[The Kid .130.]

So who here likes video games? I like video games
Sonic is a fun video game that i like to play

[TimpZ]

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 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.

[SpinDashMaster]

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?!

* SpinDashMaster sigh

I've been had.

[TimpZ]

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.

[SpinDashMaster]

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.

[SadisticMystic]

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.

[SpinDashMaster]

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?

[SadisticMystic]

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.

[SpinDashMaster]

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?

[TimpZ]

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

[SqwareEcks]

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, 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?

[SpinDashMaster]

@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)

[SB737]

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.

[SpinDashMaster]

Close. We defined downtime earlier (though without directly highlighting it) as when the timer stops until the timer resets. Otherwise you have it right.