Almighty Dreadlock's Feed

Almighty Dreadlock
09-27-2020 at 03:34 AM
18 Comments
Rate this Entry

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles disputes, which need to be deactivated

This post refers to these two disputes:-

Saulo Bastos's 1,311 point score and Patrick Wheeler's 1,085 point score.

It's always unfortunate, when invalid disputes are raised, but at least it's given me an opportunity to address the inadequacy of the track's rules. Before I get into the plain facts about the game, let me do some boasting.

I am one of the original masters of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Shortly after it hit the arcades, I was able to play a "perfect game", taking no hits, while finishing it. Also, I was the first to discover how to score a thousand points. My original method was to turn my back on a boomerang man, narrowly dodge his thrown boomerang, line myself back up with him, and break the boomerang as it returned toward his hands. This was much slower and more laborious than facing the boomerang man, breaking his boomerangs as he throws them, but I didn't think that could be done safely.

Another master play I used to do was beat the first boss, whom I think is called Rocksteady, without touching the joystick. As Rocksteady made his entrance, I would push right up into the top left corner of the screen, facing away from him. I would dodge his customary opening charge with a high jump, coming down with a powerful drop kick. Rocksteady, now being in the top left corner, would take the double hit from that drop kick, which would floor him. I would repeat this, until he was knocked out, without ever having to adjust my position.

Right, enough of that. Time for the nitty gritty. First of all, the game has a time limit, of sorts. If there are no enemies on screen, a flashing arrow appears, to tell you to move on. If you ignore it, long enough, bombs will drop from the sky. As long as there are enemies on screen, the arrow will not appear, which is why I was able to develop my boomerang breaking method for scoring as many points as I liked. The MAME track's author seems to think that the game's bosses can be milked for a similarly limitless quantity of points. However, the only boss from which a load of points may be gained is Baxter Stockman, who flies around in a rocket powered craft, dropping mousers. Players can get one point for each mouser he or she destroys, so it makes sense to leave Baxter Stockman untouched, and let him keep dropping mousers. Especially since the 'edge walking' bug makes your turtle untouchable, at this stage. But this free for all doesn't last forever, as Baxter Stockman eventually stops dropping mousers, and rockets off, bringing the stage to an end. I don't know how many mousers he drops, before leaving, but it is certainly nowhere near a thousand. Not even half that. Not even a quarter, I'd wager.

Thus, making over a thousand points in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has very little, if anything, to do with how you play the bosses. The track's rules are therefore barking up the wrong tree. In fact, they're completely useless, since they make no reference to a limit on boomerang breaking. I believe that MARP's rules limit boomerang breaking, something like "no more than ten per enemy". TG's rules ought to have such a stipulation, which also limits knife breaking and electrowhip parrying, and that would be more than good enough to keep the game moving at a steady pace.

Since TG's rules don't prohibit the method which actually allows players to score heavily in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the disputes are invalid. The only way those two scores would be disputable is if it could be shown that the players milked at least one particular enemy for an excessive number of points. That could be seen as deliberately stagnant gameplay, and thus categorised as leeching. Consider, however, that I disputed several Double Dragon scores for doing precisely that, but all those pathetically bloated scores were allowed to stand.

ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
Comments
  1. Barthax's Avatar

    Purely on the basis of rule-interpretation:

    If the game can be shown to have that time limit, then it falls into the same bracket of permitted generic leeching game play rules that Double Dragon does. However, track-specific rules always override the generic rules so this track does implement a specific 50-point limit (regardless of any conceptual reason for doing so).

    Updated 09-27-2020 at 04:48 AM by Barthax
  2. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    If the game can be shown to have that time limit, then it falls into the same bracket of permitted generic leeching game play rules that Double Dragon does.
    .
    Anyone who is reasonably versed in the game knows about the bombs. However, as I said, the countdown toward the bombs' dropping will not start, as long as at least one enemy is onscreen. Time is therefore of no concern to a player who is using one of the point accumulation methods I mentioned. It's a bit different in Double Dragon, but the end result is the same. Players doing point accumulation in Double Dragon don't care about the clock, because they know it will be restarted, every time a new man enters the game. Since Double Dragon gives unlimited bonuses based on score, players can accumulate enough points to replace every man they lose, effectively making time limitless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    However, track-specific rules always override the generic rules so this track does implement a specific 50-point limit (regardless of any conceptual reason for doing so).
    .
    As I tried to make clear, that vague point limit does nothing to curb the point accumulation possibilities within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. A player could kill all the bosses as quickly as possible, to comply with the rule, and then leech a thousand or more points from one knife man. The limit is therefore useless. If a scoring limit is going to be included in the rules, it needs to include the aspects I outlined above.
    ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
    LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
  3. Snowflake's Avatar

    this is intering, if im undestanding the argument correctly, it sounds like since the rules are trash and based on false info they shouldnt exist. i get that, if we look for "spirit" the rules were created on incorrect info. even still they are the rules. if we're gonna start throwing out rules because the rule creators didnt know what they were doing thats gonna open a big can of worms

    however, theres another issue with the rules, and maybe it'll be two dumb things cancel out. this just rules out "excessive" leeching and allows "limited" leeching. wow il'l fight the urge to go off in too much detail how this screams to me as intentionally making a rule to allow bias and favortism with such room for opinion, but the thing here is, that vagueness helps. i guess adjudicators can just declare any leeching they see to not be excessive or limited. bam problem solved.

    how can you remove a score for "excessive" leeching without knowing how much viewed as excessive and allowed before?

  4. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    Anyone who is reasonably versed in the game knows about the bombs. However, as I said, the countdown toward the bombs' dropping will not start, as long as at least one enemy is onscreen. Time is therefore of no concern to a player who is using one of the point accumulation methods I mentioned. It's a bit different in Double Dragon, but the end result is the same.

    It is different based on your description, so shouldn't be treated the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    As I tried to make clear, that vague point limit does nothing to curb the point accumulation possibilities within Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. A player could kill all the bosses as quickly as possible, to comply with the rule, and then leech a thousand or more points from one knife man. The limit is therefore useless. If a scoring limit is going to be included in the rules, it needs to include the aspects I outlined above.

    Under the specifics of your description: as the timer doesn't begin if there is a guy on screen, avoiding killing the "final guy" comes under lack of forward progression in the leeching rules as leeching.

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock
    Players doing point accumulation in Double Dragon don't care about the clock, because they know it will be restarted, every time a new man enters the game. Since Double Dragon gives unlimited bonuses based on score, players can accumulate enough points to replace every man they lose, effectively making time limitless.

    In Double Dragon, it hasn't been proven to occur limitlessly in areas which have been used for point-pressing - the start of the "next life" begins with less time available than the previous one, ergo is limited. Eventually the timer starts at a value where a bonus life cannot be earned & death is inevitable.


  5. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax

    In Double Dragon, it hasn't been proven to occur limitlessly in areas which have been used for point-pressing - the start of the "next life" begins with less time available than the previous one, ergo is limited. Eventually the timer starts at a value where a bonus life cannot be earned & death is inevitable.


    Scratch that, got it the wrong way around: the timer begins at the same value each life but the amount of points potential within a single life is not sufficient to always gain a new life. The point at which the new life is earned is closer & closer to timer zero until it simply isn't earned.

  6. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    It is different based on your description, so shouldn't be treated the same.
    .
    The point milking strategies of both games ought to be treated the same, because they have the same outcome: unlimited scoring potential. This is what's known as a principle, which transcends superficial differences between point accumulation methods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    Under the specifics of your description: as the timer doesn't begin if there is a guy on screen, avoiding killing the "final guy" comes under lack of forward progression in the leeching rules as leeching.
    .
    It's not necessary to avoid killing the enemy from which you milk points. All you have to do is take a little more time than usual to defeat him. For intance, you could hit twenty boomerangs, as you approach the guy throwing them, then beat him, as he's trying to throw a twenty first boomerang. This is a decently quick process, less than half a minute. It can even be done in phases, broken up by defeating other enemies. Since the boomerang man is a common foe, there's no need to halt the progress of the game, in order to milk one of them for points. Opportunities abound. In terms of progressive gameplay, the method is far less blatant and tedious than the Double Dragon way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    In Double Dragon, it hasn't been proven to occur limitlessly in areas which have been used for point-pressing - the start of the "next life" begins with less time available than the previous one, ergo is limited. Eventually the timer starts at a value where a bonus life cannot be earned & death is inevitable.
    .
    This is incorrect, as I demonstrated in the Double Dragon disputes. The main bit of evidence I provided was an INP of a maximum scoring game, in which the player earned more bonus men than he lost. Your argument that inferior versions of the point accumulation method, which don't earn more men than lost, are not leeching is just fallacious. You're arguing that it's OK for players who suck at leeching to leech, but not OK for players who are good at it to do the same. Seriously, you should be embarrassed to call that sound logic.
    ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
    LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
    Updated 09-27-2020 at 09:20 AM by Almighty Dreadlock
  7. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock

    This is incorrect, as I demonstrated in the Double Dragon disputes. The main bit of evidence I provided was an INP of a maximum scoring game, in which the player earned more bonus men than he lost. Your argument that inferior versions of the point accumulation method, which don't earn more men than lost, are not leeching is just fallacious. You're arguing that it's OK for players who suck at leeching to leech, but not OK for players who are good at it to do the same. Seriously, you should be embarrassed to call that sound logic.

    Reaching a given score with more lives than the start does not make infinite lives.


    I see the old AD is back on form, so I'll leave this here: your arguments failed under scrutiny of a dispute.

  8. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake
    this is intering, if im undestanding the argument correctly, it sounds like since the rules are trash and based on false info they shouldnt exist. i get that, if we look for "spirit" the rules were created on incorrect info. even still they are the rules. if we're gonna start throwing out rules because the rule creators didnt know what they were doing thats gonna open a big can of worms
    .
    But this is precisely the can of worms we ought to be opening, at every opportunity, and without hesitation. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the rules of this track are garbage, but they are definitely inadequate. Woefully so.
  9. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax
    Reaching a given score with more lives than the start does not make infinite lives.

    I see the old AD is back on form, so I'll leave this here: your arguments failed under scrutiny of a dispute.

    .
    The dispute process failed, not my arguments. I see that you are also in your accustomed form, deliberately "misunderstanding" what I've said, in order to suit your position.

    Several TG members agreed with me, none of whom has a Double Dragon record. The two people who argued with me the most both have Double Dragon records. I think we all can see exactly why there was an argument, in the first place.
  10. Snowflake's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Almighty Dreadlock


    .
    But this is precisely the can of worms we ought to be opening, at every opportunity, and without hesitation. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the rules of this track are garbage, but they are definitely inadequate. Woefully so.


    ok, i'll admit, just because something is hard is no excuse to not do it, so my wording was poor. i do however have an issue with changing rules. the only times i'm ok changing rules is to undo a change, you know, a reversion, cause my view point is that thats the exact opposite of a rule change.

    the wording could probably stand to have footnoates added as to just what "excessive" and "limited" mean. and in cases where it cant be determined what was historically allowed (which i would imagine is most cases) i dont see any choice but to allow full use of leeching since otherwise its unfair to new players.


    more on semantics, but losely related to bad wording and leeching. https://www.twingalaxies.com/game/seaquest/atari-2600-vcs seaquest, leeching, based on formal definitons of leeching isnt even possible so theres zero need to explicity allow it. the rules allow for something which cant even be done. this is admittedly less problematic since its just a clutter rule and has no real effect but just a reminder how widespread the problem is of rules that were made by people who didnt have an understanding of the game


    Now time pilot 2, we will ikely have to change the rules at some point as the rules literally contradict themselves and different viewpoints have been enforced at different times. consistency is impossible. we can either wipe the track, change the rules, or be stuck with something where the rules are impossible to follow. in that situation we dont really have much choice

  11. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake
    i do however have an issue with changing rules.
    .
    What I've proposed isn't really a change, though. It's just to make the rules relevant to the game, which they presently aren't. It's fully in line with TG's own "global" rules against leeching.

    At any rate, the most important thing is to get rid of those two disputes. As long as that's done, you can talk all you want about the multiplicity of rule problems in TG's tracks, I have no objection. These things need to be brought to admin's attention, any way possible.
  12. The Evener's Avatar

    I have trouble gauging the relevancy of this 2008 thread so I'll post for context. Just trying to understand the context of having 1000+ scores accepted in view of public acknowledgement of the boomerang leech. Redelf's dispute of Patrick's score features an interview with Patrick where he references a bounty contest. This may be contest here, and there's brief mention of boomerangs. Were they allowing it just for this bounty contest?

    https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/121280-TMNT-Bounty-Here-s-my-Challenge



    ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
    LikesAlmighty Dreadlock, JJT_Defender liked this post
  13. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    Since every man & his dog knew, even before MAME existed, that boomerang and knife breaking was the only way to make a thousand points, I get the impression that the method was permissible, within certain limits.

  14. thegamer1185's Avatar

    Well hell, those rules could be read a few ways. Firstly, I hold the "record" for the NES version of TMNT Arcade game because of how I interpreted the rules and how everyone else agreed with how I read them. Kill 50 mousers fighting Baxter Stockman, then kill him. Also the infinite bikers on the bridge. I killed 50 of them, then 1 more as the "Boss". Same total as the Baxter fight. Here are the ways I could interpret the MAME rules based on how the scoring is done for this version of the game.

    1. If there are say 500 total enemies in the game, according to the rules a maximum score would be 550. You kill all enemies and leech 50 pts.

    2. You are allowed to leech 50pts off EVERY SINGLE enemy you can leech off, then you must kill them or your run is DQed. As AD said, there are many Boomerang men. 50 rangs plus the enemy kill, times the number of total Boomerang men in the game = Massive score. Still has a max out though and once reached it couldn't be beaten.

    3. You are only allowed to leech 50 pts off a boss. This leaves open the gray area of who can not intentially kill those projectile throwers yet still destroy more knives/rangs than someone else? Have fun with that debate.

    Since the NES version doesn't count points for projectiles none of these rules are to big a concern and there is an official "max" score according to those rules for the NES and they are the way number 2 outlines them. This version though, each interpretation has it's own max score and that is the issue I see.

    ThanksJJT_Defender thanked this post
    LikesJJT_Defender liked this post
    Updated 09-27-2020 at 08:10 PM by thegamer1185
  15. Jace Hall's Avatar

    I will try look into this sometime this week.

    LikesAlmighty Dreadlock liked this post
  16. Ragequit's Avatar

    The way i read the rules, from my understanding you're allowed 50 leech points maximum per level (i.e. points from enemy projectiles/weapons). Or is it just 50 leech points on that boss baxter? Another example of poorly written rules for sure....

  17. Jace Hall's Avatar
  18. Almighty Dreadlock's Avatar

    I watched Saulo Bastos's 1,311 point game. As expected, he employed the projectile breaking method. He used Raphael, whose spinning nunchaku move gives the biggest margin for error. His gameplay clearly had MARP's restriction in mind, as he did not try to milk any one opponent for more than ten points. I think he took eleven from one, but such a small error is probably not enough to disqualify his record.

    I was disappointed to see that he failed to defeat Shredder, which means that his play produced the high score. but didn't show true mastery of the game. Really dampens my enthusiasm to defend his use of the point accumulation method.

Join us