The IRC protocol does not notify you in any way if your message has not been delivered, or has been delivered to only some people in the channel. And yes, that can happen because the protocol has no countermeasures against it; your line will appear in the chat log immediately, but when and whether it will appear to the users in the channel is up to the IRC network, TCP ACKs won't help you there.
ICQ had a similar problem, and it pissed people off all the time. That was one of the main reasons people have been more than happy to move to chat applications with guaranteed two-way acknowledgment.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In the interest of solution-seeking, there's also this great elephant-in-the-room of a solution called "improve the run yourself and give credit to whoever you feel appropriate", which is how people in the past used to solve disputes like this.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This is about the intellectual property rights of everyone on the site, not just me. I have in fact defended someone else's work on the exact same principle: Post #495619
Which, by the way, was an extremely weird case to make (both there and here) because you suggest to credit Aglar for the trick allegedly discovered by Kenny which by your own admission defined Aglar's TAS, to which a natural response would be: wait, how does that work? Shouldn't it have rather been that Aglar had to credit Kenny if it wasn't his own discovery?
There is some merit to suggesting that "signature" tricks deserve to be credited, provided there is a way to establish whose signature trick it is. However, it would be ludicrous to insist it has to be done via co-authorship. Otherwise every SMB1 TAS after 2007 would have to co-author klmz for the flagpole glitch, every Super Metroid TAS after 2004 would have to co-author Michael Flatley for arm-pumping, and so on, and so forth. See where I'm going with it?
And while we're on this topic, can you even describe with certainty and beyond rational doubt what your "signature" trick or strategy is that had never existed prior to your involvement in running this game and can be seen in DreamYao's submission—to a large enough extent that it can be considered a co-authorship-worthy contribution?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Acumenium, it seems to me that you either haven't read my previous post to you, or decided for some reason that you shouldn't take it to heart because you didn't notice that I'm a moderator and you shouldn't ignore what a moderator says when they address you specifically. (I know it's not immediately evident, which is why I'm not holding that particular thing against you.) In any case, I see no significant changes in your conduct since that time, which is not a great thing. You still routinely make arguments without a proper understanding of the subject, you're being combative, and besides, it's getting really hard to understand what it even is that you're arguing.
So here's my task for you: limit your next post here to two short paragraphs. In the first paragraph, recap the things you're upset with in regards to this movie, its authors, or the judging process. In the second, propose what should be done instead or how it should be done. Do both without being combative or rude. If you have no such points to make, state so clearly. Even if you decide to drop the discussion here for any reason, the same task will apply to whatever next argument you make in any other thread.
This will determine whether you're even capable of stating your disagreements in a polite and concise manner, and hence how we should treat your presence on the site. It's in your best interests to demonstrate that you are, in fact, capable of doing this right.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
A decent technical showcase that ends before it overstays its welcome, though in my opinion it could've included stage 14 as well, even if it's trivial compared to the other stages. But whatever, still good.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Acumenium, it occurs to me that you have strong opinions about things. That is perfectly fine. And you're also being passionate about delivering your opinions, trying to see it through that they are taken to heart. That is also fine—but only to a point where two conditions are met.
1. Your argumentation is based on concepts you understand well, can formulate well, and are able to present in a constructive manner. It doesn't seem to be the case on your end because you're frequently seen making erroneous assumptions about how the site works, but luckily this is something we can fix. We're there for you to answer questions, and staff members like Samsara, feos, and adelikat have already spent quite a bit of time explaining things to you specifically. In this context we only ask you to do the whole thing correctly, adhering to the most basic unspoken rules of forum communication: if you're unhappy with something, make a thread in the appropriate section of the forum or find an existing one if there is, present your case, tell us why you think we're doing things wrong, offer a solution that you think would improve the situation, and listen to feedback. It makes things easier for everyone.
2. You are not being rude or disruptive in your attempts to make things right with the world (metaphorically speaking). This is more problematic, however, because right now you're tiptoeing the line of being passionate enough to lose track that you are, in fact, upsetting people with your combative behavior and lack of self-reflection. That's not a great direction to go in your life as a forum member because unless you realize it and change your conduct, it eventually leads to a ban. Might as well attempt to change the course early and not let it reach the point where it makes you and possibly other people miserable and forced into heavy decisions.
At this point we have heard your take on this submission, it was gauged against the positive feedback, and a decision was made in favor of the latter. In this respect, any further discussion on the site's publishing system, goal choices, arbitrariness, and so on will have to be continued in a separate thread, should you decide to keep discussing the subject. But please follow the two conditions I've outlined above so that it doesn't devolve into pointless bickering.
This goes to everyone else as well. This is a thread for a published movie, any further posts not specific to the movie in question will be removed from the thread. Thank you.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Okay, enough. Feedback has been given, decision has been made. You don't have to agree with it, but please go play a passive-aggressive victim elsewhere.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My take on this is simple: the effort put into lag reduction might be of merit to some, but lag itself isn't. If the best way of reducing lag is to use the version of the game that lags less, than that version should be preferred.
It's also clearly a winning move in terms of entertainment for those who don't care about this game enough to analyze the extent of lag reduction and consider it something more than a self-imposed challenge.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you're depressed enough to talk about it in your submission comments, please consider seeking help. If you let it fester long enough, depression can ruin your life.
Making demands and conditions such as "don't give negative feedback" is not something we appreciate, however. And I doubt you'd find any community centered around public feedback that would oblige. When you submit your work for feedback, whether you get positive or negative feedback depends entirely on your effort, and censoring it just to ensure more content from you or to take pity on you is something we will never do. Please understand this.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So... imagine this run were made on White Label, and instead of the maximum score possible it were the lowest score possible.
Apparently, somebody went and did exactly that:
Link to video
Second loop starts at 38:25, and that's the one to watch. The final score is 0.
The author says this was done on FBA 0.2.97.43 and they experienced no desync problems while making it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I wouldn't be against such use of level select in principle since you aren't skipping any gameplay to your advantage in this case, but it could set a potentially problematic precedent for the use of similar in-game features elsewhere in the future, including cases where it's not so clear-cut. If this is allowed, the reasoning from both the player for choosing the particular way to utilize the feature and the judge for allowing it needs to be bulletproof so that the limits are well-understood and don't set anything on a slippery slope.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Also, on an unrelated note, even if a person is young and not part of an at-risk group, they still shouldn't ignore lockdown measures. While they may be able to handle getting infected, the average person who is infected with COVID-19 spreads the disease to 3 other people before they get better. As such, within a few weeks time, many elderly and at-risk people who had no contact with the original patient zero will have gotten sick or died by the time that the infection is traced back to its source.
Above all, listen to the advice of epidemiologists who are experts in the field. These people have spent their entire lives training for exactly this scenario, so they are better equipped to deal with this than anyone else is.
This, this, this.
Getting infected is more dangerous for others than it is for you personally, since some of the people who will (usually unknowingly) contract COVID from you may be at a higher degree of risk of permanent damage. Most importantly it makes doctors' lives worse. They die to the disease and tend to spread it around to vulnerable people if they aren't sufficiently protected themselves—which in many places is still exactly the case. This pandemic has already decimated the availability of medical staff around the world since they, by definition, are exposed to the contagious, and while they take time to recover, others have to work and expose themselves even more. And it's not a secret that constant physical and emotional stress and lack of sleep reduce the capability of the immune system further, meaning by the time they do contract the virus, their bodies are already likely to be in a weakened state.
Additionally, it's crucially important to understand two things.
1. There is still no confirmation of any kind that acquired immunity to the virus will stick. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest this may be the case, either. It was not the case for SARS and the common cold coronaviruses, after all. The most likely scenario is that the immunity is short-term and will wane after a couple months, at which point you'd be at a risk (and putting others at risk) again. When the vaccine is developed, you will most likely need to re-vaccinate every year, similarly to the flu vaccine, and unlike the flu vaccine, governments will likely be treating this very, very seriously to avoid new waves of the epidemic.
2. The probability of long-term or permanent damage to lungs and/or kidneys is much higher than the probability of death (on the order of 10–20% as opposed to the 1–5% for death) and it does not depend in any way on the availability of medical equipment such as ventilators. Recovery statistics do not reflect this at all. So getting sick multiple times means bearing the risk of long-term damage that many times even if your symptoms are not severe. Would you go to a meeting during a pandemic if you knew you had a 1/10 chance of breaking your leg in the process? Because that's the kind of lottery you'd be playing.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Source code leaks rarely affect patent right application in any capacity since patents protect technical solutions and never the code itself. With said solutions documented and made publicly available as part of the patenting process, it "leaks" them automatically. But for the record, here is a list of patents that may be relevant to the Xbox. Note that the ones from the 90s have already expired.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Even looking at the code and having some idea for emulation from that code would be illegal.
Actually no, that's not how copyright works. It doesn't protect ideas—only implementations thereof. Moreover, if there is only one reasonable way some solution can be implemented, it may not even be eligible for protection. This is just to illustrate that the copyright is not quite as powerful as it often appears due to the constant bullying by the likes of Nintendo.
It is true that the implementation has to be built from the ground up rather than copied and sanitized, but it doesn't mean the leaked code cannot be used as a reference material. In this respect it's no different from developer datasheets or hardware reverse-engineering (decapped ROM chips, etc.) used in emulation development since the 90s. Those are also subject to copyright; never stopped anyone.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Feels drab and painfully slow at the beginning but gets interesting some three minutes in when some of the more surprising routes start being taken thanks to the glitches. Good job. Not to say I enjoyed it, but it kept me watching.
The game would've certainly benefited from a bit more open (or less obvious) level solutions. And from less-grating sound effects.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you want to remake your savestates, you'll have to rewind to the earliest point where you need one. In practice, replaying it from the start is the easiest solution. For convenience, use the auto-stop and turbo functions built into the Play Movie dialogue.
In the future, make a savestate at the beginning of every major section (e.g. a new stage), and don't touch it until you're 100% sure you're done working on it. This will make rewinding much faster.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Posting this to inform y'all that this thread has been merged with the original MK1 thread from 2004. There was a ~3 year gap between the last post of the old thread and the first post of the new thread, so there should be no continuity problems.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Our of curiosity, which pair of runs would be the most different between each other in terms of gameplay:
1) non-clock-stop vs. clock-stop,
2) non-clock-stop vs. real-time, or
3) clock-stop vs. real-time?
This could help put things into perspective (then again it could also complicate them, but it would be interesting to know regardless).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Could it be that your computer can't emulate it any faster? BizHawk is somewhat more resource-intensive than FCEUX. Also check if you have any framerate limiters in your system (such as RTSS or the one inside the nVidia driver), that tripped me up some time ago.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
To be fair, that's not obvious. My other guesses included:
* Little Obscure Testament to Apparent Destitution
* Lexically Offensive Tribute to Appallment and Disgust
* Luxurious Opulence of Tirelessly Amassed Dough
* Literal Ordinary Totally Average Duck (I really bet on this one, too...)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In the future, make a savestate at the beginning of every major section (e.g. a new stage), and don't touch it until you're 100% sure you're done working on it. This will make rewinding much faster.