Author Topic: Discussing Possible Topics for Change  (Read 21050 times)

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« on: February 12, 2015, 10:16:39 AM »
So recently there's been a lot of new things found in LA/DX, and the shape of the game and ruleset is really up in the air at the moment to the point where the community really needs to come together to discuss this. Because of this I feel like this is really the perfect time to share any and all possible ideas or topics that may want to be explored as far as rule changes may go. Myself I feel like this is a good time to discuss the issue of dying on the stairs. In addition to this, others have expressed their wanting to explore further the ideas of Walrus Skip, Frog Song skip, and lv2 Bracelet skip to name a few.

I just wanted to make this post to allow anyone else who may want to bring up a topic to voice their opinion freely so that it may be explored in the near future, as this might be a pivotal point in LA/DX speedrun history. So if you have anything you'd like to add, feel free to post and discuss.

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2015, 11:29:59 AM »
I would like the LA/DX community to write down a definitive definition of what an OoB is, on which everyone would agree, the runners as much as the TASers (I know it would involve some differences though). This done, this could eventually help defining what is allowed and not, what is an OoB, and not -such as Walrus skip, Frog Song skip...-
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 05:34:16 AM by aulos »

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2015, 07:08:33 PM »
The concern brought up with the walrus was the PoP trick to get past him from the desert side. With the current definition:
Quote
"No OoB" means no out of bounds glitches that allow link to unnaturally bypass normal screen transition boundaries by clipping through solid objects (this does not include wall clipping).
You're kind of clipping through the walrus, though not exactly... and I guess you could argue that you're trying to bypass the transition boundary at the edge of the desert? I'm not entirely sure how to interpret the bypassing screen transition boundaries thing, to be honest.

One way I might interpret it is "you can't do a screen transition between any 2 spots that aren't supposed to be connected". I think this makes the clipping through solid walls part redundant, though. This would allow walrus skip, and disallow old frog song skip. I guess you could do the shaq jump near d4 with this definition if you went back in-bounds before transitioning (not that it would be useful afaik).

Another way to interpret it is "you can't clip through solid objects to reach a screen you're not supposed to be able to reach". That would be more restrictive, disallowing all 3 things I mentioned in the last paragraph, I think.

Is one of those interpretations correct, or am I wrong on both of them, or is it not clear? In fact, what's the reason it doesn't just say "no clipping through solid objects"? It's implied that you're allowed to clip through solid objects, as long as you don't do it to bypass normal screen transition boundaries (whatever that means).
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 07:44:35 PM by Drenn »

Offline Rapid_

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 22
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2015, 08:32:31 PM »
Better yet, what is a "solid object"? I understand these would be anything that restricts Link from moving, however "objects"(at this point) is too broad a definition. Does it mean tiles, or sprites? I am asking this as Walrus is a sprite, not a tile.
As well, I feel that "the Eagle Tower wrong warp in the mini-boss room" should be sent to the OoB ruleset, as it is an OoB: Link gets clipped outside of the screen transition (his y-value is set below zero and some magic mumbo-jumbo takes place, which sets his y-value to something above 255), he doesn't get sent to an unnatural entrance value.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 08:37:03 PM by Rapid_ »

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2015, 03:11:18 AM »
Another way to interpret it is "you can't clip through solid objects to reach a screen you're not supposed to be able to reach". That would be more restrictive, disallowing all 3 things I mentioned in the last paragraph, I think.

What about the OoB after the rooster skip ? It's obviously an OoB but you could reach the screen by simply walking left. It's like a shortcut.

Offline Tompa

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 147
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2015, 12:40:29 PM »
For a regular corner clip through a wall, you can clip either 2 or 3 pixels. This has always been allowed for obvious reasons. But the moment you clip in more into a block, it has been banned. So the actual OoB definition has been "Not allowed to clip more than 3 pixels into an object".

When you jump down onto the walrus, you are clipped two pixels into him. Banning that would mean you ban all corner clips, which wouldn't make much sense. And if he was a "solid object", that would mean Link would have jumped over him too and landed in the water. As when you jump down a cliff, Link will skip past all solid objects until he can hit the ground.

And "you can't do a screen transition between any 2 spots that aren't supposed to be connected" would mean no Villa Skip, depending on how you look at it.

The way I have solved this for the new TAS, which is the least arbitary I could think of, is the following:

Main category: "No Wrong Warping". This includes going from one cave/dungeon into a different cave/dungeon. This will allow Frog Song Skip, but ban the type when you get on top of the ceiling in a cave to walk to a different cave, such as the old Walrus skip method. And obviously banning Doghouse and the methods of screen warping in LA and LADX.

I would actually suggest real time runners to have a similar ruleset. To me it makes the most sense currently =).
May the Triforce be with you.

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2015, 07:13:22 AM »
I'm glad this was made as a formal topic/thread as it's something I've been wanting to talk about for a long time. I've felt for a while that a fair portion of tricks in the game aren't widely documented and that there's some stuff from past years before my time (I started speedrunning in late 2013) that I've seen referenced before by older runners but never knew much about and couldn't find explained anywhere. Examples are Frog Song Skip (this is more unexplored than undocumented since it was deemed OoB anyway), the "Shaq Jump" which I know at some point was allowed if I remember correctly but was later disallowed and frankly have no idea of where in the runs it could be useful if allowed, the "jesus jump" which I had to find from an old old old 100% vod from years ago, etc.

Taking inventory of the glitches in the game and ways/places they would be useful is something I've wanted to see for a long time since I feel there's been some stuff that has been lost as much of the veterans of LADX who would know about the history of the game and speedrun are retired from speedrunning in general and much of the community is of newer people.


Anyway, the thing I think right now we need to figure out and then decide on is what and why the Piece of Power allows you to clip through the Walrus sprite, and if this constitutes an OoB movement.

Secondly, as Tompa brings up, there are.. inconsistencies in the current ruleset. Specifically disallowing Out of Bounds as currently defined, while allowing Villa Skip which very much should be considered an out of bounds movement under  that ruleset. A tighter definition of the glitch types, instances of them, would be very good since the current definition of the ruleset is fairly poor for OoB and WW designations and this is the perfect time to discuss this while the community is enthused about the new glitches being found.

My own input on the rule situation is that I've always mentally internalized 3 tiers of major glitching that I Know of in LADX:

1) "Wrong Warping" which is just the action of utilizing the corrupted or 'broken' map tiles that can be accomplished with Dog House Glitch, the Dungeon 7 Miniboss Warp, and a few other areas I can't recall.
2) "Out of Bounds" which is a bit slipperier to define under the LADX run but is the act of moving through barriers and objects that isn't intended in a way that doesn't constitute a wall clip. An example I can think of is all movements that utilize the Shaq Jump, and Frog Song Skip.
3) Wall Clipping, which for any non-runners who might be reading is the act of slightly clipping into the 2 pixels of a sprite's edge allowing you to make movements or avoid hitbox areas that you otherwise wouldn't be able to or isn't intended. This is utilized massively in the run.

On top of this there's also the S&Q and No S&Q distinction which I'm conflicted on. I feel it's an antiquated holdover that doesn't add much to the run as a rule, however for LADX it does add an interesting mechanic - the piece of power - that becomes a cool mechanism for further mastery of the game at higher levels.

My own personal ideal has always been to have different categories reflecting the different tiers of rulesets listed above to give a variety of ways to play through the game giving a fun and diverse experience. With people picking up a bunch of new (relatively) categories in 2014, this has mostly been achieved. My only issues really are figuring out how to define certain subsets of glitches and how to deal with, if any are found, inconsistencies in the ones allowed in the route currently.

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2015, 11:01:58 AM »
For a regular corner clip through a wall, you can clip either 2 or 3 pixels. This has always been allowed for obvious reasons. But the moment you clip in more into a block, it has been banned. So the actual OoB definition has been "Not allowed to clip more than 3 pixels into an object".

When you jump down onto the walrus, you are clipped two pixels into him. Banning that would mean you ban all corner clips, which wouldn't make much sense. And if he was a "solid object", that would mean Link would have jumped over him too and landed in the water. As when you jump down a cliff, Link will skip past all solid objects until he can hit the ground.
It's definitely weird to apply this to sprites, since they behave differently than solid tiles, and wall clipping doesn't apply to them. So the same rules that apply to solid walls might not apply to sprites. But this is the only case where a sprite is involved. So basically, we either have to make up the rules just for this sprite, or continue using rules designed for solid walls which don't entirely apply to sprites?

I for one would actually be okay with tricks that allow you to clip through sprites, since they don't necessarily stay in one place for the entire game, and even if you're inside them, the spot you're at can be considered in-bounds. I don't know of any other consequences this would allow, because afaik this situation only just came up with the walrus.

EDIT - another excellent point brought up by daemona in another thread is that, when you exit dungeon 8, the turtle head is still there. Are you clipped into that? (Again, this is a sprite, which the game expects to be gone at this point in the game)

Also, I don't think villa skip would be considered OoB with this definition, since you're not actually clipping into anything. The game automatically puts you into a falling state so you're not inside of a bush or anything. It was just my attempts at interpreting the rules that were off.

Lastly - if the actual OoB definition is "Not allowed to clip more than 3 pixels into an object", why doesn't it say so in the rules? :P
« Last Edit: February 14, 2015, 11:12:52 AM by Drenn »

Offline Daemonax3

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 2
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2015, 11:46:17 AM »
Or could it be that it is only an OoB if you bypass objects to get something faster?
You are only stuck into the turtlehead you are not trying to leave.
It would also make no sense if you wanna walk to D7 after D8 becouse its slower so you would anyways play Mambo.
But for a short moment you are stucked in a sprite.


Offline Tompa

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 147
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2015, 02:58:22 AM »
Lastly - if the actual OoB definition is "Not allowed to clip more than 3 pixels into an object", why doesn't it say so in the rules? :P

Because people haven't really known what kind of rule they have actually made up for the game. I tried to explain people long ago on the matter, though no one seemed to care, until now when it has brought up again by something (The Walrus) that is the same exact thing as everyone has used in every run up to this point (The Turtle).
May the Triforce be with you.

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2015, 07:17:04 AM »
The only "difference" between the Walrus and the Turtle Head is that you can walk out of the latter without needing a PoP. I would guess it's because the Turtle Head has a narrower sprite or something ?

But anyway, now you've made the comparison, I have to say that I'm definitely ok with the Walrus being not an OoB. And if people really want to set it as one, then should we kill the Turtle Head ? That sounds wrong in my opinion.

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2015, 08:04:04 AM »
The Turtle example is very good, Tompa. I think we are in agreement that banning the Walrus clip means we ban the Turtle Rock clip as well.

The clip doesn't happen at all in S+Q but I'm curious on the Japanese opinion of it. Does anybody have a video of the Walrus despawn in the S+Q category? I want to contact the Japanese community to see if they would allow it under JRTA timing. That won't affect us on ZSR, but I'm curious to see their opinions on the matter. (though ultimately I'd like all Japanese runners to move their leaderboards to ZSR)

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2015, 12:31:42 PM »
I did walrus skip around 22 minutes into my S+Q pb - http://zeldaspeedruns.com/speedruns/66791

So, then, what do we want to do about the rules? To me, "Not allowed to clip more than 3 pixels into an object" is a lot more clear of a definition of an OoB than what the rules say right now. We could perhaps change that to "Not allowed to clip more than 3 pixels into a solid tile", noting that sprites are not tiles. Afaik the current route conforms to this, and is optimized for these rules, but correct me if I'm wrong?

We could also go for something like Tompa's definition, which just prevents us from transitioning from different cave systems. I have a feeling this would allow for a number of shenanigans which aren't used in the current route, but the only one I know of is old frog song skip. And perhaps L2 bracelet skip. Both things that were banned after the last rule change. :P

Anyway, thoughts?

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2015, 01:09:28 PM »
Regarding Turtle Rock (I'm not quite sure how to phrase this either):

It seems that the Turtle's "Hitbox" or points where it's solid is only at its nose. Theoretically, if you were able to wallclip at that point (like you would when you exit the dungeon) you could bypass him there too. In other words, you're not "inside" a "solid" object, which would be essentially the same as the wall clips we do before D2 or in the Armos Knight Maze. I'm not really arguing in favour or against banning turtle head skip thingy, just a thought.

So yeah..


Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2015, 01:20:02 PM »
Regarding Turtle Rock (I'm not quite sure how to phrase this either):

It seems that the Turtle's "Hitbox" or points where it's solid is only at its nose. Theoretically, if you were able to wallclip at that point (like you would when you exit the dungeon) you could bypass him there too. In other words, you're not "inside" a "solid" object, which would be essentially the same as the wall clips we do before D2 or in the Armos Knight Maze. I'm not really arguing in favour or against banning turtle head skip thingy, just a thought.

So yeah..


Makes sense to me. I guess that makes the situation with the walrus unique, then.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2015, 01:24:52 PM »
I also did some "testing" (really just muckin' around) right now. If you fight the turtle head, you will also notice that his hitbox is only in his nose. (You can test this out by trying to "poke" his eye while fighting him. It doesn't work, damage only happens at the base of the nose.) Still, it can be open for discussion.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 01:28:52 PM by ZorlaxSeven »

Offline Tompa

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 147
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2015, 11:16:05 PM »
And yes, Turtle, Armos, Goponga Flowers and the flowers are all the same. They are all clipped through their tops, as the hitboxes isn't stretched out completely. For the walrus it is stretched up a bit further. Likely because you would otherwise be able to simply walk through it into the Desert with a wallclip. It's otherwise the same kind of sprite object as the above mentioned ones (Before they are activated).

Here are two things you can have open for discussion too. First one being that you can shoot through blocks while they are moving, something it seemed like people didn't know about... Second is just the same kind of glitch used for Frog Song Skip. But are you allowed to use it to go through other blocks that won't take you to a new screen (Based on one of the definitions in the topic). Each time you clip you are clipped three pixels in to the block. Which would technically mean you are allowed to do it once but not more. Or...?

http://youtu.be/Zx6O3l7Xe1c
May the Triforce be with you.

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2015, 11:33:12 PM »
Out of curiosity, what applications would that hookshot clip have in a run? Besides the shown clip in D7.

Offline captain_mop

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 8
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2015, 11:38:34 PM »
Was there reason for banning OoB other than wrong warping? If not, then could we just give a clear definition to wrong warping?
This would allow small time saver tricks like walk on ceiling, Randu method flame thrower skip, and the block skip shown by Tompa. It would also allow for larger riskier time saver tricks like frog song skip.

Flynn: another flame thrower skip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvsnDqG1dZo

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2015, 12:07:30 AM »
I completely forgot about that skip, it looks so swag.

Offline Tompa

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 147
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2015, 12:12:50 AM »
Flynn: It was basically just showing off the trick for this discussion of "OoB". It doesn't really have a use anywhere.

And yeah, the video Captain posted is another good example for this. Something which I think should be allowed as well.
May the Triforce be with you.

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2015, 08:36:52 AM »
What is the current Any% No Wrong Warp route? It's not a category on ZSR, but if I'm not mistaken, allowing OoB sans restriction will enable you to beat the game in under 30 minutes, no Doghouse or Wrong Warping involved. That's part of why I'm uncomfortable with embracing the stuff seen in the video, but I am okay with us trying to come up with a solid definition for what constitutes OoB fully. The problem is some things in the current route may fall under the OoB definition we come up with as well. Unfortunately this is one of those games where we need to come up with a pretty arbitrary ruleset simply because our Any% is as short as it is.

Can somebody link a video of this Ceiling bug we're talking about? I sadly have never seen it. :(

Offline captain_mop

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 8
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2015, 08:59:15 AM »
walk on ceiling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt9X8UpZ7Bw . It only saves about 5 seconds unless you use the glitch elsewhere to ww, like so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_b5moECt00

What OoB trick allows you to beat the game in under 30 minutes without ww?

Offline Tompa

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 147
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2015, 09:25:34 AM »
Can somebody link a video of this Ceiling bug we're talking about? I sadly have never seen it. :(

You (And everyone else) should watch Swordless' TAS :).
May the Triforce be with you.

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2015, 09:40:45 AM »
walk on ceiling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt9X8UpZ7Bw . It only saves about 5 seconds unless you use the glitch elsewhere to ww, like so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_b5moECt00

What OoB trick allows you to beat the game in under 30 minutes without ww?

Sweet, so I knew about that but didn't realize it was named that. :)
The current No WW route uses that second trick, actually. The full route is here: http://pastebin.com/9Zuew1cK

Part of the logic there is that you aren't warping since you aren't hitting any warp tiles except for the one into Dethyl's room. However, that is the intended warp and not a wrong warp. Warp data, by the way, is as follows:
  • D401: 00 - Overworld, 01 - Dungeon, 02 - Sidescrolling, FF - Corrupted (this is what happens in Doghouse if you set warp on one screen and then leave to a screen without a warp)
  • D402: In-Game Map, list here: http://www.zeldaspeedruns.com/la/doghouse/in-game-maps (I need to update this again)
  • D403: Room number
  • D404: X Position for Link
  • D405: Y Position for Link

If we go with Tompa's proposed definitions for OOB, that route would be invalidated because Tompa's definition states that going from one dungeon into another should be considered OOB.
Tompa, you had a ruleset you wrote up for the new TAS, correct? Can you post that here, please? I think it'd be very useful.

Offline Tompa

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 147
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2015, 09:44:01 AM »
I don't use the term "out of bounds" when making up the rules for the TAS. It's an arbitary name that I don't like using.

But I already posted my definition in the topic:

"Main category: "No Wrong Warping". This includes going from one cave/dungeon into a different cave/dungeon. This will allow Frog Song Skip, but ban the type when you get on top of the ceiling in a cave to walk to a different cave, such as the old Walrus skip method. And obviously banning Doghouse and the methods of screen warping in LA and LADX."
May the Triforce be with you.

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2015, 09:52:01 AM »
You know, if we go with Tompa's definition, we could always rename the old "no WW" route to "no doghouse" or something like that. That's basically what the current WW definition is, aside from the fact that we lumped the d7 -> d8 warp in with it.

I'm curious as to what ruleset the japanese runners use. A rule change could make our S+Q categories very different.

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2015, 10:01:04 AM »
Mab, the no WW route is 20 minutes long.

http://www.twitch.tv/flynngaming/c/5195925

Awful run, but you get the point. Game gets broken open after D2.

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2015, 10:03:04 AM »
I'm curious as to what ruleset the japanese runners use. A rule change could make our S+Q categories very different.

From the Japanese ruleset: http://www40.atwiki.jp/niconamarta/pages/135.html
I'll try my best to translate...

ALLOWED
S+Q
Death
Thief
Hookshot Jumping
Final Boss 3rd Form (Moldorm) Stunlocking (I think that's what it means?)

DISALLOWED
Screen scroll bug
Doghouse Glitch
Tunic Glitch
Slipping through rocks diagonally (i.e. what was shown as a means of skipping Flamethrower)
Version specific bugs:
v1.0: (something about jumping between different levels of height?)
v1.0: Using items in Mambo's room to shorten time, items that don't shorten time are allowed
v1.0: Making Link invincible (huh?)
v1.0: Freezing Blocks (guess my JP PB is now invalid lol.....)
v1.1: Skipping dialogue on Final Boss (what is this?)

Then they list some "TAS"-only strats that are "obviously" banned.

I don't think we should worry about their rules, in all honesty.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 10:05:01 AM by mabdulra »

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2015, 10:18:37 AM »
v1.0: Making Link invincible (huh?)
Guess I really wasn't the first to find that trick with the hookshot, lol
Quote
v1.1: Skipping dialogue on Final Boss (what is this?)
Might be related to the thing which softlocks the game 99% of the time if you pause before the text? :P

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2015, 10:21:43 AM »
I'd like to think about every OOB Non-WW in LADX before we do any ruleset change for it.
Here's one I thought of that would very likely happen, and it's very easy to do, too:

1. Open d4
2. Go right to the cave
3. Jump onto ceiling, stay in the cave bounds, just go around the obstacle
4. Exit cave on other side and enter d4

I'm assuming that this will show up in the new TAS, Tompa? ;)

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2015, 04:06:00 PM »
And what about just remove the "no OoB" term and replacing it by, I don't know, "as defined by the LA/DX community" ?

I mean, if "OoB" is too annoying to define so the runs can be, just ban stuff we don't want to see and allow stuff we do ?

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2015, 12:34:01 PM »
And what about just remove the "no OoB" term and replacing it by, I don't know, "as defined by the LA/DX community" ?

I mean, if "OoB" is too annoying to define so the runs can be, just ban stuff we don't want to see and allow stuff we do ?
To me that approach is really not ideal, I mean even if at the end of the day we need to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, we at least need a guideline to use. Preferably it should be as clear as possible.

I think both of the options mentioned here can work, I'm just not sure what people would prefer. I'd be okay with tompa's definition which allows more skips, but I'm not very immersed into the main categories yet. I'm especially curious what the higher level runners would think, like leon / zorlax, after all the time spent optimizing for a less lenient ruleset.

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2015, 01:44:37 PM »
I'm fine with any rule changes. Change in the route(s) should be interesting at least! I've always been intrigued by the minor OoBs that were allowed in the route before I entered the community, and none of the categories utilize other than the No WW one which I think only 2 people have ran.

Only caveat I'll add is that if the ruleset is modified enough that the old runs are heavily invalidated perhaps just rename the current main category to Legacy or w/e simply as a means of preserving the leaderboards and runs of the last 3~ years of the game's activity. 

idk I don't particularly care about my PBs being wiped or invalidated; I can always play more and get new ones

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2015, 05:01:29 PM »
I have too many quotes I want to use so I'll go through them quick and loose from earlier posts, sorry for not giving credit where it is due, but just read the posts and you will be fine :)

Quote
Anyway, the thing I think right now we need to figure out and then decide on is what and why the Piece of Power allows you to clip through the Walrus sprite, and if this constitutes an OoB movement.

I for one would love to know EXACTLY why PoP allows you to move through it.  I also wonder how many other things PoP would effect "boundaries" of.

Quote
Secondly, as Tompa brings up, there are.. inconsistencies in the current ruleset. Specifically disallowing Out of Bounds as currently defined, while allowing Villa Skip which very much should be considered an out of bounds movement under  that ruleset. A tighter definition of the glitch types, instances of them, would be very good since the current definition of the ruleset is fairly poor for OoB and WW designations and this is the perfect time to discuss this while the community is enthused about the new glitches being found.

After we make a ruling I think we should have a page on ZSR clearly stating each trick, what "rule" it falls under, and a video of it.  This way in the future it is easier to document some of the lesser known tricks newer runners like myself might not even be aware of.

Quote
On top of this there's also the S&Q and No S&Q distinction which I'm conflicted on. I feel it's an antiquated holdover that doesn't add much to the run as a rule, however for LADX it does add an interesting mechanic - the piece of power - that becomes a cool mechanism for further mastery of the game at higher levels.

I feel like now that LA is becoming more "broken" there is room for S&Q again.  I think before it was a very similar route to the LA run.  Now that LA is changing a lot, I feel having somewhere to show off that "style" of route could be fun.  The fact that No SQ and SQ sync up after Mambo is sad, because it makes a lot of the run similar route wise, where without it the route would be a lot more interesting.  I'm not saying we should, but I think a Mamboless category could be fun to route  :o

-------------

That all being said, I am not 100% on the definitions as much as Tompa is with his TAS knowledge, and I don't have as much refinement of the game in its current state of Zorlax, Leon, or hell even Gio.  I can't articulate it, but the fact the Walrus CAN be walked out of with a simple thing as "get PoP" makes a lot of sense allowing it.  Some other things like Frog Song Skip and that swag "Flame Skip Strat 2" with the odd damage boost into an object can not be lined up and achieved as easily.  This also makes me feel the tricks that should not be allowed would include: the non hookshot jump in D8 (using the rope to bounce), the TAS strat of using the bomb mushroom to damage boost over water on the way to Animal Village, this new style of flame skip, Frog Song Skip.... but allow Walrus skip.

I for one don't want to grind another "rng" part of the run but I think it would add another level of depth and skill to a potential record where perfect execution and prefect RNG would/can/has produced VERY solid times worthy of praise.

TLDR:  I think Walrus skip should be allowed, flame skip II and frog song would NOT.
I suggest we make a ZSR page outlining each trick and how it is currently "categorized" with a video showing each one in more detail for future runners and just for library/history sake.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 05:34:34 PM by oseabass »

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2015, 07:06:48 AM »
To me that approach is really not ideal, I mean even if at the end of the day we need to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, we at least need a guideline to use. Preferably it should be as clear as possible.
I agree with you, it is really not ideal, but I just wanted to bring the idea of a possible name change, which could be simply used until we finally agree on a good definition.

I suggest we make a ZSR page outlining each trick and how it is currently "categorized" with a video showing each one in more detail for future runners and just for library/history sake.

Yeah I pretty much want to make that too, and even mention the very little tricks, or difference between LA and DX. Making video wouldn't be that annoying since some of us has already made a lot of those.

Offline SurrealGuy

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 13
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2015, 10:26:15 AM »
I think most of us like the "main category" as it is now. Problem with Walrus skip is, that the digging is really rng-heavy and the execution doesn't seem too easy too. That might scare some runners (including me).
I always compare this topic with when the YBA glitch in ALTTP was found. Many runners were upset, because they liked the main category how it was and didn't want to change it, so they just let the category be what it was, but renamed it to "no major glitches" (we could do that too, but i would consider Villa skip and maybe dethyl skip as a major glitch).

No matter how we will decide this, I'll probably just stick to the old route(/category) and run that.
However, if we now decide, that we rename the main category to legacy% or so and then an easier (non-rng) method of walrus skip was discovered (we never know what this game has to offer), many of us may think: "Why isn't this used in legacy%?"

The thing with OoB tricks is that more and more strats will be discovered that will break the game even more and we have got the same discussion again. I would vote for an any% glitchless category (or "no major glitches", just have to decide if Villa skip is considered a huge glitch)

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2015, 05:51:44 PM »
Maybe we need a "no major glitch" category as well as a crazy busted category with walrus, dethyl, villa, even frog song skips. I'd certainly enjoy messing around with that kinda stuff, though it can be frustrating, so a no major glitches category would make sense too. Just a thought.

Offline Disclude

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 14
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2015, 05:55:26 PM »
I personally really like how the main category is currently without walrus skip. I don't think we should change any of the rules on the tricks we do currently, as I don't feel like any of them are OoB or WW's. Basically, OoB in my eyes is moving through/into a block you normally couldn't with clipping. This is why I feel the turtle rock boss clip is fine, but I'm iffy on walrus skip due to only being able to get out of it with PoP.
My opinion currently is to not allow walrus skip in No S+Q mostly because of the unknown about it, but I feel like since you're only able to do it with PoP, it's not really a matter of it being a clip, you're just inside the sprite.
As for the other tricks like Frog Song Skip, and the other flame thrower skip, I don't think they should be allowed in the main category as they're obvious OoB tricks.
These are just my opinions on these matters.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2015, 06:43:45 PM »
Honestly, this thread is 70% about Walrus Skip in No S&Q, so I will be addressing that right now.


One of the main things we have been severely neglecting is the impact allowing this has on the runners themselves. The thing I have noticed with nearly (if not 100%) of all active runners (so this does not include TAS-er's or people who haven't run, in say... 6months+) is that no one wants to do this glitch. Nobody likes it, and that speaks volumes to how we should decide. In fact, I know 4 people personally, who have said that they will stop running this game altogether if this gets allowed in S&Q. This is a huge deal right here. The community does not like the glitch, and we, as a community, make the rules that we run with. If we do something that causes people to leave, we are shooting are community in the foot, right as we are beginning to grow and gain volume. In addition, we will be scaring off new people from our community with this. While there is always talk of doing a "beginner route" and an "advanced route," I know that when I was a beginner, I did not want to learn the easy way of playing the game, and that has always been my attitude when it comes to speedrunning. It will take THAT much longer to actually get up to a competitive level, if you start with a different route.

We can hide behind rules, semantics, and prior wordings all we want, but at this point, there is still not enough evidence to call this "allowed" or "not allowed" given our current ruleset. Since the Walrus Clip can be viewed either way, I think we should listen to the community's actual feeling on the matter, rather than the possibility of maybe being technically correct. And this is what speedrunning is, a community deciding on a set of arbitrary rules to play the game with. There is no hand forcing us to disallow something. A major example in other communities I can think of is Super Mario World No Cap 95 exit. 96 Exit No Cape is POSSIBLE, but very hard to do and would scare off many people from the category, so they modified the category to make it more accessible. I was once told that "we don't want to be like SMW," but I see no reason to do so. In addition, YBA in LttP has also been mentioned.

There are other things to think about too: not allowing Walrus Clip can FINALLY lead to a notable difference between S&Q and No S&Q. Up to this point, I always thought that having both categories was superfluous at best. That would mean that there are 3(!) major ways of playing this game: No S&Q (DX), S&Q(DX), S&Q(Orig). If we allowed the clip, S&Q and No S&Q will become more or less the same. Also this Clip would make racing less fun, and we would be doing a different route anyways. Same goes for marathon runs. I think when you have to majorly modify your routing to speedrun in different media, the quality of the game as a speedgame goes down somewhat.

And because I dont know how to quote, Seabass, if RNG goes up, Skill/Optimization of runs goes down.


TLDR:
We, the community decide the rules. A large proportion of the community does not like Walrus Skip in No S&Q. We should disallow it for that reason [and the rules would not look "ridiculous" because we don't know if it's OoB or not.]

Thank you.