HF Makalov Fanboy Kai Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 makes me wonder which one it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverHairedFreak25 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Ugh. Spent an hour or so playing the next submission and made basically no progress, and I don't understand what I'm doing wrong either. I'm not having fun with this one, and I think I'll either take a break, or put it off and play a different submission in the mean time. I suggest you take a break, and possibly play another submission if you're up to it. Maybe you can contact the hack's creator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avraxas Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Ugh. Spent an hour or so playing the next submission and made basically no progress, and I don't understand what I'm doing wrong either. I'm not having fun with this one, and I think I'll either take a break, or put it off and play a different submission in the mean time. That's certainly not a good sign for that unfortunate creator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) Okay, I'm calm now. I had someone watch me play, and as I was bitching about it being dumb and stupid and dumb, I literally beat the part I was having trouble with. On my first try. We both felt pretty stupid after that. XP But anyway, I've beaten the submission. I used a bunch of savestates due to its length, but I still wanna try beating it without them at some point because I wasn't too satisfied with how much of it I did, and I clearly did some things the creator didn't intend for me to do. EDIT: I managed to beat the submission using only two save states this time. If I didn't keep forgetting my winning strategies, I would have beaten this without savestates by this point. I'm determined to do this, but my hands are shaking and I have a headache. I need to rest. Edited October 26, 2015 by MarkyJoe1990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) Alright guys. I wanna ask you something. I recorded the submission, but the blind footage makes it look really bad. I beat it with only two savestates later, but didn't record it, and I spent over 10 hours attempting a savestateless run, writing down my every move, TASing the winning strat, then watching it fail because of stray critical hits and other things completely out of my control. Should I still try to do the savestateless run, or should I just edit and upload the blind footage? Edited October 27, 2015 by MarkyJoe1990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCProductions Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Why not both Seriously, do the edited blind footage as part one or something, and then do a save stateless run as part 2 to accurately portray your final thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarinets Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Hmm. Well, if you're willing I'd do the savestateless run or just use a couple savestates, because it would be more entertaining to watch footage that accurately displayed your opinion on the chapter. However, if you're not willing, then you can just upload the blind footage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Alright, so we have a complete run. It's tool assisted, but it's as close to a savestateless run as we're gonna get. The reason is because after discussing the chapter with the creator, I've confirmed that there is no strategy - not even the intended one - that works reliably enough. Apparently, the winning strategy hinges on a set few enemies having low enough defensive stats for it to even work. Since I beat it in under three save states in a separate run, disqualification is out of the question. Oh, speaking of which, I wanna talk about a few things. First. Let's talk Ragefest V. No, I'm not saying we're gonna have a fifth one. I'm just... brain storming, I guess. I think I should drop the "one-chapter" rule from now on. People are just splitting the same chapter into multiple segments. Segments which are just begging to be separated by save points. Forcing people to do this chapter splitting nonsense just makes it easier for glitches to happen and things to go out of wack, and that helps no one. I forgot what else I was gonna bring up, so I'll leave it there. Any suggestions on how to better refine the rules in the future would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 The problem with allowing people to submit multiple chapters is then people will want to try to make whole games, and probably take forever finishing their 20-chapter Ragefest submissions because "it's not ready yet", when the original point of the one-chapter rule was to make things quicker to make and play, letting both the creator and you put more effort into everything that does exist. I get the feeling allowing map changes was for things like Camtech's submission, where the map changes, but it exists as one pretty much cohesive entity. As far as I can tell, it almost seems safest to say people shouldn't be allowed to make a sequence of maps all one chapter as if they're a bunch of chapters--it was figured out in RFI; it's no longer clever. (Not saying I'm not guilty of this, but this post is mostly reflective) The problem with that is that some people have multiple ideas for a game that really wouldn't work together in one map. But I wonder if, since there will be more awards established, that will be okay for everyone to just make multiple submissions? But then you have a similar problem to the first one, where people might split their effort too much to make any one of them really good... I can't completely recommend actually restricting people to one effective chapter, but the idea is out there if people want to think about or discuss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avraxas Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Though I get the problem with chaining maps (which my own submission is guilty of, as I see now), I think the issue is more with time. Chaining maps lets people try to actually develop a story that might have changes of scene, rather than just adding to the pile of Evil Lyns, Angry Eliwoods, and Wimpy Roys (not that they're not funny). If you could implement a rule where the levels must have a winning strategy and that, following the winning strategy, the submission takes no longer than an hour or so, that would be optimal in my opinion. Of course, since Ragefest is also completely at your discretion, Marc, you could just play it up to a certain amount of time and continue only if you're interested for future submissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Breaking the submissions into multiple chapters could cause even more problems TBH. The submissions would definitely be longer, and I was under the impression that the ragefest were made with the ability to use save states in mind. They are simply too long to feasibly fathom someone playing that long without a break and maintaining a perfect record. Most of the problems I see with ragefest entries are in fact, that the submissions themselves are too long. Most of them drag on for so long that they end up fizzling out towards the end because there just isn't much to do with them after the game has shown its hand. And as numbers up there put, they have too many ideas and want to put them into one that end up making it become a slog rather than funny or rage inducing. Sequencing should be fine for people that feel they need multiple maps, but multiple chapters is honestly just asking for more problems to crop up with them IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I like the idea of a time limit sort of deal, makes me think of Mario Maker's "you have to beat this to upload it" thing, but Ragefestier. I was going to suggest a turn limit instead, but that relatively punishes people who carefully place a few units here and there and rewards Awesome Generic Battle Time!, which is the opposite of what you probably want. Though, I'm thinking... You seem to not be a fan of the games that just have super "rage-inducingly-hard" difficulty levels compared to those that are challenging but all-around well-designed. Which, fair enough, but I wonder if the stated goal of the contest shouldn't be reconsidered with that in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I like the idea of a time limit sort of deal, makes me think of Mario Maker's "you have to beat this to upload it" thing, but Ragefestier. I was going to suggest a turn limit instead, but that relatively punishes people who carefully place a few units here and there and rewards Awesome Generic Battle Time!, which is the opposite of what you probably want. Though, I'm thinking... You seem to not be a fan of the games that just have super "rage-inducingly-hard" difficulty levels compared to those that are challenging but all-around well-designed. Which, fair enough, but I wonder if the stated goal of the contest shouldn't be reconsidered with that in mind. Probably, and turn limits pretty much make every chapter a defense/survive chapter-- which would be an interesting ragefest, because in terms of designs, I usually go ham on survive missions and push the player to uncomfortable levels by half way so by the time they finish the chapter, they realize just how stressed they were. From watching his videos, he seems to like a game that's challenging more than it being necessarily difficult. IE, the game has clearly defined rules that are clearly testing certain skills versus "the enemies are really strong" or "this map is huge." In other words, if the creator of the hack/map/game was asked "what were you trying to make the player do?" They'd be able to clearly answer that outside of "I wanted the player to rage and have a difficult time." While Marc has never said this directly, you can kind of tell that's what he wants from his videos. Failing to test actual attributes, he seems to reward innovative designs that bring interesting ideas to the table that he hadn't/hasn't thought of-- botched execution or not. Ie, making a chapter where you design the entire chapter around your units all being archers with infinite use bows, disabling player trading, and using the light runes to block enemy paths to detour and slow them down while your units picked off the enemies and escaped the chapter would probably receive more praise than... A "hard" version of a Geneology of the Holy War spoofed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Erm, I don't mean "turn limit" like "if the designer plays for x turns, they win", I mean "if the designer can't beat their own game within x turns, they have to revise it". You could use that and make an x-turn-long defense mission, but I was thinking more something that you have to rush. Figuring out how efficiently you can beat your own game in is a good exercise anyway. Yeah I think you're right about the innovation though. I think it's also right to say "what were you trying to make the player do?", but that's generally true anyway. It's dangerous, though, because (at least so far, it seems like) when a submission doesn't "feel" like it has a reasonable "solution", Marc often sees it negatively until after he's had time to cool down and think it through--which maybe that's the point, maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNight48 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I was all for the extra chapters, was even going to suggest something like "the max is 3 chapters, if it takes more then it needs to be redone" so that way people can truly set up traps without conflicting codes fucking shit up as well as set up the type of plots that just infuriates marc. Then I kept reading and realized y'all have a point, it will just turn into a huge mess. So my suggestion would be that the designer has at least 2-3 tested for sure ways to beat his/her submission and can be done in under an hour. I think that is a pretty good rule of thumb to keep submissions from reaching tedium levels if Marc can't figure it out and gets in a rage quitting mood instead of getting mad and wants to keep trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) So to summarize... PwnageKirby - Allowing multiple chapters makes people try to make a big, 20-chapter submission that will not likely be released - Having only one map however makes it hard for the creator to realize all of their ideas. - I like the time limit idea. I would have suggested a turn limit, but that relatively punishes good design. - More on the turn limit thing, it would be set in such a way that the creator has to LTC their submission so that its length is reasonable. - Creators should have more of an idea of what they want to do besides "Make Marc Rage", and yeah, Marc likes challenge and cleverness over bullshit. Avraxas - There should be a time limit on how long a submission should take if the multi-chapter rule is implemented. Augestein - Multiple chapters means even longer submissions, making the problem worse. - Turn limits = More Defense/survival chapters - Marc likes challenging rather than bullshit. Mr. Night - 3 Chapters max, maybe - Should allow some flexibility in the player strategy to beat. Lemme see if I can address these points... Hm... In my ideal set up, people could make multiple chapters, but they'd all be short and only take about 3 - 8 turns to complete each under LTC conditions. So something like a 3-chapter, 25 turn limit I think would work pretty well. Maybe there'd also be a rule about giving a couple extra turns of leeway in case I go off the beaten path like I tend to do. Oh, and I'd also have to make a rule that prohibits forcing the player to restart the entire hack because they didn't get a thing in the previous chapter that they absolutely need in the next. However, I think there's a problem with limiting the creator's ambitions. If someone is truly capable of making an amazing, but long submission, like F. EXE (I'm referring to RF3's since I didn't play the RF4 one yet), why not let them? In theory, this could be a bad idea, but I don't think anyone is gonna try making a 20-chapter submission either. Regarding bullshit vs cleverness, I think that we can all agree that it's painfully obvious when someone doesn't put thought into their design, and that it's way less fun and interesting as a result. Anyone can toss untelegraphed ambush spawns or cheap deaths at the player. It's not a skill. It's only when those traps become clever in some way that they're deserving of any appreciation. Take Matthew's Nightmare for example. On the second map, one of the enemies is positioned in such a way that tempts you to attack it from a tree. But then stepping on the tree kills you. It's a cheap death for sure, but it also establishes a rule that comes into play for the rest of that segment, integrating it into the overall challenge rather than just being arbitrary. Edited October 28, 2015 by MarkyJoe1990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) On the note of "2-3 tested ways to beat" a given thing, that sounds like a good idea, but it's subjective. Like, consider these cases: In the first case, the player attacking from the top or from the right is inconsequential. If they're attacking that enemy with that PC, it's the same strategy no matter what. Neither probably even saves turns, because movement is diagonal down-left. (EDIT: I just noticed attacking from the right lets the Brigand use the forest, pretend I put more effort into setting this up and he can't do that) But in the second case, attacking from the top or from the right will lure a different enemy (pretend there's some valid reason the dracoknight didn't attack already, maybe it just spawned this player phase), making the difference between the moves relevant and possibly very impactful to the difficulty of this segment. Also, of course people should try to be clever and interesting in their design, but there often comes a point where, if a particular part is very difficult, and takes longer to think through than the cleverness can sustain, it doesn't make good footage as you silently try to work the pieces together, as you've said. So far, it seems like you generally prefer something that's clever and difficult, but not so difficult that it makes you get stuck and take hours just to figure it out. It should make the player and the audience go "whoa, that's cool. How is he going to do that?", then maybe after a couple tries you get it and move onto the game's next "wow" moment. At least, that's the impression I've been getting from the past videos. 3 chapter, 25 turn limit sounds reasonable, unless someone can argue a special case, such as a game that's 5 chapters, but each one still takes less than 5 turns, or maybe if someone has some gimmick that makes their game last exactly 30 turns or something. As for making a rule against making the game unwinnable because of actions made in earlier chapters... That's really my biggest problem with the whole series, really. In normal Fire Emblem, if you let too many units die or weapons break and don't have the resources to cover your losses, you can definitely make your way to a chapter in an unwinnable situation. Likewise, maybe someone's submission would have a recruitable enemy Fighter with a hammer that you're supposed to use on that chapter's boss, but maybe they die on the boss and you barely beat that chapter. It would be an awesome story of sacrifice...until the 3rd chapter sends a General at you and there's no reasonable way to kill it. Since Ragefest is going to be harder than traditional FE, missing out on stuff like that can be way more devastating than normal. That's just an example, I'm sure you mean stuff like "there's some super obscure chest you have to open in chapter 1 in order to get a member card needed for chapter 2 where you sell all your stuff and buy the only weapon that can beat the chapter 3 boss", but that's already covered by the crypticness rule. But if the player puts Durandal in a chest that's naturally accessible or telegraphed to be important, especially if it's telegraphed to be important, and if you open the chest and get Durandal you should think it's important anyway, they should be allowed to make the Fire Dragon not take damage from pesky mortal butter knives. just my 20 cents gosh i did not plan on typing this much actually yeah maybe people will be capable of making good long submissions so maybe these should just all be suggestions instead of rules and if people make a 50-turn chapter that completely sucks then they can fix it or probably have less chance of doing well Edited October 28, 2015 by 47948201 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoniker Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 What with all this discussion, I feel obligated to put in my two cents: There are already clearly established weekly time limits for Ragefest, I feel like if Marky spelled it out clearly then we wouldn't really have to worry about 20-chapter hacks. I also think that hack creators should be allowed as much freedom as possible. I feel like turn limits would really restrict things too much, but time limits might be a good idea, since some Ragefest hacks(bad ones) have taken way WAY too long to play. Maybe you didn't see it but I played some RF3 disqualified submissions, and some(like Vaati's Revenge) were simply ridiculous in the unnecessary amount of time they took. TL;DR: I definitely agree with Marky's reasons for removing the chapter limit, and maybe a time limit should be added instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 So wait, how would the time limit thing work anyway? Would we factor in cutscenes, or just the gameplay? What about the different speeds at which everyone plays? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomSwordmaster Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Perhaps have a group of volunteer testers go through the submission, and report their completion times on a successful run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 That was my issue with time limits and why I thought turn limits might be better. Making it a time limit would benefit players with skills not normally related to FE, i.e. quick reflexes and dextrous fingers. Volunteer playtesting was considered for RFIV, and honestly, if RFV ends up smaller (it probably will be, since RFIV had like 3 fake beginnings over several years), it might work there. But it was way too much work in RFIV, so probably like 1~3 submissions ever went through that process. Time limit playtesting would be less work, but even more subjective due to the reason above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iajLUHlaEzs ... *sigh* So... I think because of prior events, I've been scared to be honest with my opinions when they are harsh, but as much as I have tried and tried, I simply could not bring myself to like this submission. I want to make it clear though that I think the people behind this submission are very talented, and if not for its faults, this could have easily been a great submission. The art looks nice, and the enemy positioning was very carefully thought out, and there are some creative ideas here and there. It's just that this otherwise fair map is ruined by the fact that any effort you put forth can be negated by circumstances out of your control, such as stray critical hits whose chances build up due to the length of the chapter, enemies moving into spots that change how you play each turn even with proper planning, and the fact that even the intended strategy requires the enemies to have specific stats for it to even work. That, and I find the writing forced, forgettable, and kind of manipulative with the whole choice thing at the beginning that doesn't change much of anything. I still managed to beat it in under three save states in an offscreen run, but I was really hoping to feel the full satisfaction of conquering this beast without any. Edited October 29, 2015 by MarkyJoe1990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avraxas Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 It looks like an interesting submission, although I have no idea how much you must have edited out. It's a shame you aren't enjoying the play-through, Marc. I suppose it's unfortunate as well for Ash and Ciraxis, who seem to have put a lot of work into this. Still, unfortunate events aside, great job and thanks for another video, I really enjoy watching them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNight48 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I for one like the jokes, but holy shit that mic echo is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 It looks like an interesting submission, although I have no idea how much you must have edited out. It's a shame you aren't enjoying the play-through, Marc.For this segment, most of the stuff I cut out was me failing constantly at the first segment, complaining because I was having zero fun, and then saying I'm gonna take a break because I'm not making progress. None of it was worth watching. I suppose it's unfortunate as well for Ash and Ciraxis, who seem to have put a lot of work into this.They were prepared for me to not like it, so they listened to my advice and said they'd heed it for the future. Still, unfortunate events aside, great job and thanks for another video, I really enjoy watching them! Eh... you're welcome. I'm glad some people can enjoy the footage, even if I don't. I for one like the jokes, but holy shit that mic echo is bad.Sorry for all the issues. I did the best I could. The video took me, like, 8 hours to finish... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.