I think it's pretty unfair to not level the playing field by removing existing apngs, but it isn't exactly out of character for FP.
There have been quite a few things in FP's history that were only attainable by being there at the right time, or had access taken away because garry said so (See: Gold on oldpunch before the Community fund, Larger blue avatars on oldpunch, 80x160 avatars without using coins)
Hey I understand if you want to level the playing field by removing animated avatars.
Still, selfishly I'd like to keep mine. Won't be too mad if I don't, I actually chose the first frame of the APNG for that case so it'd still look decent.
I'd be cool if the existing animated backgrounds were removed and then the concept brought back as a feature. I don't mind paying my way to getting one legitimately in whatever system Garry might dream up, I just don't want animated backgrounds, as a concept, to disappear from the forums. The original vision might have been static images only, but I feel like that heavily stifles creativity. My background, for example, I wouldn't even be using if I couldn't have the subtle sway. I wanted to emulate the title screen of Spider-Man from 2000 (without going through the process of having hundreds of frames to catch all of his poses, of course) and it wouldn't be the same as a static image. It would, then, just be a screenshot of the title screen, which is a lot less interesting.
I'm not gonna even deny that I'd hold onto mine if I was lucky enough.
Being the have-not just sucks. Even over something as insignificant as this.
Imagine a living a life jealous that your banner isn't animated.
How were you making APNGs? Every time I made one the file size was smaller than the original gif
Shitty random APNG creation website because I dunno how to do them otherwise and by this point I'd spent like an hour making it already.
Obviously there's a better way to do it out there but it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place if I could've just uploaded a gif.
I'd like if animated backgrounds were allowed with a filesize limit. I had a lot of fun playing in photoshop to make mine, and I wrongfully assumed how much smaller the filesize would be when it was turned into a APNG. I feel bad for people with slower/capped internet because mine is poorly optimized but at the same time I'd be lying if losing my animated background wouldn't make me a bit sad, I was pretty happy with my work.
Yours is pretty baller and subtle. If you managed the filesize properly I'd be perfect.
DrDonut, Paul-Simon, and StrawberryClock's backgrounds are all really cool and it'd be a shame if they were removed. Animated is fine as long as it isn't distracting. I see the NSFW/risque stuff as a more important matter. Not really a fan of scrolling along and seeing 199x309 pixels worth of someone's shlong honkin' material.
here's a list of arguments because fuck. Rate me 📓 if I'm missing something. Usernames mentioned in this post are references to someone with an aPNG that supports that argument.
Arguments FOR aPNGs
They boost user creativity and can be used together with animated avatars to produce a bit of extra flair (couldn't actually find one for this arguement, rate snowflake if you think you fit here)
They add a little bit of extra flair to certain users (HighVoltage)
They work as bigger animated avatars without distracting casual readers (StrawberryClock, gk99)
Some filesize tricks can let you have longer, more detailed animations while having smaller filesize then some animated avatars (Wazgul)
Arguments AGAINST aPNGs
They can be epileptic unfriendly (HazzaHardie)
Their filesize can cause problems with mobile users (couldn't actually find one for this arguement, link me users who meet this arguement and I'll add them here)
You can produce a unique animated flair just fine without them (lordcrypto)
Some aPNGs were only uploaded as a test and are now kept just to be special or the user in question doesn't actually care idk whatever (Dapoel)
It's possible to distract people if your aPNG is flashy enough (HighVoltage, HazzaHardie)
It would be exactly the same with animated avatars, oldpunch had big animated avatars for mods and gold users and there weren't any problems, so this point is invalid. In fact, backgrounds are better is this regard than avatars since they are grayed out.
This can easily be solved by adding a file size limit, and I remember one user who said he had 50mb of data and didn't care about backgrounds as long as there was a limit.
Also, please don't assume a user cares or not, I haven't voiced my opinion much because it would seem biased, but if I am allowed to speak my mind, it would be nice to keep mine, as well as let the other users have them, since a lot of them are quite good.
I'm not sure how to break up quote boxes so I'll just make one big reply.
Please keep in mind most of these are arguments made by other people; I don't actually care about animated backgrounds or avatars because I've never seen the need for one. If I posted an opinion that was more then "I like seeing people's animated backgrounds if they aren't extremely distracting", then it would be wrong in some way.
Regarding "epileptic"; Yes, but with oldpunch, bright colors weren't really a problem because the theme was #ffffff white and fuck you if you wanted anything else. Now that installing a darker theme to save on eye strain is as easy as copying and pasting a line of text, bright colors can actually be a problem now.
Regarding file size; Again, this is an argument made by other people. I don't need or want to browse Facepunch on my phone, not only because it would be a pain to read posts -- my screen is more narrow then most, and my browser doesn't have an option for landscape -- but because, what am I doing on a forum, on my phone, when 75% of the time I'm either near a computer or not allowed to touch it at work?
It would be nice for pages to take a fraction of a second less to load, but other then that I don't honestly have an opinion on data usage.
Regarding "don't assume a user cares"; Removed your username from the post. I only placed it because your avatar and background were mismatched, which caused me to assume. If someone actually wants their username there, they can bug me about it (or don't because who actually bothers to ask me for changes nowadays?????)
I understand completely that these are made by other people, I am, however, going to rebut them now since they are conveniently placed together thanks to your post. So don't worry, they're not directed directly at you but at the argument itself.
This is not true, the darkpunch theme exited for a good while in oldpunch and the userbase was pretty sizable.
And as I said, an implementation of file size would make it so that it would have the same impact as an animated gold or mod avatar in oldpunch.
Wait Wazgul is on this forum? Or did you just butcher my username?
If you meant mine, it surprisingly takes up less space than even static backgrounds.
I'd like if garry made it so that only the first frame of the APNG would even load before hovering though, because mine is over 7MB, beyond any comfortable limit for many people.
I'm of course planning on scrappping/replacing it, but I've been a bit busy as of late and I've not posted a whole lot anyways.
Could always have some animation guidelines to force people to try and keep them less distracting. Like, the majority of my background is static, with only a small portion actually moving. I did that on purpose, because it's a background, not meant to be front-and-center. I wanted it to be cool, but not so flashy that it draws the eyes away from the content I'm putting in my actual post. An even better example is @Paul-Simon 's background, because the entire image is moving, but so slowly that I have to actually look at it directly to tell that it's got movement to it. Keep away from bright, sudden flashing, and the reading experience is just as smooth.
Give a list of criteria to follow and a disclaimer that anything too distracting could potentially be removed
again the problem goes back to APNGs being a hacky format
you have to parse the hex of the APNG, split that out and store that separately and replace with the full APNG when you mouse over
here's what it boils down to in my opinion:
i look at this similar to the gif header exploits but not as severe. it was clear animated backgrounds weren't intended to be allowed, people did it anyways. they haven't gotten them removed yet, but saying "oh we were first and we didn't know we weren't supposed to it was a joke" is silly. just because you can force something to work doesn't mean it was allowed, you just went around the rules a bit
Yep, it's an exploit, in that it wasn't intended.
I saw other people doing it, and I wanted to join in on it because frankly it seemed really cool.
I'm working on a non-animated BG for now. Will get to that whenever I have some more time, don't want to spend my coins changing to something random, so I'll just keep my posting to a minimum meanwhile.
I think we are all missing the obvious solution here.
Let everyone have an animated background on their entire posts.
How about we just allow animated backgrounds of a certain size?
I don't really see the problem with using APNG's as long as they're not huge.
Funny enough my static background is bigger than the animated version i was going to go with
Converting a 3-frame gif to apng made it 53.5kb
However going directly to png made it 62.8kb
Yeah, sorry. I was gonna switch to a different one (644 KB rather than 4 MB) but then they disabled APNGs. I feel bad for not being forward-thinking like @StrawberryClock and going out of the way to make it a low-impact filesize. Not bad enough to change, though...
Like, I get that I broke the spirit of the law and it would be "right" to change to a static image. But - frankly - I don't feel like it. I dig the way my post looks and I'm selfish enough to say "I like my background, I pulled it off - screw it, I'll keep those MBs there". If Garry force-changes APNGs to PNGs or if a moderator bans me/changes the image for rulebreaking then yeah I probably deserve it. But I like to think that the graphic I chose is snazzy yet subtle and tasteful enough to not be a bother.
(also I don't have enough coins, I gave a diamond the other day to help someone fix their background but also a little bit to give me plausible deniability lmao)
In any event, I would be down for reintroducing backgrounds as a limited thing. Definite filesize limits, of course. Perhaps you'd need to be Gold and a certain level, to verify seniority or something, like olde Gold members. And of course a toggle to hide backgrounds.
directly DDoS every user that has bandwidth above 5Mbps
Honestly removing avatars entirely and making the background the actual "avatar" would be really neat aesthetically for the site.
Then you can charge users more for animated, and allow anyone to set their basic non-animated one.
no don't remove avatars entirely
kinda weird that the existing animated ones are still floating around after all this time, really obvious it should be for everyone or no one
lots of features are incomplete right now. whenever i get the ability to edit people's BG's, and if garry/hezzy approve, ill replace them with something not animate. maybe goatse, idk.
yeah, at least remove profile pictures and usernames as well
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.