Dispute: Pete Hahn - Arcade - Green Beret - Points - Player: Michael Robertson - Pete Hahn

Is this a valid dispute?

    This poll is closed
This poll is closed
  1. Dispute: Pete Hahn - Arcade - Green Beret - Points - Player: Michael Robertson - Pete Hahn

    07-25-2017, 10:08 PM
    Arcade - Green Beret - Points
    Track
    https://www.twingalaxies.com/scores.php?scores=3298
    Rules
    Dip-Switch Bank 1:
    1-8 = OFF
    Dip-Switch Bank 2:
    1 = ON
    2 = OFF
    3 = ON/OFF [Upright/Cocktail]
    4 = OFF
    5-6 = ON
    7 = OFF
    8 = ON
    Dip-Switch Bank 3:
    1-2 = OFF
    3-4 = OFF/UNUSED
    Note: The above Dip Switches, are not only the FACTORY DEFAULT settings, but are also the correct Twin Galaxies Tournament Settings for this title and will provide the following settings;
    Lives: 3
    Bonus Life: 50,000 - 100,000 - Every 100,000
    Difficulty: Normal
    Single Upright Control
    Player Name
    Michael Robertson
    Original Adjudication
    N/A
    Verification Method
    Referee
    Verification Date
    1985-04-27
    Disputed Score
    6166500 (Rank 1)
    Disputed By
    GGA HAN
    Dispute Evidence / Rationale
    This game maxes out at 999,999 and therefore this score is invalid. Here is a youtube video showing a player killing enemies and not accumulating any score after this threshold.



    At about 1 hour 16 minutes the max is reached. Too bad this player used autofire, or this mame INP could be accepted here on TG!
    Thanks HugDD, JJT_Defender thanked this post
    Likes HugDD, JJT_Defender liked this post
  2. 07-26-2017, 02:04 AM
    Two questions:

    1) The score was accepted in a TG era in which it was permissible to utilise multiple credits under some circumstances. The rules were likely added in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Was this score legitimate under multiple credits rules?
    2) Manufacturers do make revisions during production so while there is one PCB which has a cap, why would that mean that all PCBs have a cap?
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
  3. 07-26-2017, 06:42 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax View Post

    1) The score was accepted in a TG era in which it was permissible to utilise multiple credits under some circumstances. The rules were likely added in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Was this score legitimate under multiple credits rules?
    Would you expand on this? This is something I've never heard of. I am interested to know in what circumstances would multiple credit use be acceptable? How long a period was this acceptable for? Why was it put into place? Are you able to offer examples of multiple use submissions that would have been acceptable? When did multiple credit rules end?

  4. 07-26-2017, 07:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Max View Post
    Would you expand on this? This is something I've never heard of. I am interested to know in what circumstances would multiple credit use be acceptable? How long a period was this acceptable for? Why was it put into place? Are you able to offer examples of multiple use submissions that would have been acceptable? When did multiple credit rules end?
    Mark Hoff (@1500points) is really the chap who can answer this (and has answered it already several times on the forum if one of us could find them, good luck!). However, I'll do my best on my limited understanding. The early TG era was about setting high scores and marathons - not about the precise conditions they were set necessarily. Scores were entered which were combinations of separate credits runs - there may even have been machine resets in between due to hardware faults, for example. Continues were not something to avoid either - it was obvious on some games that starting from the beginning would set the highest score but there were circumstances where a score from a continue may have been considered a normal score.
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
  5. 07-26-2017, 08:11 AM
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
    Thanks Max, HAN thanked this post
    Likes HAN liked this post
  6. 07-26-2017, 08:15 AM
    Section 4.1:
    "The real test of a marathon is endurance over time. Therefore, the main point is how long the player can last before succumbing to fatigue or losing their last Man. So, even though a machine might turn off and wipe out a score, the player is allowed to start again immediately."

    Section 4.5:
    "A player may restart immediately if the machine blanks out for any technical reason or accident."

    I believe under some circumstances, a score which did not continue to climb (what we now know as score cap) was considered broken under this ruling and the player was able to continue from the start again.
    Lots of 1sts to be surpassed: what are you waiting for? Play the game, submit the score...
    Thanks Max, HAN thanked this post
    Likes HAN liked this post
  7. 07-26-2017, 08:40 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Barthax View Post
    Mark Hoff (@1500points) is really the chap who can answer this (and has answered it already several times on the forum if one of us could find them, good luck!). However, I'll do my best on my limited understanding. The early TG era was about setting high scores and marathons - not about the precise conditions they were set necessarily. Scores were entered which were combinations of separate credits runs - there may even have been machine resets in between due to hardware faults, for example. Continues were not something to avoid either - it was obvious on some games that starting from the beginning would set the highest score but there were circumstances where a score from a continue may have been considered a normal score.
    Thank you.

    In context to current score disputes, as these scores were considered acceptable based on TG standards at the time, will these scores be considered as valid disputes currently? I would imagine it would be difficult to remove a score that followed procedure at the time of submission, though at the same time, the score is not at all representative given the current procedures in place.

    This isn't a question for you Pete, though perhaps a question for TG. This situation does create an interesting dilemma.

    Likes Barthax, HAN, HugDD liked this post
  8. 07-26-2017, 08:48 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Max View Post
    Thank you.

    In context to current score disputes, as these scores were considered acceptable based on TG standards at the time, will these scores be considered as valid disputes currently? I would imagine it would be difficult to remove a score that followed procedure at the time of submission, though at the same time, the score is not at all representative given the current procedures in place.

    This isn't a question for you Pete, though perhaps a question for TG. This situation does create an interesting dilemma.
    If a score (generally speaking, not specific to this dispute) was a valid submission under the rules at the time, then I feel it should not be removed altogether, but instead the scores split between two tracks. #1) old rules with continues based on machine failure. #2) current rules with no continues for any reason, However determining that is probably challenging with out eye witness testimony for these old scores.
    Thanks Max, HAN, DadsGlasses thanked this post
    Likes Max, HAN liked this post
  9. 07-26-2017, 08:55 AM
    I can't speak to the marathon aspect, but I do know that this game doesn't even support continues (it's not even a dip option):

    http://www.arcade-museum.com/manuals...en%20Beret.pdf

    Comparing this score to the mame equivalent track also confirms that this score was probably entered incorrectly. I'm guessing that someone made a typo and added an extra digit to a 600k+ score, which is unfortunate since that's a really good score in this game.
  10. 07-26-2017, 09:16 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by GGA HAN View Post
    I can't speak to the marathon aspect, but I do know that this game doesn't even support continues (it's not even a dip option):

    http://www.arcade-museum.com/manuals...en%20Beret.pdf

    Comparing this score to the mame equivalent track also confirms that this score was probably entered incorrectly. I'm guessing that someone made a typo and added an extra digit to a 600k+ score, which is unfortunate since that's a really good score in this game.
    My apologies GGA Han. My Barthax inquiries were more of a general nature rather than specific to this dispute.

    Relating specifically to this dispute: I agree that it appears as if an extra digit was added here when entered into the database and the score was likely in the 600K range.

    Unrelated (because I can't help myself), I now need to try this game with autofire...

    Thanks HAN thanked this post
    Likes HAN, CaptainJivePants liked this post
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Join us