Glitch City Laboratories Forums

Lab α: The Lobby => Wiki Discussion => Topic started by: Sherkel on February 24, 2019, 11:52:15 am

Title: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Sherkel on February 24, 2019, 11:52:15 am
A good conversation emerged recently on this talk page (https://glitchcity.info/wiki/Talk:Trapped_at_burgled_house_oversight) about the importance (or not) of natural glitches. Would anyone else care to weigh in?
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Epsilon on February 24, 2019, 12:32:37 pm
I would call intended behavior resulting in unintended behavior as an oversight, I'm personally not fond of the term "Natural Glitch".

That's my $0.02
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Zowayix on February 24, 2019, 01:06:23 pm
Yeah I kinda agree that the term "natural glitch" isn't really intuitive. As someone who's horribly out of touch with all this stuff, I had to read all that talk page to figure out what it all meant. I think oversight would be fine: the actual definition we're going for here, if I'm understanding this with my accidentally-woke-up-after-just-5-hours-of-sleep brain, is any sequence of events where only intended programming has occurred (e.g. not having space in the bag) but has an undesirable result (e.g. softlock).

As for whether they're "important" or not: Well, I think they should be interesting enough to be worthwhile content, if that's what's being asked. Saves the trouble of having to figure out what counts as a glitch and what counts as an oversight.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Sherkel on February 24, 2019, 02:10:55 pm
To clarify: natural glitches are ones that don't require another to be performed beforehand. "Where the program goes wrong" is a good way of phrasing it.

For instance, the Safari Zone exit glitch is natural, Glitch City RAM manipulation isn't...but the latter one only requires walking to a certain tile after performing the first one. We all seem to agree that it's up to common sense which to term as what, and that we could separate them, but I think it's a superfluous category on a wiki that needs organizational cleanup before discussing what to add.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Evie the Bird Mother ❤✿ on February 24, 2019, 02:46:56 pm
I'm with Bbbbbbbbba personally, I feel they are worth having, from a programming perspective you know exactly which bugs to fix to prevent all of the related sub-glitches, and even if the categories are not necessary I feel it's "something rather than nothing" in this case.

However, maybe we could start a poll to get a clearer view of what we think, so if there is a consensus we could go with that.

Also I'm wondering if "natural" gives the wrong connotations and if "core glitch" sounds like a simpler term to use.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Parzival on February 24, 2019, 03:05:31 pm
Also I'm wondering if "natural" gives the wrong connotations and if "core glitch" sounds like a simpler term to use.
I feel that might be construed as "most useful" or "core-game-only" in meaning.

I'm all for a natural glitch category, I said so in... that other thread along these lines.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 24, 2019, 05:58:17 pm
So I have been scanning through the entire Generation I glitches category. From what I have seen, there are about equal parts of natural glitches, non-natural glitches, and results, in terms of number of pages (I think number of pages is important because Sherkel mentioned that non-natural glitches that have their own pages are few, and also because number of page determines visibility on the category listing). Some observations:

I think maybe we need a clear criteria for the "page-worthiness" of non-natural glitches and results. In the process we might split those categories into smaller categories (not necessarily non-overlapping, so hopefully ambiguity would not be a problem).

By the way, "glitch technique"/"glitch exploit" seems to be an existing term for non-natural glitches with desirable effects. It still doesn't distinguish between the two types of "natural glitches" though, and it takes yet another factor (desirability) into account...
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Parzival on February 24, 2019, 11:08:59 pm
Evolving Raichu was a translation error. So was Coin Case ACE, technically, so does that not get glitch strategy because of it? Does the translation error category supercede the glitch category, or are they equal? If they're equal, do we give it both a "yes, this is a glitch" AND "no, this isn't a glitch" status via adding both categories? If they're NOT equal, would glitch status or translation error supercede? If glitch status supercedes, does that mean translation issues that lead to issues not get the translation error tag? If translation error status supercedes, is Coin Case no longer categorized as a glitch, since having both makes them equal?

my point is as of now the tag system is not totally fucked so why change it?
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 25, 2019, 01:18:26 am
On one hand, you have a point that they are caused by the same error. On the other hand, I think the impact on gameplay matters when classifying glitches. For example, I believe the "Hidden Safari Zone entrance Nugget glitch" should be counted as a natural glitch simply because there is one square on which the itemfinder responds to it. If the hidden Nugget were one square away, then it would be either a non-natural glitch that has to be triggered by walking through wall, or not a glitch at all, simply some unused content.

Although my own example does raise the question whether misinformation is enough impact to consider something a glitch. Evolving Raichu and Introduction Nidorino both cause misinformation too, although on different levels...

Your unwritten implication is that changing the tagging system necessarily cause problems. But the current tagging system (especially the system including "natural glitches") already cause the same sort of problems, where similar things get different categorizations due to ambiguous boundary. (And I must say, not being able to say for sure whether "natural glitches" is a supported category is in itself another problem with the current system.) In that case, why not change it for the clearer and the better?
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Parzival on February 25, 2019, 06:21:26 am
that's fair. Continue.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Missing? NO! on February 25, 2019, 10:58:41 pm
You could use a term like "base glitch" for any glitch that's naturally occurring or doesn't need another glitch to be performed beforehand for setup purposes. Something like the Old Man Glitch would be what I have in mind -- since the Old Man Glitch is the base that a lot of glitches grow off of, it'd be a perfect fit as a "base glitch".

Just my two cents. I'm also pretty out of touch here.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 26, 2019, 01:22:55 am
Well, the old man glitch itself is actually based on another glitch, the left-facing shore tile glitch, hence my uncertainty on whether it should be counted as a natural glitch. But other than that, the name "base glitch" (or maybe "basic glitch"?) does make some sense.


What I have been thinking is that, while it's not necessarily suitable as a way to categorize the glitches, it would be useful to think about the different levels of "brokenness" we could put the game to.

0. Non-broken. This is the normal state of the game. Some glitches are "non-game-breaking": They begin at a legal game state and end up at another legal game state, although the transition is incorrect in terms of game logic. That would include misinformation glitches (Evolving Raichu, introduction Nidorino, hidden Safari Zone entrance Nugget, etc.), some soft-locking glitches, and a few miscellaneous glitches (Gen I miss, NPC walking behavior, etc.).

1. Broken assumptions. A minor example is getting a level 1 Pokémon, which can enable the experience underflowing glitch. The NPC collision bypassing glitch can cause NPCs to overlap and go through each other; though this don't seem to have any application, it's still an assumption broken. Other more serious cases include encountering and obtaining glitch Pokémon, getting glitch items and moves. Technically expanded party and item pack are also just some broken assumptions, although they are just one step away from...

2. Mass RAM corruption. Here "mass" doesn't necessarily mean a lot of addresses are corrupted, just that a lot of addresses could be corrupted (i.e. we can still do it in a pinpoint way). Switching items around and tossing them in an expanded item pack causes mass memory corruption. I added the "mass" qualifier because corruption to a single address tend to be interpreted as a single broken assumption by the game.

3. Arbitrary code execution. This is pretty much self-explanatory, although even ACE methods can differ by the code length allowed, the code bytes allowed, and timing constraints (e.g. OAM DMA hijacking allows "all-time" ACE).


The consequence of this "level system" is that glitches that increase the "brokenness level" are probably automatically page-worthy (this includes all game-breaking natural glitches, although I think non-game-breaking natural glitches should be automatically page-worthy anyway). On the other hand, glitches that go back in "brokenness level" are likely to be trivial. It's not exactly interesting that with ACE we can corrupt the RAM anywhere, and with mass RAM corruption we can break a lot of the game's assumptions.

Now, there are pages that are "ACE tutorials" or "corruption tutorials", and I understand those pages have a reason to exist on this wiki, but I do think that those should have a higher standard for inclusion, and maybe they don't even belong to the "glitch" category: They are strictly glitch exploits that should have their own category.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Sherkel on February 26, 2019, 03:19:36 pm
What I have been thinking is that, while it's not necessarily suitable as a way to categorize the glitches, it would be useful to think about the different levels of "brokenness" we could put the game to.
I agree with this post. A couple of points: as I see it this is mainly an organization issue. Those four "levels of brokenness" are what have led to the categories of "Major glitches", "Minor glitches", "Oversights", "Natural glitches", "Curiosities", "Miscellaneous glitches", and so forth...but already, isn't the problem becoming pretty clear? With how blurred those lines are, the categories have started to lose their meaning, especially with most of them formed nearly 10 years ago. Hence my temporary suggestion (which was met with unanimous agreement, originally) to narrow it all down to "Glitches by generation" with a small handful of especially notable glitches singled out. If we were to categorize them again, it should be along the lines of those four levels, but we should make it easy to find what someone's looking for as well. Also, any exploit documented the site that involves ACE is only due to notability, and the definition of that changed with the advent of speedrunning; thus, people are going to come looking for how to skip to the Hall of Fame, "catch 'em all" faster, and related things. There are some arbitrary code execution programs listed, but they were never placed alongside other glitches (i.e. levels 0-2) in the first place.

Basically, if/when we make a hierarchy of sorts for articles, it should be somewhere along the lines of those levels.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Parzival on February 26, 2019, 08:51:39 pm
I feel it needs to be more verbose, maybe 5 instead of 4, due to Level 2 in the 4-tier system having some ambiguity due to varying glitch use/unintentional-damage potential/strength.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 27, 2019, 06:31:57 am
Also, any exploit documented the site that involves ACE is only due to notability, and the definition of that changed with the advent of speedrunning; thus, people are going to come looking for how to skip to the Hall of Fame, "catch 'em all" faster, and related things.

On that note, can we have pages on glitched speedrun routes (they are public domain, right?) with detailed analysis for the glitches? Not only would that be useful to people new to speedrun, having those detailed analysis may also help with finding alternate routes (maybe backup strats) or even improvements. Plus, for some glitches we would be able to just link to examples in the speedrun, instead of putting overcomplicated examples in the glitch page.

I feel it needs to be more verbose, maybe 5 instead of 4, due to Level 2 in the 4-tier system having some ambiguity due to varying glitch use/unintentional-damage potential/strength.

Of course there will be different "sublevels" in each level (as I mentioned, even ACE methods can be different in application), but the line can be really difficult to draw. If you can come up with a relatively clear criteria to split my level 2, then sure. Otherwise, I think it's best to keep it simple.
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Parzival on February 27, 2019, 06:50:22 am
Level 2A - Glitches with low usefulness and low damage chance. Example: the Mimic glitch. Counts as major, but not majorly useful.
Level 2B - Low usefulness, high damage potential. This would be where things like Super Glitch would go, due to saving failing nearly always.
Level 2C - High usefulness, low damage potential. Something like Pokedex 0x00 move manipulation or Send Party Mons to New Game. Basically "not as useful as ACE but has universally desirable effects."
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 27, 2019, 07:52:59 am
The Mimic glitch is only at level 1 (more precisely, it's "level 0 -> 1"), and a "low" level 1 at that. All it does is to give Pokémon an illegal moveset. Trainer escape would be a "high" level 1, since even though it massively messes with the game logic, it ultimately works by putting a few specific flags in an inconsistent state.

I agree that controllability is a good criteria within level 2, but it is difficult to quantify. Maybe mass corruption can be level 2A and pinpoint corruption can be 2B?
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Parzival on February 27, 2019, 08:26:15 am
that works, I guess
Title: Re: Natural glitches
Post by: Sherkel on February 27, 2019, 02:07:35 pm
On that note, can we have pages on glitched speedrun routes (they are public domain, right?) with detailed analysis for the glitches? Not only would that be useful to people new to speedrun, having those detailed analysis may also help with finding alternate routes (maybe backup strats) or even improvements. Plus, for some glitches we would be able to just link to examples in the speedrun, instead of putting overcomplicated examples in the glitch page.
The ones I've seen have all been just a few clicks away on PSR, though in the case of some newer ones they were only linked in the Discord first. I'm sure those were made public too, though. They do have the consistent "flaw" of merely being guides, for instance saying "get to Viridian Forest this way" instead of saying (or even mentioning) "this activates this meta-map script when these values have been set". However, I'm not sure if we should just copy them and expand on them, as we aren't PSR and routing isn't our particular focus...I might change my mind on that, though. I think the relevant glitches already link to examples in recorded runs, though if they aren't, they should be.

I feel it needs to be more verbose, maybe 5 instead of 4, due to Level 2 in the 4-tier system having some ambiguity due to varying glitch use/unintentional-damage potential/strength.

Of course there will be different "sublevels" in each level (as I mentioned, even ACE methods can be different in application), but the line can be really difficult to draw. If you can come up with a relatively clear criteria to split my level 2, then sure. Otherwise, I think it's best to keep it simple.
How this will translate to categories, what users see when browsing the wiki, ease of navigation and the like is still up in the air, though. The level divisions are justifiable and make sense to anyone who's read a few pages, but I am wary of too many categories...as you said, it should be kept simple. Not sure exactly how though, yet...
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Raven Freak on February 27, 2019, 06:51:31 pm
I think these four categories are how I would organize glitches on the wiki, what do you guys think? Is it over the top, or too many categories?
Oversights:
Just some random oversights left in the game, whether it be leftovers from a previous version of a map, or surfing on the statues. This can be 1A. Things in this category just doesn't do much to affect gameplay, and is there for a good chuckle.

Useful Harmless Glitches:
Basically glitches in this category can help the player and of course doesn't do harm to your save file. Speedrunning glitches can fall under this too. Going with the numbering system this can be 1B.

Advance glitches:
Glitches in this category can alter the game's code and may potentially be harmful, especially if you don't know how to perform them. ACE would definitely fit this category, perhaps other glitches can fall under this category too? This would be 2A.

Harmful glitches:
As the title states, these glitches will either destroy your save file, or simply make the game crash/freeze. Glitch moves that cause Super Glitch would fall under this category of course, even though in some occasions the move doesn't do harm. The divide by zero growth rate glitch found in Yellow can fall under this glitch category as well too. This can be 2B.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 27, 2019, 10:16:35 pm
Oversights:
Just some random oversights left in the game, whether it be leftovers from a previous version of a map, or surfing on the statues. This can be 1A. Things in this category just doesn't do much to affect gameplay, and is there for a good chuckle.

Useful Harmless Glitches:
Basically glitches in this category can help the player and of course doesn't do harm to your save file. Speedrunning glitches can fall under this too. Going with the numbering system this can be 1B.

Advance glitches:
Glitches in this category can alter the game's code and may potentially be harmful, especially if you don't know how to perform them. ACE would definitely fit this category, perhaps other glitches can fall under this category too? This would be 2A.

Harmful glitches:
As the title states, these glitches will either destroy your save file, or simply make the game crash/freeze. Glitch moves that cause Super Glitch would fall under this category of course, even though in some occasions the move doesn't do harm. The divide by zero growth rate glitch found in Yellow can fall under this glitch category as well too. This can be 2B.

The way I see it, "useful" and "harmful" are pretty subjective criteria, although maybe in practice that wouldn't be a problem.

Also, your 2A and 2B again only differ in controllability.

I think the advantage of your system is that it singles out the most interesting glitches to the average player (1B and 2A); however, the most interesting glitches to the average glitcher are probably different.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Krys3000 on February 28, 2019, 12:49:43 am
At PRAMA, we try to organize the glitches and pages in a "learn how to glitch" fashion. We present minor glitches, then split major glitches in three categories called "For a good start", "Upper-level glitches" and "Advanced techniques". These are categories solely based on the amount of knowledge required to perform the glitch (even if the glitch is very simple but has an ACE pre-requisite for example). The idea is that the newcomer starts its journey into glitching by learning the basics and then progressively moves on complicated stuff.

But that's the main purpose of PRAMA - to provide accurate but newbie-friendly information that will make them want to jump into it. GCL is something else, so those categories probably won't fit here.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Sherkel on February 28, 2019, 12:12:36 pm
At PRAMA, we try to organize the glitches and pages in a "learn how to glitch" fashion. We present minor glitches, then split major glitches in three categories called "For a good start", "Upper-level glitches" and "Advanced techniques". These are categories solely based on the amount of knowledge required to perform the glitch (even if the glitch is very simple but has an ACE pre-requisite for example). The idea is that the newcomer starts its journey into glitching by learning the basics and then progressively moves on complicated stuff.

But that's the main purpose of PRAMA - to provide accurate but newbie-friendly information that will make them want to jump into it. GCL is something else, so those categories probably won't fit here.
I'm glad that you chimed in! That approach is yet another viable option. I'm wondering now, for anyone from PRAMA, GCL, or both, what do you consider the difference between the two sites?
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Krys3000 on February 28, 2019, 01:45:31 pm
When PRAMA was made, there were already several english-speaking Pokémon glitch websites, so it was really meant to be a french ressource before anything else- to bring the basic information to french gamers. This is why it focuses almost exclusively on glitches that work on french games.  :P

That being said, to me PRAMA was also built as a vulgarization tool to get 'normal Pokémon players' into glitches, even if they are complete newbies. Within generations, glitches are organized from the easiest to the most complex; the choice of words is thought to be user-friendly with almost no technical words and all the technical stuff is regrouped in a separate section at the end of every glitch, that a reader is free not to read because it won't contain something that is required to perform the glitch (but may of course help to fix issues).

For instance, this leads us to write things like 'this glitch can also be performed using ACE, a more complex glitch that you will discover later on our pages (or by clicking here, if you want to jump to it right now)' or 'as already explained in the technical section of the Old Man Trick, the game is composed of... and we will use this to...' etc. The idea is not to push people on things before they have mastered what they are currently reading.

I see GCL very differently. For me, it's a website already meant for people who know a bit of glitches. The information is here, but not directly brought to you, you need to make your way into it. It's a wiki, an encyclopedia, if you're a newbie, you get on a complex glitch page here and won't understand something every three words. But then, you click on words and learn things that help you understand. The benefit of this format is that pages are shorter and quicker to read, containing no more than necessary.

When I started Pokémon glitches, I had absolutely no knowledge in computers, programming, etc. Words like stack, opcodes, addresses and even bytes or memory mean nothing to newbies. I actually had a hard time dealing with some very technical websites and glitch experts who couldn't understand that I had no idea of what they were trying to explain to me :D. I believe this is normal, it is always hard to vulgarize something that you master daily. But it basically motivated me to make PRAMA in this particular fashion :)
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Sherkel on February 28, 2019, 07:50:31 pm
Very cool to finally hear the origin story behind PRAMA! :)

I think that was a great choice of direction to go in considering how few French glitchers there were. Taking it all into account, I think GCL should continue being the site you described it as.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on February 28, 2019, 08:23:34 pm
The ones I've seen have all been just a few clicks away on PSR, though in the case of some newer ones they were only linked in the Discord first. I'm sure those were made public too, though. They do have the consistent "flaw" of merely being guides, for instance saying "get to Viridian Forest this way" instead of saying (or even mentioning) "this activates this meta-map script when these values have been set". However, I'm not sure if we should just copy them and expand on them, as we aren't PSR and routing isn't our particular focus...I might change my mind on that, though. I think the relevant glitches already link to examples in recorded runs, though if they aren't, they should be.

After thinking about this, I think the fact routing isn't our focus is exactly why we want to have copies of the routes on our own pages, so that we can separate the glitch part from the pure routing part and properly focus on the former. We can always gloss over the parts that aren't glitch-related.

Linking to speedrun videos doesn't do much, because as I said they have the wrong focus, and some of the glitches actually need quite a bit of explaining.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Parzival on March 01, 2019, 01:57:25 am
Linking to speedrun videos doesn't do much, because as I said they have the wrong focus, and some of the glitches actually need quite a bit of explaining.
I mean... visual examples would help with understanding the steps to do the glitches/tricks for most people.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Sherkel on March 01, 2019, 11:36:07 am
After thinking about this, I think the fact routing isn't our focus is exactly why we want to have copies of the routes on our own pages, so that we can separate the glitch part from the pure routing part and properly focus on the former. We can always gloss over the parts that aren't glitch-related.
While I don't particularly agree, I'll add it to Wiki tasks for now as a possibility. They would be a good example of "how to break the game and why it works", but routes are constantly receiving optimizations, and the glitches involved are already getting their own pages.

Back to organization and page visibility, I brought this up in Discord earlier to...again, no decisive response (aside from a general desire not to overcomplicate it.) For now, I'll be narrowing down the "Major glitches" category to 20 or 30 from the 123 that are in there now, and adding each item currently in the "Glitches" section of the sidebar (narrowed down again yesterday) to the front page with a one-sentence summary so that visitors know where to start looking.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Sherkel on March 15, 2019, 12:16:53 pm

After thinking about this, I think the fact routing isn't our focus is exactly why we want to have copies of the routes on our own pages, so that we can separate the glitch part from the pure routing part and properly focus on the former. We can always gloss over the parts that aren't glitch-related.

Linking to speedrun videos doesn't do much, because as I said they have the wrong focus, and some of the glitches actually need quite a bit of explaining.
Taking back whatever I said. This is just brilliant (https://glitchcity.info/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Crystal_any%25_speedrun_route). I'll add any articles like this to the Reference documents category, as well as their own. I think speedrun routes documented in this manner deserve a sidebar spot more than GameShark codes, but I'll wait for at least one more vote on that. (I'll help if I can, but honestly with my current level of knowledge I don't think there's much I could do.)

I take it this means a "Luck manipulation (Generation II)" page will be possible now as well? Or should the Gen I page be renamed to include both?
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: bbbbbbbbba on March 15, 2019, 04:11:34 pm
Hmm... I just checked the Gen II RNG, and the core function seems to be exactly the same as Gen I (except that the framely RNG advancement is spelled out in VBlank rather than as a function call). But I'm sure that there are many differences because surrounding codes determine what matters, and frame windows are also an important consideration for RTA.

For this kind of situations, I think it might be best to use the article length as a criterion. The Gen I luck manipulation page is already pretty long, and tacking some Gen II content onto it would probably either make the new content invisible, or make the article too confusing as a whole. Therefore I think "Luck manipulation (Generation II)" should be a separate page; if the overlap turns out to be substantial, we can always move the overlapping part to the parent page.

To be honest, I don't consider my level of knowledge to be high either (especially with Gen II), but BGB + pret + a bit of time usually gets you there. It would be much appreciated if people in the speedrunning community would help.
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: Sherkel on March 25, 2019, 11:07:17 pm
Yeah, it should be its own page, whether it's just taking the value in rDIV or not.

What do you use to communicate with pret? IRC, I'm assuming? Or are you under a different name on Github?
Title: Re: Revisiting categories and organization
Post by: ISSOtm on March 26, 2019, 06:02:25 am
He is on pret's Discord server.