This topic is for the purpose of discussing #2527: juancito87's NES Donkey Kong Jr. in 01:12.80

I can't tell what the improvement is. However, given that this game was already in frame-war territory, any improvement is a big deal. Yes vote. By the way, why is it that the submission message looks different in this forum thread compared to how it looks in the Workbench? Am I loading an old version of a page by accident somewhere? (The forum thread's message has an "Enhanced Level" thing in it.)

I'd be interested in knowing how this one frame improvement was achieved; can you be more specific about the details?

Wait, what. This got improved?! Manipulating look must have been helpful (Nothing against you, I've made sillier typos). I'll make a lossless encode later on (Due to how this game hates lossy H.264), but Aktan will probably 1-up me, he has better tools for the video side of things.

It should be noted that this movie and the recent donkey kong 3 movie both came from the same IP address. Whether this indicates a trolling member with two accounts or two friends using the same computer is up to interpretation.

Looks like my submission really did inspire someone to improve it. That wasn't exactly expected from my side, nice find. The improvement is due to pushing up the second last lock by the "double vine climb" instead of the single. This doesn't actually makes the level itself faster which was expected but it makes it possible to end the input 1 frame earlier which I didn't consider. I'm not that happy about one thing though, I'm really sorry if I'm wrong here. You're marketing the run as your own while it to looks to me like the only thing you did was changing the last 17 frames or so. In theory this means this run just could've been done by some random person who got lucky at the given situation and who doesn't have much understanding in how the game works otherwise. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case here but I just wanted to lighten up my heart a little. As stated previously it's a nice find though, which of course shouldn't be taken away from you. Good work!

You're marketing the run as your own while it to looks to me like the only thing you did was changing the last 17 frames or so.

If this run has plagiarized all of the input but 17 frames, I question whether or not the rerecord count is actually 449, or if he just edited your movie and applied 449 - 436 = 13 rerecords. Side Note: Does the game end on the exact same frame, or is it a bit later? While you seem to be taking this in a light-hearted manner, I would consider this pretty questionable. I'm quite sure I could grab numerous movies on the site, spend half an hour, hex a small improvement in, and submit it for my own. (Why bother hexing when you can just improve the ending by one frame?) Being that the submitter doesn't exactly seem to have a good reputation, I am assuming the worst. Based on the fact that this movie is so short, I don't know where we draw the line. If this was a 5 minute movie without extremely tight frame wars, I would give a one frame improvement a definite no. If I was convinced that significant effort was applied and further improvements greater than 1 frame had been thoroughly examined, I would reconsider. The following assumes that the run truly is plagiarized to the frame, which I did not check. I assume this isn't at all necessary for optimal input in this game. The author did not even give credit to the authors who he copied from. I would say one should typically request permission to simply copy the input, but in this case even minimal credit isn't given. Unless I am stating something incorrectly, my vote would be no on this basis. I will not apply it to the tally.

It should be noted that this movie and the recent donkey kong 3 movie both came from the same IP address. Whether this indicates a trolling member with two accounts or two friends using the same computer is up to interpretation.

You know, I can't say this surprises me. I wouldn't even be surprised if most of the recent submissions were done from the same computer.

i dont really think that copying someones run exactly and changing only 17 without giving credit to the previous authors warrants a yes. for more details see KIRKQs post. voted no

I'd like to see an explanation from the autor regarding the reuse of the previous run before I cast my vote. I can clearly say I won't yes on a run of which 99.6% of the inputs come from other people. If this is the case, IMO, you need to: Redo the run from scratch, and then write yourself as the autor. OR Keep this run and add the previous autors as co-authors.

om, nom, nom... blech, bitter!

I now tried to end my run (the published one) 1 frame earlier and it actually completed the game as well. So this run clearly isn't better in any way. EDIT This wasn't EXACTLY the same though, watch the last 17 frames:)

Actually, even the last 17 frames of his movie is yours. I removed a frame from the end of your movie and it became his, and plays to the end. Looks like you messed up and didn't end as soon as you could. However, we don't accept that kind of improvement. It must complete the game faster. EDIT Not to mention we don't accept someone trying to pass someone else's work off as his own. That is ban worthy.

Actually, even the last 17 frames of his movie is yours. I removed a frame from the end of your movie and it became his, and plays to the end.

Yup, it turned out I compared it to the wrong file.

Looks like you messed up and didn't end as soon as you could.

Yes, apparently if you stop the recording the same input as the last one is pushed for one more frame.

Unfortunately this problem is widespread. Most every movie of mine seems to be improvable by removing the last frame of input. It has to do with a bug in loading a state while recording. Right now my theory is that upon loading a state, it puts the last frame in the movie but does not play it in the emulator. Thus, you think you need one more frame input, but in reality, you don't.

I know, this thread is old, but I like this TAS. It's a shame this author was banned. They did this only once, and they just forgot to include the other authors in the submission.