Author Topic: Discussing Possible Topics for Change  (Read 21049 times)

Offline Deln

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 11
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2015, 01:01:49 PM »
1. it should be allowed in s+q no doubt because reasons.

2. nobody know if the trick is actually oob or not, if nobody know for sure id say to not allow it.

that's how i see it.

Offline Riddler

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2015, 01:24:06 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.
I see this the same way, a speedrunning COMMUNITY should decide the rules for the game that they enjoy playing, and when there are things such as this new walrus skip and the bow wow skip that the majority of the players do not like, we need to have a discussion such as the ones in these forums, expressing the fact that this trick will tear our community apart.

In my eyes, The Walrus Skip should definitely be allowed in the S+Q category, but not in the main No S+Q category. Since there is still a lot of grey area in what we call OOB, I think that the trick should not be allowed in the main category, and I think most of the rest of the community agrees.

I also would like to point out that yes,this community is beginning to grow a lot, and this game is becoming more and more popular. I think that adding tricks like this would
A: Cause current runners to leave the category(s), or even the game
B:Scare off new runners, and prevent others from trying to run
C: Obliterate what we have of this current LA/LADX community.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2015, 01:49:38 PM »
I guess I should also reply to some recent counterpoints I have heard to what I said. Most notably that the Paper Mario or DK64 communities have had similar issues as what we're having in regarding Walrus Skip.  In our case right now, we're not outright banning something that is difficult, like.. say Rooster Skip, Boot Strats, or even PoP routing, but we would be banning something that is borderline (at best), which is already already deterring people in our community and creating schism between runners. So we're not banning tricks because "we don't like them", but we're banning something in a way where it could fit with our current ruleset anyways.

[And if we're worried about backlash regarding our community and the outside opinion of our community regarding this decision, I am pretty sure that no one really will notice, since we're so small.]

Offline Marinsgloryhole

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 3
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2015, 02:16:01 PM »
If Zorlax isn't a cheater I will eat my hat on stream. Stop being a bitch and play your videogame.

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2015, 02:31:57 PM »
So let's actually be honest about this subject. If walrus skip gets banned it will actually have nothing to do with it being a potential OoB, and is entirely about people not liking the trick. This is just how it is, I know multiple members of the community have stated that by our ruleset walrus skip in no s+q should be allowed, but still want it to be banned. And while I disagree, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. If the entirely community wants to ban something because they don't like it, that's fine go ahead. But let's be honest about why we're doing it.

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I like the idea of either allowing it in both s+q and no s+q, or disallowing it in both categories. Again, this is really just about people not liking the trick, so category ruleset doesn't so much matter. I also think that allowing it in s+q but banning it in no s+q would make s+q an even more dead category than it already is. Based on how many people said they'd stop running if this was allowed, what DX runners would actually run s+q seriously now and do this trick (special case being drenn). Most people won't entirely based on the fact that they can just run no s+q, because the route is still largely the same and they get a 'get out of jail free' card for a difficult trick because they just happen to belong to the majority category of the community.

I know whatever the ruling is for no s+q, I will probably mimic in LA. Again, because this has nothing to do with OoBs anymore. And whatever the community decides I'll back them, regardless whether or not I agree with it

Offline Deln

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 11
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2015, 02:37:24 PM »
i wouldnt call a RNG moment a "hard trick".

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2015, 02:43:07 PM »
And whatever the community decides I'll back them, regardless whether or not I agree with it

If I had to make a final opinion mine would be this:

  • Allow it in S/Q.
It allows the routes to differ.
It IMHO is no way in question of "OOB" or not since you can S/Q past it.
If you don't want to do the trick... don't do it.
(To be blunt no one really runs this anyway, so it doesn't affect anyone)
  • DO NOT allow in No S/Q (main)
The question of it being an OoB is scaring enough people and makes me question it a little (needing PoP).
I haven't done runs because I don't know if I should start learning/working on this trick or not.  I'd like to get this finalized so I can have a clear ruling.
Our community would blow up a bit because so many people would leave over a trick.
  • I will abstain from ruling on LA original since I don't really play that game, it is its own beast now.

My worry is that some day there will be a more consistent setup found, and then we have to have this entire discussion again.  I for one don't want to do it, but I am ok with my time not being "WR" because I didn't do an impossible trick.  If someone wants to grind it and take that time... good for them.  The game needs dedication and commitment.  A WR isn't free, it shouldn't be.  Even with the trick, someone still needs a LOT of other things to fall into place to get a very solid time.

TLDR
Allow in S/Q.  Variety is cool, no one runs it anyway....
Ban in No S/Q.  So many people don't want it, we don't want to scare away the world.
Harumph.

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2015, 02:44:26 PM »
If Zorlax isn't a cheater I will eat my hat on stream. Stop being a bitch and play your videogame.

wat

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2015, 02:44:49 PM »
I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I like the idea of either allowing it in both s+q and no s+q, or disallowing it in both categories. Again, this is really just about people not liking the trick, so category ruleset doesn't so much matter. I also think that allowing it in s+q but banning it in no s+q would make s+q an even more dead category than it already is. Based on how many people said they'd stop running if this was allowed, what DX runners would actually run s+q seriously now and do this trick (special case being drenn). Most people won't entirely based on the fact that they can just run no s+q, because the route is still largely the same and they get a 'get out of jail free' card for a difficult trick because they just happen to belong to the majority category of the community.

I would still run it, but using the JRTA ruleset so that I may submit my time to the Nico leaderboards. It would still qualify as S+Q for ZSR, but of course would not be WR. I don't know if the Nico community allows the trick or not. Our decision shouldn't be based on theirs, but I'm curious to find out. I'll inquire further with pui.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2015, 03:01:39 PM »
If Zorlax isn't a cheater I will eat my hat on stream. Stop being a bitch and play your videogame.

Get your taco sauce ready. :-*




Also, in the same vein as Seabass, I'll make my opinion clear.

Ban Walrus Skip.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 03:03:37 PM by ZorlaxSeven »

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2015, 03:07:31 PM »
Ban Walrus skip in No S/Q main category for LADX.  We are all saying pretty much the same thing and just wasting time at this point.  We as a consensus don't want it in the main category for "reasons".

Someone with powers make a note in the rules that it is NOT allowed in No S/Q.  We are all beating around the bush a bunch and I think we need to make a decision and live with it or we will "argue" forever and the community will get even more tired of it.

BAN IT.  End of discussion.

(PS If you are mad at me, I'll take the heat.  None of us are standing up and saying close discussion.  If people wanna be mad at someone for closing it, yell to me.... I can take it)

-Dad Bass

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2015, 03:15:41 PM »
The dad bass is harsh but fair.

The ruling has been passed.

So say we all.

Offline Marinsgloryhole

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 3
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2015, 03:32:33 PM »
and just what the fuck do you propose to do about me beating the record with walrus skip?

jesus christ

'this trick is too hard and I don't want to learn it lets ban it'

I should link this thread to naegleria I'm sure he'd enjoy it

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2015, 03:37:14 PM »
and just what the fuck do you propose to do about me beating the record with walrus skip?

jesus christ

'this trick is too hard and I don't want to learn it lets ban it'

I should link this thread to naegleria I'm sure he'd enjoy it

If you want to put the time in to grind out a run that can beat the current record, and has this RNG in it... go for it.  I will gladly watch the run and clap at it.  If you want to run the game a certain way... run it that way.

Offline Marinsgloryhole

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 3
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2015, 03:44:12 PM »
If you want to put the time in to grind out a run that can beat the current record, and has this RNG in it... go for it.  I will gladly watch the run and clap at it.  If you want to run the game a certain way... run it that way.

I hope you understand that this post directly contradicts your prior statement decisively 'banning' the trick

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2015, 03:57:59 PM »
Seabass, LA doesn't have a No S+Q category, nor do I really think it should. In that regard there should be no issue with Walrus Skip because you will S+Q upon getting the key, as opposed to having to get PoP in order to get back.

It sounds like we are currently deciding that the ban for the No S+Q category is specifically because we have determined that the clip to get through the Walrus with PoP is an OOB, which is not allowed in the current category definitions. Deloading the Walrus itself is fine; the main issue comes from the return. This is why it's allowed in S+Q and not in No S+Q. I'd rather use that argument than a "runners didn't want it" argument since it feels closer to the category definition, but the end result is still the same in regards to whether or not it's allowed to be used in runs.

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2015, 04:04:53 PM »
I'd rather use that argument than a "runners didn't want it" argument since it feels closer to the category definition, but the end result is still the same in regards to whether or not it's allowed to be used in runs.

The issue with this is it doesn't carry too much weight when the people behind decisively banning walrus skip have stated multiple times before that they feel its legal by our ruleset.

With this being said, walrus skip is dead. Bass has spoken.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2015, 04:14:46 PM »

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2015, 04:31:35 PM »
I agree with Zorlax's snippet on this Walrus Skip talk has completely hijacked the general discussion of consolidating and reconsidering the ruleset. I'd like to remind everyone that even when this is sorted out, there's still some discussion to be hard on that subject :) The prospect of morphing the categories to allow for a more diverse grouping of runs and rulesets is exciting since the game has been very largely unchanged in the 1.5 years I've been running it.

Sometimes it's hard (re: laziness) to remember what I've posted here and in skype where much of the discussion has been going on but I'll just summarize how I feel, although the matter has been decided upon typing this.

I agree with Flynn in that it blatantly seems much of the talk on this constituting an OoB movement has little to do with keeping the ruleset consistent and more with people wanting to frame the argument to make it disallowed because they don't want to have to learn and do attempts of it in an RTA setting. I don't really agree with the arguments that it should or will keep people out of the community by allowing it as not wanting to do the trick is as simple a matter as just not doing it. As is I doubt many (or even more than a few) would opt for even attempting the trick in serious RTA, and by no means is doing it a "free" wr or ride to the top of the leaderboards. To parrot seabass, frankly if someone puts in the grind time on such a low% success trick and gets it + the run together to top the times I think they've earned it.

Personally, barring a certain trick simply because "I don't want to" isn't something I'm a fan of, and is reminiscent of the Paper Mario "All Cards" and DK64 Helm Early drama events. Saying the stance on it would be reconsidered if a method was found to make it simpler/easier is worse.  But again like seabass said, I'll go with what the community wants to do as a general vote and this decision is already made. I'll probably mess around with it and probably do runs with the trick regardless, as I did back when I wanted to run on J when everyone else did English; if it remains banned they simply won't be submitted.

That's how I feel on the issue, which has since been sorted on skype (and here after refreshing the page).
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 04:37:09 PM by LoenP »

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2015, 05:02:27 PM »
For clarification, Bass has spoken and that's okay with me. I'm okay with the decision as well. I'm simply justifying that decision based on what constitutes OOB rather than personal disdain for the trick. Though perhaps it is easier to justify it because Bass has spoken.

I think we need a BassHasSpoken ffz emote now.

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2015, 05:22:58 PM »
I hope you understand that this post directly contradicts your prior statement decisively 'banning' the trick

You can run the game however you want and get a time.  No one is stopping anyone from running the game how they enjoy... hell I did a category with some people to Save the Guy as fast as we could.  If you want to time a run with the current ruleset but use Walrus Skip, no one is stopping you.  But as far as "legally" submitting it, I don't think it would get verified as the rules are now (people don't want it).

Offline Disclude

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 14
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2015, 05:25:50 PM »
While there are those who don't want the trick due to them not liking walrus skip, there are still those of us who don't want it because of it's possibility of being an OoB. I have no issues with hard tricks, or rng tricks being in runs...I run oracle of ages lol..The point is to play how you want to play, which is why there is categories, for basic rules on the runs, but you can still play however you want.

If walrus skip were added, there would be those who use it, and I'm sure there would be those who don't, just due to the volatility it adds to the run, which is the same thing that happens in Oracle of Ages with the D2 skip. Even though the D2 skip saves upwards of 7 minutes on the run, some people still don't use it because they don't want to waste 25 minutes to reset repeatedly due to a trick not working.
Although the tricks themselves aren't really comparable, the feeling runners get when presented with a trick that can end your run like that completely is the same.

You can rule whatever you want on the trick's usability and validity in the main category, but I still think this trick needs to be looked into for different setups, and most importantly the reasoning as to why PoP can get you out of the sprite, but normal walking can't when they're in the exact same position. It makes it tough to call whether it's OoB or not when you don't know if you're stuck because you're inside the sprite due to OoB, or just an unfortunate circumstance that PoP helps you overcome.

I guess we just need a consensus on the matter for now until more information is brought to light? Either way I'm fine whether it's allowed or disallowed; it doesn't become a requirement for the run if you're running because you enjoy running this game.

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2015, 08:04:11 PM »
Just as a technical note, I presume the reason PoP gets you out is just from slightly lazy collision detection programming. The game will check if your position + your current speed is a walkable spot, and if it is, you'll be allowed to move. Since PoP increases your speed, your position + your speed can just barely reach walkable terrain. I'm not sure if that really helps telling if it's an OoB or not, but then that doesn't seem to be the focus of discussion here.

I do think at this point we just need to make a decision, so I approve of the Bass Has Spoken train, though since I'm kinda attached to walrus skip (as I found the setup) I'd definitely like for it to be allowed at least in S+Q. At the end of the day, LA/DX's main categories' rules are pretty darned arbitrary already.

I'll add my 2 cents to the matter, but feel free to ignore it since as I said the important thing is just to agree on something.

I don't entirely like the thought that we can basically change the category's rules on-the-fly to comply with what the runners like - I always preferred to focus on how we can push the game, rather than what the most "fun" route would be. I guess this is a consequence of me mostly running any% routes in games - I like the idea of any% more, but then some games like this one are broken to an insane extent so it becomes relatively trivial. Ideally, from my point of view, when any% is broken like this we'd make a set of rules which are as simple and unlimiting as possible, while still leaving most of the gameplay more or less... intact. However in some speedgames, like this one (imo), it doesn't quite work out that way - focus remains more on the most fun route. To me, the rules are vague, and... they're prone to changing.

Now, I know not everyone sees things the same way, and I'm not going to push for a kind of rule change that would fit better with this pov. But this is mainly the reason I'm not terribly comfortable with the situation.

Ultimately, though, Bass Has Spoken.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2015, 08:41:03 PM by Drenn »

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2015, 09:16:19 PM »
I don't entirely like the thought that we can basically change the category's rules on-the-fly to comply with what the runners like - I always preferred to focus on how we can push the game, rather than what the most "fun" route would be.

This is why I'm justifying the decision with "it's an OOB and thus is banned" for No S+Q. I am glad Bass Has Spoken (and streamed) because I think the community needed that to keep going for the main categories. The volume of runs has decreased after the discovery of Walrus Skip mostly because nobody knew what the rules were. I'm glad that we have some decision now, so people can continue to run.

It sounds like Drenn that you should definitely stick with S+Q, and maybe even go to OG LA to use Magic Rod for maximum deloading funtimes.

Offline Riddler

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2015, 09:37:38 PM »
Damn. I come back and Bass Has Spoken. I'm glad we came to a conclusion and I think I'll begin runs again soon, because as mab said, i havent run because I wasn't sure of the rules.

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2015, 03:40:17 AM »
What happened to the talks on the smaller tricks up for review? The OoB stuff that largely doesn't make sense to ban while Villa Skip is allowed

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2015, 06:29:07 AM »
What happened to the talks on the smaller tricks up for review? The OoB stuff that largely doesn't make sense to ban while Villa Skip is allowed

I think now that the Walrus in the room has been addressed, we can start to tackle these other ones like Frog Song, Lvl 2 Bracelet Skip, Flame Skip 2.0, etc.  I have no problem continuing to discuss those and have started another thread trying to document all the tricks and glitches we know of.  This way, we can have more information and make better informed decisions as a community.

Offline Disclude

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 14
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #67 on: February 22, 2015, 08:47:42 AM »
these other ones like Frog Song, Lvl 2 Bracelet Skip, Flame Skip 2.0, etc.

To me those are all definitely OoB, as you literally enter wall blocks and stuff. Definitely more so than walrus skip, so I don't see their validity in main category being a thing.

As for Villa Skip, I don't see it as OoB because you don't actually enter a block, you trick the game into making you fall by transitioning into a screen with solid objects, therefore falling past all the solid object instead of through them like you would with OoB. But there is the question if after you make it into the maze and fall on that first screen, that you respawn inside the top bush, because I consider that OoB, but the game put you there because you screwed up, you didn't try to get into that OoB, so I dunno how to interpret that in terms of following the rule.
Like should a run be invalid if you accidentally fall into a pit on that first screen of the villa skip maze and respawn inside the bush?

Offline SurrealGuy

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 13
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2015, 11:23:59 AM »
@Disclude
Yes, spawning in the bush would defnitely be OoB in my opinion too, but falling down the hole clearly wastes time. You don't use that OoB to your advantage or even intend to do that.

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2015, 11:41:09 AM »
@Disclude
Yes, spawning in the bush would defnitely be OoB in my opinion too, but falling down the hole clearly wastes time. You don't use that OoB to your advantage or even intend to do that.


In No S+Q you may accidentally perform a S+Q. It might not save time and is definitely not your intention, but it is not allowed in the category.
In D7 you may accidentally enter the room after the mini boss by jumping and will go all over the map. It's not intended, but it's not allowed in the category.

These were things that were noted very heavily to new runners of the game to ensure they don't do. Just because it was unintentional doesn't mean it should be allowed. If we think that falling into the hole and landing on the grass during Villa Skip constitutes an OOB then we ban it and alert every runner, especially new runners, to pay extra attention during that part of the run.

That is assuming we define it as OOB.

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #70 on: February 22, 2015, 02:49:26 PM »
I think now that the Walrus in the room has been addressed, we can start to tackle these other ones like Frog Song, Lvl 2 Bracelet Skip, Flame Skip 2.0, etc.

While I don't know much about the technical side of this game as others do, these tricks just feel.. off to me. And not in a way where I don't like them or don't want to do them, they just look so unnatural that I'd have a hard time believing that they're not out of bounds.

But like I said, someone could tell me otherwise with the correct technical proof and I'd buy into it.

Offline Deln

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 11
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #71 on: February 22, 2015, 07:17:01 PM »
Level 2 bracelet skip: for me that is OOB, you clip inside of a wall.

Flame skip 2.0: it does feel like it is an OOB(you walk through a wall and can even get stuck in it).

frog song skip: you do clip through a block, so it does sound like its OOB to me.

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #72 on: February 23, 2015, 05:28:54 AM »
Of course they're out of bounds. The actual discussion was about possibly allowing the more minor instances of it into the main route, or if there was interest in consolidating the the categories to add for one that did allow them since the OoB moveset in particular is completely unutilized in any of the current categories.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2015, 02:33:49 PM »
Here's something different, and I want to know the community input on it.

This was something found on Drenn's stream a while back: If you die, and on the death screen you choose "Save & Quit," your menu cursor stays in the same spot. This cursor will stay in the same spot even if you erase the file and start a new one. In theory, if someone wanted to save a few (2) inputs, he or she could get a file, move the equipment screen cursor somewhere else, and then start a new run. (I can see me doing this for the first equip in D1, which is one I "commonly" mess up).

Since the memory isn't "re-initialized," is this run still valid?  This trick is not very useful, but something I've been pondering.


[FYI: The menu only resets upon S&Q and resets, as far as I know]

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #74 on: February 27, 2015, 11:40:06 AM »
Here's something different, and I want to know the community input on it.

This was something found on Drenn's stream a while back: If you die, and on the death screen you choose "Save & Quit," your menu cursor stays in the same spot. This cursor will stay in the same spot even if you erase the file and start a new one. In theory, if someone wanted to save a few (2) inputs, he or she could get a file, move the equipment screen cursor somewhere else, and then start a new run. (I can see me doing this for the first equip in D1, which is one I "commonly" mess up).

Since the memory isn't "re-initialized," is this run still valid?  This trick is not very useful, but something I've been pondering.


[FYI: The menu only resets upon S&Q and resets, as far as I know]
Lol, how diabolical. I don't see any reason not to allow it, though due to how annoying it would be for resets I imagine most people wouldn't bother doing it. Anyway it can easily be done on accident (like I did), so it doesn't seem like it should be disallowed.

Interestingly though, this wouldn't be possible under JRTA rules since you need to reset the console.

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #75 on: February 27, 2015, 11:55:31 AM »
I think this video is super relevant to this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94OlfZkRp4k

Basically shaq jumping is super-broken now. It would be super cool to have a category using this and more oob tricks, but now I'm definitely less inclined to see a main category with oob tricks :P

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #76 on: February 27, 2015, 03:08:24 PM »
There already kinda exists a category that is No WW(allows OoB).

In theory its neat to think about a category that would allow all these cool out of bounds tricks, but really the route just becomes one out of bounds jump after d2 that sends you into the nightmare room so none of the tech is really there because the run is only 20 minutes long.

That and the game has a chance of randomly crashing once you enter the nightmare room, which just makes it incredibly not fun to run.

Offline Drenn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 53
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2015, 04:42:08 PM »
There already kinda exists a category that is No WW(allows OoB).

In theory its neat to think about a category that would allow all these cool out of bounds tricks, but really the route just becomes one out of bounds jump after d2 that sends you into the nightmare room so none of the tech is really there because the run is only 20 minutes long.

That and the game has a chance of randomly crashing once you enter the nightmare room, which just makes it incredibly not fun to run.
I'm aware of that category, though I'm thinking of something more along the lines of tompa's definition of "no wrong warp". Where you can't transition between cave systems that shouldn't be connected, so you still need to do all the dungeons. Could be interesting.

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2015, 06:20:30 PM »
Agreed with Drenn 100% in that Tompa's definition of OoB is a lot better. The use of the transition to the Windfish Egg at the end of the current no WW route diminishes the interest and enjoyability of the run a lot, imo. Sticking to only allowing shaq jumping where you cannot use it to transition between dungeons and cave systems that aren't meant to be connected leaves the route as a much more interesting playthrough and puts it in a more unique time span (for LADX categories anyway) of around 30-45 minutes?

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Discussing Possible Topics for Change
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2015, 09:28:46 PM »
I'd actually be really interested in seeing what this category could look like then