I had stated this in another thread months ago so will repeat here.
I think it largely depends on the game and what frameskip value was used.
A replay shown to be recorded at only 90% with frameskip 0 should be DQ'd/zeroed...no questions asked.
There simply is no excuse for playing at 90% with frameskip 0 when you could be playing at 100% speed using frameskip 4 or 6 for sure.
Now another replay recorded at only 90% but at a frameskip of 9 or greater should be considered to be fine(again a few exceptions to this) because the sacrifice in control from skipping 75+% of the frames will more than offset any advantage the player would have for the game running slightly slow(for most games).
This is why I think it should be on a case by case basis.
Take a replay for a game like 1942 for example.
A replay averaging even 95% at frameskip 0 I would want DQ'd.
A replay averaging 90% at frameskip 9 I would say is fine.
The person using frameskip 0 can easily add a little frameskip to play at 100%.
The player already using frameskip 9 perhaps could use frameskip 10, but we all know that beyond frameskip 8 or 9 most games...especially ones like 1942 that need fairly precise control, become unplayable at higher frameskip.
Rule 2g: Discussion
Moderator: BBH
Frameskip is not a cure-all. Many, more powerful emulated systems will actually be slower with frameskip. This generally refers to systems that need more CPU power to emulate the virtual CPU.
Secondly, to me, frameskip 9 is pretty much unplayable. I don't know how anyone can stand that level of frameskip.
Thirdly, if you need frameskip to run 1942, you need an upgrade BADLY.
Secondly, to me, frameskip 9 is pretty much unplayable. I don't know how anyone can stand that level of frameskip.
Thirdly, if you need frameskip to run 1942, you need an upgrade BADLY.
- Barry Rodewald
MARP Assistant Web Maintainer
MARP Assistant Web Maintainer
I'm looking at these options:
1) leave rule 2g alone
2) 90% for average during gameplay and add phrase like "Also, temporary slowdowns which may offer the player an unfair advantage not available in the arcade may subject a recording to disqualification."
3) 95% for average during gameplay is required
4) 95% for average during gameplay and add phrase like "Also, temporary slowdowns which may offer the player an unfair advantage not available in the arcade may subject a recording to disqualification."
I don't think a change, if one is made, should affect recordings uploaded prior to it.
Comments?
1) leave rule 2g alone
2) 90% for average during gameplay and add phrase like "Also, temporary slowdowns which may offer the player an unfair advantage not available in the arcade may subject a recording to disqualification."
3) 95% for average during gameplay is required
4) 95% for average during gameplay and add phrase like "Also, temporary slowdowns which may offer the player an unfair advantage not available in the arcade may subject a recording to disqualification."
I don't think a change, if one is made, should affect recordings uploaded prior to it.
Comments?
John Cunningham (JTC)
3 seems better, i don't know about 2 or 4 though, that subjective disqualification could mean a lot of bad and good things could be disqualified. 3 seems better than 4 but 4 is worth considering.
maybe make it more tangible (and calculatable) like "no more than 5 game play seconds shall average below 90%."
maybe make it more tangible (and calculatable) like "no more than 5 game play seconds shall average below 90%."
-skito
-
tmorrow
- Button Masher
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:00 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
The current rule is fine. While MAME's emulation is far superior to any ported game, it is not perfect, not even close on many, many drivers. Even a fast machine will have dips below 99% for a plethora of reasons besides performance. Quibbling over 5-10% average framerate won't get us anywhere or add any value to inps on MARP. I don't see the 90% rule being exploited by anyone to get an unfair advantage.
A far more relevant issue is whether the emulation for a given game is accurate enough to even bother submitting high scores. As a case in point, I recently played back a raiden fighters inp with the trashed, encrypted spites. When a driver is this underdeveloped, high scores are not really meaningful.
A far more relevant issue is whether the emulation for a given game is accurate enough to even bother submitting high scores. As a case in point, I recently played back a raiden fighters inp with the trashed, encrypted spites. When a driver is this underdeveloped, high scores are not really meaningful.
3 or 4, maybe 4 better. If there is an unfair advantage, I don't see any reason to allow the recording.
Bad about 4 is that it's open for discussion...if a player gained advantage by slowdown. IMO if the recording goes below 95% and stays that way during critical part of the game, there might be advantage gained compared to other players or arcade. Yet you'll have to notice that it's much harder to play at frameskip 7 than 1.
Whether mame emulation is right, is irrelevant in this subject.
TJT
Bad about 4 is that it's open for discussion...if a player gained advantage by slowdown. IMO if the recording goes below 95% and stays that way during critical part of the game, there might be advantage gained compared to other players or arcade. Yet you'll have to notice that it's much harder to play at frameskip 7 than 1.
Whether mame emulation is right, is irrelevant in this subject.
TJT
