Who wants a 7-man track?

[ChrisP]

It seems like an obvious track to create, but somehow it hasn't been.

I think it would be fun, just to see what sort of scores people end up getting and the dynamics that might be discovered.

In light of our preliminary discussion (the thread about accepting 4 man scores achieved on 6+1 settings), we would explicitly disallow submitting the 4-man portion of the game to the normal 4-man track, for numerous reasons, but other than that, should we bother with this? Would anybody besides me be interested?

[tudose]

 

[alumbrada]

Do you have enough DKF submission points?

[ChrisP]

4 "no"s??? how...

[LMDAVE]

7 man track will dilute the already diluted honor of getting the killscreen. Pac-Man was the only game it made sense on to give the max men due to the perfect score that can be achieved.

[Xermon54]

I think we're speaking in term of maximizing our score in Donkey Kong (with 7-men setting) with this new track. I don't think we would recognize a 7-men score kill screen as a real kill screen. It would just be cool to see the top players playing on 7-men setting and aiming for huge scores.

[Adam_Mon]

How would 6+1 factor into "individual board scores"?

I'd imagine particulalrly durring DKO's 6+1 (or at least lives after number 4) will be invalid for bounties?  since you could possibly warp to lvl 5 in an attempt to claim certain bounties eg: wags / scotts bounties using the extra lives..etc,

or what if:

a player reaches 21-5 with all 7 lives and begins sacing and on their 6th man they hit 18k (or whatever) and then decide not to sac that man due to the high scoring board..thats a "nwr" but its achieved on a man outside of the first 4..



Personaly I'd have no issue with someone using 6+1 and using the extra lives to go for individual board scores, Springs/Pies/Barrels and so on since the individual board scores are less about bragging rights/ competition and more about an informative source of "max" potential scores wich is vital for sculpting future strats for the game..

that said, I won't be voting since I won't be using 6+1 ever, but I'd personly be fine with the above scenarios with exception to DKO related bounties. 

[tudose]

How would 6+1 factor into "individual board scores"?

Personaly I'd have no issue with someone using 6+1 and using the extra lives to go for individual board scores, Springs/Pies/Barrels and so on since the individual board scores are less about bragging rights/ competition and more about an informative source of "max" potential scores wich is vital for sculpting future strats for the game..

lets just go all the way with this... save state submissions!

[Barra]

lets just go all the way with this... save state submissions!

^

[ChrisP]

How would 6+1 factor into "individual board scores"?

IMO, that just points to the flaw that already exists with the criteria for those records (that it has to come from a "full game").

If the player is invested in not-dying, then he will play an individual board with a mind toward risk. But if he doesn't care (or cares less) about dying, then he will take risks that might be less-than-sensible.

Which puts us into the territory of having to make really hazy, hard-to-define, impossible to prove, subjective judgments about whether the player was "properly invested" in not-dying, and whether what the player does to get their points is a sensible risk. Ross does stuff on the barrel boards all the time that I consider to be less-than-sensible, and those boards are part of full games.

What if somebody is on their last man on Level 10, is ready to quit, but then decides to go nuts on a barrel board and ends up getting the highest full-game barrel board ever? Do we accept that? After all, it happened in a full game.

Where do you draw these lines? It's always been a problem waiting to happen.

If the prerequisite for these individual-board records is that they have to come from full games, then it'll make the scores artificially low, and won't actually reflect what's technically possible. If save states are allowed, then they'll be artifically high, and won't reflect what's practically-achievable. But they don't really reflect pratical achievability anyway, since the scores are already unlikely extremes pretty much by definition.

1-1 is the only board that's immune from these issues, since investment in not-dying is never a factor (as long as you're willing to play the board over and over again). People don't play it any differently than they would a save-state, so what you see there IS people's absolute max. That's what's cool and "pure" about it.

I'd imagine particulalrly durring DKO's 6+1 (or at least lives after number 4) will be invalid for bounties?  since you could possibly warp to lvl 5 in an attempt to claim certain bounties eg: wags / scotts bounties using the extra lives..etc,

Anybody remember the time that Ben wanted a last-man bounty, and killed off all his guys on 5-1 to give himself 102 available boards? 

[serphintizer]

lets just go all the way with this... save state submissions!

^

lol

[stella_blue]

I won't be voting since I won't be using 6+1 ever

Yeah, I haven't voted either, nor will I ever play on the 6+1 setting.

If a future DK Online Open uses 6+1 as a surprise "let's mix it up" twist, count me among the non-participants.

[ChrisP]

It's an even split now, so I'd say that, without a clear majority, this should not go forward.

DKF has spoken!

[tudose]

im honestly surprised how close it is...should 6+1 scores be accepted in 3+1? imo no...should a 6+1 track be created for someone that wants to submit on it for whatever reason? probably, yes

either way, i dont think its a big deal if the track isnt created...we can always create one at tg

[Barra]

lets just go all the way with this... save state submissions!

^

lol