31

Beef / Re: ITT Anti-emulator propaganda

« on: May 06, 2015, 09:37:19 am »

Emulators are the spawn of the devil and his temptations. Resist the urge and join the divine brotherhood of Consolism.

32

Gaming and Grazing / Re: What Kind of Game Genre (Franchise) are you mostly Interested in?

« on: March 18, 2015, 08:55:36 pm »

Total War, The Sims, Fallout, Pikmin, Dungeon Keeper, Hitman, Sid Meier's anything, Portal, Jazz Jackrabbit, 3D Metroid (other than M), Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Megaman (8-bit), Dino Crisis and the classic Resident Evil games (not 4 and up). More or less.

33

Information Kiosk / Re: On the "one person per account" rule

« on: March 02, 2015, 07:58:32 am »

No

34

Wikkity! / Re: I BROKE SONIC RUSH!

« on: February 15, 2015, 01:30:57 am »

Looks very similar to this :p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIME0OzSVtk

35

Wikkity! / Re: Topic 9 - How did you become a Sonic fan?

« on: December 26, 2014, 04:54:36 pm »

My second earliest memory is playing Emerald Hill, Chemical Plant and a few special stages in 1994 or so. When the Sonic & Knuckles Collection for PC came out in 1997 that was all I played for like a year. Been a fan since.

36

Wikkity! / Re: Topic 8 - Have you ever had a "Christmas Miracle?"

« on: December 25, 2014, 08:21:00 pm »

I beat Game & Watch Zelda as a 3 (or possibly 4) year old one christmas. I was really proud!

37

Wikkity! / Re: Topic 7 - What do you hope you'll get for Christmas tomorrow?

« on: December 25, 2014, 04:28:08 am »

I wanted some money and a Pikachu cuddly toy. I only got money D:.

(Also PS real-Christmas was yesterday you scrubs :^)

38

General Sonic / Re: Apologizing for my actions a couple of months ago

« on: December 22, 2014, 12:01:41 pm »

Usually you have to prove your worth for a bit over a year on other sites like Cyberscore in order to get a pass back in. You could read some of the topics in the leaderboards disputes to see how others have gotten back.

39

Wikkity! / Re: What level in any Sonic game have you played more than any other?

« on: December 19, 2014, 11:57:21 am »

At the moment I'm confident it's Emerald hill by a longshot. However before I started speedrunning I had about 300 playthroughs logged on City Escape which I believe was the most I had played any Sonic stage up to that point. The only possible contender would be Angel Island but I'm fairly sure my playthroughs of that in 2008 numbered below 150isch.

EDIT: The reason I played through it that much was because I tried to speedrun the level in like 2003-2004 before I had internet. I achieved a 02:26.85 all by myself without any kind of help, is that good, bad? I have no idea :p.

EDIT 2: Submitting the time now lol. This is history for me!

40

Wikkity! / Re: Your opinion of TSC

« on: December 18, 2014, 09:56:39 pm »

I disagree with people filling in stats for the sake of filling in stats. I also think there's some basic things you could do to improve the accuracy of the stats but it's not in popular opinion to change. Oh and there's a few full game categories I think could get added which would be cool.

Other than that I like a lot about most of the site and I've met more than a few people I'd consider real friends so I'm happy it exists.

41

News and Updates / Re: Social Media is a Thing

« on: December 07, 2014, 12:59:18 pm »

If you're talking about the twitter account then you're wrong. Last tweet was 2 hours ago.

42

Wikkity! / Re: Do you speedrun non-Sonic games?

« on: December 04, 2014, 11:37:25 am »

Timpz, that guy really did that -__- . I was wondering how do you run AoE II anywhere (speed-running wise), do you just do all of the campaigns?

I know there's a lot of IL's on YT and I know AdamAK has done a few campaign runs, but other than that I'm not sure. It's not exactly a popular speed game.

43

Wikkity! / Re: Do you speedrun non-Sonic games?

« on: December 03, 2014, 01:29:32 am »

Haha DGF I was so hype for the guy that was gonna play AoE2 for AGDQ and then he just play's like a single guaranteed mission. Complete waste of everyones time what the hell :FailFish:

44

Wikkity! / Re: Do you speedrun non-Sonic games?

« on: December 01, 2014, 03:46:39 pm »

Oh we're doing possible future games as well?

Mega man 2
Mega man 3
Mega man 9
AlttP
ALBW
Gheist
Metroid Prime
Banjo Tooie
Beetle's Adventure Racing
Billy Hatcher
Freedom Planet
Donkey Kong Country 3
Super Mario World
Total War/Europa Universalis/SM: Alpha Centauri (if I can make up a sensible way to do it)
I-Ninja
Spyro 3
Age of Empires 2
GTA: VC
Glitched Pokemon run that isn't 1 min long
I'm loving "This war of mine" so far as well
..and probably at least 10 more if I thought more about it, not to mention most of the handheld sonics lol.

But I like to focus on a single game or two at a time. I'd need 900 days a year to get anything done at all ._.

45

Wikkity! / Re: Do you speedrun non-Sonic games?

« on: November 30, 2014, 11:57:34 am »

I have speedrunned Metroid Prime 2 and Ocarina of Time.

46

Competition Central / Re: The Random .giz Topic

« on: November 11, 2014, 01:02:38 pm »

I can play SMS in 60fps with Fusion just fine. Also why is your input file called S2GG? Lastly I can play GG games in 60fps in Fusion just fine as well but I'm not sure if they are supposed to be played that fast.

47

General Sonic / Re: Tips on running Colors(Wii)?

« on: November 07, 2014, 01:36:40 pm »

I'm not sure what the question is. Start by trying to beat the first level in under 1:05. Next try get red stats in all levels you're interested in on TSC.

Do you mainly want to do IL's or full-game runs? Egg-Shuttle is the most common single-segment category and regular any% has been ran as well but I can't remember by whom.

Generally speaking you should just watch the fastest runs, copy them as much as you can and then try to improve from there.

Here's some Egg-shuttle runs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svQCNVTeeFM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SMwsjc1dIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d1YG1ZR2bE
We all do different tactics at times so a blend of these videos would probably be more optimal than either one stand-alone. Also the video with me in it was a no-reset marathon run so don't compare it too much with the other guys' PB's ;p.

For IL's just search the level name and "speedrun" or something on YT. DarkspinesSonic and CrypticJacknife have the most high level ones on YT I think.

For specific glitches you can't figure out it's usually best to just ask directly in PM's.

48

News and Updates / Re: Social Media is a Thing

« on: November 05, 2014, 01:36:47 pm »

Well I guess that's a valid point, I personally like this remix of Ice Cap more than the Genesis original, though that's not saying much since Ice Cap is the weakest song in the entire game ˙͜>˙. But I think other songs like Launch base are beyond repair, it'd probably better to just make new songs or something.

Anyway, CD2011 desperately needed a rerelease when that came out. Sonic 1 needed a version with spindash that wasn't Sonic Genesis I guess together with some elemental shields, Tails/Knuckles and whatnot. Sonic 2 got Hidden Palace and I think a few other S3K tweaks but can't remember exactly. What is there to tweak in S3K that isn't already great? I can't come up with anything other than stuff like boss rush, time attack mode or stuff similar to Sonic 3 Complete.

49

News and Updates / Re: Social Media is a Thing

« on: November 04, 2014, 09:44:04 pm »

Obligatory joke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynV2Zv1stwk

I personally don't care much for a rerelease on portable devices unless they do something new and interesting with it (like they did with hidden palace zone). Debugging it? The glitches are half the fun :(.

Also only having them available on portable devices like tablets seem like the biggest waste ever, just like the sonic 1 and 2 remakes in comparison with CD2011.

EDIT: Ok, like Thorn said, baby steps. But the fact remains that the game already is widely available, including on Steam. I feel like there's a lot that needs to be done in order to warrant a rerelease with that godawful PC-midi music or similar.

50

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 30, 2014, 05:09:32 pm »

First of all, thank you for that post SDM. It was sensible, understanding and factual.

I think sentences like the one you interpret as "SDM doesn't want it banned because that's the way it has always been." really shows the language gap because I would interpret the whole paragraph as "what your argument is, is that 0 is infeasible and I agree. But for the same reasons you think 0 is infeasible, I think 1 is as well".

There are a multitude of ways I could've formulated myself but I did it poorly and I didn't bring examples like LR2 so, yea sorry about that. (Assuming this is a good formulation?)


Anyway, back on point. There is one essential thing that is necessary to consider before anything else. Do we consider setups part of the stat? If we don't, then there's no need for rule changes and we can leave everything be at that, savestating in the level transition would be like savestating in the level select no matter what you did previously. If we do consider it part of the run, then I'm assuming that there will be no exceptions for savestates during the run just like it has always been for all other stats.

So if we do, then we again have two options. Either we make blanket rules for all stats or we make a special case for ring attacks. If we make a special case then it's easy, just allow this strategy or don't because the actual number of rings isn't important but the challenge behind is. If you ask for my opinion I say allow it. Getting the WR time in some stats is insane and I don't see why it can't be like that with ring attacks as well because then I'd be motivated to compete in them. Right now I just see them as time-consuming in S1-3K.

If we want to overhaul the rules-section with a new paragraph regarding setups in act 1 then I think we have the following alternatives:

1) Ignore setups that don't deviate from beating act 1 "normally". I know that formulation is sketchy at best but it's the idea that is important here. You can start from act 1 in order to get better cycles, better positioning, start with a shield in act 2, boss ringmonitors etc. You can also start from act 1 in order to carry rings, carry slope glitch, start from inside a wall or similar "abnormal" things. In the latter case, only count whatever is happening in act 2 but require proof from act 1 as well when proofcalling. This would not work retroactively for stats prior to the rule-change because we wouldn't expect people to save proof from act 1 in the past.

2) Same as (1) but ban the abnormal completely.

3) Allow savestating in the downtime if all other rules are also abided. You can't use super sonic or TAS-tools in the setup for example. Perhaps add more general rules as well. No we can't make absolutely sure people follow it but the honour rule still apply and we do know if something is exclusive to for example super sonic. If they claim it isn't then it's up to the submitter to prove it. I understand this conflicts with what I wrote about "no exceptions" but I can see the argument that people might be discouraged to compete if a setup+the run takes 10-20 minutes, all to be ruined by something miniscule.


In my opinion (1) seems best out of these options to me. Of all the options I'd say don't consider setups part of the run at all though, I think it encourages creativity to break stages and adapt TAS-only strategies to real-time runs.

That's all I can think of right now at least. I might come up with more suggestions later but I'd rather have input on this first. After that maybe we can start to compile a list of possible rule changes (especially after more people have voiced their opinion. So far this discussion has been sort of two-sided) and have a vote.

I must say I do like the idea of per-zone attacking but it would essentially purge the leaderboards for S3K. If this is what the community wants then so be it (because I don't have any stats I care about in S3K ˙͜>˙).


EDIT: TL;DR Sorry SDM. Bunch of options I like, give me yours as well

51

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 30, 2014, 02:33:48 pm »

Zero (in other words, banning savestates pre-level) is not a solid option because it would entail completely uprooting not only exactly half of my Ring stats, but half of the ring stats of every single TSC user to ever use an emulator while competing in those Act 2's.

you say that banning save-states in act 1 isn't an option because people have done that a long time.

You'd have to clarify what my misinterpretation was because I honestly can't see it. It might be a bit simplified but the core of the argument is that 0 is not an option.

When you wrote the "no setups" thing I interpreted it as being the basis of a new ruleset and even though you mentioned people talking about it on IRC that's not a conversation I have taken part in so I don't have all the data. But I still didn't necessarily agree it is the best approach because what's possible by a human is subjective.

You think it's hard/time-consuming to setup so you need a savestate? Why not allow two so it's easier and less time consuming? You think having a lot of savestates defeats the purpouse of getting the stats? Why not ban it completely?

It's important to note that I'm not talking about a person here. It's a summary of my argument that reflects the recursive nature of what I believe is arguments to allow save-stating at all during setups for act 2's.


When it comes to my posts being interpreted as aggressive. HDL has brought that up at least once before so I'm aware of it being a problem at times. But you have to remember that English is not my first language, it's actually my third (fourth depending on if you count mutual intelligibility). I might use a lot of fancy words here and there but I just happen to be relatively well spoken in Swedish so I more or less directly translate what I think would be correct into English both in speech and writing. Swedish have different words for you (singular) and you (group). Other words like they and those only have 1 word in Swedish where the interpretation come from context and tone. I'm not perfect but what I'm trying to say is that I'm not actively trying to be aggressive. If I were I'd use caps and exclamation marks. Some parts might even have been passive aggressive and I don't mean to put the blame on other stuff but I do believe that my mood at the moment has played a part, for which I apologize.

Finally there's one sentence that stands out to me: "Also who are you to judge what is and isn't a feasible setup?". I'm sure you read this like "Who are YOU to..." but there is a second way to read it out loud and still be correct. Something really common in Swedish is that instead of saying "who would do such a thing?" we say "why would you do that?" where the tone determines if it's general or towards a specific person. So I guess that sentence kind of doesn't work in writing.


Also the only reason why I didn't bring up LR2 until now is because I only just realised it was a good tangible example of stats that would be needed to be removed if a 1-savestate rule was enacted. But what I've argued about until now is the idea itself and that's mostly because I feel it's like a quick-fix for a specific glitch. What happens when the next evolution comes up, do we rewrite the rules again and possibly void stats? Is there a better and more general way to formulate rules such that they don't encourage or discourage the use of savestates, don't infringe on existing stats and are easy to interpret and see the logic behind? I believe there is.








EDIT: This is anectdotal so don't read unless you want to know why I don't consider TASing pre-level a problem even counting LR2. I don't think it's a fun way to beat the record but all I needed was 2 savestates. The first one I used before the signpost came down. The second one I used after getting stuck in the ground. If I had 0 savestates I would have to do act 1 again every try, only wasting time. With 1 savestate I could try again immediately, wasting less time. With 2 savestates I can savestate after being in the ground, wasting no time at all. This brings me back to the recursive argument in the second quote. And PS: I used an emulator on the Wii that doesn't allow you to buffer inputs so the only tool used was save-state functionality which also is present in some official rereleases, it's not like I frame advanced or edited/watched RAM-values. Saying someone used more than 1 savestate doesn't automatically imply they TASed any more than a person using only 1 savestate, which SDM seems to have misinterpreted. Would I be happy if the rules didn't allow savestates? Yes because that would give the record more prestigue. Am I sad savestates are allowed? Not really because the rules apply to everyone. Do I think 1 savestate-restrictions are pointless in what they're trying to achieve as a global rule? Yes.

EDIT2: No I did not suggest 1 save at the transition. I suggested any number of saves during the transition, let's say at any time between when the timer is stopped and before it resets again. I don't consider it the best solution overall, I only consider it better than a single save at any point not during act 2.

52

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 29, 2014, 02:55:03 pm »

I think the problem that arise here is the following: SDM makes a point about something that I disagree with. Then I try to point out what I consider wrong with them. SDM then say he disagrees with my points without adressing them properly, often with a foul language. I get riled up and reiterate my points with more detail and thought resulting in long posts that nobody cares to read properly and again SDM dismisses me as an uninformed lunatic without properly adressing my points. A negative circle emerges.

There is not much to say about my opinions that you can't already get a clue about by reading my two last posts and if someone disagrees with something specific in my logic I'd be happy to clarify or be proven wrong.

Also I've been in a pretty bad mood the last month so if I type aggressively then sorry.

I stand by my points at the moment though.


EDIT: If you still don't believe me about people using more than 1 savestate at the start of act 2, I can almost guarantee you that 99% of people that go for less than 1:30 on LR2 for Sonic & Knuckles used more than one savestate because there is a very good incentive to do so. I know for a fact I did. These stats should be erased if the 1-savestate rule is set into place, but good luck finding everyone who used 2 savestates or more setting up in every stat.

53

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 28, 2014, 08:39:19 am »

I don't understand where all this aggression is coming from. All I did was make points about your arguments in a factual manner. Way to be able to discuss a topic like a grown-up >_>...

You also seem to completely miss my points so I'll try to reiterate them more clearly just one more time.

I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts.

All I did was list your statements in order to properly point out what I consider errors. If you read your previous post again, it's pretty obvious to see where the fallacy is. No, having more than 1 savestate doesn't mean you've been TASing pre-level, as little as it means you've been TASing with 1 savestate. When I do time-attacks I do a quick savestate right at the start of a level. If I was doing a setup for the next act, I'd do a 2nd when I'm doing the setup and then a 3rd when I'm done with it (or something to that effect). If you think no'one else does that then you're wrong. You "literally can't discern who did and did not use" 1 or 2 or 5 or 10 savestates pre-level and that's why your logic doesn't work. Allowing 0 savestates would result in a lot of uncertainty regarding stats, which accoring to you is not an option. So then I don't consider 1 an option either because it would result in the exact same uncertainty for every stat that used savestates.

Logic isn't in play because the logical options are out of the equation.

There is a multitude of logical and possible solutions. I mentioned some of them in my last post. This isn't some kind of quantum physics-phenomenon we've discovered that completely defies logic and will allow us to teleport through time and space into Super Mario Galaxy. You're able to carry a few rings from the previous act, let's make logical rules about it.

If you don't think players aren't going to be motivated to TAS to maximize that ringcount you're way off.

I do think they would be motivated to TAS it if the rules allow. But I don't consider that a problem if we as a community don't consider getting those rings to follow you part of the run. If we do consider it part of the run, you couldn't TAS according to the rules anyway.

In fact, what makes a setup TAS-only and what doesn't is irrelevant. The idea is to block the usage of TASing or other banned activities pre-level (bar the one savestate we can't do anything about), whether they are TAS-only or not.

If you truly want 1 savestate to be allowed, isolating what isn't possible by humans should be a priority to find whoever that might try to cheat. With a video that should be somewhat doable, with an input file it should be much easier. With nothing but a count of the number of rings you carried, proofcalling is getting very, very complicated and probably no'one is going to ever have substantial evidence against them that the number of rings they carry is considered TASonly. Or the opposite might happen where we think that an amount of rings is unfeasible when it really isn't.

These things are not irrelevant, they are important to bring up when deciding on rules to avoid future drama and errors.

Was this just emotional banter?

Well I am stating the obvious but only to make my logic very clear. Having 1 savestate is not fairer than 2, or 3 or 4, or 100 or 35940 (which is the maximum in 9:59). Why? Because the arguments you make are mathematically recursive.

It's you who don't aknowledge 2 savestates as a middle ground. You don't aknowledge 3 or more either. So really it's you with the continuum fallacy. You are not consistent. If you consider 1 savestate an option, you'd be really hard pressed to scream "TAS!!!" at a run using 2 savestates when you yourself ask where that "miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing would even apply to competitive play".

Who the fuck said I was judging anything?

You did. "We don't want to allow any setups for a level that can't be replicated on console by human hands." Does that not imply you? Did I not say "you" in a way that could be interpreted as aimed at a group? Calm down...

You seem to think I'm on a personal vendetta on you with this. Don't flatter yourself, I'm not. You call me out on my attitude when I'm trying to stay factual. In fact, looking up the definition of "attitude" I found nothing that applies to my last post. You're the one with a demeaning attitude. If you genuinely think I'm being disrespectful of you in some way then I'm sorry because that was not my intention, but I do think you're seeing things that aren't there. I'm not trying to make this into the emulator discussion 2.0 and I don't disagree with what you're trying to acheive with the rule. I think it's as fair of an option as any, but I disagree with the way you're suggesting we should implement it.

But in the end, even if I was disrespectful of your opinions, you're no better. I don't have any interest trying to debate a topic with a belittling prick who counters arguments with profanity and statements like:

I love how you come at me with all this "You think" garbage when I list facts. (Yes I listed your facts and pointed out the problems they'd cause which again are the same you're trying to avoid)

And for you to come at me like we've all been TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act) is also complete bullshit and hugely disrespectful (I didn't and I think it's pretty far fetched to interpret it like that)

Want to prune them yourself? Be my guest! Have fun and good luck with that research!

Have you been reading this thread? Or did you just come here to fuss at me randomly?

Who the fuck said I was judging anything? I brought this up to be open forum and you're coming out here not only guns-ablazin' but with homing rockets and nuclear bombs too!

But SDM, why should we allow savestates at all?

"The answer is obvious" SDM says, "because we want to start at the beginning of act 2 when doing ring attacks of act 2! This how we always handled savestates when dealing with ringboxes from act 1 bosses!"

Ah I can see that, that a legitimate reason to want to use a savestate. But now we're carrying rings to the second act in a way that is not easy, in fact it's very hard to do! But some doesn't want to allow savestates when you start carrying them. Some would even call it tool-assisted. Oh dear me, what could possibly be a compromise that allows savestating but not TASing when you start carrying the rings?

"We could only allow 1 savestate" SDM says, "that would make people more inclined to use it in the level transition or at least not be able to TAS act 1!"

Oh SDM that could be a solution. Unfortunately it also creates a few problems with it because we don't know how many savestates people have used in their past runs for example while finding a good global timer cycle. It would also let people save at times other than the level transition, do you want that?

"No! Yes!" SDM says. ("TASing prelevel (by saying we've been using more than 1 savestate before the act)", "miniscule-as-hell and corner-case kind of TASing")

So what do you suggest we do?

"Maybe we could let people only savestate in the level transitions?" SDM said.

HALLELUJA!

Fuck off.

54

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 27, 2014, 12:56:45 pm »

Zero (in other words, banning savestates pre-level) is not a solid option because it would entail completely uprooting not only exactly half of my Ring stats, but half of the ring stats of every single TSC user to ever use an emulator while competing in those Act 2's. Even before I came along, players were using saves for the convenience factor of just the ringboxes being dug up. And we certainly don't know who all did and who all didn't use saves.

Essentially speaking, banning pre-level saves is infeasible for the same reason banning emulation was infeasible earlier this year.

Ok so you say that banning save-states in act 1 isn't an option because people have done that a long time. You also think that banning more than 1 savestate is an option even though there's probably just as many stats that have had more than 1 savestate in act 1's. Also the rules clearly states that "if a new rule is enacted, anything already submitted in violation of that rule is void." and so all ring-attacks using more than 1 savestate pre-level is illegitimate which is the same problem you're trying to avoid.

That means we have to allow at least 1 pre-level save. Allowing more than one raises obvious concerns, so there's not even a need to delve into that.

Allowing more than 1 savestate doesn't raise any obvious concerns to me at all so I'd love for you to elaborate.

We don't want to allow any setups for a level that can't be replicated on console by human hands.

I'm aware it sounds arbitrary, but 1, imo, is the best solution.

"No setups that can't be replicated on human hands" is not a rule I can find so I'm guessing it's a proposition. But a single savestate gives you the option to for example switch holding from right to left on the d-pad on a single frame which I believe is humanly impossible on a genesis controller without pausing in between. In any case every savestate gives you the option to buffer 1 TAS-input, which you generally seem to want to disallow pre-level.

Also who are you to judge what is and isn't a feasible setup? The single-segment runs have evolved a lot because people took the time to research them and find consistent setups for what was previously thought of as being TAS-only. Even if a setup has only ever been TASed that doesn't mean it's unfeasable for a human to perform at least once.

So in short your arguments for allowing 1 savestate pre-level contradict themselves.

All we can do now is ensure the savestate usage stays in the domain of fair play

Having an arbitrary number of savestates at arbitrary times would hardly be more fair than any other number of savestates at any other arbitrary times. You think it's hard/time-consuming to setup so you need a savestate? Why not allow two so it's easier and less time consuming? You think having a lot of savestates defeats the purpouse of getting the stats? Why not ban it completely?

That's a discussion that doesn't lead anywhere but I think that if you truly want to be fair you either ban rings unaccessible from the level you're trying to RA altogether, allow people to TAS it and distribute a good save or you say that carrying rings from another level makes it part of "the run", thus it falls under the normal rules that disallow savestates. I don't consider 1 savestate a fair option in the sense that it doesn't solve anything.

55

Information Kiosk / Re: The Sonic Center Twitter Bot

« on: October 27, 2014, 10:47:36 am »

I like it. Does it only tweet out untied records though? How does it handle long usernames/stat categories? And what is "twibble"?

Also pls no scarf, it's almost like an insult to Sonic >_<.

56

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 26, 2014, 11:49:56 am »

Isn't the only reason that super/hyper-forms are banned because they would mess with time-attacks? Sure it does say incidentally in the rules that you can't use them in time-attacks but that's just because there has never been an incentive to use them before so no'one cared.

Adding savestate-caps is a dumb idea because it's arbitrary. If you're gonna have savestate-caps then make them 0 or infinite. Any argument you could come up with to legitimize 1 savestate could be used to argue for 2 and 3 up to infinity. Any arguments you would make to limit the number of savestates could be used to limit it to 0. So how did you come up with the number 1?

Making act 1 apply to the same rules as act 2 could be fair but I'd still like a motivation as to why you would ban super/hyper in rings since all they would do is drain your rings as you get them with the only exception being the wrapping rings example here. If you don't like the rings wrapping then ban it and write it in the rules, but make it clear instead of trying to fit it as an after-effect of many rules that don't make sense taken one by one.

57

Competition Central / Re: S3K Ring Attacks questions

« on: October 25, 2014, 03:54:06 am »

I think this is positive for ring attacks. Having the record gives real prestigue (not to diminish SDM but something I dislike about ring-leaderboards is countless ties) and it also takes away focus from the "requirement" to play on emulator and do some weird setup and savestate (I'm guessing at least because you can't savestate after carrying rings you later obtain can you?). If savestates are allowed it wouldn't be hard for 1 person to TAS it and share a savestate meaning everyone have an even playing field anyway.

I say allow it.

58

Wikkity! / Re: Extreme Thirst

« on: October 22, 2014, 10:06:32 am »

Wow linking to pictures of sexual organs of children around the age of 2, shame on you Zeupar!

59

Wikkity! / Re: Extreme Thirst

« on: October 21, 2014, 07:56:38 am »

It's hard to sip something that's solid Zeupar.

I usually quench it with spirits, 60-80% of it is bottled water!

60

Wikkity! / Re: How you came up with your username!

« on: October 09, 2014, 11:35:03 am »

The besserwisser part of me is screaming at me to point out that Colombian is not a race. But I like the story!