Hyper Sports NVRAM

Discussion about MARP's regulation play

Moderator: BBH

LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm
Contact:

Post by LN2 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:18 am

dskys wrote:To challenge TG it is necessary - I accept that now
To challenge here it's necessary.

Yes they are separate and a ruling here does not affect TG, but level playing fields and all that.
As I have said before...MARP is MARP. TG is TG. We do NOT need to have a level playing field.

Although here is an interesting note. I am 99% sure TG will accept nvram for HS. MARP allows "TG" scores on the MARP scoreboard showing TG in the description. In these cases, the games are played under TG settings and rules...not MARPs. So even if MARP doesn't allow nvram here, it seems all a player needs to do is play by the TG settings and uploads their score to MARP with "TG" in the description. That allows them to use a TG provided nvram file.

There is your conflict IMHO. If nvram for HS isn't allowed at MARP, then a special rule needs to be made clearly stating this...and that TG submissions for the game are not allowed.

If MARP doesn't want to use nvram that's fine. If the MARP current scores were using nvram, then they should be rewatched without using any nvram and their scores adjusted accordingly. The other option for MARP is to accept the nvram used and supplied by each player and if it plays back to their submitted score, then it stands. That of course would require a special rule for HS.

Again, NONE of that has anything to do with TG. A player above wants to go for the TG-world record for HS. That's great. I am only trying to find out what the rules and basis for competition at HS should be so this can be done.

Even if MARP ends up accepting nvram for HS, odds are each player would have their own versus all being required to use the same nvram file. As a TG ref I would find this unacceptable for TG...cuz given it's possible to have a fair and level playing field in this competition of HS scores in MAME by just having all use the same nvram file, then TG would have a standard nvram file for players to use....and what TG ref(s) would use for verification.

It makes things a lot easier...and more fair for the players. Unfortunately this likely isn't the case for the arcade scores for HS as the pole vault records likely were different between different machines...thus potentially affecting one's score versus another. If TG has the tapes for any of these they can be checked for this....with IMHO potential adjustment of scores to standardized them to a set of pole vault records.

I think I will start and move this to the TG forums. I was posting here cuz most of the top HS players are here....not at the TG forums.

User avatar
QRS
Editor
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:33 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by QRS » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:49 am

The new rule is up at the rules page. Just some minor changes. Just follow them and we can start discussing the games in a case to case basis :)
QRS

User avatar
The TJT
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:56 am
Location: 20 Grand Palace

Post by The TJT » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:24 am

OK.
QRS, I move use of nv at HS to be discussed by Marp editors.
-----

Meanwhile we can try to find agreement how high pole records should be.
All 5,94 or all 5,95? IMO they shouldn't be too low, so that we can avoid "what if's" in the future.
I can make read-only nv with records that we want.
Since TG players and Marp players are pretty much the same, I suggest we use same nv for both TG and Marp...That is if Marp editors show green light/walk.
(LN2 has a point there, about Marp allowing use of TG settings.)

TJT

LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm
Contact:

Post by LN2 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:05 am

The TJT wrote:Meanwhile we can try to find agreement how high pole records should be.
All 5,94 or all 5,95? IMO they shouldn't be too low, so that we can avoid "what if's" in the future.
Good question. That's in in a nutshell for TG's purposes now. It's clear 5.94s are quite likely for master players...so it needs to at least be three 5.94s.

However, for a world record performance if they are nailing for 5.94s do they deserve the mole points? If you think they do, then we need a nvram with all 5.95s.

I agree that 5.95s in real gameplay is highly unlikely. In your play, TJT, have you gotten 5.95s and wish you had the extra mole points? I am 99% sure you ahve gotten 5.94s cuz I got 5.94 once or twice in my history of playing the game...and vaguely remember maybe getting 5.95 once...nailing it on the 4th loop for one of the 2 games I played where I even got that far.

if so...then perhaps they need to all be values any player playing the game "for real" can't obtain...as odds are arcade machines would have heights 1 player playing honestly can't reach.
Since TG players and Marp players are pretty much the same, I suggest we use same nv for both TG and Marp...That is if Marp editors show green light/walk.
(LN2 has a point there, about Marp allowing use of TG settings.)
That is certainly up to MARP...but won't influence what TG decides.

A TG decision concerning this likely won't come overnight either fellas. I will bring it up for discussion among TG refs. I have enough foundation information now to make an overall issue statement, potential issues with it..and possible solutions...then ask ..perhaps poll...the refs for which nvram heights would be most fair.

If then MARP decides to follow that...that's fine. However, MARP shouldn't make any decision like that until TG has decided what to do.

User avatar
dskys
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:40 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by dskys » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:09 pm

I guess the theory for high records is valid. It narks me a little, only because they were in theory set over a long perios of time and could be considered not mornal records.

The main problem I have with lots of 95s or even 94s is that it takes away a little bit of the spirit of the game.

For me, if I had broken the WR, with whatever rules, it would be more 'complete' if said record breaking player were able to have each record in each event. I just think it's unlikely (and it's certainly not necessary with the current TGWR level) that in any given game where we get past 9.6 horse and beat the record that we would have beaten 5.94 in the process.

I appreciate that's nothing to do with the rule, but I'm just trying to explain why I feel that the records should be a little lower.

The irony is that very high PV records were (probably) set by someone not even 'going' for mole points, just for the highest height they could clear.

Tommi's offering is about right but I guess for score potential three 5.95s is the way to go. Ho hum.

Does anyone see what I mean though? I now i'm being 'picky' but that's just the way I am hehe :)
#Find another way to me
Find another way and make me free
Then you hear my voice 'don't find another wayyyyy'
Oh i've cried for you, please follow me oh follow meee

LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm
Contact:

Post by LN2 » Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:15 pm

dsys, I see your point...but it's just that some players might be able to get past that 9.60 horse yet aren't great at the pole vault while others are great at the pole vault and have no chance to get past the 9.60 vault.

You can't favor one event over another. It's a shame the game scoring had that flaw for the pole vault.

If you had no nvram you really take away a lot of points from someone likely nailing several vaults in the first loop that each set a new record.

..and a bit in the second loop also. Odds are for the 3rd and beyond loops you only would be missing out on a couple of vaults so it's not as big of a deal but it still all adds up.

I had thrown out a 32k figure the other day for just having 5.93s vs 5.94s...but 5.93s versus no nvram file could easily make a 96k difference in score for someone who has mastered the pole vault.

That is extremely significant. You likely aren't going to amass another 96k even if you get past that 9.60 horse.

User avatar
dskys
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:40 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by dskys » Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:49 pm

I agree LN2 and hope it gets ratified. Now that Tommi's moved to include nv here, and you're gonna raise it at TG, what kind of time frame is likely in both cases?

With NVram I just failed at 55 (fifty fckin five!!! :() second swimming with a score of about 408k - I had 396k after third round pole! Do the math... @US

Ok, I did the math - for a failure at 9.60 score would be in the region of 530k with no moles, bonuses, perfects etc ! 8O
#Find another way to me
Find another way and make me free
Then you hear my voice 'don't find another wayyyyy'
Oh i've cried for you, please follow me oh follow meee

LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm
Contact:

Post by LN2 » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:13 pm

dskys wrote:I agree LN2 and hope it gets ratified. Now that Tommi's moved to include nv here, and you're gonna raise it at TG, what kind of time frame is likely in both cases?
Hard to say...could be fast or slow. I currently haven't brought up anything. I will start by first just e-mailing Robert to find out what "rules" the HS arcade records were set by.... I am 99% sure those machines had well-established heights for the pole vault....but it would be nice to see if we can get an exact figure.

Then I can present the issue to the ref forum at TG and hopefully get quick feedback. I'm sure Robert and a couple others will quickly have opinions about it etc. There are many refs though that don't regularly check the TG forums.
With NVram I just failed at 55 (fifty fckin five!!! :() second swimming with a score of about 408k
LOL...that's always the way. I'd bet you were drooling having a score that high at that point.

Did you maybe mean the 4th swimming? cuz you mention 396k after the 3rd pole... 2nd swimming also has qualify of 1:00 right?

396k after the 3rd pole is definitely kicking butt. You were staring a potential 500+k game right in the face!

User avatar
dskys
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:40 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by dskys » Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:19 am

55s swimming lol.
#Find another way to me
Find another way and make me free
Then you hear my voice 'don't find another wayyyyy'
Oh i've cried for you, please follow me oh follow meee

User avatar
Zhorik
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:16 pm

NVRAM and Hypersports

Post by Zhorik » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:23 am

I understand that the moles are an important part of the game, and it isn't just a matter of "making scores higher". Its important to realize that depending on how "well" you play getting moles, it effects how much higher you score. Its not like all scores that get 400K without NVRAM would score the same with NVRAM. The better players (at getting moles) would score higher.

Nevertheless, is using NVRAM really necessary here? Couldn't there just be a Special Rule for the game stating that you watch the recording, and you figure out how many mole bonus points you would have gotten with records all set to some standard (say 5.94). This becomes your score for submission purposes. This would avoid any playback issues caused by NVRAM and still recognize that going for moles is an important part of "recreating the arcade experience".

-George

User avatar
Chad
Tournament Coordinator
Posts: 4463
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 3:15 pm
Location: calif

Post by Chad » Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:12 pm

that's a good question. I have a question too, there are two recordings. Player 1 plays for moles with an nvram gets a certain score X, and Player 2 not playing for moles with out an nvram (BUT gets the same olympic scores as Player 1) gets a score X-k. If player 2's recording is adjusted time wise for moles (and world record "wait" adjustments) such that it is able to be played back with the "mole" nvram, would player 2's recording get a score of X?
-skito

User avatar
Zhorik
MARP Seer
MARP Seer
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:16 pm

Mole points

Post by Zhorik » Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:47 pm

Chad wrote:that's a good question. I have a question too, there are two recordings. Player 1 plays for moles with an nvram gets a certain score X, and Player 2 not playing for moles with out an nvram (BUT gets the same olympic scores as Player 1) gets a score X-k. If player 2's recording is adjusted time wise for moles (and world record "wait" adjustments) such that it is able to be played back with the "mole" nvram, would player 2's recording get a score of X?
No. If Player 2 wasn't going for mole points (which come from placing the pole in the ground perfectly on the pole vault), he will not have those k points if played back with the "mole" nvram (assuming that is technically feasable). There is some risk involved (and a good bit of skill) in going for the mole points, since if you plant the pole too late, it misses the "skid hole" in the ground and slides all the way to the mat. I'ts still possible to clear heights, but it's significantly more difficult if you plant late. Most likely if Player 2 isn't going for mole points, he is placing the pole a bit early every time to be safe, so even if you later used the "mole" nvram, he wouldn't have any mole points. "Olympic scores" don't enter the picture at all.

-George

User avatar
dskys
MARP Knight
MARP Knight
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:40 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by dskys » Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:47 pm

yeah that was raised earlier in a roundabout way by TJT - my score of 439k didn't have a single mole so even with an nvram it wouldn't have beaten his score.

I'm assuming it's certain that the TG record had plenty of moles - haven't worked out the max score without by that stage but I find it hard to believe it's 538k (actually it probably is with archery but hey ho ;) )
#Find another way to me
Find another way and make me free
Then you hear my voice 'don't find another wayyyyy'
Oh i've cried for you, please follow me oh follow meee

LN2
MARPaholic
MARPaholic
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 4:46 pm
Contact:

Post by LN2 » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:37 pm

dskys wrote:I'm assuming it's certain that the TG record had plenty of moles - haven't worked out the max score without by that stage but I find it hard to believe it's 538k (actually it probably is with archery but hey ho ;) )
yep, that's my guess also. I'd bet he got 72+k in mole points.

I wasn't a great HS player but had gotten where I could nail the pole plant 50% of the time....and sometimes get in a groove where I do it 5+ times in a row.

...yeah, good point above that with different height records you would need to adjust frames in the inp to make it sync with a different nvram file.

Sure, I guess you could "manually" watch older inp files and calculate the additional mole points etc. then adjust their final score....but what a pain that is! A required standard use of a nvram file would make things tons easier. Plus it makes it totally understood the player knows what the rules for the game are.

for mame, we just need a standard records setting...or make it "infinitely" high. It wouldn't surprise me if the arcade machine that 538k score wa set on had heights of 5.96 or higher as records.

Hopefully, TG has info about the WR score and a tape so they could easily see what the vault heights were.

User avatar
mahlemiut
Editor
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 10:05 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by mahlemiut » Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:12 pm

I seem to remember that NVRAM doesn't cause playbackability issues with Hyper Sports - ie: you could playback an INP recorded without NVRAM, using NVRAM and it'd still playback, just with a different score. This was a looooong time ago, and I'm unsure if this is still the case.
- Barry Rodewald
MARP Assistant Web Maintainer
Image

Post Reply