DK Score Submissions

[corey.chambers]

Scott, those images you attach are great, I am glad that you are adding them when you verify a score. Nice improvements everyone, I am trying to get these updated today. Thanks for your support and continual increase of scores. I love to add it to the lists.

I am posting my highest start that I got an inp for.

I am also posting Phil's 1-1 and his best start for sourcing purposes on the list.

[corey.chambers]

I was thinking about placing a 80,000 point minimum for the no-hammer score list. Let me know if anyone objects to this. I am also considering a 9,000 point minimum for the 1-1 list. 10,000 seems a bit too high for newer players and I want to encourage them to get on the list, so I thought 9,000 points would help that process.

[corey.chambers]

I have placed a 100,000 point limit on the Start High Score List.

[corey.chambers]

I have verified and updated Phil's two scores.

[stella_blue]

Special Rules: The score at the end of level 4 will be accepted for this list. You must achieve this start without losing a life. You must have a minimum of 100,000 points.

Might I suggest removing the "zero deaths" requirement?  If a player's score is 145,000 at the end of Level 04, and includes a 1600 point spring death, it would be a shame to ignore the legit 143,400 start.  The Level 1-1 list allows for adjusted scores, why not do the same thing here?

My recommendation would be to edit the special rules and specify not including points from deaths.

[corey.chambers]

Thanks for the suggestion Scott. I suppose there are two different ways of looking at this. With the 1-1 adjustment it is more focused on what can be achieved by with one man on 1-1 without dying. I am just allowing this to be done on any man to make it more expedient for people.

Now, being able to achieve a straight Start with no deaths at all is ideal and is what we all aim for. If you allow for your suggestion then one could in theory "accidentally" kill themselves off while grouping under Kong if they had an unfavorable bottom hammer. This would give them another attempt on that board. Because of this possibility I propose that we keep the rules as they are presently stated. Do you agree, Scott?

[corey.chambers]

I have updated the following scores:

Kyle Goewart - Pending verification
Steve Wiltshire - Pending verification

My 1-1
Adam Mon's 1-1
Adam Mon
Graham Hawkins
Jason Nugent

pending 3rd party verification, my start inp

[stella_blue]

Thanks for the suggestion Scott. I suppose there are two different ways of looking at this. With the 1-1 adjustment it is more focused on what can be achieved by with one man on 1-1 without dying. I am just allowing this to be done on any man to make it more expedient for people.

Now, being able to achieve a straight Start with no deaths at all is ideal and is what we all aim for. If you allow for your suggestion then one could in theory "accidentally" kill themselves off while grouping under Kong if they had an unfavorable bottom hammer. This would give them another attempt on that board. Because of this possibility I propose that we keep the rules as they are presently stated. Do you agree, Scott?

Points well taken.  I understand that the 1-1 situation is not identical, and I acknowledge that a "clean" start represents the ideal.

True, a player whose sole intent is to secure a huge start (unconcerned with final score) could tank one or more lives to improve their chances.  Personally, I wouldn't do it, but I'll bet Vincent would (relax, Vincent, just kidding).

So yeah, I can see it both ways.  I just think it's unfortunate that a genuine 140k start (a rare accomplishment for most of us) could go largely unrecognized.

I'm curious to hear what others think.  I could very well be in the minority on this one.  If so, I will happily shut up.

[corey.chambers]

Thanks for your response Scott. I guess the way I would at it is that a start consists of what the game gave you the first time all the way through. Even if someone just made a mistake then this would not be the case and therefore would not be the same for all players.

Jason, that is because I only updated my excel spreadsheet, but then forgot to update the post. Thanks for letting me know. It has now been updated for real this time.

I just completed updating the 1-1 score list. If you see any errors then please let me know. I want to make the list with a minimum of 9000, so I am still waiting on Jeremy for permission. I think he said somewhere that would be fine. I just don't remember where it is or if I am just imagining things.

[marinomitch13]

I agree with Corey about the starts. If deaths are allowed, then it becomes a lot easier to get good starts. If deaths were counted, people could purposely play all-out and get maybe a 160k start, since they'd press all the barrel boards on levels 3 and 4 to the max in kinda the same why as people do on 1-1. People'd be getting insane barrel scores, but 2-3 deaths.

[corey.chambers]

I wanted to get a feel if 80,000 minimum on No-Hammer was too high so I tried a no hammer game for the first time ever. No really a no hammer person.

I got a score of 316,000. I lost about 6,000 points on an elevator because my infant threw up on my wife. The date of achievement was today 8/9/2013.

Inp is attached. Don't think badly of me when you see it. I don't really have any no hammer strategies. I just did the best I could.

[corey.chambers]

I added about 11 scores from TG that were not on our list.

I also updated John McNeil's score from TG because it was higher than his WCR #2 score.

[stella_blue]

I have updated the following scores:

Kyle Goewart - Pending verification
Steve Wiltshire - Pending verification

My 1-1
Adam Mon's 1-1
Adam Mon
Graham Hawkins
Jason Nugent

pending 3rd party verification, my start inp

Corey, I just finished verifying your 125,800 start, achieved on 08/07/13.

You were well on your way to a possible 1.05M, until the L10 conveyors abruptly crashed the party.   

Full game stats (426,200 final score, ending on L10-3) are attached, as is my custom.

[stella_blue]

I wanted to get a feel if 80,000 minimum on No-Hammer was too high so I tried a no hammer game for the first time ever. No really a no hammer person.

I got a score of 316,000. I lost about 6,000 points on an elevator because my infant threw up on my wife. The date of achievement was today 8/9/2013.

Inp is attached. Don't think badly of me when you see it. I don't really have any no hammer strategies. I just did the best I could.

Corey, I just verified your no hammer score of 316,000 (ending on L10-6), achieved on 08/09/13.

I'm guessing that Level 09 is where your infant decided to graphically express displeasure with your overall pace.   

As usual, I've attached a snapshot of the game stats, since a few details may be of interest:

• The number of deaths that occur on screens other than conveyors & rivets (in your case, none; that's good!)
• The stage and level averages, compared to those in a traditional game
• An estimate of what a potential no hammer killscreen score might be (aka pace)

[corey.chambers]

Thanks for all your help Scott, you are awesome! Yeah, level 9 springs is when I had to race away from the computer. The infant was fully loaded and blasted my wife. It happened about 2 or 3 boards back so I made her wait for my help until the springs.

Yeah, that was a very good game until the level 10 conveyor. The deaths were not very good, just kind of unraveled really.