thread

Lexmarks bonus life explanation thread

User Tag List

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 79
  1. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 3,325
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    1,745
    Thanks (Received)
    658
    Likes (Received)
    2049
    Blog Entries
    186
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    49 Thread(s)
    Follows
    60
    Following
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by dbh View Post
    George has already confirmed this in the actual submission thread (he changed the setting for the entire inp):

    http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthre...l=1#post928509
    I'll give Lexmark credit for opening this thread and inspiring others to do the Hex edit on the INP. Believe me, that is a LOT faster than reading the machine code.
    "May the Heavy Hand spare you" -- Datagod 1:19
    ~~ Strongest Punch on Twin Galaxies ~~

    Likes terencew, redelf, RTM liked this post
  2. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 6,225
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,097
    Thanks (Received)
    2525
    Likes (Received)
    1945
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Follows
    25
    Following
    8
    I've done a few different mods of RTM's INP...

    You get the same outcome for all of the bonus settings of 4k / 5k / 7k - game plays back to 50400.
    When you edit Bonus_Life to None, the game plays back to 47150, which is the score at which the other INPs (original & edited) lost their 3rd life - surely this makes sense and comes as no surprise.

    But also check this... when you edit Lives to 5 & Bonus_Life to any setting, the INP plays back to 50400, then any remaining lives are spent with no further key inputs - number of starting lives also does not appear to affect this INP's result.

    PLEASE NOTE that this is not a blanket statement of behaviour in ALL games... it is common enough, but should not be blindly applied to all situations.
    Yes... I've edited many INPs, it now appears that there are quite a few of us that have the know-how, and before anyone starts shouting "witchcraft", it is ineffective to edit/hack/cheat an INP into shape. The INP editing is merely a forensic method.

    But it leads me to the next point... I've yet to find a game where the "Allow Continue" setting would have affected the outcome of the INP. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I've not yet found one that does.
    However, for those that still feel that RTM's submission broke the rules and should therefore be rejected, would you also support a dispute for the MANY breaches of the "Allow Continue" setting? Because I don't ever hear any noise about them (except from newer members asking why we let them pass), and they happen all the time.
    Last edited by terencew; 11-04-2017 at 09:14 AM.
    Thanks redelf thanked this post
    Likes redelf, datagod, RTM liked this post
  3. VERIFIED Legendary Member Credibility: 2,568
    Join Date
    Jan 1998
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks (Received)
    780
    Likes (Received)
    1552
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    38
    Following
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by terencew View Post
    However, for those that still feel that RTM's submission broke the rules and should therefore be rejected, would you also support a dispute for the MANY breaches of the "Allow Continue" setting? Because I don't ever hear any noise about them (except from newer members asking why we let them pass), and they happen all the time.


    RTM REPLY - of equal interest to me is how over the past 15-16 years no one has ever made a stink about my arcade "Scramble" world record set live at ACAM using only 3 ships instead of 5.

    Not one single complaint or call for a reclass to a separate variation...I haven't even called for that myself.
    Likes datagod, Barra liked this post
  4. VERIFIED Legendary Member Credibility: 2,568
    Join Date
    Jan 1998
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks (Received)
    780
    Likes (Received)
    1552
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    38
    Following
    12
    I posted something in the submission forum just for "Lexmark" and "Snowflake". I hope they appreciate the irony.
    Likes redelf, cuda liked this post
  5. VERIFIED VERIFIED Credibility: 10,320
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,448
    Thanks (Received)
    679
    Likes (Received)
    1120
    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    Follows
    40
    Following
    4
    Ok John and here is another one for you. Robert's submission with the 4k bonus was edited to the correct settings and the game played back perfectly, showing that for this game the setting of the extra ship didn't matter as far as we can tell from the research that we have done on it. 100% so far on settings of extra ship not affecting game play with this type of analyzing. But then someone edited my Crazy Kong submission and set the extra man to a different value. The inp failed to play back to the original score. Now this doesn't 100% confirm or deny the effect just like Roberts doesn't 100% confirm it either. But we now have some research into it at least. My inp not playing back helps your side of the argument and Roberts inp playing back helps our side.

    I was disappointed that the inp didn't play for my inp or another Crazy Kong inp either :(

    I still won't agree with you that the settings had any affect on game play on either submission though as through the expertise of the DK community has stated it has no affect.
  6. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 23,017
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,576
    Thanks (Received)
    478
    Likes (Received)
    929
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    47 Thread(s)
    Follows
    22
    Following
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by redelf
    The inp failed to play back to the original score. Now this doesn't 100% confirm or deny the effect just like Roberts doesn't 100% confirm it either.
    Of course it doesn't. I'll wait for yous guys to conclude your investigation before I comment further.


    john


    .
  7. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 2,769
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Windham, NH
    Posts
    566
    Thanks (Received)
    62
    Likes (Received)
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    18
    Following
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by redelf
    I was disappointed that the inp didn't play for my inp or another Crazy Kong inp either :(
    I've also confirmed that modifying a ckong inp (both fully and only partially for the first few seconds) de-syncs quickly. In the original recording (which I made myself) there were two wild barrels about half way through the first screen and it caused me to die right under Kong. In the modified version, those barrels came out normally so when I was under Kong, the barrel that killed me in the original wasn't there. But since there was no player input, my man stood still and the next barrel ran me over.

    As redelf said, neither of these tests prove 100% either way. They simply provide us with data. Every game is different which means different results are not to be unexpected. Many, but not all, games use various memory locations for generating pseudo-random numbers to be used by the game which in turn affects how the game behaves. A good example of this is Ms Pac Man. I had an old recording years ago which was done on Windows 98 and whatever version of MAME I happened to have back then. I uploaded it to MARP and several people were unable to play it back. Turns out it could only be played back using Windows 98 because the underlying code used by MAME to internally generate randomness behaved differently between Windows 98 and later Windows OS's.
    Thanks redelf thanked this post
  8. VERIFIED Senior Member Credibility: 2,769
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Windham, NH
    Posts
    566
    Thanks (Received)
    62
    Likes (Received)
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    18
    Following
    3
    I'd like to post another scenario for people to think about.

    Suppose John McAllister sits down to play a nice, long game of Robotron to relax one evening. The machine is set to difficulty 5, 3 men to start, extra man every 25K (ie, normal Robotron marathon settings). Say on his first man he get around 500K, then the next death is at 800K, third death is 1.1M, fourth death is 1.2M, and fifth death is 1.5M. He decides to quit the game right there and let all the extra men die off. He recorded the game, of course, and went through settings at the end.

    The question is, did he just break the Robotron TGTS record or not?
  9. VERIFIED Legendary Member Credibility: 2,568
    Join Date
    Jan 1998
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks (Received)
    780
    Likes (Received)
    1552
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    38
    Following
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by dbh View Post
    Suppose John McAllister sits down to play a nice, long game of Robotron to relax one evening. The machine is set to difficulty 5, 3 men to start, extra man every 25K (ie, normal Robotron marathon settings). Say on his first man he get around 500K, then the next death is at 800K, third death is 1.1M, fourth death is 1.2M, and fifth death is 1.5M. He decides to quit the game right there and let all the extra men die off. He recorded the game, of course, and went through settings at the end.

    The question is, did he just break the Robotron TGTS record or not?


    RTM REPLY - Hi Don. The Board of Referees had this very discussion 12+ years back. I admit I cannot remember the final decision, but here was the general thought process.

    "Opinion A" - some saw no problem with this...they viewed it as the beginning "subset" of the entire performance

    "Opinion B" - some saw this as a problem from a purist PoV...no more reason, no less

    "Opinion C" - some saw this as a problem because when you play a marathon performance you are more "at ease" with the gameplay and are more apt to play more aggressively up front knowing full well that you are accumulating extra men to make up for mistakes in the easier part of the performance.

    I was of opinion "C". I honestly cannot remember the breakdown, but these were the three stances that I recall.

    I would have to ask Greg Erway who would remember best, but at ACAM he cranked out his world record TGTS at "Tapper" and I cannot for the life of me remember if he killed the game at that point or continued it for his ACAM marathon submission.

    In any event, before that point the decision had already been made. Access to the old referee-only forum is denied so I can only share what our thoughts on the matter were, not the final outcome.
  10. VERIFIED Legendary Member Credibility: 2,568
    Join Date
    Jan 1998
    Posts
    2,773
    Thanks (Received)
    780
    Likes (Received)
    1552
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Follows
    38
    Following
    12
    One unrelated analogy I can think of is Dave's annual "chocolate challenge" (which I hope you all maintain the tradition of this coming 3rd week or November).

    You can play skee-ball as many times as you want for practice, but when you are ready for it to count, for that one attempt and one attempt only, you call him over.

    In this example, the pressure is on knowing that this is it...no "do-over", no "reset", no "best of 3", etc.

    That stated...a lot of interesting possibilities come up.

    Some TG challenges now are best 1st life only...same logic applies. If, in the course of doing a 5-ship TGTS record you have a breakaway 1st ship performance, does that count towards both ?

    Worst case example - if you did a marathon and had an excellent start, could that same performance count towards all of the following assuming the title had provisions for each...
    -> marathon record
    -> TGTS 5-ship record (assuming same difficulty)
    -> 1st life only challenge (same)
    -> 15 minute challenge (same)
    -> 1 hour challenge (same)

    One performance...five records.

    Again, I do not remember whether the ruling was formalized or not or whether we were still not at an agreement over it. Makes for good discussion, though. I'm curious how today's "TGSAP" perspective will differ from those of yesteryear's referee's.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Join us