The Sonic Center
Sonic Central => Competition Central => Topic started by: Vicklaw on October 23, 2014, 11:56:38 am
-
Some facts which are not mentioned in the rules let me puzzled.
Is it possible (only for Rings divisions) to stop the timer in Launch Base act 2 by destroying the boss from act 1 ?
Can I start any zone's act 2 while having rings from act 1 wrapping through the screen and count these rings in the rings and score records ?
Is it possible to start any zone's act 2 from the end of act 1 at Sonic and Tails' start positions with Knuckles and from Knuckles' start position with Sonic and Tails ?
I have a problem in Icecap act 2 : a wall above the screen prevents me to get the upper 48 rings group at the end of the level with the slope glitch. However, in some videos I saw, There's no wall at all and the character doesn't jump. I tried to fly / double jump above the wall but I can't pass it. How can I pass this wall and get the rings after it ?
-
1) No, there is another timestop in the level which is legal, but it's not the boss from Act 1.
2) You need to explain in video what's happening there so we can effectively answer.
3) Yes, perfectly legal to start in other character's start points.
4) Version Difference, make sure you're using S3K.
-
2nd question : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE72ohcwvuA
I used S3K (there's no rings at the top after this wall in S3). I will try another ROM and see.
-
Got to be fucking kidding me.
Yes, that's legal. It's no different than setting up a glitch run.
You just turned a whole bunch of RA's into how many wrapping rings you can set a run up with.
-
You just blew my mind...
All of a sudden I'm gonna hate RAinf this game... Lol
-
It's not a joke, I can't reach this area. I think this is a problem with the .SRM file. I tried another ROM (with no saves and no .SRM file). I started with act select and there was no wall. Then I swapped the .SRM files to retrieve the saves, played the same ROM again and this wall blocked me again.
I hope nobody will start the acts 2 like this because the records will become randomized by those wrapping rings.
-
I'm sure it's based on how you activate the slope glitch in act 1, do you do the falling through the floor method? If so try varying it a bit? But I'm not entirely sure how it works.
-
What it do after triggering the glitch is jumping on the 2nd very steep slope under me, I run rightwards through the wall. I roll after passing the yellow spring (inside the ice). I try to stop in the part where you must destroy the ice pilliars with the 2nd platform, without touching any object. I find the very steep slope (still the same tilt as the first) and roll untill the corridor (just after the invincibility box) and stop here. Then I fight the boss.
If I need a lighting shield, I enter in the bonus stage to get it before doing the glitch.
-
Not too sure what to suggest, try this method maybe? http://youtu.be/OrxOSM1LG28 also try not to go to high when you're getting to the boss, or try to go as high as you can, as you can trigger the act 1 boss to start at different places on the top of the hill
-
It worked after some hours spent to try to solve the problem. What I did is copying the .SRM file, deleting the original and rename the copy like the original file. Then I played the game (selected the save with Sonic and 6 super emeralds), activated the act select and reseted by pressing Start then A.
I go in act select, select Icecap 1, enter in the bonus stage to get the lighting shield, get the slope glitch and destroy the boss and there's no wall. I save the state then load it, reset by pressing Start and A and I do the same thing for Tails and Knuckles. No wall at all. I don't know what was wrong...
Now, I'm safe. I have the 3 savestates with every character.
I did the last method suggested by SB737 for Sonic and Knuckles, I did my classic method for Tails. However, nothing worked untill I did this stuff with the files...
Thank you both for your help and explanations
-
I don't see a problem with banning the wrapping rings if truly no one wants to see that in competitive play.
The S3 RA's are hard enough as they stand.
-
I'd be for banning them, looks stupid and random
-
Everybody already gets the choice to take Super Ring items from under the end-of-act signpost in Act 1 or leave them until Act 2, and this just looks like a method of doing that with normal rings. Granted, I don't compete in ring attacks for Sonic 3 & Knuckles, so I'll keep an eye on the issue, but it seems like we allow so much other bullshit that this shouldn't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. :P
You know what else is "stupid and random"? Random ring items in later games. There's even a way to change them all to 10-ring items in Sonic Advance 3, but we let the randomness into the competition.
-
Looks like the "consistency bandwagon" is back in full force, eh Thorn?
I thought we sought to curb that philosophy of using unrelated situations in other games as examples.
The point I'm trying to make here, without regard to how difficult or random the event is, is simply that if everyone actively competing in this game (read: all 3 of us) doesn't want to see this used, why allow it?
-
^ Because you're just that: three people. To say "truly no one" when only judging on a group of three people is extremely presumptuous. In the past we've put issues up for a vote and received many responses, not just three, and doing it with three opens the door for "I'll just vote for what works best for my posse, not for what makes sense for everybody". I'd think a trick like this serves to further the skill gap between the skilled and unskilled, which would let you sit on an even loftier pedestal given your skill. Beyond that, as the person who gets called first when an actual issue arises with these charts, I get a say too, as do other admins.
Also, the only one calling it "unrelated" is you, good sir, and your post also ignores a lesser example I gave of a situation in the same game. The method of execution changes but the concept is similar.
-
So one minute these guys are my posse where what I say represents the group, and the next I'm the only one?
Ok.
And to say I'm on any sort of a pedestal is a bit of a stretch, given that I've provided advice and files for every single RA I've done in this game, and given that SB737 has already tied more than 3/4 of them (In fact I don't hold many lone records in this game anymore.) No one here is incapable of tying these ring records granted all that has been available. You guys have done more compelling tricks in other games for longer periods of time. (except maybe those 40-minute LB2 ones)
I'm not speaking for the benefit of myself or these two people. I'm speaking for the sake of the competition as a whole in this sector. S3 already has a bad rap for its RA's being disgustingly difficult. Allowing this would make that situation more dismal for a newcomer. Why increase the gap, as you've plainly put it?
-
I don't know if they're your "posse" or not, but a vote among such a small crowd opens itself up to such a possibility. I'm not slandering any person in particular.
My reasoning is that I've been repeatedly told that part of the aim of TSC's charts is to set the highest scores possible regardless of method. Things usually have to reach "complete bullshit" levels before a ban falls into place, and all I've heard about this so far is an element of randomness that the site is very much used to. Again, I'm keeping an eye on this topic, and if everything about it is indeed "complete bullshit" beyond what the site allows in most circumstances, I'll bring down the banhammer on the technique.
-
I felt like your approach with random rings was off because of savestates.
Allowing this is going to force every RA to come down to who has the best opening save, as opposed to what is actually going on in the level, which would now be viewed as trivial since most levels are at or near max ringcounts.
Essentially speaking, the competition is now happening outside the level in question as opposed to within it. I think the better approach might be to more heavily clarify what is and is not allowed pre-level.
For instance, Vicklaw's video required the use of Super Sonic, which is typically disallowed. If this type of ring suspension is not possible without super forms, we may have some sort of a ban to begin with already.
More research on this tactic is going to be needed before I can report further.
-
<Thorn> if SB737 comes up with more than "it's stupid and random", he'll be considered too
Now I come to think of it, half the glitches used on TSC for stats are stupid and random, so let's just discard my stupid and random post
So essentially every setup in Sonic 3 & Knuckles is possible without savestates, what does that mean? Well nothing as ring wrapping is possible without savestates too. However, every person who does the setps at the moment (so pre-ring wrapping), starts with the same advantage, it's essentially start with a shield, item boxes from previous stage, and the slope glitch (or maybe the wheel glitch for CN2). That at least has a consistent cap as to what advantage you could get.
Using ring wrapping adds inconsistency, all of a sudden whoever is ther best TASer, will be able to carry the most rings to the next stage, and then you've lost the competitive edge to an extent. Whether you get the record, would probably have more dependence on who can wrap the most rings, not necessarily doing all the skill of the ring attack itself. At least games with random boxes have set amounts, and you know that there is a set max, with this, there isn't really a set max, or at least a very clear one.
-
I think this is positive for ring attacks. Having the record gives real prestigue (not to diminish SDM but something I dislike about ring-leaderboards is countless ties) and it also takes away focus from the "requirement" to play on emulator and do some weird setup and savestate (I'm guessing at least because you can't savestate after carrying rings you later obtain can you?). If savestates are allowed it wouldn't be hard for 1 person to TAS it and share a savestate meaning everyone have an even playing field anyway.
I say allow it.
-
We've had a discussion in chat which didn't make it out here to the forum.
What the discussion is currently coming down to is not simply the act of ring-wrapping (which, if it were possible without Super/Hyper forms I'd be ok with.).
Rather, we're now talking about the usage of things like super sonic pre-level, which would typically be banned if it were to be used during the actual level itself.
At the moment, however, nothing is written about what you can and can't do before a level begins. We need to discuss that specific topic, instead of looking at simply the act of ring-wrapping.
What I want to propose is a 1 savestate cap before the title card, with everything else happening pre-level abiding by the same rules that would be obeyed within the level.
-
Isn't the only reason that super/hyper-forms are banned because they would mess with time-attacks? Sure it does say incidentally in the rules that you can't use them in time-attacks but that's just because there has never been an incentive to use them before so no'one cared.
Adding savestate-caps is a dumb idea because it's arbitrary. If you're gonna have savestate-caps then make them 0 or infinite. Any argument you could come up with to legitimize 1 savestate could be used to argue for 2 and 3 up to infinity. Any arguments you would make to limit the number of savestates could be used to limit it to 0. So how did you come up with the number 1?
Making act 1 apply to the same rules as act 2 could be fair but I'd still like a motivation as to why you would ban super/hyper in rings since all they would do is drain your rings as you get them with the only exception being the wrapping rings example here. If you don't like the rings wrapping then ban it and write it in the rules, but make it clear instead of trying to fit it as an after-effect of many rules that don't make sense taken one by one.
-
Isn't the only reason that super/hyper-forms are banned because they would mess with time-attacks? Sure it does say incidentally in the rules that you can't use them in time-attacks but that's just because there has never been an incentive to use them before so no'one cared.
No one's really sure why they were banned in the first place. Maybe SM can shed some light.
Adding savestate-caps is a dumb idea because it's arbitrary. If you're gonna have savestate-caps then make them 0 or infinite. Any argument you could come up with to legitimize 1 savestate could be used to argue for 2 and 3 up to infinity. Any arguments you would make to limit the number of savestates could be used to limit it to 0. So how did you come up with the number 1?
Elementary. Zero (in other words, banning savestates pre-level) is not a solid option because it would entail completely uprooting not only exactly half of my Ring stats, but half of the ring stats of every single TSC user to ever use an emulator while competing in those Act 2's. Even before I came along, players were using saves for the convenience factor of just the ringboxes being dug up. And we certainly don't know who all did and who all didn't use saves.
Essentially speaking, banning pre-level saves is infeasible for the same reason banning emulation was infeasible earlier this year.
That means we have to allow at least 1 pre-level save. Allowing more than one raises obvious concerns, so there's not even a need to delve into that. We don't want to allow any setups for a level that can't be replicated on console by human hands.
I'm aware it sounds arbitrary, but 1, imo, is the best solution.
Making act 1 apply to the same rules as act 2 could be fair but I'd still like a motivation as to why you would ban super/hyper in rings since all they would do is drain your rings as you get them with the only exception being the wrapping rings example here. If you don't like the rings wrapping then ban it and write it in the rules, but make it clear instead of trying to fit it as an after-effect of many rules that don't make sense taken one by one.
To re-clarify, as I have stated before, and I hope I'm not being redundant by emboldening my previous post, I am not against ring-wrapping at all (because it is possible without the help of super/hyper forms in most cases). I just want there to be some ground rules as to what we can and can't do before a level starts.
That's why I asked to raise this discussion about rules for actions performed pre-level. I realize that in doing so it has caused enough backlash against using saves in the first place, but we're going to have to accept that the undoing point for that had long passed well before even I became a TSC member 8 years ago. All we can do now is ensure the savestate usage stays in the domain of fair play.
-
Zero (in other words, banning savestates pre-level) is not a solid option because it would entail completely uprooting not only exactly half of my Ring stats, but half of the ring stats of every single TSC user to ever use an emulator while competing in those Act 2's. Even before I came along, players were using saves for the convenience factor of just the ringboxes being dug up. And we certainly don't know who all did and who all didn't use saves.
Essentially speaking, banning pre-level saves is infeasible for the same reason banning emulation was infeasible earlier this year.
Ok so you say that banning save-states in act 1 isn't an option because people have done that a long time. You also think that banning more than 1 savestate is an option even though there's probably just as many stats that have had more than 1 savestate in act 1's. Also the rules clearly states that "if a new rule is enacted, anything already submitted in violation of that rule is void." and so all ring-attacks using more than 1 savestate pre-level is illegitimate which is the same problem you're trying to avoid.
That means we have to allow at least 1 pre-level save. Allowing more than one raises obvious concerns, so there's not even a need to delve into that.
Allowing more than 1 savestate doesn't raise any obvious concerns to me at all so I'd love for you to elaborate.
We don't want to allow any setups for a level that can't be replicated on console by human hands.
I'm aware it sounds arbitrary, but 1, imo, is the best solution.
"No setups that can't be replicated on human hands" is not a rule I can find so I'm guessing it's a proposition. But a single savestate gives you the option to for example switch holding from right to left on the d-pad on a single frame which I believe is humanly impossible on a genesis controller without pausing in between. In any case every savestate gives you the option to buffer 1 TAS-input, which you generally seem to want to disallow pre-level.
Also who are you to judge what is and isn't a feasible setup? The single-segment runs have evolved a lot because people took the time to research them and find consistent setups for what was previously thought of as being TAS-only. Even if a setup has only ever been TASed that doesn't mean it's unfeasable for a human to perform at least once.
So in short your arguments for allowing 1 savestate pre-level contradict themselves.
All we can do now is ensure the savestate usage stays in the domain of fair play
Having an arbitrary number of savestates at arbitrary times would hardly be more fair than any other number of savestates at any other arbitrary times. You think it's hard/time-consuming to setup so you need a savestate? Why not allow two so it's easier and less time consuming? You think having a lot of savestates defeats the purpouse of getting the stats? Why not ban it completely?
That's a discussion that doesn't lead anywhere but I think that if you truly want to be fair you either ban rings unaccessible from the level you're trying to RA altogether, allow people to TAS it and distribute a good save or you say that carrying rings from another level makes it part of "the run", thus it falls under the normal rules that disallow savestates. I don't consider 1 savestate a fair option in the sense that it doesn't solve anything.
-
Probably the best answer to the problem is this: There aren't lots of people who RA this game, whatever compromise we come with there's always gonna be an argument against it. So how about we just mutually agree not to bother with the level wrapping rings, instead of some official ruling, in all honesty its not even gonna be useul for sonic 3 stages as tails and knuckles, because having super forms enabled means you cant fly/glide/climb as them. Maybe in the future this is gonna become a problem, if a new person decides to use level wrapping rings, but for now we don't seem to be getting anywhere fast, so officially they can be allowed, but just don't use them, forget that vicklaw even brought it up, hell why did he tell us about it in the first place if he doesn't want them to be allowed? lol i have no idea...
-
Ok so you say that banning save-states in act 1 isn't an option because people have done that a long time.
I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts.
And for you to come at me like we've all been TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act) is also complete bullshit and hugely disrespectful. Leave aside the fact that, until now, there hasn't even been a motivation to use more than 1.
And for the record, banning saves outright is not an option because we literally can't discern who did and did not use saves, not to mention prune the charts accordingly. Want to prune them yourself? Be my guest! Have fun and good luck with that research!
You're making these weird attacks like I'm trying to twist logic. Logic isn't in play because the logical options are out of the equation. The propositions I've made are purely ethical and arbitrary. Whether the logic seems poorly structured or not, you can't sit here and tell me it's not a working solution, because it is.
Allowing more than 1 savestate doesn't raise any obvious concerns to me at all so I'd love for you to elaborate.
...
Have you been reading this thread? Or did you just come here to fuss at me randomly? Please scroll up and watch the youtube link for your first example. If you don't think players aren't going to be motivated to TAS to maximize that ringcount you're way off.
"No setups that can't be replicated on human hands" is not a rule I can find so I'm guessing it's a proposition. But a single savestate gives you the option to for example switch holding from right to left on the d-pad on a single frame which I believe is humanly impossible on a genesis controller without pausing in between. In any case every savestate gives you the option to buffer 1 TAS-input, which you generally seem to want to disallow pre-level.
If you want to show me where that miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing would even apply to competitive play, please do so. Because otherwise it's a moot point.
And as for your remark about rule vs. proposition, try to keep yourself attached to the big picture here: I brought this up so we could talk about what to build as a solution to what is and is not allowed pre-level, because there are no rules at the moment. You're not helping much with your current attitude.
Also who are you to judge what is and isn't a feasible setup? The single-segment runs have evolved a lot because people took the time to research them and find consistent setups for what was previously thought of as being TAS-only. Even if a setup has only ever been TASed that doesn't mean it's unfeasable for a human to perform at least once.
So in short your arguments for allowing 1 savestate pre-level contradict themselves.
Who the fuck said I was judging anything? I brought this up to be open forum and you're coming out here not only guns-ablazin' but with homing rockets and nuclear bombs too! Unless you know anything about the setups that are taking place here, you've really undersold yourself.
If a player makes a setup that cannot be replicated on console by their own hands, it should not be permissible as a setup in any run. Plain and simple. You make this weird counterargument by dragging me into the equation when I have nothing to do with what makes a setup TAS-only and what doesn't. In fact, what makes a setup TAS-only and what doesn't is irrelevant. The idea is to block the usage of TASing or other banned activities pre-level (bar the one savestate we can't do anything about), whether they are TAS-only or not.
Having an arbitrary number of savestates at arbitrary times would hardly be more fair than any other number of savestates at any other arbitrary times. You think it's hard/time-consuming to setup so you need a savestate? Why not allow two so it's easier and less time consuming? You think having a lot of savestates defeats the purpouse of getting the stats? Why not ban it completely?
Was this just emotional banter? You're attacking (again) an arbitrating proposition by calling it arbitrary. GG, sir, you get the tautology of the year award!
Oh, wait. There's the slippery slope argument in there too. Fun. Protip: we're already allowing at least 1 no matter what, and allowing more than one makes matters worse. That's why the proposed cap is 1.
That's a discussion that doesn't lead anywhere but I think that if you truly want to be fair you either ban rings unaccessible from the level you're trying to RA altogether, allow people to TAS it and distribute a good save or you say that carrying rings from another level makes it part of "the run", thus it falls under the normal rules that disallow savestates. I don't consider 1 savestate a fair option in the sense that it doesn't solve anything.
Actually allowing just 1 save solves a lot. It permits the fair usage of saves as convenience, while still blocking TAS abuse. It also preserves the chart status.
Allowing no saves at all is ideal. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that. But that option isn't possible. So we've got to allow at least 1. You bet your ass I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure it stays at 1.
-
That wrapping ring nonsense was infuriating when I was SAing HC2. Sometimes I'd go too fast through a loop and get a wrapper, and it'd waste too much time trying to jump to get it. If my opinion counts (wouldn't be offended if it didn't) I'd totally ban the preservation of wrapping rings through to Act 2. Just... so stupid.
I was definitely able to get wrappers with nothing but a Lighting Shield though; I didn't know Super/Hyper made it easier.
-
Yeah it happened to me RAing Sandopolis 2 as well come to think of it. The reason it's easier with super forms, is a super form falls faster, making the ring be lost quicker, and start wrapping.
-
I don't understand where all this aggression is coming from. All I did was make points about your arguments in a factual manner. Way to be able to discuss a topic like a grown-up >_>...
You also seem to completely miss my points so I'll try to reiterate them more clearly just one more time.
I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts.
All I did was list your statements in order to properly point out what I consider errors. If you read your previous post again, it's pretty obvious to see where the fallacy is. No, having more than 1 savestate doesn't mean you've been TASing pre-level, as little as it means you've been TASing with 1 savestate. When I do time-attacks I do a quick savestate right at the start of a level. If I was doing a setup for the next act, I'd do a 2nd when I'm doing the setup and then a 3rd when I'm done with it (or something to that effect). If you think no'one else does that then you're wrong. You "literally can't discern who did and did not use" 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 savestates pre-level and that's why your logic doesn't work. Allowing 0 savestates would result in a lot of uncertainty regarding stats, which accoring to you is not an option. So then I don't consider 1 an option either because it would result in the exact same uncertainty for every stat that used savestates.
Logic isn't in play because the logical options are out of the equation.
There is a multitude of logical and possible solutions. I mentioned some of them in my last post. This isn't some kind of quantum physics-phenomenon we've discovered that completely defies logic and will allow us to teleport through time and space into Super Mario Galaxy. You're able to carry a few rings from the previous act, let's make logical rules about it.
If you don't think players aren't going to be motivated to TAS to maximize that ringcount you're way off.
I do think they would be motivated to TAS it if the rules allow. But I don't consider that a problem if we as a community don't consider getting those rings to follow you part of the run. If we do consider it part of the run, you couldn't TAS according to the rules anyway.
In fact, what makes a setup TAS-only and what doesn't is irrelevant. The idea is to block the usage of TASing or other banned activities pre-level (bar the one savestate we can't do anything about), whether they are TAS-only or not.
If you truly want 1 savestate to be allowed, isolating what isn't possible by humans should be a priority to find whoever that might try to cheat. With a video that should be somewhat doable, with an input file it should be much easier. With nothing but a count of the number of rings you carried, proofcalling is getting very, very complicated and probably no'one is going to ever have substantial evidence against them that the number of rings they carry is considered TASonly. Or the opposite might happen where we think that an amount of rings is unfeasible when it really isn't.
These things are not irrelevant, they are important to bring up when deciding on rules to avoid future drama and errors.
Was this just emotional banter?
Well I am stating the obvious but only to make my logic very clear. Having 1 savestate is not fairer than 2, or 3 or 4, or 100 or 35940 (which is the maximum in 9:59). Why? Because the arguments you make are mathematically recursive.
It's you who don't aknowledge 2 savestates as a middle ground. You don't aknowledge 3 or more either. So really it's you with the continuum fallacy. You are not consistent. If you consider 1 savestate an option, you'd be really hard pressed to scream "TAS!!!" at a run using 2 savestates when you yourself ask where that "miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing would even apply to competitive play".
Who the fuck said I was judging anything?
You did. "We don't want to allow any setups for a level that can't be replicated on console by human hands." Does that not imply you? Did I not say "you" in a way that could be interpreted as aimed at a group? Calm down...
You seem to think I'm on a personal vendetta on you with this. Don't flatter yourself, I'm not. You call me out on my attitude when I'm trying to stay factual. In fact, looking up the definition of "attitude" I found nothing that applies to my last post. You're the one with a demeaning attitude. If you genuinely think I'm being disrespectful of you in some way then I'm sorry because that was not my intention, but I do think you're seeing things that aren't there. I'm not trying to make this into the emulator discussion 2.0 and I don't disagree with what you're trying to acheive with the rule. I think it's as fair of an option as any, but I disagree with the way you're suggesting we should implement it.
But in the end, even if I was disrespectful of your opinions, you're no better. I don't have any interest trying to debate a topic with a belittling prick who counters arguments with profanity and statements like:
I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts. (Yes I listed your facts and pointed out the problems they'd cause which again are the same you're trying to avoid)
And for you to come at me like we've all been TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act) is also complete bullshit and hugely disrespectful (I didn't and I think it's pretty far fetched to interpret it like that)
Want to prune them yourself? Be my guest! Have fun and good luck with that research!
Have you been reading this thread? Or did you just come here to fuss at me randomly?
Who the fuck said I was judging anything? I brought this up to be open forum and you're coming out here not only guns-ablazin' but with homing rockets and nuclear bombs too!
But SDM, why should we allow savestates at all?
"The answer is obvious" SDM says, "because we want to start at the beginning of act 2 when doing ring attacks of act 2! This how we always handled savestates when dealing with ringboxes from act 1 bosses!"
Ah I can see that, that a legitimate reason to want to use a savestate. But now we're carrying rings to the second act in a way that is not easy, in fact it's very hard to do! But some doesn't want to allow savestates when you start carrying them. Some would even call it tool-assisted. Oh dear me, what could possibly be a compromise that allows savestating but not TASing when you start carrying the rings?
"We could only allow 1 savestate" SDM says, "that would make people more inclined to use it in the level transition or at least not be able to TAS act 1!"
Oh SDM that could be a solution. Unfortunately it also creates a few problems with it because we don't know how many savestates people have used in their past runs for example while finding a good global timer cycle. It would also let people save at times other than the level transition, do you want that?
"No! Yes!" SDM says. ("TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act)", "miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing")
So what do you suggest we do?
"Maybe we could let people only savestate in the level transitions?" SDM said.
HALLELUJA!
Fuck off.
-
Your walls of mindless text have gotten to the point where I don't even want to give the time of day to deal with. You bait a reaction by barging into a conversation you know nothing about, addressing me directly, and when you get one you wonder why you got that reaction. Amidst the damage you have done, no one else wants to even seriously talk in this thread. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. In the future, please consider your tone (and hopefully your knowledge of the situation) before you post.
You've done the same thing here as in the emulation thread, reassuring your points without backing them up and completely ignoring anything anyone else has to say and scoffing it away as a fallacy by completely rewriting and misinterpreting the posts. In this most recent post the only thing I can make out of it without giving too much of a damn is that 1) you hate what I've proposed because I somehow have my hand in the cookie jar and 2) you're flaming mad about it. You don't even concede the points to which I hit the nail on the head. Instead you avoid them and keep on truckin' your complaints.
You also seem to think this discussion still has anything at all to do with ring wrapping when I've repeated twice that it does not. Rather ring-wrapping is what brought us to talk about pre-level actions because no rules are written, and everyone who has ever competed in Sonic 3, who has seen this thread, has raised concerns. So are you here to propose a solution, or to bitch more? Because you're not helping to accomplish the the intended goal.
And in case you hadn't been reading, I said already that I would otherwise be fine with banning pre-level savestates in light of what is possible now. WE CAN'T. GET OVER IT. I don't know what part of "banning saves is infeasible" you don't seem to comprehend, but if you think you can accomplish it, be my guest.
You've also started to splice quotes together as if they were a response to a different question, when the fact remains that 2 saves are less fair than 1.
There's a hint of this mathematical recursion mess. Your rebuttals to 1 being a good solution are nothing but randomly misplaced theory.
You also don't seem to want to drop these shenanigans about multiple saves prelevel already existing, when I already clarified there was never a motive to use one until this ring wrapping mess came up in the thread: IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NOT ONE STAT ON THE CHARTS RIGHT NOW DOING THIS.
Lastly, if all you wanted to suggest is that the "1 save" takes place at the level transition, you could have left it at that and been maybe 5000000 times more gracious (and possibly respected) by doing so.
Hopefully while you're fucking off you actually ejaculate this time and come back with some research done on this state of affairs.
-
So who here likes video games? I like video games
Sonic is a fun video game that i like to play
-
I think the problem that arise here is the following: SDM makes a point about something that I disagree with. Then I try to point out what I consider wrong with them. SDM then say he disagrees with my points without adressing them properly, often with a foul language. I get riled up and reiterate my points with more detail and thought resulting in long posts that nobody cares to read properly and again SDM dismisses me as an uninformed lunatic without properly adressing my points. A negative circle emerges.
There is not much to say about my opinions that you can't already get a clue about by reading my two last posts and if someone disagrees with something specific in my logic I'd be happy to clarify or be proven wrong.
Also I've been in a pretty bad mood the last month so if I type aggressively then sorry.
I stand by my points at the moment though.
EDIT: If you still don't believe me about people using more than 1 savestate at the start of act 2, I can almost guarantee you that 99% of people that go for less than 1:30 on LR2 (http://www.soniccenter.org/rankings/sonic_&_knuckles/times/lava_reef_2) for Sonic & Knuckles used more than one savestate because there is a very good incentive to do so. I know for a fact I did. These stats should be erased if the 1-savestate rule is set into place, but good luck finding everyone who used 2 savestates or more setting up in every stat.
-
Excuse me? Until you took these hurtful tones in this post, which I emboldened for you for clarity in case your tone detector is broken, I was happy as a clam.
Ok so you say that banning save-states in act 1 isn't an option because people have done that a long time. (Misinterpretation) You also think (Aggressive tone and an assumption) that banning more than 1 savestate is an option even though there's probably just as many stats that have had more than 1 savestate in act 1's. Also the rules clearly states that "if a new rule is enacted, anything already submitted in violation of that rule is void." and so all ring-attacks using more than 1 savestate pre-level is illegitimate which is the same problem you're trying to avoid.
Allowing more than 1 savestate doesn't raise any obvious concerns to me at all so I'd love for you to elaborate.(Aggressive tone)
"No setups that can't be replicated on human hands" is not a rule I can find so I'm guessing it's a proposition. (Shows you weren't paying attention when I said we're trying to propose a rule change). But a single savestate gives you the option to for example switch holding from right to left on the d-pad on a single frame which I believe is humanly impossible on a genesis controller without pausing in between. In any case every savestate gives you the option to buffer 1 TAS-input, which you generally seem to want to disallow pre-level.
Also who are you to judge (Aggressive tone) what is and isn't a feasible setup? The single-segment runs have evolved a lot because people took the time to research them and find consistent setups for what was previously thought of as being TAS-only. Even if a setup has only ever been TASed that doesn't mean it's unfeasable for a human to perform at least once.
So in short your arguments for allowing 1 savestate pre-level contradict themselves.
Having an arbitrary number of savestates at arbitrary times would hardly be more fair than any other number of savestates at any other arbitrary times. You think it's hard/time-consuming to setup so you need a savestate? Why not allow two so it's easier and less time consuming? You think having a lot of savestates defeats the purpouse of getting the stats? Why not ban it completely? (Aggressive and assumptive)
That's a discussion that doesn't lead anywhere but I think that if you truly want to be fair you either ban rings unaccessible from the level you're trying to RA altogether, allow people to TAS it and distribute a good save or you say that carrying rings from another level makes it part of "the run", thus it falls under the normal rules that disallow savestates. I don't consider 1 savestate a fair option in the sense that it doesn't solve anything.
Pair that with your prior history of posting and tell me why I shouldn't react to you in kind.
Your posts aren't worth reading when you make vague points and not bring them up directly -- unless I have to drag them out of you with this kind of discussion (It's taken you this long to suggest 1 save at the transition and mention the case of LR2, when you could have been way more direct, clear, and respectful about it.)
While you've brought LR2 to light, by the way, what's going on over there with the savestateing? Care to elaborate why S&K players are doing that in the first place?
And, assuming that whatever they are doing is possible on console, would this (unofficial and intentionally in layman's terms) rewording be a solution?
"As many savestates as you want, but only during the level transition (starting point = act clear screen from act 1, ending point = title card for act 2)"
EDIT: After some research in LR2 it seems players would be using a single save, since the flame shield tuck looks easy to set up.
EDIT2: After some more research, it's easy as tails but not so as Sonic or Knuckles. What's worse is that my proposed rewrite is no good. (Unless we redefine it to "starting point = flag begins falling.")
IMO the LR2 topic should be addressed in and of itself in another thread, because whoever's been doing that definitely did take savestate usage way out of hand, when it could have been clean enough to just get it done in a single save.
Also, just FYI, it's pretty shitty to come at me like I've been TASing prelevel and using that as an argument when it was actually you who did it all along.
Allowing more than 1 savestate doesn't raise any obvious concerns to me at all so I'd love for you to elaborate.
Hold the hell up a minute. You knew about LR2, but you said this.
You have the record for LR2S and you said this.
AND YOU MEAN TO TELL ME YOU'RE NOT BAITING REACTIONS?!
/me sigh
I've been had.
-
Zero (in other words, banning savestates pre-level) is not a solid option because it would entail completely uprooting not only exactly half of my Ring stats, but half of the ring stats of every single TSC user to ever use an emulator while competing in those Act 2's.
you say that banning save-states in act 1 isn't an option because people have done that a long time.
You'd have to clarify what my misinterpretation was because I honestly can't see it. It might be a bit simplified but the core of the argument is that 0 is not an option.
When you wrote the "no setups" thing I interpreted it as being the basis of a new ruleset and even though you mentioned people talking about it on IRC that's not a conversation I have taken part in so I don't have all the data. But I still didn't necessarily agree it is the best approach because what's possible by a human is subjective.
You think it's hard/time-consuming to setup so you need a savestate? Why not allow two so it's easier and less time consuming? You think having a lot of savestates defeats the purpouse of getting the stats? Why not ban it completely?
It's important to note that I'm not talking about a person here. It's a summary of my argument that reflects the recursive nature of what I believe is arguments to allow save-stating at all during setups for act 2's.
When it comes to my posts being interpreted as aggressive. HDL has brought that up at least once before so I'm aware of it being a problem at times. But you have to remember that English is not my first language, it's actually my third (fourth depending on if you count mutual intelligibility). I might use a lot of fancy words here and there but I just happen to be relatively well spoken in Swedish so I more or less directly translate what I think would be correct into English both in speech and writing. Swedish have different words for you (singular) and you (group). Other words like they and those only have 1 word in Swedish where the interpretation come from context and tone. I'm not perfect but what I'm trying to say is that I'm not actively trying to be aggressive. If I were I'd use caps and exclamation marks. Some parts might even have been passive aggressive and I don't mean to put the blame on other stuff but I do believe that my mood at the moment has played a part, for which I apologize.
Finally there's one sentence that stands out to me: "Also who are you to judge what is and isn't a feasible setup?". I'm sure you read this like "Who are YOU to..." but there is a second way to read it out loud and still be correct. Something really common in Swedish is that instead of saying "who would do such a thing?" we say "why would you do that?" where the tone determines if it's general or towards a specific person. So I guess that sentence kind of doesn't work in writing.
Also the only reason why I didn't bring up LR2 until now is because I only just realised it was a good tangible example of stats that would be needed to be removed if a 1-savestate rule was enacted. But what I've argued about until now is the idea itself and that's mostly because I feel it's like a quick-fix for a specific glitch. What happens when the next evolution comes up, do we rewrite the rules again and possibly void stats? Is there a better and more general way to formulate rules such that they don't encourage or discourage the use of savestates, don't infringe on existing stats and are easy to interpret and see the logic behind? I believe there is.
EDIT: This is anectdotal so don't read unless you want to know why I don't consider TASing pre-level a problem even counting LR2. I don't think it's a fun way to beat the record but all I needed was 2 savestates. The first one I used before the signpost came down. The second one I used after getting stuck in the ground. If I had 0 savestates I would have to do act 1 again every try, only wasting time. With 1 savestate I could try again immediately, wasting less time. With 2 savestates I can savestate after being in the ground, wasting no time at all. This brings me back to the recursive argument in the second quote. And PS: I used an emulator on the Wii that doesn't allow you to buffer inputs so the only tool used was save-state functionality which also is present in some official rereleases, it's not like I frame advanced or edited/watched RAM-values. Saying someone used more than 1 savestate doesn't automatically imply they TASed any more than a person using only 1 savestate, which SDM seems to have misinterpreted. Would I be happy if the rules didn't allow savestates? Yes because that would give the record more prestigue. Am I sad savestates are allowed? Not really because the rules apply to everyone. Do I think 1 savestate-restrictions are pointless in what they're trying to achieve as a global rule? Yes.
EDIT2: No I did not suggest 1 save at the transition. I suggested any number of saves during the transition, let's say at any time between when the timer is stopped and before it resets again. I don't consider it the best solution overall, I only consider it better than a single save at any point not during act 2.
-
The misinterpretation in your first quote refers to you transforming my argument about inability to ban saves because of infeasibility within the charts (we would have to go back and uproot hundreds of stats to which we don't know who did and who didn't load an opening save, even 8+ years ago before I came here).
You rewrote it as "SDM doesn't want it banned because that's the way it has always been."
It really comes across as a slap in the face when you do that to someone's writing.
Let me make myself clear on that situation before I continue. I want to ban saves outright in light of what has arisen. We can't. The only choice moving forward is to allow saves to some extent, whether that amount is singular or plural.
Regarding your second quote: it's a good idea (in American English at least) to avoid the usage of the words "You" or even "I" when writing as much as possible, unless you're talking about personal experiences or are referring to something that actually happened. Instead of yelping "you think x" or "you think y," instead suggest something along the lines of "If x is the goal why not do this?"
Then we can at least address it by pointing out that either you have a good suggestion or x is not the goal. And then the discussion can continue in a positive manner, by clarifying our mutual goals respectfully.
Regarding "Who are you to judge," it wasn't necessarily the word you poking out this time, but rather in conjunction with the word judge (which is a very strong combo in the context you ended up writing). The way that was written, you made it sound like I was usurping control over the whole scenario, and from there we had the wrong idea on each other's stances.
As for English not being your first language, I understand where your struggles are in accidentally causing unwanted confusion. I remember having epic struggles when I was a teenager working at a restaurant with a Mexican and a Czech and translating for everyone. I have often sent someone to the bathroom when they were looking for the paprika. The most embarrassing part was he came back with toilet paper.
Of course you're definitely more fluent in your secondary languages than I am in mine, and it shows in the way you write in English, but I think you know what I'm getting at by now. Now that we know where the line breaks are, let's just both agree to ask for clarity before we jump to any conclusions like we both did earlier. We'll both be a lot better off.
I am also deeply sorry for causing you additional grief on top of the weeds you're trudging through.
Moving forward, to address your final paragraph fairly, it is a great thing that you brought up LR2, because in the spirit of preservation of prior stats we don't want to ruin that either.
It certainly does force us to shy away from the 1-savestate option. The underlying idea is that suggestions for rules for what can and can't be done before a level starts need to be made in light of what has happened, so that we are not so heavily mind-blown when something new arises. I merely presented one idea by suggesting the 1-save rule. I am open to any ideas you may wish to suggest.
EDIT: Your second edit has just appeared on my end. I wrote that potential solution (at least in a similar manner) as well in my previous post and I am inclined to agree with it.
-
Random idea: What if S3K score/ring stats were per zone, instead of per act? This avoids double-counting buried monitors on the charts, and renders setups like that pointless since collecting the rings in either act would be sufficient to count in the final total. It's not going to happen for a variety of reasons (wipes all long-standing charts, infeasible to show those stats with a single screenshot, makes it vastly more annoying to play when both successful routes have to be done back-to-back), but this discussion would pretty much never arise if it had been done that way from the beginning. Pity Sonic Team for not building 20 years of forethought into their design process.
-
lolSM. I like it.
While you're here, what was the original intent behind banning Super/Hyper forms back in the time dinosaurs roamed the earth?
-
The goal was to avoid making Sonic's base-form physics completely obsolete, as well as preemptively fending off questions like "Can I use Super Sonic in Emerald Hill 1?" (which can only be done with the emerald code or by level-selecting to the special stage several times in a row). The pattern of counting to 50 and saying "ready or not, here I come!" didn't sound very compelling, even before we figured out just how breakable those games could be.
-
That's all I need. Thanks for your time.
Okay so here's what TimpZ and I have culminated to in our discussion: As many saves as you wish, but only during the downtime between the timer stopping and the timer resetting.
TL;DR: This preserves prior stats while maintaining as much fair play in future setups as possible. Yes it's arbitrary, but it's a damn good compromise.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
-
First of all, thank you for that post SDM. It was sensible, understanding and factual.
I think sentences like the one you interpret as "SDM doesn't want it banned because that's the way it has always been." really shows the language gap because I would interpret the whole paragraph as "what your argument is, is that 0 is infeasible and I agree. But for the same reasons you think 0 is infeasible, I think 1 is as well".
There are a multitude of ways I could've formulated myself but I did it poorly and I didn't bring examples like LR2 so, yea sorry about that. (Assuming this is a good formulation?)
Anyway, back on point. There is one essential thing that is necessary to consider before anything else. Do we consider setups part of the stat? If we don't, then there's no need for rule changes and we can leave everything be at that, savestating in the level transition would be like savestating in the level select no matter what you did previously. If we do consider it part of the run, then I'm assuming that there will be no exceptions for savestates during the run just like it has always been for all other stats.
So if we do, then we again have two options. Either we make blanket rules for all stats or we make a special case for ring attacks. If we make a special case then it's easy, just allow this strategy or don't because the actual number of rings isn't important but the challenge behind is. If you ask for my opinion I say allow it. Getting the WR time in some stats is insane and I don't see why it can't be like that with ring attacks as well because then I'd be motivated to compete in them. Right now I just see them as time-consuming in S1-3K.
If we want to overhaul the rules-section with a new paragraph regarding setups in act 1 then I think we have the following alternatives:
1) Ignore setups that don't deviate from beating act 1 "normally". I know that formulation is sketchy at best but it's the idea that is important here. You can start from act 1 in order to get better cycles, better positioning, start with a shield in act 2, boss ringmonitors etc. You can also start from act 1 in order to carry rings, carry slope glitch, start from inside a wall or similar "abnormal" things. In the latter case, only count whatever is happening in act 2 but require proof from act 1 as well when proofcalling. This would not work retroactively for stats prior to the rule-change because we wouldn't expect people to save proof from act 1 in the past.
2) Same as (1) but ban the abnormal completely.
3) Allow savestating in the downtime if all other rules are also abided. You can't use super sonic or TAS-tools in the setup for example. Perhaps add more general rules as well. No we can't make absolutely sure people follow it but the honour rule still apply and we do know if something is exclusive to for example super sonic. If they claim it isn't then it's up to the submitter to prove it. I understand this conflicts with what I wrote about "no exceptions" but I can see the argument that people might be discouraged to compete if a setup+the run takes 10-20 minutes, all to be ruined by something miniscule.
In my opinion (1) seems best out of these options to me. Of all the options I'd say don't consider setups part of the run at all though, I think it encourages creativity to break stages and adapt TAS-only strategies to real-time runs.
That's all I can think of right now at least. I might come up with more suggestions later but I'd rather have input on this first. After that maybe we can start to compile a list of possible rule changes (especially after more people have voiced their opinion. So far this discussion has been sort of two-sided) and have a vote.
I must say I do like the idea of per-zone attacking but it would essentially purge the leaderboards for S3K. If this is what the community wants then so be it (because I don't have any stats I care about in S3K ˙͜>˙).
EDIT: TL;DR Sorry SDM. Bunch of options I like, give me yours as well
-
I just have a quick question: As long as the topic is "Rings carried over from Act 1 to be used for Act 2", there's something I noticed a while ago when watching one of ORKAL's glitch videos. He demonstrates that it's possible to have a Batbot from CN Act 1 follow you all the way to the boss as Knuckles, and to then keep it alive during the boss fight and through to completion of the act. You can see the video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_wHzdh26xA), the trick in question starts at about 5:30 in the video.
The reason I bring it up is that in the video, in the split second between the time vulnerability returns after the level tally and when the ring counter gets reset for Act 2, Knuckles gets hit, making it possible to collect the ring he had and thus have a ring at the start of the stage. Theoretically this could be done with more rings than just one. If collecting vertically looped rings from Act 1 is allowed, would this be allowed for an Act 2 ring stat as well, or does this fall under the "no collecting a ring more than once" rule even though it was previously collected in Act 1?
-
@ORKAL: That would be allowed. "Collecting the same rings twice" in the rules is more or less referring to a ring from the exact same location (Which is why transitioning to act 2 as knuckles in icecap 1 is banned, as one could open the same monitor twice.). A -1 +1 situation is fine, as opposed to a +2 situation.
For the record, you can get at most 32 rings this way, and the best way to do it (after a little experimenting) would be over solid, U-shaped ground. (Fat chance of luring a bot into HC2 without some debug though)
@TimpZ: Thank you for taking the time to hear me out and reach an understanding. Among your ideas posted, I particularly like the third one best.
As for alternatives, I would also be sated with having a simple honor system and not overkilling things, it's just that it's getting hard to keep track over in the domain of Sonic 3, what with the discoveries that mike89, werster, SB737, DsS, Romulo, and myself have made. Very few of us (if not me alone) know all of them by heart.
I've already almost forgotten that we still need to worry about IC1 again, now that we have new challengers in the ring. (No pun intended)
-
I would say that dont allow using Super Sonic in the setup through act 1, I'd say ban TAS tools such as frame advance or using the RAM etc, however allow using as many savestates as you want in the act 1 setup, throughout the stage. I think that's what Timpz suggested in his third one, but I could have misinterpreted it.
-
Close. We defined downtime earlier (though without directly highlighting it) as when the timer stops until the timer resets. Otherwise you have it right.