Rayman 3 scores

[Hunchman801]

I'd also like to make a little addition to it: Write a Raywiki article about glitches in Rayman 3, including explanations and videos. This article and the existing article about the scoring system (workings of the combo-mode etc.) can then be linked on top of the HoF, so that beginners can find this information more easily.

I'd love to see that, but you guys are in the best position to write it. The tricks and glitches section in the Rayman 3 scoring system article is helpful but does not explain what the glitches are and how to trigger them. Updating the solution articles to the latest public standards and creating the missing ones would be great as well.

[Xenon]

Very much in favour of everything discussed above. I think the votes should be cast within the topic, through posting, but I don't think this should be restricted to the R3 scoring community.

It seems to me that you're having the same misconception here that has been widespread about the TOTL-IPG.

I'm under no such misconception. Transforming parts and levels in such a dramatic way (sometimes so dramatic as to render the last decade of development obsolete) over a glitch, is not a healthy thing for the game, in my opinion, regardless of the difficulty of the resulting combos.

I am willing to accept the IPG into the HOF on the premise that it won't transform the game (or, the rest of the game, I should say) in the way I explained above.

[sfn42]

I am willing to accept the IPG into the HOF on the premise that it won't transform the game (or, the rest of the game, I should say) in the way I explained above.

I can pretty much guarantee you that, as I alluded to in my previous posts. TBOM, TLS, HH and DOTK are levels where no IPG would ever make any difference. I can't even think of any instance in DOTK and TLS where the IPG would be worth a single point, as we either have no powerup or take everything with a powerup anyway and have no way of expanding combos (or have no suitable cinematics). In FC, the only possible improvement would be an IPG in part 4 which would allow us to start the tribelle-combo and/or the fairy-combo with a green can. Both together would be worth approximately 200-300 points by my estimation but wouldn't change any combo. SBTC was more hypothetical than anything else, but, realistically, the points just aren't there, as I said before. An IPG might be worth just enough points to cross the 100k-barrier in part 2, but there's really no point in doing that. That leaves TLOTLD, which was made easier by the IPG, I'll admit that, but it was probably the easiest level in the game anyway and we already had a huge cushion of about 10000 points when going for the maximum, now we just have more. That leaves CF, where we are still looking for an IPG to get the remaining points for a true maximum, as Cut mentioned. Again, such an IPG wouldn't change the way any combos are being played (at least not fundamentally). It wouldn't make any parts of the level obsolete (keep in mind that our recent non-IPG discoveries have made Master Kaag obsolete already).

Personally, I don't agree with the other point you made, but I can see where you're coming from.

I think the votes should be cast within the topic, through posting, but I don't think this should be restricted to the R3 scoring community.

Why, if I may ask? This concerns only the scoring community, so they should be the ones who are allowed to vote and not anyone else. I don't think it's fair if outsiders who barely have an understanding of the game and the issues at hand are making the decision.

[DTUCC]

again, i believe at least a HoF entry seems to be a reasonable requirement to be eligible to vote, but in the end, i don't really care that much. are there any objections to just take the suggestions MandM and I made earlier? if not, i'd just like to get this over with soon

on a side note, Xenon, i am pretty certain the ipg won't turn the game into what you fear it might. while we have yet to discover the full effect it has on the total score, it doesn't even have the potential to change anything in most of the levels, as sfn illustrated before. we'd certainly love to find one in DOTK part 4, but that wouldn't make a difference at all since there are now powerups available anyway. i don't know about the impact it would have on SBTC part 2, but i can't imagine it would accomplish too much.

on another side note, new strategies are bound to make old ones obsolete, so i don't really see what the problem with that is. i respect your opinion, though, it's just that i don't agree

[rolesfamily]

But improving combos with a gain of 30k points in CF is something that requires some form of validation

..really, that's what it comes down to?

okay, so i don't know who you think you are, but you, dear sir, are in no position to ask for any form of validation from anyone who you don't like to see in the HoF, especially since i, MG and cut have been highly accomplished players for years.

you haven't updated the FC solution in years, and never have i demanded any sort of validation from you at all. in fact, no one has. yet you go out and want people to give an account of their improvements because you're so caught up in the entire "is the ipg good or bad"-discussion that you think we, as players, are unable to reach any improvements without using gamebreaking methods. there have been a lot of offences thrown around over the course of this discussion, but the blunt disregard for and discrespect towards our abilities as players expressed by your statement shows me that there is no agreement to be found.

over the course of this discussion, let's see people's reactions to the ipg: i, sfn42, cut, MG, Sajiki, Jona, RibShark and, to an extend, raymancool_bis have all expressed acceptance towards the use of ipg.
on the other hand, you and Adsolution were the only ones to denounce the use of ipg. granted, Xenon is not a big fan of the method either, but he at least >stated< that he has mixed feelings towards banning the use of the ipg or adding another column to the hall of fame.

as you can see, this has never been a discussion between the german "gaming culture" (as you like to call it) and the rpc. there were quite a few rpc members that don't see any problems in the usage of the ipg. yet, i never wanted a public vote since i was hoping we could come to terms and find a solution everyone can agree on (or at least one that doesn't involve marking players as if they used underhanded methods in order to further boost their scores).

your response, however, starts expressing doubts towards the validity of our scores as if we were some low-level cheaters busting into the hall of fame, taking over first place.

i am not willing to continue this argument if it means we'll have to deal with insults of this magnitude. here is a final comprimise i have to offer, insipred by rolesfamily:



We'll leave the HoF as it is, but agree to immediately release every newfound glitch we come across. since those require mostly luck to be found, i believe it is unhealthy for the competition to hide them from the community. i do admit it was not right to hide the use of the ipg from the members of RPC at first, but i want to express once more that i never had any bad intentions in doing so.

ever since MG's discovery we had to run the HoF mostly based on trust, so I see no reason to not continue doing this. personally, i have no problem with revealing any further ipgs or other glitches right away if i happen to find any. i hope all the other competitors in the HoF have an equal sportsmanship, if we manage to agree on this.

after all, if we aren't able to take each other's word for granted, we are soon going to have heated discussions about every single HoF entry we face. we can still get rid of any sudden obscure entries that fail to make a decent point about their scores. after 10 years of playing R3 and using the HoF, i think we should be able to distinguish cheaters from honest players.

this puts everyone on equal footing from a combo making standpoint. you can then choose to either adapt to the changes the game offers or not. after all, players always needed to adapt to what the game had offered. some people did adapt to the razoff glitch, the lums glitch, the snowboard-launch or whatever comes to mind, others chose not to. it's everyone's free decission to play the game in whatever way pleases him or her. sure, we did decide to exclude MG's discovery from the HoF, but the main arguments were that, first of all, it makes scoring completely redundant, and second of all, it is exclusive to PC.


anyone, feel free to comment on this proposal as much as you like, but please refrain from insulting me any further. if we can't come to an agreement this way, there's always the possibility of having a public vote or leaving the issue unresolved. i am done arguing, though.

Thanks for that, - that's a sound idea.

[Xenon]

Thanks for the explanations, guys. The fact that the game has been made considerably easier in certain levels (e.g. TLOTLD, TSBTC) is still somewhat bothersome to me, but I understand your position as well. I hope you're right about the limitations of the glitch.

As concerns CF, I'm intrigued about the improvements. I'm guessing you somehow managed to enter the building at the beginning without killing the Hoodblasters, perhaps by the use of some other glitch. Then you finish in part 3 with a big combo with the Hoodlums near the crates somehow and finish with the green gem from outside? Perhaps one of you could drop me a PM to say if I'm right/wrong, seeing as I am clearly not a threat to the competition.

[MandM81]

I too feel the need to close this debate.

Xenon: It’s a noble idea, but how can you decide whether the premise of not changing the game is met? And should we decide on a case by case basis in the future?

The game has already changed considerably. One of the major challenges in the game so far has been making strategies on collecting available objects within a time frame given by a particular Powerup. Those challenges have been taken out of the game in all parts where IPG can be triggered. And I don’t buy any sales pitch that new challenges have emerged using the IPG as an argument for allowing them into the game.

The IPG, as seen in TOTL part 2, can be triggered in room 1 and still have influence on the gameplay in room 2, 3, 4, 5... You don’t even have to do any work in these rooms to trigger the glitch. And it’s infinitely easier to reach the previous maximum of 104.499 points, which is what one should compare the effect of IPG with.

The hypothetical case of SBTC, sfn expressed relief if part 3 could be made obsolete by IPG. Such a remark makes me shudder in disbelief. We have spent 6 -7 years to come to terms with the green gem question and we solved the problem. Now it’s a relief if a glitch can make this work obsolete?

Equally horrifying is the prospect of triggering the IPG in FC. This level contains the ultimate challenge with regard to the time frames of the Powerups (along with the Matuvus and the Tribelles of course). Any IPG will make the level considerably easier.

The future of R3, according to the pro-IPGs, is looking for places to trigger the IPG and thus alter the gameplay significantly. It’s not a path I will follow in any way.

But I will respect players who chose to go down that path. I would prefer if the pro-IPG group in return would respect those players who feel IPG has no place in R3 and who wish to continue the scoring game without the use of the IPG.

We must find a way to co-exists in the HoF, so everyone can use it. I prefer that it is somehow made clear in the HoF who uses the IPG and who uses the classic non-IPG way. That way a player can find his or her position within the relevant category. This will also help preventing future arguments about the use of the IPG in certain levels.

I too will follow CC’s rules about revealing glitches, should I find some. Aren’t we getting close enough soon for a solution?

[Xenon]

I share your sentiments about the glitch and the way it has affected the game.

But, the greatest problem with the IPG is the fact that we cannot know for sure if players have used it in their gameplay. It therefore makes it impossible to ban outright, except for cases when players have used it to obtain new, higher scores in levels. It's also problematic for the IPG column idea, which would otherwise be the best solution in my opinion.

So I'd like to submit a third suggestion, one that I've been considering lately that is a little more middle-ground: to accept the use of the IPG into the game, with the limitations that we know of at the moment, but to reject any FURTHER level score improvements, should they materialise as a result of the use of this glitch. This would remove the incentive to go witch hunting for other IPG-friendly locations.

I know it sounds a little inconsistent, but it is a reasonable compromise to a very complex and endlessly-discussed issue. If CC and sfn are correct with their predictions, there would be no inconsistency anyway.

It would also mean we'd require impartial validation (not directly linked to the HOF, obviously), but that wouldn't be too problematic to arrange.

[MandM81]

Your compromise is a way to move on from our current position. But I don’t know if we can allow the IPG in one level and not in another. Nor do I think it will make the pro-IPG group stop looking for these glitches. I’m willing to see where this goes though…

As you know, the extra column in HoF wasn’t my idea, but it has grown on me for several reasons.

1. All players in these heated discussions during the last two weeks have made no secret where they stand on the issue. We already know who will use the IPG and who will not. And I cannot see any of these players trying to “cheat” by claiming not to use the IPG while actually using it, nor would they need to.

2. The extra column makes it possible to use the IPG in ALL levels.

3. It is future proof in the sense that we need not endure weeks of arguments on whether or not to allow an IPG that has been found in a certain part.

4. It respects pro-IPG and con-IPG equally and is fair for all.

5. CC’s suggestion, which we can make a forum rule, ensures the glitches are made public.

6. The extra column will, together with the platform info already present in HoF, give a better picture of a particular score.

As for the use of the IPG in TOTL, I find it just as problematic as in other levels. TOTL is a challenge for players at beginner level through intermediary level. I do remember being stuck in TOTL for some time, finding it difficult getting a score beyond 98k points. In order to reach the maximum 104.499 points, I had to dig deep and come up with more effective combos and I had to learn new techniques. These techniques, by the way, helped me improve other levels as well.

Now players in the same situation in TOTL are no longer forced to be creative, they can use a shortcut in form of a glitch that earns them the missing points without breaking a sweat. It’s not good for the development of the game and for the development of the individual player. Surely, the player can climb to a higher position in HoF, but has it been done by improving skills or being creative?

We have focused mainly on the IPG, but other glitches appear in the speed runner videos. Do we need forum rules for any of those? The super glide is perhaps the one with the most impact.

Has anyone used the super glide in R3 with the purpose of improving the score?

[sfn42]

So I'd like to submit a third suggestion, one that I've been considering lately that is a little more middle-ground: to accept the use of the IPG into the game, with the limitations that we know of at the moment, but to reject any FURTHER level score improvements, should they materialise as a result of the use of this glitch. This would remove the incentive to go witch hunting for other IPG-friendly locations.

If you want to add that to the vote as a third option, we can but I do not think this is a good solution at all, because, as you said, it is terribly inconsistent. There are no objective reasons why the IPG should be allowed in one level and not in another. We would have no legitimate way to defend such a solution. Look at it from the perspective of a newcomer who enters the scoring community and then finds out that a glitch is arbitrarily allowed in some levels, but not in others because some members are uncomfortable with it. I think this solution could leave a really bad impression immediately and could cause interested players to turn away from the community. But again, that's my opinion. If you feel this is the solution you want to get behind, I see no problem with adding it to the vote as a third option.

In a response to MandM who is insinuating that we do not accept/respect other ways of playing the game, I have compiled a list of quotes from the pro-IPG-group throughout this discussion (see below). The gist of those: Everyone is free to play the game in whatever way he or she likes (including or not including the IPG etc.) and that freedom should be reflected in a free HoF without banning honest players, without pushing them in constructed categories, without marking them as “special”. Please do not twist our arguments, in order to further your own position in this vote. Your assessment of the extra column, which does nothing but ostracize IPG-users and marginalize their achievements, as a fair solution makes a mockery out of the game, the competition and the community.

it's everyone's free decission to play the game in whatever way pleases him or her

But seriously, I respect your opinion. That's what I came here for, share opinions about the IPG and discuss its implications on the game as a whole.

I totally understand your feeling about the IPG being a completely new game(-play), it's something strange, odd and new, I'm sure nobody would deny this. But in my opinion, the IPG's strangeness alone can't legitimate a differentiation in context of the competition

I advocate freedom to play, with a free HoF

I have no problems with your feelings about the IPG, I can even understand them to some degree

i nevertheless support different opinions, but seriously considering an additional hof-category is, to my mind, downright ridiculous and a slap in the face.

There is nobody stopping you from playing R3 just for fun or trying to slightly improve your score but you can't expect to be handed first or second or third place on the HoF on a silver platter.

[Sajiki]

just like you have done it for the past weeks i will just comment on the things i want and completely ignore anything else.

As you know, the extra column in HoF wasn’t my idea, but it has grown on me for several reasons. [..]
4. It respects pro-IPG and con-IPG equally and is fair for all. [..]
Now players in the same situation in TOTL are no longer forced to be creative, they can use a shortcut in form of a glitch that earns them the missing points without breaking a sweat. It’s not good for the development of the game and for the development of the individual player. Surely, the player can climb to a higher position in HoF, but has it been done by improving skills or being creative?

if you are so convinced of this.. heres my counter suggestion: How about we make an extra column for all players who decide to play "glitchless"? So, no launching glitches, no razoff glitch and no ipg.
playing without lums glitch on console cannot be achieved but it should be mentioned in the wiki and in the hof that console players get easy access to the maximum score in almost every level of this game without breaking a sweat. It’s not good for the development of the game and for the development of the individual player. Surely, the player can climb to a higher position in HoF, but has it been done by improving skills or being creative? (i suggest you try to activate the infinite powerup glitch on PC btw, we can talk about "breaking a sweat" then.)
i for my part struggle with the maximum score in hh and totl, but the lums glitch would have given me a few thousands easily because hoodlums would have had a higher multiplier earlier in my combos. but i decided to go to play the game the standard way because using it makes me shudder in utter disbelief.

by the way, can i apply for moderator too when i start to call ppl assholes?

edit:

There are several places in R3 where you can roll on Pigs. I’m not sure why you think TOTL part 2 is a special case. I didn’t use it the first time I reached 104.499 points in TOTL.

my bad sorry

[MandM81]

Sfn: Please stop second guessing my motives. And as for your quotes, where’s the other 99 % of your quotes where you call members of this forum ignorant, stupid and worse because of their position on IPG?

Sajiki: I think you need to understand the difference between the IPG and these other glitches you mention. There are several posts from the past two weeks that explains it.

There are several places in R3 where you can roll on Pigs. I’m not sure why you think TOTL part 2 is a special case. I didn’t use it the first time I reached 104.499 points in TOTL.

[Sajiki]

Sfn: Please stop second guessing my motives. And as for your quotes, where’s the other 99 % of your quotes where you call members of this forum ignorant, stupid and worse because of their position on IPG?

Sajiki: I think you need to understand the difference between the IPG and these other glitches you mention. There are several posts from the past two weeks that explains it.

so, when you as usual elegantly ignored the proposition i made i somehow got the slight impression that sfn has a point calling you ignorant dont you think so?
if we are supposed accept your position (ipg is totally different from anything else) you should perhaps consider also accepting ours, namely that ipg and any other glitch are totally and 100% the same. what is so bad about an extra column for people like you who think playing the game "traditionally" is the way to go?

[Cut]

Please let us do this voting quick. This "discussion" really grinds my gears.

[sfn42]

Sfn: Please stop second guessing my motives. And as for your quotes, where’s the other 99 % of your quotes where you call members of this forum ignorant, stupid and worse because of their position on IPG?

It is amazing to me that you have yet to understand that this discussion is taking place on two levels: personal feelings about the IPG and the movement to ban/restrict the access of the IPG to the HoF. I have called people narrowminded when and because they argued for the latter or tried to elevate their arguments from the first level to the second level. Besides, except for one quote for which I have apologized, the only people I have called narrowminded are you and Adsolution (and to a lesser extent, Xenon). Your constant disrespect against players who don't conform to your methods of playing (such as presenting the HoF-column as a fair solution, which I have criticized in my previous post) and Adsolution telling me to "fuck-off" and calling me a "repugnant, stinking asshole" (verbatim quotes, even though they have been edited out in some attempt to save face), put my calling you two narrowminded in a different light.

With regards to Sajiki's argument, there have been many more reasons provided, why the IPG can't be separated from other glitches from a competitive standpoint than reasons for why it should be treated differently. Sajiki is actually making an interesting point. Rewarding players who play entirely without glitches would in theory be an interesting idea. It just isn't practical, at all, for the simple reasons that we have no way to validate it and that some glitches (like black lums) happen accidentally. I think it's still a proposal worth considering, at the least, but only after the vote, which, and I'm with Cut here, should take place soon.

[Xenon]

If you want to add that to the vote as a third option, we can but I do not think this is a good solution at all, because, as you said, it is terribly inconsistent. There are no objective reasons why the IPG should be allowed in one level and not in another. We would have no legitimate way to defend such a solution. Look at it from the perspective of a newcomer who enters the scoring community and then finds out that a glitch is arbitrarily allowed in some levels, but not in others because some members are uncomfortable with it. I think this solution could leave a really bad impression immediately and could cause interested players to turn away from the community. But again, that's my opinion. If you feel this is the solution you want to get behind, I see no problem with adding it to the vote as a third option.

Think of it less as an official ruling and more as a vote kick style policy within this forum.

Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to realise that we're going to be dealing with more glitches of this nature in the future, and that we will have to make subjective group decisions to banish or restrict certain glitches in the game. As soon as you guys realise this, you'll see how irrelevant the 'all glitches or no glitches' argument really is.

R3 has changed. It's no longer a simple score system and we must therefore take greater control of the HOF.

@ Members of TSF: I notice you strategically ignored my post about CF! I'm a little worried it's because you used another controversial glitch to collect the points, such as the superglide glitch MandM referred to a few posts ago

[MandM81]

Sfn: I think you confuse yourself with your endless definitions of objectivity/subjectivity, being emotional/rational etc.

On the very first day you entered the current discussions you called me “pathetic” (verbatim quote) without me having addressed you or commented on your post at all. That was the first in a long line of personal attacks on me and subsequently other players who opposed the IPG.

Your posts have been very aggressive; someone called them “militant”, in form and content. You have gone for the jugular on everyone you disagree with you. That, in my book, is a very emotional and subjective reaction, very far from the rational and objective side you place yourself on. When you post after post come out self-righteous, self-promoting, arrogant and condescending you invite strong reactions like the ones from Adsolution and me.

I’m not trying to make everyone follow my rules, as you say. We are trying to deal with the first glitch ever that can change the landscape, so to speak, in certain parts of the game. It has a huge impact on the gameplay and the scoring options. There is no automatism in allowing all pre-existent glitches in HoF, which I think everyone can agree on.

There are different views on the IPG and everyone is entitled to an opinion. I guess the aggressive reaction towards opponents from the TSF trio comes from the fact that they have already taken the IPG into the game and played with it for months before anyone else knew about it. But that’s hardly an argument for making decisions one way or another.

[Cut]

Think of it less as an official ruling and more as a vote kick style policy within this forum.

So we only allow people in HoF we want to be there, doesn't matter whether they used glitches or cheats? Well, I can't imagine of wanting to be part of such a self-righteous community but well, democracy is democracy...

Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to realise that we're going to be dealing with more glitches of this nature in the future, and that we will have to make subjective group decisions to banish or restrict certain glitches in the game. As soon as you guys realise this, you'll see how irrelevant the 'all glitches or no glitches' argument really is.

We have the IPG in two parts of the game and one of them is completely obsolete. CF (either part 1 or part 3) would be the only level an IPG would be useful in, where are you seeing these future controversial glitches?

Seriously, who was the first coming up with this stupid controversal-glitch-shit? (sorry for rage). We had so many things in the game worth a serious discussion whether they should be banned or allowed but none of you gave a single fuck about them because you didn't even realize that these things are there. What about the DOTK or HH-Maximum? They are achieved by a glitch which is not available on PC, do you think this is fair? Platform-differences were one of the huge problems this game has since it's beginnings, why don't the ban maximum-combos including a lums-glitch (and please MandM, don't come with the higher PC-Maximum in DOTK in the past, when I achieved it, the console-maximum already was 109.829 and even today I would plead for an agreement that we ban every DOTK-score higher than the no-lums-maximum)? It's not that I want to ban them because I arranged with the situation already but you can imagine that I'm not fine with it. Or the missing vortex in FC. When you Xenon think, we are such a beautiful community which is able to make own decisions about the rules of R3, why we never did an agreement that EVERYBODY uses the vortex in FC part 4 after the 2nd crabby is killed like it is on GC? It's not about the abilitiy to proof, it's about trust, credibility, fairness loyalty but well, better showing CC the middle finger and blocking every discussion about changes in the HoF because of existing platform-differences - because that was what you (plural, not you Xenon alone) did when he came up with this in the past. Wonder what has changed in your mind that we now are actually able to make these changes?

R3 has changed. It's no longer a simple score system and we must therefore take greater control of the HOF

Rayman 3 never was a simple score system. If it was, then we all would have quitted playing 10 years ago with 500k points.

@ Members of TSF: I notice you strategically ignored my post about CF! I'm a little worried it's because you used another controversial glitch to collect the points, such as the superglide glitch MandM referred to a few posts ago

I can applease you, the glitch we found is almost impossible to find if you would look for it on your own but it's rather simple but effective and nothing controversial (I think CC already said that we would share it with you if we would come to rolesfamily's agreement), if you understand what happens there, you won't have a problem with it.

There are different views on the IPG and everyone is entitled to an opinion. I guess the aggressive reaction towards opponents from the TSF trio comes from the fact that they have already taken the IPG into the game and played with it for months before anyone else knew about it. But that’s hardly an argument for making decisions one way or another.

Well, technically it would be the least problem if the IPG would be totally banned, we know enough non-IPG-points but how could you know since IPG don't requires creativity or skill. You were talking about your improvements in TOTL, I ask you why didn't you find the points for the apocalifter-maximum in the past but we did (yes, WITHOUT IPG)? Seriously, I respect your combo-creation-skills especially in FC but don't portray you as the only combo-god in R3, the IPG demanded more creativity and skill from me I ever could imagine and I don't understand until today why you reject it as I'm pretty sure you would love the combo-creation-potential of it. But well, maybe I'm totally wrong.

I don't see this discussion come to an end, maybe every party posts a summary of their position and then we begin. Yeah, that would be really nice...

[#Rubber mark#]

So that's ten pages of heated debate over the use of stupid glitch that looks like shit, in which you have managed to introduce the notions of democracy, self-righteousness, exogenism, and so on and so forth.

Fortunately for you my friends, I have the solution: it's called getting laid.

I'm sure you've seen a lot of videos depicting the aforementioned activity, but it's now time for you to put your theoretical knowledge into practice.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have on the subject.

[DTUCC]

@ Members of TSF: I notice you strategically ignored my post about CF! I'm a little worried it's because you used another controversial glitch to collect the points, such as the superglide glitch MandM referred to a few posts ago

without taking into account the defensive statement he is inevitably going to make before you even read this, i'd like to hear how you explain MandM "strategically ignoring" about 2/3 of our posts on the previous 10 pages. not to mention he has "strategically ignored" our attempt to set up a public vote, which we almost had agreed on already. you didn't hear us complain about that, though, we just tried to put up with it.

furthermore, we immediately decided to not use the glidewalk for scoring, since it doesn't work on PC. perhaps a first step towards platform-related differences? considering how my suggestions towards these issues have been handled in the past, i actually would have preferred to be ignored back then.

we did find one thing that's worth mentioning after this debate is over. it's not really a glitch, but you won't really find it without extreme luck, which is why i suggested the rule of immediately releasing such findings in the future.
why did i hold back on it as of now? look at how we got completely sidetracked in that CF-discussion that came up in the past. we stated multiple times there is no ipg in CF as of now, yet people kept pressuring us for our findings in CF. i'd like to talk about CF after the whole IPG-issue has been resolved.

speaking of resolved, instead of getting into another argument again, i'd like to get this voting done soon