trying 0%

Kharay1977

2010-07-02 06:48:23 am

Quote from taigabob:

Except the point is to get 0%. What are you on about?

I'm with Bob on this one.

2010-07-02 08:53:06 am

In a "1% ending" run, you wouldn't skip the "mandatory" missile tank unless it saves an amount of time that's worth pulling off a ridiculously hard trick no one's managed to do yet for, which seems doubtful - while the 0% route to the Super Missiles might be a bit faster, having 5 extra missiles for the rest of the run is probably more beneficial.

Quietus

2010-07-02 08:59:17 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

I think you're missing the point. All that matters is the percentage. While a fast run is all the better, if a 0% run can be performed, then a 1% run is obsolete as the low% run.

Serris

2010-07-02 11:56:15 am

Which is why I'm not talking about low%, but the 1% ending. This is about SDA policies and striking a balance between what makes sense and what's feasible, so if you're unfamiliar with those you'll probably have trouble making sense of what I'm saying.

Kharay1977

2010-07-02 01:07:35 pm

Quote from Serris:

Which is why I'm not talking about low%, but the 1% ending. This is about SDA policies and striking a balance between what makes sense and what's feasible, so if you're unfamiliar with those you'll probably have trouble making sense of what I'm saying.

I would suggest YOU stick on topic. This topic is about a 0% Metroid Fusion run (see, amongst others, the title). ;)

I would also like to draw your attention to SDA's Metroid Fusion page - http://speeddemosarchive.com/MetroidFusion.html

It's called "Best low%" ... NOT "Best 1%". In any low% run of any game, the first priority truly is the actual percentage. Sure, if there's a new run with the same percentage, that run beats it. But, any 0% Fusion run, even if it ends up taking 72 hours WILL qualify as a better low%. Because it beats the percentage. Which is a fine policy. And, besides, that's SDA. M2K2 is NOT exactly the same as SDA. ;)

Prime Hunter

2010-07-02 02:44:00 pm

Quote from Serris:

while the 0% route to the Super Missiles might be a bit faster, having 5 extra missiles for the rest of the run is probably more beneficial.

Actually, I don't know with Fusion if that's really the case. Missiles aren't as vital in that game compared to the beams as far as dealing damage goes. As long as you have enough to freeze things later on I don't think losing 5 of them would hurt you too much. From what I remember of my 1% run I just finished last week that's all I really used them for by the end.

tomatobob

2010-07-02 05:34:53 pm

One shall stand, one shall ball.

Quote from Serris:

Which is why I'm not talking about low%, but the 1% ending. This is about SDA policies and striking a balance between what makes sense and what's feasible, so if you're unfamiliar with those you'll probably have trouble making sense of what I'm saying.

You have managed to completely miss the point and this astounds me. The point of skipping this missile isn't about making sense or speed or any SDA shit, it's about skipping that missile. Not trying to manipulate SDA policies to get another run up there or getting around the difficulty of 0%, but actually getting 0%. It's not about making sense or being feasible for a speed run.

BioSpark

Edit history:

BioSpark: 2010-07-02 10:52:48 pm

2010-07-02 10:47:26 pm

actually, once i finish the 1% ss (lol), i'm going to try a 0% run. if i ever get it, i'm only going to get it once, and i want it to be as part of a speedrun. i'll have to compromise a bit, because i'm not going to reset after every single try. maybe every five or so tries.

also serris, what does the japanese version have to do with anything? also lol at "future runners". all of the love for fusion was left with me.

Serris

2010-07-02 11:46:10 pm

As I said, I'm not talking about low%. I'm merely suggesting a solution for the unfortunate situation of allowing 1% SS but not 1% segmented runs on SDA, which stems from the "precedent run" policy (improvements for already existing categories can be submitted regardless of the situation around them (as in, even if they've been declared obsolete or invalid by new rules or discoveries)) - get around that by creating a new, non-arbitrary category (obtaining the (jp-exclusive) 1% ending) that allows runners to keep submitting 1% runs. As far as I'm aware, this is an unprecedented situation - low% is rare outside the Metroid series, and even then all other % skips are considered doable under real-time conditions, thus for the first time creating a % gap between TAS and real-time runs. Due to the nature of low% (a low percentage being more essential than pure speed), runners would be required to perform a trick that is, as of now, considered "TAS-only", while at the same time there are many "TAS-only" SPEED tricks in many tool-assisted runs that aren't required to be performed in their real-time counterparts.

BioSpark

2010-07-03 12:35:42 am

actually, i'm very confident that wouldn't be a problem. assuming i did it in a speedrun without wasting too much time, i'd estimate a final ending time of no higher than 0:52. 1% and 0% aren't all that different, and a segmented run would allow me to get everything exactly right.

Serris

2010-07-03 12:58:26 am

I think the issue isn't really related to 0% runs, it's just caused by the fact that 0% was discovered. Whether you submit a 0% run or not, 1% SS is still a valid category (because there's a precedent run that was submitted before 0% was found), while 1% segmented is not (because it's still considered low% rather than a new category as described earlier to avoid the problem the existence of 0% poses, since it allows SS and segmented 1% categories to exist next to each other). The way it's now leaves the possibility of effectively killing off 50% of real-time low% running of Fusion because of 0%.

BioSpark

2010-07-03 01:14:49 am

i still don't really get what you're saying, nor do i see a problem. i think it would be just fine if there were a 1% ss and a 0% segmented run.

Serris

2010-07-03 01:24:30 am

I'm basically saying that there should be four categories (0% SS, 0% segmented, 1% SS, 1% segmented) instead of three (0% SS, 0% segmented, 1% SS). I can't really think of anything I haven't said already, so if my point is still a little hard to see, I'm sorry for not being able to make it clearer.

BioSpark

2010-07-03 01:55:05 am

no, there really shouldn't. not only are they not too much different gameplaywise, but 0% ss will never be done lol.

Kharay1977

2010-07-03 05:49:45 am

Quote from Serris:

I'm basically saying that there should be four categories (0% SS, 0% segmented, 1% SS, 1% segmented) instead of three (0% SS, 0% segmented, 1% SS). I can't really think of anything I haven't said already, so if my point is still a little hard to see, I'm sorry for not being able to make it clearer.

There are no such categories! http://speeddemosarchive.com/MetroidFusion.html

The categories such as they are right now are fine. It doesn't leave out any low% such as you suggested. Why? I will explain why. In low%, the percentage is more important than the time. But, as I also said, a FASTER run with the same percentage is a BETTER run. So, any FASTER 1% will simply beat the currently existing low% because it is a BETTER low%. Now, the first 0% will of course beat it. Even if it is slower. But, this is fine.

We have a separate category/concept for pure speed - it's called any%. That one is purely about speed. Which, I get the impression, is what you're concerned with mostly.

Additionally, once there actually IS a 0% route/method that is repeatable, you will see more people try for it. And, more people running it means people getting better at it and getting better times at it.

I'll tell you what the issue is with your point of view - you would have SDA maintain OVER A BAZILLION categories. Whereas that makes no sense whatsoever. Why is there no segmented 1%? Because, basically, there is NOTHING preventing a segmented 1% from being as fast as a segmented any%. And with that, it simply IS any%. Look closely... any %... ANY PERCENTAGE.

[quote="Serris"]I'm basically saying that there should be four categories (0% SS, 0% segmented, 1% SS, 1% segmented) instead of three (0% SS, 0% segmented, 1% SS). I can't really think of anything I haven't said already, so if my point is still a little hard to see, I'm sorry for not being able to make it clearer.[/quote]There are no such categories! http://speeddemosarchive.com/MetroidFusion.html

The categories such as they are right now are fine. It doesn't leave out any low% such as you suggested. Why? I will explain why. In low%, the percentage is more important than the time. But, as I also said, a FASTER run with the same percentage is a BETTER run. So, any FASTER 1% will simply beat the currently existing low% because it is a BETTER low%. Now, the first 0% will of course beat it. Even if it is slower. But, this is fine.

We have a separate category/concept for pure speed - it's called any%. That one is purely about speed. Which, I get the impression, is what you're concerned with mostly.

Additionally, once there actually IS a 0% route/method that is repeatable, you will see more people try for it. And, more people running it means people getting better at it and getting better times at it.

I'll tell you what the issue is with your point of view - you would have SDA maintain OVER A BAZILLION categories. Whereas that makes no sense whatsoever. Why is there no segmented 1%? Because, basically, there is NOTHING preventing a segmented 1% from being as fast as a segmented any%. And with that, it simply IS any%.  Look closely... any %... ANY PERCENTAGE.

Serris

2010-07-03 07:24:21 am

I will try to give an example of what I'm trying to prevent with my proposal (which is in response to the first four posts, in case you haven't read them) in order to more clearly explain parts of it, in addition to a suggestion to reread my posts if something's unclear: If someone submitted a segmented 1% run today, what would happen? It's most certainly not any%, since the current any% run gets several expansions, obviously because it's considered faster than getting nothing "optional". It isn't low%, either, since we know 0% is "possible". However, if someone submitted a single-segment 1% run, it would be accepted because this category was established before 0% was found. So, even though the two runs are identical save for their level of optimization, they would be treated differently. What happens if someone submits a segmented 0% run? It would technically render all 1% runs obsolete, but 1% SS is protected by its status, in addition to the separation of SS / segmented. Thus, you would be expecting all future runners to get 0% in segmented runs in order to qualify for low%, while single-segment runs would be allowed to get 1% and still be called low%. While single-segment runs are allowed to be slower than segmented runs and exist next to them, the whole point of low% is to beat the game as fast as possible under the most restricted conditions (depending on what's considered a % increase, depending on the game), with the latter having higher priority than the former. Thus, having those two categories next to each other, thus defeating the purpose of low% runs, coupled with the fact that no one has even managed to do 0% in real-time, poses the threat of preventing interest in running these in the first place, with the effectively hypothetical 0% looming above everyone's head while the old 1% dies out. The proposed solution is to instead remove 1% from the low% business and revive it under a new, non-arbitrary and thus SDA-compatible label/goal, and what immediately comes to mind is the 1% ending from the japanese version. You could even allow runners to use US/EU versions, since even though they don't have this ending, it wouldn't affect gameplay as long as their competition with JP version runs is restricted to normal difficulty categories.

Kharay1977

2010-07-03 08:24:32 am

You're missing the meaning and the point of any%. Besides, once more I would like to draw your attention to the currently held categories at SDA:

Best time
Best 100%
Best low%

There simply IS no 1% category. And, despite your rather lengthy posts, you fail to convince anyone why there SHOULD be. Now, I'll agree that the categories for Fusion such as they are right now are incomplete. To be precise, what would be the ideal list of categories, in my opinion? Something like Metroid Prime.

So... something along these lines:

Best Time Any% SS
Best Time Any% Segmented
Best Time 100% SS
Best Time 100% Segmented
Best Time Low% SS
Best Time Low% Segmented

There is no need to have separate 1% or 0% categories. For the very simple reason than 0 is less than 1 and as such is a superior accomplishment as far as low percentage is concerned. Furthermore, noting your remark

Quote:

What happens if someone submits a segmented 0% run? It would technically render all 1% runs obsolete, but 1% SS is protected by its status, in addition to the separation of SS / segmented.

In my proposed list of categories for Fusion, there is no way your hypothetical run would automatically obsolete all existing 1% runs. Simple because of the distinction between SS and Segmented. A segmented 0% is NOT a Single Segment run, period. So, any SS low% record, be it at 1% or 0% would simply hold. Because it is a DIFFERENT run entirely (SS vs Segmented).

Last but not least - why hold on to 1% with such a passion in the first place?

You're missing the meaning and the point of any%. Besides, once more I would like to draw your attention to the currently held categories at SDA:

Best time
Best 100%
Best low%

There simply IS no 1% category. And, despite your rather lengthy posts, you fail to convince anyone why there SHOULD be. Now, I'll agree that the categories for Fusion such as they are right now are incomplete. To be precise, what would be the ideal list of categories, in my opinion? Something like Metroid Prime.

So... something along these lines:

Best Time Any% SS
Best Time Any% Segmented
Best Time 100% SS
Best Time 100% Segmented
Best Time Low% SS
Best Time Low% Segmented

There is no need to have separate 1% or 0% categories. For the very simple reason than 0 is less than 1 and as such is a superior accomplishment as far as low percentage is concerned. Furthermore, noting your remark[quote]What happens if someone submits a segmented 0% run? It would technically render all 1% runs obsolete, but 1% SS is protected by its status, in addition to the separation of SS / segmented.[/quote]In my proposed list of categories for Fusion, there is no way your hypothetical run would automatically obsolete all existing 1% runs. Simple because of the distinction between SS and Segmented. A segmented 0% is NOT a Single Segment run, period. So, any SS low% record, be it at 1% or 0% would simply hold. Because it is a DIFFERENT run entirely (SS vs Segmented).

Last but not least - why hold on to 1% with such a passion in the first place?

Serris

2010-07-03 08:55:17 am

Again, I apologize that I can only suggest rereading my posts - I think I have made my position as clear as it gets by giving examples. Your responses, aside from your apparent notion to simply leave things as they are for the sake of it, seem to basically consist of either objecting points that are part of a bigger picture or facts I didn't even argue.

Kharay1977

Edit history:

Kharay1977: 2010-07-03 09:00:59 am

2010-07-03 08:59:55 am

Quote from Serris:

Again, I apologize that I can only suggest rereading my posts - I think I have made my position as clear as it gets by giving examples. Your responses, aside from your apparent notion to simply leave things as they are for the sake of it, seem to basically consist of either objecting points that are part of a bigger picture or facts I didn't even argue.

Re-reading your posts and suggestions did nothing to strengthen your case, sorry to say.

I'll give you an extreme example of why things as they are are fine.

Let's go with your suggestion to add more and more categories. OK, here's an extreme (and yes, I know it's silly, but, it's to make a point) - I want a category for

- "1% while wearing nothing but blue underpants and while the temperature outside is between 25 and 30 degrees C".

See the point I'm trying to make there? More categories only makes for a bigger mess and most of those excessive categories have no meaning anyway. You could come up with a billion arbitrary distinctions between runs and most of those would mean absolutely nothing at all. And I am sorry you don't see that. But, as I've always maintained, we're all entitled to our own opinion and, luckily, majority rules. And, in case you hadn't noticed - you're the minority.

/thread

[quote="Serris"]Again, I apologize that I can only suggest rereading my posts - I think I have made my position as clear as it gets by giving examples. Your responses, aside from your apparent notion to simply leave things as they are for the sake of it, seem to basically consist of either objecting points that are part of a bigger picture or facts I didn't even argue.[/quote]Re-reading your posts and suggestions did nothing to strengthen your case, sorry to say.

I'll give you an extreme example of why things as they are are fine.

Let's go with your suggestion to add more and more categories. OK, here's an extreme (and yes, I know it's silly, but, it's to make a point) - I want a category for

- "1% while wearing nothing but blue underpants and while the temperature outside is between 25 and 30 degrees C".

See the point I'm trying to make there? More categories only makes for a bigger mess and most of those excessive categories have no meaning anyway. You could come up with a billion arbitrary distinctions between runs and most of those would mean absolutely nothing at all. And I am sorry you don't see that. But, as I've always maintained, we're all entitled to our own opinion and, luckily, majority rules. And, in case you hadn't noticed - you're the minority.

/thread

Serris

2010-07-03 09:36:07 am

At this point, I can only assume that you either simply don't understand what I'm saying, in which case I'm sorry I can't do anything about it, or that you disregard anything I say for the sake of trolling. In any case, your condescending act of pretending to "close" this discussion just because you seem to dislike what I'm saying (even though it has nothing to do with you, much less could affect you or anyone else negatively) and consider your post to be something of a "last word" certainly doesn't help. The 1% ending is one of the goals set by the game and is therefore anything but arbitrary. If you have nothing left to add, no one will stop you from withholding further comments on this matter. This is about SDA and has nothing to do with majorities/minorities. This is simply an issue I wanted to address, and I will simply wait for the input of others who are interested in discussing it.

Kharay1977

Edit history:

Kharay1977: 2010-07-03 09:44:24 am

2010-07-03 09:42:22 am

Quote from Serris:

At this point, I can only assume that you either simply don't understand what I'm saying

And why would it not be the other way around? I understand you fine, what you don't seem to understand is that I, and others with me, simply do not AGREE with you. Talk about arrogance, you label anyone disagreeing with you

Quote from Serris:

trolling

Quote from Serris:

The 1% ending is one of the goals set by the game

The game ≠ SDA

Quote from Serris:

This is about SDA

So, take it to SDA.

Serris

2010-07-03 10:01:56 am

The fact that you don't agree is related to your opinions, you didn't bother to refute any of the points I actually made, as opposed to the ones you think I made.

I never said you were trolling - another example supporting my suspicion that you're not really reading my posts.

SDA of all people prioritize goals set by the games when it comes to categorizing runs in order to reduce arbitrariness to a minimum - made-up definitions only come into play when the game fails to provide them.

As I said, the discussion starts with the first four posts in this very thread, so there's no reason to have this discussion elsewhere. It's very much related to this topic, just as M2K2 is very much related to SDA.

Kharay1977

Edit history:

Kharay1977: 2010-07-03 10:14:41 am

Kharay1977: 2010-07-03 10:12:58 am

2010-07-03 10:11:54 am

Quote from Serris:

you didn't bother to refute any of the points I actually made

The fact you ignore my refutal or do not recognize it as such does not mean it is not there.

Quote from Serris:

I never said you were trolling

Quote from Serris:

or that you disregard anything I say for the sake of trolling.

No, you suggested it. I suppose that is different, albeit very subtle.

Quote from Serris:

another example supporting my suspicion that you're not really reading my posts.

I am reading your posts and I am still disagreeing with you on just about every thought you seem to have. Be it on Metroid Fusion, be it on M2K2, be it on SDA or... heck, even on the subject of me I passionately disagree with your opinions and conclusions. See any pattern yet? If not, I'll draw you a schematic. Yes, I'm a mean spirited son of a <censored>. I never implied otherwise. ;)

Quote from Serris:

so there's no reason to have this discussion elsewhere.

Yes there is, you're debating SDA policies and regulations. M2K2 is not SDA... not yet anyhow. As such, the discussion definitely should be held over at SDA. Because only SDA can make a ruling on its policies and regulations. So, no matter how much you debate it here, it will have no effect whatsoever until the discussion is held over at SDA. Did that compute? If not, I'll draw you some more schematics.

Yes, my patience with your ignorance is wearing thin. And yes, I am a VERY mean spirited son of a <censored>. Again, I never implied otherwise.

[quote="Serris"]you didn't bother to refute any of the points I actually made[/quote]The fact you ignore my refutal or do not recognize it as such does not mean it is not there.[quote="Serris"]I never said you were trolling[/quote][quote="Serris"]or that you disregard anything I say for the sake of trolling.[/quote]No, you suggested it. I suppose that is different, albeit very subtle.[quote="Serris"]another example supporting my suspicion that you're not really reading my posts.[/quote]I am reading your posts and I am still disagreeing with you on just about every thought you seem to have. Be it on Metroid Fusion, be it on M2K2, be it on SDA or... heck, even on the subject of me I passionately disagree with your opinions and conclusions. See any pattern yet? If not, I'll draw you a schematic. Yes, I'm a mean spirited son of a <censored>. I never implied otherwise. ;)[quote="Serris"]so there's no reason to have this discussion elsewhere.[/quote]Yes there is, you're debating SDA policies and regulations. M2K2 is not SDA... not yet anyhow. As such, the discussion definitely should be held over at SDA. Because only SDA can make a ruling on its policies and regulations. So, no matter how much you debate it here, it will have no effect whatsoever until the discussion is held over at SDA. Did that compute? If not, I'll draw you some more schematics.

Yes, my patience with your ignorance is wearing thin. And yes, I am a VERY mean spirited son of a <censored>. Again, I never implied otherwise.

Serris

2010-07-03 10:41:36 am

What do you want me to respond to? Is your saying that you're "mean-spirited" meant to be a confession that you're trolling? If you want to make me ignore your posts, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. Saying that you disagree with me doesn't really do anything if don't provide a meaningful reason. The fact that BioSpark is discussing runs he intends to submit to SDA with nate, one of the administrators of SDA, on the forums of M2k2, should serve as enough of an indication of how close SDA and M2K2 are. As of now, it shouldn't be necessary to disroot the discussion from where it started, since I haven't received a lot of feedback yet.

Prime Hunter

Edit history:

Prime Hunter: 2010-07-03 11:35:58 am

2010-07-03 11:35:43 am

I kinda understand the point of separating the 0% segmented runs from 1% single-segment runs with no further categories. If you've seen the trick that would be involved in a 0% SS run, that's a one shot per run maneuver that we'd have to pull off each time. Because of how difficult it will be (at least to begin with) I doubt anyone who is looking for a serious SS time would want to continue their run if they screw up this trick, which is likely to happen because of how precise you need to be to pull if off. Segmented runs give players a good restart point only a minute or two before this trick happens, meaning that it's far more likely that someone can get past that area and continue on without that missile tank. So basically, I don't see 0% SS happening, but a 0% segmented run is going to happen sooner or later once it's proven that it can be done on the game itself.

I do get what you mean about 1% being a goal set by the game itself. (Never knew there was a JP only ending associated with that until now.) But doesn't this sort of thing happen any time a new lower % is discovered in ANY Metroid game? Any previous runs that are even 1% higher than the new low % become obsolete as far as that category is concerned. Why should this time be any different? But that only happens once that barrier is passed, whether it be SS or segmented. So as long as nobody can accomplish a 0% SS run, 1% is what will be considered the best in the SS category in my mind. As far as I know that's how it's been handled in the past, but I could be wrong.

Think about ZM for a second. There are no runs on SDA for both 9%/10% and 15% are there? (15% being said goal that the game puts in place through its endings.) I just checked, and there is only 10% Hard as a category as far as low% runs are concerned, no normal low% runs and no 15% runs on either difficulty. Why should there be a divide like that for Fusion if ZM doesn't have them?

I kinda understand the point of separating the 0% segmented runs from 1% single-segment runs with no further categories. If you've seen the trick that would be involved in a 0% SS run, that's a one shot per run maneuver that we'd have to pull off each time. Because of how difficult it will be (at least to begin with) I doubt anyone who is looking for a serious SS time would want to continue their run if they screw up this trick, which is likely to happen because of how precise you need to be to pull if off. Segmented runs give players a good restart point only a minute or two before this trick happens, meaning that it's far more likely that someone can get past that area and continue on without that missile tank. So basically, I don't see 0% SS happening, but a 0% segmented run is going to happen sooner or later once it's proven that it can be done on the game itself.

I do get what you mean about 1% being a goal set by the game itself. (Never knew there was a JP only ending associated with that until now.) But doesn't this sort of thing happen any time a new lower % is discovered in ANY Metroid game? Any previous runs that are even 1% higher than the new low % become obsolete as far as that category is concerned. Why should this time be any different? But that only happens once that barrier is passed, whether it be SS or segmented. So as long as nobody can accomplish a 0% SS run, 1% is what will be considered the best in the SS category in my mind. As far as I know that's how it's been handled in the past, but I could be wrong.

Think about ZM for a second. There are no runs on SDA for both 9%/10% and 15% are there? (15% being said goal that the game puts in place through its endings.) I just checked, and there is only 10% Hard as a category as far as low% runs are concerned, no normal low% runs and no 15% runs on either difficulty.  Why should there be a divide like that for Fusion if ZM doesn't have them?