| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Suggestion: New release type "C64 Import"
Rough started a discussion a couple of years ago (see Adding the cracker group to import/trainer version), pin pointing a problem where a crack may be credited repeatedly for a group - due to the many imports that may exist.
Some attempts have been made to differentiate cracks from import by suffixing the entry with "[import]" - an approach that might not be appealing to all.
Discussions suggest that original crack group (pun intended) be credited only on *their* release, while imports only be credited to importing group, leaving a link to the original release.
My biggest concern is to be able to (quickly) identify and differentiate cracks from import, when checking for existence of a certain release for example. Although this can be partly solved by suffixing the name, I'm not sure it's the right approach. Cleaning up the credits list would partly solve the problem, but I still wouldn't be able to clearly see a difference between crack and import.
So I'm suggesting that we add a new release type. Let's call it "C64 Crack Import" or just "C64 Import" for short. It would be a fairly easy task to just "re-categorize" any imports stumbled upon, and to some extent it could probably be batch-made with an SQL query (Perff?).
It is often talked about that the DB is not designed to handle certain new features (tags for instance), while adding a new release type would make no harm to performance. Also, from a DB design perspective, it would make more sense since you can then do filtered searches where imports and cracks are differentiated. Also in release lists, it would be possible to see the difference.
...
Having import as a release type, it would furthermore be possible to have an option in listings to "Hide imports"... the result of which of course would depend on the quality of the entries, but it *would* be possible. Think future. =) |
|
... 34 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
There's a special case that I wonder if you might have overlooked with this new system? :)
This is when one group make the crack and another group did the trainer. How to flag this in an appropriate way?
Examples:
A.R.G. +
Dead Zone +1H |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 488 |
This is simply crack in my eyes because it's just another unauthorized modification. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
re-crack to be exact :) |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Re-crack flag is fine. But how to set proper credits? It wasn't released by the cracking group but rather the training group. Yet there should be some reference to the original crack. Will there be some kind of reference field maybe? Other options as I see it is to have both groups as releasers, but I don't think it's really right. I recall a very famous crack where Laxity did a trainer and released it as, what looked like a coop, when in fact it wasn't. Oh well we might not solve all cases with the new system but there should at least be clear guidelines on how to credit similar cases. This also applies to imports I believe (the group crediting issue). |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
look at the textfile i linked above. recrack flag and reference to original crack :) |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Quote: look at the textfile i linked above. recrack flag and reference to original crack :)
Great! Someone has given this some thought it seems ;-) And does that come with a rule that only the importing or the training group be credited in the import/re-crack? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
well, that should already be the case (although it often isnt, i know) |
| |
bepp
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 265 |
Maybe it's because there is no proper way of referencing the original crack yet...
Would it be a to narrow rule to say that: unless the game is marked as a coop (new flag perhaps?), there can only be one group credited. That way, we could have the system enforce the "one group" rule. So for re-cracks or imports, it would always be credited to the "last" group, with the original crack/group referenced.
Damn, it's gonna be a helluva job to update all existing entries with those flags O_O |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11391 |
you got it exactly right ... thats how it should be like :) (but we are not really enforcing it until we have these flags in place) and well, a "co-op" flag isnt needed, because if two groups are credited, then "co-op" is implied :) |
| |
Moloch
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2929 |
Another group doing a trainer on a release is going to be flagged as a re-crack? O_o |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
