Barra's Feed

Barra
05-24-2018 at 01:20 PM
95 Comments
Rate this Entry

Request for rule change

@Dave Hawksett

MAME - Donkey Kong - Points [Level 1-1]


After achieving a score on level 1-1 the rest of the player's lives must be spent and then initials entered as usual. Failure to do so will result in your submission being disqualified.
The current rule is too open to interpretation, specifically the piece in bold.

Where are the player's lives supposed to be spent? Can you spend them over the course of a full game?
Are "spent" lives those where you die naturally? Those you sacrifice on purpose?

Some have argued that you must "spend" your lives on 1-2 (the screen immediately following 1-1), but there are TGSAP adjudicated scores that don't do this. Here's one example

Suggestions:

1) Remove the rule completely. Let players play out their game as they should be able to do. No world record calibre player is ever going to kill off their best ever 1-1 score, nor should they have to. This track is for the score on 1-1, anything that happens past this point is completely irrelevant.
Removing the rule would have absolutely no impact on past, present or future submissions.

Or,

2) Clarify what it means for a player's lives to be "spent". Specify exactly where and how the player's lives are to be spent.

Thanks
Comments
  1. Max's Avatar
    Remove the rule completely.

    I would guess that the only purpose of this rule was to save pre TGSAP refs the time of going through an entire full game INP for a 1-1 score, nothing more, nothing less. I would go one step further: this was probably created by a singular ref and their primary concern wasn't about the gamer, rather it was about saving their own personal time.

    To create a game specific rule that prohibits a player to continue an amazing start doesn't make sense.

    Changing this rule will not impact any existing submission.

    For some perspective: consider racing games that allow submissions on fastest lap as well as fastest race time for all laps combined. We accept these submissions without issue. The example here on the 1-1 screen on DK is no different.
    ThanksBarra thanked this post
    Updated 05-24-2018 at 01:53 PM by Max
  2. Snowflake's Avatar
    I was invovled with one of the debates on this. Though i felt the rule was stupid (not to mention vague) I still felt rules needed to be followed. Removing it though helps get past the awkwardness where people like me feel the need to reject even though we take issue with the rule.

    as a concern, there are times rules like this matter, the most notable example being astrosmash since you can lose points it matters if you keep playing or not. Donkey Kong is known well enough though that we can rule out any real reason for the rule other than saving referee time.
  3. Robert.F's Avatar
    WOW I`m thinking men have to die first "then initials entered as usual"
    LikesBarra liked this post
  4. terencew's Avatar
    I vaguely recall an argument in favour of that rule having something to do with a psychological point of difference… a different mindset that should separate it from other submissions to the “Points” track.
    Can’t remember the specifics though.
    In any case, I also support removing the rule - it really doesn’t take too long to unthrottle and get to the end of the INP, if that’s the best argument for the current rule.
    ThanksBarra thanked this post
  5. Snowflake's Avatar
    the psychological advantage may have been me i did put up a simliar argument. But my argument was not to defend the rule, but rather to defend enforcing it. let me explain

    no point in enforcin the 'enter your initials rule". its a stupid rule, and further, it has zero effect on the game play.

    the kill your guys rule is stupid, however its a stupid rule that does make a difference so applyin it to some but not others matters. with that rule in effect, players had to decide between continuing their game and ending it. some people may have chosen to not end the game and keep going out of hopes of a better total game score. because of this, this track essentailly resulted in fewer chances. you coud only submit your attempts that ended, at the end of level, but you couldnt submit your other attempts. Obviously, the few chances you have to attempt something, the harder to get a top score, this is part of why live score are so much more impressive. Also, yes, psychology can factor in, though of course that depends on the individual but yes knowing you have to ruin your good game, versus knowing you can get a two for one does change the mindset as well.

    removing the rule effectively gives people more chances at the score. therefore the rule makes a difference. As an adjudciator i'll only ignore rules if they provable make zero difference, since this one does make a difference its not my job to decide if the rule is good or bad, it only myjob to enforce it. now, if the people who's job it is to change rules feel its stupid too, then yay remove it.

    for a poltical analogy, i feel like a judge. There may be a law I hate, but i'm bound to enforce it. Yes while enforcing it I can certainly hope and vote the politicians change the law.

    As is, i feel the need to enforce as it makes a difference. I also want to see the rule changed
  6. Barthax's Avatar
    "the rest of the players lives" are spent after level 1-1 regardless of circumstances - whether the player ends them on 1-2 or the player goes on to complete a WR and any other scenario in between. The rule has no fundamental meaning because the achievement occurs prior to the rule having any effect and it is well-known there is no adverse effect post-achievement.

    Whether the rule stays or goes has no bearing on the correct adjudication of these rule as all circumstances of ending the lives fit the rule's verbiage.

    The only problem is willful implementation of incorrect enforcement. (I wouldn't be surprised if I've done that in the past.)
    LikesBarra, bh_, terencew, Rev John liked this post
  7. xelnia's Avatar
    I made a post in the submission thread, so not much for me to add here other than showing my support for an update to the rules.
    LikesBarra liked this post
  8. JasonV91's Avatar
    Also adding my vote to remove this part of the rule - this is a textbook example where a simple rule change will remove a lot of drama and repetitive discussion from submissions to this track, and has zero effect on any previously accepted scores.

    This is really an open-and-shut case, and would take under a minute to fix. It's confusing, and slightly disappointing, that a track this popular (80 scores) can't get a response of any kind from TG admin after tags/requests in multiple threads, while fixes to other tracks where there is much less competition (i.e. Intellivision) seem to get addressed almost immediately.
    LikesBarra, datagod, bensweeneyonbass liked this post
  9. Max's Avatar
    A response from TG after multiple tags and requests on such an active track isn't an unreasonable request in the least. You are not alone in your disappointment.

    @Dave Hawksett @Jace Hall

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonV91
    Also adding my vote to remove this part of the rule - this is a textbook example where a simple rule change will remove a lot of drama and repetitive discussion from submissions to this track, and has zero effect on any previously accepted scores.

    This is really an open-and-shut case, and would take under a minute to fix. It's confusing, and slightly disappointing, that a track this popular (80 scores) can't get a response of any kind from TG admin after tags/requests in multiple threads, while fixes to other tracks where there is much less competition (i.e. Intellivision) seem to get addressed almost immediately.
    LikesBarra liked this post
  10. Fly's Avatar
    The way I read that gibberish rule is that you MUST enter your initials or you will be dq'd. It does not say spend them immediately. Just says they must be spent.

    I assume they are trying to avoid games that cut off/end with no initials being entered.

    I'm not saying I'm right, but that's how I read it. Those of you that INSIST it's one way or the other clearly struggle with English. It can go either way. But in a more literal sense, it only says spend them AFTER 1-1. So 2 hours later is fine with me. I don't watch DK stuff anyway.

    Also, how many if you nutjobs have ignored dip switch rules for things like screen flip/demo sounds/free play/1 man and marathon in ghe same game records that don't match the rules?
    Likesdatagod, Barthax liked this post
  11. datagod's Avatar
    Remove the wording.

    "Spend your lives" is archaic. Spend it how? Leisurely pursuits? Writing fiction?

    "He spent the first half of this life pondering the value of Donkey Kong, which he later regretted. He then spent his next two lives as a squirrel hiding his nuts in the forests of Europe".
    LikesFly, Barthax, Ben Way liked this post
  12. Dave Hawksett's Avatar
    The rule does look strange. Does anyone else have any more insight as to why it exists in the first place?
    LikesRev John liked this post
  13. Snowflake's Avatar
    Just repeating what I heard from others but allegedly to save referee time
    Likesdatagod liked this post
  14. Dave Hawksett's Avatar
    This is being looked into and there will be an update soon. Some things are not as simple as they seem!
    ThanksBarra thanked this post
  15. swaggers's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hawksett
    The rule does look strange. Does anyone else have any more insight as to why it exists in the first place?
    Back when it was being sent to a single ref they would technically have to sit through the full game, even if it was 2 hours, to see the complete package. So to make it easier for a ref I assume they asked people to just go for the 1-1 score and not a full game also.

    Now the same theory exists it is up to the adjudicators whether they want to sit through a 2 hour DK game to see if everything is correct for a 1-1 score submission.
  16. Barthax's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by swaggers
    Back when it was being sent to a single ref they would technically have to sit through the full game, even if it was 2 hours, to see the complete package. So to make it easier for a ref I assume they asked people to just go for the 1-1 score and not a full game also.

    Now the same theory exists it is up to the adjudicators whether they want to sit through a 2 hour DK game to see if everything is correct for a 1-1 score submission.
    "Back in the ref days" MAME had an enforced rule which required that the initials be entered. It is far more plausible that the sentence being reviewed here was an adjunct to enforcement of the initials.
    LikesRev John liked this post
  17. lexmark's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Hawksett
    This is being looked into and there will be an update soon. Some things are not as simple as they seem!
    Hi Dave. Given how easily you bent over backwards to change the Crazy Kong rule to accommodate a request that was FAR more technical than this one will ever be, I seriously can't see what's not "simple" about this one?

    No disrespect intended, just saying.

    john

    .
  18. Dave Hawksett's Avatar
    Hi John,

    Take a look at how long it took for the Crazy Kong decision to be reached.

    I asked @RTM about this and here, with his permission, is his reply:

    Hi Dave:

    Being that I wrote this very same rule I can explain why.

    Back in the pre-2006 range, the mindset of TG back then was that a single submission could not "count" towards others. Let me share the building blocks her and from this you can determine if it should be removed as this applies to multiple titles.

    **********************

    The (1-1) record was created back in 2002-2004 range due to the mystique of Steve Wiebe's first TG-accepted submission of 947K as compared for benchmarking purposes when "calculating" the theoretical maximum score possible on the title.

    Billy had, as per his anecdote, scored 50K by end of stage 2-3 and as a component of that he point-pressed heavily in all stages including the lead stage which everyone of course plays no matter how good they are at the title, you always have to start from (1-1).

    So, it was determined to start tracking the best score attainable for the very first stage for sake of competition and to compare to the achievement/scoring-pace of the then-legendary champion.

    However, TG also felt that as with marathon-vs-TGTS, where a TGTS submission as a sub-set of a marathon could not be accepted because when you play TGTS from the start you are mentally preparing for a very tight and careful game whereas a marathon approach is initially fast and loose. Same for a killer start at TGTS which could be the beginning of a marathon play because of the extreme care which fortuitously lead to the build-up of extra lives.

    So with a 5-man score not being able to be submitted for a full-game and vice-versa, the same logic for sake of consistency was applied to the 1-man score.

    I'm all for removing it BUT you need to consider the broader issue here for sake of consistency...the implications of ALL the many tracks that are TGTS-based...would you be prepared to undo those rulings as well if requested by the gamers, as a dfinite psychological advantage exists when starting a marathon and realizing that your great beginning had TGTS potential, and vice versa. Those caveats make more sense to me than the (1-1) caveat which is admittedly smaller in scope.

    Robert



    Quote Originally Posted by lexmark
    Hi Dave. Given how easily you bent over backwards to change the Crazy Kong rule to accommodate a request that was FAR more technical than this one will ever be, I seriously can't see what's not "simple" about this one?

    No disrespect intended, just saying.

    john

    .
    ThanksRev John thanked this post
    LikesRev John liked this post
  19. Snowflake's Avatar
    Interstimg according to that email at one point you couldn’t double submit a tournament and marathon score from the same event. You don’t have to conncern yourself with what happens when gamers request that rule be removed because that rule does not exist on any of the marathon or tgts tracks I’ve looked at(not to say I’ve seen them all). This provides an opportunity to cite precedent to your decision. Find when the rule on marathon and tournament double submission was removed and you have the precedent for this
  20. Barra's Avatar
    There’s plenty of instances where TGTS/marathon have been interchanged where the correct number of lives were used for the given track. For me, the psychological difference is not a significant enough factor to justify exclusion. You’re still playing the same game and whatever goes on in your head is your issue, and would greatly differ from person to person.

    A dispute has been opened on one score that didn’t “spend their lIves” instantly. Expecting more to come to

    How are we getting on with this?
    Likesterencew, Barthax, Rev John liked this post
    Updated 06-04-2018 at 02:22 PM by Barra
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Join us