Author Topic: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?  (Read 12915 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline anningmay

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2016, 10:32:25 PM »
It appears this thread has derailed into an ego pit; all of the "logical" reasons why there shouldn't be any discussion here are being argued with statements akin to "i have the biggest dick" or "you're weak mentally". 

Step up to the plate Gentlemen; don't even begin to draw parallels between "your game" and "DK"

Get 1M on DK on 3+1 setttings (learn what it takes) then try and repeat it on 6+1 and tell me how much harder it isn't.   

There is no need, as it would prove absolutely nothing.

Let us suppose that I accept this challenge and find it easier to hit 1M on 6+1 using 4 men than on 3+1. Let us suppose that you are absolutely correct, and that I find that one accomplishment is psychologically harder than the other. This does not change the simple fact that, objectively speaking, my gameplay is sub-optimal if this is the case. No ego or dick measuring is needed here, as it is not a criticism. Rather, it is simple, logical truth. A player playing a game optimally will not play any differently under different settings, and there should be no discernable difference between the two cases.

With that in mind, I'd like to apologize for my first comment in this thread (which was written after a few mimosas). Rereading it now, I can totally see how it comes off as arrogant. My intention was to offer a counterexample, not start a pissing contest. My bad.  :)

Dave

Offline ChrisP

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • I'm going to jump next to your leg.
    • Donkey Blog
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2016, 10:42:42 PM »
I apologize in advance - I don't know how to make this shorter without also making the argument less persuasive!


At this point, I'm definitely not trying to change any rules or minds, but hear me out and at least consider this point of view. :)

Procedural/technical arguments aside, and we can talk about those separately if we wanna, and I can see myself instantly losing this argument on other levels, I do nonetheless have a bone to pick with the "psychological advantage" argument against a "4 lives on 6+1 settings" scheme.

This argument is valid only if you take for granted as true the premise that the player shouldn't be allowed to exercise an option that gives him a psychological leg up on himself and/or others who play.

First of all, if the option is universally available, then anyone can take it, and there's no issue. Players can't take it for scores they set in the past, obviously, but past attempts suffer from disadvantages of many sorts (which I'll get to later, but in a nutshell, when it comes to competing on DK, being in the future is ALWAYS an advantage).

Regardless, 4 men on 6+1 still offers no material advantage, and still conforms to the same underlying standard that's been there all along (ie, "get as many points as you can, with 4 lives, on the TKG-4 ROMset").

As far as I know, "it changes the psychology" has never been a basis for or against the establishment or elimination of a rule in classic gaming.

My motive: lately I've been considering experimenting with full games on 6+1. Lord knows I'm looking for something to make playing this game more fun for me, since at this point I only touch it every three to six months, for a few hours, before quickly fleeing from the relentless frustration and drudgery of it.

The hope that 6+1 might be psychologically-beneficial is exactly the reason why I want to try it. One of the reasons anyway, another being that sometimes I simply enjoy a deep run for its own sake and want to keep going to see what might have been if not for that joystick fumble or the pie factory rape. (And please, by the way, stop telling me that screwings don't exist, or that "every death is your fault unless you're me and playing at 1 point ninety eighty jillion pace." This is not true, and is easily disproven.)

I've also just never quite gotten used to the mental/physical stamina required for a full 2.5-3 hour run, and the slow crawl that the game moves at once you start getting all the hammers, etc. The game feels very different and a lot weightier than the easy-breezy speedrun/top-hammer-only type attempt. Something about it has never agreed with me, and simply getting used to that by ensuring that I will go deep every time by having a lot of spare lives would be a huge help. This kind of practice doesn't have an equivalent in savestates.

My idea is to do 6-man runs and approach them as practice games/joyrides... and hope that a bunch of balls happen to bounce in my favor and I get a big score with 4 men or less. If 4 lives on 6+1 became an acceptable alternative, I could submit one of these "practice" games that accidentally ended up turning into something more. From the responses in this thread, it's not looking like that type of run would count for the community at large, which is fine, but it would count for me.  :)

What I know for sure at this point is that I prefer the "let's just play and see what happens" mentality to the more typical "this is a 'goal' that I must strive and suffer for" paradigm that we all sorta absorb from one another and that I don't necessarily think is the best approach.

Is a run that starts as a 7-man attempt and gets redefined mid-game as a 4-man attempt any different than a 1-1 or Start attempt that gets redefined mid-game as a high score attempt? The rules for those tracks state that the player can continue their game as a full run... even though the player went balls-to-the-wall and played much riskier than he would "in a real game" up until the final moment of 1-1 or 4-5.

It can also be done the other way around: your high score attempt sucked, but your Start rocked, so you submit that. Doesn't matter what your initial intent was, and you didn't have to state it before the fact.

Many attempts start in one psychological place with one intent, but are then allowed to shift to another psychological place with a different intent.

Sounds good to me!

But I'm hearing a lot of opposition to that in this thread, even though that's not how any of the scoreboards here work.

Wes's first world record run can and has been described in a similar fashion: in Ethan's words "the game was played with the intention of getting a 1.1M score for [the DKO]." The balls, however, bounced not-unfavorably for Wes, he got to cash in a bunch of lives, and suddenly he was the world record holder... even though breaking the record in that run was not intended, planned, or expected until he was very deep, and certainly not when he pressed start.

The funny thing is, if the fear expressed in this thread turns out to be valid - that allowing players to use 4 men on 6+1 settings will somehow mentally enable them to play more boldly, and get better scores with their 4 men - then call me crazy, but that actually sounds like a really good argument in favor of it.

What I'm hearing between the lines is, "we can't allow that, because then it might make it less mentally-traumatizing for some other guy to get a high score than it was for me."

God forbid...

Advantages have been conferred on today's players with the MAME save-stating, total information saturation, streaming/chatting/coaching/commisserating, etc. that Steve Wiebe didn't benefit from a decade ago. With every passing year, these factors, and others, make DK mentally-easier to succeed at, one of those factors simply being the very different perception of what's "hard" now, versus what was considered "hard" five years ago. Merely observing that there are 12 players with 1.1 million now makes it less intimidating, and seem a lot more achievable, than it did when there were only 3. Psychology again. Advantage: being in the future.

If you guys are right that 4 men on 6+1 will prove to be an effective method for making the game that much less of a mindfuck torture-rack than 4 men on 3+1, then it means we'll have found another way to increase the player's chances of success in getting 'x' score, while still playing under the same mechanics we always have. Can we discover a psychological safe-spot that works as well as the L3 wild barrel safe-spots, and make the game a little less of a grind? If so, we shouldn't outlaw the option. On the contrary, we should immediately legalize it and celebrate it as a huge victory!

Isn't discovering ways to help each other get the best score we can get before our 4th death, whether tactical or psychological, part of the point of this community?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 01:55:36 AM by ChrisP »
http://donkeykongblog.blogspot.com

4 Quarters :-* - 800K Avg. Per Qtr. :o - No Restarts 8) - No Proof :'(

7/26/2013   Coin 35,946   710,800   18-1
7/28/2013   Coin 35,947   903,700   22-1
8/16/2013   Coin 35,948   694,100   17-6
8/17/2013   Coin 35,949   893,100   22-1

3,201,700: the $1 World Record?
Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener Crazy Kong Killscreener DKF Blogger DK Jr. Killscreener

Offline f_symbols

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 783
  • wht u mean
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2016, 11:13:55 PM »
... it is simple, logical truth. A player playing a game optimally will not play any differently under different settings, and there should be no discernable difference between the two cases...

"Optimal Play" is not what we're tracking on the scoreboard sir, people are free to play the game how they choose, and if they'd like to submit for recognition they can do so on default settings. 

However, some would like to make sure everyone plays a certain way <Tim>

Default settings simply serve as the control, the score is what we're tracking, not how optimally it was achieved, or how optimal (or inferior) a persons psyche is. 

Every single screen plays different in this game, one could easily consider a high-paced game (over 2.5 hours) to be a 2.5 hour performance, where the player is fairly regularly required to play/improvise difficult in game scenarios, making multiple reactionary decisions per second.   Anything that makes it easier for "the average person" to stay calm, under these same circumstances, is a distinct advantage. 

Wes has the unique disposition of also being a Concert Pianist, so he could very likely give some insight into the parallels here, if any. 

My point?  High level DK is about as intense as it gets, don't knock it until you've tried it, you aren't running patterns, or flapping buttons as fast as you can here, you don't have time to think about your foot, if you think that something that puts the mind at ease in this situation isn't an asset, then you should reconsider your ability to relate to the majority.


 
DK Remix Killscreener Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener DKF Blogger DK 1 Million Point Scorer


Offline ChrisP

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • I'm going to jump next to your leg.
    • Donkey Blog
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2016, 02:35:09 AM »
I'm going to have an "overly-long post" hangover tomorrow. I already regret this.

Basically, I'm gonna play on 6+1 for a while to see what that's like, because I really need to get used to going deep at 1M+ pace, and not being so fucking enraged by mistakes and screwings since I'll have plenty of lives to burn, and if at some point in that process I manage to get 1.05M on my 3rd or 4th man and can't submit it, oh well, eat me, I'll still feel like I got 1.05M, and that it counts.

<thefinger>

Now why didn't I just post that to begin with???
http://donkeykongblog.blogspot.com

4 Quarters :-* - 800K Avg. Per Qtr. :o - No Restarts 8) - No Proof :'(

7/26/2013   Coin 35,946   710,800   18-1
7/28/2013   Coin 35,947   903,700   22-1
8/16/2013   Coin 35,948   694,100   17-6
8/17/2013   Coin 35,949   893,100   22-1

3,201,700: the $1 World Record?
Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener Crazy Kong Killscreener DKF Blogger DK Jr. Killscreener

Offline f_symbols

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 783
  • wht u mean
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2016, 04:36:41 AM »
Go sir :)
DK Remix Killscreener Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener DKF Blogger DK 1 Million Point Scorer

Offline stella_blue

  • Moderator
  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1501
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2016, 06:07:29 AM »
As far as Stella Blue quote,"Players should not be allowed to redefine an event in order to get the outcome they want."

I have no idea what you mean by this.  Sorry for being dense.


Perhaps an example will illustrate my point.  This isn't the best analogy, but it's the first one that came to mind:

A long distance runner enters the Boston Marathon.  He pushes himself at the start, establishing a very fast pace.  Before reaching the halfway point, he's completely out of gas and drops out of the race.  Upon further review, he realizes that his time for the first 5000 meters is a new personal best.  He submits his performance to the appropriate authorities, claiming a #7 worldwide ranking for his 5K time.  Sorry pal, but there's zero chance of that claim being approved.  The time is legit, but it occurred during a completely different event.  If you want recognition for a world-class 5K performance, enter a 5K race.  It's as simple as that.

DK High Score 
952,100
  (L22-1)
DK Level 1-1 
13,400
DK No Hammer 
535,300
  (L15-2)
Twitch TV  Streamer Most Time Online DKF Blogger DK Killscreener

Offline danman123456

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 693
    • Twitch TV Stream
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2016, 08:36:02 AM »
I'm going to have an "overly-long post" hangover tomorrow. I already regret this.

Basically, I'm gonna play on 6+1 for a while to see what that's like, because I really need to get used to going deep at 1M+ pace, and not being so fucking enraged by mistakes and screwings since I'll have plenty of lives to burn, and if at some point in that process I manage to get 1.05M on my 3rd or 4th man and can't submit it, oh well, eat me, I'll still feel like I got 1.05M, and that it counts.

<thefinger>

Now why didn't I just post that to begin with???

HAHA yeah that is much simpler. The analogy you are using regarding 1-1 or a start is not the same comparison I think Chris. Like I was saying if its just a 1 man track or a 1-1 or even a Start all of those require not dying so its not the same comparison.

The best analogy I can come up with everyone since we are using track and field references isn't that "im running 2 miles but submitting a 1 mile time" it's "I'm running a 100 meter dash and I want to have three false starts while everyone else gets zero". 
DK High : 1,059,700 (Lvl 22-1 KS!);
DK KS Speedrun : 1 Hr 16 Min 40 Sec - World Record!
DK Lvl 1 - 1: 12,400
Fix-It Felix Jr - 297,000 (World Record)
Fix-IT Felix Jr 1 Hour Limit - 177,000
Fix-It Felix Jr KS Speedrun - 1h33
Twitch TV  Streamer DKF Blogger Crazy Kong Killscreener DK Killscreener DK 1 Million Point Scorer

Offline ChrisP

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • I'm going to jump next to your leg.
    • Donkey Blog
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2016, 02:00:41 PM »
I feel like BOTH side of this argument are actually kinda goofy.

On the one side there's me, who's saying we should relax a long-standing rule for no reason other than "eh, why not, and it would be convenient for my training regimen." The established way always has the advantage if there's no incentive to change things, so I'm gonna lose this no matter what. I accept this, and it's okay. I'm mostly just playing with ideas here, because that's fun sometimes.

On the other side though, we're arguing against relaxing the rule not on technical grounds, but on psychological ones.

That's a first! Never in the history of this hobby has there been an argument for enforcing a particular dipswitch setting because of its potential impact on a player's mindset. "No way can we change that, because then people will play less conservatively and might YOLO their way into scores that they otherwise wouldn't have."

I understand the position, but it's still funny to me. This is why I've always found the "individual board" records a little weird - to go for those, there's a soft-rule that you can't decide, on 8-4 for example, that you don't want to play out the game anymore, then completely shred on the springs to go for a 9K. Well, what if you get the 9K on your first try and then decide to re-commit to the full game? Do you have to take a polygraph afterwards to confirm your intent?

He submits his performance to the appropriate authorities, claiming a #7 worldwide ranking for his 5K time.  Sorry pal, but there's zero chance of that claim being approved.  The time is legit, but it occurred during a completely different event.  If you want recognition for a world-class 5K performance, enter a 5K race.  It's as simple as that.

If this is your position, then should we change the rules to no longer accept Start scores from runs that were intended as full games, or (vice versa) to no longer accept full game scores in runs that were intended as Start attempts?

Depending on what sorts of tracks/achievements we set up in the future, "psychology" could have all sorts of weird effects.

Let's say we decide to do a "Best 500K Race" track, the objective being to get 500K as early in the game as possible. So people go for absurd starts and ridiculous level averages, because since it's not a full run, they feel like they have nothing to lose. The mindset is different, so they play different than they otherwise might.

Let's say somebody gets some seriously awesome RNG, achieving a blowout start and massive early levels... and they don't die at all.

The player has a relatively low registered PB, so once they have their beastly 500K they say "I'm gonna pull way back on the aggression and riskiness and try to complete this game." They succeed, and voila, now they've got a huge new score for the all-time list.

Should we DQ the post-500K portion because the intent and the psychology at the outset was different than what it was at the end?

The whole thing is very odd, you must admit.

I might have to make a new objective for myself: Highest Score Achieved Under the Incorrect Mindset.  Kappa
http://donkeykongblog.blogspot.com

4 Quarters :-* - 800K Avg. Per Qtr. :o - No Restarts 8) - No Proof :'(

7/26/2013   Coin 35,946   710,800   18-1
7/28/2013   Coin 35,947   903,700   22-1
8/16/2013   Coin 35,948   694,100   17-6
8/17/2013   Coin 35,949   893,100   22-1

3,201,700: the $1 World Record?
Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener Crazy Kong Killscreener DKF Blogger DK Jr. Killscreener

Offline aarontruitt

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2016, 02:11:43 PM »
Chris, your points are very good. I can definitely see where you're coming from. However, if it came down to a vote today, I would have to stay in favor of the 3+1 original settings. My argument is that it keeps our HSL the most legitimate and encompassing one on the web. It's already pretty easy to submit to the DKF HSL and, though a formality, using the same settings as the other lists (TG, MARP) keeps us credible in my opinion.

I suggest that you practice using save states in MAME - a guy I know who is really good at DK (and incredibly lucky) continually recommends them if you're going for the million or more. It may be much more efficient than playing out entire games or playing out entire starts just to get to level 5. I know you are the type of guy who doesn't want to grind for 15 hours a week for 4 weeks to get a score.

Most importantly, stream ChrisP.  <popcorn>
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 02:13:15 PM by aarontruitt »
Arcade DK PB: 881,600 (KS)
Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener

Offline ChrisP

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • I'm going to jump next to your leg.
    • Donkey Blog
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2016, 06:13:15 PM »
I suggest that you practice using save states in MAME

When I'm about to play some DK again after a long break, I do!

However, savestates don't replicate some of the conditions of full games that I'm trying to practice. First, MAME is different than the cab, in many physical and mental respects. Second, savestates are discrete events, so they don't have continuity from one load to the next, nor do they convey the rhythm/speed/flow of a 1M+ pace run, which, like I said, I've just never gotten comfortable with.

Savestates are about getting technique down. Technique (at least for 1M) is not my main problem. My problem is everything else. The sense of flow and continuity of a full game is really important, and experiencing it more often will both build endurance, and let me evaluate certain things. When do I start getting tired? When does my attention and aggression start slipping? Et cetera. It's also easier to let yourself die in savestates because you know that it doesn't matter. I'm gonna want to get to the end of my 6+1 runs, even if it won't "count", so I'll have at least some investment in not-dying. It's just more like a real game in a lot of important ways than savestating is.

I have running boards pretty much nailed (see sig  8) ), and nearly completed a speedrun on my second coin of last week's tourney (my second coin after six months of not touching DK actually!) if I hadn't screwed it up on 20-2. The game feels like nothing when it's moving fast.

The instant I switched to "real" double-hammer attempts though, I collapsed, like I always do, under the weight of the slow-as-molasses progress. THAT is what I struggle with. I'll start a game, go for a while, feel like I've been playing for three hours, and I'll only be on Level 8. Then I start getting impatient, making more mistakes, getting more angry at deaths because I'm now more invested than I would be in a faster run, etc.

So I need to get accustomed to that rhythm and flow, but without the pressure. Savestates eliminate the pressure, but don't replicate the rhythm. 6+1 does both!

I'm gonna try it, and I'd be really curious to see others try it too. I have to wonder if this method might cut down on some of the getting-used-to-a-different-style learning curve, and I'm surprised nobody's ever experimented with it.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 09:09:47 PM by ChrisP »
http://donkeykongblog.blogspot.com

4 Quarters :-* - 800K Avg. Per Qtr. :o - No Restarts 8) - No Proof :'(

7/26/2013   Coin 35,946   710,800   18-1
7/28/2013   Coin 35,947   903,700   22-1
8/16/2013   Coin 35,948   694,100   17-6
8/17/2013   Coin 35,949   893,100   22-1

3,201,700: the $1 World Record?
Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener Crazy Kong Killscreener DKF Blogger DK Jr. Killscreener

Offline p2dose

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Posts: 472
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2016, 01:27:59 AM »
just create a poll already :)

Offline stella_blue

  • Moderator
  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1501
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2016, 03:23:40 AM »
just create a poll already :)

Done.  Got 'em, Phil.

DK High Score 
952,100
  (L22-1)
DK Level 1-1 
13,400
DK No Hammer 
535,300
  (L15-2)
Twitch TV  Streamer Most Time Online DKF Blogger DK Killscreener

Offline ChrisP

  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • I'm going to jump next to your leg.
    • Donkey Blog
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2016, 12:18:54 PM »
A few more thoughts on all this:

I agree with Phil on a similar issue, who has said elsewhere that sniping the individual board records is cheesy, because targeting a particular board-type to max it out is a very different objective than getting an overall high score for a full run, and is almost at odds with it. But I see that whole track as strange for that very reason. It's basically "what's the maximum score you can get on a specific board type, while playing a style that has to balance maximizing score with managing risk?" They're "one hand tied behind your back" scores. And you can never be sure that somebody didn't just say "I don't care about this run, I'm just gonna go YOLO here," especially when on their last life. Somebody can also have other motives to go for one of these, and you can't "prove" that this is why they were going for it. I think it's a problematic track.

The 3+1 vs. 6+1 thing is a little different though, because the objective is the same regardless of the setting - get the highest overall score possible with your first 4 lives. Some people are against being lax on this rule not on the grounds that it would change anything about the game, but on the grounds that it would change the way players *mentally approach* the game. I definitely see where the argument is coming from, I just think it's really fascinating how it underlines how psychological people view this whole thing. The game really is only partially, and maybe not even mainly, about "skill."

I would make the point though that the "psychological advantage" theory has never actually been put to the test, since no serious players have tried it. The objection is purely hypothetical as it stands.

After this thread, I think sticking with 3+1 is probably good, for numerous reasons, but I could see special situations where maybe we should strongly consider accepting a 4 lives on 6+1, like somebody recording a game on a public machine set to 6+1 where they don't have access to the dips.

Finally, in light of this discussion, I think we should seriously reconsider whether we can accept scores for 1-1 and Start that are part of a full game attempt. Maybe we should go back to the TG standard of having to kill it off? Seems like a double-standard here if we don't. Dan mentioned that you can only get a 1-1 or Start score if you don't die, but most full games that have a death before 5-1 get restarted, and nobody plays out a full game with a death on 1-1.

Interesting stuff!
http://donkeykongblog.blogspot.com

4 Quarters :-* - 800K Avg. Per Qtr. :o - No Restarts 8) - No Proof :'(

7/26/2013   Coin 35,946   710,800   18-1
7/28/2013   Coin 35,947   903,700   22-1
8/16/2013   Coin 35,948   694,100   17-6
8/17/2013   Coin 35,949   893,100   22-1

3,201,700: the $1 World Record?
Twitch TV  Streamer DK Killscreener Crazy Kong Killscreener DKF Blogger DK Jr. Killscreener

Offline stella_blue

  • Moderator
  • Spring Jumper
  • *
  • Posts: 1501
Re: Accepting a 4-man score in runs played on 6+1 settings?
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2016, 01:14:25 PM »
and nobody plays out a full game with a death on 1-1.

Nobody except the author of the quoted text.

Have you forgotten one of your killscreen performances already?   ;)

DK High Score 
952,100
  (L22-1)
DK Level 1-1 
13,400
DK No Hammer 
535,300
  (L15-2)
Twitch TV  Streamer Most Time Online DKF Blogger DK Killscreener