What constitutes TAS? [split from 2 glides]

Never_Again said:

Let's just say, for simplicity's sake, that if you have the slightest doubt whether your demo is TAS or not - mark it as TAS in the TXT and your posts, and specify your reasons for doing so.

Grazza said:

Personally, I consider using a live-monsters counter in a Max category to be more questionable.

Looks like we don't really have an agreeable and compatible concordance on this issue. If it's questionable (and apparently even more questionable than pausing the game multiple times), simply indicating that shit in the text doesn't seem to be enough. In other words, how questionable must it be for it to be officially marked as TAS? Are you sure that you only want to reserve TAS for slo-mo, segmentation, and SR50 automation, if the monster counter is *that* questionable in Max demos?

I'm just curious about the opinions of the elders on this matter, and I have no wish to start up another debate.

*Bracing myself* for another split topic discussing this issue...hehe.

Edit: For example, justanotherfool requested that his demos on DSDA have the "kills/secrets/items" qualifier under them. I'm sure that he doesn't care, but I don't think that it's particularly fair to him. He essentially has a proverbial asterisk next to his demos, while others who have used it (including myself) don't. I know I'm being overly pedantic and anal, but this inconsistency bothers me, and that's why I'm still curious to this day about general opinions on this issue.

Henning would often go to Windows to pause in his 30nm runs, and no one seemed to object to that.

Heh...

I'm certainly going to look at old records very differently now. Cheating or not, that's a debate I don't care for, but I used to think all those runs were done in one go. Pausing definitely makes things easier.

The "pause" in vanilla is done by minimizing the screen, as in Windows 98 that temporarily freezes the DOS instance until it's maximized. Most runners use this in movies at intermission screens, as "pausing" during the action is a bit awkward because a little bit of time is lost while the screen is being removed and drawn, more so nowadays with LCDs that are slower at this. It was a known and non-controversial feature in Compet~n.

Pausing definitely makes things easier.

The main benefit is that you don't have to quit. It's not so clear whether "cooling off" is good or bad, as being pumped up and focused in-game can also be important.

imho

C-N - strictly no monster counter (not that you actually can enable it)
outside C-N - optional, besides most of latest maps are quite
different than maps that were around when Max category was defined. I wouldn't make such a halo out of it. Not like you can remember if all the monsters in maps like "playground" are down.

j4rio said:

imho
outside C-N - optional, besides most of latest maps are quite
different than maps that were around when Max category was defined. I wouldn't make such a halo out of it. Not like you can remember if all the monsters in maps like "playground" are down.

This is where the issue obviously becomes nebulous and a little esoteric to me. We all know that on certain maps, the monster counter provides absolutely no help, no matter if it's the Max category or any other category. This is an obvious fact for many classic vanilla maps, but holds true on even some complex slaughter maps - ToD proved as much with his demos on AV MAP26.

However, I can also personally attest to certain maps where it saves a huge amount of time. It was the case for a few of my D2reloaded Maxes, and in some instances, it probably cut the time in half. Now, this is a huge difference, and I'm starting to wonder if it really should be considered TAS in this scenario. The total amount of time required to record definitely matters to everyone. If one person can churn out a better/faster demo in X amount of time, but doesn't have that time and uses the monster counter instead as a crutch, then he/she would be recording a demo that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

I'm just throwing this out there, but wouldn't recording something that isn't otherwise possible through "normal means" (whatever that means), constitute TAS? Therefore, strictly speaking, pausing the game for whatever reason would be TAS, since otherwise, one would have to quit and start over. The same with the HUD: since it saves real life time that otherwise isn't available, it technically should be TAS as well, no matter if it doesn't actually do so on certain maps. Such a definition is extremely stringent, but is also certainly consistent.

Qaatar said:

Are you sure that you only want to reserve TAS for slo-mo, segmentation, and SR50 automation, if the monster counter is *that* questionable in Max demos?

Well, TAS has a long history, and the term has always been associated with highly optimized runs that make extensive use of those features. So to label demos that don't use them as TAS would, I feel, not be useful. I view "TAS" as a very positive label, and a demo marked in this way ought to live up to the expectations it arouses. (As an aside, I love TAS demos - indeed, it was TAS demos that brought me back to Doom in 1999.) It would be kind of like labelling a UV Max attempt with one missed monster as a UV Speed - technically it has some validity, but anyone watching it to see a good speed route will be severely disappointed. Better to label it as Misc and explain further in the text.

Note that my comment about the live monsters counter is a personal one. I was asked by dew to give my view on this, and it seemed relevant to give my personal thoughts of how this compared with other things that have been subject to discussion. FYI, a live monsters counter was something that Tasdoom.exe introduced. I'd view it as a similar level to using IDDT-IDDT - it certainly shouldn't go unmentioned, but it doesn't mean the demo should be instantly elevated to TAS status.

Grazza said:

I was asked by dew to give my view on this, and it seemed relevant to give my personal thoughts of how this compared with other things that have been subject to discussion. FYI, a live monsters counter was something that Tasdoom.exe introduced. I'd view it as a similar level to using IDDT-IDDT - it certainly shouldn't go unmentioned, but it doesn't mean the demo should be instantly elevated to TAS status.

Right, and I was curious as well. This just affirms my original point that some things just aren't very internally consistent. Obviously, what justanotherfool did was his own prerogative, but it also makes me a little uncomfortable, now that I have thought about it more. If one person's demos are marked as such (no matter if he insisted or not), then I believe that every demo that claims to have used the HUD should be marked. There are obviously demos that used it but didn't indicate as such in the text file, but I think a policy to be as honest and consistent as possible is always good. The monster counter is in a gray area, with quite a few people believing it to be mild TAS (or at the very least, making the playing field more uneven). Perhaps Andy handpicking a few volunteers to update/edit DSDA wouldn't be such a bad idea?

I guess most people just don't give a shit, and since we're such a small community, there really aren't many ramifications. People come and go, and no one cares. If the status quo isn't problematic, then why do anything extra? I guess I don't really have an answer, as a lot of these points and ideas are just capricious whims on my part. Most of you have probably given these issues careful deliberation eons ago. Everyone is pretty comfortable with how things are going right now, judging by how often rules are invoked that are over a decade old (not implying that it's a bad thing).

Anyways, I'm just rambling now...just had to get some of this stuff out of my system. This is probably the nth time this TAS topic has been discussed, so...lol

Grazza said:

I view "TAS" as a very positive label, and a demo marked in this way ought to live up to the expectations it arouses.

It's this that makes me dislike the idea of labeling a demo as "TAS" merely for pausing or using a monster counter. When I'm watching a demo marked "TAS" I'm in an entirely different frame of mind than when watching non-TAS demos. I want to see a run that's darn close to optimal, so that I can admire the demo builder's craft. If a demo labeled "TAS" is going to be marked by the signs of human frailty, I'm going to feel disappointed when watching it, even if it's an excellent run by non-TAS standards. This is why it's unfair for these slightly-assisted demos to be saddled with the "TAS" term - it makes them look worse than they are. So, I'm just going to say what I always say: the use of pauses and monster-counters should be noted in a demo's text file, so that people can judge the demo for what it is.

Qaatar said:

Edit: For example, justanotherfool requested that his demos on DSDA have the "kills/secrets/items" qualifier under them. I'm sure that he doesn't care, but I don't think that it's particularly fair to him. He essentially has a proverbial asterisk next to his demos, while others who have used it (including myself) don't. I know I'm being overly pedantic and anal, but this inconsistency bothers me, and that's why I'm still curious to this day about general opinions on this issue.

I didn't particularly want to do this(both because it adds clutter and is inconsistent), but it was faster than reuploading all the demos after he modified the text files. It wasn't due to any kind of policy at the DSDA; I added the notes solely because HE requested it and, if I had it to do over again, I would let him modify the text files.

The notes are just abberations; try to ignore them. I discovered long ago that getting 100% uniformity of notation was a lost cause unless I wanted to clutter up the tables to the point of unreadability.

TAS was originally conceived as a label to use against recording with the original executable, so it's not surprising it gets confusing nowadays that people are ports that add functionality. In that original sense, to record a non-TAS demo nowadays the conditions have to be equivalent to using Doom.

So, once TAS had been established in the vanilla era, PrBoom+ appeared, capable of practically any TAS feature (excluding built stuff, but that's possible too using the Replay Editor offshoot.) So people said "okay, so those TAS features are in there, but don't use them without clarifying, please." Still, in addition to that, the PrBoom engines added further features which are generally less powerful than TAS functions like recording from saves or slow motion but still grant advantages, such as looser key bindings, high resolution and the HUD, setting play apart from what was considered standard play when "TAS" was established. For that reason, it is good that people mostly note what engine they used while recording.

I used to feel that people should write down any features used that deviated from "standard play" but nowadays I'm ready to assume that any demo recorded outside vanilla is simply going to be using features extraneous to it, although presumably not the ones previously specified as TAS. At least in demos by people familiar with these forums or the bulk of demos being recorded.

I personally enjoy the act of raw playing the most, and when I do a speed run, try to just go into the map, explore it while playing and then get the best times just replaying in there, without looking elsewhere or doing research. Because of my appreciation of that aspect, I tend to avoid using editing tools or engines that give extra info or possibilities. Surely this is at a time and optimization disadvantage to anyone using the available tools at their fullest advantage, but I'm fine with that. I wouldn't really enjoy doing otherwise. Considering this, you can tell that what "standard play" is can vary a lot. And it's not just a matter of whether something previously labeled as TAS was used.

In my opinion, using monster counter is indeed tool-assisted. It isn't a feature in the vanilla and it gives great advantage in max demos because you will know how many monsters should be dead at each part of the map. Maybe those demos used with the counter should be tagged with MC (monster counter) or something like that instead of just "TAS".

Paska said:

Maybe those demos used with the counter should be tagged with MC (monster counter) or something like that instead of just "TAS".

in that case all my demos should be tagged with "timer", that's another tool not yet mentioned here. :P

Paska said:

In my opinion, using monster counter is indeed tool-assisted. It isn't a feature in the vanilla and it gives great advantage in max demos because you will know how many monsters should be dead at each part of the map. Maybe those demos used with the counter should be tagged with MC (monster counter) or something like that instead of just "TAS".

Which works the same as ignoring possible lost monsters while playing vanilla. It cuts down the time required to record a demo of satisfactory quality, but doesn't affect said quality for the final product.

True TAS features are impossible to mimic in vanilla.

A quick question about TAS and timers:

Consider a player using an electronic kitchen timer. This could be done with vanilla. A tool is being used to assist the demo but there is no actual interaction / modification to Doom and this method is quite accessible to anyone without i.e. any special knowledge. Would this use of a timer be considered TAS or not?

What do you do with the kitchen timer, wait for it to ring, look away from the screen to see what it's marking once in a while? It would be more convenient to hang a watch over the screen (even if it were to cover a little bit of the view) or to hack the timer into vanilla. The latter would be as good as the PrBoom+ timer and would be cheating at Compet~n, at least.

But I think it's silly to consider each feature in isolation. PrBoom+ offers a slew of features that may be beneficial, and at any point or among any user a number of them may be in use while recording. Presumably, using PrBoom+, any player would try to use all features at their fullest extent, unless banned by specific rules (such as setting established TAS functions apart.) Only really "objective" limitations really work in establishing what can be done on a common ground, such as using vanilla or sticking 100% to vanilla specs on PrBoom+ or Chocolate, to record a vanilla demo, or using PrBoom+ freely to record a PrBoom+ demo in vanilla (or Boom) compatibility.

In threads like this one people essentially ask, "what can we add and still record a demo that is really comparable to a vanilla demo? Can I add this little extra feature?" The answers are, "nothing vanilla can't do already directly or with the few established tools allowed for it," and "no." The main reason for this is that speculating about the effect of the features is rather pointless given how vague the effect can be and that it varies with different users (or due to combinations) and the features do have some effect.

Maybe kitchen timer was a poor choice, I meant something more like this: Portable-Battery-Operated-Alarm-Stopwatch.
Placed below the screen and started by the player as they begin demo recording.
But actually a kitchen timer (an accurate one) may be even better.
The ring would indicate failure to get below a time and you wouldn't have to distract yourself looking at it.
Could be useful for practising anyway.

Speaking specifically about the HUD version that I'm currently using, it also provides a sizable disadvantage: I don't know the ammo count for my other weapons. This point is especially salient for limited energy cells on maps, as every cell is extremely valuable for potential BFG optimization. This disadvantage alone on some maps might negate the advantages, as I'm forced to memorize and keep track of my cell count at all times.

I think at this point, everyone is pretty much using common sense and good judgment. If there is a version of the HUD in pr+ that only allows me to see my current weapon's ammo, health, and armor, it would be perfectly fine. Hell, the HUD version that I use now doesn't even let me see my keys, and I don't care either. I also have no real need for the timer, as I roughly know how I'm doing based on my movement/shot efficiency and shot selection. It's slightly more useful to the UV-Speed/NM-Speed guys, as even a slight imperfection or wall bump could affect the quality of the demo. In other words, I would view the timer for the Speedrunners in the same light as the monster counter for the Maxers. Both can potentially save real-life recording time (the monster counter on a larger scale, as Maxes usually take longer to record), but as Belial said, they don't affect the quality of the end product.

Overall, as myk pointed out, there are also tons of other factors that play into demo recording and the quality of the end product. If everyone uses common sense, as most of us have been using, most of this shit doesn't really matter. Like I noted in my first post, I was just being pedantic and anal, and was more or less rambling.

Qaatar said:
Overall, as myk pointed out, there are also tons of other factors that play into demo recording and the quality of the end product. If everyone uses common sense, as most of us have been using, most of this shit doesn't really matter.

On one hand, as far as I'm concerned, I meant it does matter and that vanilla demos and PrBoom+ demos are not the same, even if the latter can englobe the former. People can make, and have made choices on what they want to do with the game, and that is perfectly valid and there's nothing wrong with it. People try to maintain a classic tradition within PrBoom+ usage which is full of subjective assumptions, and which doesn't mean much. At the end of the day, they all use PrBoom+ with a bunch of its features, generally excluding the ones defined as TAS unless specified. What it means to record a vanilla compatible demo using PrBoom+ really depends more on what the PrBoom coder and Andrey add to the engine than what anybody thinks is common sensical.

On the other hand, I think it does not matter in the sense that if people choose to use PrBoom+ they should not really worry about whether the features they use are fair, as long as they specify TAS stuff. If they really have concerns, they can stick to vanilla, either constantly or under certain circumstances.

myk said:

On one hand, as far as I'm concerned, I meant it does matter and that vanilla demos and PrBoom+ demos are not the same, even if the latter can englobe the former. People can make, and have made choices on what they want to do with the game, and that is perfectly valid and there's nothing wrong with it. People try to maintain a classic tradition within PrBoom+ usage which is full of subjective assumptions, and which doesn't mean much. At the end of the day, they all use PrBoom+ with a bunch of its features, generally excluding the ones defined as TAS unless specified. What it means to record a vanilla compatible demo using PrBoom+ really depends more on what the PrBoom coder and Andrey add to the engine than what anybody thinks is common sensical.

On the other hand, I think it does not matter in the sense that if people choose to use PrBoom+ they should not really worry about whether the features they use are fair, as long as they specify TAS stuff. If they really have concerns, they can stick to vanilla, either constantly or under certain circumstances.

- No one said that they were the same. I was trying to compare demos recorded within the same engine, and I have no delusions about comparing demos recorded with different ones. I think we already discussed this at length in the other thread with the whole Anders thing.

- I am slightly interested in keeping the playing field relatively even within the confines of prboom+. Since I suck at low resolutions and value my eyesight as well as other aspects of my personal well-being, I can only try to use prboom+. Extended demo format makes the demo watcher's life much easier (with which I can greatly empathize, as I'm much more of a hardcore watcher than recorder), and the uncapped framerate is essential for me. This might seem rather paradoxical and nonsensical, as pr+ is probably the worst engine to keep uniformity in, but it's what I've fallen in love with.

- Therefore, to me, it does matter, but I don't think it matters to most others. Hell, some of us don't even include text files with our demos, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I was just speaking from my own perspective; thus my pedantic rambling.

Qaatar said:
- No one said that they were the same.

You know the saying "actions speak better than words", although here the actions were words of a different sort, and what people didn't say holds little against what people insinuate with what they say or the implications it has. If one assumes vanilla is different, there aren't any serious reasons to be concerned about whether the HUD is fair. Fair in respect to what? The reference outside PrBoom+ itself is vanilla, because it does not have that HUD functionality. Inside PrBoom+ the HUD is just another little feature people can use at their convenience.

Since I suck at low resolutions and value my eyesight as well as other aspects of my personal well-being, I can only try to use prboom+.

I have good eyesight and my well being is dandy, so I can't really buy that as an excuse. Low resolution becomes natural once one is used to it. The "suck" part is valid, yet there's where the benefit and difference of using a higher resolution comes in.

That aside, originally your concern was whether the smart totals HUD is TAS. In that, I think we all agree that, as far as regular PrBoom+ demos compatible with vanilla or Boom are concerned, it isn't. Acknowledging that PrBoom+ demos are different than vanilla demos is what allows us to reach that conclusion without concerns.

myk said:

You know the saying "actions speak better than words", although here the actions were words of a different sort, and what people didn't say holds little against what people insinuate with what they say or the implications it has. If one assumes vanilla is different, there aren't any serious reasons to be concerned about whether the HUD is fair. Fair in respect to what? The reference outside PrBoom+ itself is vanilla, because it does not have that HUD functionality. Inside PrBoom+ the HUD is just another little feature people can use at their convenience.

I have good eyesight and my well being is dandy, so I can't really buy that as an excuse. Low resolution becomes natural once one is used to it. The "suck" part is valid, yet there's where the benefit and difference of using a higher resolution comes in.

That aside, originally your concern was whether the smart totals HUD is TAS. In that, I think we all agree that, as far as regular PrBoom+ demos compatible with vanilla or Boom are concerned, it isn't. Acknowledging that PrBoom+ demos are different than vanilla demos is what allows us to reach that conclusion without concerns.

Exactly, so you acknowledge that having a higher resolution helps, as does the monster counter and everything else. Therefore, I think it's perfectly fine to compare demos and discuss features within the engine, but we also have to take those features into account, and what those features entail. Everything is subjective like you said, and those features helps everyone to different degrees, which is exactly why I wanted to hear the opinions of everyone. Remember, this was originally about the pause and whether it constitutes TAS, and then extended into the monster counter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the vanilla vs. pr+ debate, and I largely agree with you on that debate (you know my stance on that as well, so I don't know why you're trying to argue here).

I'm sorry, but your first paragraph was nonsensical. Of course there are serious reasons to consider whether the HUD is fair or not, even ouside of the vanilla context. What makes you think it isn't? Just because pr+ and any other engine isn't recognized by C-N? Or the fact that demos recorded with anything other than vanilla are inherently less 'competitive' in nature? I know N_A said something to that effect, in that he sees no point in spending so much time on demos outside of C-N, but I disagree. I'm just speculating now. Please state why exactly you don't see it as being useful to discuss the HUD as TAS outside of the vanilla context. I'm curious to hear this.

Eyesight is a very subjective thing, and playing at 320x200 strains my eyes to a large degree. As I've gotten extremely used to higher resolutions, going back is useless to me. I have no desire to compete in C-N, so what's the point? As I said, I'm slightly interested in keeping the playing field even, but not interested to the extent that I'm willing to sacrifice months of time to practice in vanilla. Also, it doesn't work with Boom, so that's another aspect. How would we compare Boom demos? In any case, playing at a higher resolution is an advantage (at least to me, and to Phml as well). I've neglected to indicate as such in my previous text files, but I will start doing so.

However, all of this is already known to the general demo recording public, and we're just rehashing old bullshit all over again.

Edit: Do note that all of this is within the context and perspective of fairness. Even though I don't have the desire to be competitive in any way, we all agreed that it's healthy to encourage competition in others (you and I had a helpful discussion in the other thread about this). I'd love for others to optimize my routes, but in order for this to happen, I feel that I need to be as transparent as possible in regards to my demo recording process. I feel like this is sort of a self-flagellation exercise, as I've neglected to include in my text files my custom key config, my screen resolution, type of HUD used, as well as gamma factor (although stating gl+ pretty much implies "4").

I have good eyesight and my well being is dandy, so I can't really buy that as an excuse.

That's the same as telling a paraplegic "oh well, I can jump just fine so I don't really buy being paraplegic as an excuse for not being able to slam dunk".

Or were you actually making the argument that since low resolution had no ill effect on you, it means low resolution can't have any negative effect on anyone ever? Syllogistic fallacy, enough said.

There's no such thing as getting used to low res if you haven't the eyesight to see stuff at that resolution and if it causes you physical pain, there just isn't ; not to mention straining your eyes and making things worse.

Qaatar said:
Therefore, I think it's perfectly fine to compare demos and discuss features within the engine, but we also have to take those features into account, and what those features entail.

PrBoom+, like many ports, has the complication of having a huge array of features that alter how the game is played. My point wasn't that any discussion about the effects of the features is pointless but that much of that discussion is trimmed by considering where the standards (that is, what is fair) are coming from.

Everything is subjective like you said,

What I said is that, compared to the fact that the engine allows these features, judging whether they are fair or valid is subjective. When using vanilla people aren't wondering whether some engine feature is valid, short of an exploit or extraneous tool.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the vanilla vs. pr+ debate,

Not knowing that the comparison is relevant here is what leads to that subjectivity I referred to.

I'm sorry, but your first paragraph was nonsensical. Of course there are serious reasons to consider whether the HUD is fair or not, even ouside of the vanilla context. What makes you think it isn't?

I aimed to explain that previously in saying that the engine's nature beats any attempts at defining standards arbitrarily.

Eyesight is a very subjective thing, and playing at 320x200 strains my eyes to a large degree. As I've gotten extremely used to higher resolutions, going back is useless to me.

The eyes do get strained when seeing that resolution and expecting a higher one, I've experienced that, although your second sentence modifies the first because if you were train yourself to be extremely used to 320x200 instead, you'd revert your inability to use it. Should you? Only if you want and find reasons to.

I have no desire to compete in C-N, so what's the point?

The point would be to record demos that are comparable to vanilla demos. You also get a much more standardized recording standard (much less of "wait, which features did this guy enable to record this, is it fair?"). Otherwise it's fine to say "these are vanilla compatible PrBoom+ demos".

It's also not clear that not wanting to compete in Compet~n is a factor in your argument since there's another factor that can be causing that: not wanting to use vanilla. The two form a circle. Which is the cause, which the effect? You gave practical reasonings to why you'd not like to use vanilla, which seems to point to motivating elements. Not wanting to compete in Compet~n had less clear reasons related to the avoidance of direct competition with others.

As I said, I'm slightly interested in keeping the playing field even, but not interested to the extent that I'm willing to sacrifice months of time to practice in vanilla.

That's cool, and in a smaller group of regulars it's easier to reach agreements in that sense if there's a shared intent to do so. Still, easier doesn't necessarily mean easy, as you noted referring to how some people don't even bother with a text file. It won't be even with vanilla, but a few guys could agree to make PrBoom+ demos that are more easily comparable with each other under their standards. Still, "anything goes except slow motion, saves and always SR50" (off the top of my head; there may be are a couple more sheer TAS features I'm forgetting) should work rather well. That was a main part of my point. Just allowing people to use anything but the most blatant TAS stuff is fair enough. There lies the importance of acknowledging PrBoom+ demos and vanilla demos are different. TAS itself can be set apart because of how radically each feature changes the game by itself.

Also, it doesn't work with Boom, so that's another aspect. How would we compare Boom demos?

You mean Compet~n, I guess. Not only that but it also has relatively few demos recorded with Boom. Boom itself is the basis and can be considered a point of comparison, but I prefer playing vanilla WADs of which there are already too many for my time and only check Boom demos for entertainment, something I haven't done much lately due to time restraints, so I'm not one to say.

we're just rehashing old bullshit all over again.

I post about this because I think it's not bullshit. I wouldn't waste my time, otherwise.

Phml said:
Or were you actually making the argument that since low resolution had no ill effect on you, it means low resolution can't have any negative effect on anyone ever?

No, although I know well people just say, "it makes me ill" without really adapting to it when I know it can make me ill if I'm not adapted and when tons of people use it without issue. I guess there could be some cases where, even upon trying really hard to adapt to using low res, they can't, but don't expect me to be very credulous in an interested discussion, and I don't think that's the case here considering other statements (such as "extremely used to") and evident motivations (other reasons to avoid or not need low res).

To take things farther, a paraplegic is a known condition I can look up in an encyclopedia or whatever, if I haven't encountered it myself. Point me to a reference of this medical (and not psychological?) inability to adapt to low screen resolutions and maybe we can start somewhere on the grounds of your analogy.

Way I see it, there's two categories: Vanilla, and Tool-assisted. Vanilla is just that--original executable, just playing the game. Anything else falls into the tool-assisted, and any "tools" used to help your demo should be mentioned.

I don't think it's really necessary to mark the entire demo in CAPS LOCK that it's OMG TAS if you're using something like a simple timer or something, but you definitely should mark it somewhere in the text file that you did use something--be it a HUD, or a watch taped to your monitor.

I'd say the only time that you should really make it painfully obvious it's a TAS is with save states and the like, but any outside assistance at all should be mentioned somewhere in the text.

eargosedown said:

Way I see it, there's two categories: Vanilla, and Tool-assisted. Vanilla is just that--original executable, just playing the game. Anything else falls into the tool-assisted, and any "tools" used to help your demo should be mentioned.

I don't think it's really necessary to mark the entire demo in CAPS LOCK that it's OMG TAS if you're using something like a simple timer or something, but you definitely should mark it somewhere in the text file that you did use something--be it a HUD, or a watch taped to your monitor.

I'd say the only time that you should really make it painfully obvious it's a TAS is with save states and the like, but any outside assistance at all should be mentioned somewhere in the text.

I agree with your general premise, that anything used should be made transparent. However, that's a false categorical dichotomy. What about Boom demos? What exactly is the "vanilla" version of a Boom executable? Boom 2.02? So should people use that if they want their demos to be viewed as "non-TAS?" I know that TGH, Albert Valls, and a few others have done so in the past, but this is also a question that I'm curious about.

Actually, I thought that people had to recorded demos that they wanted to have "be official" on the original executable (through dosbox or whatnot.) Are Boom (and I guess PrBoom?) entries actually considered valid?

I guess it turns into a by engine specification then. In all honesty, I still stand by what I said; just mention what you used, and make it known to the person watching in the text file. Only real need to label it blatantly as TAS is if you're doing something crazy (Ie; Built demos, perma-SR50, savestates, etc.)

I guess the only real debate with this is related to actual competitions (for records and whatnot) since in any other scenario, you're usually competing against yourself with demos.

Point me to a reference of this medical (and not psychological?) inability to adapt to low screen resolutions and maybe we can start somewhere on the grounds of your analogy.

Absence of evidence means no evidence now? You can't be serious. You're hitting every logical fallacy in this topic, though fortunately there's no need to debunk that one as there is plenty of evidence around.

Go see an ophthalmologist and ask for explanations. Look up hypermetropia, astigmatism, anisometropia, presbyopia, amblyopia, just to start with a few ones. I'm not doing your ground work for you, and I'm sick of assholes like you in perfect health who don't realise how good they have it and how difficult even minor disabilities can make life when you have several of them.

You're calling me a liar for not being as lucky as you? How about you go fuck yourself. Which is what you might have been doing already if you've really been playing Doom at 320x200 for almost two decades, even if the results wouldn't show up before your fifties/sixties if you're an average person with good eyesight. If anything that's what pisses me off the most, idiots like you who ruin their health for no reason, except maybe to prove a goddamn point on a goddamn video game forum. Wow, you sure told me, now I better go see the last professionnal that performed surgery on me and tell him that I won't follow his post-op advice as his years of studies, his life of experience in the field is obviously no match for some random internet guy who's knowledge of medicine comes from Wikipedia.

Idiot.

eargosedown said:

Actually, I thought that people had to recorded demos that they wanted to have "be official" on the original executable (through dosbox or whatnot.) Are Boom (and I guess PrBoom?) entries actually considered valid?

you're thinking of compet-n. it's rules require demos to be recorded under vanilla .exe, no exceptions, no buts. since c-n is as official as doom speedrunning gets, people recording on c-n wads usually want the "seal of approval" when beating older times. for example the recent slew of SAV's choco/prboom demos does not qualify for the official tables despite those often being vastly superior to older records, however calling them TAS just because of different executable used would be nonsensical. that'd be like saying there's just c-n type demos and TAS type demos and pure demos for limit removing wads would become impossible. or rather the minimal set of features for limit removing would either have to include the non-TAS prboom features, or dictate use of eternity... not really a feasible solution.

the c-n selection covers iwads, hr, hr2, requiem, mm, mm2 and av. because of the vanilla clause i respectfully stay the hell out of them. i understand the sentiments behind keeping the "c-n purity" and i don't see the point of recording time beaters that can't and won't get recognized by a large part of the community, many of the best runners included. oce, henna or anders have all expressed their disagreement with non-vanilla c-n beaters, radeg feels similar (afaik) and i've heard the same from sedlo (after which i stomped his balls on map01, bwahaha.. errm). obviously, why would i push myself to beat the old records, then lie to myself and the world that i don't care about competition? the rules for these wads are set, so breaching the common ground while claiming "a record" is not completely honest. on the other hand, dwf and DSDA don't necessarily follow c-n rules and accept all demos indiscriminately (all ports, all times), there's nothing that'd forbid a player to record doom2 map07 on zdoom with jumping, except perhaps our intense frowns. >:|

sadly, this means these wads are basically dead to me. i don't have a win98 computer and i can feel worms crawling under my skin when playing vanilla under dosbox. it fucks up my mouse and that's it for me, that's something i won't put up with EVER. i can't achieve common grounds with c-n players, because i get painfully disadvantaged the moment the dosbox splashscreen appears. this is why i never really went for lv03-018 or why i didn't re-record my czech-n pa10-027 under vanilla. by the way, SDA more or less copies c-n tables for doom iwad records, but does not allow dosbox... is the list really filtered, were all the records done just on old computers, or is this just "not an issue worth exploring"?

aaand for the last, wads outside c-n. there are no tyrannical rules set for them on either dwf or DSDA, no golden set of instructions except a vague tip to "go as vanilla as reasonably possible". this would be where the merit of this discussion actually lies for me. c-n wads be damned, but i don't see why my achievements on scythes, pl2 or ksutra should be cheapened just because someone prefers choco or vanilla. times have changed, the old c-n crowd is 99% inactive and i'm not keen about self-imposing harsh restraints on me. it's strictly the runner's choice to record a pl2 demo in vanilla, so claiming my pr+ demo is inferior or incomparable would be unfair and uncalled for. it means applying c-n rules outside of their bounds and i couldn't care less for such pedantry. imo there should be certain sensitivity to the wad's age of origin. zdoom doesn't fit into this at all, because of different physics.

p.s.: just to reiterate all my opinions, i don't really understand the inclusion of requiem and hr2 to compet-n. the former was an important breakthrough wad, but not necessarily a good wad to compete on. you can record nice, smooth maxes for it, but the frenetic flare of other c-n wads is missing. hr2 is simply the weakest link in the selection, it's only significant to slaughter fans. i believe i'm not the only one who thinks so, because these wads have the biggest amount of table fillers. furthermore av doesn't fit in either, because no matter how you look at it, it's a nextgen wad. if there was a "c-n 2.0" with modernised rules, i'd imagine av there along with sc2, ksutra, etc.

EDIT: as vdgg reminds me, hr2 isn't a c-n wad. how silly of me, i have no clue how i convinced myself of that. :)

Hm, that is quite a pickle. My solution was only really a general "Morals of a text file" but for record standards it gets to be a pain. I really can't think of any solution that would be totally fair to both parties without a complete rules upgrade.