Pixe Sukola's Feed

Pixe Sukola
01-05-2019 at 02:21 PM
4 Comments
Rate this Entry

M.A.M.E. submissions and own inp analysis

Hello people, I recently started submitting for Mame, and sometimes I go crazy with my submissions, 2 times I stopped submitting because I had 100 pending ones. So if I start playing M.A.M.E. seriously, I think I'll be submitting a lot too and often multple scores for the same game track within days or hours from each other, it is just my personality, and I wouldn't like to bother Terence or Jason with lots of inp analysis and some of them for obsolete pending scores.


so my questions are:


How do people feel about having to analize a lot of scores from the same gamer?


If a learn to do my own inp analysis would that be valid or would it be considered biased?


Thanks.

Comments
  1. Fly's Avatar

    Try posting a score that you think you can not beat or one that will take time to beat. If you feel the urge to make your other scores public, just put them on YT or Twitch or this wall. If you're submitting just hours later and multiple times on the same game it's kind if pointless.

    ThanksPixe Sukola thanked this post
    LikesJasonV91 liked this post
  2. redelf's Avatar

    I won't submit a score until I think it's about the best I can do or I'm not going to play the game anymore. As for self analysis I'm all for it. Your just submitting more proof and making it easier for others.

    ThanksPixe Sukola thanked this post
    LikesJasonV91 liked this post
  3. JasonV91's Avatar

    Regarding your first question, I completely agree with Hec and John on submission frequency - if you decide to start grinding a new game, there's really no reason to create a new submission every time you have a minor improvement. If you know you're going to play a particular game, but don't have a set goal in mind just yet, wait until either you're pretty sure you've plateaued, or are ready to move on to the next game before submitting...that way, we'll see your best performance, and you won't have to worry about overwhelming the .inp analyzers.


    As for self analysis, John is right - while not necessary, it's just additional proof you're providing, proof that adjudicators can easily replicate if they choose to download and play back your .inp. For obvious reasons, it's always preferable if someone other than the submitter themselves does an analysis - the vast majority of gamers are honorable, and would never consider trying to pull a fast one, but there have unfortunately been instances where people have intentionally spliced .inps together in an attempt to pass it off as one performance. Of course, completely honest mistakes can also occur with DIPs being set incorrectly...always better with more than one set of eyes taking a look.


    Always good to have another MAME player join the ranks...have fun!

    ThanksPixe Sukola, redelf thanked this post
  4. terencew's Avatar

    It's very rare that someone will submit many times to the same track within a short space of time with every tiny increment to their PB. My performances rarely shake the earth, but I tend to wait until the end of a week/fortnight/month before submitting if I'm making progress on a particular game.

    Of course it's your choice to submit as often as you'd like, even for the same track, but... and how do I phrase this delicately... every analyst burns out eventually. Hence the appeal of running your own analyses. So to that point... [EDIT: my opinion seems to differ from some of those above!]

    Strictly speaking, an INP analysis isn't necessary for a MAME submission to be accepted or rejected.

    It does provide information which aims to rule out reasons for rejection, all in a partially automated process. However, anyone who plays back the INP can manually find such information for themselves. So if/when the time comes when no-one runs such analyses any more, the necessary info can still be extracted... but you need to play back the INP !!!

    We know many voters do/will/can not playback an INP for themselves, preferring to just watch the video, and leaving the INP scrutiny to someone else.

    e.g. a submission looks OK on video, the INP is played back successfully by the submitter in order to create the video, the submitter posts his own analysis, and many voters believed it based on such evidence. Who picks up if NVRAM was used?

    We still have a dispute in process (probably more than one) where the submission was obviously wrong to anyone who did a diligent check, but enough people didn't, and it was accepted.

    Independent cross-check is vital, and I am concerned that voter laziness &/or submitter frustration could slowly persuade the community to abandon that level of vigilance.

    ThanksPixe Sukola thanked this post
    LikesJasonV91 liked this post
    Updated 01-06-2019 at 07:20 PM by terencew
Join us