Using save states to reset attempts
Deleted
8 years ago
Florida, USA

So the world record run can use re-use the same deck over and over, but we are not allowed to do this now that is has been pointed out? That's pretty fraudulent. If anything it makes Matt look bad lol.

Here's the way I take that (with a strange but useful analogy.):

A man steals a car from a dealer that has a few dents. The police then tell the dealer that they have more valuable cars to sell so they will just let it slide. So by the dealer not having the best car stolen, everyone has to suffer a loss except the thief.

That makes no sense to me. No offense to matt or anybody, but that just doesn't seem fair from a standpoint of someone who is told I cannot do something that someone did to secure the best time in the world.

Victoria, Australia

I'm always against save-states being used for resetting, regardless of context, I think it gives an unfair advantage even in a game where RNG and cycles aren't involved, purely because you can't do it on a console, and it makes resetting faster. I would agree that the run should be removed, but I understand why it wouldn't be (the runner didn't know that it was disallowed at the time). I'm not a huge part of the community, so of course I understand that my onion isn't exactly an important one.

I just figure I should throw my piece in to say I don't think it should be allowed at all, and at the very least should be banned from future runs.

TheRedhotbr, nickenator8 and 3 others like this
Colorado, USA

I'm entirely with Grig on this. Savestates should never be a part of speedrunning outside of practice's sake, which isn't a thing in Yu Gi Oh as far as I'm aware.

TheRedhotbr likes this
United States

If using save states just set them to the boot screen or something (before the cutscenes and stuff) in my opinion. Also, I'm assuming this is not relevant for NG+ runs...

As far as save states in general, I disagree completely with jumpyluff and grig on "they should never be used ever!!!" because that's just elitist and not really relevant in 95% of games.

I'd say, keep m13's run. Making rulings and banning/removing runs retroactively is never a good decision, even if its only a few days difference. Keep in mind, m13's run does not have an advantage over other runs, he just had a reset advantage, so his run is still perfectly beatable.

m13 likes this
England

I personally feel save states are fine in some situations (quick exit from the game to restart for example) and in others they're obviously wrong (deck resetting in a race for example).

If it turns out that resetting via save states enables an advantage over consoles in regards to similar decks, then it should probably be looked into.

However, I find it a bit suspect that this issue is brought up after m13 obtained the record, despite this issue being known beforehand.

As for the 'ruling', I agree with it. If save states do create an advantage, it's unfair on the people who run this game on legitimate consoles and copies of the game. I play the game on emulator (at least on NTSC), but if I ran this game on console and saw people gaining an advantage by save states I'd probably just stop.

In regards to m13's run, he worked for his PB and obtained it before this rule was in place. I feel as a community, we should be praising and celebrating people's runs, not illegitimising them. As cyber said, his 'advantage' has not created some record than cannot be beat, it's still perfectly beatable.

m13 likes this
Bristol, England

Reminder that even though I used a savestate to reset I have alraedy proven that the deck's were different in every usage quite significantly. I was also unaware of the communities opinions on savestates at the time.

Bristol, England

The rule wasn't shown as strictly not allowed, I only found this out after mergy told me. Until then I thought this 'advantage' that you claim was just a rare occurence. However, the particular savestate I used for the run was only used twice. Despite the fact that I said the decks were similar that was only a handful of cards, mostly based on the first hand which featured 4 from the previous. Even without savestates you can recieve similar decks! If we are saying that decks change on a frame by frame basis then I did not recieve any advantage because there was a gap between the gap in which I selected my decks, I have shown the stats (from rewatching the broadcast) here: http://pastebin.com/ZyQuJaqE

Now I will continue to run this category, without savestates. I believe seeing as my record only gained an advantage in reset time in the long run that it should stand, however it's sort of a clash seeing as many runners have differing opinions. I personally think no harm no foul. Even if from now on savestates are on 100% lockdown due to what I said about gaining no advantage.

For anyone who disagree's with the record. Keep in mind Vino, Saboom and I will all most likely be running the category! As well as many others. The record may not stand long at all.

delphi likes this
England

If those 'similar' decks are what caused this whole thing, then it's kinda ridiculous.

Bristol, England

Even if it isn't, it's still ridiculous

New York, USA

If the pastebin is true then there wasn't really a harm with it but it should still be disallowed but his run kept. Basically the emulator should not have an advantage over the actual console itself, be it a quick reset or RNG manipulation. For RTA my opinion will always be to disallow savestates since consoles will never have that and it causes different advantages.

m13 likes this
Victoria, Australia

I mean I may have phrased what I said a little too harshly, I don't really think your run should be disallowed retroactively or whatever, I agree that that's always a bad idea. Similar thing happened in my main game, literally every single run of a category got retroactively banned because they decided to change the rules and ban a skip that was never banned before. Don't wanna bring up an old and long settled debate but it was completely fucking ridiculous. But either way like I said, I definitely think it should be banned from future runs.

Bristol, England

Im pretty sure the particular savestate was used twice because I remember saving over my previous one (after getting heishin lag as i didn't want it to happen again).

São Paulo, Brazil

I love how a lot of non-FM runners are making a fuss here, but let's get to the point:

It's kinda messed up how this thing got overlooked. The default leaderboard decision is to keep the run up, since it met the requirements of the proof policy at the time (c'mon guys, it's not like he used codes or anything... lol), but making a rule that save stating to reset is not allowed anymore. I mean, how many top runs here have save-state resets? Or even in other games that recognize emulator as an actual thing? Besides, you can still speed up the framerate to go through the reset (because it's LOLEMU).

Also, for the proof mods here: if you're allowing emulators, release a guide on how to configure it to be acceptable in speedruns. It still hasn't happened, but it would be really ¤¤cked up when a console user bitches about getting his any% bopped by someone like elvencloud or vinopoiatti by less than 10 seconds, since their emulators speed up the shrines movement insanely. (even though people would obviously only bitch about vino, gee, wonder why huh)

m13 likes this
New York, USA

The only one who doesn't run FM in this thread is Jumpy (as far as i know, but he has run so much i lose track), so i don't get where that statement is coming from. I could understand mistaking me but i do have a time i just dont want to submit till i have one i'm happy with.

Edit: Also this entire thing can be tucked away if Matt could PB again, this time without savestates for resetting.

Bristol, England

Yea I have made a personal decision to submit any time better than Vino's current time rather than my current time.

Pennsylvania, USA

@spectre

There doesn't need to be a guide. Use ePSXe 1.8 and you're fine. As far as savestating for resets goes, I always kind of figured it was generally known to not do that, but I understand that not explicitly stating it can be unfair.

Matt's run will be kept, and the rules for his run will be grandfathered from how they were before this rule change. In the future, no savestates for resetting and nothing but ePSXe 1.8.

And console is a very good bit faster than emulator anyways, provided your BIOS is newer.

São Paulo, Brazil

I used 1.8 to do some NG+ pocketstation attempts, and the shrine movement goes so fast that I even got fadeout skip on ocean shrine, lol... and we can't just assume PS2 2.00 is faster just because of fast disc and also not having lag at the 2k's. There's even an option on the video render on the emulator that specifies "faster" over graphic enhancing.

United States

Okay, I'm not at all an FM runner, and I know that m13's run is being kept, but I have to leave a reply here.

[quote=gcah2006]So you're telling me one run on the leaderboard is allowed to run to a different rule-set than everyone else's?[/quote]

Why were all of m13's other runs accepted before this run? Why are there other times on the leaderboard that were accepted that used a savestate to reset? If this was a known thing, then this should've been solved a long time ago. Saying that "one run" is using a different rule-set to everyone else is completely ridiculous.

delphi, PeterAfro and 5 others like this
United States

So you are proposing that we modify the leaderboards, and remove runs from up to 2 1/2 years old just to remove a >POTENTIAL< slight advantage over other runners that has no affect on the actual run itself?

Gcah, please.

Wisconsin, USA

This isn't the first time in this game's history someone has gotten a good time, and THEN people decide they are doing something that shouldn't be allowed.

You cannot remove someone's run when their run met all the requirements at the time of submission.

The argument that you can't have "one run different from all the others" is irrelevant since, like I said, the run met all the requirements. Not to mention, there are several runs scattered throughout the leaderboard that do save state resets. Obviously, the only reason this one is being talked about is because it is . That's what annoys me. If you think something should be disallowed, you can't just wait for someone to get a top time with it, and then say it's not allowed. I think that shows ulterior motives, but that's just me.

I suppose I understand the decision to ban save-state resets, but I'd still like to issue this challenge: Prove that using save-state resets gives an inherent advantage in the run.

Grig, m13, and AndreaRovenski like this
Game stats
Followers
571
Runs
556
Players
209
Latest news
Voting for the new moderators is now live!

Voting is now live to decide the new Speedrun.com mods!

You can find the form to vote here here:

[

4 months ago
Latest threads
Posted 1 month ago
1 reply
Posted 7 months ago
2 replies
Posted 1 year ago
5 replies
Posted 1 year ago
3 replies