Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
EZgames69 beat me to the encode by 10 minutes.
Looks good though. Yes vote from me. No reason I can see that this run shouldn't be published as an improvement to my run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Soooo...getting back to the actual title of this topic.
Is there enough perceived confusion about polls (specifically, but not limited to the 'meh' option) for the staff to consider a change of any type? Or is the general consensus that what we have is good enough and doesn't need changing?
Personally, I think the available answers unfortunately cause the poll to be utilized by voters from both a perspective of entertainment (as it's written/intended) but also as meaning "should this be published?" (which is not up to the community, but the judge).
I think (as I suggested before) that a poll regarding the degree of entertainment may be better than the yes/no/meh options for "did you find this entertaining?"
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Almost 1:20 improvement! Well done! I'm glad the bot searching helped you get the Gold bug stuff figured out. Sorry I couldn't help any more than I did on this run (real life kinda got in the way).
I'm looking forward to watching the run as soon as I have a few spare minutes. I'll also make a temp encode if there isn't one by the time I watch it.
A side by side comparison would be interesting to me....but I'm not sure how to make one.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
Criticisms are OK, as long as they are fair and rational. But this time, having to argue over a run that shouldn't be controversial at all really upsets me.
Lee, continually emphasizing your perspective that all this "shouldn't be controversial" only furthers the idea that you think there's a major problem simply because what has happened didn't line up with your personal expectations.
It obviously has been controversial...which only serves to prove your assertion that it "shouldn't be controversial" is incorrect.
As far as your original expectations on the run: There's nothing wrong anticipating a particular response. The problem exists when you staunchly and publicly assert that things are awry simply BECAUSE they are different than your expectations.
As it stands, your run is sitting at 81% positive response. That's nothing to be upset about; its a fantastic positive response (and in my opinion not low enough for a judge to consider dropping the run to a lower tier than the current publication). You're only complaining because it's not MORE positive and closer to what some of your previous runs have attained. While it makes sense to base one's expectations on what previous submissions have attained, those results on previous runs don't guarantee ANYTHING about a current/future submission.
You've got to get to the point where you either:
1) Consider that your original expectations weren't as accurate as you anticipated.
2) Accept that the voting results are what they are (regardless of whether votes were cast for submission based or personal reasons); but the results as they are aren't like to endanger the run of being dropped a tier.
If all the arguing (that the run shouldn't be controversial and that the negative/neutral votes aren't valid) isn't likely to change the resulting publication tier; there is no reason to continue griping about the vote counts. Doing so only makes it appear that you are concerned with the vote percentages for personal accreditation/acclaim (in other words, your ego).
By all means be proud of your work, you should be; you've accomplished what many considered impossible! But don't try to force others to give you acclaim by complaining and insinuating fraud when others don't agree with you (regardless of their reasons why).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
p4wn3r wrote:
In practice, it goes like this: if someone requests the investigation, and you deny it, and eventually another party determines that there was indeed a problem, that makes you automatically an accomplice. So, usually you tend to investigate most things and ask people to not take it personally. Of course, in this forum we are not dealing with lots of money, so this is more of an inconvenience.
I understand your concerns about voting abuse; we should all be concerned (to a practical degree) about such abuse.
It appears to me that the site staff has taken necessary and appropriate actions in the past when such abuse has been suspected and confirmed.
I disagree with your assertion that a lack of an investigation makes them accomplice though. The staff may simply have not seen validity in the claim. Just because a 3rd party does find fraudulent activity later doesn't make the staff complicit in the abuse.
The problem is that, you are asking for more investigations into voting abuse without addressing how those investigations should be requested.
The suggestion of voting abuse in the SMB run stemmed from an author who couldn't accept that the community response to his submission didn't turn out exactly as he suspected it (no one said he couldn't believe that). BUT, he then publicly tried to blame that differing result on previous drama within the community--which is unprovable even if an investigation were carried out. Further, he never requested an investigation...just kept publicly complaining that the results couldn't be accurate even when presented with reasons that it could be. Thus drama exploded into about 8 different topics.
Regarding inivestigations: There's nothing stopping site staff from investigating anything they perceive as odd. But placing the impetus on the staff to investigate any/all random sumbission's voting is backwards.
If an author (or anyone else) suspects abuse for any given submission, the impetus is on them to request an investigation; and that call to investigate should come in the form of a private request to the staff, not a public outcry within the submission discussion. As can be seen with the submission that stemmed this topic, making a public accusation of abuse leads to a whole mess of off-topic forum posts (at least regarding the submission in question) that dilutes the discussion of the submitted run.
tl;dr:
The impetus for initiating an investigation of a specific vote tally is not on the staff, it's the responsibility of the community members to privately request investigations of potential abuse. THEN it becomes the responsibility of the staff to determine if the claim is valid enough to warrant an investigation. A decision not to investigate does not equate to complicity in any (later discovered) abuse, simply a decision that investigation did not appear warranted at the time of the request.
EDIT: To the staff: Even though this topic itself was branched from the submission topic....It appears we've already gotten off-topic regarding "the point of submission polling." Should all the discussion here regarding investigation of voting abuse be branched off again into its own topic?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
So just from the few comments since my earlier question, it seems that voting has its place, but the options we offer don't exactly match the question proposed.
How would everyone feel about clarifying the poll question regarding entertainment to "How entertaining did you find the movie?" and then have a rating system of 1-3. The 3 options could be:
1 - Not entertaining at all
2 - Somewhat Entertaining
3 - Very Entertaining
This would hopefully eliminate/minimize people taking the 'Yes/No' options to mean whether or not a run should be published to begin with.
If those three options aren't varied enough...it could be spread to 5 options--Nach, please pardon the irony of this suggestion considering your earlier comments on 1-5 polls questions--with the options being
1 - Not entertaining at all
2 - Somewhat Entertaining
3 - Average Entertainment value
4 - Above average Entertainment Value
5 - Very Entertaining
or
1 - "Please someone, pour acid into my eyes."
2 - "Watching paint dry is more fun."
3 - "That was a neat."
4 - "I was so rapt by this that I forgot to breathe."
5 - "This is the (one of) the greatest TAS I've seen in my entire life!"
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
To preface: I don't have a preference on how the site deals with polls.
So hypothetically, if the staff decided changes to the polls were necessary; which of these would be more accepted by the community, completely eliminating polls or just eliminating the 'meh' option?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
mtvf1 wrote:
... I don't think these is the personal behavior, it must be organized behavior...
Organized? Seriously? You think there have been secret, non-public discussions with the expressed purpose of bashing HappyLee's TAS?
No one here has confronted Lee personally for anything OTHER than how he has disrespectfully responded to other people's opinions regarding his work (which includes the voting tally).
We have acknowledged his general talent in TASing including this submission. No one has complained that this submission is sloppy/unoptimized. Some have simply expressed their perspectives on why they found the run entertaining or not.
Yes, I called him egocentric before, because he got upset when the voting results were simply different than what he EXPECTED; which he automatically assumed was because of prior forum drama and not directly relating to this submission--some of those 'no/meh' voters have since clarified their vote in this discussion tying it directly to this submission and nothing else.
If HappyLee is going to pout about the vote tallies (which is how I perceive his temporary cancellation), claim others are against him (without evidence) simply because they didn't respond to his work as he EXPECTED, and be unable to accept that not everyone agrees with his assessment of his own work; then I stand by my original opinion. He is taking the arrogant/egocentric position that his opinion of his own work is superior to what others think of it, and that somehow makes them wrong or against him personally.
TL:DR My perspective is that HappyLee is a fantastic TASer, a huge asset to the TASvideos cause of archiving amazing TAS runs, and he would be missed if he chose to remove himself from the community. However, I believe that HappyLee's biggest problem with this submission/discussion is the that he simply can't accept that things didn't turn out exactly as he EXPECTED; and that, in my opinion, is arrogant/egocentric.
FWIW, I changed my mind on voting and have voted 'Yes' for this run as I found it enjoyable to watch.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
feos wrote:
...this game features significant gameplay difference, so beating it the second time showcases more of what it has to offer. Even if the levels are the same, main mechanic is still different.
(Emphasis mine)
This makes the most sense to me for requiring the 2nd playthrough.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Yes vote.
I understand that the jetpack makes the 2nd run faster (by introducing more movement freedom) but it didn't appear to add any other new content.
Couldn't the game be considered complete without replaying the game using the jetpack, but calling the obtaining of the jetpack the end of new content? Or is the 2nd playthrough utilizing the jetpack required? (A judge would probably be the determining factor on the necessity of the 2nd run).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
feos wrote:
[08:32] <feos> usually there's an answer, but it's so fucking hard to find it
[08:45] -> DrD2k9 вошёл в tasvideos
[08:46] <DrD2k9> @feos, you around?
[08:48] <DrD2k9> guess not. I'll catch you later.
[08:48] <- DrD2k9 вышел из tasvideos
[08:48] <Spikestuff> lol
[08:55] <feos> amazing
Exactly...so hard to find...LOL. Glad I could demonstrate your comment for you.
FWIW, I figured out my question on my own.
At least you know that you're the answer some people look for (or rather, the place to find said answers).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
feos wrote:
This makes it a bit more complicated. If you have to buy some irrelevant merch or other products to learn about these cheats and how to access them, then they are forbidden. If the game present them to you, it's allowed. But now the question rises, whether we require the game to present them to you first, to allow you to use them after?
So far there's no clear ruling on such scenario. Is activating the cheats different for these 2 scenarios? For example, the game shows you the "XYZ" password after you do certain actions. And the same password is printed on your LEGO themed t-shirt's label. If the place where you enter that password is the same regardless, then I think it's allowed.
The Extras can be found, purchased, and activated all within the game without using the code system at all. The codes/cheats were just a way to activate them earlier than would normally be possible in the course of regular gameplay.
In my opinion, using the codes to get the extras would be cheating as we define it on the site. Earning the extras through normal gameplay would not be cheating.
I think the concern of the original question was regarding the effects of the extras more so than the method of obtaining them.
For example, one of the extras in most (if not all) the LEGO games is permanent invincibility. Permanent invincibility can be perceived as cheating by those not familiar with how it was obtained; I think that was the original concern.
As long as the TASer doesn't use the code to acquire the ability, I think utilization of the earned perk should be allowed.
EDIT: For clarification, the game NEVER presents the codes.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
Regarding the LEGO games: I'm quite familiar with them.
There is a set place in each of the various LEGO games where you can enter codes/cheats to immediately unlock/activate the "extras" as mentioned by thecoreyburton. These codes were not included in any of the game documentation but were instead found included with actual LEGO kits purchased from a store that were the same licensing as the videogame.
However, it is possible to unlock all of these "extras" through normal gameplay by collecting (usually) red lego bricks scattered throughout the game. Once collected, the red brick can then be purchased/activated with in-game currency (LEGO studs) which then allows the player to enable the brick's bonus gameplay effect from the pause menu.
In my opinion, as long as the codes aren't used to acquire these bricks' effects, it's not cheating. It's a collection perk awarded for doing the extra work necessary to collect/purchase them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
feos wrote:
MAME supports overclocking for that CPU (quoting Lord_Nightmare, "start MAME with the -cheat parameter and then in the sliders menu you can adjust cpu overclock"). Since 586 emulation is weak, and if we stick to 486 officially, will it be allowed to overclock the CPU? My personal opinion is that given no other options to run newer games, and technical ability to do this physically to the original CPU, it'd bring more benefits than controversy.
I'm not an expert on overclocking, but I know one of the primary dangers of overclocking a real system is overheating the CPU. If i'm not mistaken, this is also one of the primary factors that determines how much a given CPU can be overclocked.
There are only 2 controversies I foresee regarding overclocking:
1) Complaints that the physical CPU couldn't handle being overclocked to the necessary rate for the game in question.
2) Complaints that any connected/emulated hardware is incompatible with a CPU of the higher clock rate.
Theoretically, you can't overheat a non-physical CPU, so that aspect of overclock limitation is negated.
As for #2, I don't have a response due to limited knowledge of CPU-hardware interfaces.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
Third, if you are unhappy with the way the site/community handles things, you are welcome to stop contributing. No one is forcing you to participate.
This is not an official notion. We want all TASers to feel comfortable here and contribute their works.
Just to clarify. I don't want Lee to leave. I think he's a fantastic TASer, and the community would lose a significant asset if he left. Which is why I followed my statement with "That said, I'm sure there are a significant number of people here who would be saddened to lose an accomplished TASer from our ranks."
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
... and we did it without additional tools.
From my understanding of how things are done on this site, improvement is generally considered from the speed perspective of the time to finish the run; and obsoletion is based on time...not entertainment value. Entertainment is a secondary consideration for obsoleting two runs of equal duration. As far as speed improvement is concerned, the method how the improvement(s) is/are found is not important for acceptance to the site; the faster run is still faster.
The only reason I see to make this type of egocentric statement is to puff yourself up and suggest that your methods make you superior to others. As with anyone else's, your methods aren't superior...they are just different.
HappyLee wrote:
The reason for the cancellation is simple. I'm not happy with some people here who didn't take voting seriously, of whom in this case there are too many.
You are not a mind reader. You don't know why any of the 'no/meh' voters (or 'yes' voters for that matter) voted the way they did unless they detailed their reasons in the discussion. All you have is speculation which is based on your assumed theory that people are voting negatively ONLY because of what happened with a different submission.
While your theory MAY be correct; it's also just as possible that your theory MAY be incorrect, and people voted the way they did because it's actually their opinion of the run. Everyone finds different things entertaining and unentertaining.
No matter how fantastic/entertaining you feel your own work is, it's wrong to project your hurt ego into someone else's reasoning for picking the voting options they chose. Doing so again suggests an egocentric view that you and your desires are more important to the site than the perspectives of the community.
HappyLee wrote:
With so many "no" or "meh" votes, I have every reason to believe that maybe our hard work doesn't belong to TASVideos after all.
First, I find this an odd statement to throw out after un-cancelling the submission. EDIT: correction...before. But it still seems odd to me to un-cancel and have this statement.
Second, considering the percentages of votes for the three options; there's no reason to assume the no/meh votes are enough to prevent this run from attaining at least moon tier. It'd be highly unlikely to attain 100% positive response for ANY game or TAS.
Third, if you are unhappy with the way the site/community handles things, you are welcome to stop contributing. No one is forcing you to participate.
That said, I'm sure there are a significant number of people here who would be saddened to lose an accomplished TASer from our ranks.DISCLAIMER: I have not voted on this run...and will refrain from doing so.EDIT 2: I changed my mind and have voted.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
I noticed during boot-up a note of CPU clock speed at 25mhz in that Quake video...is there a way to adjust the CPU clock speed settings in MAME?
EDIT: CPUs from the era when Quake was released were easily 100mhz+ and up to 300-400mhz by the next year.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
And from all the above...we can see how slow I am at getting things accomplished.
Congrats to everyone who's figured things out.
Sorry I didn't contribute anything.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
I'll happily look into this and let you know what (if anything) I can figure out.
EDIT: This is going to take some time....I'm not familiar with MAME, so i have to figure it out first. Then try and get DOS/FreeDOS running.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
I'm willing to convert and resync this run and add the extra inputs if that will help things.
EDIT: ...or not. After receiving some further details from Spikestuff, I don't think I'm the one to do this.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1017
Location: US
slamo wrote:
Some more failures:
Monster Bash (Tried this a long time ago, never posted it. Runs at about half-speed for some reason)
During assembly, setting the system to force 60 fps under 'VGA frame rate method' speeds up Monster Bash. But it still doesn't emulate at normal speed. Think this is a BIOS issue or an emulator issue?
