Legit 40 lines strategy or not?

[caffeine]

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.

How can you say spamming is a legitimate strategy, and then, immediately following that, say that a game composed of spamming is not legitimate?

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.

After only a few tries, I was able to get this result:
[!--ImageUrlBegin--][a href=\\\"http://i.imgur.com/q2AKp.png\\\" target=\\\"_new\\\"][!--ImageUrlEBegin--][img width=\\\"400\\\" class=\\\"attach\\\" src=\\\"http://i.imgur.com/q2AKp.png\\\" border=\\\'0\\\' alt=\\\"IPB Image\\\" /][!--ImageUrlEnd--][/a][!--ImageUrlEEnd--]



Each piece was, by your definition, placed deliberately and at the response of my own inputs. I didn't hold down anything. While this is not 35 pieces in 2.5 seconds like Paul's, with practice I could get closer. The point is that with practice, I could accomplish virtually the same effect, and yet you're saying this is legitimate but Paul's isn't.

[myndzi]

Well, yes. My problem with Paul's video isn't what he did, it's how.

[xlro]

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

this.
Even though the idea with "games below one minute..." is kinda cute, it's just not a viable, clean rule in general, since it's not easily trackable by the player himself, while playing the game. And saying "if we need to, we could adjust it to higher values than 6" makes the point of having a rule nonsensical. What if there is a new WR that has 7 holes at some point, but only has borderline (manual?!) spamming inbetween somewhere (who says it has to be the opening)? is it the new WR now? do we let it slide and adjust the border because we like the guy, or do we say: sorry, not within the rules buddy, because it's paradox? jk  

Clearing 40 lines is clearing 40 lines, if the game mechanics allow you to do that in a fast way, that's how the game is played then. I agree that the random factor (that might clear you lines even) is bad and could potentially break the game + somehow skews this neat upstacking for tetrises idea. But forcing ones idea of how 40L should be played, or what supposedly the idea behind the mode should be into some semi-official rules is imo not so easy.

I do not really have a good idea for a replacement rule, because atm I think there should be none. Tweaking lock-delay could help and is probably the most promising rule, altho it goes a bit against no other delays being limited. (but shouldn't affect any "normal" player so to say)

This idea of deliberate placement / steering pieces is nice, but I think also flawed, since who are you to say which % of pieces I wanted to exactly place in that rotation there? If it's done as excessively as shown in Paul's video there is a point to argue, granted. If it's only done half as aggresively, then what? where is the border where someone says: this wasn't done on purpose! It becomes hard to track. Is placing two pieces in a row unintentionally (missdrop) then strictly speaking a rule violation? what about 4 or 5, spread out over the well? I understand the idea and an honor system based on that might ofc work, making a proper rule out of it becomes hard again.

[Kitaru]

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

[Paul676]

Interesting Kitaru....4-wide might be an example of "soft-ban" in the Tetris Community.

[zaphod77]

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...

I do not disagree that you have less viable options for setting records with line clear delay, but the delay itself is in fact an impediment to the ultra fast upstack strategy, which by necessity involves smaller clears.  You can't use that strategy and get ten tetrises.

[Antifate]

Question: How does one set Initial Rotate settings? I had no idea such a thing existed...

I'm playing standard-zero and holding rotate+right+soft drop, but the pieces aren't rotating; what am I missing?

[XaeL]

Question: How does one set Initial Rotate settings? I had no idea such a thing existed...

I'm playing standard-zero and holding rotate+right+soft drop, but the pieces aren't rotating; what am I missing?

it depends purely on how initial rotate is implemented. in some games, <hold rotate> + spam makes all the pieces spawn rotated. In nullpomino, by default, <hold rotate> +  spam only makes the first one rotated. However, you can change the ruleset, using the rule editor which may enable you to have this functionality (however in my testing i have been unable to achieve this).

[Antifate]

it depends purely on how initial rotate is implemented. in some games, <hold rotate> + spam makes all the pieces spawn rotated. In nullpomino, by default, <hold rotate> +  spam only makes the first one rotated. However, you can change the ruleset, using the rule editor which may enable you to have this functionality (however in my testing i have been unable to achieve this).

Ah I figured it out. Yeah it involves ruleeditor. You have to go to your nullpo folder and run ruleeditor, then open your rule and change both the initial rotate and ARE settings.

[myndzi]

I do not disagree that you have less viable options for setting records with line clear delay, but the delay itself is in fact an impediment to the ultra fast upstack strategy, which by necessity involves smaller clears.  You can't use that strategy and get ten tetrises.

Yes, but it's a hack solution that indirectly addresses the problem. The problem isn't the line delay, it's the input processing. I see no reason why, if the intent were to solve it, you wouldn't solve it at its source.

[Aaron]

By master876.

[Paul676]

lol

what is special about this replay

[Master]

its that im using harddrop  xD

[XaeL]

CaptainPaul/myndzi/others: How would we rephrase the rules to exclude these types of runs, if we are going to?

Require at least one KeyDown and KeyUp per piece. This means you can't get 20pps because you have to manually press hard drop.

So Master876's replay would be legit, Paul's not.

[caffeine]

I just tried and can press the spacebar 57 times in 5 seconds (with one finger).  Paul676 stacked 35 pieces in 2.5 seconds, which is around 14 per second. Now I'm pretty sure if I only had to press the spacebar for 2.5 seconds and put some more time into it, I could accomplish 14 per second.

So then, why should it be allowed by pressing harddrop each piece, but then not allowed in the other case. Such a rule doesn't accomplish anything if the player is able to use the same strategy and get the same result through other means. Is it that we believe that the WR holder deserves to get an RSI injury?