|
vilkacis posted:Blurry. And weirdly bright compared to what i'm getting. After I posted I got some advice from Argate who said similar! There was a smoothing filter on my emulator and I was using the native emulator screenshot function. It looked completely normal to me then but now since switching to a different filter that's closer to pixel perfect it looks awful! Weird how eyes get used to this stuff. I'm also going to switch to recording my playthrough and taking caps off that instead of taking them as I play.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
professor metis posted:I'm also going to switch to recording my playthrough and taking caps off that instead of taking them as I play. It's not a bad idea, but make sure to capture lossless video. Lossy compression will look like butt with pixel art (and will also bloat your images unnecessarily).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 08:13
|
|
|
I recaptured, and it definitely looks better, but the colours are a lot duller than what you captured.  The blue in the second is much more vibrant. I'm using SNES9x as emulator, and recording with OBS, then using VLC for taking screenshots from the video. What were you using? edit: I'm pretty sure the issue is coming from OBS. Metis of the Chat Thread fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
That's a colorspace issue. Modern video codecs do by default record in limited colorspace with chroma subsampling, if you want true lossless you need to turn that off. In OBS that's under Advanced -> Video, the three Color dropdowns. For Color Format you want RGB and for Color Range you want Full, I think? It's been a bit, but just experiment a bit, there's not that many combinations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
professor metis posted:What were you using? That was just snes9x's internal screenshot function.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
Thanks for all the advice! I'm a lot happier with the quality of the screenshots now. Here is the draft of my OP. How is it looking?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 11:27
|
|
|
professor metis posted:Thanks for all the advice! I'm a lot happier with the quality of the screenshots now. Much better now, although there still seems to be some difference between your shots and mine.     Mine seem just a little more colourful. They are also lighter (your "As time flows endlessly on..." is like 1.5x as heavy as mine). It's a minor quibble, it's not enough to be distracting and I doubt anyone would notice unless comparing side by side, but you might be able to tweak the video and/or screenshotting settings a little more. The OP itself looks fine, no complaints there. Although I'd take a new shot of the title screen because you seem to have grabbed it just as the banner behind the logo was coming in and only half of it is visible 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Let's see if I remember how to do the thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhgnxdLxe8I Not entirely happy with the compression issues from Youtube - the source video looks much better. I'll see how actual battle videos turn out since most of the rest will be screenshot. kethryveris fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Youtube gives you the poo poo compression for peasants if you upload sub-720p. May have been upped to sub-1080p recently.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
It should escape the compression if the video is 720 plus.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
kethryveris posted:Let's see if I remember how to do the thing Where's my Laura Bailey  E: But yeah, it doesn't look awful as is, just an increased resolution would help. Looking forward to this one, I love this game. Seems like everyone I meet is in a Sakura Wars spirit. Waffleman_ fucked around with this message at 00:23 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Waffleman_ posted:Where's my Laura Bailey Laura Bailey...(harp music)...is on the disc that I don't have Ratchet unlocked on. Also, only resizing the height to 720p was not enough to trick Youtube's encoders; I had to add borders to make the width 1280 as well. But it worked! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR-ntQfV9mY
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Hey, I’ve been thinking about doing an LP of a game that was around for Macintosh back in the ‘80’s. It’s a puzzle game - crosswords, word searches, jigsaws, mazes, etc. - some of which I was thinking about putting up to let readers try, and some of which I’d just have to provide immediate answers for because the answer would be something impossible to translate to a screen shot. I had two questions: * Have there been any good, interesting puzzle game SSLPs people could point me to for examples? I’d rather not try to figure out everything about how to orchestrate this if there are good example I could * The game’s author holds the rights to the game and offers it for free on his website with a Mac emulator. Would letting people know that or linking to his site be crossing the line on the no emulators/no pirating rules?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
The Fool's Errand, eh? Prof Layton LPs are what you need to look at https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3882046&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 03:55
|
|
|
hahahahaha got it in one And that's a great suggestion. I'll start reading over those and see how those were handled.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
regarding legalities i think it counts as freeware now given that the author has the rights and is giving it away
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Oh man, Fool's Errand. Such memories. We don't, of course, condone piracy, but if the developer and rights holder's asking price for their video game is zero, then it's not really piracy, is it? Link away.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks! I’m glad it’s a game that people know and remember fondly. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
Nothing may come of this, but how does this look: as a 2x version of this: 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
I don't see any blur or distorted pixels and the larger one is even lighter than the small one so it looks quite good!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Before we try a goon vs goon brainfuck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMu-M41BDB8 Are the rules clear? Any notation suggestions?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMu-M41BDB8 Rules are clear.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
 Exciting LP Rules UpdateWe are trialing a rule change in LP which will create an exemption - a very specific exemption - to the site-wide ban on linking to personal tip-jars, Patreons, etc. The rule will be this: You are permitted to link your Patreon/Ko-Fi/PayPal/etc once, with a short blurb, in the OP of your LP thread. Don't post it more than once, or at all outside your OP, and don't labour the point after the fact. This change would align LP's rules with those of other forums in which people posting the fruits of their labour are entitled to collect donations from appreciative readers, in recognition of the fact that LPs take effort to produce and you all are graciously making them available for free. Many LP posters have Patreons, and everybody knows it. We have long taken the view that we won't object to people plugging this stuff in their work as long as they don't post it on the forums. This has done well enough as a policy, but a number of people have observed that this just serves as a fig leaf that also happens to do nothing for SSLP folks. We've heard these observations, and we're convinced, so we took them to the admin team, and it seems they see the sense in it too. So, we're testing a new policy that will level this field a bit. As mentioned, this is a trial. That means: 1) We want to hear your thoughts on this. Great idea? Terrible idea? Happy? Astonished? 2) We reserve the right to roll it back if we find that we regret doing it. We are trusting you when it comes to not crossing the line into shilling. Lots of people abusing that trust is the kind of thing that will cause us to regret this trial. But we hope it won't come to that, because when it comes down to it, we think the work people do for LP is work that people should be able to toss you a buck or two for.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
This is a good change. LP is pretty good about enforcing a standard of quality, and I expect that we'll do the same when it comes to asking for money.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
If you think it can be easily enforced, I'm all for it!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
As long as it's not a case of one or two bad apples ruining this for everyone, then I think it's a good idea. Not something I would probably use, mostly because I don't think my work is good enough to warrant donations, but I understand the desire to let people put down tip jars for work that they spend hours creating. One thing I want to ask the mods about is clarification on this rule. It is straightforward and seems pretty cut and dry, but there's still possible loopholes that could turn this into a mess. For example: Are you making up any rules in regards to how the donation link thing can be used in the OP? You mention linking to it and having a short blurb, but what if someone does up a banner image for it, or some other in-your-face "LOOK! IT'S MY PATREON! And here's the LP." thing? Is that just something that you expect will regulate itself? What I mean is, if people are annoyed by stuff like that (or stuff like guilt-tripping where the creator says they  "can't" keep doing updates unless they get some donations) then they'll stop following the LP and it'll just die of natural causes.
Psycho Knight fucked around with this message at 16:06 on May 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Eh, I see no issue with it at all. If people don't want to give someone money, they don't get money. If what they do is obnoxious, that'll make people less interested.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Psycho Knight posted:Is that just something that you expect will regulate itself? Yes. Goons are exceptionally weird about things in general but especially monetization. Instead of reporting something or ignoring it (if it's not techncially against rules) they will make a huge stink about it. The thread will have a million pages of mockery and years later they'll still utter the name of the guy who done hosed up as a kind of in-joke, eliciting a chuckle out of those who were there. That said, loving finally, welcome to like... 2015 or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Psycho Knight posted:One thing I want to ask the mods about is clarification on this rule. It is straightforward and seems pretty cut and dry, but there's still possible loopholes that could turn this into a mess. This is a reasonable clarification to seek. Like many other of LP's soft "rules", eg, how thin an OP is too thin et al, this is going to be judged mostly via a smell test. We're reasonably confident that someone who's cynically trying to push their fundraiser through a token LP effort will be obvious, and not only to the mods, but to readers, who will be suitably put off. The broader rationale is, we've considered whether or not we're accomplishing anything by enforcing some particular rule. If an obviously dishonest thread is by its nature more likely to simply spin out and fade away, we don't see that as a problem, unless we see so many of these that it starts drowning out other content. This was pretty much exactly what happened with the Pokémon Moratorium; nobody cared much about any individual sub-par yet-another-identikit Pokémon thread, but the volume of them necessitated an intervention - and now that danger has passed and the ban is no more, and we're back to not really caring if a single bad Pokémon thread wants to run for a bit. We think a similar rationale applies to donations; the difference is, we've not tested to see if permitting some links with some reasonable stipulations and trusting the rest to taste will result in a deluge of poo poo or not - so we're going to find out! We really hope it doesn't. If need be, we can edit stuff out and issue the usual range of moderator interventions to deal with the individual cases. In the broader, collective, case, then yes, we expect (or, hope) that this will largely regulateitself.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Thank you for that. I'm very sad that I have to be on hiatus right now (and because of that I'll refrain from posting the link to my patreon) because I'm still dealing with a bunch of RL stuff, but to be entirely honest, it would be a severe understatement to say that goons saved me in a time of need. And when I say saved, I mean in the most literal possible way. Thank you for reviewing those rules.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Fedule posted:We want to hear your thoughts on this As you mention, i've always thought the previous system was hideously unfair to sslpers and although this still leaves vlpers much greater freedom, it is definitely an improvement. And i think it looks fine with the emphasis on not being an obnoxious git about it. I might suggest that allowing a second plug at the end of a finished thread would be fine too - or at least the option to choose whether to put it either at the start or end, if you want to stick with the "one mention only" bit.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
vilkacis posted:As you mention, i've always thought the previous system was hideously unfair to sslpers and although this still leaves vlpers much greater freedom, it is definitely an improvement. And i think it looks fine with the emphasis on not being an obnoxious git about it. I think its entirely reasonable to allow one link in the OP and one link at the end when a LP is completed, personally. But even just as-is, it's a great rules change.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
vilkacis posted:As you mention, i've always thought the previous system was hideously unfair to sslpers and although this still leaves vlpers much greater freedom, it is definitely an improvement. And i think it looks fine with the emphasis on not being an obnoxious git about it. I'll not pretend that the new rule isn't also a compromise; if we're going to have something with both a meaningful letter and spirit, it needs to be brief and uncomplicated, and to an extent quantifiable, but also with a capacity for adaptation to various contexts, including some we haven't thought of yet - like the end-of-thread scenario, which we definitely haven't considered. In my reading it seems that accounting for a possible end-of-thread posting in a rule would add another wrinkle which we'd have to even-further qualify, and also that that particular need should be served by the wriggle-room present in the current rule; we'll stop you from posting a second link, but we won't stop you from, say, making a point to thank your patrons. How could we? Why would we? Therefore I (and I definitely am speaking only for myself here) don't think we need to specifically account for this in the rule, or that the fact that we don't will have an undue impact. It's also worth pointing out that the forum-wide prohibition on personal fundraisers is itself a compromise: you'll be pressed to find anyone these days who'll tell you the world isn't poo poo, or that there isn't an urgent need for personal charity, or that the fact that there is a need for personal charity isn't a scathing indictment on the world, and yet all the same, we choose to broadly prohibit personal charity on the forums for what is largely a pragmatic reason: we don't think we'll be able to manage the volume that would result if we didn't, or guarantee the quality of community here against that volume. The specific exemptions to that rule we have are attempts to nudge that compromise slightly while still taking into account the clarity of the rules as written and the potential workload in enforcing them. Therefore; blunt enough for us to point to when needed, and adaptable enough for people to be able to work within. I appreciate that this has been two paragraphs of philosophising to tell you "yes, but also no" (for now), but I hope this addresses your suggestion adequately.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
I think this is a good rule change, and as someone who has gotten a lot of joy from reading very effort-heavy LPs over the years, I appreciate the mods adapting to better support the people who put so much effort and time into their LPs.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
This is a good change imo
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah i don't mean to come across as angrily bitching, i absolutely understand that it's a compromise and, again, do think it's an improvement!Fedule posted:we'll stop you from posting a second link, but we won't stop you from, say, making a point to thank your patrons. How could we? Why would we? Well you could theoretically probate people and remove such posts under the interpretation that it falls under the "labouring the point after the fact" rule. But it sounds like (assuming it's not a blatant low-effort cash grab thread and no extra links involved) you generally won't get dinged for something like "the path we take/the characters i create will be voted on/designed by patreon supporters" or "if you liked this and want to support me, check out the link in the op" at the end of a thread, then.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Just wanted to add something regarding specificity in the rules--this discussion came up a bit in another thread and PT6A and ultrafiler made these comments:PT6A posted:I think it's fair to let mods use their discretion based on community input. Any hard and fast rule is going to be rules-lawyered by exactly the sort of person who we don't want to have the ability to fundraise here. ultrafilter posted:This is a very important point. Trying to do everything by rules gives the advantage to people who are very good at being terrible without ever explicitly breaking the rules. And this is critical to me. Any good rule will allow for interpretation of the people enforcing it to prevent abuse. Fedule, crow, and myself will do our best to make sure the rules are enforced fairly, and I hope the subforum trusts us to do that. We also hope that if anyone spots someone trying to take advantage and abuse the new system to report it so we can shut it down. And of course, we are always open to feedback, suggestions, and criticism. I would philosophize more, but Fedule is on a roll!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
vilkacis posted:Well you could theoretically probate people and remove such posts under the interpretation that it falls under the "labouring the point after the fact" rule. But it sounds like (assuming it's not a blatant low-effort cash grab thread and no extra links involved) you generally won't get dinged for something like "the path we take/the characters i create will be voted on/designed by patreon supporters" or "if you liked this and want to support me, check out the link in the op" at the end of a thread, then. I think pay-to-participate crosses the line, but at the same time I recognize that people might want to offer some kinds of rewards for their supporters. I wouldn't be OK with pay-only content, but if people want to post content earlier for subscribers, I think that's fine.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
We already differentiated between outright soliciting donations ("if you like my LPs, please consider supporting me on Patreon!") and incidentally directly acknowledging that you have a Patreon/etc ("thanks again to my Patreon supporters for making this LP possible!") before this change. We can't - and it would be absurd to try to - force people to pretend not to have them, so we're certainly not about to start enforcing that on threads once your moderator-permitted single link is used up. Where it gets fuzzy, and where we're just going to have to trust your judgement, is how much of this is too much. We'll certainly not ding anyone for throwing in a direct thanks at the end of a thread. We might raise an eyebrow or three if someone's finding a way to bring it up in every post. On which note, exactly how you handle any hypothetical Patreon interactions in your thread is something we're also going to leave up to your judgement, although I certainly have opinions about it. The classic LP-ism is that you should be making your LP for the thread, not the other way round. Therefore, it seems on the face of it that having certain tiered interactions for Patreon backers or having early access to new videos might create some tension with this idea. I certainly wouldn't recommend doing those things. On the other hand, having rules for this would wind up largely as an empty gesture; we don't stop you from giving your thread zero say in the direction of your LP, so how can we meaningfully prevent you from declaring by fiat that you're going to follow the whims of this specific group of people? We don't see anything to gain from policing this ourselves; it's up to you to decide how you want to balance these concerns.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
The important thing is discretion on the part of the OP. Theres no issue for me with an op containing a little banner advertising the patreon or whatever, or a little bit along the lines of "if you like what im doing then you can support it here". But I'd be annoyed if the op contained a whole list of ways to donate (pick one!), paragraphs of information about the benefits of being a patreon etc. Building upon the "the lp should be for the thread", the op shouldn't be releasing bonus content for that lp for patreons only either. The free user should get the same experience on this forum. E: i think theres some creators that release vids a week early for patrons and ive never seen it cause a conflict around here, people in LP dont seem to talk about things that aren't publicly available in the threads Namtab fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2020 19:33
|
|
