. Also, if there's only one difficulty, it's usually not even shown, so no fear of '(1/1)' monsters :). Though, the amount of back-work on the pages would be ugh, but you can't have everything I guess...

Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Also I think runs which do certain things like a segmented run that uses only one segment per level like the quake2 run should be noted that it was segmented in this way.  So a viewer doesn't have to count the number of levels and segments and see if there the same, then always speculate if the runner used 1 segment for 2 short levels and spilt up some of the harder levels or used segments that started and/or ended in the middle of levels.

I don't think that is necessary. If the runner wants it, he can outline it in his comments. I think it should be left at the discretion of the runner.
Edit history:
ridd3r.: 2009-08-24 12:51:49 pm
we have lift off
1. Agree the difficulty (3/3) could work well.
2. In terms of how many segments, or one segment per level. It says in the title how many segments are used so I see no need to state it any clearer. A lot is down to the runner in terms of explaining their choice for a segmented run and also showing the segments with loading screens as I agree, it can be misleading and would be beneficial to show how they are segmenting.
3. I am against the idea of showing a time without save penalties on the game page. It will just add confusion, you can work it out for yourself in like 2 seconds.
Quote from ridd3r.:
you can work it out for yourself in like 2 seconds.


Well, while I too am against showing a time without penalties, you usually can't work it out yourself without a lot of research, since you need to know how many frames are dropped when saving and loading, and how many manual saves were made (which you can't tell from the segment count).
we have lift off
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Quote from ridd3r.:
you can work it out for yourself in like 2 seconds.


Well, while I too am against showing a time without penalties, you usually can't work it out yourself without a lot of research, since you need to know how many frames are dropped when saving and loading, and how many manual saves were made (which you can't tell from the segment count).


In that case it would just be a ton of extra work for the verifiers and Mike and kind of negates the save penalty. You could get a game done in 10 segments with a similar time to its with save penalty time, then a game done in 50 segments with quite a different time and I don't think there would be any clear way of explaining the two times to people who are new to the site and speedrunning.
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Quote from Spider-Waffle:
Difficulty for one thing, I think if there was a difficulty indicator in numerical form it'd help a lot people who don't know all the difficulties for the game instead of just saying w/e the game calls it like "realistic" or "uber dooper" or not saying anything all because the game only features one difficulty which a viewer wouldn't necessarily know.  So it'd simply be putting "difficulty: realistic (4/5)" or "difficulty: (1/1) or something like that, then maybe somewhere else it could explain what (4/5) meant but I think it's pretty obvious.


Only problem is with games where difficulty levels are regional (Metal Gear Solid 2 and Resident Evil 4, for example). The current full run on the former is technically not played on the highest difficulty level the game offers, but it is the highest level the American version offers. The Tanker run is. The latter would just be confusing.

On the topic, not including speed, if a game specifically differs between versions (MGS2 has a few instances), it might help to include a specific mention that the first run on the page is the American one.
gamelogs.org
what's the point of the penalty if it's not shown?
O Zlda?
Quote from Arkarian:
what's the point of the penalty if it's not shown?


I agree. There's no reason to show time before penalty... what's the point of it if we're showing the other time too?

How about on the pages of games that use unique or uncommon rules (like .5s penalty), we have an icon of some sort (perhaps next to the specific run it applies to)? Banjo-Tooie's cheato run would get the icon for example.
Don't think!  feeeeeal
Quote:
deciding what that number is that it's probably just not worth the effort considering that the difference between the two times will be small anyway.


Not really, for most save anywhere games, if segmented properly there will be zero frames dropped, such as HL.  The difference between a time with 180 save penalties and the real time is 90 seconds, which is quite a big difference.  The .5s penalty isn't to adjust the time to make it closer to the actual time.  It might say that on the site but that is wrong and it has always been wrong.  If there's actually frames dropped in between segments, rare, they are calculated and added to the actual run time, like was done for the portal run.

Quote:
what's the point of the penalty if it's not shown?


It should still be shown and explained, but the point if I may quote myself back a couple posts...

Quote:
only reason it exists to have a comparable quotient, not to tell viewers how long the run is, because that isn't how long the run is and it's just misinformation.


Next time please read someone's post before arguing against it without knowing what you're talking about, it's just a principle of debate.

Again, the penalty has nothing to do with giving a more accurate actual time of the run as a compensation for dropped frames.  So by only showing a time with all the .5s penalties added and treating this as the actual real time of the run you are greatly misleading viewers who don't know any better.  For example, if you ask most people who have DLed my HL run from here they'll say it is exactly 31 minutes long, even though I give the run's actual time (with frames dropped from segmentation) at the start of the video which is 29:41 (or 30:06 depending on when you think the run is over).
we have lift off
Correct me if I'm wrong but this appears to be slipping into a debate about whether or not there should even be a save penalty. Without bothering to look through the old rules discussion thread I am willing to bet that you were one of the people who were for abolishing the save penalty. The time with the save penalty IS the correct time as it is taking into account how many segments were used. Forget accounting for frames lost on the differences of saving and loading, it is about stopping mass segmentation as is stated in the FAQ section. If you submit a run to this site then you are abiding by the rules of the site which means if the site says your run is XXmins long then it is that and not something you want it to be according to YOUR method of timing.

Take any world record, if you were to set up your method of timing it may well differ from the official timing, you don't state 2 times there, you go with the official one. Adding two times would undermine the save penalty and add confusion.