Super Mario 64 - January 24th, 2012

Marche_Fighter_Paladin

Edit history:

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 04:32:43 pm

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 02:00:03 pm

2012-03-04 01:59:38 pm

Claimh Happy

Quote from Sir VG:

Quote from Asty:

A 16-star category seems kind of weird to me as it doesn't really follow any meaningful definition like "any%". If the lobby BLJ was discovered after the basement skip we would have had 8-9 star runs between the 16-star runs and the 0-1 star runs.

Still I don't feel strongly on the subject and having a 14 minute category is a pretty good length for entertainment. I'm just wondering if that poorly defined category will be neglected by runners going forward.

The whole reason for the 16 star run was that it wasn't an any%, but a low%. So yes, if the lowest became 8 or 9 stars, that would be the low% run. So 0 stars will obsolete 16 stars, for the very reason I mentioned.

Is it poorly defined? Maybe it should be called "Low%" instead of "0 stars". But it's still at the same time very clear what the goal is - beat the game while getting no stars.

He's saying 16-star is arbitrary, not 0-star.

Anyways, the reason we have the categories that we do for this game is that sm64 had its own community long before quality runs made their way to SDA, so there were already generally accepted categories for the runs. Using these categories instead of modifying them to more closely resemble SDA's usual categories allows for the highest quality runs to be submitted to SDA.

As for 16-star, the accepted definition int he sm64 community is "no side-blj", a technique that allows you to BLJ without a slope, rising platform, or low ceiling. Whether SDA is willing to maintain this category (or even this definition specifically) is up to the admins, I guess.

[quote="Sir VG"][quote="Asty"]A 16-star category seems kind of weird to me as it doesn't really follow any meaningful definition like "any%".  If the lobby BLJ was discovered after the basement skip we would have had 8-9 star runs between the 16-star runs and the 0-1 star runs.

Still I don't feel strongly on the subject and having a 14 minute category is a pretty good length for entertainment.  I'm just wondering if that poorly defined category will be neglected by runners going forward.[/quote]

The whole reason for the 16 star run was that it wasn't an any%, but a low%.  So yes, if the lowest became 8 or 9 stars, that would be the low% run.  So 0 stars will obsolete 16 stars, for the very reason I mentioned.

Is it poorly defined?  Maybe it should be called "Low%" instead of "0 stars".  But it's still at the same time very clear what the goal is - beat the game while getting no stars.[/quote]

He's saying 16-star is arbitrary, not 0-star.

Anyways, the reason we have the categories that we do for this game is that sm64 had its own community long before quality runs made their way to SDA, so there were already generally accepted categories for the runs. Using these categories instead of modifying them to more closely resemble SDA's usual categories allows for the highest quality runs to be submitted to SDA.

As for 16-star, the accepted definition int he sm64 community is "no side-blj", a technique that allows you to BLJ without a slope, rising platform, or low ceiling. Whether SDA is willing to maintain this category (or even this definition specifically) is up to the admins, I guess.

Manocheese

2012-03-04 04:11:49 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from mapler90210:

Anyways, the reason we have the categories that we do for this game is that sm64 had its own community long before quality runs made their way to SDA, so there were already generally accepted categories for the runs.

Prior to SM64 runs being posted on SDA, 16 stars was the lowest you could do, so that's why people did it. It was the "majors skips" category. As far as I know, once the method to do a 16-star run was found, the intermediate categories of 31-star and 50-star were no longer tracked. The issue is that now that a 0-star run has been submitted, people want to keep 16-star as a "some major skips" category. To clarify, the categories would look like this:

any% (0/1-star)
any% with some major skips (16-star)
any% with no major skips (70-star)
100% (120-star)

As several people have pointed out, the 16-star category is pretty arbitrary; why not have a 31-star or 50-star category too? I agree with Asty that it may be neglected by runners as a result. However, I also don't feel very strongly about it, so while I don't like the 16-star category, it doesn't bother me too much as long as those kinds of categories don't become common (and I don't think there's much of a danger of that happening).

Quote from mapler90210:

As for 16-star, the accepted definition is "no side-blj", a technique that allows you to BLJ without a slope, rising platform, or low ceiling. Whether SDA is willing to maintain this category (or even this definition specifically) is up to the admins, I guess.

SDA typically makes definitions like that in terms of the actual skips, not the general techniques used to perform those skips. There are a few reasons for this that come to mind. First, the kind of definition you're suggesting doesn't really get at the intention of the category. Someone reading "no side BLJs" wouldn't know that that really meant "16 stars" unless they had a lot of knowledge of the game. Second, if a new way to perform the skip is found, a definition in terms of general techniques would no longer do what it was supposed to. You could add to the list, but that would exacerbate the first problem. For a game like Donkey Kong 64, where there are lots of ways to do a given skip, you would end up with ridiculous laundry lists that don't really tell you what the category means. Third, a technique used to perform a major skip might also be useful for performing many minors timesavers that don't merit a separate category, so it doesn't make sense to disallow it in a no-major-skips category.

[quote="mapler90210"]Anyways, the reason we have the categories that we do for this game is that sm64 had its own community long before quality runs made their way to SDA, so there were already generally accepted categories for the runs.[/quote]
Prior to SM64 runs being posted on SDA, 16 stars was the lowest you could do, so that's why people did it. It was the "majors skips" category. As far as I know, once the method to do a 16-star run was found, the intermediate categories of 31-star and 50-star were no longer tracked. The issue is that now that a 0-star run has been submitted, people want to keep 16-star as a "some major skips" category. To clarify, the categories would look like this:
[ul][li]any% (0/1-star)[/li]
[li]any% with some major skips (16-star)[/li]
[li]any% with no major skips (70-star)[/li]
[li]100% (120-star)[/li][/ul]As several people have pointed out, the 16-star category is pretty arbitrary; why not have a 31-star or 50-star category too? I agree with Asty that it may be neglected by runners as a result. However, I also don't feel very strongly about it, so while I don't like the 16-star category, it doesn't bother me too much as long as those kinds of categories don't become common (and I don't think there's much of a danger of that happening).

[quote="mapler90210"]As for 16-star, the accepted definition is "no side-blj", a technique that allows you to BLJ without a slope, rising platform, or low ceiling. Whether SDA is willing to maintain this category (or even this definition specifically) is up to the admins, I guess.[/quote]
SDA typically makes definitions like that in terms of the actual skips, not the general techniques used to perform those skips. There are a few reasons for this that come to mind. First, the kind of definition you're suggesting doesn't really get at the intention of the category. Someone reading "no side BLJs" wouldn't know that that really meant "16 stars" unless they had a lot of knowledge of the game. Second, if a new way to perform the skip is found, a definition in terms of general techniques would no longer do what it was supposed to. You could add to the list, but that would exacerbate the first problem. For a game like Donkey Kong 64, where there are lots of ways to do a given skip, you would end up with ridiculous laundry lists that don't really tell you what the category means. Third, a technique used to perform a major skip might also be useful for performing many minors timesavers that don't merit a separate category, so it doesn't make sense to disallow it in a no-major-skips category.

Marche_Fighter_Paladin

Edit history:

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 07:58:05 pm

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 07:57:27 pm

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 07:57:02 pm

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 04:40:42 pm

Marche_Fighter_Paladin: 2012-03-04 04:40:40 pm

2012-03-04 04:40:06 pm

Claimh Happy

I referring to a statement about 120 star not being 100% because it doesn't hit the Metal Cap switch. I was pretty sure I quoted that person. Evidently I was wrong.

1-star is not any%.

I forgot to add "in the sm64 community". Fixed that now. That statement was not supposed to be referring to SDA. I was just explaining how the run is currently defined by those groups that track the 16-star run as its own category instead of as any%/low%

Manocheese

2012-03-04 06:17:27 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from mapler90210:

I forgot to add "in the sm64 community". Fixed that now. That statement was not supposed to be referring to SDA. I was just explaining how the run is currently defined by those groups that track the 16-star run as its own category instead of as any%/low% (a distinction that does not include SDA).

Yes, I realize that. But you posted that definition as something that might be used on SDA, and I was explaining why it shouldn't be used.

andrewg

2012-03-19 10:06:25 am

Is Funilla still trying to further improve his new run?

Patrick

2012-03-19 02:14:02 pm

http://www.youtube.com/user/FunilaSM64/featured
0star : 7'33"30 - WR, goal : still 7'20"

Greatings, freakypaddy. :-)

FunilaAkaneAegis

2012-03-22 02:01:03 am

Strawberry Cross FTW <3

now my goal is 7'10".

Sir VG

2012-04-08 12:46:37 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Just watched the run, even with one failed attempt at the 30 door skip, DAMN that was amazing.

Freezard

2012-04-08 07:47:58 am

Insanely amazing. Everyone needs to see this one!

Manocheese

2012-04-08 08:54:50 am

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

I agree. Great run.

jatenk

2012-04-08 07:20:44 pm

Crazy impossibru shit. This peace of art only could be asian.

andrewg

2012-04-08 07:52:15 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Incredible run!

BlueStarReturns

Edit history:

BlueStarReturns: 2012-04-09 07:01:23 pm

2012-04-09 06:55:16 pm

Twinkle-Twinkle Lil' Star, har har!

I concur with Andrew. However, there really is nothing left for SM64 anymore now that every run we thought was impossible on console can in fact be done. Well, except for shaving each run down to the very last possible second.

Overall, wonderful run (Saw the Youtube copy) and can't wait to see it added to the site!

EDIT: Yes, UA, I was silly. Just caught it now. My mistake, lol!

UraniumAnchor

2012-04-09 07:00:18 pm

Not a walrus

Somebody isn't paying attention to the front page.