Rayman 3 scores

[RibShark]

Ribshark: If you have found some new trick or glitch, chances are someone else have got it as well or will get it eventually. The best way to deal with this issue is to make it available for all to see. We have enough people around here trying to hide glitches.

Post it here if you want, or you could inform the administrators and moderators through PMs.

I overreacted slightly. The score wraps below 0 to somewhere >100000, but it doesn't save, so no harm done.

[DTUCC]

So we're going to start this debate all the way from the beginning? Well isn't that effin' great. Call me when we're back to the point we left off at.

On a more serious note, MandM, you did in no way comment on the idea we all, including Xenon, agreed on. We were indeed waiting for you response to the suggestions. Considering your past behaviour, I assume you're neutral on it? If that's the case, it seems reasonable to take it from there. If I am wrong on your opinion, I suggest you verbalize your thoughts instead of having us second guess them.

[Adsolution]

So we're going to start this debate all the way from the beginning? Well isn't that effin' great. Call me when we're back to the point we left off at.

I wasn't starting anything over, just revising some older evidence in light of new discoveries. The discussion as to what should and shouldn't be allowed is still active, so it matters.

[DTUCC]

So we're going to start this debate all the way from the beginning? Well isn't that effin' great. Call me when we're back to the point we left off at.

I wasn't starting anything over, just revising some older evidence in light of new discoveries. The discussion as to what should and shouldn't be allowed is still active, so it matters.

i wasn't actually referring to you at all but i appreciate the time to took to clear potential misunderstandings.

[Adsolution]

Ah, my bad.

[MandM81]

Adsolution: ”… but only one stupid cunt.”
Yeah, charming people, these TSF guys. I wouldn’t give it too much thought though, I’m sure in his anger he entered the wrong word into the Google Translator.

Ribshark: “The score wraps below 0 to somewhere >100000, but it doesn't save, so no harm done.”
I think I know the place you are referring to, and yes, it won’t save.

CC: “Call me when we're back to the point we left off at.”
We will.

CC: “On a more serious note, MandM, you did in no way comment on the idea we all, including Xenon, agreed on. We were indeed waiting for you response to the suggestions.”
I think I wrote a post explaining I was unable to get into the discussion during the past few weeks, but maybe you didn’t read that. I will get back to the matter as soon as possible.

[sfn42]

I really don't feel like reading snide comments like this

Yeah, charming people, these TSF guys.

this

We have enough people around here trying to hide glitches.

and this

Since gentleman agreements are mentioned, I suggest we don’t use “glitches” that trigger a mode in the game, where the normal gameplay is dissolved, where Powerups last beyond their regular time range and where you have free access to all areas.

every time I come here. If this is your way of moving past what happened and working towards a solution, then I'm out.

[Hunchman801]

Yeah, many people hiding glitches but only one stupid cunt.

Could you please refrain from resorting to such insults? I find it rather appalling that a discussion about Rayman 3 scoring has come to this.

[Mountain Goat]

We have enough people around here trying to hide glitches.

i'm curious, are you in possession of any solid proofs or are you merely interested in starting some sort of malicious campaign based on wild speculations?

in case you're speaking of the glitch in cf which is yet to be revealed: again, we will publish it after a consensus has been reached (for reasons i'm too tired to reiterate for the 1000th time).
that's where things get interesting: take a glance at the current situation - a consensus has not been reached so far. which translates into us not feeling obliged to publish our discovery. and that's because we're still looking forward to hearing your opinion on the compromise.
now, don't get me wrong, it's your right to remain absent until you're able to participate in the discussion, i don't blame you for that.
still, if you care to enlighten me: how do remarks like the one i quoted help to find a solution?

[MandM81]

Wow, a remark of such general nature really hit home.

Sfn: As per usual you are selectively outraged by certain remarks while you let others get away with murder.

MG: “I’m curious, are you in possession of any solid proofs or are you merely interested in starting some sort of malicious campaign based on wild speculations?”
You have answered this yourself: “not feeling obliged to publish our discovery”.

MG: “in case you're speaking of the glitch in cf which is yet to be revealed: again, we will publish it after a consensus has been reached (for reasons i'm too tired to reiterate for the 1000th time).
that's where things get interesting: take a glance at the current situation - a consensus has not been reached so far. which translates into us not feeling obliged to publish our discovery. and that's because we're still looking forward to hearing your opinion on the compromise.”

You are a rare guest in these debates, so I guess a thousand explanations is perhaps an overstatement. But let me try to explain the basics for you.

Imagine a pharmaceutical company wants to have a certain drug, called drug A, legalized. The company sends drug A to the proper authorities for scientific tests. Now the company states, they have a drug B they wish to have legalized in the same process, but drug B will not be submitted to tests and scrutiny, it is kept under wraps. The company aims for the legalization of drugs A and B, while only drug A is presented to the proper department.

Translated into our current situation, if we wish to move on I suggest we have everything on the table so everyone will be able to get a full picture before making suggestions or decisions. So far, you are still holding back drug B.

Let me restate your words: “not feeling obliged to publish our discovery.” How on earth then can you or anyone else at TSF be outraged by a remark like: “We have enough people around here trying to hide glitches”?

As for moving forward, I have a long time ago suggested we determine the extent and the locations of glitches like the IPG, the Superjump etc. We are still waiting for the experts on these glitches to share their findings.

[sfn42]

Your post is telling me exactly one thing: Working towards a compromise with you is pointless. You are to set in your ways, too stubborn to move from your position. We've all said some really bad things in this debate, but we've tried to move past that; the only exception is you: you still bring up the same rhetoric you brought at the beginning of this debate (as evidenced by the quotes in my previous post). Your drug example is only telling me that you're taking this way too seriously. This is a video game, not a life and death situation, as you seem to be implying by your example. Get your priorities straight, man. Anyway, I'm leaving. I really don't want to subject myself to this anymore.

PS: To clarify the Cut situation, I disapprove of his choice of words, but since Adsolution (and later Hunch) rightfully chastised him for that, I didn't see a point in bringing that up again. Cut's words do not excuse any of your snide comments, though.

[Xenon]

Good idea. Leaving the discussion and abandoning this huge issue because you disapprove of what one member said. Nice job on working towards a common solution.

To the point in hand, I don't think this discovery was beyond expectation for anyone here. With the new knowledge we have of IPG, we need to discover its full potential before we can move on.

Personally, regardless of the findings, I'd like to see a compromise in the form of another 'gentlemen agremeent' that stretches across both forums. The HOF column idea can still work, depending on the limitations of the IPG, but it's becoming more and more unfavourable as we uncover more game-changing discoveries about the IPG and similar glitches.

The fact that such mistrust and animosity exists between our two communities (definitely fueled by passworded protection on one) means that such a relationship might possibly never be achieved, which is frustrating for normal players (like me) who don't want to argue, but who just want to play the game.

[MandM81]

Sfn: You seem mentally stuck in an offensive mode, not being able to refrain from personal attacks, but when ignoring those (again) one thing struck me. Are you accusing me of taking this game too seriously? And are you trying to say after page upon page of homemade definitions and weird criteria about arguments being objective/subjective through the past months, that you are taking this lightly? Wow, I wonder how you express yourself when you really commit.

This sentence from MG sums up the TSF stance for me: “take a glance at the current situation - a consensus has not been reached so far, which translates into us not feeling obliged to publish our discovery.”
I can only read it as an attempt to hold the RPC to ransom. If the outcome of these debates is not to your satisfaction, you (TSF) don’t feel obligated to release your knowledge of any glitches.

My so-called snide remarks were all spot on and in no way out of place. MG has confirmed it in his post and Cut, bless him, confirmed it in an earlier post. And finally sfn confirmed it via one of his relentless personal attacks.

I agree with Xenon’s post. As usual he expresses himself more eloquently than I am able to, but I would like to add a suggestion that perhaps can get the ball rolling.

It seems the glitch issue is changing on a daily basis and quickly becoming more and more complex. New discoveries are made regularly, mainly from the speedrunner society. While these glitches are really cool when watching, and I guess, playing a speedrunner game, they present a huge problem when it comes to scoring. The IPG has had the greatest impact so far and it now seems it can be triggered almost at will in every level. Thus it changes the scoring game profoundly, the consequences are not yet known, but there is no doubt certain levels will become much easier to play. There's also the matter of platform dependency to deal with for a number of these glitches.

In view of recent developments I suggest we look at it from a different perspective. We make a positive list of the glitches we wish to allow into the HoF. In order to get a glitch accepted into the HoF it needs to be described, a video on how to trigger it to be made on request, upon which, after a designated amount of time, players will have had the chance to try it out on their platform. If it works on all platforms, and if we agree that it doesn’t make the previous scoring in the level easier, it can be accepted.

In this way we can in the future avoid situations like the current one, where we seem to be stuck.

I suggest we include all known glitches from launching glitches over the Razoff glitches to Lums glitches in the list. Most of these are described on video already, but further videos can be made on request. There’s a host of new glitches that need to be described and filmed, so there’s work to be done.

In order to avoid anyone using glitches not appearing on the positive list I suggest we set up a validation group that can look into a score that seems incompatible with a known maximum score for a certain level. This validation group should comprise members from TSF and RPC in order to reach a fair and impartial conclusion in each case.

And finally, as Xenon mentioned, isn't it time to remove the password protection on TSF so both forums are open for all interested players?

[Hunchman801]

In view of recent developments I suggest we look at it from a different perspective. We make a positive list of the glitches we wish to allow into the HoF. In order to get a glitch accepted into the HoF it needs to be described, a video on how to trigger it to be made on request, upon which, after a designated amount of time, players will have had the chance to try it out on their platform. If it works on all platforms, and if we agree that it doesn’t make the previous scoring in the level easier, it can be accepted.

That's the best idea I've read in this topic since the argument started.

[RibShark]

That's the best idea I've read in this topic since the argument started.

Agreed.

[DTUCC]

Gotta say, I'm still favouring the glitch-categories idea, yet it do like MandM's suggestions. I suppose I can live with that, if it allows to move the conversation forward.

as for the suggestions, i could once again go into great detail how a lot of those criteria are very subjective, but i also suppose there's no way to not argue anyhing subjectively, so let's go with it. there's a few things i'd like to adress, which i believe might turn out a little bit more problematic than it would seem at first. after that, i'll be happy to move on:

1. it's been pointed out previously that platform related differences are marked in the HoF under the "Platform" tab. why is it suddenly an issue whether a glitch can be triggered on all platforms? don't get me wrong, i really welcome getting into that, but why start now when we didn't give a sh*t in the past? i don't think platform related differences are an argument we should suddenly accept. then again, as time comes one might as well make up an excuse for voting against a certain glitch, so oh well...

2. "if it doesn't make previous scoring easier" - as i pointed out earlier, new strats are bound to make old ones obsolete. that's just the way it is. what would you say if we suddenly found a launching glitch that allowed us to get the entirety of LOTLD part 3 in a single combo (i know this isn't possible, this is just hypothetical.). let's further assume this launching glitch would allow for a new max in LOTLD. that sure as hell would make old scoring in that part redundant. would you consider banning this particular launch as well?
furthermore, it's been pointed out that the IPG in LOTLD 2 does indeed make the level easier, whereas the one in TOTL 2 doesn't. do you want to ban the use of ipg in one level, but not in the other? i guess those can be adressed when the time comes, but it's something to think about nontheless: are we banning entire glitches, or just glitches in certain levels?

that's all that comes to my mind right now. I'd like to hear your opinions on this. other than that, i really do like the idea.

[MandM81]

as for the suggestions, i could once again go into great detail how a lot of those criteria are very subjective, but i also suppose there's no way to not argue anyhing subjectively, so let's go with it

I agree some criteria mentioned are subjective. It seems the only way to move forward at this point. Earlier attempts to use objective criteria rigorously have failed because exceptions were often needed in order to get the desired outcome.

1. it's been pointed out previously that platform related differences are marked in the HoF under the "Platform" tab. why is it suddenly an issue whether a glitch can be triggered on all platforms?

Again I agree with you, at least partly. I’m not talking about the old and well-known differences like the Lums glitches. I’m talking about a wealth of new glitches, many on which I’m not an expert. It is my understanding some will work on all platforms and some will work on specific platforms only. Thus we need to address this issue.

You mentioned an agreement was reached on TSF about the Superglide since it was limited to specific platforms. Perhaps we should do the same for this and other platform dependent new glitches? You also have an agreement on not using the MG discovery on the basis of platform dependence as well as pointless scoring strategies.

2. "if it doesn't make previous scoring easier" - as i pointed out earlier, new strats are bound to make old ones obsolete. that's just the way it is. what would you say if we suddenly found a launching glitch that allowed us to get the entirety of LOTLD part 3 in a single combo (i know this isn't possible, this is just hypothetical.). let's further assume this launching glitch would allow for a new max in LOTLD. that sure as hell would make old scoring in that part redundant. would you consider banning this particular launch as well?

Yeah, that one is wide open to interpretation. I’m aware new techniques and ideas make some old strategies obsolete. That’s called development and I’m all for that.

Hypothetical situations are a great way to test ideas and definitions, so I’m game. If such a glitch should appear I guess I would have no problem with that. The reason for this is simply the nature of a launching glitch. When triggered, you make a jump immediately after which you are bound by the normal rules of the gameplay.

Let’s consider another extreme, but similar, hypothetical situation in LOTLD part3. Suppose at the beginning of the part you are by means of a glitch able to trigger a mode in the game that allows the combo counter to remain open until you hit the Switch near the exit. The outcome is the same. Should that glitch be banned? In my opinion yes, because the scoring has become ridiculously easy and the normal rules of scoring have been lifted.

Would you ban or allow such a glitch?

As for making the previous scoring easier, I’m concerned that future glitches would make scoring in FC, LS and SBTC easier. Those are levels where it’s insanely difficult to improve scores. So if, say, the Green Gem combo in SBTC part 3 is made obsolete because of some much simpler scoring in part 2 facilitated by a game changing glitch, I would have a problem with that.

furthermore, it's been pointed out that the IPG in LOTLD 2 does indeed make the level easier, whereas the one in TOTL 2 doesn't. do you want to ban the use of ipg in one level, but not in the other? i guess those can be adressed when the time comes, but it's something to think about nontheless: are we banning entire glitches, or just glitches in certain levels?

First of all, the IPG makes scoring in both TOTL and LOTLD a whole lot easier. It’s a piece of cake to reach 104.499 in TOTL for instance. The IPG in TOTL has incidentally provided so many extra points that an earlier and bigger combo now is possible as the last combo in the scoring game. The same is not the case for LOTLD since the biggest known combo is near the end of the game.

I think we perhaps should entertain the idea of a allowing a glitch in one level and not in another. The idea has been brought on earlier by Xenon and it could have some merit. We can discuss this further when we go through the glitches one by one.

So far the IPG allegedly has been used only in TOTL and LOTLD (where it’s redundant). Has anyone used this IPG at 1:37 - 2:37? The glitches shown require some thoughts on platform dependency and a discussion about the IPG being available in all levels.

I’m not advocating anything about the IPG at this point, but I invite opinions and suggestions on the subject.

Notice also at the beginning of the video the Superglide used in CF part 1. I wonder if it works when the Hoodblasters keep firing at Rayman.

Gotta say, I'm still favouring the glitch-categories

We may still go there. So far this is an attempt to describe and also categorize the glitches we wish to allow in the HoF.

How do we proceed from here? One way would be going through the levels one by one and make a list of glitches and perhaps tricks used in the various parts.

Should we start out with FC?

[RibShark]

So PCM (the global IPG) has been found to work on the PS2 version, meaning that the only version it does not work on is likely the GCN version.

[MandM81]

Interesting! Do you know for at fact it works on Xbox?

Do you know any reason why it should work on PS2 and Xbox and not on GCN?

[RibShark]

I don't know for a fact if it works on Xbox, but I would assume so. The GCN version crashes for some reason (likely a programming error of some kind).