forums.marpirc.net

http://marp.retrogames.com/rules

g) Games must be played at a MINIMUM of 90% of their full speed.

With this rule you can have major slowdowns and still have a legal recording.

It needs to be changed to "No slowdown giving the player an advantage is allowed".

The poll is just there for fun. I expect this rule to be changed based on common sense.

I agree. Can we have this changed please?

This rule is too subjective. How is one to decide if the slowdown at a certain point in a recording truly gives an advantage? Will each replay be voted on by the members? Will an editor decide and just zero recordings at will? What if a player isn't using wolfmame and it is impossible to tell at any given moment what speed the replay was recorded at?

In theory I agree that a player shouldn't use slowdown to get past the hectic areas of a game. One could play an end boss at 10% speed, then play the rest of the game at normal speed thus having a greater than 90% overall average speed. I just think we need to discuss this a bit more.

zlk wrote:How is one to decide if the slowdown at a certain point in a recording truly gives an advantage?

If there is a slowdown it's obvious that the computer the player is using isn't fast enough. I'm not talking about the occasional dips to 99%.

If the screen is filled with bullets and there is a slowdown that's an advantage. It's pretty easy to spot. Just watch WRX2's s1945iii and you'll see what I mean.

Will each replay be voted on by the members? Will an editor decide and just zero recordings at will?

There will be no vote. If a recording violates a rule an editor can zero it right away. Just like it has always been.

What if a player isn't using wolfmame and it is impossible to tell at any given moment what speed the replay was recorded at?

If somebody is cheating and we can't catch him/her there's nothing we can do. Just like it has always been.

zlk wrote:In theory I agree that a player shouldn't use slowdown to get past the hectic areas of a game. One could play an end boss at 10% speed, then play the rest of the game at normal speed thus having a greater than 90% overall average speed.

Actually it would register a lot slower than 90%, for example:

A game played at 100% speed takes 1 hour to complete of which the final boss takes 2 minutes to kill. If you play the final boss at 10% speed then the overall game time will be (approximately) 1 hour + 20 minutes = 1 hour 20 minutes which would register as 75% overall speed.

I agree with a no slowdown rule though, any slowdown gives an unfair advantage. Please see the other thread on this, viewtopic.php?t=10236. Unfortunately, unless someone can kick Zwaxy off his butt this rule will stay just as it is like all the rule changes we have discussed in the past.

Seymour, how is the new profile page coming along? .

Gaz.

QRS wrote:I agree. Can we have this changed please?

Changed to what though exactly? This poll and discussion mean nothing without a target goal in mind.

TG has the requirements of 95+% speed at all times during the gameplay.

I always thought 90% for MARP was a bit lenient...but think 95% would be better. I think the 90% MARP rule actually is applied where the overall average must be 90+%. That isn't right at all. It should be 90+% at all times....or very nearly all times. Someone could play it at 100% most of the game then reduce their frameskip for the final boss or other bosses as well playing it at 75% in those sections. The average would still work out to 90+%. That isn't right.

Personally I think it depends on when the speed dips occur also.

For example, in my Roadblaster gameplay, I get 100% during the actual gameplay in stages, but drop to 85-95% speed right at the end and in between stages when the music is playing. Once the music stops at the start of the next stage my speed is back up at 100%.

Drops like this should be totally fine cuz I'm not gaining any advantage from that. Music doesn't play during the stages.

I do think for games like mahjong and tile match and trivia games etc. that are all heavily time based a 100% requirement should be done. If they are playing at 90% speed they are getting 10% more time to complete each task or move or level etc. That's quite an advantage.

For other games, I think 95+% would be nice. If there are drops below that, I would hope in watching the replay file it's noticed when those drops occur. Does wolfmame show only an overall average of the speed or does it show a live running speed as you playback the inp? if the latter, it's pretty easy to see if for the real gameplay if the speed was at 95+%. If it drops lower for intermission or other non-play sequences etc. that should be fine.

Yes, Wolfmame shows the live running recorded speed.

There is no reason to allow anything below 100% though, well perhaps 99% to allow for speed dips and games that start up slow but anything below that is non-sensical.

If you allow 95% slowdown you're saying to people you're allowed to have that advantage but no more, everyone will then be forced to reduce their frameskips to 95% so that they get the same advantage as everyone else.

LN2 wrote:

QRS wrote:I agree. Can we have this changed please?

Changed to what though exactly? This poll and discussion mean nothing without a target goal in mind.

Following the thread I would imagine it to mean:

Buttermaker wrote:It needs to be changed to "No slowdown giving the player an advantage is allowed".

zlk wrote:This rule is too subjective. How is one to decide if the slowdown at a certain point in a recording truly gives an advantage?

I'd have to agree here. The text does not give sufficient guideline to make a judegement, even though the intent is pretty obvious.

I said it should be changed, but not to what Rick. Why? Cause I´m not really sure myself... But why is 95 soooo much better than 90 in your opinion? The goal is of course 100% but it is hard to follow.

I say 95% cuz then you can have games that run at 100% most of the time but then occasionally dip a tad below 100% during the gameplay.

If you make a rule that a recording must be made at 100% the entire gameplay then I think half the replays here would get DQ'd cuz we all have games even if they usually run at 100% the OS starts doing something in the background or something else happens where for a second or 2 the speed drops a little bit....but then is back at 100%.

I see it when I'm playing sometimes. It's only temporary and doesn't really benefit me in my gameplay.

I also say 95% cuz what if you are playing a game that you must already use a frameskip value of 9 or 10? At fs10 that means for 100% speed you are running at 10 fps. if you happen to statistically drop to "9" fps, that would show as only 90% in the stats. I don't think someone should get DQ'd if it's fluctuating between 9 and 10 fps at a fs10 level.

The player is already at a big disadvantage from using such a high fs value. I already have at least 25+ games I have played in macmame on my mac that I can't submit scores for either cuz even at fs10 I still am only at 80-95% speed or because at such a high fs value the game really isn't that playable given that loss of control.

I end up just not submitting anything for those games....and in most cases after playing them a few times, don't anymore.

Does Wolfmame show the live frameskip value used in the recording? perhaps it should. if it doesn't.

If I saw someone using fs0 and the speed is dipping below 100% at times I would perhaps want to DQ that recording. if they only used a little bit of frameskip they could be at 100% all the time in that case. However, if they are running with an appreciable frameskip and it briefly drops off 100% now and then, I wouldn't DQ cuz overall the player has no net advantage.

if a replay was running consistently below 100% then I might want to DQ it. I think there is a huge difference between playing at 100% during most of the gameplay that might occasionally dip below 100% versus someone where the entire replay is below 100%.

I use my Roadblaster example again. Those dips to 85-95% speed during the musical intermissions between stages don't benefit me at all. You can't really have a flat out rule that a recording must be at 100% at all times.

Barthax, what I questioned above is the fact that what benefits a player is subjective and judged on a case-by-case basis.

For half the games I play if the speed is fluctuating a little bit the game actually plays harder than if at a constant 100% speed. You can't time moves correctly if you are at 90% then suddenly get a burst to 100% or at 100% then suddenly drop to 90%.

Any recording that showed a steady speed at even 95% and not fluctuating I would want to DQ.

There are some major differences in these comparisons.

LN2 wrote:Does Wolfmame show the live frameskip value used in the recording? perhaps it should. if it doesn't.

Up four posts -

LordGaz wrote:Yes, Wolfmame shows the live running recorded speed.

JoeyL21988 wrote:

LN2 wrote:Does Wolfmame show the live frameskip value used in the recording? perhaps it should. if it doesn't.

Up four posts -

LordGaz wrote:Yes, Wolfmame shows the live running recorded speed.

Frameskip setting, not recorded speed. And no, it doesn't.

I'm in favor of this for the most part but i don't think we shouldn't set a minimum recorded frame speed because then at least 50% of the games (the slow games) will be unrecordable, since they ALWAYS have some frame speed that drops below 90% even for fast computers, even if the average recording speed is 100%. We can probably raise the average recording speed to 95 but we can't impose a global minimum recorded frame speed, although for tournaments a minimum recorded frame speed sounds ok since tournament games are generally pretty fast.

Just make the rule like I suggested. Then recordings can be judged individually.

Look at a recording and decide if the slowdown gave the player an advantage or not.