4shockblast

Map 27 UV-Speed 0:17, NM-Speed 0:13. btnx27n013.zip btnx27-017.zip

Arsene1412's nomo for Doom E1M3 uses the secret exit, not the normal exit.

FWIW, there have been demos done that exclude tricks for PWADs and IWADs. Some IWAD examples include Vono's n4m2 without the BFG grab and Winterfeldt jump and my n4m1 without the keygrab. I had already mentioned Sunder map 5, but additionally, the runners who helped with the /idgames exploration thread had done runs like that too. To my knowledge, at least TheGreenHerring had done runs like that for PWADs with major skips, and I'd done something like that too at least once, even to the point of using v1.2 compat to make the map work as intended. I'm sure there's many others who recorded runs like this. I also agree that intent is definitely one of those things that I really prefer to avoid in any speedrun definitions. As Looper indicated, it's hard to know what is or isn't intended. Even IWAD maps had intended RJs (E3M6), and intent goes far beyond tricks: for example, using a door that is supposed to require a key but hasn't been marked correctly is hardly a glitch but is certainly unintentional I would hope. Intent is one of the biggest problems many people (including myself) have with the current pacifist definition. A good example of that is the recent p4m6 run. Specifically, there is a caco that was unintentionally manipulated into a teleporter that Zero-Master telefrags much further into the run. The telefrag, however, is avoidable by a strafejump that ZM was unaware of at the time. Is it unintentional because the caco wasn't meant to go into the teleport? Is it unintentional because the way to avoid it requires a trick? Is it intentional because it is avoidable via the trick, so effectively, the runner "intentionally" chose a path that includes the telefrag? Is it unintentional because ZM didn't know about the other route? Does it even matter given the cacodemon posed no threat either way? This ambiguity is a big reason intent results in so much confusion and uncertainty in ruling the legitimacy of a run, and having yet another main category that considers intent would only result in more of this.. Also, regarding the difficulty argument, n4m1 is a good example of why that doesn't really work. That is, the keygrab is precisely what made the run possible in the first place; not doing the trick is actually much, much harder (not impossible, even for a movie run IMO, but certainly much more restrictive with respect to player skill). So, if we want running to be easier for players, we should probably let that trick go as well as the e4m2 tricks, or else the runs become substantially harder. Sunder is another good example here; most of the pacifist and NM runs on it are possible via unintentional glitches and strategies. So, essentially, glitchless can be much harder than glitched. Furthermore, if glitchless runs were competitive, the top times would still be largely inaccessible to most players, and the requirement of not dying at any point of the run would still be very restrictive on players. For increased accessibility, short of going all out and allowing RTAs as legitimate (something unlikely anytime soon), what we really need is more guides on tricks and how to perform them. The movement bible is a great resource in this aspect, but more practical strategies and ideas would still be useful to document in some unified resource. Unfortunately, the effort required to do this is large enough that no one has really taken it up seriously yet.

Sure, but so many people are used to pr+ tally screen showing 100% for 0 monsters/secrets, it's practically a second standard now. For instance, how would you treat maps that are pr+ only or designed for pr+? Surely, it wouldn't make sense to think about what vanilla or Boom do in those cases, but that introduces additional complexity to the category. Verification alone becomes more annoying just because the "real" percentages aren't shown in the primary source port people use for demo playback and running, and a lot of people will end up being confused by this distinction. Anyway, this is more of an aside to this discussion, the primary reason I'm not thinking of doing that category seriously is that I don't really find it fun. :D

We can't even agree on what the current ruleset should be, let alone a completely new category. Also, I think polls wouldn't be a good idea to develop a new ruleset anyway.. Just looking at this thread, a bunch of people don't think glitchless is a good idea in the first place due to the all concerns with defining the category at all brought up previously, all concerns I hold as well. As such, you probably won't even get a lot of these people voting on the poll at all; after all, if someone doesn't think glitchless is a good idea, why should they care what the ruleset will be? Just run whatever you want to; if people think it's interesting or cool, they'll try to do it, and if not, they won't. WRT the over 100% category, I personally don't have much interest in running the IWADs that way (running IWADs is tiresome enough as it is), and I don't really feel like applying it to the PWADs either. It seems like too arbitrary a ruleset for me, and also it's quite annoying because it has the same issues that respawn has which is that you end up relying on getting lucky with enough monsters dying to get good times (except in cases of maps with one secret or item where it's entirely trivial). It's also unclear how it operates on maps with zero secrets or items or monsters. However, if you look at the Sunder map 5 tables for example, you'll take note that a couple of people recorded runs on the no-glide route because it's much more interesting than the glide route, so the intended route approach works in case the run itself is interesting enough for people to record on. Even with su05, it's not "glitchless" because no one wants to over-extend the run by having to press every switch in sequence, which goes to show that people will really run whatever they want to regardless of whatever ruleset someone wants to come up with. :P

Some other things that caught my attention: Frog map 4 UV-Max in 12:20 by A7MAD (video). UDoom ep 4 NM-Speed in 5:10 (6:20) by Andrew Martinez (KingMamba48) (someone with 2 demos on DSDA!) (video). Swim with the Whales UV-Max full run in 35:52 by Killer5/MrZzul (video). Surely my crowning (only?) achievement of the year: thissuxx map 17 Tyson in 31:21 (video).

If you can avoid a telefrag, I'd say do it that way. I think I can get behind forced ones still counting in pacifist, but a telefrag does still involve damage to a monster, even if it's kind of indirect, so it makes sense to avoid if possible in pacifist.

You've inspired me. 24 pacifist in 2:03. sl24p203.zip

tnt 01 20.89 ev01o2089.zip

Hey, do you know what happened to my demos for Slaughterfest 2012 map 1? I think I had a nomo, UV-Speed, and UV-Speed TAS up. Here are the links: https://www.doomworld.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=7731 https://www.doomworld.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=7730 https://www.doomworld.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=7729

I prefer the 12 club. sw01-012.zip Better than that, it's 13.83. :)

What I'm saying is it would be no more or less suspicious than if Ancalagon claimed to have used vanilla because it's easy to fake a PrBoom+ demo as vanilla. If anything, as someone else pointed out in this thread, it would be more suspicious because Ancalagon has no history of using vanilla/Chocolate/etc. for any wads, vanilla-compatible or not. I did watch some of the run, and it seems his play shows familiarity with the wad, which, as mentioned previously, comes from survival sessions, but is far from ultra-aggressive, as his strats are fairly safe. I haven't been able to see any points where it seems unreasonable for him to survive a given fight, but I'm not going to watch the entire demo because I don't have time for that. If there's a particular point in the demo that anyone thinks he does something that seems to require either unreasonable amounts of luck or aggression, then that person should call out that moment for more specific discussion. Otherwise, any further discussion here is entirely pointless.

Pointing to PrBoom+ usage as suspicious doesn't make any sense. The vast majority of runners use it right now, and generally, switching ports sucks for any particular runner because of different mouse sensitivity and other settings. It's trivial to fake a PrBoom+ demo to look like it was recorded in vanilla, so it's just as easy to cheat by recording a segmented pr+ demo and claiming it's vanilla. Most active runners and viewers practically don't care either way whether a demo is recorded in PrBoom+ or vanilla, and a good run is an impressive achievement regardless of the port it was recorded in. The source port usage is not relevant here.

I should point out that despite Ancalagon's request earlier to take down the demo link from the AV site, this has not occurred, and the words "probably TAS" were replaced with "unverified," which is practically equivalently insulting compared to the previous note as it again singles out this demo for no apparent reason (who verified the other demos anyway?). I have made these requests known privately, but I would like to also indicate in this thread that I would prefer that my demos are removed from the site as well. This situation is utterly ridiculous, and I do not wish to be associated with this shit.

I think UV Speedfighter is slightly different in that it enforces that all demos are below the par time (so it's actually as many kills as you can get, not necessarily all of them).