Ghosts n' Goblins revisited

[Q. T. Quazar]

current rules are:

BANNED TECHNIQUES :

1°)extra life leaching (it is possible to sit in certain areas -usually the 3rd- and repeatedly kill enough enemies to earn an extra life before losing a life, which allows the player to earn lots of extra points with very little skill)

2°) inhibating timer (it is possible to get infinite time on an area if you manage to become a frog in the exact second when timer reach 0:00)

last edited 02 Jul 2001 13:55:52 GMT by Phil Lamat (phl)

This is a five lives only game. Your score will be after your fifth life. Agreed to by a 6-1 vote on December 3, 2001

last edited 13 Feb 2002 18:00:06 GMT by gameboy9 (plf)



as far as i can tell, #1 is no longer applicable, subject instead to the 5 lives rule.

[Chad]

For those that can finish the game doesn't mean much. But for those who can only progress to the caves the method can give them 500k which is unfair to someone who can make a bit further than the caves with 5 lives and not leech. I think #1 should stay in for this reason.

[Q. T. Quazar]

Yeah, but basically making it that far has 'earned' them the points in a sense, and we don't have to impose an arbitrary judgment call about whether it's a 'leech' or not. I don't see the advantage in that if a better rule 'supersedes' to control the abuse.

A similar example is Caveman Ninja. You can only leech so long in either game before your timer runs out, and you're dead. Since a life limit exists--that means an inevitable game over. The rule was originally implemented to stop an infinite lives exploit.

I'd rather control leeching with dips/'objective settings' that with subjective calls.

[gameboy9]

Well since I was involved in the rule making of this game, I probably should chime in. When I originally confirmed recordings for this game, I allowed one life's worth of leeching per loop, then you had to move on. This seemed to have done the matter quite fine. This being said, I would keep #1 with the proviso I just mentioned.

This being said, this is another one of those games where you wish MARP had the functionality to make this game a "most stages in the least time" game, and ending the game after two loops. (you haven't officially won the game after the first loop) Although one could do w/o the automatic ending of the game and just do straight most stages completed in five lives, but my personal belief is to end it after two loops. We played it exactly that way (w/ game over after two loops) in the 6th MAME Championships, and I think it was well received. This all being said, I think I'm just, unfortunately, playing fantasy here.

[Q. T. Quazar]

Maybe i'm being obstinate here, but that still doesn't answer the question of why leeching at that point has to be arbitrarily controlled. The game is already controlled now by a lifecap. The leeching is finite, as there's an in-game timer. If a good player wants to blow their lives at this point, and then try to finish on their last life, why should we stop them? The 'outer boundaries' for their score have already been set by the lifecap, and a good player is going to finish the game regardless. I don't understand the logic.

[gameboy9]

Well, I can understand your reasoning the removal of #1. But I guess I'm thinking from a different angle: the recordings would be a lot more fun and entertaining to watch if we just didn't allow any leeching. But then comes your argument of subjective leeching, which is completely understandable. Therefore, my argument of "most stages, least time". Now, it IS possible to score it as such under MARP's points-only system (as in points for a stage minus length of recording)... whether or not we want to take that route is up to the community.

[Q. T. Quazar]

no argument against introducing stages, but i would want that implemented wide-scale, as part of the site coding--not piecemeal. it would certainly resolve a lot of these issues--love that feature at HARP.

[gameboy9]

You don't get an argument from me on that point.