myk
volveré y seré millones
Posts: 14834
Registered: 04-02 |
Creaphis said:
Doom running is less about competition than it used to be, anyway, and more about using the vast repository of Doom wads to show cool runs to the world.
We aren't talking about DOOM running in general here, nor of deleting such demos from the forums or something.
Grazza said:
There are already a great many tricks routinely used by speedrunners to break the intended gameplay of a map.
Making a key grab or sr50 invalid, for example, is extremely impractical because these occur in many, often minor or irrelevant situations even if not attempted on purpose. Other hacks, such as this one, have a much greater effect and are easier to manage.
Outlawing new tricks, or pushing them into some special category, would run against the history of speedrunning and make the whole genre stagnate.
That's not a response to what's being proposed. The possibility to escape into the void, when available, makes any run through most of the map pointless. Regular glides, arch-vile jumps and key grabs already do this to a point but still require you to stay within the map.
As exemplified by Quasar and many other situations in DOOM or the SDA, possibilities have arbitrarily been disallowed in order to make running more varied and interesting. This is not "a ban" but rather that they require an admin's determination to be valid, since they are new and change the nature of the game (now you can run around in the unmapped area.) In another recent thread about "solo net" demos, a rule about not respawning when killed is mentioned. Respawning is a technical possibility and it is not allowed at Compet-n.
Personally, I am delighted to see Doom speedrunning constantly moving forward, and players finding new ways to exploit quirks.
I think it's a cool find, but it doesn't really make things "move forward." But you dedicate almost all your DOOM-related time to glide demos :p
The compet-n ethos has always been "if the engine allows it, it's fair game".
If that were the case, it would be a TAS competition.
But the raw traditional categories should not be altered to disallow new ideas. I don't think we even have the right to do that, given that there is such a rich history of demos and categories that predate this forum and most of its users.
Whenever an oddity came up, Adam Hegyi or whoever was the admin would check it up, consult with other runners and take a determination about it. You're right about us not being in any position to do that in this case, as Compet-n is effectively "frozen."
Overall, I think this type of trick will have far less widespread impact than such discoveries as 32-unit glides or suicide exits.
The impact is in what it does to the game. It alters what the map is, in practical terms. It's not a trick that is being questioned (proposed as invalid,) since I didn't propose that glides be treated separately, but the fact that the player is off the level area. That is the novelty.
Andrey based that on the idea that this was possible using a joystick (as well as keyboard and mouse) and a third hand. He has since stated that he was in error and allowing sr50 on turns was a mistake.
Right, these ideas can be argued against and people convinced they weren't right in the first place.
That's not a precedent, because that switch can be pressed through the wall. This one can't - the wall absorbs keypresses. You need to press at the actual point of interception. That's why people gave this up as impossible - they tried pressing through the wall as normal, and failed.
Differences aside, it's very similar, and it's not too hard to hit the exit switch in E2M6 from the outside. Not much harder than in E3M6, at least.
Discussion split off from glides thread to avoid derailing the discussion of the mechanics of this new trick idea.
I don't think it derails the mechanics discussion. If anything, this discussion is thrown off context if split. Discussing validity without examining technicalities is awkward, and technicalities come up due to discussing validity (see kimo's height question as an example). With that, merged back.
kimo_xvirus said:
In e2m6, if the blue key wall was glued to the exit room. Would you accept that trick? He would glide directly inside the exit room.
In that case, it should be accepted the same way map10 and pl2 map07 were accepted, unless you want a transparent wall condition too :P
That's right. Adam Hegyi already validated such a possibility when he said OK to the level 10 trick (I think that was the first instance.)
cack_handed said:
Wait until it starts obviously ruining the game before considering it.
Not that we can do anything in the first place other than somehow end up agreeing, as I explained, but retroactively trying to make some trick invalid is extremely silly. You can expect people to use it "for the time being" and then suddenly make a bunch of demos invalid. Also, that it is rather useless may be another reason to make it invalid. Rather than have players waste their time testing walls all over the contours of a map, just remove the possibility so they can concentrate on the proper level.
It's the purists who ought to start a new category - "UV speed, 100% secrets, 100% keys" for instance.
It's not a matter of purism. This is about Compet-n. "Anything the engine allows is valid" is also a form of purism, after all. If intended-route purism were desired, it'd have to be done in another space. These demos aren't going to disappear even if we agreed on whether they are valid or not, anyway. You can do them anyway and they still have their value. If we disallow them, what we gain is to still encourage "normal" runs in levels where this exploit exists. If you allow them, and find a map has this near the beginning, with an accessible exit, why even speed that level normally anymore?
Inventing "purist" categories for Compet-n is much more extreme and unthinkable than concluding that going out of the proper map bounds is not valid for Compet-n. It had never come up before, so the admin (Adam Hegyi) never had a need to address it.
|
09-13-10 17:45 
Attachment: 
