Mancubus
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Special Interest > Doom Speed Demos > Compet-N resurrection?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:49. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Andy Johnsen
Junior Member


Posts: 135
Registered: 09-00


Even tho I'm not the most active lad around these days, I find it sort of sad to see Compet-N in its current state. The forums are flooded with crap, theres been no update in a year and player activity is very low, Jim Leonard aside.

I havn't spoken with Adam Hegyi about this yet, I just thought I would toss the topic out to the public first and see if theres any point in mailing him at all. What I'm wondering is if theres anoyne around who belive they could have the time and dedication to continiue where Adam left it. I'm probably not alone when I say I'm greatfull that Adam maintained the site in such a professional manner for all those years, and I don't blame him for moving on to other things (nobody really got any final words from him about the matter, but we are all starting to assume he wont show up any time soon).

Theres been the occasional worried discussion about it in #nightmare the past year or so, and a few ideas for possible candidates worth asking have come and gone. Replacing Adam as a compet-n maintainer would require quite the knowledge about the demo format (the ability to notice cheated demos for instance). Perhaps a small team of people could work together on maintaining the site, this would make the update workload less of a burden too.

I don't have the time nor the involvement with the demoscene myselfe to consider participating in this (at least not on my own), so perhaps I shouldn't be the one to toss the idea out there, but yeah, I'd hate to see compet-N falter more than it already has. If theres interest in this, we could mail Adam with the suggestion of a team/individual taking over where he left it.

My apology if this topic have already been discussed to death.

Old Post 08-08-06 17:13 #
Andy Johnsen is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
xit-vono
Member


Posts: 561
Registered: 06-01


My suggestion is that we have a team run compet-n in the future. I would be willing to do the first update, and possibly future updates as well. Also, I taked to Radix from speeddemosarchive.com, and he was willing to have compet-n at his site. If we moved it there, then we would have the additional exposure to the other games and quake community. I didn't do it because I don't have the cgi files, and I don't know enough to write some new cgi files myself, so I talked to my brother, but he was too busy then. If I did that I would also add pwads to the database.

Old Post 08-09-06 02:11 #
xit-vono is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Opulent
Forum Staple


Posts: 2097
Registered: 07-01


I don't have the time to go into depth for the reasons behind this response, but I feel that perhaps it is time to let the Compet-N evolve into a new site.

1) Cheating doom2-compatible demos is amazingly easy... let me rephrase that: it is way too easy to cheat without any proof of cheating.
2) Chocolate Doom, PrBoom, PrBoom-plus, and Doom-1.9.6 should be considered.
3) Allowing new pwads(ala Quake SDA) would certainly help the activity... careful, perhaps too much so.

Adam's dedication was unparalleled.

Old Post 08-09-06 02:59 #
Opulent is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Hobbs
Banned


Posts: 1099
Registered: 06-05



xit-vono said:
My suggestion is that we have a team run compet-n in the future. I would be willing to do the first update, and possibly future updates as well. Also, I taked to Radix from speeddemosarchive.com, and he was willing to have compet-n at his site. If we moved it there, then we would have the additional exposure to the other games and quake community. I didn't do it because I don't have the cgi files, and I don't know enough to write some new cgi files myself, so I talked to my brother, but he was too busy then. If I did that I would also add pwads to the database.


CGI is in no way required to run the database (erm, that is, its not required to get a database for the compet-n running). A simple PHP and MySQL (or Microsoft SQL were we lucky) system would suffice. In fact I have always felt the CGI setup of the compet-n to be rather odd and slightly clunky.

Personally I feel if the compet-n were to change hands it would need a website change as well. Its just not a practical site setup.

Also, I agree with Opulent fully about taking into consideration other ports aside from vanilla.

Last edited by Hobbs on 08-09-06 at 03:12

Old Post 08-09-06 03:07 #
Hobbs is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15137
Registered: 04-02



xit-vono said:
Also, I taked to Radix from speeddemosarchive.com, and he was willing to have compet-n at his site. If we moved it there, then we would have the additional exposure to the other games and quake community.
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea!

I also agree that some ports should be allowed, if its going to be active in any way.

As far as cheating goes, how mouch more vulnerable do you guys think the Doom format is in relation to Quake's now? Can't you also build Quake demos, at least movies, and don't they also require a degree of honesty from participants?

It could also be possible to build some sort of cheat-proof engine, which would not be exactly compatible with Doom, but almost.

There's also this thread, about this subject. Some of the main issues were mentioned there, too.

Old Post 08-09-06 04:12 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Opulent
Forum Staple


Posts: 2097
Registered: 07-01


every game I have followed, a certain percentage of the game's best players have cheated.
There has always been a need to trust the players, but I think the ease of cheating overwhelms that faith.
additionally, I'd hate to see DOOM meet the same disgustingly ugly fate with modified clients that all of the Quake games have.
but I digress this good topic, a Compet-N resurrection sounds fantastic! My life is in a state of transition.... perhaps in 150 days, I will have time to offer.
Grazza, Myk, Anders, Angus, Adam W., Xit, shoot there are a lot of players who I'd like to see take this over...
ah, this gets my mind thinking!...

Old Post 08-09-06 05:05 #
Opulent is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
xit-vono
Member


Posts: 561
Registered: 06-01


In my opinion compet-n should allow doom2 plus and chocolate doom demos, but not prboom demos because there are too many features with prboom. Of course I would not change the rule unless a majority of people approve, but it seems that most people believe that some ports should be accepted.

Old Post 08-09-06 07:24 #
xit-vono is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04


Chocolate-Doom, PrBoom, PrBoom-Plus... What the difference? Re-record can be added to Chocolate-Doom for 5 (five) minutes by any and for half-day to DOOM2.EXE by some. We should trust each other or change the method of recording. Move the recording from the client to a server for example (with the same format). It will allow to detect re-records and slow motions and that will more than enough IMO.

Old Post 08-09-06 08:57 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Fredrik


Posts: 11684
Registered: 05-00


No matter the new direction, I'd welcome a resurrection.

entryway said:
Move the recording from the client to a server for example (with the same format). It will allow to detect re-records and slow motions and that will more than enough IMO.
Not really; you could just create a cheated demo locally and then stream the recorded key presses to the server. However, as I've said before, it could work if the server replaced Doom's random number generator with a cryptographically secure RNG (which would require a new demo format).

A slightly simpler method would be that the client downloads a securely generated RNG seed (just a few bytes) at the beginning of each new recording attempt, and reports to the server with a final hash of the whole run immediately when the demo is finished. If the server timing of the run agrees with the demo time (up to a network lag of, say, 2 seconds), the run can be certified as having been recorded in real time. This scheme would make slow motion and re-recording difficult (especially the latter; you could still use slow motion for very short periods). Doesn't mean it'd be worth it, though...

Last edited by Fredrik on 08-09-06 at 10:55

Old Post 08-09-06 10:50 #
Fredrik is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04


ah. you're right

EDIT: As far as I understand it, the server should save the random number and times of the beginning and ending of recording. We should keep the received random number in a demo for playback and checking. That's all.

Last edited by entryway on 08-09-06 at 12:08

Old Post 08-09-06 11:02 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Andy Johnsen
Junior Member


Posts: 135
Registered: 09-00


I do belive that Adam would want to have some say in where compet-N goes and what format it should be in, if he enjoys the thought of a team taking over at all, and I think we owe him this as he has practically been compet-N the past 8 years. Your approach sounded not just a bit hasty, with that in mind, Xit. If we for some reason failed to contact him over a prolonged period, it would be different. Personally I havn't even dropped him a note yet tho, since I felt I should have something to offer before bugging him.

I'm also quite opposed towards the idea of adding more pwads. The tables that already exist, with the exception of the doom/doom2 speedrun/nightmare/max cats, are all very much unoptimized. In my opinion Compet-N should be about quality, not quantity, as it has always been. If not for that, why call it Compet(itio)N at all, we can just find some empty ftp space and upload everything we want, and the gems worth catching will be lost in a dumpster of first attempt entries over levels nobody even heard about. If any changes of such character were to be made, I'd say lose a few existing cats instead rather, to raise the bar. Thats getting into a controversial discussion and I'll save it for another time/thread tho, unless someone else jumps on the wagon :)

Port use is a thing to ponder. I can see the need for it if theres to be an active crowd of players, we would have to consider the candidates Doug mention and see which one is best suited for it, I suppose.

Old Post 08-09-06 14:30 #
Andy Johnsen is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Grazza
1.19345614 × 10^-66 m^4 kg^2 / s^2


Posts: 12322
Registered: 07-02


I'd hate to see an initiative to get compet-n running again get bogged down in a discussion of cheating or ways to combat it. I don't believe compet-n's rather sad state has anything much to do with cheaters, and that therefore isn't the number 1 issue to tackle when resurrecting it.

We should accept:
1. The whole thing depends on people being honest (which pretty much everyone actively and regularly involved in the demos community is, I believe).
2. Those who are desperate to cheat (i.e. use TAS methods to record demos that they claim were recorded normally) will find ways to do so, no matter what.
3. Anyone running compet-n needs to have sufficient respect and expertise to be able to judge with authority if someone is cheating. We'd just have to accept that there is a danger of some legitimate demos being rejected, and some cheated ones being allowed.

If there are to be changes in the rules to allow a wider variety of exes to be used, I would suggest:
1. For vanilla maps, the criterion should be that the demo plays back with Doom(2).exe, and that nothing defined as cheating (in terms of features used, not in terms of exe used) should have been employed. This definition of cheating would include things like a monster counter being displayed, in addition to the obvious TAS stuff.
2. If limit-removing or Boom-compatible pwads are to be added, then there likewise needs to be a level playing field - i.e. must play back with Doom+ (or another exe that is considered suitable as "purely limit removing" in the case of maps that fail with Doom+ for other reasons) or Boom 2.02 respectively.

Perhaps adding some more pwads would be a good way to stimulate renewed activity, so this could be done from the outset rather than only once things are moving again.

One last thing. I think compet-n needs an actual leader - i.e. one person who will drive the thing forward, and who has a vision of where it ought to go. I think it has the best chance of working then, as it will be moving purposefully and coherently, even if each of us may not like every aspect of that movement.


Andy Johnsen said:
I'm also quite opposed towards the idea of adding more pwads. The tables that already exist, with the exception of the doom/doom2 speedrun/nightmare/max cats, are all very much unoptimized. In my opinion Compet-N should be about quality, not quantity, as it has always been. If not for that, why call it Compet(itio)N at all, we can just find some empty ftp space and upload everything we want, and the gems worth catching will be lost in a dumpster of first attempt entries over levels nobody even heard about.
I don't see anything like that happening at Quake SDA, even though they have a lot of custom maps added (far more than I imagine anyone is suggesting for compet-n). Incidentally, the Quake SDA might prove a useful model for a new compet-n. Regarding your specific fears, I suppose the most natural pwads to consider adding would be ones where there has already been some demo activity (Scythe, HR2, Scythe2, KS, TVR, etc.) so that there is less chance of the initial entries being junk.

Old Post 08-09-06 14:36 #
Grazza is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Andy Johnsen
Junior Member


Posts: 135
Registered: 09-00


Nice post Grazza, it sums up stuff in a good manner.

About pwads tho; just because quake SDA did it dosnt mean its a good idea. The pwads already added to compet-N by adam still hold empty spots in the tables. If you narrow the number of levels one can play on, you get a more competitive arena. Sure, it prevents the casual player from submitting stuff when theres no empty holes to fill, but why is this a bad thing, unless its all about getting as many entries from as many players as possible. Adding port support to a renewed compet-n would be sufficient in attracting new players and more activity imo, w/o sacrifising the general quality of the demos.

Edit:
Another issue I feel is relevant. A while back ocelot was attempting some runs under windows XP and noticed lag similar to slowmotion, with sounds disabled. I'm sure this must have been adressed before, but I have zero experience running doom under xp myselfe. If this is the case tho, what about current compet-N record runs recorded under XP?

To quote ocelot:
"I personally get slight slowmo in udoom and doom2 is like playing exe over 350ms... major slowmo and kinda hard to move too cuz it drops some mouse input... all this probably varies according to system specs tho"

Of course we are back to the trust issue Grazza mentions, but if everyone and their pet cat get slowmo using xp and no sound, then there might be a problem since at least some runs were recorded this way.

Last edited by Andy Johnsen on 08-09-06 at 15:46

Old Post 08-09-06 15:09 #
Andy Johnsen is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
cycloid
Forum Regular


Posts: 831
Registered: 09-03


how about the current pwad selection is left as is and over time new pwads are added by community consensus every time there appears to be a lull in enthusiasm for the complete set. or maybe just add one every 6-12 months and let everyone race to beat each other. As it stands i havent <ahem> er, played any of the current set. like, ever. heh

__________________
cycloid
wads and mods: http://www.cyclomedia.co.uk/doom
internet tech: http://www.cyclomedia.co.uk/

Old Post 08-09-06 15:56 #
cycloid is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04


Resurrection of Compet-N in its initial edition has not enough sense. I don't think that will be a lot of persons wishing to spend for 200 hours for new record of one demo on old classic iwads\pwads for biting the previous record. Who except for Xit-Vono? Nobody. That time has gone. Not Adam's low activity has killed Compet-N. Time has killed Compet-N.

We should only put in order the current DW\SDA state for more convenient use and that's all. Time has shown that people love it and it works. There is no sense for generating new essence if it's possible to improve existent.

Last edited by entryway on 08-09-06 at 16:44

Old Post 08-09-06 16:35 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Hobbs
Banned


Posts: 1099
Registered: 06-05



Andy Johnsen said:
Edit:
Another issue I feel is relevant. A while back ocelot was attempting some runs under windows XP and noticed lag similar to slowmotion, with sounds disabled. I'm sure this must have been adressed before, but I have zero experience running doom under xp myselfe. If this is the case tho, what about current compet-N record runs recorded under XP?



As of today there are plenty of ways to fix this. First, if you're really good you can alter a few aspects of the way NTVDM behaves killing the problem to an extent (and to be honest like you said some people don't have the problem at all). There is also Microsoft Virtual PC (which is now free) that can run pure DOS (probably needs mo'slo to run doom), or even Windows 98. Also, if you have a fast enough PC you can simply dump a shitload of cycles into DOSBox (about 50k frameskip 1) and Doom will run as smooth as you please with any PWAD.

Old Post 08-09-06 17:06 #
Hobbs is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Andy Johnsen
Junior Member


Posts: 135
Registered: 09-00



entryway said:

We should only put in order the current DW\SDA state for more convenient use and that's all. Time has shown that people love it and it works. There is no sense for generating new essence if it's possible to improve existent.



Andrey, in a way you are right, but I don't completely agree with your gloomy summary. People just dont bother with systems that can run the original exes w/o a workaround anymore. Outdated, is the word. Thats why I belive, like others have mentioned too in this thread, port(s) need to be integrated. Compet-N as a consept is the longest living one as far as the doom demo scene goes, and it has experienced transitions and slow spots before. Sure, alot of the core players have moved on to other stuff, but I bet we would see the occasional upload if they could fire up a port to record with. I dont think it should move too far from its original idea tho. Theres plenty of other sources people can use if they just wanna record stuff. If they do wanna spend 200 hours on a record however, compet-n should be the place to store it.

Old Post 08-09-06 17:26 #
Andy Johnsen is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
xit-vono
Member


Posts: 561
Registered: 06-01


Btw when I suggested adding pwads I meant adding it to the database, which I think everyone agrees is a good idea. As for adding pwads to be recorded on, I think we should add some, probably scythe, scythe2, and ksutra, although for scythe2 we would have to work out demo compatibility and port use questions. There's just not many people who feel like playing on the current pwads. If we can get the recording level up than the quality of demos will automatically increase over time, but also this should be agreed on by the community. I also agree that Adam should be allowed to be involved, since it is still his site.

Edit: I think prboom should be disallowed becuase of features that are too easily available, such as the extra information at the bottom of the screen, and of course Andrey's additions. If someone wants to cheat they should have to make some effort to do so, and hopefully they will find that somewhat of a deterrant.

Old Post 08-09-06 17:30 #
xit-vono is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04


Double-edged weapon. We can improve the Compet-N system too.

Old Post 08-09-06 17:40 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04



xit-vono said:
such as the extra information at the bottom of the screen
I don't consider that the extra information at the bottom of the screen (stats and time) is a big cheat. There are many *.crk files for doom2.exe which do that. I did such patches myself more ten years ago in my modified doom2.exe for play with internal bots and for deathmatch (known as master.exe and was used almost by all doomers in Kiev). Some early versions of Master even showed where the player will resurrect after death in deathmatch.

Old Post 08-09-06 17:58 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04


I have found it. You should start master.bat from DOS or Win9x. Or through VDMSound with "Enable low-level network support" on WinXP with installed IPX, but it's not playable for me. Some people could play there with the final score 100:5 in 1997. You should open all secrets in the beginning.

Old Post 08-09-06 18:26 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Opulent
Forum Staple


Posts: 2097
Registered: 07-01


my, there is a lot I could respond to here.
but let me just say:
Allowing something other than doom.exe leads into an ugly fairness situation where a map will be more difficult for one player than another player. (as all of the Quake-engine games are)

I like how the QuakeSDA differentiates between Iwad and Pwad points... and has a grand total which rewards prolific and dedicated players.

edit: Andrey, any Master.exe demos? :)

Old Post 08-09-06 18:38 #
Opulent is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kristian Ronge
Senior Member


Posts: 1977
Registered: 11-03


I would heartily welcome a revival of COMPET-N, but I can't help wonder if it'd be better to instead focus on building something new entirely. No matter what wise and thoughtful choices were made in constructing a "new" COMPET-N, it would still risk being highly controversial.

Old Post 08-09-06 23:43 #
Kristian Ronge is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15137
Registered: 04-02



Andy Johnsen said:
I do belive that Adam would want to have some say in where compet-N goes and what format it should be in, if he enjoys the thought of a team taking over at all, and I think we owe him this as he has practically been compet-N the past 8 years.
I agree; Adam's word must be in the deal.


Grazza said:
One last thing. I think compet-n needs an actual leader - i.e. one person who will drive the thing forward, and who has a vision of where it ought to go. I think it has the best chance of working then, as it will be moving purposefully and coherently, even if each of us may not like every aspect of that movement.
Yeah; that person should be chosen by or with Adam's approval (which includes anything from specifying an individual to saying "you guys decide whoever you want however you want").


Andy Johnsen said:
About pwads tho; just because quake SDA did it dosnt mean its a good idea. The pwads already added to compet-N by adam still hold empty spots in the tables. If you narrow the number of levels one can play on, you get a more competitive arena. Sure, it prevents the casual player from submitting stuff when theres no empty holes to fill, but why is this a bad thing, unless its all about getting as many entries from as many players as possible.
Also, we already have a DOOM SDA, so why make COMPET-N somewhat like it? The SDA already provides a means to submit PWAD demos and it can be done at the total discretion of the players, who generally encourage consistency by revisiting wads others have recorded and generally using the Doom v1.9 (or occasionally Boom v2.02 when needed) format to record.


entryway said:
Resurrection of Compet-N in its initial edition has not enough sense. I don't think that will be a lot of persons wishing to spend for 200 hours for new record of one demo on old classic iwads\pwads for biting the previous record.
Well, they certainly won't be interested if it has no updates and if the only EXE allowed is hard to set up properly on Windows XP/2000 and Linux.


xit-vono said:
Edit: I think prboom should be disallowed becuase of features that are too easily available, such as the extra information at the bottom of the screen, and of course Andrey's additions. If someone wants to cheat they should have to make some effort to do so, and hopefully they will find that somewhat of a deterrant.
It's true that the most fair (or faithful) option, as far as sticking as close as possible to Doom would be allowing Doom/2 and Chocolate Doom. Of course this cannot be enforced, but it would be left to the players to be honest. There's no reason to add any features from PrBoom while recording, so it certainly isn't necessary to use it. And it's not like a regular PrBoom user will have any problems recording with Chocolate Doom, as they are both engines that work on the same SDL base.

Nonetheless, for this to be the case Chocolate Doom must always be kept updated as far as demo compatibility goes (adding enhanced overflow emulation, etc.)


entryway said:
I don't consider that the extra information at the bottom of the screen (stats and time) is a big cheat. There are many *.crk files for doom2.exe which do that. I did such patches myself more ten years ago in my modified doom2.exe for play with internal bots and for deathmatch (known as master.exe and was used almost by all doomers in Kiev). Some early versions of Master even showed where the player will resurrect after death in deathmatch.
Well, that hack is pretty cool, but it was never allowed on COMPET-N even when it already existed. I think that instead of considering whether something is a "cheat" for COMPET-N one should stick to a simple premise, using Doom's basic functionality as a standard. That is to stick to the same requirements already on the site except adding a pure port to the current OSs so that players don't have issues running the game. Or even if PrBoom were allowed, it should be restricted to Doom's settings (as already specified in doom.cfg), maybe with the resolution restrictions specified by Chocolate Doom (320x200 to 640x480).


Kristian Ronge said:
No matter what wise and thoughtful choices were made in constructing a "new" COMPET-N, it would still risk being highly controversial.
Perhaps, albeit I doubt it would be controversial if Adam were contacted and if the focus were on bringing it back to life as opposed to changing its nature, so that players can participate if they desire, and some have shown interest by submitting even while it's "dead", including xit-vono, cack_handed, and a couple others, more or less lately. It's more controversial being in the state it is, really (as this thread and the other indicate).

Last edited by myk on 08-10-06 at 10:40

Old Post 08-10-06 08:59 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
entryway
Forum Staple


Posts: 2709
Registered: 01-04



Opulent said:
edit: Andrey, any Master.exe demos?
No. I never kept my demos. Only the some in q2. But I will beat you in doom2, q1, q2, q3 on lan of course :))

Old Post 08-10-06 09:59 #
entryway is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mogul
Senior Member


Posts: 1750
Registered: 01-01


My take on some of the issues here:

If there is a place to upload or submit demos, people will always still pick the best stuff regardless of their being 2000 other worse demos or not.

People will ALWAYS know who Johnsen or Ocelot or AdamH or anyone else that does Compet-n are, and 99/100 times will watch their demos over Jeremy Emerson's (that's me, and for the record, I have no Compet-n demos :))

That said, it is true that the current tables aren't even filled yet. So, not to say it would be pointless to add more pwads, but that certainly would serve a different function than perhaps a more conservative enthusiast would like.

Is the goal to breathe new life into the compet-n or just to revive some old players or what?

Without getting too attatched to the thread or issue, I'll say that it's not going to be overly devastating to anything or anyone to add new pwads. And it would breathe at least some life into the site. If things are to remain exactly as they are, well, hopefully some people will become more active and submit some new demos and/or fill some of those slots! But yeah, for a serious renewal of interest, a new "campaign" should probably be launched, saying here are the new levels, go to work. Or even, here are the old levels you never did -- go to work.

Old Post 08-10-06 11:48 #
Mogul is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
VinceDSS
Senior Member


Posts: 1295
Registered: 11-02


It's way too easy for *anybody* to make excellent demos with *any* ports. Tweaking the DOS EXEs is not at everybody's reach. So I must admit that I find the idea of the server authentification while recording quite appealing.
I am sure Bahdko would galdly host such server on doom2.net, and I don't think it would use much bandwidth.

For the database, yes the pwads should be added, as well as the coop tables.

As for adding new pwads, it shouldnt be done too fast. Maybe at the rate of 1 megawad per year?

Old Post 08-11-06 00:59 #
VinceDSS is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Hobbs
Banned


Posts: 1099
Registered: 06-05


Be aware that while server authentication sounds nice in theory it is not an extremely easy thing to simply up and do in practice. There are so many problems that could occur either through the wonder that is technology or through operator error. And even still it isnt foolproof. People who want to cheat will find a way.

My feeble little voice does agree with adding extra pwads to the database, however slowly. Perhaps the above mentioned coop stuffs as well. If you ride the same horse long enough eventually it will grow tired and quit. In fact it already seems to have quit, otherwise we would not be discussing ressurecting the compet-n at all.

Old Post 08-11-06 01:08 #
Hobbs is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Hobbs
Banned


Posts: 1099
Registered: 06-05


Sorry for the double post, but I don't want this thread to fall off into oblivion as so many Compet-N resurrection threads have. So, anyway, I was rambling in IRC and figured I'd knock it out here, because I feel it rather sums up the reasons that these threads keep dying. It addresses port usage (first) cheating (second) and pwads (third) by presenting the problem as I see it and me addressing it, trying to keep it as free of my own opinion (har har) and objective as I can, though we all know how good I am at my opinion.

First we have the issue of ports: should we allow ports, what ports should we allow, andwhy should we allow them?

I think, at this point, there's a general concurrence that some port needs to be allowed. The DOS days are dead, and they aren't coming back. So, we need a port that recognises that and addresses it. We need a port that runs on ye olde Windows 98 box, but also the super new 64-bit Windows XP box. We need a port that recognises it's 2006 and not 1996.

But if that is the sole reason to allow ports into the Compet-N (which I believe it originally was), is the solution not already in front of us in the form of Chocolate Doom? Indeed, it may need a bit of work to be "Compet-N ready," but if we're only talking about using a port to allow people using platforms that don't easily (or don't at all) run the DOS executables to record demos, then what else is there to discuss? Plain and simple, the answer is Chocolate Doom.

If the point of allowing ports is also to expand the "features" allowed, then why look any further than removing limits? At this time, there is no definite port to answer this call, but such a thing would be basically be a Chocolate Doom plus, as it would be, theoretically, Chocolate Doom and doom2-plus in one (this is also how I'll henceforth refer to it). This Chocolate Doom plus would basically allow more freedom when dealing with PWAD demos (I cannot think of a point where removing the limits affects the IWADs in a extremely important way, aside from the sprite limit). It is a double edged sword, allowing the player greater ease when recording in maps where care must be taken not to cause a VPO or such, but also would allow to expand to PWADs that are simply labelled limit-removing. It would be that second step, so to speak, in realising (rather grudingly for some) that it is indeed 2006, but also keeping to a fairly strict Doom and only Doom tradition.

Now, you may be asking, if Chocolate Doom plus were to be allowed, why not something like PrBoom? The answer is this: cheating and purity. As far as I can gather, it would be much easier to cheat with PrBoom than Chocolate Doom or the nonexistant Chocolate Doom plus. As far as purity goes, when you start using PrBoom, you've said, "To hell with bothering with the old Compet-N way of keeping to vanilla only, let's just keep with the times, like the community tells us." For this, we would pay the price of not being able to play Boom PWADs. I can think of only one that would even be bothered with, and, not to insult the author or the wad, if that's the price we pay, is it such a hefty price?

Second, cheating must be addressed. What are we going to do to combat it and how? What is the balance between cheating and hassle to record?

First and foremost, we must realize that those who wish to cheat will cheat (I realise this has been said 10000 times). Also, no matter what, some demos will be labelled TAS that aren't, and some demos that are TAS will be accepted. If these facts can't be accepted, the Compet-N just needs to stay dead and nobody needs to bother any further.

Let us first look at how we stopped cheating in the past. Back in the day there were demos that were blatantly TAS, whether labelled such or not, and did not need any distinction but the casual eye of a demo viewer. There were demos that were cleverly TAS, that required a keen eye or using a lump checker to check to see if they were TAS. And, of course, there are some demos that have either been missed for a while or (I am sure) missed up until today, because they were so well cheated. Those required an expert eye, many views and pointing out of minor suspicious details that almost nobody would ever notice.

Bearing that in mind, what would change no matter what anti-cheat method was implemented? There would always be the blatant TAS, the more subtle TAS, and the TAS that slips by. So why go through a series of hoops to make a new demo format or use a server connection when we know that in the end that we'll be back at the starting point, trying to figure out a new anti-cheat technique? Indeed, perhaps the best way would be to continue as has been done, using lump checkers and the sort, and the non replacable eye of an expert doom player?

One final note, using an engine such as PrBoom opens up a whole new world of cheating. I have always been under the impression that it is easier to cheat with that than vanilla, and I have no reason to believe that just because Chocolate Doom is a 32 bit programme it would be of the same ease to cheat with as PrBoom.

Third, what are we to do about PWADs? Should we add more? How many and how often?

The answer to these questions really ought to be given by the one (or group) who takes over the Compet-N. It is not the job of the common person to make every single decision about how something such as the Compet-N runs, and a descision such as adding PWADs should be left to those in charge. If they wish to hand it off to the people through such methods as a vote or just a general query, then so be it. But the final decision should remain with the responsible party.

However, as a minor note to that, adding absolutely no PWADs at all would probably be the death to a new birth, so to speak. If a resurrection is to take place, then it need not be the same old thing it was before, but rather with something refreshing.

And that is all.

Last edited by Hobbs on 08-12-06 at 22:57

Old Post 08-12-06 21:46 #
Hobbs is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Henning
Warming Up


Posts: 11
Registered: 06-04


Close the old compet-n down as we know it, put a lock on it. It'll only lose its value by bringing it into todays era. Rename it like already suggested.

Build a new competition friendly demo format that works with a port of choice. This way we'll have no limitations, and can take the whole thing in the direction we want.

This will also bring the game itself more up to par. Making it more interesting for the general public.

Old Post 08-13-06 08:35 #
Henning is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:49. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Special Interest > Doom Speed Demos > Compet-N resurrection?

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Message Board Statistics