Demos for verification (particularly HL), run removal request

2009-06-10 02:42:41 pm

Invisible avatar

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

Ya so did quake well before Nolan even decided to host non-quake games. Joe-quake, visual grenade timers for your grenades and enemy grenades as well. Good luck doing that with a mere script. If you've got problems with HL rules you should have more with quake.

What Lag said. HLSP changes the very way the game operates. QDQStats tries to circumvent cheating. Joe-quake doesn't add anything helpful for speedrunning - besides the capability to change graphics (and let's be frank, that has no use in speedrunning, where you're supposed to remember the levels and hence don't need to be able to notice stuff). And Quake is governed by very different rules, anyway, so using Quake as an example doesn't make any sense.

Also, few things I have to mention. In regards to those things:

Quote:

Believe it or not, but most HL runners are not well versed in coding and would have a hard time stringing demos together, I also think this would lead to desyncs, it's not like quake where you have new levels which would be easy to sync a new demo to.

First off, the argument that HL runners are not well versed in coding might be true. However, that also means the same runners - who would probably end up as verifiers - wouldn't be capable of using the demos for verification. And I have to admit, that's another reason requiring demos is pretty useless in my opinion. Most verifiers for game X that possesses demorecording are not familiar with said demorecording enough to even know whether the demos record actions or positions, much less to meticulously check the demo code for cheats.

Also, it wouldn't lead to desynchs; a mere glance at the binary code in demos lets me see very familiar patterns - the demos look like they store positions of entities, not a string of actions, so there's no possibility of desynchs.

Finally, I don't think the demos would help with verifying the mod, either. A quick glance in HLSP demo code doesn't let me find any indication of the mod version being saved. Admittedly, I didn't really search for it much. But even if that info was saved it wouldn't be that hard to edit it.

I agree the inconsistencies should be addressed, but you should have *started* by posting them instead.

Quote:

Ok, then I'm for HL being treated exactly like quake then. You should have no problem with as long it's separated from the rest of SDA.

Quake came before other games - the rules for the Other Games section changed to accommodate a wide variety of games; and indeed, QDQStats and JoeQuake were made long before other games started off. That's why the rulings are different, and Quake is separated from main SDA. Not because Quake is somehow special. And making a new subsite, a new subset of rules and similar stuff, all that for a game which gets maybe one run every year? You can always start your own site if you really want that.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]
Ya so did quake well before Nolan even decided to host non-quake games.  Joe-quake, visual grenade timers for your grenades and enemy grenades as well.  Good luck doing that with a mere script.  If you've got problems with HL rules you should have more with quake.
[/quote]
What Lag said. HLSP changes the very way the game operates. QDQStats tries to circumvent cheating. Joe-quake doesn't add anything helpful for speedrunning - besides the capability to change graphics (and let's be frank, that has no use in speedrunning, where you're supposed to remember the levels and hence don't need to be able to notice stuff). And Quake is governed by very different rules, anyway, so using Quake as an example doesn't make any sense.

Also, few things I have to mention. In regards to those things:
[quote]Believe it or not, but most HL runners are not well versed in coding and would have a hard time stringing demos together, I also think this would lead to desyncs, it's not like quake where you have new levels which would be easy to sync a new demo to.[/quote]
First off, the argument that HL runners are not well versed in coding might be true. However, that also means the same runners - who would probably end up as verifiers - wouldn't be capable of using the demos for verification. And I have to admit, that's another reason requiring demos is pretty useless in my opinion. Most verifiers for game X that possesses demorecording are not familiar with said demorecording enough to even know whether the demos record actions or positions, much less to meticulously check the demo code for cheats.

Also, it wouldn't lead to desynchs; a mere glance at the binary code in demos lets me see very familiar patterns - the demos look like they store positions of entities, not a string of actions, so there's no possibility of desynchs.

Finally, I don't think the demos would help with verifying the mod, either. A quick glance in HLSP demo code doesn't let me find any indication of the mod version being saved. Admittedly, I didn't really search for it much. But even if that info was saved it wouldn't be that hard to edit it.

I agree the inconsistencies should be addressed, but you should have *started* by posting them instead.

[quote]Ok, then I'm for HL being treated exactly like quake then.  You should have no problem with as long it's separated from the rest of SDA.[/quote]
Quake came before other games - the rules for the Other Games section changed to accommodate a wide variety of games; and indeed, QDQStats and JoeQuake were made long before other games started off. That's why the rulings are different, and Quake is separated from main SDA. Not because Quake is somehow special. And making a new subsite, a new subset of rules and similar stuff, all that for a game which gets maybe one run every year? You can always start your own site if you really want that.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-10 02:45:42 pm

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

>>>Once again, thanks for insulting the verification process. Verification is done by volunteers, and you could have easily volunteered to verify the run, but you didn't.<<<

I'm sorry, but the process obviously needs criticism, how else can one bring attention to something needing to be improved?

By suggesting how to improve it. You've rubbished the system but you haven't suggested a single way of improving it until this post. The one idea you have raised, of Mike proactively contacting past runners to verify new runs of their games, would probably improve the verification process - indeed it's an idea that I've seen raised (and approved of by Mike, in the Metroid Prime verification thread if I remember right) in the past. Of course, it's not something we can demand of Mike since he does everything he does for SDA for free and if he doesn't want to take on an extra workload, he has every right not to, which makes your insulting the system even harder to justify.

Quote:

Ok, then I'm for HL being treated exactly like quake then.

No. Why should it be? As has been said, if you're not happy with SDA rules, make your own site.

LLCoolDave: I think possibly allowing the HLSP mod was justified if those who have used it are reasonably convinced that all it does is restore the gameplay mechanics of an older version while retaining functional demo recording. SDA would (I think) allow a mod that just added in demo recording, so I don't see why in principle there's much difference.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]>>>Once again, thanks for insulting the verification process. Verification is done by volunteers, and you could have easily volunteered to verify the run, but you didn't.<<<

I'm sorry, but the process obviously needs criticism, how else can one bring attention to something needing to be improved?[/quote]

By suggesting how to improve it. You've rubbished the system but you haven't suggested a single way of improving it until this post. The one idea you have raised, of Mike proactively contacting past runners to verify new runs of their games, would probably improve the verification process - indeed it's an idea that I've seen raised (and approved of by Mike, in the Metroid Prime verification thread if I remember right) in the past. Of course, it's not something we can demand of Mike since he does everything he does for SDA for free and if he doesn't want to take on an extra workload, he has every right not to, which makes your insulting the system even harder to justify.

[quote]Ok, then I'm for HL being treated exactly like quake then.[/quote]

No. Why should it be? As has been said, if you're not happy with SDA rules, make your own site.

LLCoolDave: I think possibly allowing the HLSP mod was justified if those who have used it are reasonably convinced that all it does is restore the gameplay mechanics of an older version while retaining functional demo recording. SDA would (I think) allow a mod that just added in demo recording, so I don't see why in principle there's much difference.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

Spider-Waffle

Edit history:

Spider-Waffle: 2009-06-10 03:10:34 pm

2009-06-10 02:46:39 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Ya I've thought about it, it's really a good idea. If someone else made it I'd diffidently support it and try to help out.

About improving the verification process, I've already said demos should be required like Nolan did, I can't believe SDA didn't hold on to that when Nolan left. Again, to verify SS in games where demos can't be used and it's easy to append segments into one continuous video I think a certain quality of webcam video should be required which shows keystrokes and mouse movement well enough.

I also think runs which can easily get more than two verifiers saying "Ya the run is faster." shouldn't be updated until more people verify it. I think the existence and need for user support of the verification forum should be made more public to the community. I'd suggest more links to this forum in the main page updates asking for help verifying. I think the community should play a more active role in making runs which need verification public knowledge to active and past runners. It might help to require the runner of a new run makes a new thread or new post about the run he submitted in the games discussion forum.

Ya I've thought about it, it's really a good idea.  If someone else made it I'd diffidently support it and try to help out.

About improving the verification process, I've already said demos should be required like Nolan did, I can't believe SDA didn't hold on to that when Nolan left.  Again, to verify SS in games where demos can't be used and it's easy to append segments into one continuous video I think a certain quality of webcam video should be required which shows keystrokes and mouse movement well enough.

I also think runs which can easily get more than two verifiers saying "Ya the run is faster." shouldn't be updated until more people verify it.  I think the existence and need for user support of the verification forum should be made more public to the community.  I'd suggest more links to this forum in the main page updates asking for help verifying.  I think the community should play a more active role in making runs which need verification public knowledge to active and past runners.  It might help to require the runner of a new run makes a new thread or new post about the run he submitted in the games discussion forum.

quadrazid

2009-06-10 03:05:15 pm

Svart Lyser Tronen

As for Daniels run, I'm pretty sure he used a internal loop bhopscript. (_special)
If so, it does not matter if it was v4 or v5

cortez

2009-06-10 03:24:31 pm

Stalker!

well i dont see your point spider waffle.
are you only focused on HL? or on all games?
if you are focused on all then you should noticed there are less and less games with a demo record feature and in serious sam for example, you can record a demo ,the demo recording breaks after each level, so it wont be possible to proof the if its a ss or not

Radon

2009-06-10 03:37:47 pm

Quote from groobo:

I cheat at every online game I play. Now what?

1) That means your credibility is compromised. If you submit a questionable run that shows hints of manipulation and you have no way to prove its legitimacy I would want it to be rejected.
2) You do WHAT? And you openly admit it? I hope that was just sarcasm.

Regarding demos: I don't see any reason against requiring demos for games that offer this option. Sure, they are not impossible to manipulation but it's a lot harder than just editing an AVI. Adding a requirement for demos would not even mean that the verification process has to become more complex. It would just be a valuable source of information in case someone from the community questions the legitimacy of a run. (See: this case)

As to whether or not mods like HLSP bunny should be allowed for Half-life: I don't know and I don't care. This is not relevant for this topic anyway.

cortez

2009-06-10 04:19:22 pm

Stalker!

ok i read thread now

its seems that is getting a bit ridiculous, removing a run because there are no demos, so there is the possibility of cheating

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-10 05:33:47 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Quote from Radon:

Quote from groobo:

I cheat at every online game I play. Now what?

1) That means your credibility is compromised. If you submit a questionable run that shows hints of manipulation and you have no way to prove its legitimacy I would want it to be rejected.

Precisely. As Mike and other have stated, verification depends on trust, so the character of the runner is very reliant to verification. Suppose a notorious online gaming hacker and hack writer/distributor has had several of his runs proven to be illegitimate. He submits a new apocryphal video along with no other proof. Do you not think his case needs to be treated differently than someone with a perfect track record who provides sufficient proof for all his runs?

I think since the verification process depends on trusting the character of the runner you have to weigh in the runner's character into how closely you verify their runs. Since we want speedrunning to be all about the community, your trustfulness and character in the community are inherently important.

[quote="Radon"]
[quote="groobo"]
I cheat at every online game I play. Now what?
[/quote]

1) That means your credibility is compromised. If you submit a questionable run that shows hints of manipulation and you have no way to prove its legitimacy I would want it to be rejected.
[/quote]

Precisely.  As Mike and other have stated, verification depends on trust, so the character of the runner is very reliant to verification.  Suppose a notorious online gaming hacker and hack writer/distributor has had several of his runs proven to be illegitimate.  He submits a new apocryphal video along with no other proof.  Do you not think his case needs to be treated differently than someone with a perfect track record who provides sufficient proof for all his runs?

I think since the verification process depends on trusting the character of the runner you have to weigh in the runner's character into how closely you verify their runs.  Since we want speedrunning to be all about the community, your trustfulness and character in the community are inherently important.

mikwuyma

2009-06-10 05:37:26 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

*Sigh* Groobo is just fucking around, he only does it all the time. He even provided video cam proof with his Portal run.

ShadowWraith

2009-06-10 06:17:58 pm

.

Spider-Waffle: Morality is not black and white.

What would you say if someone had previously submitted speedruns that were completely legitimate in the past but at the same time cheated at those same games while playing online against other players?

Smilge

2009-06-10 06:50:04 pm

Quote from groobo:

I cheat at every online game I play. Now what?

YOU SAID THAT GODLY PLATE OF THE WHALE WAS LEGIT

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-10 10:46:31 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

Quote from ShadowWraith:

Spider-Waffle: Morality is not black and white.

What would you say if someone had previously submitted speedruns that were completely legitimate in the past but at the same time cheated at those same games while playing online against other players?

Well then he'd be harder to trust than someone who was same but didn't cheat in those games he played online. It's a continuous scale I would think.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-10 11:00:42 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Radon:

Quote from groobo:

I cheat at every online game I play. Now what?

1) That means your credibility is compromised. If you submit a questionable run that shows hints of manipulation and you have no way to prove its legitimacy I would want it to be rejected.
2) You do WHAT? And you openly admit it? I hope that was just sarcasm.

I'm ZenicReverie and I've used Game Genie before. Also, does cheating include playing an emulated game with slowdown? cause I've done that to. I also had my fun with Diablo and Diablo 2 character editors. Good luck finding someone who hasn't ever played around with using cheat codes or any of the above if this means you can no longer trust them to do a run.

However people play casually should have no bearing on running games. Now if a run is questionable, that would be the first sign that credibility is compromised, not how they play games, online or off. If the questionable parts are addressed properly then their credibility should be redeemed.

[quote="Radon"]
[quote="groobo"]
I cheat at every online game I play. Now what?
[/quote]

1) That means your credibility is compromised. If you submit a questionable run that shows hints of manipulation and you have no way to prove its legitimacy I would want it to be rejected.
2) You do WHAT? And you openly admit it? I hope that was just sarcasm.
[/quote]
I'm ZenicReverie and I've used Game Genie before.  Also, does cheating include playing an emulated game with slowdown? cause I've done that to.  I also had my fun with Diablo and Diablo 2 character editors.  Good luck finding someone who hasn't ever played around with using cheat codes or any of the above if this means you can no longer trust them to do a run.

However people play casually should have no bearing on running games.  Now if a run is questionable, that would be the first sign that credibility is compromised, not how they play games, online or off.  If the questionable parts are addressed properly then their credibility should be redeemed.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-10 11:47:26 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

If your fooling around with game genie and what you're not lying to other people about the authenticity as a gamer, you see there's a huge difference. If your using banned cheats in online league play your lying to the people in the league and try to beat there system which keeps league fair for everyone. One of these compromises your character, the other doesn't, it's really quite simple.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-10 11:58:28 pm

Don't think! feeeeeal

So I need to ask if anyone else experiences large teleports in their demos between level loads? I'm not talking about the freezing of your character entity that can randomly happen shortly after a load. This doesn't seem like normal game/demo behavior and I've never experienced it. I wonder if it does happen when you have something strange with your setup, like unnecessary lag is created?

I need to ask dex what else can be done to verify that demos aren't strung together since he has gone to the trouble to test it and found it is in fact easy because HL demos record locations which I'm guessing is just like quake since HL is basically a quake mod. All I can think of is to watch the demos slowed down and look for teleports in entities such as we see in Daniel's run. Or look at the code in the demo and see if the location of an entity changed in a manner which seemed inconsistent with the game engine. I'd really appreciate dex's or, someone who knows what dex knows, input on this and I hope we can setup a similar demo verification system quake has, which seems very plausible since HL was made from quake.

So I need to ask if anyone else experiences large teleports in their demos between level loads?  I'm not talking about the freezing of your character entity that can randomly happen shortly after a load.  This doesn't seem like normal game/demo behavior and I've never experienced it.  I wonder if it does happen when you have something strange with your setup, like unnecessary lag is created?

I need to ask dex what else can be done to verify that demos aren't strung together since he has gone to the trouble to test it and found it is in fact easy because HL demos record locations which I'm guessing is just like quake since HL is basically a quake mod.  All I can think of is to watch the demos slowed down and look for teleports in entities such as we see in Daniel's run.  Or look at the code in the demo and see if the location of an entity changed in a manner which seemed inconsistent with the game engine.  I'd really appreciate dex's or, someone who knows what dex knows, input on this and I hope we can setup a similar demo verification system quake has, which seems very plausible since HL was made from quake.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-11 12:03:15 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

If your fooling around with game genie and what you're not lying to other people about the authenticity as a gamer, you see there's a huge difference. If your using banned cheats in online league play your lying to the people in the league and try to beat there system which keeps league fair for everyone. One of these compromises your character, the other doesn't, it's really quite simple.

No one said anything about league play. Playing online games does not always mean you're playing a rated game, and all rated play is not created equal (e.g. having a ladder vs. personal ratings that mean very little). I was addressing the broad strokes people were making regarding cheating in games that has nothing to do with running a game. I think this comes back to having a concise message instead of giving a relaxive response.

groobo

2009-06-11 02:58:01 am

boss

Fuck it. I'll use the diversion created here and start my own topic about Xardion getting the quake treatment because OBVIOUSLY it deserves it. Who thinks otherwise - you can go to hell. For everyone else - WE HAVE FREE PIE.

TO THE GROOBOMOBILE!

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-11 03:58:54 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

Don't make me go beat your BS run now Tongue

groobo

2009-06-11 04:07:46 am

boss

I couldn't care less about what you do to make yourself feel better.

Spider-Waffle

(user is banned)

2009-06-11 05:27:59 am

Don't think! feeeeeal

Why so serious?

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-11 05:31:23 am

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

Why so serious?

And that, children, is irony.

dex

2009-06-11 05:39:05 am

Invisible avatar

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

I need to ask dex what else can be done to verify that demos aren't strung together since he has gone to the trouble to test it and found it is in fact easy because HL demos record locations which I'm guessing is just like quake since HL is basically a quake mod. All I can think of is to watch the demos slowed down and look for teleports in entities such as we see in Daniel's run. Or look at the code in the demo and see if the location of an entity changed in a manner which seemed inconsistent with the game engine. I'd really appreciate dex's or, someone who knows what dex knows, input on this and I hope we can setup a similar demo verification system quake has, which seems very plausible since HL was made from quake.

Well, there are two matters. The first one is mid-level stringing of demos. In an area with a lot of entities around or if the player model is moving at a huge velocity (ie. bunnyhopping) I would say it's impossible to fully hide it. However, if you pick an area with not a lot of entities and where you are stationary, it should be easy pickings to hide it 100%. Think something like the area with the medcharger tutorial. Those areas happen often enough to be useful.

The second matter is stringing on area transitions. I would deem that to be both undetectable and easy if done right. HL is a game with *many* area transitions, as I'm sure you know.

And yes, HL demos look very familiar to me because they are similar to Quake demos. There are many differences, but the basic idea is the same. And you can do a *lot* of stuff with Quake demos (and indeed, for recamming we often add entities, for example).

And the Quake verification system is only tighter because of QDQStats - boy, that took a long time to develop. Also, we have several *experts* on the demo code in the team. I don't think anyone would be willing to put similar effort in HL (I certainly wouldn't). Most of the QDQStats code wouldn't be reusable. And it is quite possible to bypass QDQStats anyway. Ultimately, we're relying mostly on trust as well.

[quote="Spider-Waffle"]I need to ask dex what else can be done to verify that demos aren't strung together since he has gone to the trouble to test it and found it is in fact easy because HL demos record locations which I'm guessing is just like quake since HL is basically a quake mod.  All I can think of is to watch the demos slowed down and look for teleports in entities such as we see in Daniel's run. Or look at the code in the demo and see if the location of an entity changed in a manner which seemed inconsistent with the game engine.  I'd really appreciate dex's or, someone who knows what dex knows, input on this and I hope we can setup a similar demo verification system quake has, which seems very plausible since HL was made from quake.[/quote]
Well, there are two matters. The first one is mid-level stringing of demos. In an area with a lot of entities around or if the player model is moving at a huge velocity (ie. bunnyhopping) I would say it's impossible to fully hide it. However, if you pick an area with not a lot of entities and where you are stationary, it should be easy pickings to hide it 100%. Think something like the area with the medcharger tutorial. Those areas happen often enough to be useful.

The second matter is stringing on area transitions. I would deem that to be both undetectable and easy if done right. HL is a game with *many* area transitions, as I'm sure you know.

And yes, HL demos look very familiar to me because they are similar to Quake demos. There are many differences, but the basic idea is the same. And you can do a *lot* of stuff with Quake demos (and indeed, for recamming we often add entities, for example).

And the Quake verification system is only tighter because of QDQStats - boy, that took a long time to develop. Also, we have several *experts* on the demo code in the team. I don't think anyone would be willing to put similar effort in HL (I certainly wouldn't). Most of the QDQStats code wouldn't be reusable. And it is quite possible to bypass QDQStats anyway. Ultimately, we're relying mostly on trust as well.

Zhouy

2009-06-11 07:10:08 am

I'm a Half-Life runner ;)

Quote from Spider-Waffle:

So I need to ask if anyone else experiences large teleports in their demos between level loads?

Me. Why? When you record with fraps with a shitty computer like mine, fraps slows down Half-Life and the level changes in the demos takes longer and a "teleport" is made. Nothing can be done except buying a new computer. At least, this is my case.

You have to accept that not all computers acts the same as yours.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-11 07:30:10 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from groobo:

For everyone else - WE HAVE FREE PIE.

Punch too? Some sort of Kool-Aid brand?

Scepheo

2009-06-11 01:32:15 pm

So the demo's are a set of coordinates. How about putting the player a little more towards the end goal each time a transition takes place. Or just making him move 0.1 pixel per frame faster. I honestly doubt that would be noticable, and probably more stuff like this could be done (slightly adjusting an enemy's path so the player doesn't hit him (or DOES hit him, with a bullet).

Quote from XFUBX:

Quote from ZenicReverie:

Quote from groobo:

For everyone else - WE HAVE FREE PIE.

Punch too? Some sort of Kool-Aid brand?

Watermelon flavor would be a nice change...

Girls.