Donkey Kong Forum

High Score Lists => Donkey Kong High Score Lists => Topic started by: ChrisP on March 27, 2016, 02:24:13 am

Title: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 27, 2016, 02:24:13 am
I'm curious.

What does DKF think of accepting scores achieved with 6+1 lives, so long as the last 3 lives are not included in the score?

Ie, I start a practice game on 6+1 settings, but then I end up finding myself on 22-1 on my 4th man, with a new PB. I get screen-killed normally, then I hurl man #5, 6, and 7 into the oil can.

Since I got a PB, and only used 4 men to do it as per the standard, let's say I wanna submit.

Should this score be accepted? Why or why not? The precedent definitely exists in other contexts, such as a 5-man score in Robotron or Joust being noted and accepted even when the 5-man option was not set (a situation that occurred several times without issue in recent Wolf tournaments).

I'd be in favor of this. 4 lives is 4 lives.

What say all of you?
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: xelnia on March 27, 2016, 03:52:04 am
Here's how this conversation ended last time.

https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=365.msg22404#msg22404 (https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=365.msg22404#msg22404)

I'll just say that my personal preference is that a 4-man score should only be accepted on 3+1 settings, but since the HSL is a community-driven process (or should be anyway) it's not solely up to me.

 
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Barra on March 27, 2016, 04:12:05 am
Thanks for the link Jry I thoroughly enjoyed re-reading those posts.

I also agree with what Scott posted in the linked thread. Takes zero effort to put it on the correct settings, so don't put anyone in the awkward situation of having to discuss your score.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Xermon54 on March 27, 2016, 06:07:38 am
Personally, I wouldn't accept a 4 men score made with 6+1 setting, for the only reason that someone playing on 7 men settings wouldn't play the same way, nor with the same stress, than someone playing on 4 men setting. If you're on 7 men setting, you might tell yourself:"Let's play a lot more riskier than usual, and if I lose four man, then play safer on my last 3 men just to see how much points I can get on 7 men".

However, I would personally be in favor of creating a new Donkey Kong track on 6+1 settings. People would play a lot riskier, and score would be like 1.25m+  Kreygasm BibleThump
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: homerwannabee on March 27, 2016, 07:13:48 am
I am going to say that it should be accepted.  Main reason being is it doesn't give the player any advantage.  Sides, precedent has already been established with the Yolympics.  We accepted first five man scores for Robotron, and Bosconian
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: xelnia on March 27, 2016, 07:22:28 am
Maybe this should have been a poll and everything! :-).
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: homerwannabee on March 27, 2016, 07:28:51 am
Maybe this should have been a poll and everything! :-).
You can make it a poll, but mathmatically it doesn't change anything. 

7-3=4, and 4+0=4

4=4
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 27, 2016, 08:20:36 am

I'm with Jeremy.  Not literally, Vincent . . . he's in Japan.   ::)

I'm a purist on such matters.  I recognize that no inherent advantage is gained from 6+1, but I don't think it's unreasonable to require each submission to adhere to a rigid standard.  Is it really too much to ask?

However, I also agree that it should be a community decision.  If the prevailing opinion goes the other way, I'll roll over and play dead.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: WCopeland on March 27, 2016, 08:46:40 am
It should not be accepted, and I would fight tooth and nail to keep such a score off the board.

Let's say there's a 6+1 track, and I decide I want to compete on that track. I adjust my dips accordingly. The game is psychologically different for the first four guys than it would be on standard settings. You are going to play differently - period. Pace deflation could be completely eliminated.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: danman123456 on March 27, 2016, 08:48:57 am
I am going to say that it should be accepted.  Main reason being is it doesn't give the player any advantage.  Sides, precedent has already been established with the Yolympics.  We accepted first five man scores for Robotron, and Bosconian

I don't know this really isn't setting a precedent George. The entire requirement was ONLY playing 5 men period in Yolympics. Not a 5 man and a Marathon score as well. Everyone was playing for the EXACT same thing so there was zero difference in that situation.  Those games also have Marathon vs TGTS settings I believe so that is a completely different situation. Going for a marathon score and counting the first 5 lives is 100% different than a game that ends at a certain point and you only have x number of lives to get a score on. It's really the mental difference and right now there is no marathon or 6+1 score to submit for anyway right? The only way this should apply is if we had a single man only track. Then everyone has the same "advantage" playing on 3+1 or 6+1.

Just my 2 cents... :D
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: marky_d on March 27, 2016, 09:33:39 am
nope
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: homerwannabee on March 27, 2016, 10:10:00 am
Oh, if this went to poll, the only 3+1 rule would win.  I know that, but I also know that four men is four men.  Surprisingly the best argument against allowing 6+1 hasn't been used yet.  It's a good point, and makes the only 3+1 rule less absurd to me.  Of course I won't tell you guys that since I am OK with allowing the first four men. 8)
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: danman123456 on March 27, 2016, 10:35:24 am
Oh, if this went to poll, the only 3+1 rule would win.  I know that, but I also know that four men is four men.  Surprisingly the best argument against allowing 6+1 hasn't been used yet.  It's a good point, and makes the only 3+1 rule less absurd to me.  Of course I won't tell you guys that since I am OK with allowing the first four men. 8)

George I think very good reasons have been given. Its not just "four men is four men.". Of course that statement is correct. Its the simple fact that you play differently if you are grinding a 7 man game versus a 4 man game. It changes the entire dynamic of the attempt. If it was a single man only attempt then fine who cares if you play on 6+1 or 4+1?
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: WCopeland on March 27, 2016, 10:49:14 am
four men is four men

Spoken like a true armchair expert. Have you ever been halfway through the game at 1.1m pace? 1m pace? 950k pace? I suppose it's hard to conceptualize the argument against it if you've never been there first-hand.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: anningmay on March 27, 2016, 11:29:42 am
four men is four men

Spoken like a true armchair expert. Have you ever been halfway through the game at 1.1m pace? 1m pace? 950k pace? I suppose it's hard to conceptualize the argument against it if you've never been there first-hand.

Perhaps. Then again, not everyone has the same psychological hangups. Personally, I'm immune to this kind of thing, but, then again, I fairly regularly play/improvise difficult piano music in front of large audiences (a skill that requires way more precision than ANY videogame, DK or otherwise). This may also be why I scoff at the "shoutbox curse" that so many others take seriously.

:)

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 27, 2016, 11:39:37 am
It should not be accepted, and I would fight tooth and nail to keep such a score off the board.

Let's say there's a 6+1 track, and I decide I want to compete on that track. I adjust my dips accordingly. The game is psychologically different for the first four guys than it would be on standard settings. You are going to play differently - period. Pace deflation could be completely eliminated.


The psychological factor is an excellent point.  The 6+1 setting essentially allows a player to compete simultaneously on 2 tracks.  One could employ an uber-aggressive style for the first 4 lives.  If the wheels come off beyond that point, no problem.  Revert to Plan B and submit for the 3+1 variation.  Not good.  The player should be required to declare intent up front.  The 3+1 setting accomplishes that goal, simply and effectively.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: anningmay on March 27, 2016, 12:06:09 pm
It should not be accepted, and I would fight tooth and nail to keep such a score off the board.

Let's say there's a 6+1 track, and I decide I want to compete on that track. I adjust my dips accordingly. The game is psychologically different for the first four guys than it would be on standard settings. You are going to play differently - period. Pace deflation could be completely eliminated.


The psychological factor is an excellent point.  The 6+1 setting essentially allows a player to compete simultaneously on 2 tracks.  One could employ an uber-aggressive style for the first 4 lives.  If the wheels come off beyond that point, no problem.  Revert to Plan B and submit for the 3+1 variation.  Not good.  The player should be required to declare intent up front.  The 3+1 setting accomplishes that goal, simply and effectively.

I disagree, naturally. Again, one person's psychological hangups are another's strength.

Let me ask a (rather obvious) question: If playing 3+1 gives someone such a huge advantage, why aren't more people playing that way? Nothing is stopping you.

The idea that having 3 fewer lives gives the player an advantage is complete nonsense. Are you guys serious here?

If you truly believe that playing 3+1 gives such a huge advantage on a 6+1 track, demonstrate it. Blow us all away!

George is right. Four lives is four lives. I would suggest that if you play different on life #4 than you do on life #1, you are playing sub-optimally, and you clearly have a flaw in your gameplay that needs to be addressed.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: homerwannabee on March 27, 2016, 12:08:49 pm
four men is four men

Spoken like a true armchair expert. Have you ever been halfway through the game at 1.1m pace? 1m pace? 950k pace? I suppose it's hard to conceptualize the argument against it if you've never been there first-hand.
So going by that logic then me saying it doesn't matter if it's 3+1 or 6+1 on Donkey Kong Junior holds more water since I have actually had a 1.3 million point game.  No, my argument for Donkey Kong Junior or Donkey Kong is just as valid or invalid. 
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: homerwannabee on March 27, 2016, 12:27:21 pm
I'll end with this.  Although, I think in my opinion that first four on 6+1 should count it's not the end of the world if the community thinks it should be 3+1 only.  It's a minor hoop to jump through.  Compared how Twin Galaxies was so stringent on the Donkey Kong rules seven years ago this really is nothing in comparison.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: WCopeland on March 27, 2016, 01:54:59 pm
You really didn't answer my question, George. In fact, you dodged my point completely.

Have you ever been halfway through a game at 1.1m pace?
Have you ever been halfway through a game at 1m pace?
Have you ever been halfway through a game at 950k pace?

Comparing Donkey Kong Junior pace to Donkey Kong pace is comparing apples to oranges. I'm not asking about your experience on a wildly different game; I'm asking about your DK experience.

Quote from: anningmay
I would suggest that if you play different on life #4 than you do on life #1, you are playing sub-optimally, and you clearly have a flaw in your gameplay that needs to be addressed.
Games without pace deflation are the exception, not the norm. In fact, this was one of the points of contention in the infamous "Robbie vs Wes" thread where all the armchair experts came out and said I had no chance of scoring 1.2m. Take a look:

(http://i.imgur.com/qG5NVob.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/jIqEWz2.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/WRpmv5G.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/AjOt9TT.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/bNy5yyf.png)

Here is the calculated "average game" pace chart of all the games currently in the database:

(http://i.imgur.com/jLTtING.png)
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 27, 2016, 01:58:28 pm
I'll end with this.  Although, I think in my opinion that first four on 6+1 should count it's not the end of the world if the community thinks it should be 3+1 only.  It's a minor hoop to jump through.  Compared how Twin Galaxies was so stringent on the Donkey Kong rules seven years ago this really is nothing in comparison.

Ok, then allow me to end with this:

Players should not be allowed to redefine an event in order to get the outcome they want.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 27, 2016, 04:12:04 pm
the infamous "Robbie vs Wes" thread where all the armchair experts came out and said I had no chance of scoring 1.2m.

I don't want to derail this great discussion, but Wes, you really need to go and read that thread again (https://donkeykongforum.net/index.php?topic=1428.0) if you haven't lately.

Out of a total of 23 posts, only two expressed even a shred of anything less-than-effusive about your run or your gameplay at the time, and zero posts that cast any doubt whatsoever about your future potential. The rest of the thread was overwhelming praise, for both you and Robbie.

You talk about that "infamous" thread here and in your streams as if it were some sort of dogpile of disparagement and insults from "a bunch of armchair experts" until Ethan came along.

The first hint of doubt was Mitch, and the very worst of what he said is that "Robbie's the only one out of the two that has consistently shown that he has the long-term gameplay experience and pace to possibly maintain a 1.2m+ pace." Mitch quickly and politely recanted, and apologized to boot, for this (already politely and respectfully-stated) position.

The only other trace of a suggestion that the run was anything less than a stellar display of godlike ability was Mike G., who merely stated (accurately) that "1 screwing in Wes' game would make the gap between scores 10k+ rather than the slim 2k difference. Rare to get games with 0 screwings." You yourself recently coined a "law" stating that a world record run will almost never reach the end without at least two stolen lives, so this isn't a post that even you would argue with.

That's it. The rest of the thread is about how good you and Robbie are.

Seriously, read it again and be free of it. You're starting to sound like <Tim>.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Fly on March 27, 2016, 04:23:02 pm
I'm with George R. and Dave on this one.

Psychological hangups or advantages are just that....Psychological.

Besides, I set the WR on Hyper Sports after being shoutboxed.  Curse, my ass.  ::)

All nonsense.

Hec
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Barra on March 27, 2016, 04:31:38 pm
The shoutbox thing is just a bit of fun. I don't think anyone ACTUALLY believes it. If they do, then <confused> and FailFish
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Josephjo on March 27, 2016, 05:09:11 pm
The shoutbox thing is just a bit of fun. I don't think anyone ACTUALLY believes it. If they do, then <confused> and FailFish

(http://i.imgur.com/rKnJxxR.png)
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: danman123456 on March 27, 2016, 05:56:41 pm
I'm with George R. and Dave on this one.

Psychological hangups or advantages are just that....Psychological.

Besides, I set the WR on Hyper Sports after being shoutboxed.  Curse, my ass.  ::)

All nonsense.

Hec

I think this got completely lost in the wash.

1. If you are playing a game where you have 7 lives to beat it for score and another track has only 4 lives to beat it for score then in no situation ever should the 7 man attempt be allowed for a 4 man score. It's that simple.

It changes the dynamic of how you play this game. Trying to not lose that last life vs have 3 more lives to go and just "screw it if i die so what I'll submit a 6+1 score" is a HUGE difference mentally and would impact anyone doing so.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Fly on March 27, 2016, 06:33:47 pm
I'm with George R. and Dave on this one.

Psychological hangups or advantages are just that....Psychological.

Besides, I set the WR on Hyper Sports after being shoutboxed.  Curse, my ass.  ::)

All nonsense.

Hec

I think this got completely lost in the wash.

1. If you are playing a game where you have 7 lives to beat it for score and another track has only 4 lives to beat it for score then in no situation ever should the 7 man attempt be allowed for a 4 man score. It's that simple.

It changes the dynamic of how you play this game. Trying to not lose that last life vs have 3 more lives to go and just "screw it if i die so what I'll submit a 6+1 score" is a HUGE difference mentally and would impact anyone doing so.

That's where you are wrong.  I totally understand.

Hec
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: danman123456 on March 27, 2016, 07:26:01 pm
I'm with George R. and Dave on this one.

Psychological hangups or advantages are just that....Psychological.

Besides, I set the WR on Hyper Sports after being shoutboxed.  Curse, my ass.  ::)

All nonsense.

Hec

I think this got completely lost in the wash.

1. If you are playing a game where you have 7 lives to beat it for score and another track has only 4 lives to beat it for score then in no situation ever should the 7 man attempt be allowed for a 4 man score. It's that simple.

It changes the dynamic of how you play this game. Trying to not lose that last life vs have 3 more lives to go and just "screw it if i die so what I'll submit a 6+1 score" is a HUGE difference mentally and would impact anyone doing so.

That's where you are wrong.  I totally understand.

Hec

Ha I thought I deleted the quote this was supposed to be a standalone comment sir not quoting your statement. :D
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: f_symbols on March 27, 2016, 07:26:42 pm
It appears this thread has derailed into an ego pit; all of the "logical" reasons why there shouldn't be any discussion here are being argued with statements akin to "i have the biggest dick" or "you're weak mentally". 

Step up to the plate Gentlemen; don't even begin to draw parallels between "your game" and "DK"

Get 1M on DK on 3+1 setttings (learn what it takes) then try and repeat it on 6+1 and tell me how much harder it isn't.   

I couldn't even fathom attempting to tell others how to play a game that they know "inside and out" or what the psychological effects of said game on their psyche should be... Just pure  <Roy>

At this point it's essentially logic vs "I'm special-ness" so, anyone not relying on their "feelings" is gonna side with the obvious choice of the hypothetical 3+1


EXAMPLE OF THIS LOGIC:

Let's give the batter up to 6 strikes and see how well he swings on the first 3, then we can decide if we want it to be a 3 strike-out or a 6 strike-out, after the fact.  Maybe we can even decide to call him a weak hitter, if he doesnt swing when the count is 3-5 (that's the same logic as not playing at 100% all the time).

tl;dr  Let's be realists, If you have the "psychological prowess" to just be better than everyone else (at least 2 people do in this conversation), then just buck up and beat us on our default settings, since you're so superior anyway



Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: homerwannabee on March 27, 2016, 09:09:03 pm
OK, just responding to Wes' question.  Farthest I have gone is a whole 1/58th of a game at 1.1 million pace.  And yes, from my limited knowledge a 1.1 million Donkey Kong is much harder than a 1.3 million pace.  As far as a 6+1 I do agree the person needs to state they are going for a 4 man score before they start the game if they want to go this route.  But I understand that still wouldn't be enough for you Wes and so we have to agree to disagree.

As far as Stella Blue quote,"Players should not be allowed to redefine an event in order to get the outcome they want."


I have no idea what you mean by this.  Sorry for being dense.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: anningmay on March 27, 2016, 11:32:25 pm
It appears this thread has derailed into an ego pit; all of the "logical" reasons why there shouldn't be any discussion here are being argued with statements akin to "i have the biggest dick" or "you're weak mentally". 

Step up to the plate Gentlemen; don't even begin to draw parallels between "your game" and "DK"

Get 1M on DK on 3+1 setttings (learn what it takes) then try and repeat it on 6+1 and tell me how much harder it isn't.   

There is no need, as it would prove absolutely nothing.

Let us suppose that I accept this challenge and find it easier to hit 1M on 6+1 using 4 men than on 3+1. Let us suppose that you are absolutely correct, and that I find that one accomplishment is psychologically harder than the other. This does not change the simple fact that, objectively speaking, my gameplay is sub-optimal if this is the case. No ego or dick measuring is needed here, as it is not a criticism. Rather, it is simple, logical truth. A player playing a game optimally will not play any differently under different settings, and there should be no discernable difference between the two cases.

With that in mind, I'd like to apologize for my first comment in this thread (which was written after a few mimosas). Rereading it now, I can totally see how it comes off as arrogant. My intention was to offer a counterexample, not start a pissing contest. My bad.  :)

Dave
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 27, 2016, 11:42:42 pm
I apologize in advance - I don't know how to make this shorter without also making the argument less persuasive!


At this point, I'm definitely not trying to change any rules or minds, but hear me out and at least consider this point of view. :)

Procedural/technical arguments aside, and we can talk about those separately if we wanna, and I can see myself instantly losing this argument on other levels, I do nonetheless have a bone to pick with the "psychological advantage" argument against a "4 lives on 6+1 settings" scheme.

This argument is valid only if you take for granted as true the premise that the player shouldn't be allowed to exercise an option that gives him a psychological leg up on himself and/or others who play.

First of all, if the option is universally available, then anyone can take it, and there's no issue. Players can't take it for scores they set in the past, obviously, but past attempts suffer from disadvantages of many sorts (which I'll get to later, but in a nutshell, when it comes to competing on DK, being in the future is ALWAYS an advantage).

Regardless, 4 men on 6+1 still offers no material advantage, and still conforms to the same underlying standard that's been there all along (ie, "get as many points as you can, with 4 lives, on the TKG-4 ROMset").

As far as I know, "it changes the psychology" has never been a basis for or against the establishment or elimination of a rule in classic gaming.

My motive: lately I've been considering experimenting with full games on 6+1. Lord knows I'm looking for something to make playing this game more fun for me, since at this point I only touch it every three to six months, for a few hours, before quickly fleeing from the relentless frustration and drudgery of it.

The hope that 6+1 might be psychologically-beneficial is exactly the reason why I want to try it. One of the reasons anyway, another being that sometimes I simply enjoy a deep run for its own sake and want to keep going to see what might have been if not for that joystick fumble or the pie factory rape. (And please, by the way, stop telling me that screwings don't exist, or that "every death is your fault unless you're me and playing at 1 point ninety eighty jillion pace." This is not true, and is easily disproven (https://www.twitch.tv/chrisp_kreme/v/55681062).)

I've also just never quite gotten used to the mental/physical stamina required for a full 2.5-3 hour run, and the slow crawl that the game moves at once you start getting all the hammers, etc. The game feels very different and a lot weightier than the easy-breezy speedrun/top-hammer-only type attempt. Something about it has never agreed with me, and simply getting used to that by ensuring that I will go deep every time by having a lot of spare lives would be a huge help. This kind of practice doesn't have an equivalent in savestates.

My idea is to do 6-man runs and approach them as practice games/joyrides... and hope that a bunch of balls happen to bounce in my favor and I get a big score with 4 men or less. If 4 lives on 6+1 became an acceptable alternative, I could submit one of these "practice" games that accidentally ended up turning into something more. From the responses in this thread, it's not looking like that type of run would count for the community at large, which is fine, but it would count for me.  :)

What I know for sure at this point is that I prefer the "let's just play and see what happens" mentality to the more typical "this is a 'goal' that I must strive and suffer for" paradigm that we all sorta absorb from one another and that I don't necessarily think is the best approach.

Is a run that starts as a 7-man attempt and gets redefined mid-game as a 4-man attempt any different than a 1-1 or Start attempt that gets redefined mid-game as a high score attempt? The rules for those tracks state that the player can continue their game as a full run... even though the player went balls-to-the-wall and played much riskier than he would "in a real game" up until the final moment of 1-1 or 4-5.

It can also be done the other way around: your high score attempt sucked, but your Start rocked, so you submit that. Doesn't matter what your initial intent was, and you didn't have to state it before the fact.

Many attempts start in one psychological place with one intent, but are then allowed to shift to another psychological place with a different intent.

Sounds good to me!

But I'm hearing a lot of opposition to that in this thread, even though that's not how any of the scoreboards here work.

Wes's first world record run can and has been described in a similar fashion: in Ethan's words "the game was played with the intention of getting a 1.1M score for [the DKO]." The balls, however, bounced not-unfavorably for Wes, he got to cash in a bunch of lives, and suddenly he was the world record holder... even though breaking the record in that run was not intended, planned, or expected until he was very deep, and certainly not when he pressed start.

The funny thing is, if the fear expressed in this thread turns out to be valid - that allowing players to use 4 men on 6+1 settings will somehow mentally enable them to play more boldly, and get better scores with their 4 men - then call me crazy, but that actually sounds like a really good argument in favor of it.

What I'm hearing between the lines is, "we can't allow that, because then it might make it less mentally-traumatizing for some other guy to get a high score than it was for me."

God forbid...

Advantages have been conferred on today's players with the MAME save-stating, total information saturation, streaming/chatting/coaching/commisserating, etc. that Steve Wiebe didn't benefit from a decade ago. With every passing year, these factors, and others, make DK mentally-easier to succeed at, one of those factors simply being the very different perception of what's "hard" now, versus what was considered "hard" five years ago. Merely observing that there are 12 players with 1.1 million now makes it less intimidating, and seem a lot more achievable, than it did when there were only 3. Psychology again. Advantage: being in the future.

If you guys are right that 4 men on 6+1 will prove to be an effective method for making the game that much less of a mindfuck torture-rack than 4 men on 3+1, then it means we'll have found another way to increase the player's chances of success in getting 'x' score, while still playing under the same mechanics we always have. Can we discover a psychological safe-spot that works as well as the L3 wild barrel safe-spots, and make the game a little less of a grind? If so, we shouldn't outlaw the option. On the contrary, we should immediately legalize it and celebrate it as a huge victory!

Isn't discovering ways to help each other get the best score we can get before our 4th death, whether tactical or psychological, part of the point of this community?
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: f_symbols on March 28, 2016, 12:13:55 am
... it is simple, logical truth. A player playing a game optimally will not play any differently under different settings, and there should be no discernable difference between the two cases...

"Optimal Play" is not what we're tracking on the scoreboard sir, people are free to play the game how they choose, and if they'd like to submit for recognition they can do so on default settings. 

However, some would like to make sure everyone plays a certain way <Tim>

Default settings simply serve as the control, the score is what we're tracking, not how optimally it was achieved, or how optimal (or inferior) a persons psyche is. 

Every single screen plays different in this game, one could easily consider a high-paced game (over 2.5 hours) to be a 2.5 hour performance, where the player is fairly regularly required to play/improvise difficult in game scenarios, making multiple reactionary decisions per second.   Anything that makes it easier for "the average person" to stay calm, under these same circumstances, is a distinct advantage. 

Wes has the unique disposition of also being a Concert Pianist, so he could very likely give some insight into the parallels here, if any. 

My point?  High level DK is about as intense as it gets, don't knock it until you've tried it, you aren't running patterns, or flapping buttons as fast as you can here, you don't have time to think about your foot, if you think that something that puts the mind at ease in this situation isn't an asset, then you should reconsider your ability to relate to the majority.


 
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: tudose on March 28, 2016, 01:58:24 am
nope

:)
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 28, 2016, 03:35:09 am
I'm going to have an "overly-long post" hangover tomorrow. I already regret this.

Basically, I'm gonna play on 6+1 for a while to see what that's like, because I really need to get used to going deep at 1M+ pace, and not being so fucking enraged by mistakes and screwings since I'll have plenty of lives to burn, and if at some point in that process I manage to get 1.05M on my 3rd or 4th man and can't submit it, oh well, eat me, I'll still feel like I got 1.05M, and that it counts.

<thefinger>

Now why didn't I just post that to begin with???
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: f_symbols on March 28, 2016, 05:36:41 am
Go sir :)
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 28, 2016, 07:07:29 am
As far as Stella Blue quote,"Players should not be allowed to redefine an event in order to get the outcome they want."

I have no idea what you mean by this.  Sorry for being dense.


Perhaps an example will illustrate my point.  This isn't the best analogy, but it's the first one that came to mind:

A long distance runner enters the Boston Marathon.  He pushes himself at the start, establishing a very fast pace.  Before reaching the halfway point, he's completely out of gas and drops out of the race.  Upon further review, he realizes that his time for the first 5000 meters is a new personal best.  He submits his performance to the appropriate authorities, claiming a #7 worldwide ranking for his 5K time.  Sorry pal, but there's zero chance of that claim being approved.  The time is legit, but it occurred during a completely different event.  If you want recognition for a world-class 5K performance, enter a 5K race.  It's as simple as that.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: danman123456 on March 28, 2016, 09:36:02 am
I'm going to have an "overly-long post" hangover tomorrow. I already regret this.

Basically, I'm gonna play on 6+1 for a while to see what that's like, because I really need to get used to going deep at 1M+ pace, and not being so fucking enraged by mistakes and screwings since I'll have plenty of lives to burn, and if at some point in that process I manage to get 1.05M on my 3rd or 4th man and can't submit it, oh well, eat me, I'll still feel like I got 1.05M, and that it counts.

<thefinger>

Now why didn't I just post that to begin with???

HAHA yeah that is much simpler. The analogy you are using regarding 1-1 or a start is not the same comparison I think Chris. Like I was saying if its just a 1 man track or a 1-1 or even a Start all of those require not dying so its not the same comparison.

The best analogy I can come up with everyone since we are using track and field references isn't that "im running 2 miles but submitting a 1 mile time" it's "I'm running a 100 meter dash and I want to have three false starts while everyone else gets zero". 
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 28, 2016, 03:00:41 pm
I feel like BOTH side of this argument are actually kinda goofy.

On the one side there's me, who's saying we should relax a long-standing rule for no reason other than "eh, why not, and it would be convenient for my training regimen." The established way always has the advantage if there's no incentive to change things, so I'm gonna lose this no matter what. I accept this, and it's okay. I'm mostly just playing with ideas here, because that's fun sometimes.

On the other side though, we're arguing against relaxing the rule not on technical grounds, but on psychological ones.

That's a first! Never in the history of this hobby has there been an argument for enforcing a particular dipswitch setting because of its potential impact on a player's mindset. "No way can we change that, because then people will play less conservatively and might YOLO their way into scores that they otherwise wouldn't have."

I understand the position, but it's still funny to me. This is why I've always found the "individual board" records a little weird - to go for those, there's a soft-rule that you can't decide, on 8-4 for example, that you don't want to play out the game anymore, then completely shred on the springs to go for a 9K. Well, what if you get the 9K on your first try and then decide to re-commit to the full game? Do you have to take a polygraph afterwards to confirm your intent?

He submits his performance to the appropriate authorities, claiming a #7 worldwide ranking for his 5K time.  Sorry pal, but there's zero chance of that claim being approved.  The time is legit, but it occurred during a completely different event.  If you want recognition for a world-class 5K performance, enter a 5K race.  It's as simple as that.

If this is your position, then should we change the rules to no longer accept Start scores from runs that were intended as full games, or (vice versa) to no longer accept full game scores in runs that were intended as Start attempts?

Depending on what sorts of tracks/achievements we set up in the future, "psychology" could have all sorts of weird effects.

Let's say we decide to do a "Best 500K Race" track, the objective being to get 500K as early in the game as possible. So people go for absurd starts and ridiculous level averages, because since it's not a full run, they feel like they have nothing to lose. The mindset is different, so they play different than they otherwise might.

Let's say somebody gets some seriously awesome RNG, achieving a blowout start and massive early levels... and they don't die at all.

The player has a relatively low registered PB, so once they have their beastly 500K they say "I'm gonna pull way back on the aggression and riskiness and try to complete this game." They succeed, and voila, now they've got a huge new score for the all-time list.

Should we DQ the post-500K portion because the intent and the psychology at the outset was different than what it was at the end?

The whole thing is very odd, you must admit.

I might have to make a new objective for myself: Highest Score Achieved Under the Incorrect Mindset.  Kappa
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: aarontruitt on March 28, 2016, 03:11:43 pm
Chris, your points are very good. I can definitely see where you're coming from. However, if it came down to a vote today, I would have to stay in favor of the 3+1 original settings. My argument is that it keeps our HSL the most legitimate and encompassing one on the web. It's already pretty easy to submit to the DKF HSL and, though a formality, using the same settings as the other lists (TG, MARP) keeps us credible in my opinion.

I suggest that you practice using save states in MAME - a guy I know who is really good at DK (and incredibly lucky) continually recommends them if you're going for the million or more. It may be much more efficient than playing out entire games or playing out entire starts just to get to level 5. I know you are the type of guy who doesn't want to grind for 15 hours a week for 4 weeks to get a score.

Most importantly, stream ChrisP.  <popcorn>
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 28, 2016, 07:13:15 pm
I suggest that you practice using save states in MAME

When I'm about to play some DK again after a long break, I do!

However, savestates don't replicate some of the conditions of full games that I'm trying to practice. First, MAME is different than the cab, in many physical and mental respects. Second, savestates are discrete events, so they don't have continuity from one load to the next, nor do they convey the rhythm/speed/flow of a 1M+ pace run, which, like I said, I've just never gotten comfortable with.

Savestates are about getting technique down. Technique (at least for 1M) is not my main problem. My problem is everything else. The sense of flow and continuity of a full game is really important, and experiencing it more often will both build endurance, and let me evaluate certain things. When do I start getting tired? When does my attention and aggression start slipping? Et cetera. It's also easier to let yourself die in savestates because you know that it doesn't matter. I'm gonna want to get to the end of my 6+1 runs, even if it won't "count", so I'll have at least some investment in not-dying. It's just more like a real game in a lot of important ways than savestating is.

I have running boards pretty much nailed (see sig  8) ), and nearly completed a speedrun on my second coin of last week's tourney (my second coin after six months of not touching DK actually!) if I hadn't screwed it up on 20-2. The game feels like nothing when it's moving fast.

The instant I switched to "real" double-hammer attempts though, I collapsed, like I always do, under the weight of the slow-as-molasses progress. THAT is what I struggle with. I'll start a game, go for a while, feel like I've been playing for three hours, and I'll only be on Level 8. Then I start getting impatient, making more mistakes, getting more angry at deaths because I'm now more invested than I would be in a faster run, etc.

So I need to get accustomed to that rhythm and flow, but without the pressure. Savestates eliminate the pressure, but don't replicate the rhythm. 6+1 does both!

I'm gonna try it, and I'd be really curious to see others try it too. I have to wonder if this method might cut down on some of the getting-used-to-a-different-style learning curve, and I'm surprised nobody's ever experimented with it.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: tudose on March 29, 2016, 02:27:59 am
just create a poll already :)
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 29, 2016, 04:23:40 am
just create a poll already :)

Done.  Got 'em, Phil.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 29, 2016, 01:18:54 pm
A few more thoughts on all this:

I agree with Phil on a similar issue, who has said elsewhere that sniping the individual board records is cheesy, because targeting a particular board-type to max it out is a very different objective than getting an overall high score for a full run, and is almost at odds with it. But I see that whole track as strange for that very reason. It's basically "what's the maximum score you can get on a specific board type, while playing a style that has to balance maximizing score with managing risk?" They're "one hand tied behind your back" scores. And you can never be sure that somebody didn't just say "I don't care about this run, I'm just gonna go YOLO here," especially when on their last life. Somebody can also have other motives to go for one of these, and you can't "prove" that this is why they were going for it. I think it's a problematic track.

The 3+1 vs. 6+1 thing is a little different though, because the objective is the same regardless of the setting - get the highest overall score possible with your first 4 lives. Some people are against being lax on this rule not on the grounds that it would change anything about the game, but on the grounds that it would change the way players *mentally approach* the game. I definitely see where the argument is coming from, I just think it's really fascinating how it underlines how psychological people view this whole thing. The game really is only partially, and maybe not even mainly, about "skill."

I would make the point though that the "psychological advantage" theory has never actually been put to the test, since no serious players have tried it. The objection is purely hypothetical as it stands.

After this thread, I think sticking with 3+1 is probably good, for numerous reasons, but I could see special situations where maybe we should strongly consider accepting a 4 lives on 6+1, like somebody recording a game on a public machine set to 6+1 where they don't have access to the dips.

Finally, in light of this discussion, I think we should seriously reconsider whether we can accept scores for 1-1 and Start that are part of a full game attempt. Maybe we should go back to the TG standard of having to kill it off? Seems like a double-standard here if we don't. Dan mentioned that you can only get a 1-1 or Start score if you don't die, but most full games that have a death before 5-1 get restarted, and nobody plays out a full game with a death on 1-1.

Interesting stuff!
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 29, 2016, 02:14:25 pm
and nobody plays out a full game with a death on 1-1.

Nobody except the author of the quoted text.

Have you forgotten one of your killscreen performances already?   ;)

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 29, 2016, 02:30:35 pm
After this thread, I think sticking with 3+1 is probably good, for numerous reasons, but I could see special situations where maybe we should strongly consider accepting a 4 lives on 6+1, like somebody recording a game on a public machine set to 6+1 where they don't have access to the dips.

Actually, that's the best argument in favor of 6+1 that I've read thus far.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Adam_Mon on March 29, 2016, 02:39:50 pm
I'm so confussed  <confused>
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: xelnia on March 29, 2016, 02:43:28 pm
A few more thoughts on all this:

I agree with Phil on a similar issue, who has said elsewhere that sniping the individual board records is cheesy, because targeting a particular board-type to max it out is a very different objective than getting an overall high score for a full run, and is almost at odds with it. But I see that whole track as strange for that very reason. It's basically "what's the maximum score you can get on a specific board type, while playing a style that has to balance maximizing score with managing risk?" They're "one hand tied behind your back" scores. And you can never be sure that somebody didn't just say "I don't care about this run, I'm just gonna go YOLO here," especially when on their last life. Somebody can also have other motives to go for one of these, and you can't "prove" that this is why they were going for it. I think it's a problematic track.

The 3+1 vs. 6+1 thing is a little different though, because the objective is the same regardless of the setting - get the highest overall score possible with your first 4 lives. Some people are against being lax on this rule not on the grounds that it would change anything about the game, but on the grounds that it would change the way players *mentally approach* the game. I definitely see where the argument is coming from, I just think it's really fascinating how it underlines how psychological people view this whole thing. The game really is only partially, and maybe not even mainly, about "skill."

I would make the point though that the "psychological advantage" theory has never actually been put to the test, since no serious players have tried it. The objection is purely hypothetical as it stands.

After this thread, I think sticking with 3+1 is probably good, for numerous reasons, but I could see special situations where maybe we should strongly consider accepting a 4 lives on 6+1, like somebody recording a game on a public machine set to 6+1 where they don't have access to the dips.

Finally, in light of this discussion, I think we should seriously reconsider whether we can accept scores for 1-1 and Start that are part of a full game attempt. Maybe we should go back to the TG standard of having to kill it off? Seems like a double-standard here if we don't. Dan mentioned that you can only get a 1-1 or Start score if you don't die, but most full games that have a death before 5-1 get restarted, and nobody plays out a full game with a death on 1-1.

Interesting stuff!

I don't view the "Individual Level and Stage Records" as the same kind of leaderboard as the Main HSL. It was always more about fun and curiosity, rather than some kind of official ranking of the best players. I still find it useful as a means of tracking the kinds of scores that are possible within the game.

1-1 and Start scores are similar. I'm also not sure how exactly those two types of scores figure into this discussion. The number of lives is irrelevant for a 1-1 score. In fact, the current rules allow a 1-1 score to come from ANY life...not just the first. I would actually be in favor of submitting a 1-1 score on ANY settings. Personally, I would NEVER kill off a huge 1-1 score and I would never expect any player to do so. For various reason, I hardly think TG standards are something we should be worried about. And a "Start" score must be deathless to be considered for the Start HSL. So, again, number of lives is irrelevant. These are built-in assumptions about those scores and those assumptions don't have to match what we expect to see in a full 3+1 game...a big 1-1 is either an individual attempt or it's part of a full game. A Start score is simply a deathless score after 4-5.

Taking all that into account, the "Individual Level and Stage Records" should still come from a 3+1 game, because the original intent was to track legitimate scores from full, standard games. I agree that the track has become problematic, but I don't think those problems should have any bearing and what we expect from a full, standard game.

Also, here's a scenario I'm envisioning:

A player on 6+1 settings has a great game and gets to 21-5 on their 4th life, leaving 3 in reserve. They execute the standard high-score tactic of sacrificing their extra men (#4, #5, and #6) and leaving the last (#7) to try and reach the killscreen. How do we score a game like this? No player on 3+1 settings would EVER sacrifice their 4th man on 21-5...but do we still take the score after that 4th-life sac? Do we substitute the 7th life for the 4th? That's ridiculous. Equally ridiculous would be trying to suss out "player intent" in this kind of scenario. Did they start a 6+1 game, intending only to submit a 3+1 score regardless of the final outcome, but then switch their intent to 6+1 after seeing they had a shot a huge score? Did they declare all of this clearly, in a manner that would be acceptable to everyone? ....so on and so on.

To me, that's a much bigger concern than Riley's "slam-dunk" argument that people might miscount lives...
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: stella_blue on March 29, 2016, 03:41:20 pm
I don't view the "Individual Level and Stage Records" as the same kind of leaderboard as the Main HSL. It was always more about fun and curiosity, rather than some kind of official ranking of the best players. I still find it useful as a means of tracking the kinds of scores that are possible within the game.

Exactly.

1-1 and Start scores are similar. I'm also not sure how exactly those two types of scores figure into this discussion.

Yeah, I don't understand how the "Start" and Level 1-1 are relevant to this discussion either.

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: alumbrada on March 29, 2016, 06:41:48 pm
What if someone was playing the "no killscreen" ROM hack and finished 21-6 with a new PB? Would the score be accepted?
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 29, 2016, 08:36:19 pm
Have you forgotten one of your killscreen performances already?   ;)

No I did not, and I actually thought about that and smiled, but ty for remembering!

A player on 6+1 settings has a great game and gets to 21-5 on their 4th life, leaving 3 in reserve. They execute the standard high-score tactic of sacrificing their extra men (#4, #5, and #6) and leaving the last (#7) to try and reach the killscreen... How do we score a game like this? 

If the player chose to do that, then the 4-man segment would end on 21-5, when the 4th man died, and you'd score it the same way you would any other 3+1 game. Don't make it more complicated than it is, sir!

The tactical quandary as to what to do (sac #4, #5, and #6 on 21-5 to beef up the 7-man score, or take #4 all the way to the KS to beef up the 4-man score) would be up to the player.

Yeah, I don't understand how the "Start" and Level 1-1 are relevant to this discussion either.

They're VERY relevant, because some of the points being made to argue against 4 men on 6+1 settings are contradictory with current DKF adjudication practices.

The 6+1 setting essentially allows a player to compete simultaneously on 2 tracks....  Not good. The player should be required to declare intent up front.

But that's not how it works here, Scott! At DKF, a player can submit the same game to the 1-1 track, the Start track, the standard (3+1) track, and even the No-Hammer track, and have that one single game be ranked on all 4 lists.

In other words, DKF already allows players to compete simultaneously on multiple tracks, and without declaring intent in any way. They can submit their game to whatever track they want, depending on how their game went. Ie, "Initially I was only trying to put something big up for the Start track, and I succeeded, but I kept going and I PB'ed, so I'll submit it to the 3+1 track too". Totally legal here. But if intent must be declared, and multiple-track-competition-by-default are, as you say, "not good", then it shouldn't be legal.

You would "declare intent" on a 1-1 score, or a Start score, by immediately killing your guy after you get your score.

We don't have a 6+1 track at DKF (I definitely want it now, by the way :D ), but if we did, there seem to be two main arguments against submitting the first-four-lives segment to the standard 3+1 track.

One argument is, "no, since getting a 4-man score was not the declared intent, and constitutes simultaneous competition on two tracks."

The other argument is, "no, because you'd play the first four men with the wrong mentality and wouldn't be scared enough."

The first argument is, as I've shown, contradicted by current DKF practices.

The second is understandable, but nonetheless pretty bizarre. If I'm feeling totally unattached one day and play No-Hammer (for example) with absolute YOLO, jump over every single fire-critter I see, get ridiculous luck, and back into the world record, should the score be DQ'ed because my mentality about the run caused an insufficient level of emotional investment?? That's basically what the "psychology" argument against "first 4 lives on 6+1" amounts to. I get it, but you have to admit that using psychology as the basis for enforcing a dipswitch setting has never been done before, and is very strange...

What if someone was playing the "no killscreen" ROM hack and finished 21-6 with a new PB? Would the score be accepted?

love it. <popcorn>
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: f_symbols on March 29, 2016, 09:18:34 pm
 <Pigger>
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 29, 2016, 10:20:58 pm
Scott, I swear I'm not picking on you.  ;D But let me do this as clearly as I can, slightly rewriting a post of yours from earlier in the thread.

A long distance runner enters the Boston Marathon.
A Donkey Kong player begins a killscreen run.

He pushes himself at the start, establishing a very fast pace.
He pushes himself at the start, establishing a big score at the end of Level 4-5.

Before reaching the halfway point, he's completely out of gas and drops out of the race.
Before reaching Level 12, he's completely out of lives and the game ends.

Upon further review, he realizes that his time for the first 5000 meters is a new personal best.
Upon further review, he realizes that his score for the first 4 levels is a new personal best.

He submits his performance to the appropriate authorities, claiming a #7 worldwide ranking for his 5K time.
He submits his performance to the DKF Start high score list, claiming a #3 worldwide ranking for his 145,000 score.

Sorry pal, but there's zero chance of that claim being approved.  The time is legit, but it occurred during a completely different event.
"Congratulations (name), your Start score has been verified and added to the Start high score list."

C'mon now! What am I missing here?
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: xelnia on March 29, 2016, 10:55:40 pm
Too many things to quote, so

words

I'm not trying to be a jackass, I just don't feel like breaking it all out.  ;D 8)

I think the break in the 1-1/Start/Full Game philosophy is this: Scott and I are saying (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you sir) that 1-1s and Starts are already considered to be free-for-alls. It doesn't matter what the intent or settings are for those tracks. It's implied that those scores may have been set under a variety of circumstances...individual attempts, full games, happy accidents, whatever. So, my personal confusion here is why we should judge a full game performance in the same manner. I don't see this as an issue of consistency in the application of rules because each DKF "track" has its own set of standards, explicit and implicit, and they don't necessarily have to be related. Maybe I just missed the boat.

I used a sports analogy when I had this debate with Corey and a similar analogy has come back, and the more I think about, the more I think it's all wrong. We're talking distances in relation to DK (200m vs 100m, marathon vs 5k, etc)...but do those analogies really work? Running the 200m doesn't make the first 100m easier....running a marathon doesn't make the first 5k easier. What we're really talking about is if the standards of performance have an effect on said performance. So maybe a better analogy would be whether you would accept a 200m dash running downhill vs a 200m dash running on a flat track. But if the distance analogy is still what you prefer, go back to what I said to Corey: would you accept a 100m WR during a 200m race if the runner just stopped running in the middle of the race? Maybe the IAAF would, but that's some <Billy> level shit right there.

Going back to my hypothetical scenario, I made it complicated because that's exactly what will happen if that scenario ever comes about. Chris, you've been around long enough and know better than anyone that if someone submitted a game like that, no matter the rules, everybody would hop on their drama llamas and take a ride. "No normal 3+1 game would end like that!" "That's something <Billy> would do!" "Maybe having more lives affects the RNG!"

It's complicated because people will make it complicated.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 30, 2016, 01:07:40 am
It's complicated because people will make it complicated.

On that point I DEFINITELY 100% agree with you, which is why, when it comes down to it, I am actually pretty well convinced at this point that we SHOULD keep the 4-man track at "3+1/7K extra" settings. It makes things simpler, honors tradition, and eliminates objections that might come up, whether or not the objections are valid. This makes it somewhat less-inclusive for people who might be on weird settings for their own reasons, but whatever.
 
each DKF "track" has its own set of standards, explicit and implicit

I think "explicit" is good. If things are more explicit, we might avoid threads like this!

You're saying that there's a stricter standard for the regular high score track (and presumably the no-hammer track) than the other tracks. Scores on the regular track need to be achieved on specific settings. 1-1 and Start scores do not need to be achieved on specific settings. I have no problem with that. But it wasn't argued quite that way until you did just now!

Scott made the argument that he doesn't think a player should be able to compete on two tracks simultaneously, in pretty much those exact words, which DKF explicitly allows, so there was a contradiction between his stated philosophy and the submission rules here. If you're gunning for a standard-track score, while also trying for big 1-1 and Start scores that you also plan to submit for, then that is, literally speaking, simultaneous competition on multiple tracks.

I just felt the need to point that out, because if and when a 6+1 track is established here, a rationale should be explicit for why you can't extract and submit a normal-track 4-man score from the 6+1 settings, even though you ARE allowed to extract a 1-1 or Start track score from any settings. An official rationale would be good, even if it ends up being some sort of Lexmarkian voodoo about player-moods.

I've never submitted to either the 1-1 or Start tracks, but if I do, now I'm going to go out of my way to do them on 5+1 with the extra at 10K, and, when finished, use the rest of the men for wall-jumps. 8)

Believe it or not, like the killscreen/screenkill discussion (which was also my fault <stirpot>), I think this thread has been interesting and at least somewhat productive...
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Barra on March 30, 2016, 04:05:18 am
I don't think there's any one reason to not include 6+1 scores in the main list. Rather the cumulative possibility of doubt, stemming from ALL arguments. This doubt could then impact negatively upon the HSL, something which we should try to avoid when possible.
Best to keep it simple.
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: marky_d on March 30, 2016, 04:32:36 am
What if someone was playing the "no killscreen" ROM hack and finished 21-6 with a new PB? Would the score be accepted?

nope
Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: Fly on March 30, 2016, 06:58:29 pm
Too many words.  <confused>

Title: Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
Post by: ChrisP on March 31, 2016, 01:45:43 pm
I played a game of 7-man on Secret Private DK Island last night, and it was everything I'd hoped it would be!

I died on 5-1 after doing something stupid, but then I just smiled and kept going. I did NOT feel like breaking every window in my house and tearing the wiring harness out of the cab to slowly choke myself to death with it. I proceeded, died stupidly a second time, (and a third time), and eventually cruised to just under 800K at a low 1M pace.

It feels like 2011 again! :)