Phml's "NotMax" demo discussion [split from Vanguard thread]

I don't believe yet another argument about the ways I play Doom is worth derailing a topic about such an excellent wad.

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

Map10 NotMax in 7:28

What is notmax? :/ You clearly got 100% kills and secrets. Great job, I enjoyd the demo alot

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

I don't like looking for resurrected monsters and instead just go by the rule of "kill everything but lost souls once". That means my demos sometimes aren't valid maxes.


Hmm have you tried turning off smart totals in hud options? That way even resurrected stuff will be shown at hud (at least that's the only reason I could think of to neglect killing resurrected stuff).

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

I don't like looking for resurrected monsters and instead just go by the rule of "kill everything but lost souls once". That means my demos sometimes aren't valid maxes.

that sounds like a weird hybrid rule appliable on doom1 max demos after the 1.666 patch when pain elementals were introduced. the only difference between "looking for resurrected monsters" and "looking for stragglers" is the smart hud in prboom, so cherry-picking an obsolete explanation of rules in combination with a modern port seems just like rebelling at all costs to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

I don't believe yet another argument about the ways I play Doom is worth derailing a topic about such an excellent wad.

I've split it off so that it can't derail the Vanguard demos thread.

All demos are welcome in this forum, and if people wish to define their own categories, then that's fine. Of course, whenever one of Phml's "NotMax" demos is also a valid standard Max, then it makes sense to call it a Max.

I'd tend to agree with dew's thoughts on this rather odd category, but it is a clearly defined category, so as far as I can see there is no problem with posting "NotMax" demos in the thread most appropriate to them.

Share this post


Link to post

I played that way before I ever tried PrBoom+ or cared about demorecording. I'm used to play that way, and no more interested in changing that than in (for example) starting to kill every lost soul.

As an added bonus, using a specific category I'm alone to use means I'm in competition with nobody. I've been outspoken about my distaste of (what I perceive as) the competitive mindset in Doom speedrunning ; there's no need to rehash arguments, my point being I'd rather have my demos in a special, "invalid" category that is unfit for comparisons.

I get that using a different category for such a minor difference can be perceived as attention seeking or what have you. The only other option is to conform to the standard rules, so that's a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation.

Note that all of my UV maxes, prior to the first time I posted a "NotMax" demo, were recorded under those conditions, I just didn't understand the official rules before. So there's probably several invalid UV maxes from me on DSDA. I mean, I didn't wake up one day and decide to make up my own category to annoy people.

I will give you (dew) one thing ; sometimes I think to myself I could try changing my playstyle to accomodate the official rules, then I'm met with hostility as in your post and I reevaluate if I truly want that bad to fit in. So the rebellion theory certainly works, in a self fulfilling prophecy sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post

dew said:
so cherry-picking an obsolete explanation of rules in combination with a modern port seems just like rebelling at all costs to me.

It's obsolete in Compet~n, though, and he's not recording for it. It works much better in a source port with smart kills than it would with vanilla, so one can see it being used there now where it may make less sense to a vanilla user or a Compet~n player or fan.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I know, "kill everything but lost souls once" is the main rule of UV-Max, as I read so in the 90s on Compet-N. So, I was doing it wrong since the 90s?

Share this post


Link to post

That was an ambiguous (mis-)statement of the rules, clarified by AdamH to mean that everything resurrected must be rekilled.

It was never intended in any statement of the Compet-N rules that resurrected monsters could be left alive.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no reason to use poor statement as a definition. It's just too ambiguous. At least doom.wikia.org should make it clear what are the rules... My head explodes when I even think about that statement.

Reminds me about those problems at school, when trying to figure, what the problem asks takes more time than actually solving it. Make it clear, please.

Share this post


Link to post

This was my attempt to clarify the generally accepted Max definition.

But if people want to define new categories (such as "NotMax"), that's fine and dandy of course.

Share this post


Link to post

The one rare situation that this category would be helpful in, are maps that require the player to design routes that minimizes the occurrence of archies resurrecting stray monsters. MAP15 of Plutonia would be an obvious example. Otherwise, we all know that the monster counter of pr+ largely negates the other issue (namely, the player not being able to recognize which monsters were resurrected and which weren't), so really, I think the Not-Max category is more useful and salient for demos recorded with pr+/zdoom. Even then, we kill these monsters anyways, since most of the time, maps which have archies resurrecting shit all over the place usually also give the player an AOE weapon which can mop shit up easily. And, since we almost always target the archie first, his resurrecting capabilities are mostly nullified in most slaughtermaps.

Off the top of my head, I can't seem to recall a Max demo, especially from Phml, where the player specifically ignores a monster because of knowledge that it was resurrected and thus can't be bothered to kill again, or a misinterpretation of UV Max rules. I'm writing this with extremely limited research, so there are probably many slaughtermap demos out there that exhibit such behavior.

Edit: I suppose my main point is, that the practicality of such a category is questionable, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

well, i didn't want to preach to or confront phml, i don't even consider that post hostile. much. my peeve is that i don't understand why resurrected monsters should be ignored. shall i ignore a revived manco spamming fireballs into my face from close range just because the exit is available right next to him? well, sure - if i'm playing uv-speed. uv-max embodies the "kill all monsters" approach of doom, leaving them alive because my HUD turned blue feels counterintuitive and such a demo would probably confuse the hell out of an uninformed spectator.

i possess a different mindset apparently, because i'm quite surprised notmax can be considered non-competitive. to me it's almost exactly the opposite - it potentially saves a lot of time spent on killing those barons again, or avoids tossing a demo away because a revived demon hid in his mommy's closet, but looks practically the same as a valid max. it's also somewhat exclusive to pr+, i don't see vanilla players leaving revived survivors unless they're really familiar with the map. also as a fan dsda tables, i can't help but wonder how andy should tackle this issue. move all phml's notmaxes to other demos, with a note "NotMax, but possibly Max too"? :)

but hey, i can't tell you what to do. feel free to record whatever you want, your demos are very much enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post

dew said:
uv-max embodies the "kill all monsters" approach of doom, leaving them alive because my HUD turned blue feels counterintuitive and such a demo would probably confuse the hell out of an uninformed spectator.

In other words, you're used to something and that makes it natural to you. An "uninformed spectator" is someone who is not used to certain habits and rules. Someone could independently conclude "100%" is enough for max regardless of what got killed, that lost souls need to get killed or that resurrected monsters can be ignored, depending on various factors and previous habits. The original engine and agreements between players established the Compet~n rule with time. It didn't happen automatically from being universally natural or obvious.

i possess a different mindset apparently, because i'm quite surprised notmax can be considered non-competitive.

He means because others don't use it, not because of its intrinsic qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

also as a fan dsda tables, i can't help but wonder how andy should tackle this issue. move all phml's notmaxes to other demos, with a note "NotMax, but possibly Max too"? :)

Nowadays when I get a 'NotMax' demo I check it to see if it actually is Max. If not, I just file it in Other with a 'UV Max attempt' comment. If I get the urge, I may go through and check Phml's older demos, as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now