Pacifist Ruleset Reform Debate 2020

[dew]

The pacifist category is a mess. There's a long list of grey zone ways to hurt monsters, and as Compet-N admins tried to specify which ones are legit and which are disqualifying, the ruleset eventually jumped the shark into sheer ridiculousness. The C-N rule for pacifist reads:

Quote

UV Pacifist: finishing the level as fast as possible, in Ultra Violence, with the following restrictions: not harming monsters directly (no shooting at, chainsawing, boxing monsters), not harming monsters indirectly (exploding barrels that hurt monsters, activating crushers that hurt monsters). Allowed is making monsters fight each other and unintentional telefrags.

 

The expanded forum post explanation reads even worse:

Quote

You can't use the crusher or telefrag as a weapon to kill monsters. Where monsters go or stand on their own is none of your business, but luring them into crushers so they get killed or going into the teleporter right after the monster did is intentional and not pacifist.

To put it an other way: if you don't see that a monster walked into a crusher area or teleport landing and you kill him, that's fine.

Some examples:
- you activate a crusher and it frags a monster 2 minutes later while you are elsewhere: pacifist
- you activate a crusher while a monster is obviously under it: NOT pacifist
- you run around an already activated crusher while monsters are under it so they die: NOT pacifist
- you teleport to a place where there is a monster placed: pacifist (see e4m2 secret exit pacifist)
- you teleport to a place where a monster has moved but you didn't see it: pacifist (see the pp04 in incoming by Chris)
- you teleport in a teleporter where a monster just teleported: NOT pacifist

The rules on shooting/barrels are much more strict: you must not hurt a monster in any way with these. So, hurting an imp while trying to shoot the wall trigger on DOOM2 MAP19 is a big no-no, same goes for blowing up the barrels at the start of DOOM2 MAP23 and getting the mancubus killed (if he shoots them, no problem, you didn't do it).

 

This ruleset was tailor-made for the original CN wads (so basically just IWADs) and more or less gets the job done, but it completely falls apart for the general PWAD world. It also introduces the concepts of intent and accident into validating demos, which is opaque and easily abused, the only missing exception is that doomguy felt threatened for his life... Aaanyway.

 

The crusher examples make me want to shout. 2 minutes later? Would 10 seconds later be too soon? What about 3? What about 3 but I'm already in the next room? I assume "obviously under it" tries to protect the map06 spider, but this explanation also disqualifies ksutra map21 from pacifist entirely, because you exit by activating a crusher that kills the romero head. The third one probably tries to stop things like the e2m2 hypocritical pacifist max where Ronge leads monsters into crushers one by one, but leaves everything to case-by-case interpretation.

 

The teleport examples are also pretty bad, because they let you telefrag monsters both """accidentaly""" AND intentionally-if-inevitable, but if there is a line of sight, it's a murder. That's a lot of cherry-picking that actually allows more than it forbids. There are potentially contestable cases, e.g. a monster is placed on a teleport destination, but there's a way wake it up and lure it away before you take the teleport.

 

It's been my goal to revise the pacifist rules for a long time, but the debates usually turn bitter and violent, because everyone wants to see a slightly different outcome despite agreeing the curent standard is beyond broken. However an unrelated argument with kraflab led to a debate over pacifist rules and everyone present seemed surprisingly willing to reach consensus on this immortal problem. So here's the proposition:

 

• First of all, this does not alter the C-N ruleset, because we're not C-N. It just means moving to our own standard that reflexes modern generalized needs, same as allowing world records for "C-N wads" to be recorded on non-compliant ports (everything except vanilla and CNdoom). The C-N interpretation still exists and it's up to the runner to follow the stricter standard and achieve C-N compliant records under it - but moving forward a "WR" is simply whatever is faster under both rulesets.
• All crusher damage should be allowed, because accounting for intent is a case-by-case issue and open wide to interpretation. Since "unavoidable" damage is already allowed, and since intentional infighting provocation is explicitly allowed, excluding leading monsters into crushers is arbitrary and inconsistent.
• All telefrag damage should be allowed. This is probably the most contentious point, because it could lead to some heavy duty slaughter. However current exceptions already make it fine to telefrag anything as long as you feign ignorance. If I glance away from the teleport destination before walking into it, was I aware of what's on the other side? Threading the needle on this issue leaves a massive gray zone in the ruleset, so for the sake of consistency telefrags should be either completely allowed or disallowed. I'm inclined towards the former, because the latter would invalidate existing runs and make a long list of maps impossible to complete by definition, e.g. romero head death exits.
• The barrel damage rules stand as they are, because they make sense. Don't explode barrels if they're going to hurt monsters. Exception: the implications of the previous two rules. Telefragging a barrel and crushing a barrel should be legit even if monsters get hurt.
• Romero head counts as a monster. Seems superfluous to state, but there actually is an argument against it since the head is spawned even on -nomonsters. But that means the map30 uv-speed would become uv-pacifist and that's such a lame cop out.
• Gun shooting is allowed. There is an argument that the player shouldn't shoot at all, because of the pacifist mindset and whatnot. But pacifist isn't really a "feel" category like the stroller, it should follow hard rules. Completely removing gun switch activation by the player or the monster wake up shot is too crippling.
• Self-harm is allowed. Same as old rules, but again trying to circumvent the "mindset" argument. Rocket jumps are cool and death exits are necessary sometimes.

 

In total, the updated rule could read somewhat like:

Quote

UV Pacifist: finishing the level as fast as possible, in Ultra Violence, with the following restrictions: not harming monsters directly (no shooting at, chainsawing, boxing monsters), not harming monsters indirectly by exploding barrels that hurt them. Damage inflicted directly or indirectly by crushers, telefrags or infighting is allowed.

 

It would be nice to remove one of the most notorious sores of Doom speedrunning once and for all in a way that moves forward, isn't destructive backwards, doesn't anger too many people, and allows hardcores to use the C-N ruleset if they so desire. However it is merely a proposition open to debate, so feel free to, um, infight now.

[GarrettChan]

Basically I agree with dew's rule. That's about it. Telefragging is the most problematic one here. Just allow/disallow all of the them in a clean sweep would be good. (I tend to agree with allowing.)

[vdgg]

I would disallow telefrags, "make a long list of maps impossible to complete by definition" is good, IMO any map which allows Pacifist is somewhat flawed ;)

 

However, the paragraph below has priority over the one above.

 

My participation in beat Grazza's demo month resulted in an anomaly, a bunch of Pacifist demos of mine. However, in 7 years, between 2012 and 2018 I recorded ONE Pacifist demo. So I don't care.

[GoneAway]

30 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

Basically I agree with dew's rule. That's about it. Telefragging is the most problematic one here. Just allow/disallow all of the them in a clean sweep would be good. (I tend to agree with allowing.)

Same.

[Nine Inch Heels]

How do we stand on damage boosting via rockets/barrels? I agree with dew's proposition overall, with telefrags being legal by default.

[Pleymo]

Love those rules tbh, crushers was the one that I had more doubts about whether to allow it or not, but I loved dew explanation there.

[dew]

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

How do we stand on damage boosting via rockets?

Consider it lumped into the self-harm bullet point. Mechanically the same as rocket jumps. Just don't harm monsters with splash.

 

Actually, here's an interesting edge case: friendly fire. I'd say go for it if both sides give consent in the textfile. :^) SSG jumps are the best.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, dew said:

Consider it lumped into the self-harm bullet point. Mechanically the same as rocket jumps. Just don't harm monsters with splash.

 

Actually, here's an interesting edge case: friendly fire. I'd say go for it if both sides give consent in the textfile. :^) SSG jumps are the best.

 

You know I love consent when I can inflict pain on somebody else! One thing I edited in, but probably too late, is the idea of popping barrels deliberately. The idea that monsters can shoot barrels and take damage is clear to me, just like players not shooting barrels to harm monsters... But what if I wanted to explode a barrel in oder to gain speed? Might be a VERY fringe case, but perhaps relevant at some point.

 

Basically, do barrels have the same "rights" as demons, is the question.

[dew]

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Basically, do barrels have the same "rights" as demons, is the question.

No. The CN record for map23 has the runner shoot the final barrel to move it out of the way. Not outright explode it, but that doesn't change the principle. The old guard were already fine with exploding barrels if it didn't hurt monsters.

[zokum]

Well, when it comes to pacifist, we can look at some of the IWAD stuff for a few pointers. You need to fire/punch to get out of the map18 starting room, so a pacifist rule set might allow the use of "firing" at times. At the very least the rule could allow for triggering G* linedefs.

When it comes to 'pwads' Sigil would be pointless to pacifist run without shooting, I think you'd have problems with the majority of the maps :) I could be wrong though :) I don't know that map set very well.

I seriously doubt you can do e4m2 secret exit without telefragging the cyber demon. It's one of those technically possible with in-fights and the cyberdemon not hitting back etc. Realistically, not possible unless someone manages to go out of bounds and hit the exit switch or something like that.

However, is the point of a pacifist rule set that every map should be possible to beat? Why can't some maps just stay "impossible" to beat on pacifist unless some really cool hack/trick is found? Map30 is a good example, map02 was proven possible etc.

A more radical approach would be to favour least amount of monsters killed, then time. That is awfully luck based though, but from a pacifist point of view, having 0 monsters killed/harmed would be "ideal". Whether it would be fun to run is up for debate.

I don't mind rocket boosts at all, as long as monsters aren't hit, nor arch vile jumps. Pacifism is all about what you do to others, not yourself.

Telefragging monsters by luring them to a specific location really breaks the spirit of pacifist for me.

Personally, I am in favor of a more strict rule set, making some maps 'impossible' to beat to incentivise cool tricks like the e1m8 trick posted a while ago.

[4shockblast]

I support this new ruleset. FWIW, I was more squarely in the no telefrag/no crusher camp for a while, but after the numerous discussions about it, I figured going all or nothing on those things isn't that big of a deal TBH, and it would simplify things tremendously. At the end of the day, there's not a ton of runs that would be affected anyway IMO, and even if there are ways to trivialize a pacifist with telefrags/crushers, there are usually faster approaches to the run anyway. :)

 

I guess a few other more minor things to note:

• voodoo doll damage: should be allowed IMO, as it is more like self-damage than anything
• shooting but not exploding barrel:: not sure on this one, it's trackable with damage in-game, so should not be allowed
• barrel chains: it would probably be wrong to allow these for the sake of maps like Doom 2 map 23, but as a general rule, this is really hard to track, so this might be a tough one practically

Dunno if there are any other edge cases, beyond Dehacked trickery that can really mess with this ruleset, but it's already pretty good I think.

[Fonze]

Though I'm not involved in the scene, I think this is logical and would be a good change :)

[dew]

2 minutes ago, 4shockblast said:

shooting but not exploding barrel:: not sure on this one, it's trackable with damage in-game, so should not be allowed

To explain the point shock is making (and ZM made in discord): if a monster finishes off a barrel that the player harmed, the splash-afflicted monsters will track damage back to the player. This is important, because it means the engine itself ruled the player as the perpetrator. I agree it should be disallowed!

 

4 minutes ago, 4shockblast said:

barrel chains: it would probably be wrong to allow these for the sake of maps like Doom 2 map 23, but as a general rule, this is really hard to track, so this might be a tough one practically

I understand it's hard to track, but I think shooting barrels when no monsters get hurt should be fine. It could be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" concept - if someone shows that the barrel chain hurt a monster, the run gets ejected?

 

7 minutes ago, 4shockblast said:

Dunno if there are any other edge cases, beyond Dehacked trickery that can really mess with this ruleset, but it's already pretty good I think.

Since we can't even know what the deh behaviour might be like, the rules might need specific adjustments for the individual projects.

[GarrettChan]

4 minutes ago, dew said:

Since we can't even know what the deh behaviour might be like, the rules might need specific adjustments for the individual projects.

I guess you can make it something like "you can hurt things which don't increase killcounts (LS excluded)", but TBH, this doesn't really solve the problem as somebody may make a new type of LS or whatever crazy mapping can happen in 2030...

[Grazza]

The proposals seem reasonable overall, and don't alter the traditional category too much. However, with respect to telefrags and crusher damage, I very much like Xit-Vono's old interpretation: if you're simply trying to exit the map as fast as possible (e.g. the action makes sense regardless of the presence or lack of monsters), then any incidental harm to monsters as a result of either is completely OK. However, using either just to kill troublesome monsters is not OK.

 

Regarding barrels, I am uneasy with the proposal. Something like the Xit interpretation makes sense here too. Priming barrels with pistol shots so that monsters will blow them up more easily strays into "hypocritical" territory.

 

Edit: and of course you can harm yourself and fire weapons in Pacifist. If you want to disallow those, then you're defining a completely new/different category.

 

Edit2: The question of what is/isn't a monster is generally pretty clear, and doesn't depend on whether it is counted as a kill. If a deh wad changes a monster into a breakable pane of glass, then it is no longer a monster. If it changes a tech column into a cyberdemon, then it is a monster. etc.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Grazza

[4shockblast]

3 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

I guess you can make it something like "you can hurt things which don't increase killcounts (LS excluded)", but TBH, this doesn't really solve the problem as somebody may make a new type of LS or whatever crazy mapping can happen in 2030...

Heh, there are DEHs that have NPCs! Don't count for kills or are monsters, but I guess shouldn't be killed. And as Romero proves, a monster can be a monster even if it doesn't increase killcount and appears in nomonsters. I guess it should be per-wad as dew said; whether something in a wad is alive, depends on how it is depicted. :D

[GarrettChan]

1 minute ago, 4shockblast said:

Heh, there are DEHs that have NPCs! Don't count for kills or are monsters, but I guess shouldn't be killed. And as Romero proves, a monster can be a monster even if it doesn't increase killcount and appears in nomonsters. I guess it should be per-wad as dew said; whether something in a wad is alive, depends on how it is depicted. :D

Oh, I don't know about this, so I think I agree with your saying then. I guess why CN has this ruleset and never touched it is because the WAD choices are very limited. As DSDA takes all type of PWADs, that makes sense.

[Shepardus]

29 minutes ago, dew said:

To explain the point shock is making (and ZM made in discord): if a monster finishes off a barrel that the player harmed, the splash-afflicted monsters will track damage back to the player. This is important, because it means the engine itself ruled the player as the perpetrator. I agree it should be disallowed!

But if a monster damages the barrel (without setting it off) after the player has damaged it, the damage will be tracked to that monster and not the player anymore. Also, if the player finishes off a barrel that a monster previously damaged, the "perpetrator" of the splash damage becomes the monster, not the player. I don't think the way the engine tracks barrel damage makes a good base for the pacifist rules, they're a bit too weird to me.

 

IMO damaging barrels (without setting them off and damaging monsters) should be allowed; even if it's done intentionally for monsters to set off more easily, that doesn't seem any less "pacifist" to me than intentionally leading monsters to infight each other.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Shepardus

[dew]

2 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

But if a monster damages the barrel (without setting it off) after the player has damaged it, the damage will be tracked to that monster and not the player anymore. That seems a bit too weird to me. IMO damaging barrels (without setting them off and damaging monsters) should be allowed; even if it's done intentionally for monsters to set off more easily, that doesn't seem any less "pacifist" to me than intentionally leading monsters to infight each other.

I hate you.

 

No seriously, this is so convoluted it loops into hilarious. You definitely have a point, but I don't feel strongly about either decision. Would love to hear some opinions, halp!

[NightTerror]

Damaging a barrel is fine as long as it doesn't end up blowing up AND hurting a monster at ANY point. Is that the idea?

[Endless]

I feel like I'm reading the gods themselves argue.

 

^{This post was made by a non-speedrunner player that gets crushed 10 minutes into an Ironman.}

 

 

[Da Werecat]

The thing about making the monsters infight is that you're using their own hate against them. It's poetic. You may have provided an opportunity, but it's their desire to kill that produces death.

 

It's not the same with crushers, because stupidly walking into a hazard is not a crime. And crusher isn't a living being, so it's more akin to a weapon than a monster you manipulate.

 

These are "feel" objections that would make the rules impossible on several maps though. Kind of like MAP30 was thought to be impossible, except I doubt people would try as hard with a PWAD map.

[Bauul]

Given the whole point of the new rules was to remove ambiguity and interpretation about "intent" from the rule-set, all this talk of priming barrels and chain reactions kind of seems to leave quite a lot of that on the table, if I'm being honest. 

 

If I may play Devil's advocate for a moment, and I'm certainly no speedrunner, but as an alternative take if I were coming up with simple, unambiguous pacifist rules, I'd be tempted to make it as straightforward as: "The use of the Fire button to inflict damage on any Thing that can receive damage is disallowed, excepting the player themselves. Everything else is allowed". 

 

It sounds draconian, but if we really wanted to remove all ambiguity, we may need to go down that kind engine-level route rather than anything in that takes into account the 'spirit' of pacifism. 

 

 

[j4rio]

5 hours ago, dew said:

No seriously, this is so convoluted it loops into hilarious. You definitely have a point, but I don't feel strongly about either decision. Would love to hear some opinions, halp!

 

So long as monster triggers the barrel explosion, everything else is fair game. I'm pretty sure any other decision would invalidate some old mm/mm2/rq pacifists.

[Red-XIII]

I agree 99% with the new rules! 

 

The 1% is the barrel way of thinking. I always thought of pacifist as "I am a pacifist, I do not want to hurt humans or monsters willingly". Barrels are neither, so I don't see a problem in shooting and destroying it (as long as no one is harmed). That said, I'm fine with whatever you choose, it's not like is a big change.

 

About the telefrag, that is a blessing. I've been trying pl2 map 20 pacifist for a very long time, and most of my attempts end at the beginning, trying to have the imp killed by monsters instead of telefragging him. So yes, there are cases where telefrag rule will make things easier. 

 

I have one question though, about the arc-vile explosion. If I let myself hit by an arc-vile near him, or near another monster, the blast will hurt the arc-vile himself and/or the monster near me. Is that allowed? Am I still a pacifist if I use intentionally the arc-vile explosion to harm monsters? Following the concept of telefrag and crushers, I'd say yes, what do you think about it?

EDIT: on second thought, doom2 map30 tas uses this concept, so I guess it is ok?

Edited September 24, 2020 by Red-XIII

[GoneAway]

2 hours ago, Bauul said:

Given the whole point of the new rules was to remove ambiguity and interpretation about "intent" from the rule-set, all this talk of priming barrels and chain reactions kind of seems to leave quite a lot of that on the table, if I'm being honest. 

 

 

The rule "don't shoot a barrel that eventually damages a monster, either directly or via another barrel" would be quite objective. As far as I know this is the current rule already.

[Coincident]

I agree with dew's original post. Removing ambiguous rules is important, and allowing telefrags and crusher kills at all times makes sense to me.

I would also allow barrel explosions at all times: it simplifies the rules further and removes more ambiguity. Even though it allows for "intentional kills", keep in mind that barrels only explode once, and the player cannot repeatedly abuse them to kill things over and over, unlike telefrags / crushers.
So if we allow telefrags and crushers, which can be abused much more than barrels, why disallow barrels?

Anyway, I understand if there is no consensus about the barrels: the subject can be left for further discussion in the future.
Allowing just telefrags and crushers for now would already be a good improvement.

</imo>

[Da Werecat]

Crushers could be separated by activation method. Switch-activated are obviously intentional, while walkover crushers are obviously not exactly?

 

As a frequent watcher (but not a runner) I had more problems with Tyson due to the fact that you're allowed to pistol everything to death. Not only does it look like a huge compromise, it's also excruciatingly tedious to watch.

[GoneAway]

The thing with allowing barrels is that the category becomes "no weapon damage". I don't know how I feel about that tbh. The telefrags and crushers are more like the monsters' own traps being used against them? 😅

 

Re: switch vs line crushers, I think it's better if we don't differentiate the types of activation. A runner knows just as well that a line will turn on a crusher as a switch.

[GrumpyCat]

I mostly agree but I strongly disagree with telefrags, especially unavoidable ones.

Telefrag is direct damage.

Yes, unintentional ones can be very annoying but allowing all telefrags reduces Pacifist depth as category as you don't need special strats to avoid telefrags any more.

The logic "there is no way to finish level without telefragging kyber so let's do it" have no more sense than "there is no way to humanly finish Doom II map30 without shooting Romero's head, so let's do it!".

If you can't finish the level without inflicting direct damage then you _CAN'T_, and you don't bend rules to allow filling the table no matter what.

 

But most important: I am glad there will be rules at last.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by GrumpyCat