Ulisses Patriota's Feed

Ulisses Patriota
06-02-2021 at 02:50 PM
29 Comments
Rate this Entry

Ninja Gaiden NES - Tip: Another competition track.

Hi all.

A friend suggested creating a new competition track for the NES Ninja Gaiden.

The rules would be "Highest Score, 1 life only (no miss)". Finishing in the final blow in final boss 6-5, thus beating the game. CODES ARE NOT ALLOWED!

Would it be interesting or repetitive?

What do you think?

Thank you!

Comments
  1. RedDawn's Avatar

    Highest score on one life Ninja Gaiden isnt a bad idea. What do you mean by 'no miss' exactly?

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
    LikesUlisses Patriota liked this post
  2. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by RedDawn

    Highest score on one life Ninja Gaiden isnt a bad idea. What do you mean by 'no miss' exactly?


    "no miss" -- it would be without death.

  3. RedDawn's Avatar

    You mean it would be required one had to complete the game? If you died in say, level 4 you couldnt submit your score?

    LikesUlisses Patriota liked this post
  4. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    [QUOTE=RedDawn;bt69354]

    You mean it would be required one had to complete the game? If you died in say, level 4 you couldnt submit your score?

    [/CITAR]

    At first the idea would be this. But I was in doubt, so I'm doing the consultation in search of suggestions.

  5. RedDawn's Avatar

    Personally I would leave it at 'One Life-Highest Score' so that more people would/could submit to the track. Of course the people who finish will be at the top of the leaderboard anyway.

    On the other hand there are plenty of tracks which require one to complete the game, and there are probably more people now than ever before who are playing this game at a high level, so it may end up getting a number of submissions to it anyway.

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
    LikesSnowflake, Garrett Holland liked this post
  6. Snowflake's Avatar

    i agree with reddawn. allowing people who die sooner doesnt hurt the top players, and in fact helps them, as it puts more people under them. Would you rather get first place out of two people? or first place out of 20 people? allowing more people in makes the high score more impressive and allows more fun and practice for the others, better all around.

    like anything, exceptions exist. if theres risk management, or sacrifices, where killing yourself sooner provides an advantage in points, then fine such a rule might be needed. But is such a thing a concern here?

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
  7. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowflake

    i agree with reddawn. allowing people who die sooner doesnt hurt the top players, and in fact helps them, as it puts more people under them. Would you rather get first place out of two people? or first place out of 20 people? allowing more people in makes the high score more impressive and allows more fun and practice for the others, better all around.

    like anything, exceptions exist. if theres risk management, or sacrifices, where killing yourself sooner provides an advantage in points, then fine such a rule might be needed. But is such a thing a concern here?


    Very good point of view of the two of you.
    The idea would be to privilege those who advance the most with only one life. A kind of mixed of more points and more progress. Would that be possible?

  8. Snowflake's Avatar

    are you suggesting tracking level instead of score? i can see that, only using score as a tie breaker. I'm no super familiar how scoring works at toop level player there. If its possible for someone with less progress to get a higher score then it may be necessary to go with your initial idea. only other work around would be something artifical, like giving each level completed a huge amount of bonus points added on to make sure the person who made it furthest would have highest score.

    i can see this point coming up more than once. Where we want to first track who made it furthest, but if two people made it equaly far then using score as a tie breaker. To fully incorporate that properly the TG system would need to have two metrics, not just one for tracks. A primary metric and a tie breaker metric.

    i dont like tagging [MENTION=31815]Jace Hall[/MENTION] too much cause he's a busy guy, but i can see this mattering, i wonder if he'd be interesting that level of complexity to TG tracks?

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
  9. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    [QUOTE = floco de neve; bt69361]

    você está sugerindo nível de rastreamento em vez de pontuação? posso ver isso, apenas usando o score como desempate. Não estou muito familiarizado com como a pontuação funciona em um jogador de nível superior. Se for possível que alguém com menos progresso obtenha uma pontuação mais alta, pode ser necessário seguir com sua ideia inicial. apenas outra solução seria algo artificial, como dar a cada nível concluído uma enorme quantidade de pontos de bônus adicionados para garantir que a pessoa que chegou mais longe teria a pontuação mais alta.

    posso ver este ponto surgindo mais de uma vez. Onde queremos primeiro rastrear quem conseguiu chegar mais longe, mas se duas pessoas conseguiram ir igualmente longe, então usando a pontuação como desempate. Para incorporar totalmente isso, o sistema TG precisaria ter duas métricas, não apenas uma para as faixas. Uma métrica primária e uma métrica desempatador.

    eu não gosto de marcar [MENTION = 31815] Jace Hall [/ MENTION] muito porque ele é um cara ocupado, mas eu posso ver isso importando, eu me pergunto se ele seria interessante esse nível de complexidade para faixas TG?

    [/ CITAR]


    That's the idea.:)

    ThanksGarrett Holland thanked this post
  10. freeko's Avatar

    Any reputable speedrunner can get through this game deathless. Even retired runners like me can get through this game deathless. I find this track just another way to rephrase the concept of being a speedrun.

    There are not many glitches that can be exploited in this game. At leat for skipping parts outright. I'd just call this fastest completion at that point.

    LikesUlisses Patriota liked this post
  11. Pixe Sukola's Avatar

    This wouldn't be a speedrun or fastest completion because the time it takes you to finish the game would not be entered anyway, this would be a track for points with one life, with the requirement of finishing the game. I personally don't see the point in a track like that.

    The creation of a one-life-only [points] track, I do support, that sounds interesting, but having to finish the game to have your score count, I find that unnecesary and like Snowflake said, it would drematically reduce the number of people submitting scores.

  12. Barthax's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola

    This wouldn't be a speedrun or fastest completion because the time it takes you to finish the game would not be entered anyway, this would be a track for points with one life, with the requirement of finishing the game. I personally don't see the point in a track like that.

    The creation of a one-life-only [points] track, I do support, that sounds interesting, but having to finish the game to have your score count, I find that unnecesary and like Snowflake said, it would drematically reduce the number of people submitting scores.

    I agree - it sounds similar to the multiple racing tracks have a "must win" requirement of the rules. It's an elitism that stifles the number of people that can attain any entry to that track and reduces the comparisons available. It wasn't so obvious in the pre-ESI eras but now, with ESI, being able to attract more scores to a track is a positive.

    It's definitely different from speed running - sustaining the single life to capture all points available. The flip side is easy: when creating a track, it's your track to implement whatever restrictions you feel and the scoreboard is designed to be as flexible as the adjudication process allows. :)

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
    Updated 06-02-2021 at 11:01 PM by Barthax
  13. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax


    I agree - it sounds similar to the multiple racing tracks have a "must win" requirement of the rules. It's an elitism that stifles the number of people that can attain any entry to that track and reduces the comparisons available. It wasn't so obvious in the pre-ESI eras but now, with ESI, being able to attract more scores to a track is a positive.

    It's definitely different from speed running - sustaining the single life to capture all points available. The flip side is easy: when creating a track, it's your track to implement whatever restrictions you feel and the scoreboard is designed to be as flexible as the adjudication process allows. :)


    Well, the initial idea would be more points and more progress. The idea of "one life only" seems to be good. No need to win the game. This is because if the person dies before at some point of accumulation of points no longer add more points in the following phases.

    The Ninja Gaiden of the Master System has, in the game itself, an interesting scoring scheme. The gamer accumulates (progressively) millions of points as it passes through bosses. This way the gamer who advances the most will always score more.


    Thanks

  14. Snowflake's Avatar

    Barthax last line makes me realize a possible miscommunication. Sometimes people ask for advice on what they're allowed to do, sometimes people ask for advice just cause well, some people like to do what others like. i gave advice on what i like and what i think makes sense, but yes absolutely, ulisses can do whatever he wants for rules.

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
    LikesUlisses Patriota liked this post
  15. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax


    I agree - it sounds similar to the multiple racing tracks have a "must win" requirement of the rules. It's an elitism that stifles the number of people that can attain any entry to that track and reduces the comparisons available. It wasn't so obvious in the pre-ESI eras but now, with ESI, being able to attract more scores to a track is a positive.

    It's definitely different from speed running - sustaining the single life to capture all points available. The flip side is easy: when creating a track, it's your track to implement whatever restrictions you feel and the scoreboard is designed to be as flexible as the adjudication process allows. :)


    Yes, the idea is not to create an elite rank. It would be just the other way around this. See that in the speedrum there are only 6 people. In the "most points" only 14 players. For me, these tracks are already elite.

    So I thought of a new track with more attractive rules, but without encouraging progress in the game.

  16. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    [QUOTE=Snowflake;bt69392]

    Barthax last line makes me realize a possible miscommunication. Sometimes people ask for advice on what they're allowed to do, sometimes people ask for advice just cause well, some people like to do what others like. i gave advice on what i like and what i think makes sense, but yes absolutely, ulisses can do whatever he wants for rules.

    [/CITAR]

    That's right, William, I came here for advice. Guidelines. Because it makes no sense to create a track with flawed rules or that drive away those who like to play and compete.


    Likesbensweeneyonbass liked this post
  17. freeko's Avatar

    I know this game inside and out. All this does is add mind-numbing point leeching since there is a stage timer in every area. I might even just make it public where the best spots are to leech points. It will all be discovered eventually anyway by others.

    Why this suggestion sucks? It goes against the spirit of how you are meant to play the game. Instead you create a track that rewards the mindless respawning of enemies until the timer runs down to basically as close to zero as the player is comfortable with.

    No. Just no, full stop.

    LikesUlisses Patriota liked this post
  18. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulisses Patriota



    but without encouraging progress in the game.

    But while encouraging it to progress in the game.

  19. Ulisses Patriota's Avatar

    I was looking at friend Poco's submission in the game Dkong (MAME) and hit his face in the following rule:
    "The score must be achieved on the first life. Any means of gaining points are acceptable, but the stage must be successfully completed."

    What do you think of this rule in the context of this post?

  20. Snowflake's Avatar

    to the point of enemy respawns, leeching is already globally against the rules, unless specifically overwritten by the track writer. global rules create problems with grey areas. Ulisses, it might not be a bad idea to expliciitly state in the rules how leeching is to be handled. Can people hit a respawing enemy once? 3 times? infinite time? if they hit more than the allowable times, are they immediately disqualified, or are adjudicators asked to take into account if its on accident (note, i dont think 'accident' should ever factor in. i understand accidents happen, but judging accidents invovles mind reading, it also rewards the worst player, since the worst player will accidentally get more point, the good player is good enough to follow the rules and the worst player will therefore get the higher score and have an advantage, even still some people think accidents should be forgiven, so something to consider).

    ThanksUlisses Patriota thanked this post
    LikesUlisses Patriota liked this post
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Join us