Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:15 am
by Weehawk
gameboy9 wrote:5-man start is TG settings. Which is why this is a legal MARP recording.
I started to contradict you.

I should have known better.

Rule 2.h) states:
h) Recording submissions must be recorded with that particular ROMset's defaults or TG (Twin Galaxies) settings. A recording set at easier or different settings is subject to deletion, especially if it is higher than others at more difficult settings. Recording on TG settings, which are the official arcade game settings, is preferred, and will gain your scores further notice from your fellow players.
I'm not completely comfortable with that. I personally would prefer for MARP setting not to be tied to TG in any way, but so be it.

Anyway, this is probably a unique case where the TG settings are "easier" than default.

The game in question was played "on TG settings, which are the official arcade game settings" and therefore 3,333,360 is the legitimate MARP regulation play score.

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:55 am
by Chad
the best answer to this question is to do something we've wanted to do for a long time, have splits for different settings/charactersUsed/cheekiness/leeching but that takes some design work that hasn't been allocatable. Plus more webspace... There really should be a 5 lives split and a 3 lives split with ONE of the splits contributing the leaderboard and one not.

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:19 am
by JoustGod
I am very curious as to how the number of lives on Pac Man ever was allowed to be extended to 5. I don't EVER recall seeing a coin-op Pac Man having more or less than 3 lives to start with. I'm in total disagreement with TG's number of lives policy for this title. Anyone want to enlighten me as to why this extension was allowed? The amount of points gained from two extra lives on the split screen are incredibly insignificant and serve no purpose. Hmmm...

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:57 am
by QRS
John:I think that Billy Mitchell had the machine set to the maximum amount of men possible so he would not face someone beating him with more men in the future etc. More than that, there is no reason for a five men game on pacman, but it seems to have been a 'standard' when people talk about it.

Neil:I hope that you understand that this talk about 5 men or 3 men doesn't take away your amazing performance. Regardless of how many men you used it is still a perfect pacman. It is just the the rules that needs to be discussed :)

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:07 pm
by JoustGod
Neil, by no means was I trying to reduce your accomplishment. I fully understand why you played your perfect game the way you did. And it has always been my understanding that Billy Mitchell started the trend of using two additional men. I am just wondering why it was allowed in the first place. As I've mentioned on the TG forum, it really does have the potential of opening a Pandora's Box for other games where gamers feel the need to alter standard settings. Making the settings more difficult is one thing, but creating more men/lives at the start of a game is wrong. If the factory settings allow you to perform certain moves or strategies within the game, fine. I will make this the last post on this subject as I think the intention of this thread was to congratulate Neil. Sorry for the sidetracking I've done.

Well done, Mr. Chapman!

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:22 pm
by nrc
I think the 5 men were originally allowed because the first perfect game was going to be hyped so much they didn't want to have to deal with any questions about the possibility of getting any more points.

They wanted a clear message to tell everyone, there was no way to ever get a higher score. Everyone can understand that.

Unless you know the game, you only hear the phrase "perfect game", you have no idea about the different starting men settings.

When you are on a world tour promoting your perfect game you don't want to have to field any questions that shed any doubt on what you've done or confuse people about what they don't fully understand anyway.

So yes, QRS explained it pretty well right on.

I'm not 100% I agree with it either, because I have never seen a Pac-Man game set on 5 men. Unless of course you have access to the dips.

No offense taken. I can understand the differing opinions.


Pac newb experience

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:53 pm
by The TJT
Showed a gaming friend today Neil's game. First words...What! 5men!...explained to him that it doesn't matter because there are not any mistakes made.
First he was amazed by close situations in the gameplay. If you don't understand that those early levels are patterned, many situations in the gameplay look super-human performance 8) I explained him how patterns work. He was still impressed how you remember the patterns(He has very good memory himself, he remembered exact tactics of Gauntlet and Gauntlet2 after 15 years break from the games, He remembers what settings our arcade had etc...) I tried to explain him that it's not allways easy to execute the pattern and what kind of pattern is most easy to execute. He was also impressed some of the grouping and free play that occurred in the game, plus use of sit spot, he never saw anybody use sit spot before.

Guess next lesson is to show him Neil's Ms Pac grouping :)

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:06 pm
by pacmantab
I don’t think anyone has suggested that Neil’s score be disenfranchised. I for one knew for some time that Neil would likely become the next perfect Pac-Man player.

I for one disagree with the change in the TG Arcade setting from 3+1 (three men to start, plus one at 10,000) to 5+1 (five men to start, plus one at 10,000 – which I saw only once in the arcades), but I understand the logic behind it. What would have happened if Billy Mitchell got 3,333,180 (a “180” score) in 1999, only to have someone use the 5+1 option to get 3,333,360 (a “360” score) and then claim that not only is he the new World Champ, but the first to get a “true” perfect score? Would have been pretty cheap if you ask me :x

There is also a very important thing to note here: In 1999 there had yet to be a verified perfect score in Pac-Man (Arcade), so upping the men to 5+1 was apparently not an issue. Once Billy got the first perfect score, and in such a fashion that prevented other players beating his score by adding men, we knew requiring future players of Arcade Pac-Man to set the game to 5+1 for perfect game attempts would not step on anyone’s toes.

With MAME, however, it is a different story. When I got the first perfect score in 2002, the TGTS for MAME Pac-Man was set at 3+1. I was tempted to set it to 5+1 to prevent this very “can of worms” from being opened, but I also did not want TG to DQ my game for having too many men. And as has been stated several times, this issue was already discussed – with the decision to keep MAME Pac-Man at 3+1 affirmed. Besides, it’s kind of nice having a “degree of separation” between the platforms – where a “360” perfect is automatically associated with the Arcade platform, and a “180” perfect is associated with MAME.

In short, and I am not suggesting any “foul” intentions, but I am now faced with the same potential issue that Billy would have faced had the Arcade settings not been changed to 5+1. Imagine: If Neil’s score were to be accepted by TG as is, it could lead to confusion regarding a “perfect game” at best – a “watering down” of my perfect game at worst, as has been explained by previous posts already.

That being said, I would not want to see Neil’s recording disenfranchised just because he used 5+1 for MARP purposes – assuming he elects to submit it to TG. But, with respect, I also don’t want people to mistakenly assume he is the first (and only) player to have a perfect score on MAME Pac-Man because of the score difference.

Think of it this way (and correct me if I’m wrong) – Ms. Pac-Man is still using 3+1, and the kill screen does not allow for scoring any more points. Now imagine if someone used 5+1 – which allowed him to reach the kill screen and tie Chris’ world record. Are they the same? Of course not. Likewise (using someone else’s example), if someone played MAME Pac-Man with 5+1, died twice on the 9th key level, but still got everything with his 4 remaining men to get 3,333,180, would that be the same as my score? No, but again it could be assumed as the same to the casual reader.

A final note: After training extensively on the split screen, any Pac-Master with a perfect game (Neil included) can tell you that getting the split screen hidden dots two more times is trivial – and barely worth mentioning. I actually played Pac-Man with 5+1 and got 3,333,360 rather easily last summer – just never bothered to submit it (since I already got perfect the year before).

Again, I think Neil should be recognized for his accomplishment and be given kudos for showing the world his secrets - although I would have waited for a book deal or something first :wink: That said, however, something needs to be done to ensure there is no confusion either on the MARP or TG side. At the very least, Neil’s score on MARP should state that his settings have been the TG Arcade settings since 1999. As it reads now, it could be assumed that it means the TG MAME settings.

On a broader scale, we have the already mentioned ideas of crediting Neil with 3,333,180 or having separate categories for Pac-Man (3+1 and 5+1). The latter actually might not be a bad idea for all platforms – as many of the Arcade top scores (my 1983 score included) were done with 3+1. It would actually give players a chance to be the first to score the first perfect Arcade Pac-Man game with 3+1 (since all four Arcade perfects thus far were done with 5+1).

I would, however, offer another option to prevent the kind of “pandora’s box” concern mentioned before: Change ALL TG Pac-Man settings to 3+1 (factory default) and credit anyone with perfect games (“180” or “360”) with 3,333,180. Again, anyone who can get a perfect “180” can get a perfect “360” – and, of course, vice versa - I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch. And if someone steps forward with a “360” game, they too would be listed with a score of 3,333,180. Just trying to come up with a win-win situation here for all involved.

In closing, I want to say to Neil – Nice Job!! I think you’ll find that, once you’ve scored perfect in MAME, that scoring perfect in the Arcade version will not be too far behind. I’ll have to try out your 1-second patterns sometime….

Tim B.
TG MAME Pac-Man World Champion

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:31 pm
by The TJT
pacmantab wrote:
I would, however, offer another option to prevent the kind of “pandora’s box” concern mentioned before: Change ALL TG Pac-Man settings to 3+1 (factory default) and credit anyone with perfect games (“180” or “360”) with 3,333,180. Again, anyone who can get a perfect “180” can get a perfect “360” – and, of course, vice versa - I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch. And if someone steps forward with a “360” game, they too would be listed with a score of 3,333,180. Just trying to come up with a win-win situation here for all involved.
That sounds a good idea to me. Fair for everyone. Perfect is perfect.
Arcade settings being different than Mame is ridiculous, and wrong.

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:39 pm
by LN2
nrc wrote:Since all the arcade perfect games have been 5 men I can't understand why you wouldn't start with 5, even for Mame. My advice is if you are going for a perfect game, start with 5.
Yes, however I'm pretty sure TG settings are that 5 start men are ONLY accepted if a perfect score is actually obtained.

Someone using 5 start men and only getting a 3.1 million score, even reaching the split, should not be accepted.

That player could have easily lost 3-4 men on the early boards, then cuz of a decent 9th key pattern, reached the split on their last couple of men that with 3 start men he never would have reached.

ie. IMHO a 3,333,270 score using 5 start men should not be accepted...cuz it's not perfect.

Also, the big issue is as all agree "perfect is perfect" why would you want 1 perfect score to be higher and totally overshadow another where for MARP leaderboard a perfect score might only be good for a second place?!?!?

Re: Nice Score Neil Chapman! (pacman)

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:33 pm
by francoisadt1
Hi Fellow Gamers

Anyone knows where the score / perfect pacman played on MAME of Niel Chapman was uploaded to? any URL or direct link please?

If you do have the .zip file please send it to me.

Francois du Toit

Re: Nice Score Neil Chapman! (pacman)

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:52 am
by sikraiken

Re: Nice Score Neil Chapman! (pacman)

Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 3:25 am
by francoisadt1
Hi Everyone

Where is the .INP file? I do not see any link to an .INP or file uploaded on the scoreboard?
Anyone that do have the file?

Francois du Toit

Re: Nice Score Neil Chapman! (pacman)

Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 3:35 am
by francoisadt1
Thanks I only did saw the link now, previously my web-page did not show the link above. Why is his score not on the MAME scoreboard under pacman (midway)? Was it removed for some reason?