Legit 40 lines strategy or not?

[Alexandra]

Is it that we believe that the WR holder deserves to get an RSI injury?

 

[Kitaru]

I think we should take a cue from the general speedrun community on this one. Typically there is a notion of a "beat the game / reach the end with any % of completion/collection" where literally anything is allowed -- this isn't necessarily always the most competitive category, as sometimes the community surrounding decides that say, breaking a game wide open and skipping the entire thing in less than a minute isn't as fun or interesting in the long run compared to a category that is longer and touches on more of the game's content and challenges (though potentially still skipping portions of the game via other methods, because the goal is still speed after all) -- there is only so far you can take shaving fractions of a second off a run that tests a minimal subset of ability compared to another category. So, it might be that "clear 40 Lines without 'spam' or 'autostack'" remains the most competitive category. But, it remains that "spam / autostack" are valid methods in the core, foundational "beat the game as fast as possible" category.

However, as touched on already, the problem is that there is no clear objective definition of what constitutes spam. Other speed games have fairly concrete criteria on what relegates a game to a particular category: play all stages, don't invoke a particular glitch, don't visit events xyz out of order, etc.. However, in this case, we are trying to impose a subjective restriction: don't utilize a certain play style. What Aaron's link to Master's replay touches on is that you could perhaps impose objective category restrictions to the "limited / clean" category that prevent or severely weaken "autostack," but that "manual spam" is still entirely achievable and viable.

At the end of the day, runs utilizing this strat are completely valid within the constraints of the game -- it's not like it kills you and makes you start over if you make too many holes in a row or something. The game is unjudging: clear 40 lines, fast. The majority of players may choose to focus their efforts on a restricted category (whatever its definition ultimately may be), but beyond accepting that most people prefer playing a subset of the fastest category there isn't really anything I can see that discounts this method of play.

[XaeL]

So then, why should it be allowed by pressing harddrop each piece, but then not allowed in the other case.

Well put it this way - if you are playing NES tetris, would you respect a player who manually taps faster than NES's slow das rate, or someone who uses an autofire script to get 30hz das?

The only difference in my example is that Nullpo's engine allows you to get 30hz auto-drop, but this is a side-effect of real functionality rather than an intentional feature.

[MicroBlizz]

If someone can beat 17.5 with it I'm all for it. Anything goes at this point imo cause it's hard enough as it is without implementing new strategies

[Kitaru]

The only difference in my example is that Nullpo's engine allows you to get 30hz auto-drop, but this is a side-effect of real functionality rather than an intentional feature.

This is the only difference that matters. We don't allow tools such as autofire or macros that assist player execution. However, 40 Lines has always been free configuration within the constraints of the game, and this method is a direct effect of the concrete rules of the game (i.e. code and resulting engine behavior).

(As an aside, some game communities do sanction use of autofire for one reason or another. One is the shoot 'em up community. Another is the Japanese RPG speedrun community. However, at least in the former case, autofire on/off are usually separate categories. The NES Tetris community would never consider "autofire on" a competitive category.)

[Okey_Dokey]

About the original question. For me it is very clear that this method is invalid. It uses 20G mechanics to move the pieces to a random spot, the game does all the work for you. Usually if you play sprint, the location where a piece is dropped (column, direction/orientation) is always the same for same inputs (and same piece shape) - it doesn't depend on the surface of the stack.

With that method (ARE 1 frame, Lockdelay 2 frames, 20G softdrop, Initial Rotation activated) I could improve my sprint record by almost one second within one hour. And the run is very far away from being optimal. In the first second I dropped 23 pieces, that's 20 pieces more than usual. All in all, it's playing an 80 pieces downstack game instead of a 100 pieces sprint game.

On the other hand I consider it valid, if you spam the pieces manually with 1 drop keypress per piece (and without using 20G+lockdelay mechanics) like master876 did that in one video (or Sisu in Cultris 2 Maserati). However, I would change my mind, if the fastest player would beat their records that way (but I really doubt that).

edit: Making a 2-wide or 3-wide, and dropping the pieces quickly there, could be considered spamming, too. For example see Jtadore's very first sub 30 run on Cultris 2 (online challenges -> Maserati).

[Ravendarksky]

I change my vote. If the WR holder who isn't using it allows it then fair game.

[XaeL]

I change my vote. If the WR holder who isn't using it allows it then fair game.

So your vote depends on other peoples votes? BANDWAGONER

[caffeine]

So then, why should it be allowed by pressing harddrop each piece, but then not allowed in the other case.

Well put it this way - if you are playing NES tetris, would you respect a player who manually taps faster than NES's slow das rate, or someone who uses an autofire script to get 30hz das?

The only difference in my example is that Nullpo's engine allows you to get 30hz auto-drop, but this is a side-effect of real functionality rather than an intentional feature.

The community does not judge features based on what the developers intended. Most games have glitches that are allowed in tournaments and have other glitches that are disallowed in tournaments. It's left to the community to decide.

What boggles my mind is how the community is apparently fine with the strategy, but not okay with the harddrop autorepeat. I could make sense of it if the community was either OK with both or against both, but that's not the case. The best argument to explain this so far is when myndzi said, "Each piece, whether or not it is placed well, is placed deliberately and at the response of your own inputs."

The problem with that is that the pieces aren't really placed deliberately. The player doesn't even know what piece he is hard dropping. He's simply mashing away at the harddrop button for some length of time. So if you argue that the player must at least have some deliberation per piece, neither the harddrop autorepeat feature or the strategy itself satisfy that requirement.

[XaeL]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
What boggles my mind is how the community is apparently fine with the strategy, but not okay with the harddrop autorepeat.
[/quote]
Well using your own example, the community is not ok with abusing glitches, but is ok with *any* strategy. What's wrong with that?

[caffeine]

What's wrong with that is that, while NEStris records are only kosher when set on an actual NES with the proper NES game and hardware, 40 lines WRs span across many games. It's possible that someone will come up with a feature we haven't thought of yet, and then program it into some future game. Any unintentional side-effect in a current game can easily be "kosher-fied" as an intentional feature in a future fangame. Because we do not limit the WR to a single game or company or record-keeping association, the only criteria for legitimacy is if the community at large accepts it as the WR. This is why I reject the "unintentional side-effect" as an explanation for why the strategy should be allowed but harddrop repeat should not be allowed.

This segues into what Kitaru was talking about earlier: categorizing. Of course, we could differentiate the "non-harddrop AR WR" from the "harddrop AR WR." We could do that with dozens of feature combinations. However, look at the 100 meter sprint. There's a men and women's WR (which to my knowledge have the same rules). But after that, you don't really hear much about other categories. That's because the public really only cares about most important one seen at the Olympics. This is why bringing up categorizing doesn't really address the core issue here. We're discussing whether this particular feature and/or strategy should be recognized as legitimate for a WR in the mode that the Tetris public cares most about. To make this easier, I'll refer to this mode as the "cared-about tremendously 40-lines" mode or "CAT 40-lines" mode.

We don't allow tools such as autofire or macros that assist player execution. However, 40 Lines has always been free configuration within the constraints of the game, and this method is a direct effect of the concrete rules of the game (i.e. code and resulting engine behavior).
[...]
The NES Tetris community would never consider "autofire on" a competitive category.)

Up until tepples programmed it into his fangame, instant autorepeat never made an appearance in previous WRs. It is very much a macro that assists player execution. So is any movement autorepeat. So is 180 rotation. So is harddropping, softdropping, 20G, and gravity altogether. You might say, "but those are in the constraints of the game." However, my point is that there are no such constraints, since anyone can make a new fangame with a new feature. Therefore, it always comes back to what the community accepts as legitimate for CAT 40-lines.

If someone programs a new 40 lines game that has a randomizer of 99.9999% I-piece, and then 0.0001% the rest, is that CAT 40-lines just because it's within the constraints of the game? What about reflection, 40-key mode, cascade gravity, pentominoes added in, starting with garbage, etc. (The last example very closely relates to the strategy in question for this thread.)

[Blitz]

I just broke the 40L record and the 100L record  

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open StandardZero in ruleeditor.
2. Change field width to 4
3. Enable instant lock by soft drop
4. Change to FixedSequenceRandomizer
5. Open notepad and type I and save it as Sequence.txt in the nullpomino directory.
6. Run NullpoMino and select your new rule.
7. Start a game and press soft drop.

The ruleeditor gives access to a few options that are not found in the option menus inside the game. However, the tool comes with the game and the readme_en file states that "   "ruleeditor.bat" runs Rule Editor, where you can create your own ruleset.". Therefore any use of the ruleeditor is in the constraints of the game regardless how broken the outcome is and what I just used is a legit strategy.

[poopmo]

Sounds just like the movie trailers lol
https://youtu.be/xEywPvJRc5A?t=54s

[Kitaru]

I just broke the 40L record and the 100L record  

I'm sorry, do you need a reminder of the definition of the category? Don't be willfully difficult here.  Core settings of the mode such as the playfield size and piece set (including Lockjaw "I-Party" or similar fixed sequences) have always been off limits, while speed settings have not. You also fail to address that the method of play is still clearly viable to a lesser extent via manual execution.

[caffeine]

Core settings of the mode such as the playfield size and piece set (including Lockjaw "I-Party" or similar fixed sequences) have always been off limits, while speed settings have not. You also fail to address that the method of play is still clearly viable to a lesser extent via manual execution.

Is this directed at me or blitz?