DK Submission Rules

[Donkey Kong Genius]

The rules now state: "The WLF file is NOT required (and does not exist) for versions of WolfMAME newer than 0.106." The way this is worded seems to indicate that someone could submit an inp from .106 without the WLF file and still be accepted. IF we require both for .106 so that the checksum and verification will work, then maybe the language here should be altered. The rule first seems to state the need for wlf file and then the language immediately after seems to indicate that this is not the case. If we are only offering a qualification that those using newer versions does not produce this file, then that is one thing, unless we are not requiring the verification tool for .106 anymore, since I do not think it will verify without the wlf. I could be mistaken.

[Monstabonza]

To me it reads that it is not required for for newer versions that 106 but still is needed for 106.
We could change it to
: "The WLF file is NOT required (and does not exist) for versions of WolfMAME .107 and newer."

Which should get rid of any confusion.

I also suggest we add something to restrict wolf mame submissions 106 and above.
I believe it says any wolf mame version, with us assuming it would only be newer versions.

[xelnia]

To me it reads that it is not required for for newer versions that 106 but still is needed for 106.
We could change it to
: "The WLF file is NOT required (and does not exist) for versions of WolfMAME .107 and newer."

Which should get rid of any confusion.

I also suggest we add something to restrict wolf mame submissions 106 and above.
I believe it says any wolf mame version, with us assuming it would only be newer versions.

Added those clarifications, along with the clarification regarding pauses you mentioned earlier.

[konghusker]

my 3 links to verify my 1.1 game below.  Steve Wiltshire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhn9snDNZ0A         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGjiKMZy75c       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAGs59ARI0

Sorry for delay, I've lost interest for a while, then couldn't get the pc to upload until now.  I have on dvd as well.  Interest has come back, and play for a much higher score will begin again next week.  Thanks for watching.

[marinomitch13]

Sorry for the minor de-rail.

Steve, you need to write up that story you told me in Iowa at some point. Needs to be on DKF.    I'm sure it could start up a fun thread!

And good luck on going for that WR!

[Barra]

Wrong thread

[Hurray Banana]

Apologies if this has already been answered.

I have an original TKG-4 DK boardset. Using a nintendo to jamma adaptor I play in a Vertical screen jamma cabinet using a 4 way joystick (a sanwa) and a switching power supply.

Am I allowed to submit scores streamed via Twitch? (I'm not very good at the moment 168K) and if I am what would they be classified as?

Cheers in advance
Eric

[Donkey Kong Genius]

There might be something in this thread that might be helpful. https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=1065.0

[Hurray Banana]

Thanks for the link. and thanks for the videos was watching some of them today

[Donkey Kong Genius]

Question: Game settings state: "Number of Jumpman: 3. Score Level for extra Jumpman: 7,000." I would assume that this rule would be normative and not absolute and that if someone had their extra jumpman on a different setting and started the game with 5+1 setting but passed the extra man threshhold prior to the loss of the third man and completed the game prior to their fourth death would be an acceptable score submission?

[Donkey Kong Genius]

Question: Game settings state: "Number of Jumpman: 3. Score Level for extra Jumpman: 7,000." I would assume that this rule would be normative and not absolute and that if someone had their extra jumpman on a different setting and started the game with 5+1 setting but passed the extra man threshhold prior to the loss of the third man and completed the game prior to their fourth death would be an acceptable score submission?

This is how I had intended the rules to function so I assume that this would still be the case and that this hypothetical submission would be accepted. I would accept it.

[xelnia]

Question: Game settings state: "Number of Jumpman: 3. Score Level for extra Jumpman: 7,000." I would assume that this rule would be normative and not absolute and that if someone had their extra jumpman on a different setting and started the game with 5+1 setting but passed the extra man threshhold prior to the loss of the third man and completed the game prior to their fourth death would be an acceptable score submission?

This is how I had intended the rules to function so I assume that this would still be the case and that this hypothetical submission would be accepted. I would accept it.

I would not accept a submission under these circumstances.

While the Bonus setting may be trivial for the majority of players it is still a setting which affects the outcome of a game. A new player might not get that Bonus Life if it's set to 20,000. There are currently 12 scores on the HSL below 20,000. Without standardizing the Bonus setting how can we be sure these players were given an equal chance, and thus have scores that can be compared to the rest of the HSL?

The Lives setting should be strictly adhered to. Why not just use 6+1 settings and let people submit the best 4-life segment from that game? Rules are meant to standardize. There has to be a point where we say "A legitimate DK performance is absolutely X, Y, and Z and only performances that follow those standards can be compared to one another." For me, the Lives setting is one of those points. It takes zero effort to set this game to the correct settings.

[stella_blue]

I would not accept a submission under these circumstances.

While the Bonus setting may be trivial for the majority of players it is still a setting which affects the outcome of a game. A new player might not get that Bonus Life if it's set to 20,000. There are currently 12 scores on the HSL below 20,000. Without standardizing the Bonus setting how can we be sure these players were given an equal chance, and thus have scores that can be compared to the rest of the HSL?

The Lives setting should be strictly adhered to. Why not just use 6+1 settings and let people submit the best 4-life segment from that game? Rules are meant to standardize. There has to be a point where we say "A legitimate DK performance is absolutely X, Y, and Z and only performances that follow those standards can be compared to one another." For me, the Lives setting is one of those points. It takes zero effort to set this game to the correct settings.

I agree on all points, particularly the 3+1 lives setting.  It is, and should be, an absolute standard.

[Donkey Kong Genius]

Question: Game settings state: "Number of Jumpman: 3. Score Level for extra Jumpman: 7,000." I would assume that this rule would be normative and not absolute and that if someone had their extra jumpman on a different setting and started the game with 5+1 setting but passed the extra man threshhold prior to the loss of the third man and completed the game prior to their fourth death would be an acceptable score submission?

This is how I had intended the rules to function so I assume that this would still be the case and that this hypothetical submission would be accepted. I would accept it.

I would not accept a submission under these circumstances.

While the Bonus setting may be trivial for the majority of players it is still a setting which affects the outcome of a game. A new player might not get that Bonus Life if it's set to 20,000. There are currently 12 scores on the HSL below 20,000. Without standardizing the Bonus setting how can we be sure these players were given an equal chance, and thus have scores that can be compared to the rest of the HSL?

The Lives setting should be strictly adhered to. Why not just use 6+1 settings and let people submit the best 4-life segment from that game? Rules are meant to standardize. There has to be a point where we say "A legitimate DK performance is absolutely X, Y, and Z and only performances that follow those standards can be compared to one another." For me, the Lives setting is one of those points. It takes zero effort to set this game to the correct settings.

I designed the rules to function as normative not absolute, which is why they are listed as normative rules. Most people will use normative rules but they exist in that form for the purpose of those submissions that may not quite fit an absolute criteria. To reject the proposed submission is contrary to the purpose and wording of the rules. They are normative, not absolute. I agree to a standardization, and the addition of game settings to the normative rule set, however, I would not be willing to apply a normative rule in an absolute sense where we as a community can not handle a submission that for all intents and purposes game play functioned the same regardless of settings. The example I shared may not have been plain. I was not referring to a case where a player who has not reached the point threshold, I am referring to a game performance where the point threshold was irrelevant. There would be no difference in game play either way so to apply a technical issue to this particular scenario would be to reject a legitimate performance based upon a irrelevant technical issue for that performance. We are concerned with score performances in particular. I agree that most people will take great care to follow the normative rules, and this is to be expected, however, as I mentioned before they have their proper place, and the purpose of the auxiliary rules is to take each submission on its own merit. I am not proposing that we all use different settings, that is the purpose of the normative rules to guide us. But, if for some reason, someone didn't, the auxiliary rules kick in so that we can evaluate the game performance on a case by case basis. I don't think that many will use 5+1 settings, and I do not propose that we change this normative aspect of the rules, but this question which I have posed actual sets out to determine whether the present score moderators understand the the normative/auxiliary structure which I had created. If you wish to impose an absolute rule set as an additional division in the rules then that is for the community to decide as a whole. However, to do so is contrary to its intent. The normative rules were never written for the purpose of being applied in an absolute sense, nor to discredit a legitimate score performance based upon a technicality which had no direct impact on game play.

[Donkey Kong Genius]

Let me break this down into two different score performances.

First, a player reaches the killscreen but later learned that they were award their 4th man upon reaching the 10,000 point threshold instead of at 7,000, where they did not lose their 3rd man prior to 7,000. Do we reject this legitimate performance? No, we do not. There would be no reason to reject this game performance because for the present submission the point threshold was irrelevant.

Second, a player was practicing on 5+ 1 settings but had an incredible break out game. He reaches the killscreen and losses his 4th man. That score which he achieved after his 4th man is a legitamate score and the game performance exceptional. Do we reject this legitimate performance? No, we do not. There would be no reason to reject this game performance because there is no advantage since they are only playing out 4 men as one would with 3+1 settings.

This is the spirit of the normative/auxiliary rules. This is why they were created in the manner in which they have been created.