Discussing Possible Topics for Change

I'd like to think about every OOB Non-WW in LADX before we do any ruleset change for it.
Here's one I thought of that would very likely happen, and it's very easy to do, too:

1. Open d4
2. Go right to the cave
3. Jump onto ceiling, stay in the cave bounds, just go around the obstacle
4. Exit cave on other side and enter d4

I'm assuming that this will show up in the new TAS, Tompa? ;)

And what about just remove the "no OoB" term and replacing it by, I don't know, "as defined by the LA/DX community" ?

I mean, if "OoB" is too annoying to define so the runs can be, just ban stuff we don't want to see and allow stuff we do ?

aulos wrote

And what about just remove the "no OoB" term and replacing it by, I don't know, "as defined by the LA/DX community" ?

I mean, if "OoB" is too annoying to define so the runs can be, just ban stuff we don't want to see and allow stuff we do ?

To me that approach is really not ideal, I mean even if at the end of the day we need to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, we at least need a guideline to use. Preferably it should be as clear as possible.

I think both of the options mentioned here can work, I'm just not sure what people would prefer. I'd be okay with tompa's definition which allows more skips, but I'm not very immersed into the main categories yet. I'm especially curious what the higher level runners would think, like leon / zorlax, after all the time spent optimizing for a less lenient ruleset.

I'm fine with any rule changes. Change in the route(s) should be interesting at least! I've always been intrigued by the minor OoBs that were allowed in the route before I entered the community, and none of the categories utilize other than the No WW one which I think only 2 people have ran.

Only caveat I'll add is that if the ruleset is modified enough that the old runs are heavily invalidated perhaps just rename the current main category to Legacy or w/e simply as a means of preserving the leaderboards and runs of the last 3~ years of the game's activity. 

idk I don't particularly care about my PBs being wiped or invalidated; I can always play more and get new ones

I have too many quotes I want to use so I'll go through them quick and loose from earlier posts, sorry for not giving credit where it is due, but just read the posts and you will be fine :)

Quote

Anyway, the thing I think right now we need to figure out and then decide on is what and why the Piece of Power allows you to clip through the Walrus sprite, and if this constitutes an OoB movement.

I for one would love to know EXACTLY why PoP allows you to move through it.  I also wonder how many other things PoP would effect "boundaries" of.

Quote

Secondly, as Tompa brings up, there are.. inconsistencies in the current ruleset. Specifically disallowing Out of Bounds as currently defined, while allowing Villa Skip which very much should be considered an out of bounds movement under  that ruleset. A tighter definition of the glitch types, instances of them, would be very good since the current definition of the ruleset is fairly poor for OoB and WW designations and this is the perfect time to discuss this while the community is enthused about the new glitches being found.

After we make a ruling I think we should have a page on ZSR clearly stating each trick, what "rule" it falls under, and a video of it.  This way in the future it is easier to document some of the lesser known tricks newer runners like myself might not even be aware of.

Quote

On top of this there's also the S&Q and No S&Q distinction which I'm conflicted on. I feel it's an antiquated holdover that doesn't add much to the run as a rule, however for LADX it does add an interesting mechanic - the piece of power - that becomes a cool mechanism for further mastery of the game at higher levels.

I feel like now that LA is becoming more "broken" there is room for S&Q again.  I think before it was a very similar route to the LA run.  Now that LA is changing a lot, I feel having somewhere to show off that "style" of route could be fun.  The fact that No SQ and SQ sync up after Mambo is sad, because it makes a lot of the run similar route wise, where without it the route would be a lot more interesting.  I'm not saying we should, but I think a Mamboless category could be fun to route  :o

-------------

That all being said, I am not 100% on the definitions as much as Tompa is with his TAS knowledge, and I don't have as much refinement of the game in its current state of Zorlax, Leon, or hell even Gio.  I can't articulate it, but the fact the Walrus CAN be walked out of with a simple thing as "get PoP" makes a lot of sense allowing it.  Some other things like Frog Song Skip and that swag "Flame Skip Strat 2" with the odd damage boost into an object can not be lined up and achieved as easily.  This also makes me feel the tricks that should not be allowed would include: the non hookshot jump in D8 (using the rope to bounce), the TAS strat of using the bomb mushroom to damage boost over water on the way to Animal Village, this new style of flame skip, Frog Song Skip.... but allow Walrus skip.

I for one don't want to grind another "rng" part of the run but I think it would add another level of depth and skill to a potential record where perfect execution and prefect RNG would/can/has produced VERY solid times worthy of praise.

TLDR:  I think Walrus skip should be allowed, flame skip II and frog song would NOT.
I suggest we make a ZSR page outlining each trick and how it is currently "categorized" with a video showing each one in more detail for future runners and just for library/history sake.

Drenn wrote

To me that approach is really not ideal, I mean even if at the end of the day we need to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, we at least need a guideline to use. Preferably it should be as clear as possible.

I agree with you, it is really not ideal, but I just wanted to bring the idea of a possible name change, which could be simply used until we finally agree on a good definition.

oseabass wrote

I suggest we make a ZSR page outlining each trick and how it is currently "categorized" with a video showing each one in more detail for future runners and just for library/history sake.

Yeah I pretty much want to make that too, and even mention the very little tricks, or difference between LA and DX. Making video wouldn't be that annoying since some of us has already made a lot of those.

I think most of us like the "main category" as it is now. Problem with Walrus skip is, that the digging is really rng-heavy and the execution doesn't seem too easy too. That might scare some runners (including me).
I always compare this topic with when the YBA glitch in ALTTP was found. Many runners were upset, because they liked the main category how it was and didn't want to change it, so they just let the category be what it was, but renamed it to "no major glitches" (we could do that too, but i would consider Villa skip and maybe dethyl skip as a major glitch).

No matter how we will decide this, I'll probably just stick to the old route(/category) and run that.
However, if we now decide, that we rename the main category to legacy% or so and then an easier (non-rng) method of walrus skip was discovered (we never know what this game has to offer), many of us may think: "Why isn't this used in legacy%?"

The thing with OoB tricks is that more and more strats will be discovered that will break the game even more and we have got the same discussion again. I would vote for an any% glitchless category (or "no major glitches", just have to decide if Villa skip is considered a huge glitch)

Maybe we need a "no major glitch" category as well as a crazy busted category with walrus, dethyl, villa, even frog song skips. I'd certainly enjoy messing around with that kinda stuff, though it can be frustrating, so a no major glitches category would make sense too. Just a thought.

I personally really like how the main category is currently without walrus skip. I don't think we should change any of the rules on the tricks we do currently, as I don't feel like any of them are OoB or WW's. Basically, OoB in my eyes is moving through/into a block you normally couldn't with clipping. This is why I feel the turtle rock boss clip is fine, but I'm iffy on walrus skip due to only being able to get out of it with PoP.
My opinion currently is to not allow walrus skip in No S+Q mostly because of the unknown about it, but I feel like since you're only able to do it with PoP, it's not really a matter of it being a clip, you're just inside the sprite.
As for the other tricks like Frog Song Skip, and the other flame thrower skip, I don't think they should be allowed in the main category as they're obvious OoB tricks.
These are just my opinions on these matters.

Honestly, this thread is 70% about Walrus Skip in No S&Q, so I will be addressing that right now.


One of the main things we have been severely neglecting is the impact allowing this has on the runners themselves. The thing I have noticed with nearly (if not 100%) of all active runners (so this does not include TAS-er's or people who haven't run, in say... 6months+) is that no one wants to do this glitch. Nobody likes it, and that speaks volumes to how we should decide. In fact, I know 4 people personally, who have said that they will stop running this game altogether if this gets allowed in S&Q. This is a huge deal right here. The community does not like the glitch, and we, as a community, make the rules that we run with. If we do something that causes people to leave, we are shooting are community in the foot, right as we are beginning to grow and gain volume. In addition, we will be scaring off new people from our community with this. While there is always talk of doing a "beginner route" and an "advanced route," I know that when I was a beginner, I did not want to learn the easy way of playing the game, and that has always been my attitude when it comes to speedrunning. It will take THAT much longer to actually get up to a competitive level, if you start with a different route.

We can hide behind rules, semantics, and prior wordings all we want, but at this point, there is still not enough evidence to call this "allowed" or "not allowed" given our current ruleset. Since the Walrus Clip can be viewed either way, I think we should listen to the community's actual feeling on the matter, rather than the possibility of maybe being technically correct. And this is what speedrunning is, a community deciding on a set of arbitrary rules to play the game with. There is no hand forcing us to disallow something. A major example in other communities I can think of is Super Mario World No Cap 95 exit. 96 Exit No Cape is POSSIBLE, but very hard to do and would scare off many people from the category, so they modified the category to make it more accessible. I was once told that "we don't want to be like SMW," but I see no reason to do so. In addition, YBA in LttP has also been mentioned.

There are other things to think about too: not allowing Walrus Clip can FINALLY lead to a notable difference between S&Q and No S&Q. Up to this point, I always thought that having both categories was superfluous at best. That would mean that there are 3(!) major ways of playing this game: No S&Q (DX), S&Q(DX), S&Q(Orig). If we allowed the clip, S&Q and No S&Q will become more or less the same. Also this Clip would make racing less fun, and we would be doing a different route anyways. Same goes for marathon runs. I think when you have to majorly modify your routing to speedrun in different media, the quality of the game as a speedgame goes down somewhat.

And because I dont know how to quote, Seabass, if RNG goes up, Skill/Optimization of runs goes down.


TLDR:
We, the community decide the rules. A large proportion of the community does not like Walrus Skip in No S&Q. We should disallow it for that reason [and the rules would not look "ridiculous" because we don't know if it's OoB or not.]

Thank you.

1. it should be allowed in s+q no doubt because reasons.

2. nobody know if the trick is actually oob or not, if nobody know for sure id say to not allow it.

that's how i see it.

ZorlaxSeven wrote

Honestly, this thread is 70% about Walrus Skip in No S&Q, so I will be addressing that right now.


One of the main things we have been severely neglecting is the impact allowing this has on the runners themselves. The thing I have noticed with nearly (if not 100%) of all active runners (so this does not include TAS-er's or people who haven't run, in say... 6months+) is that no one wants to do this glitch. Nobody likes it, and that speaks volumes to how we should decide. In fact, I know 4 people personally, who have said that they will stop running this game altogether if this gets allowed in S&Q. This is a huge deal right here. The community does not like the glitch, and we, as a community, make the rules that we run with. If we do something that causes people to leave, we are shooting are community in the foot, right as we are beginning to grow and gain volume. In addition, we will be scaring off new people from our community with this. While there is always talk of doing a "beginner route" and an "advanced route," I know that when I was a beginner, I did not want to learn the easy way of playing the game, and that has always been my attitude when it comes to speedrunning. It will take THAT much longer to actually get up to a competitive level, if you start with a different route.

We can hide behind rules, semantics, and prior wordings all we want, but at this point, there is still not enough evidence to call this "allowed" or "not allowed" given our current ruleset. Since the Walrus Clip can be viewed either way, I think we should listen to the community's actual feeling on the matter, rather than the possibility of maybe being technically correct. And this is what speedrunning is, a community deciding on a set of arbitrary rules to play the game with. There is no hand forcing us to disallow something. A major example in other communities I can think of is Super Mario World No Cap 95 exit. 96 Exit No Cape is POSSIBLE, but very hard to do and would scare off many people from the category, so they modified the category to make it more accessible. I was once told that "we don't want to be like SMW," but I see no reason to do so. In addition, YBA in LttP has also been mentioned.

There are other things to think about too: not allowing Walrus Clip can FINALLY lead to a notable difference between S&Q and No S&Q. Up to this point, I always thought that having both categories was superfluous at best. That would mean that there are 3(!) major ways of playing this game: No S&Q (DX), S&Q(DX), S&Q(Orig). If we allowed the clip, S&Q and No S&Q will become more or less the same. Also this Clip would make racing less fun, and we would be doing a different route anyways. Same goes for marathon runs. I think when you have to majorly modify your routing to speedrun in different media, the quality of the game as a speedgame goes down somewhat.

And because I dont know how to quote, Seabass, if RNG goes up, Skill/Optimization of runs goes down.


TLDR:
We, the community decide the rules. A large proportion of the community does not like Walrus Skip in No S&Q. We should disallow it for that reason [and the rules would not look "ridiculous" because we don't know if it's OoB or not.]

Thank you.

I see this the same way, a speedrunning COMMUNITY should decide the rules for the game that they enjoy playing, and when there are things such as this new walrus skip and the bow wow skip that the majority of the players do not like, we need to have a discussion such as the ones in these forums, expressing the fact that this trick will tear our community apart.

In my eyes, The Walrus Skip should definitely be allowed in the S+Q category, but not in the main No S+Q category. Since there is still a lot of grey area in what we call OOB, I think that the trick should not be allowed in the main category, and I think most of the rest of the community agrees.

I also would like to point out that yes,this community is beginning to grow a lot, and this game is becoming more and more popular. I think that adding tricks like this would
A: Cause current runners to leave the category(s), or even the game
B:Scare off new runners, and prevent others from trying to run
C: Obliterate what we have of this current LA/LADX community.

I guess I should also reply to some recent counterpoints I have heard to what I said. Most notably that the Paper Mario or DK64 communities have had similar issues as what we're having in regarding Walrus Skip.  In our case right now, we're not outright banning something that is difficult, like.. say Rooster Skip, Boot Strats, or even PoP routing, but we would be banning something that is borderline (at best), which is already already deterring people in our community and creating schism between runners. So we're not banning tricks because "we don't like them", but we're banning something in a way where it could fit with our current ruleset anyways.

[And if we're worried about backlash regarding our community and the outside opinion of our community regarding this decision, I am pretty sure that no one really will notice, since we're so small.]

If Zorlax isn't a cheater I will eat my hat on stream. Stop being a bitch and play your videogame.

So let's actually be honest about this subject. If walrus skip gets banned it will actually have nothing to do with it being a potential OoB, and is entirely about people not liking the trick. This is just how it is, I know multiple members of the community have stated that by our ruleset walrus skip in no s+q should be allowed, but still want it to be banned. And while I disagree, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. If the entirely community wants to ban something because they don't like it, that's fine go ahead. But let's be honest about why we're doing it.

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I like the idea of either allowing it in both s+q and no s+q, or disallowing it in both categories. Again, this is really just about people not liking the trick, so category ruleset doesn't so much matter. I also think that allowing it in s+q but banning it in no s+q would make s+q an even more dead category than it already is. Based on how many people said they'd stop running if this was allowed, what DX runners would actually run s+q seriously now and do this trick (special case being drenn). Most people won't entirely based on the fact that they can just run no s+q, because the route is still largely the same and they get a 'get out of jail free' card for a difficult trick because they just happen to belong to the majority category of the community.

I know whatever the ruling is for no s+q, I will probably mimic in LA. Again, because this has nothing to do with OoBs anymore. And whatever the community decides I'll back them, regardless whether or not I agree with it

i wouldnt call a RNG moment a "hard trick".

Flynn wrote

And whatever the community decides I'll back them, regardless whether or not I agree with it

If I had to make a final opinion mine would be this:

• Allow it in S/Q.

It allows the routes to differ.
It IMHO is no way in question of "OOB" or not since you can S/Q past it.
If you don't want to do the trick... don't do it.
(To be blunt no one really runs this anyway, so it doesn't affect anyone)

• DO NOT allow in No S/Q (main)

The question of it being an OoB is scaring enough people and makes me question it a little (needing PoP).
I haven't done runs because I don't know if I should start learning/working on this trick or not.  I'd like to get this finalized so I can have a clear ruling.
Our community would blow up a bit because so many people would leave over a trick.

• I will abstain from ruling on LA original since I don't really play that game, it is its own beast now.

My worry is that some day there will be a more consistent setup found, and then we have to have this entire discussion again.  I for one don't want to do it, but I am ok with my time not being "WR" because I didn't do an impossible trick.  If someone wants to grind it and take that time... good for them.  The game needs dedication and commitment.  A WR isn't free, it shouldn't be.  Even with the trick, someone still needs a LOT of other things to fall into place to get a very solid time.

TLDR
Allow in S/Q.  Variety is cool, no one runs it anyway....
Ban in No S/Q.  So many people don't want it, we don't want to scare away the world.
Harumph.

Marinsgloryhole wrote

If Zorlax isn't a cheater I will eat my hat on stream. Stop being a bitch and play your videogame.

wat

Flynn wrote

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I like the idea of either allowing it in both s+q and no s+q, or disallowing it in both categories. Again, this is really just about people not liking the trick, so category ruleset doesn't so much matter. I also think that allowing it in s+q but banning it in no s+q would make s+q an even more dead category than it already is. Based on how many people said they'd stop running if this was allowed, what DX runners would actually run s+q seriously now and do this trick (special case being drenn). Most people won't entirely based on the fact that they can just run no s+q, because the route is still largely the same and they get a 'get out of jail free' card for a difficult trick because they just happen to belong to the majority category of the community.

I would still run it, but using the JRTA ruleset so that I may submit my time to the Nico leaderboards. It would still qualify as S+Q for ZSR, but of course would not be WR. I don't know if the Nico community allows the trick or not. Our decision shouldn't be based on theirs, but I'm curious to find out. I'll inquire further with pui.

Marinsgloryhole wrote

If Zorlax isn't a cheater I will eat my hat on stream. Stop being a bitch and play your videogame.

Get your taco sauce ready. :-*




Also, in the same vein as Seabass, I'll make my opinion clear.

Ban Walrus Skip.

Ban Walrus skip in No S/Q main category for LADX.  We are all saying pretty much the same thing and just wasting time at this point.  We as a consensus don't want it in the main category for "reasons".

Someone with powers make a note in the rules that it is NOT allowed in No S/Q.  We are all beating around the bush a bunch and I think we need to make a decision and live with it or we will "argue" forever and the community will get even more tired of it.

BAN IT.  End of discussion.

(PS If you are mad at me, I'll take the heat.  None of us are standing up and saying close discussion.  If people wanna be mad at someone for closing it, yell to me.... I can take it)

-Dad Bass

The dad bass is harsh but fair.

The ruling has been passed.

So say we all.

and just what the fuck do you propose to do about me beating the record with walrus skip?

jesus christ

'this trick is too hard and I don't want to learn it lets ban it'

I should link this thread to naegleria I'm sure he'd enjoy it

Marinsgloryhole wrote

and just what the fuck do you propose to do about me beating the record with walrus skip?

jesus christ

'this trick is too hard and I don't want to learn it lets ban it'

I should link this thread to naegleria I'm sure he'd enjoy it

If you want to put the time in to grind out a run that can beat the current record, and has this RNG in it... go for it.  I will gladly watch the run and clap at it.  If you want to run the game a certain way... run it that way.

oseabass wrote

If you want to put the time in to grind out a run that can beat the current record, and has this RNG in it... go for it.  I will gladly watch the run and clap at it.  If you want to run the game a certain way... run it that way.

I hope you understand that this post directly contradicts your prior statement decisively 'banning' the trick

Seabass, LA doesn't have a No S+Q category, nor do I really think it should. In that regard there should be no issue with Walrus Skip because you will S+Q upon getting the key, as opposed to having to get PoP in order to get back.

It sounds like we are currently deciding that the ban for the No S+Q category is specifically because we have determined that the clip to get through the Walrus with PoP is an OOB, which is not allowed in the current category definitions. Deloading the Walrus itself is fine; the main issue comes from the return. This is why it's allowed in S+Q and not in No S+Q. I'd rather use that argument than a "runners didn't want it" argument since it feels closer to the category definition, but the end result is still the same in regards to whether or not it's allowed to be used in runs.

mabdulra wrote

I'd rather use that argument than a "runners didn't want it" argument since it feels closer to the category definition, but the end result is still the same in regards to whether or not it's allowed to be used in runs.

The issue with this is it doesn't carry too much weight when the people behind decisively banning walrus skip have stated multiple times before that they feel its legal by our ruleset.

With this being said, walrus skip is dead. Bass has spoken.

Flynn wrote

Bass has spoken.

Bass has spoken.

I agree with Zorlax's snippet on this Walrus Skip talk has completely hijacked the general discussion of consolidating and reconsidering the ruleset. I'd like to remind everyone that even when this is sorted out, there's still some discussion to be hard on that subject :) The prospect of morphing the categories to allow for a more diverse grouping of runs and rulesets is exciting since the game has been very largely unchanged in the 1.5 years I've been running it.

Sometimes it's hard (re: laziness) to remember what I've posted here and in skype where much of the discussion has been going on but I'll just summarize how I feel, although the matter has been decided upon typing this.

I agree with Flynn in that it blatantly seems much of the talk on this constituting an OoB movement has little to do with keeping the ruleset consistent and more with people wanting to frame the argument to make it disallowed because they don't want to have to learn and do attempts of it in an RTA setting. I don't really agree with the arguments that it should or will keep people out of the community by allowing it as not wanting to do the trick is as simple a matter as just not doing it. As is I doubt many (or even more than a few) would opt for even attempting the trick in serious RTA, and by no means is doing it a "free" wr or ride to the top of the leaderboards. To parrot seabass, frankly if someone puts in the grind time on such a low% success trick and gets it + the run together to top the times I think they've earned it.

Personally, barring a certain trick simply because "I don't want to" isn't something I'm a fan of, and is reminiscent of the Paper Mario "All Cards" and DK64 Helm Early drama events. Saying the stance on it would be reconsidered if a method was found to make it simpler/easier is worse.  But again like seabass said, I'll go with what the community wants to do as a general vote and this decision is already made. I'll probably mess around with it and probably do runs with the trick regardless, as I did back when I wanted to run on J when everyone else did English; if it remains banned they simply won't be submitted.

That's how I feel on the issue, which has since been sorted on skype (and here after refreshing the page).

For clarification, Bass has spoken and that's okay with me. I'm okay with the decision as well. I'm simply justifying that decision based on what constitutes OOB rather than personal disdain for the trick. Though perhaps it is easier to justify it because Bass has spoken.

I think we need a BassHasSpoken ffz emote now.