Log inRegister an accountBrowse CSDbHelp & documentationFacts & StatisticsThe forumsAvailable RSS-feeds on CSDbSupport CSDb Commodore 64 Scene Database
You are not logged in 
CSDb User Forums

Forums > CSDb Entries > Release id #166930 : Yoomp!64 +3PD
2018-08-02 23:35

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 1841
Release id #166930 : Yoomp!64 +3PD

Moved the discussion to the place for discussions. :)

User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 2 August 2018
Backup board is invoked if one of the main boards is down during the whole 24h. How would it make sense otherwise? If Reflections was down one hour 03 in the morning just when you tried to upload your crack, the rest of the groups wouldn't notice, and lose just because one board was down for some time during the 24h. 24h rule must mean 24h. If one board is gone for 24h, the backup board goes into effect. That is logical to me. Especially as the race isn't over until 24h have passed.

If two or three (our four?) boards all have hickups during the 24h you mean there are no boards to be counted? Your view of the rules does not make sense. I will count the boards and the releases after 24h have passed. That will show who won the race.

User Comment
Submitted by Jazzcat [PM] on 2 August 2018
We were first on all boards and sites initially. During that time both Antidote and The Hidden were down, according to the rules, the backup site RapidFire is then invoked and we were first there (and Reflections) thus we were first on the majority of boards using the 24 hour rule. Regards. Note: you cannot re-invoke downed boards. When they are down, backup is in play.

User Comment
Submitted by hedning [PM] on 2 August 2018
Antidote and The Hidden were down for some time, but came up within the counted 24h when we tried to upload our crack, and we were able to be first on both. We also went with Reflections and the backup BBS Rapidfire, even if the latter is a bit redundant, as we already were first on 2 out of 3 counted boards within the counted 24h. Cheers!
... 144 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
2018-08-09 13:52

Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 129
Great to see this all looking more promising. It's not just about this release, it's just nice to know that the right precedents are being set so that the database can be relied upon.

IMO, and I'm no expert here, cracks on CSDB should tag/detail the crack itself rather than the original game. As we know, several games have gone through various revisions. Some recent games, for instance, have had multiple digital releases before the actual disk/cartridge/tape version are set in stone.

With Yoomp, I'd suggest:-

- GP is v1.0 rather than 99% ... when talking about cracks, wouldn't 99% imply a cracker mistake rather than the original game? As an example, check my 1989 crack of Indiana Jones.. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade +5 .. that could be called a 99% version - I'd even go as far as 50%. Multicolour mode staying on is "kinda" important - and I broke it.. (anyone with the inclination, feel free to tag that release and add the goof ... you don't have to play the game long to see it)

- "goof" is fine I guess.. I don't know whether the intention here is for cracker goofs or not?

- ONS version should be v1.1 rather than 101%... the developer fixed it, so it's a different version.. 101% to me implies that the cracker fixed it

Maybe I'm misinterpreting things .. but CSDB credits the people involved with the crack, rather than the people that made the game, so I'd imagine that the tags should align with that?
2018-08-09 14:22
Heavy Stylus

Registered: Apr 2007
Posts: 60

The version released on itch.io at 15:30 GMT 2nd Aug 2018 was version 1.0. This was the first time the game was made publicly available, and had the RESTORE key bug fix already. The ONS version is based on this, and was uploaded shortly after (i.e. minutes later).

Therefore, surely the GP version, as it is from a pre-final, internal release, must be 0.99999? ;)

To me, declaring the ONS release as version 1.1 implies that a version 1.0 with the restore bug was publicly available, when it wasn't. The first 'final' version of the game that was available to download or buy was the one with the RESTORE key bug fixed.

Sorry for poking the hornets nest some more! ;D
2018-08-09 14:25

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 8920
I see someone had the bright idea to add firstrelease to both again.

2018-08-09 14:57

Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 129
Actually, yeah, what HS says makes sense.
2018-08-09 21:46

Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 48
My 100 cents,

If any group releases a version of a game not based on the release version in my view it's a beta, preview, 0.999% or what you would like to call it even if there only were small changes.
Else suddenly all groups can say our not final version is only lacking that or that, but has everything else claiming a 1.0 version with first release tag.
A game that is not based on the final release can surly be a First Release, but with a proper tag for example Preview, 0.9 version or what you would like to call it.

Else it can get pretty funny..
Our version only lacks gfx, else it has everything... :-)

Don't forget to have fun!
2018-08-09 22:20
iAN CooG

Registered: May 2002
Posts: 2109
fix: exactly.
2018-08-10 00:11

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 1841
Quote: groepaz: they gave a goof. :)

As stated above, it's no goof. At least not from our side.
2018-08-10 00:21

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 1841
Quote: Hello all! I missed all this drama, which is a shame as it looks like it was fun :D

Ok, so from my side, what I know is this:

Game was classed as complete quite a while ago, beginning of the year was when the last significant changes were made (passwords having numbers removed to make it easier for the end user to read with the game font). Release was held back significantly due to the graphic designer I work with going through some serious real life issues.

It's quite clear, and I am transparent about the fact that Jazzcat assisted us with testing the game (ONS) on various machines (he is even listed in the credits for this). In addition to this, of course, MCH is the musician (the GP connection here).

A few weeks before release, I noticed that the RESTORE key crashed the game. I asked the developer for that fix as a last minute change before making the carts and the sending the disk version to Kenz at Psytronik.

Obviously, GP had the version previous to this change. Other than that, as far as I know, there is no difference between the two.

I personally had no contact with GP about this game around the time of release - and I know that ONS 'released' their crack at exactly the same time I made the game available. So in my personal opinion, ONS release was really the 'firstie' in this case, but to call the GP one a 'preview' is unfair. Of course, it's obvious (in hindsight) that GP were expecting the first release as their musician was involved. But there was no contact with them to plan a joint release from my side.

What should have happened here is that ONS should have simply uploaded their crack to CSDB - as it was indeed released (digitally) for free/PWYW with all $ going to the developer. I/we really appreciate the store links, but no-one asked if I would object to the CSDB entry having a DL (and I don't).

Anyway, guys, can't we all just get along and declare this one a 'draw'? :D

I can only congratulate Jazzcat having you running a game company supplying him the goods, really, crackers do what they do, but I wonder how you can keep your cool towards the game makers when it's obvious you leak almost all the games to a cracking group? It's quite fascinating from that perspective. As I have talked the coder of Yoomp64, I also know that he asked you specifically not to, and I know it happened before too, with another coder.

Oh, and if you need another tester I have all the gears needed. Just ask me! I'll do it for free. :) I have a good reputation testing. :D
2018-08-10 00:45

Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 173
Perhaps you guys should get a dishing machine to clean your dirty dishes :-P

Anyway: about how CSDb should handle cases like this, my 5 cents: either both or none of those two releases should get "first release" flag and explanation could go into the "trivia" field. Just copy'n'paste this discussion. Cases like this are quite rare in the end.

For me personal ONS would deserve "first release" this time, just because common sense tells me "first" means "first". But on the other hand you dug your own grave with making up some rules that make second releases first or first releases second, depending on how someone interprets those rules.

I must admit, it's quite interesting to watch defenders of those rules that I never really understood arguing about them.
Previous - 1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 - Next
RefreshSubscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search   for   in  
All times are CET.
Search CSDb
Users Online
Guests online: 22
Top Demos
1 Uncensored  (9.7)
2 Comaland 100%  (9.7)
3 Unboxed  (9.7)
4 Edge of Disgrace  (9.7)
5 Coma Light 13  (9.6)
6 The Shores of Reflec..  (9.6)
7 Lunatico  (9.6)
8 Wonderland XII  (9.6)
9 Old Men in Used Cars  (9.5)
10 C=Bit 18  (9.5)
Top onefile Demos
1 Arok 20 Invitation  (9.6)
2 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)
3 FMX Music Demo  (9.5)
4 Crystal Gazer  (9.5)
5 Pandemoniac Part 2 o..  (9.5)
6 Rewind  (9.5)
7 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
8 Party Horse  (9.4)
9 Dawnfall  (9.4)
10 In Memoriam BHF  (9.4)
Top Groups
1 Oxyron  (9.4)
2 Booze Design  (9.4)
3 Censor Design  (9.4)
4 Finnish Gold  (9.3)
5 The Transfer Team  (9.3)
Top Coders
1 Axis  (9.8)
2 CRT  (9.8)
3 Graham  (9.8)
4 Crossbow  (9.8)
5 Lft  (9.8)

Home - Disclaimer
Copyright © No Name 2001-2018
Page generated in: 0.073 sec.