Nice score, Steven! Accepted!

Well, I'm not sure that The Player Will Eventually Take Damage And Die is a fact. It sounds like a conclusion you've drawn and not a provable point. I talk a lot about leeching on games so hear me out.

I'm not about to argue what the Spirit Of The Game is either because that's not provable either and frankly I'm tired of people suggesting that it's some sort of guiding principle.

I mentioned it on a relatively recent Rygar submission. If a game situation is increasingly difficult then leeching is not an issue - it will eventually get so that maintaining the point pressing maneuvers is impossible. If it's just plain difficult but is static and there's no timer and infinitely spawning points opportunities exist, AND you're not killing time or enemies to achieve some sort of change in the game (like if you kill a hundred enemies then it triggers harder more valuable enemies) the case can be made that this is leeching.

Leeching doesn't mean it is easy. It means it can be done indefinitely. I would say this game is very hard to leech. I wouldn't say its not leeching just because it is hard. That being said I'm all about the discussion too so I'm not about to vote no. If the community thinks that the leeching on L4 is hard enough that it can't possibly be done indefinitely then I'm cool with that.

I really enjoy watching your performances btw.

Originally Posted by bensweeneyonbass

Well, I'm not sure that The Player Will Eventually Take Damage And Die is a fact. It sounds like a conclusion you've drawn and not a provable point. I talk a lot about leeching on games so hear me out.

I'm not about to argue what the Spirit Of The Game is either because that's not provable either and frankly I'm tired of people suggesting that it's some sort of guiding principle.

I mentioned it on a relatively recent Rygar submission. If a game situation is increasingly difficult then leeching is not an issue - it will eventually get so that maintaining the point pressing maneuvers is impossible. If it's just plain difficult but is static and there's no timer and infinitely spawning points opportunities exist, AND you're not killing time or enemies to achieve some sort of change in the game (like if you kill a hundred enemies then it triggers harder more valuable enemies) the case can be made that this is leeching.

Leeching doesn't mean it is easy. It means it can be done indefinitely. I would say this game is very hard to leech. I wouldn't say its not leeching just because it is hard. That being said I'm all about the discussion too so I'm not about to vote no. If the community thinks that the leeching on L4 is hard enough that it can't possibly be done indefinitely then I'm cool with that.

I really enjoy watching your performances btw.

I agree with all your points and I appreciate the honest feedback. I propose a few scenarios about how leeching is applied in this game.



Scenario 1: If you exclude the enemies that spawn during the helicopter fight and the tank fight then the number of maximum points that can be gained is totally fixed. With this being said, you will need to kill some of the enemies that spawn during the heli and tank fights to get the grenades needed to kill the boss, and this number would also be fixed assuming you just killed the enemies that drop grenades, never missed the tank when you threw the grenade, and killed the minimum number of enemies that drop grenades. If this were the rule there would be a calculated high score. I would be totally fine with this method if the current methods are deemed as leeching.

Scenario 2: Limiting the number of points that can be leeched on both of the aforementioned stages to a specific number would be another solution, but will result in the same finite, calculatable high score. I am also fine with this solution.

Scenario 3: Allowing the methods I displayed in the current submission would allow for players with higher patience / skill to grind those sections longer and improve the score if they so desired. This would result in the score being maxed out or rolled over at some point. In the case of a max score the result of the applied leeching rule would be identical to the first two scenarios as the score is fixed and finite.

I know that the end result is generally not accepted as an indicator of a leeching rule being applied or not but it can be very confusing to me how to compare scores when a method like this is the only way in the game to increase the score, and a pre existing video does not exist of the current records methods. I am very excited to hear any other solutions and ideas. There are at least four other records that have nearly identical criteria to P.O.W that I would like to see some sort of community precedent.

You've touched on something very important and ever-relevant in this era of TG - we have no way to know how the pre-TGSAP scores were achieved and what tactics they used. That is unless the ref who originally adjudicated those earlier submissions shows up and tells us but I don't need to tell you how unlikely that is.

If the community agrees that the only way to achieve the standing scores on the leaderboard is to leech one or both of the stages we're discussing, then this score will likely be accepted. If in the future it comes to light that there is something none of us knew that can justify the standing scores without leeching these stages then this score will likely be disputed.

There is an example of this already in TGSAP history. SNES Battletoads vs Double Dragon. It was unknown at the time that completing the entire game with a particular character netted you a substantial bonus. Not sure how we didn't know that but it was not known or discussed during the adjudication. It's one of the "wrong votes" on my record here. It passed then was rightfully disputed as it employed leeching to get to the score that was submitted.

So - if it is reasonable to believe that standing scores were achieved using leeching, it doesn't make these tactics NOT leeching it just colors them acceptable for this game.

I'm a bit conservative when it comes to leeching definitions and allowing such tactics to be used. I'll likely not vote either way on this submission.

To your point - what we need now is to ascertain just how likely it is that any standing scores were leeched. The flip side of the system now is that someone could easily justify voting no on this submission and disputing the pre-TGSAP score if leeching is found to be the only way to reach such scores. It doesn't mean the precedent is bulletproof. It really depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time.

Originally Posted by 80sArcadeKid

Firstly I want to commend you on the evidence package. Showing yourself playing the game, the console/cartridge and the full gameplay in my opinion is how all submissions should be made. This is even achievable with a single camera.

As for the discussion around leeching I can make these observations:
1. It seems like you can't gain health back during the boss stages where the point pushing is happening. Can you confirm that is the case?
2. Eventually (without re-generation of health) you would die unless you had the skill to forever dodge death. (skill requirement)
3. The difficulty does not ramp up over time in the boss battle.

The third point is the most contentious here for me, I have no issue with point pressing/leeching when there is certain death if you do not move on due to a timer killing you or difficulty increasing to the point you can no longer survive, as well as limited lives.

So you can use up all your lives at a certain point to gain the highest possible score, but knowing that it could cause an overall lower score due to an unfortunate death before finishing the game. That has parallels with Rygar. The difference being no matter what your skill level, the 'death head' will eventually be so fast you cannot survive (difficulty increasing over time)

So the second part to this issue is how do you measure what is excessive leeching if the difficulty does not ramp up and kill you?
A finite top score is not a bad thing, there are many games where people share the top score because you can't go higher. I just happens that the first person to do that is at the top of the leaderboard, which I think is a great way to do it.

You cannot gain health during the boss fights and the difficult does not increase to my knowledge. I did confirm yesterday that it is possible to get Tom Votava's score without leeching on either boss fight. This is assuming you kill the minimum number of enemies on each boss fight, and enter each room only twice. I am fairly confident that Tom did not get all the possible points on each stage, if he in fact did not leech the bosses and so the record can be improved from that perspective. This information does not correct the problem of determining if leeching on the boss fights should be allowed or not. I am still a bit unfamiliar with how credibility works so I am not sure if my credibility will go down if this record is rejected. Credibility loss and wasting three submission points are my only concerns about re-recording the record without "leeching" the bosses.

Hey Steve - your credibility rating is a metric of your voting "correctness" so if you have a submission rejected that you didn't vote on you wouldn't lose any credibility.

Since I have mathematically proved to myself that Tom Votava could have gotten the score without the leeching the helicopter or tank I propose that everyone vote no on this submission. I do agree that the techniques I used here fall under almost all definitions of leeching based on the dialogue and comments that have been shared. I will re-route the game and upload an attempt where the minimum number of enemies are killed on the helicopter and tank to set a precedent going forward on this game.