Scabbing/Leeching

  1. Scabbing/Leeching

    02-24-2003, 07:40 AM
    Wntermute - 02:20am Apr 26, 2001 (#118 of 232)

    Scabbing?
    I was looking through some posts and the rules in the book and I came across this term. However it's never defined and is vague in its context.. So what IS "scabbing"?




    D_Harris - 11:52am Apr 26, 2001 (#15.1 of 232)

    Scabbing Defined
    I assume you mean point scabbing?
    If so, it refers to how a player may amass points in such a way that the intended "game play" is compromised, allowing said player to get a higher score than it is commonly accepted to be possible by playing the game normally.

    Darren Harris Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    Wntermute - 04:30am Apr 27, 2001 (#15.1.1 of 232)

    Examples?
    Could you or anyone provide examples of "point scabbing" and how it's different from any other scoring technique?



    RMRUCZEK - 04:54pm Apr 27, 2001 (#15.1.1.1 of 232)

    Examples
    Hello Wntermute:
    Here are examples of what qualifies, and what does NOT qualify, as "point scrabbing". Classic examples, actually.

    Joust (Arcade game, original chip) - players could stand their mounts on specific ledges or areas and the pteradactyls would emerge and fly directly towards them at lance-level only. Thus, at a rate of about one killed per second (give or take), players could "hunt" pteradactyls as long as necessary, getting dozens of men and more before the early stages. This is "point scrabbing" for sure.

    Asteroids (Arcade game) - An oldie but a goodie. Imagine a game where the goal is to shoot down alien command ships that come out every few seconds. Meanwhile, annoying asteroids clutter the screen. Basically that's what some players turned playing "Asteroids" into. They would zoom up and down the screen carefully picking off incoming command ships while leaving a single, small asteroid floating in a near vertical manner. Classic point scrabbing, as you never leave the screen except by accident, whereupon you start this sequence again.

    Donkey Kong (Arcade) - Now this is NOT point scrabbing, as the game has a fixed time limit AND ultimately reaches a kill-screen. Skillful players engage clever tactics to maximize their score before the kill screen, and within each game screen, by staying as long as possible in the screen and accumulating points at a much higher pace than the countdown timer. Thus, for these players, they make less points by finishing certain screens in the fastest time possible.

    Robotron (Arcade) - This is also NOT point scrabbing. Some players risk in the "brain waves", under marathon settings, losing one life if it means killing all but one "brain" and maximizing the remaining point value potential the number of non-transformed humans still on the screen. Some call this the "Mikey trick", yet only the most skillful players can do this consistently on one life.

    Space Invaders (Arcade) - This is NOT point scrabbing. Delaying shooting the invaders to the extent that they "speed up" so as to maximize the on-screen time in the waves for shooting "command ships" at premium values. Since the invaders eventually reach the bottom, this is a good tactic.

    Turbo Sub (Arcade) - This is DEFINITELY point scrabbing. In the "expert" mode, clear off the initial protective barrier, then you start to accumulate an ever-increasing bonus based on the duration that you last in the screen. When played for "point scrabbing", a player will simply shoot all enemies save for one, and spend the next hour (or more ?) flying about dodging enemy fire and racking up bonuses that I've seen in the BILLIONS.

    Room of Doom (Atari 2600) - This is NOT "point scrabbing" because the game is a fixed number of screens, each of which has a fixed time limit, and based on the remaining description below. In each of the 16 screens, there is a preset number of robots in each screen worth a fixed number of points each, and a bonus for clearing each screen of the same amount regardless of how fast you cleared each screen. Thus, so far, players that finish all 16 screens shooting nothing else end up with a fixed number of points.

    However, an "Otto-like" guardian floats about as you try to shoot the screen robots in the allotted 2 minutes per screen. Each time you hit the guardian you are awarded a fixed number of points. When the 2 minutes expires, the guardian becomes invulnerable.

    Thus, if a player were to shoot in the 1st screen all but one robot as quickly as possible, then spend the rest of the 2-minute remaining countdown doing nothing but shooting at the guardian, this is NOT "point scrabbing", as you are eventually not going to be able to fire at the enemy, and it is theoretically possible to calculate the maximum achievable score range in doing so for all 16 stages combined, so no, this tactic is not scrabbing.

    Ms PacMan & PacMan (Arcade, all systems) - Of course getting all the fruit AND all the ghosts is not point scrabbing...this is a classic example of a skillful player getting more points due to hours of practice that leads to techniques not easy to duplicate, and to scores not achievable without said techniques.

    Galaxian (Arcade) - This is NOT point scrabbing. Players get double point values by shooting alien ships in flight, although it is easier, and safer, to shoot them while at rest. Thus, if a player wishes to risk a great game in progress by waiting for ALL the ships to come down so as to maximize their score per wave, more power to them, and it's their own fault if they lose a ship as a result.

    Arkanoid, Revenge of Doh (Arcade) - If I remember this one correctly, it qualifies as point scrabbing. One of the earlier stages, possibly between stages 5 and 10 (I think 8), has a way to get up to three of your balls-in-play racking up thousands of points per minute by ricochetting off bouncing objects in an enclosed area that is accessible thru a thin, vertical access column on the far left side of the screen. Players can, theoretically, and assuming they don't lose all their ships in storage, achieve hundreds of thousands of points this way.

    Star Wars (Arcade, marathon settings) - This is NOT point scrabbing. Players can, with 6 shields in the trench, opt to take a hit while using the force, as opposed to firing, thus regaining their maximum shields at wave end (+1, from 5 to 6) and getting the 100K force bonus. True, it's really a sacrifice of 5K to get 100K, but it's permissible. No one ever said you CAN'T use the force.

    In short, it comes down to being a judgement call. It comes down to what Walter decides, in the long run.

    If you have a specific game or tactic in question, simply post the intended tactic here and let the players contribute their opinion, or send a note directly to Walter Day and he will decide on a ruling.

    Robert T Mruczek Star Wars champion




    Wntermute - 12:27am Apr 28, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    How about this..
    OK.. would this constitute point scabbing?
    In Super Mario World, there is a forest level with about 3 goombas and two caterpillars right near each other, there is a way while using the cape to float around and tag each one in sequence going back and forth, racking up points and free men (200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 1Up, 1up, 2up, 2up, 3up.. ad infinitum) and eventually, the bonuses become garbled sprites and the score rockets up to the 9,999,999 or 99,999,999 maximum (as well as the 99 life reserve maximum). Is this point scabbing?

    And is sitting in a high spot near the powerup box and tapping Select repeatedly to swap powerups (gaining 1000 points every two taps), needing only enough time for approx 10000-100000 swaps (which can be a fraction of a second on some screens) to max out the scoreboard... scabbing?




    D_Harris - 09:55am Apr 28, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)


    I knew that if I waited long enough, Robert would chime in with various examples of point scabbing. :-)
    But the Asteroids technique(called saucer hunting) is not point scabbing, but a legitimate technique used by the best players to get high scores on the game. Using it you will still not be able to stay on one board indefinitely, because the last asteroid will be destroyed eventually by you or the saucer. Most still didn't have the skill to this emplo this technique however. Parachute scabbing on Time Pilot however is considered illegal.

    The Super Mario World trick is also definitely point scabbing because you are not advancing through the game, and you are getting "easy" points because you don't have to face all of the game's challenges.

    Darren Harris Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    JWhalls - 10:48am Apr 28, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Scabbing or Scrabbing?
    Which is it? Just curious. Robert says "Scrabbing" and others say "Scabbing."
    Anyway, on to the main stuff...

    How is this stuff determined? Just a big judgement call on Walter's part or what?

    Robert's explanation of "Turbo Sub" has me interested as well. I haven't played this game, nor do I have any clue how it works outside of what I've read, but I have a question on how the point scabbing/scrabbing works here. If I make the wrong assumption anywhere here, please call me out on it.

    Now, from what I see, it seem that at some point, you reach a section where time taken gives points. The point scrabbing/scabbing technique is to eliminate all but one threat, and then dodge fire for X amount of time. Well, it seems to me that just being in this section immediately begins point scrabbing/scabbing, unless the player finishes the section as fast as humanly possible. Any delays, misfires, whatever, would add to the time taken in the stage, and raise the score. This leads me to a made up situation.

    Would it or would it not be true that two nearly equally matched players play the game, but the one who is ever so slightly worse (on that day, at least) could get the better score? By this, I mean that if two people had nearly identical attempts at the game, but one player missed a couple shots, hesitated slightly, or whatever, the slightly slower player could end with the slightly higher score. It would seem that the person would be getting "easier" points, just for playing slightly worse than another player. Is this accurate to the game or not?

    If this is correct, it seems that a perfect player could go from point A, play absolutely perfect, and finished at point B. Another player could go from point A, play with minor mistakes, and finish at point B with a higher score. That would strike me as cheap. The better player and round doesn't get the credit. But we can't very well ask for absolute perfection, so what would we do with a game like this?

    Also, for Super Mario World, I understand the examples, and how they would be "easy" points, but on a game like that, I have a hard time calling cheap scores on someone. The score is maxable, and really, anyone who wants to spend the time could obtain that, and there are so many "easy" methods to do so. Just playing a stage over and over and over again would eventually result in high scores BUT that would be a fairly cheap way of doing so. Might as well allow them to just hit the select button and build up the score. It would lead to the same results, but the player would spend less time. So how can we restrict that? We could make it so the player could only play each stage once, but then you still have to make sure they don't do any "easy score" tactics. Many of these are actually part of the game strategy. Main example being that whole 'select button' pressing. It's part of the game strategy. Sometimes you'll want fire power, but you need to switch to the cape to fly somewhere. Hitting select is what most people would do, assuming they have the feather in the reserve box. Well, as soon as they grab that feather, they add to their score, and get some cheap points. So do we then rule out all select button pushing? If we did that, it would make stages considerably harder to complete, and would limit what the player could do to the point where they may need to exit a stage to pick up something somewhere else. Oops...nope...can't do that...can only play each stage once, to avoid cheap stuff there.

    Basically, too many restrictions would have to be put on Super Mario World to stop any form of cheap scoring. Frankly, I don't really like there being a list of top scores for that game because they will all read the same, but that's not my decision. In my opinion, though, the game is too easy to max out in any number of ways.

    Jason Whalls




    RMRUCZEK - 09:25pm Apr 28, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Asteroids & Turbo Sub
    Darren/Jason:
    Darren, I actually thought all along that the "hunting" in Asteroids was a classic example of point scrabbing, and I likened it to parachute hunting in Time Pilot to make the corrolary (did I spell that right ?). Here are my thoughts...

    In Time Pilot, you theoretically hunt parachutes by delaying shooting of the last enemy, or two, which would cause the "boss" ship for that stage to come out. In Asteroids, you delay shooting the last rock(s) in order to hunt command ships.

    The sole difference, in my eyes, is that in Asteroids, shooting the rock can be caused by you OR by the enemu saucer, whereas in Time Pilot you have sole control, but when you do finally destroy it, a "boss ship" comes out, inevitably leading to the next stage.

    Each game is not time-based, nor does the action speed up the longer you stay in the frame as some games do. Therefore, it is possible to stay in one stage infinitely. Anytime a game has this possibility, I think that the concept of "point scrabbing" might come into play.

    I tend to think that in Asteroids, it takes more skill to last to the twentieth stage by your last ship with maybe 100K than it does to get to 100K in the 1st stage on your last ship, but that's just me.

    In "Defender", however, the end-stage enemy "baiters" come out fast and furious the longer you stay in a stage, and it gets worse in "Stargate". Though my friends and I used to play "baiter-hunter" and see who could kill the most in a row, I still consider that point-scrabbing in a way, however since the action becomes more intense as time goes on, you will eventually have no choice but to leave the stage, or lose a ship trying.

    So, I guess Darren's position differs from mine on "Asteroids", but I threw in the "Defender" example to show that in some cases, it can go either way. I tend to think that in "Defender", as described above, it's allowable, but just barely. And this position seems to conflict with mine on "Asteroids", but in that game the action remains stable whereas in "Defender" it gets harder.

    I forgot to mention a title like "Elevator Action" where by making too many points the speed and point values increase. I don't consider that point-scrabbing as you are taking your life into your own hands their...your game life I mean...and liken this reasoning to the same I used in Galaxian, which is if you can handle the heat, more power to you, but if you lose your ship/man, don't start crying about it.

    Sorry for sounding preachy, but I just wanted to explain my reasoning behind Asteroids. Now onto "Turbo Sub".

    Jason, I haven't played this in years, but I remember it well enough that this explanation should hold all the details.

    There are two starting difficulty levels to choose from. The hardest I believe said "Expert".

    Your initial goal is to desroy the aliens defending a "barrier" in front of you. There are six (6) enemies that guard different areas of this barrier, all of which shoot at you, so the faster you shoot them, the less firepower you have to avoid.

    As you shoot them, you had better shoot the others quickly...no sooner do you shoot one than it comes on back. Basically, all six have to be destroyed at the same time. This is from memory, but I remember that this was a pre-requisite for going to the next stage, and gaining what I remember to be a huge bonus...possibly a million points.

    Now, let's move to the next stage. This is where "point scrabbing" comes into play...so much so that I cannot even remember what a score without scrabbing is.

    Basically, a bonus counter is displayed on the center of the screen. It increments rapidly...I estimate anywhere from 15K to 35K per second...and continues to increment based on how long you stay alive in the game from this point on.

    The 2nd phase is a 3-D environment, granted it's vector graphics like "Star Wars", only nicer, in which you have a number of enemies which you need to destroy in order to proceed to the final stage(s) which I liken to the "trench" in "Star Wars"...only MUCH harder. I said "stage(s)" because I can't remember if it is a one-part or two-part stage...one has lots of stationary enemies, laser screens to shoot, the other seems to be stalagmites and stactites, and the maneuvering on some require pinpoint precision cuts, one of which in the end of level 2 I have never, ever accomplished.

    Anyway, onto the hunting. By staying in one stage for a very long time, you can gauge how easy it is to get to one million, let alone much, much more.

    Technically, a slow player who doesn't shoot the enemies as quickly as another will, I grant you, accumulate a much more impressive score. That cannot be disputed. But perhaps Turbo Sub is a poor example, then. Think about it...how many games have a "bonus" that increases the longer you remain in the stage ? Most timer/bonus games decrease, like "Donkey Kong". Heck, in that game, if lasting longer meant the timer increased, I'm afraid to think how high the scores would be !!

    So, in your hypothetical situation, I must say it makes it very difficult, and judgemental, to say who is the better player in that case. Since examples like "Turbo Sub" are rare indeed, I'd speculate that Walter would have a better insight on how to treat this than I would. You are correct...a mere "slip" in concentration that makes you last even a second longer in "Turbo Sub" results in 15-35K. Who is to say what took "too long" versus what did not ? This is very hard to gauge unless you saw the title in question and how it behaved. I'd be happy to see ANYONE get to level 3 in that game, or at least show me how to handle the 2nd "trench".

    Anyway, that brings me to one last title that I forgot to mention..."Satan's Hollow".

    Back when this game was around for maybe 6 months or so, I watched a NYC player at the 42nd street Broadway arcade utilizing somewhate of a "hunting" tactic, but the more I watched, the more I realized that this was strategic hunting...at least I thought it was. Let me describe, and you determine if this is scrabbing or not.

    You know the gameplay...shoot an enemy, bridge part comes out, shoot another, another part comes out, etc. And when all enemies are destroyed, a tougher array/formation is there.

    Basically, this gent selectively proceeded from stage to stage, "hunting" in some long enough to cause a harder formation to appear, then exitting before his ship could be hit. I saw his pattern...he was manipulating what the next stage would be so that it made it easier to survive. Quite clever...just watching him and then playing later helped boost my then high score from all of 60-70K up to the 170K range, but I quickly died with the tougher "devil heads" coming out and shooting fire columns at you...I couldn't learn, just from watching him, the timing of the shield replenishment which he obviously had down pat...that, and the movement behavious of this head, so he minimized the time he had to deal with it's imminent dangers.

    What I liked most of his technique was how he maybe built all but one part from the "easier" formation arrays, leaving just one piece to accumulate from the next stage, which he quickly obtained and ran out of their very fast, using his shield to take a few with him on the exit path.

    So, I ask you...is this "point scrabbing" ? My belief is no, as it is a clever way to minimize the danger levels while building your bridge. What's your take on that ?

    And I forgot an obscure Atari 2600 title called "Desert Falcon". I achieved a respectable score of 60K-something on this title, and at each "sphinx", the end-boss of each stage, my unfamiliarity of what to do and how to dispose of the sphinx in the quickest possible manner left me with no choice but to do the "blood and guts" routine...keep on hammering away at it, hoping to pelt the right spot. Of course you make points along the way, but my ineptitude lead me to make quite a few per stage. I don't think that was hunting, and neither did the referee when I explained my score.

    Games like "Dig Dug"...of course staying in the screen longer isn't hunting...it's perfectly allowable as there is a fixed point value per stage, I think, and a fixed number of stages. Plus, things get faster when you last longer.

    Hunting the extra 1-point little balls forming the wall barriers in "Frenzy" is certainly not hunting, not with "Otto" coming out faster and faster each time you kill it.

    In general, I'd say that a gamer which has a built-in safeguard against staying too long in a stage to hunt, then any points you make along the way is acceptable. Like "Frenzy" as described above, "Satan's Hollow" as described before, or "Tuttanhkam" in which, at least for the 2600 version that I am familiar with, when the timer ends you lose the ability to shoot. Thus, in these selections, I'd say it is perfectly acceptable to last a bit longer in a stage and pick up a few extra points.

    Should a "Turbo Sub" one day be at Funspot, I will gladly demonstrate the above technique to you so you can see how easy getting the current world record of 4.5 million, I think, is. Makes me wonder why it is only 4.5 million, too.

    Well, that's it from me on the subject. I may just yet learn to keep quiet and stop rambling, but at least for today I haven't.

    Robert T Mruczek Star Wars champion




    vito - 03:07pm May 24, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Satan's Hollow(Just My $.02, Again If anybody cares)
    When I played Satan's Hollow back in 1987, I used the same "hunting" strategy that Robert described in the above message. I got to wave 14(13 flags) using that strategy. I got a final score of 45,335; my hi score which still stands today. I think this is the only way of getting a hi score on this game. If anybody can get a higher score without using the "hunt" stategy, my hat's off to them.
    Wayne S. Urben Ft. Atkinson, WI




    Wntermute - 11:56pm Apr 28, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2 of 232)

    Mario World..
    Which of the Mario World examples was "scabbing"?
    IMHO, the Select button one would be (alternating between flower and feather). On the other hand.. there IS skill and technique required for the goomba/caterpillar gambit.. you have to hit them and lead them precicely so that one goomba doesn't hit the others (thus killing them and having less of a chance that the caterpillars will revert from a hit).. pretty much all 5 creatures are required to keep up the trick as they have different recovery speeds (goombas flipping back over and caterpillars reverting from their hit-induced rage)




    RMRUCZEK - 12:26am Apr 29, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 of 232)

    Mario Scrabbing
    Hello Wntermute:
    The classic "Super Mario World" trick is actually on the original NES version. I can't quite remember the spot, but there's a certain area leading up to the flagpole where you can hop up and down on a turtle shell over and over, racking up extra men and tons of points. Everyone that posts scores in the 9,999,999 range can only have done this to get that high.

    I didn't pay attention to any such tricks in Mario 64 as the game is designed to be so easy that anyone can rack up a ton of extra men...that hole in the moat leads to several extra men per attempt, alone !!

    If you are referring to another Mario version, then I am not familiar with that one...I may very well have played it, but just don't recall.

    Robert T Mruczek Star Wars champion




    JWhalls - 09:44am Apr 29, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 of 232)

    Even More
    Wntermute, I believe that the example from SMW that we believe would be getting the cheap points is the select button tactic. It doesn't really even involve any gameplay...just find a safe area and hit select for a period of time.
    However, I think there could be many more tactics that qualify as "scabbing/scrabbing." Collecting points in an early stage, exiting, repeat. You're not advancing in the game, it's definitely not challenging, etc. But there's little we can do about that. Like I was trying to show in the earlier post, there is only so much we can restrict gameplay to before the game loses its shot at being capable of giving a high score.

    As far as what I think about how SMW relates to the other Mario games, I have to agree that the "turtle shell jump" is very similar to the tactic that Wntermute presented. Eventually, one will make a mistake, and the chain will break or time runs out. In both cases, you can die and can go back to that point and try again. No big deal...you racked up more free men in that 1 session than you can burn in many failed attempts.

    However, this is a good free men tactic. Before I even cared slightly about the high score in SMB and SMW (well, still don't, but whatever), I used the "turtle shell jump" tactics. It's good for boosting your lives so that when you get to later stages, you can be almost guaranteed completion. In that sense, it's valuable outside of that score.

    Is this sc(r)abbing? I think there is an argument for it. Mainly because you can return to that section and do it all over again. It's really not worth the argument in my opinion. SMB and SMW aren't the greatest high score games, and as I said before, I wouldn't be too sad to see them go. However, if we wish to keep them around, I don't think limiting what the player can do will get anywhere because of the multiple ways in which someone can get the max score easily.

    As for Mario 64, there are no tactics for jumping on multiple enemies, or cornering something for 1-Ups, as far as I know. It definitely can't be done with turtle shells because you end up surfing on those. Doesn't matter though, as Robert said, 1-Ups are simple to get there, and the game doesn't keep track of high score anyway, so it's not gonna affect anything.

    Robert, thanks for the explanation of Turbo Sub. From what I see, it's impossible to get through that game without the slightest form of sc(r)abbing. That is, unless someone beat the section in the fastest time humanly possible. Anyway, this leads me to the question, "If sc(r)abbing is almost impossible to avoid, how can we keep scores for this game?" If the only way for two equally matched players to get ahead is to make more "mistakes" it seems like there is a problem. And after the amount of time the two players take in that section increases, eventually, we're looking at ridiculously high scores, and outrageous examples of sc(r)abbing.

    I understand your point in there not being many games like this. I thought of that while I was writing my previous post. However, my feelings are that a goal of TG is to provide a definite word on who is the best for a game. Even if there aren't many games like Turbo Sub, if someone wants to try to take that WR some day, it would be nice to have a reasonable score for them to shoot for, and a method to do so. Which leads me to another question...How could we fix Turbo Sub so that sc(r)abbing is not a problem? It will always be around according to what I've read, but is there a way we can level the playing field? Only thing I can think of is requiring a time limit for that section of the game. This would have to be a logical time period set by the players of that game. Taping would be required here as well, so that it can be reviewed to see if it meets requirements. Now, players are probably going to want someone there with them feeding them the time so that they get the most out of it. Now, here's my key idea (this may or may not work...you tell me). Everything has to be taped for a reason. The person reviewing the tape would have to time out the set limit, and after that is finished, figure out how much bonus was collected afterward. This could be done by logging the score at the limit, and then adding the score for the last enemy or enemies killed. Then, when the player completes that section, log the score again, and take the difference between the two logged scores. Finally, when the player reaches the end of his/her game, subtract the difference from the final score, and you would have their official score.

    I know that is kind of a pain to do, and really, I don't even know if it could be done, but I think that is at least one way to limit the cheap points. Your thoughts? This idea is probably more complex than it needs to be...

    Actually, now that I think about it...do the enemies all have set point values? If they do, and we can get the info on how many points come from enemies in that section, you could effectively subtract out the bonus altogether! Just another thought.

    Anyway, this is getting WAY too long, so let me wrap it up with one final thing. That "Satan's Hollow" example you presented. Sounds like just a good strategy to me...

    Okay, I'm done for now. =)

    Jason Whalls




    D_Harris - 11:39am Apr 29, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 of 232)

    Scabbing, Scabbing, Scabbing
    I don't know much about Time Pilot. I put a maximum of about $1.00 or $2.00 in the game(but I was still able to get several hundred thousand points playing normally). The problem is determining what constitutes point scabbing on this game.(ie: How many parachutes can one hit on each wave?). Nevertheless, from what I hear, parachute scabbing makes Time Pilot ridiculously easy. Saucer hunting on Asteroids still takes skill. And it isn't really possible to stay in one wave "indefinitely". I don't know if it is even much of a possiblilty to stay on the first wave for 100,000 points.(Thanks to stray bullets). And you cannot totally negate any of the games threats. Anyway, saucer hunting is just a playing technique(that most players still could not master).
    The bottom line is that all of this is up to individual interpretation. I just don't see Asteroids being anywhere near that fine line.

    Baiter hunting in Defender and StarGate are also not to be considered point scabbing any more than going for a few more targets on a Star Wars wave. Because eventually, if you don't leave, you have to die.(ie: The technique doesn't make the game easier).

    Now on to the slower less capable player getting a higher score theory. It doesn't wash. Why? Because 1) A less capable player is less likely to go as far into the game. Or 2) A more skilled player will adjust to get more points before he reaches the end of the game, by staying a little longer on each stage. He must be better at staying alive on individual stages than the less capable player, if getting a higher score is a priority.(Now apply the above to Turbo Sub).

    Note: When I was just a Ms.Pacman newbie, I consistently got higher scores than a lot of players that were able to make it farther than me in the game. Even with my relatively limited "point scabbing" abilities at the time.(Which reminds me. Robert, are you ready for your next lesson). :-)

    The bottom line is that all techniques make a game easier as far as allowing one to get a higher score. It is the fine line between the intended gameplay and tricks that has to be established.

    Darren Harris

    Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    JWhalls - 02:00pm Apr 29, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 of 232)


    I wasn't talking about a slower, less capable player. I was talking about two evenly matched players. One just happens to make a mistake on that day, and could therefore end with a higher score than if he/she didn't make that mistake. Now, I understand the high scorers will adjust to get the highest scores possible, but if you allow wasting a small amount of time on Turbo Sub, how do you say when enough is enough? If you allow some, it seems that you shouldn't be able to just suddenly say when it becomes cheap point getting. My main point for Turbo Sub was that if there was a perfect go with as little bonus points as possible, one slip up would award more points, and the superior play in that stage isn't the top. So should the score with the mistake count? It is, after all gaining points for inferior play.
    Jason Whalls




    RMRUCZEK - 08:40pm Apr 29, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 of 232)

    Turbo Sub & Ms Pac
    Hello Jason & Darren:
    There are only TWO (2) possible ways to counteract the non-stop accumulation of bonus points based on survival duration...

    -> Only track scores on the NON-Expert level from the start menu. The lower difficulty does NOT have that continually incremented bonus timer, near as I can remember. Or...

    -> If I remember correctly, the bonus is clearly displayed when the game is finally over at expert level...just subtract the two. There are no "randomly replicating" enemies, no equivelant of "baiters" or "command ships"...so the high score would be PURELY POINTS EARNED.

    If a player is foolhardy enough to stay too long in the very first screen prior to clearing the barrier, they CAN make some extra points here and there, but the risks are severe.

    Show me a "Turbo Sub" and I will demonstrate both options to you...I just don't know the internal game settings, that's all...only what to do once it is ready to start accepting quarters.

    Darren, it's the end of an accounting quarter so my next Ms Pac "lesson" will have to wait just a bit until things get caught up. I took what you taught me, basically remembered the "upper right" corner and some of the tunnel movements to separate or group the lead ghosts, but quite often blow the timing of the joystick motions...you've seen me in action...a natural Pac-type I am not !! But at least I want to try and get better. I'll be happy if one day I clear stage 29. That will mean I lasted thru all four "junior" stages AFTER stage 21, meaning that on a 4-life game, I had to at least clear one of the stages on 1 life. I figure if I can get that far, then the rest will come to me.

    I agree with Darren that "Asteroids" involves more skill than in "Time Pilot" while hunting parachutes, but I still feel that the intent is to shoot "Asteroids", thus the title, not hunt command ships. Still doesn't mean just anyone can do this, I agree.

    That takes me to "Centipede"...isn't there a way to "trap" the Centipede somehow and spent a considerable amount of time shooting spiders ? Like "Asteroids", this requires skill to set up, and doesn't mean just any player can do it, but technically speaking, it falls into the same category, right ? What's your take ?

    Robert T Mruczek Star Wars champion




    JWhalls - 10:56pm Apr 29, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 of 232)


    Okay, well, if it shows the bonus, then I guess the problem could be solved rather easily. However, I wasn't aware that it only gave bonus on a high level of difficulty. I guess I must ask this as well...does it give bonus for anything BESIDES the time? If there were any way to do so, I'm sure you can understand how annoying it could be to separate the two. Also, are the scores for lower difficulties currently accepted? If they are, then I suppose there could be debate on whether or not tracking scores for expert level should be done. If they aren't, and for some reason, I would have to say that subtracting the bonus is the way to go.
    Just a little meaningless input on the Asteroids issue...shooting the asteroids was obviously what was intended, but as EA Sports says (though they meant it differently), "If it's in the game, it's in the game." If the ships are in there, who's to say they're off limits, and when? Once again though, it's the judgement call. When does it become cheap compared to the difficulty? I'm not an asteroids player, so I won't bother with that argument.

    Jason Whalls




    RMRUCZEK - 01:25am Apr 30, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Turbo Sub - Easy vs Hard
    Hello Jason:
    When I used to play the game often, the "bonus" counter only appeared after clearing the initial barrier of the "expert" or "hard" mode choice.

    There are no secret bonuses other than the million for doing so, which is awarded immediately. Other than that, it's pretty much points and whatever else, if anything, was awarded at the end of each wave after the trenches...but that's been so long since I reached these points that I forgot what happened after each underwater trench sequence once you passed the stalagmites and stalactites.

    So, the "bonus counter" in hard could cleanly be discounted, though the million bonus or so for clearing the beginning should be allowed.

    For some reason, and I can't remember why, I seem to recall games starting on the easier settings coming to an end by the end of a certain point, but I may very well be mistaking this occurrance with another title...so scratch that thought.

    Hope this helps.

    Robert T Mruczek Star Wars champion




    D_Harris - 05:54pm May 01, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Why Complicate Things?
    JWhalls,
    Whether you are talking about a "less capable player" or "two evenly matched players", what I said still applies. I really can't figure out where you're going with this "Turbo Sub" thing. The bottom line is gamers play. The high score wins. Period. I can make the same case your trying to make for every game in existence that has any kind of random factor involved. There is no such thing as two evenly matched players. Skills fluctuate. Games aren't exactly the same from one quater to the next. If two "evenly matched" players play 100 games a piece, chances are that one of them will have the higher score. To suggest that they should have the exact same score, and try to take steps to try and enforce that is ridiculous.(Not that you could prove that they were evenly matched anyway). Nevertheless, this is all academic.

    Robert,

    As far as Asteroids is concerned. The intent is not to shoot Asteroids. The intent is to shoot Asteroids and Saucers.

    As far as Centipede is concerned, that trick you mentioned does not fall into the same category as saucer hunting in Asteroids. If you use the trick you mentioned on Centipede, you have 1) totally eliminated a threat in the game. 2) Once that is done, the game becomes ridiculously easy. 3) And you definitely can amass a huge amount of points without moving on to the next screen.

    And whether it takes a lot of skill or not to put yourself in a position to execute a trick, that doesn't legitimize it.

    Darren Harris

    Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    JWhalls - 07:38pm May 01, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    The High Score Wins...
    ...so should we allow every single score with any method used then, Darren? (This, of course, excluding cheats/game enhancers.) Scabbing, as you older gamers seem to try to be telling me, is when a player uses cheap, mindless tactics to achieve a score beyond that of what is "reasonable." So how can you even talk about this if you're going to turn around and say "the high score wins"? Not always, apparently...the high score wins if it follows what the rule makers think it should follow. I was trying to help with solving that on at least one game. Excuse me.
    And as for the whole "evenly matched" thing, I'm well aware that there are not two players of perfectly equal talent. I've been playing games competitively for years too, and I would like to think I know how things work to some extent as well. However, the reason I use that type of example, is because one of the easiest ways to get a point across is to take an extreme example. It's purely for argument sake. Takes out variables. If you are to assume two players do the exact same things, then by slightly changing one, it makes it easier to see what changes overall. I never said this has, will, or even can happen, but I thought it would be helpful in my understanding of the situation and my ability to communicate.

    Jason Whalls




    D_Harris - 06:26pm May 03, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    The High Score Wins...
    "...so should we allow every single score with any method used then, Darren? (This, of course, excluding cheats/game enhancers.)"
    That is correct. Now you get the idea.

    "Scabbing, as you older gamers seem to try to be telling me, is when a player uses cheap, mindless tactics to achieve a score beyond that of what is "reasonable.""

    I didn't use the words "cheap", "mindless", or "reasonable". So I won't comment on that.

    "So how can you even talk about this if you're going to turn around and say "the high score wins"? Not always, apparently...the high score wins if it follows what the rule makers think it should follow."

    Isn't that what we have been saying?

    "I was trying to help with solving that on at least one game. Excuse me."

    You're excused. There is nothing to solve. As long as there are no tricks used, whoever gets the high score wins.

    "And as for the whole "evenly matched" thing, I'm well aware that there are not two players of perfectly equal talent. I've been playing games competitively for years too, and I would like to think I know how things work to some extent as well. However, the reason I use that type of example, is because one of the easiest ways to get a point across is to take an extreme example. It's purely for argument sake. Takes out variables. If you are to assume two players do the exact same things, then by slightly changing one, it makes it easier to see what changes overall. I never said this has, will, or even can happen, but I thought it would be helpful in my understanding of the situation and my ability to communicate."

    My point again is that this is all moot.

    The notion of judges taking points off of a score to "even the playing field" is still ridiculous. It's tough enough work keeping track of the scores the way things are. Changing them after the fact renders them invalid.

    Darren Harris

    Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    JWhalls - 09:37pm May 03, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Not Scabbing, Apparently
    Well, judging from that, you don't believe there are any forms of "scabbing" at all. Correct? You didn't seem to disagree too much with what Robert said about it, and games where there is "scabbing"...why is that? And if scabbing should be allowed (which you must be saying, or else you're contradicting yourself), then why even have the term "scabbing"? Seems ridiculous to me. It's just a strategy. Plain and simple.
    Let's keep going, shall we? On Turbo Sub, how then should one keep it from becoming a marathon type game? If all you have to do is dodge enemy fire from one enemy (according to what I've heard) and just let your bonus rack up, it seems like this "non-existant scabbing" seems to be showing up, and it'll just turn into a battle to stay awake. Care to give a solution to this (seeing as marathons aren't allowed except for special cases)?

    Jason Whalls




    D_Harris - 10:11am May 05, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Don't Assume
    "Well, judging from that, you don't believe there are any forms of "scabbing" at all. Correct?"
    "Judging" from what? And no, you are not correct.

    "You didn't seem to disagree too much with what Robert said about it, and games where there is "scabbing"...why is that?

    "Seem" to disagree with what, specifically?

    "And if scabbing should be allowed (which you must be saying, or else you're contradicting yourself)"

    I didn't say that, and I'm not contradicting myself.

    "then why even have the term "scabbing"? Seems ridiculous to me. It's just a strategy. Plain and simple.

    I didn't invent the word "scabbing". And the "strategy" is still illegal.(Plain and simple).

    "Let's keep going, shall we? On Turbo Sub, how then should one keep it from becoming a marathon type game? If all you have to do is dodge enemy fire from one enemy (according to what I've heard) and just let your bonus rack up, it seems like this "non-existant scabbing" seems to be showing up, and it'll just turn into a battle to stay awake. Care to give a solution to this (seeing as marathons aren't allowed except for special cases)?"

    You are obviously not familiar with the game Turbo Sub, and neither am I. So I know enough not to bother commenting on it.

    I understand that you young'uns tend to get sensitive for no reason at times, but it is considered a severe lack of maturity to make-up and assume statements made by others. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts. If you don't understand something I said, then just ask me to clarify.

    Darren Harris

    Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    JWhalls - 12:19pm May 05, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    Maybe I'm Missing Something...
    ...but you're making just as little sense as I am at points.
    Scabbing, you say (and yes, I can get the actual quote here), is illegal. But you just said that "the high score wins"....

    That, as far as I can see, is a contradiction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were saying that there is nothing to solve in Turbo Sub, right? Well, if there is the "illegal" scabbing tactic, then it seems that there is. If there is ever....EVER....another score sent in for Turbo Sub, what do you do about it? That's all I want to know. Are we just ignoring scabbing if it is only used to a small extent, or is there some method you people already have to crack down on this? And are the currently listed scores scabbing-free? How can we tell? It just seems to me like the rules aren't covering this issue very well yet.

    And you're right in that I have little reason to be talking about this game, but does it matter? Even if nothing is solved, or even if there is nothing to solve (as you have said), I don't see what I'm hurting by talking about it.

    "You are obviously not familiar with the game Turbo Sub, and neither am I. So I know enough not to bother commenting on it."

    As I said in my earlier posts, yes, I'm not familiar with it, but how does my talking about it make any difference? If you don't wish to talk about it with me, then fine...don't. If no one responded, then I would've just moved on to whatever else I was doing at the time, and this wouldn't be a problem. However, Robert decided that he would talk about it with me, and regardless of whether or not we got anything done, he had every opportunity to stop the talks. Not discussing Turbo Sub is hardly going to ruin my weekend.

    Now, "So I know enough not to bother commenting on it." So why bother commenting on me or the conversation at all? I think we had little chance of actually getting the rules changed (if there even are currenly rules for this game), so there was little to be concerned about. And are you implying that I *don't* know enough to not bother commenting on it? Figured I'd ask you before I just assumed it. If you are, then I think your feelings on what people should and/or shouldn't talk about are a bit too strict. I have been working in a Mario Kart 64 community for 4+ years now, and we see our fare share of newbies there too. I see no problem with them asking questions about our rules, and why they work the way they do. On the flip side, if you're only talking about yourself for that quote, then fine, no problem.

    Anyway, it's obvious that we're not making any ground here, so I would be perfectly okay with it if this all ended right here, or if we could actually talk about the scabbing issue (and yes, we can leave Turbo Sub behind). If you wish to actually leave this behind and talk about scabbing itself, then I'm all for that. However, a new post will need to be started because this one is getting too long, and I won't be able to read any more of it (WebTV is limited in how much text it can handle).

    Jason Whalls




    D_Harris - 06:48pm May 07, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 of 232)

    One More Time
    "Maybe I'm Missing Something... ...but you're making just as little sense as I am at points. Scabbing, you say (and yes, I can get the actual quote here), is illegal. But you just said that "the high score wins"...."
    Yeah, you're missing a whole lot. Everything I said makes perfect sense. Now if you had re-read what posts like I said, you would know that when I said "the high score wins", I was referring to the Turbo Sub point limiting ideas you were discussing with Robert. And even though I clarified it for you, you are still apparently clueless. So you are either extremely limited in your ability to understand, or are just trying to argue for no logical reason.

    "That, as far as I can see, is a contradiction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were saying that there is nothing to solve in Turbo Sub, right?"

    You're wrong, and I'm correcting you.

    Well, if there is the "illegal" scabbing tactic, then it seems that there is. If there is ever....EVER....another score sent in for Turbo Sub, what do you do about it? That's all I want to know."

    Didn't I also already re-clarify that since I don't know that game well enough, it wouldn"t be right to comment on that aspect?

    "Are we just ignoring scabbing if it is only used to a small extent, or is there some method you people already have to crack down on this?"

    Didn't I also mention that a fine line has to be established?(That goes for all games).

    "And are the currently listed scores scabbing-free? How can we tell? It just seems to me like the rules aren't covering this issue very well yet."

    We don't know. We can't tell. And if you have any ideas(on a game you know something about) then perhaps you should submit them to Walter Day.

    "And you're right in that I have little reason to be talking about this game, but does it matter?"

    Here we go again with another statement I didn't make.

    "Even if nothing is solved, or even if there is nothing to solve (as you have said), I don't see what I'm hurting by talking about it."

    The problem is that you are "reading" things not written, and not understanding what is written.

    "As I said in my earlier posts, yes, I'm not familiar with it, but how does my talking about it make any difference? If you don't wish to talk about it with me, then fine...don't. If no one responded, then I would've just moved on to whatever else I was doing at the time, and this wouldn't be a problem. However, Robert decided that he would talk about it with me, and regardless of whether or not we got anything done, he had every opportunity to stop the talks. Not discussing Turbo Sub is hardly going to ruin my weekend."

    And what does all this have to do with anything?(Especially since I never said you shouldn't talk about it).

    "Now, "So I know enough not to bother commenting on it." So why bother commenting on me or the conversation at all?"

    One more time. I commented on the point limiting ideas you and Robert were discussing. I don't know enough to comment on the Turbo Sub scabbing issue, since I never played the game.

    "I think we had little chance of actually getting the rules changed (if there even are currenly rules for this game), so there was little to be concerned about. And are you implying that I *don't* know enough to not bother commenting on it?"

    Figured I'd ask you before I just assumed it. If you are, then I think your feelings on what people should and/or shouldn't talk about are a bit too strict.

    Again, since I didn't say that, I won't answer that question.

    "I have been working in a Mario Kart 64 community for 4+ years now, and we see our fare share of newbies there too. I see no problem with them asking questions about our rules, and why they work the way they do. On the flip side, if you're only talking about yourself for that quote, then fine, no problem."

    No problem. But I will continue to comment on what I do know about.(That is the only way to maintain credibilty).

    "Anyway, it's obvious that we're not making any ground here, so I would be perfectly okay with it if this all ended right here, or if we could actually talk about the scabbing issue (and yes, we can leave Turbo Sub behind). If you wish to actually leave this behind and talk about scabbing itself, then I'm all for that. However, a new post will need to be started because this one is getting too long, and I won't be able to read any more of it (WebTV is limited in how much text it can handle)."

    No need. I'll take it for granted that everyone else understood all the issues and answers given.

    Darren Harris

    Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    cubeman - 12:38pm May 02, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 of 232)

    Point Scabbing
    I'll add my 2 cents.
    I saw a lot of people saucer hunting in the arcades back in "the old days". I'm sure it could some skill, but why even bother with an infinite life game at all? To prove you can stay awake the longest? What a waste of time, considering everyone has a finite life span. Some of those old-school players were playing for days at a time.

    Which brings me to my next point: I'm never going to play those infinite life games. I don't care about those high scores which take days to complete. If you want to prove your tough why not go for an ECO challenge or a real marathon. At least you'll get some exercise.

    Namco got it right. As far as I know, you can't point scab (there's no "scrabbing") on any of the Namco games. I still find 5 men only the best and most interesting way to play Robotron and Joust.

    Mark




    awesome - 10:34pm May 03, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 of 232)

    My $.02 if anybody even cares
    Personally I think that TGTS needs to become an across the board rule for all games. At first I liked the idea of do whatever you want but no game can last more than x hours. The Hi-Tech Scoreboard formed by some of Walters players in the mid 80's used this rule. I got a couple records on their scoreboard. But I can now see how limiting a game to a specific time period introduces too many variables when stopping play at exactly that time limit (4 hours in the case of Hi-Tech). The beauty was that point scabbing may or may not be the best way to achieve the highest score in a finite amount of time. Your game would have to be altered to get that best score.
    I now prefer the idea of saying play any way you want (this would include scabbing I guess but not the illegal tricks like sitting in one spot on Robotron firing up and killing shots without needing to move) but only the score at the end of x number of men is counted toward the record. x is the magic number that would need to be determined. I personally like the idea that x = whatever number of men the default settings start your game with. This means no extra men could be used. But some argue that it should be a number like 4 or 5 to match a number of men that is typical including any extra men you can get on games such as Ms. Pac-Man. Whatever is easier. But most marathon games would be pretty much eliminated under these rules. Not to say someone is not good enough to marathon a game under these rules. But since it will mostly eliminate breaks and in many cases will create a maximum score that can be achieved (because of men roll over) I doubt you will see many games longer than say 10 hours.

    I never played Turbo Sub and know nothing about the game. But from the picture I am getting the tricks described really shouldn't be allowed but are still not really addressed by these rules I have proposed. I guess you just have to flat rule them illegal. And maybe put a time limit per board that if passed would nullify the entire game or at least disallow any extra points earned on that board.

    The thing that sucks is we would have to start all over with records. And I would hate to lose the Golden Age scores. They could be grand fathered into history as being under "old rules". And from now on we use the "new rules". But that is a pretty big step to take. It seems to make the most sense to me. And sometimes you just have to take that big step to make things better and easier to understand in the future.

    Darren is actually the person I should credit with swaying my mind to this idea. This is not to say he necessarily supports this idea. But some of his comments led me down this path.

    Gregory Erway awesome@AlphaChiRho.com




    vito - 09:34pm May 04, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 of 232)

    My $.02 if anybody cares
    Time Pilot - I assume by point "scabbing" you mean staying on the first 2 stages the whole game. And collecting paratroopers endlessly. Personally my high score on Time Pilot is 107,900. I got to Stage 5, 2001 first time. Jeff Peters got 15,000,000! If he didn't "scab" he musta got to a pretty high stage indeed!
    Wayne S. Urben ("Vito") URBEN@INCNET.COM




    Wntermute - 05:23am May 02, 2001 (#15.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3 of 232)

    Mario World..
    I got my SNES set up so I think I'll take a look and see what level that was.. I got the trick from a gaming magazine quite a while back.
    I'm going to move the SMW portion of this thread to the appropriate board, tho.. I'd like more insight on this and other tactics.




    Wntermute - 01:29am May 05, 2001 (#15.2 of 232)

    Scabbing?
    You know.. when i started this thread, I wasn't expecting it to be such a divisive issue.
    Here's my $.02: This should be on a game-by-game basis and the tricks/tactics that are disallowed be clearly written out in the scoreboard/record book with the scores. BUT, (if I was a referee) if a game's going to be put on the scoreboard with maxed scores, I'd rather sit through a half-hour of mindless button-pushing during a trick than have to sit through a 2+ tape 14 hour marathon to get the same score.




    RMRUCZEK - 04:02pm May 06, 2001 (#15.2.1 of 232)

    True, but...
    Hello Wntermute:
    You've never seen how to hunt, then ,in the arcade classics "Krull", "Lost Tombs", "Eyes" and "Megazone", then. Both have places that a player can just sit in and fire mindlessly for as long as possible and with little or no movement !! Forget the scabbing/scrabbing issue...watching 2 hours of this would bore the heck out of me. I'd much rather see someone actually doing something different as time went by.

    Granted, "Turbo Sub", the topic of a prior message reply, involves more than just standing in place, but imagine, if you will, that Ms PacMan awarded a "bonus" based on how LONG you stayed in each stage...you tell me that there would not be a person out there who, at some point, would sit there in stage 1 for a full day, just going back and forth thru tunnels. I would rather watch 24 hours of "Barney" than to watch a player ducking into tunnels in the same stage all day long.

    Just my two cents.

    Robert T Mruczek Star Wars champion




    vito - 09:33pm May 06, 2001 (#15.2.1.1 of 232)

    My $.04
    I agree with you too, Robert Star Wars Champion!
    Wayne S. Urben [("vito")"Urben Cowboy"] Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin




    vito - 09:27pm May 06, 2001 (#15.2.2 of 232)

    My $0.02 Continued
    I Agree
    Wayne S. Urben [("vito")"Urben Cowboy"]




    jscarter - 12:10pm May 11, 2001 (#15.3 of 232)

    Scabbing
    Hi folks,
    First post from a classic console player here...

    I had no idea discovering the idiosyncrasies of a game and using them to get the high score was considered cheating. I'm sure I'm guilty of this on many of my scores.

    Everyone is on the same playing field because anyone can discover and use them. But what is/isn't considered scabbing here seems a little inconsistent. If someone has the brains to figure some scoring technique, I say let them use it. If you're not allowed to use your brains, well then let's not allow ambidextrous, 20/20 vision, photographic memory, or insomniac players, it's unfair to us who aren't.

    I hate marathon games, and steer away from anything that takes longer than 90 minutes. That said, I still think "scabbing" should be allowed. To treat it like a cheat-code and disallow it IMO is over-refereeing.

    I'll be reviewing my scoring techniques with the refs so they can remove any of my scores that they consider scabbing.

    James




    D_Harris - 01:00pm May 13, 2001 (#15.3.1 of 232)

    Level Playing Fields
    I remember a discussion involving these same issues on the old Twin Galaxies' message board. So I'll address them the same here.
    "Everyone is on the same playing field because anyone can discover and use them."

    Not really. Tricks are almost always stumbled upon.(Cheats and game enhancers that a programmer intentionally puts into a game may or may not be illegal).

    If I'm a better player than you are at a game because I can advance through the screens playing in the normal fashion the game was intended to be played, yet you get a higher score using a trick that you happened to come across, making it easier to get a higher score, then we are playing on two different playing fields. Not one level one.

    "But what is/isn't considered scabbing here seems a little inconsistent. If someone has the brains to figure some scoring technique, I say let them use it. If you're not allowed to use your brains, well then let's not allow ambidextrous, 20/20 vision, photographic memory, or insomniac players, it's unfair to us who aren't."

    If someone has the brains to come up with a new technique, then I also say let them use it.(As long as it isn't ruled an illegal tactic). Remember, that these illegal "scoring bugs", if used, fall outside of the way the game was intended to be played.(And scored).

    Every possible trick on any game must be scrutinized. And a determination made regarding whether the strategy used falls on one side of the fine line or the other.

    "...,I still think "scabbing" should be allowed. To treat it like a cheat-code and disallow it IMO is over-refereeing."

    I disagree for the reasons mentioned already. I never thought that it was fun to watch, or required much skill to hunt Pterodactyls on the old chip Joust game. Why would anyone think that it is fair to award a lesser skilled, trick using player the rights to the highest score acheived in a boring and easier fashion using a bug he stumbled onto. A bug that was obviously overlooked by the programmer/s?

    If I come across a scoring trick or bug, in the interest of fair play, I would make it known to the general competition and submit it for review rather than try to sneak in a high score using it. If it is decided that it crosses that fine-line between legitimate strategy and illegal play, then at least everyone would be aware of it, and know what to look for the next time someone claims a very high score. Not everyone feels this way. So what you call "over-refereeing", I call important enforcement of fair and interesting game play.

    Darren Harris

    Staten Island, New York.

    Searcher7@mail.con2.com




    jscarter - 02:28pm May 13, 2001 (#15.3.1.1 of 232)

    Sneaks and Bugs and Tricks, oh my!

    Not really. Tricks are almost always stumbled upon.(Cheats and game enhancers that a programmer may put into a game may or may not be illegal). <
    I?ve always gone out of my way to look for them. In Tutankham for example, what scores better; rush to the exit for the time bonus, take the time to grab the treasures, or stand in front of a creature generator and shoot like mad until the last second. I don?t think it?s TG?s duty to tell me which of these three ways I have to play the game for them to accept it.


    If I'm a better player than you are at a game because I can advance through the screens playing in the normal fashion the game was intended to be played, yet you get a higher score using a trick that you happened to come across, making it easier to get a higher score, then we are playing on two different playing fields. Not one level one.<
    With this line of thinking then patterns are illegal. Do think the game designers intended for people to map out patterns? What kind of skill is used when people create patterns?


    Remember, that these illegal "scoring bugs", if used, fall outside of the way the game was intended to be played. <
    Again with ?intended to be played.? I think most games were created to make money, be fun, and see how far or high you can get. I guess the timed 2600 Adventure scores should be removed, I doubt the programmer ?intended? for people to time it and f
Results 1 to 1 of 1
Join us