Originally Posted by Derek

his profile says banned for bad behavior so maybe that’s why

lol, then TG just changed it

Derek liked this post

He was banned actually for the same thing billy did. He played on mame then played the video back and pretended to be playing live

Bumping due to no response and inaction. As Barthax mentioned in the subsequent post, this is a systemic issue that prevents founders from creating derivative tracks for games created in the early days of the new track market place.

Originally Posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy

https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/an.../3?ref=fbshare

Also related to this issue, the count of 'tracks funded' in the member leaderboard doesn't match the number of 'tracks' listed in the drop down in the new track form, when I indicate I'm a founder. The 'Most Tracks Founded' member leaderboard indicates that I've founded 18 tracks. There are 24 tracks listed in the drop-down of available tracks in the 'Add Track' form if I select that I'm a founder. Lastly, by showing that I'm a founder for the Mighty Hoax track, the correct number of tracks that I've founded is higher than what is indicated in the member leaderboard and what is available for me to select in the 'Add Track' form. None of these are in synch.

I think you have all the information to troubleshoot but let me know if you need anything else.

Barthax liked this post

Please delete this new track request as it was submitted without updating all the fields with the correct values.

https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...-(Fastest-Lap)

This track does not have a box for score input:

https://www.twingalaxies.com/submits...ation_id=67185

Any help much appreciated!

https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/an...ainment-system

Please remove "Antarctic Adventure" as one of the names of this game. That is a different game entirely.

"Antarctic Adventure" is this game:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/nes/57...ctic-adventure

"Arctic Adventure" / "Penguin and Seal" is this game:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/nes/56...nguin-and-seal

thanks

OPEN ISSUES:

Track: https://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=194891

Accepted Score: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthr...-Charles-Adams
This submission of mine was accepted but never made to the scoreboard.

Atari Lynx records are still showing incorrect # of records based on Ron's scores and ESI appears to still be calculated based on Ron's records. Example:
https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/rampart/atari-lynx
All Lynx games need to examined and fixed.

https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/pa...neo-geo-pocket
The page for Pac-Man Neo Geo Pocket is missing. Neo Geo Pocket is not an option on the pull-down menu for systems. I know someone has a WR in it also that appears to be missing.

https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/su.../1?ref=fbshare

This mode does not have a difficulty option. Please remove "Easy Difficulty" from the rules.

thanks

Without meaning to go off the deep end, I've just noticed this note in the Additional Info section of one of the MAME track rules...



THIS IS HORRIBLY MISLEADING!!!

Because we currently allow all versions of WolfMAME (0.106+ recommended of course), this info note gives us no context about the correct set to use in each of the allowable versions of WolfMAME.

I haven't had the opportunity to check all MAME tracks where this could have been added - I've recently spent days adding ROMset rename information to any relevant track discussion threads.

This sort of misinformation threatens to send people down the wrong path... or worse yet, encourages track dilution because we no longer care to understand the importance of rename history.

So yeah, I may be flying off the handle a little bit, because while it's not completely wrong, it's not correct enough. Which can be much worse!!!

Max, Barthax liked this post

Hi

This issue is fixed . Please check and confirm

Regards
Admin Staff

Originally Posted by Rogerpoco

This track does not have a box for score input:

https://www.twingalaxies.com/submits...ation_id=67185

Any help much appreciated!

Rogerpoco thanked this post

Rogerpoco liked this post

Originally Posted by admin staff

Hi

This issue is fixed . Please check and confirm

Regards
Admin Staff

Yes, this is fixed, thank you very much!

Originally Posted by terencew

Without meaning to go off the deep end, I've just noticed this note in the Additional Info section of one of the MAME track rules...



THIS IS HORRIBLY MISLEADING!!!

Because we currently allow all versions of WolfMAME (0.106+ recommended of course), this info note gives us no context about the correct set to use in each of the allowable versions of WolfMAME.

I haven't had the opportunity to check all MAME tracks where this could have been added - I've recently spent days adding ROMset rename information to any relevant track discussion threads.

This sort of misinformation threatens to send people down the wrong path... or worse yet, encourages track dilution because we no longer care to understand the importance of rename history.

So yeah, I may be flying off the handle a little bit, because while it's not completely wrong, it's not correct enough. Which can be much worse!!!

@Ben Way, @Stephen Daultrey, @Ninglendo - not sure which of you is more apt to get this corrected. This is a classic case of why multiple of us were so uneasy (yet welcoming) of the prospect of someone going through the rules without understanding the big picture effort that has gone into the history.

terencew liked this post

@Ninglendo could you please comment on this?

Originally Posted by terencew

Without meaning to go off the deep end, I've just noticed this note in the Additional Info section of one of the MAME track rules...



THIS IS HORRIBLY MISLEADING!!!

Because we currently allow all versions of WolfMAME (0.106+ recommended of course), this info note gives us no context about the correct set to use in each of the allowable versions of WolfMAME.

I haven't had the opportunity to check all MAME tracks where this could have been added - I've recently spent days adding ROMset rename information to any relevant track discussion threads.

This sort of misinformation threatens to send people down the wrong path... or worse yet, encourages track dilution because we no longer care to understand the importance of rename history.

So yeah, I may be flying off the handle a little bit, because while it's not completely wrong, it's not correct enough. Which can be much worse!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Hawksett

@Ninglendo could you please comment on this?

What everyone is specifically referring to is that a date does not help anything since all versions of WolfMAME are supported you need to specifically say which versions of WolfMAME use which ROM.

ROM Set renamed from "Centiped" to centiped3 22 Mar 2018

Should be this:

ROMset renames

0.106-0.154: centiped - "Centipede (revision 3)"
0.155- : centiped3 - "Centipede (revision 3)"

Dave Hawksett, terencew thanked this post

d3scride liked this post

So would you guys like the latest rom name at top and renames with the versions at the additional info section?

The example Swags wrote is direct and to the point. No need to split it up into two sections.

Ninglendo, TRB_MetroidTeam liked this post

Whoever cleans the database: In PS4, Centaur and Monsters are part of The Pinball Arcade, not stand alone games. Please move these games accordingly.


@RaGe @Marcamy @Ninglendo

RaGeNyC thanked this post

RaGeNyC liked this post

Originally Posted by Max

Whoever cleans the database: In PS4, Centaur and Monsters are part of The Pinball Arcade, not stand alone games. Please move these games accordingly.


@RaGe @Marcamy @Ninglendo

Back a few years ago, for a while, we couldn't add any new variations to the database due to a bug. Adding new games wasn't a problem, so I did it that way. But yea, they should be added to TPA as variations.

Originally Posted by Ninglendo

So would you guys like the latest rom name at top and renames with the versions at the additional info section?

Apologies for my mini-rant earlier.

I'm happy with clear, concise & consistent. Having renames & versions right next to the rules is way better than our previous system - this will hopefully help our players just get down to business, with less frustration of having used the wrong set!

A few thoughts...

The proposed new design puts the onus on admin/TG staff to update. Probably a wiser allocation of responsibility!

Although there was a convention (which importantly means consistency) that the ROMset defined in the rules was the one required as at 0.106, it wasn't clear to newcomers. Perhaps we can add some clarity while we're in the process of redesign...? Maybe instead of just "ROMset: blah", "Latest known ROMset: blah". Or something...

Moving to a "latest known" convention has the window of being incorrect for the few moments that a new rename is announced.
Anyone quick to use the latest release of WolfMAME should hopefully be aware of such risks, and would have to account for any such renames. However, this was also true under the 0.106 system.
Rename info is generally available within a couple of days of a new release, so this window is quite small, and I don't remember anyone being caught out by using the latest brand new WolfMAME & a ROMset that had only just been renamed for that version!

It's still very easy for new tracks to be founded that won't hold to this convention... without the luxury of limitless resources, I guess a vetting process for track foundation may not be feasible? Perhaps vigilance is our best option for now.

I'm sure there's more...

TRB_MetroidTeam, Barthax liked this post

I am attempting to submit a dispute for the score in this track:
https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/do.../1?ref=fbshare

But I'm unable to because when I press the submit button, I'm receiving the error, "score cannot be empty".



Please either resolve whatever issue is preventing me from submitting the dispute, or just delete the score/track right now. The track is called "test-ddfdf" - it's clearly bogus.