Legit 40 lines strategy or not?

[caffeine]

Your last rule means that anybody who plays a lose-stack freestyle game doesn't play 40L...........

Can you show me one of these supposed games' replays? I only play freeform without hold, and none of my previous personal records violated that rule.

[Agamemnon]

Can you show me one of these supposed games' replays? I only play freeform without hold, and none of my previous personal records violated that rule.

Not off the top of my head, unfortunately. I don't bookmark or even take notice of these recordings any more, as they're a dime a dozen. However, I remember seeing at least a few fast Koreans playing with a lot of holes that they downstacked through, and that some people around here were copying them. If you can stack up 'fast' and allow yourself to mess up, it doesn't matter in the end IF you downstack fast enough to make the average fast enough... I actually tried playing like this myself for a while, but I could never allow myself to make those mistakes. I blame TetriNET for that

[perfectclear]

I consider this a legit 40 line strat, as much as I consider free form a legit strat. 40 lines, while used to measure upstack and downstack traditionally, is just a game of starting with nothing and clearing 40 lines as fast as you can without tool assist. paul did that here, so its a 40 lines game. I don't see why people would want to muck with the basics of what 40 lines is. if anything, just give it a name like "quickstart 40 lines" just like we have "2-wide 40-lines" and "right side stacking" and "left side stacking".

Whatever the community decides, I will count this is a legit, as any website would count this as legit (not hacking, within the rules of the game).

[caffeine]

I remember seeing at least a few fast Koreans playing with a lot of holes that they downstacked through, and that some people around here were copying them. If you can stack up 'fast' and allow yourself to mess up, it doesn't matter in the end IF you downstack fast enough to make the average fast enough...

Here's one such game that I think you may be referencing:

All of those games would be legitimate, as the most simultaneous holes he gets up to is 5. If we find 6 to be too low of a threshold, we can always increase it. Not too high though, as it's purpose is to prohibit spam openings.

But why would we want to place this rule, anyway?

Well, it's already been demonstrated that this method without a doubt can be used to lower your time without needing to improve your TPM. Essentially, within the first 2.5 seconds, the player can place 35 tetrominoes (840TPM) without needing to put any thought as to where he's placing them. If we assume the average game requires 102 tetrominoes to finish, that means the player need only "think" about placing 67 tetrominoes to complete the game. Of course, downstacking is harder than upstacking, so this will slow down the player's "phase 2" speed. But, how fast does he need to play to break even?

• A 20 second player will need to play at at least 75% of his speed to break even with this method.
• A 25 second player will need to play at at least 72% of his speed.
• A 40 second player will need to play at at least 70% of his speed.

In other words, if you're a 200TPM par player, you now need only play at 145TPM (in downstack) to break your record. If we choose to accept this method, then anyone who wants a shot at a world record will need to conform to this method as well. Whether you favor, disfavor, or remain apathetic towards it, you have to admit that it will change the game in a big way for a lot of players.

How will this change the game for us?

• Focus on restarting until you get a lucky opening case.
• Focus on downstack instead of raw speed.
• Focus on playing enough times to get a luckier case than the current world record holder.

For these reasons, I believe in this case it is warranted to put the "6 hole" rule into effect. I believe it would contribute to a better play experience for the most people, without lowering the meaningfulness of a world record.

[Paul676]

My suggestion would be a 10 hole limit. A lucky spam (cf. mine) will still have 12-15 holes left, and a sub 10 hole one would be extremely surprising and lucky. One would have to wait for a lucky spam for a huge number of spams before he gets a sub 10 one, if that's even possible/remotely likely. Hence the method will be defined into oblivion, as no-one would use that method.

I'd rather something more direct than "fewer holes than", but not so specific such as "no spam method, c.f. http://harddrop.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4240"

[Agamemnon]

Two short spams of half-height will give you an easier downstack and fewer holes............ Haven't tried that yet, but almost just as viable....

[Paul676]

So I guess we'd wanna say "No spamming of pieces". But how can we distinguish it to make a rule about it? so hard -_-

[caffeine]

Two short spams of half-height will give you an easier downstack and fewer holes............ Haven't tried that yet, but almost just as viable....

It wouldn't give you an easier downstack. It would give you a more difficult downstack if anything, since you have have the same amount of downstack to dig through, only now you have less stuff to look ahead and prepare for in advance. If this proved to be viable, then you could say "when your highest hole is on row 5 or higher, your number of holes present cannot match or exceed a value of half of the highest row you currently have a hole." For example, if your highest hole is on row 14, then you can't have 7 holes or more. When your highest hole is on row 6, you may have up to 2 holes.

[benmullen]

im no 40 line expert... but number of holes should never count.  So long as a person gets 40 lines, no matter by what method it should be accepted.  The OP has basically a bot doing all those first peices, thats not a player playing and not a real game... but if you "spam" peices that you yourself place then fix the stuff, it clearly legitimate.

[myndzi]

I consider this a legit 40 line strat, as much as I consider free form a legit strat. 40 lines, while used to measure upstack and downstack traditionally, is just a game of starting with nothing and clearing 40 lines as fast as you can without tool assist. paul did that here, so its a 40 lines game. I don't see why people would want to muck with the basics of what 40 lines is. if anything, just give it a name like "quickstart 40 lines" just like we have "2-wide 40-lines" and "right side stacking" and "left side stacking".

Whatever the community decides, I will count this is a legit, as any website would count this as legit (not hacking, within the rules of the game).

It's less about strategy and more about using the game engine to do work for you in my opinion.

I consider the strategy completely legitimate, it's the implementation that I don't think should count against more "legitimate" records.

Also agree: counting holes is a bit silly. It's like a workaround for a problem instead of a solution.

So I guess we'd wanna say "No spamming of pieces". But how can we distinguish it to make a rule about it? so hard -_-

If you are holding down keys and not doing anything, that's spam. Pretty simple. I'd rather approach it from a rules standpoint because it covers more things and does a better job of classifying comparable records, but if you just want to "disallow this specific technique" then all you need to do is require that each piece be placed deliberately.

[zaphod77]

The only reason this works so well in NP is because you can set LINE CLEAR DELAY to zero.

If there is a line clear delay, that shifts the balance towards tetrises and ruins this strategy.

TOJ, however, uses bigger line clear delays for bigger line clears, so on that guideline game, this strategy can work.

The main beef with this strategy is that it makes luck a large part of your record breaking run.

[es2mac]

I consider the strategy completely legitimate, it's the implementation that I don't think should count against more "legitimate" records.

I don't mean to be picking bones, but isn't saying that it "shouldn't count against (this category)" the same as saying it should not be legitimate in said category?

Also, I don't quite understand why a requirement of minimum lock delay for low gravity isn't a good fix.  Would someone please elaborate?

[myndzi]

The only reason this works so well in NP is because you can set LINE CLEAR DELAY to zero.

If there is a line clear delay, that shifts the balance towards tetrises and ruins this strategy.

TOJ, however, uses bigger line clear delays for bigger line clears, so on that guideline game, this strategy can work.

The main beef with this strategy is that it makes luck a large part of your record breaking run.

Line clear delay at zero creates more flexibility in strategy but that's about it. The only questionable thing here is having the game stack "for" you.

All-tetris 40 lines becomes required the higher the line clear delay is, but having no line clear delay doesn't make it an impediment...

[caffeine]

Also agree: counting holes is a bit silly. It's like a workaround for a problem instead of a solution.

The hole rule prevents spam openings and doesn't disqualify any non-spam-opening games, to my knowledge. In short, if you're making excessive holes, you're not placing your pieces deliberately enough to form a coherent playfield. If that is not a good solution, then what is your proposal?

If you are holding down keys and not doing anything, that's spam. Pretty simple.

Define "not doing anything." In any case, you can accomplish a spam opening by just hard dropping, moving, and rotating rapidly without thinking about it. You need not "hold down keys." In fact, this is how I first saw this strategy done a few years back.

[myndzi]

The hole rule prevents spam openings and doesn't disqualify any non-spam-opening games, to my knowledge. In short, if you're making excessive holes, you're not placing your pieces deliberately enough to form a coherent playfield. If that is not a good solution, then what is your proposal?
Define "not doing anything." In any case, you can accomplish a spam opening by just hard dropping, moving, and rotating rapidly without thinking about it. You need not "hold down keys." In fact, this is how I first saw this strategy done a few years back.

My argument is that the second example is perfectly fine. Each piece, whether or not it is placed well, is placed deliberately and at the response of your own inputs. "Not doing anything" is exactly what it says - the game is stacking multiple pieces and you're not doing anything. Not changing anything, not considering the pieces, not directing the game.

I agree that spamming is a legit strategy, just as freeform stacking is; I don't agree that the records from a game that stacks the full screen for you in a couple seconds are comparable to other records.