That said, this is probably too top-heavy, so perhaps more design is warranted.
The actual scaling probably doesn't affect the outcome of the top placings very much if at all but it has a negative effect psychologically on anyone not in contention by making the situation more obvious than it needs be.
There is a way it can help you, Scott. On the flash version if you type "invincible" and push enter, you get higher acceleration.
It's not a hack since its a legit part of the game code. All it does is not waste as much time getting up to speed and makes the "hit stuff to slow down" strategy more viable.
All that said, I don't think it ahold be allowed. People not playing the Flash version will not have access to this.
Make a macro that types "invincible" and pushes enter multiple times with one keystroke. The effects of this are cumulative. No, I didn't use it on my longest run and I don't plan to. But it is there.
There is a way it can help you, Scott. On the flash version if you type "invincible" and push enter, you get higher acceleration.
What does that have to do with macros?
You could macro it to a single key to make it the "other" button besides jump. I'd also think you could leverage some advantage by designating a key for a "shortest possible jump" since on my keyboard at least it's very hard to do that consistently.
There is a way it can help you, Scott. On the flash version if you type "invincible" and push enter, you get higher acceleration.
It's not a hack since its a legit part of the game code. All it does is not waste as much time getting up to speed and makes the "hit stuff to slow down" strategy more viable.
All that said, I don't think it ahold be allowed. People not playing the Flash version will not have access to this.
I was unaware of this, otherwise I probably wouldn't have chosen the game. Please don't do that.
On a broad level, I'm really opposed to the use of macros in games in general. It's an external mechanism (in this case, I know some games have the ability to use them built in) that is used to manipulate game play. I see the sense behind it but it really bothers me that people can't play a game "as presented" and learn the skills required to succeed rather than go outside of the game to flatten the learning curve.
It feels like something that is against the "spirit" of the competition. Scott said the skill being tested is determination, and using a macro in the way Lackofcheese described seems like a kind of shortcut through part of that by making the game more efficient to play.
On a broad level, I'm really opposed to the use of macros in games in general. It's an external mechanism (in this case, I know some games have the ability to use them built in) that is used to manipulate game play. I see the sense behind it but it really bothers me that people can't play a game "as presented" and learn the skills required to succeed rather than go outside of the game to flatten the learning curve.
I get your intention but any equipment advantage does this as well and short of a game with designated interfaces like an arcade machine it becomes difficult to reconcile.
On a broad level, I'm really opposed to the use of macros in games in general. It's an external mechanism (in this case, I know some games have the ability to use them built in) that is used to manipulate game play. I see the sense behind it but it really bothers me that people can't play a game "as presented" and learn the skills required to succeed rather than go outside of the game to flatten the learning curve.
A similar complaint applies to people having different input devices, or more powerful computers.
Also, macros do not necessarily flatten the learning curve. Sometimes they simply serve to make up for other disadvantages, such as bad input devices, a slow computer, or high latency. Sometimes they allow you to do new things that expand the range of available tactics and strategies. Sometimes they simply make up for shitty game design.
This is a problem endemic to technology as it relates to gaming. There is no "macro" for Puerto Rico. Sure, you could be that guy and write down all the points that people get to have perfect knowledge but it's an understood convention that you should not be that guy.
I see no reason why the mindset should be any different here. You seem to have a "Why not?" attitude where I hold the opposite "Why?" attitude. I may not win the round but I'm going to have far more respect for the non-PC entries simply because I know of no way to skirt those systems.
I shall shun all PC entries that are not my own beginning with you, Sir Creamsteak. ;-)
A macro could help you in Street Fighter in that it could give you a one-button hadouken. It can help you in NS2 by way of a pistol script. It can definitely help you in Quake 2, offhand grenades. In Canabalt? It's a one button game. Seriously.
A similar complaint applies to people having different input devices, or more powerful computers.
Also, macros do not necessarily flatten the learning curve. Sometimes they simply serve to make up for other disadvantages, such as bad input devices, a slow computer, or high latency. Sometimes they allow you to do new things that expand the range of available tactics and strategies. Sometimes they simply make up for shitty game design.
Specific to this game, as Creamsteak pointed out, there are three types of jumps: High, Medium, Low. As someone who is using the interface as presented on the PC, I have to take into account under duress of speed which jump I intend to execute and then perform that jump with my jump key of preference. Cream just needs to compute which jump and hit the appropriate key. He will never "learn" the skill I am learning.
My core argument here is not playing games "as presented". If they interface is bad, I call that a bad game. If they cannot get their netcode correct for good online play? Bad game. New tactics and strategies? Sure, but if you need outside help to execute those things, it's not you, it's something else.
If I play a Euro for the first time and 3/4 through the game I discover that the person who taught me screwed up a rule, I then proclaim something to the effect of "Victory is tainted in this game that is very similar to *insert game name*!". It's not seen as an improvement, it's seen as a bad thing.
Would a Highscore screen video be enough for Proof. I set my name to something Grand Prix related so it is obvious that the high score was gotten in the time frame.
From what I remember playing last month the hardest parts for me getting a good run most of the times is when you have to jump through the windows again...but I think I have improved my reflexes in this challenge via temple run 2.
A macro could help you in Street Fighter in that it could give you a one-button hadouken. It can help you in NS2 by way of a pistol script. It can definitely help you in Quake 2, offhand grenades. In Canabalt? It's a one button game. Seriously.
Creams macro turns your one button game into a three button game. He has 200% times the choices of us not using them!
This is a problem endemic to technology as it relates to gaming. There is no "macro" for Puerto Rico. Sure, you could be that guy and write down all the points that people get to have perfect knowledge but it's an understood convention that you should not be that guy.
Yes, but until augmented reality is in full swing those conventions will hold up. Those conventions are not really in force in PC games, where macros and extra information displays are relatively common.
I see no reason why the mindset should be any different here.
Despite that, the fact is that the mindset is different.
You seem to have a "Why not?" attitude where I hold the opposite "Why?" attitude.
I'm indifferent to either as long as the playing field is reasonably level.
I may not win the round but I'm going to have far more respect for the non-PC entries simply because I know of no way to skirt those systems.
I tried the Android version, and in my experience the game is easier overall than the Flash version. The high scores tables support this view - the Android scores are much higher.
A macro could help you in Street Fighter in that it could give you a one-button hadouken. It can help you in NS2 by way of a pistol script. It can definitely help you in Quake 2, offhand grenades. In Canabalt? It's a one button game. Seriously.
Creams macro turns your one button game into a three button game. He has 200% times the choices of us not using them!
First of all, are there really only three jumps? Definitely feels like an analog jump to me. Could be wrong, though.
Two, you still have to press the jump at the right time. That is far more important and difficult than how much you jump.
Three, having to press the correct button out of three, is that really that much harder than pressing one button for the correct duration?
I'm pretty sure there's three distinct jumps rather than an analog control, and the cutoffs are not very well designed in my experience. Consequently, there is a definite advantage to having three buttons, although this is probably equivalent to the advantage of merely having a more sensitive keyboard, or simply using the mobile version of the game (which handles better).
Erm, just to be clear, I havn't used any macros. I just know how they work.
Yeah, I made some, but if Apreche rules them out I obviously won't use them. Of course, if he doesn't rule them out I will use them - although I think I still prefer the Android version anyway.
Comments
It's not a hack since its a legit part of the game code. All it does is not waste as much time getting up to speed and makes the "hit stuff to slow down" strategy more viable.
All that said, I don't think it ahold be allowed. People not playing the Flash version will not have access to this.
Apreche?
There's three different jump heights, and I have a button for each.
It is not too late to enter.
Also, no macros on mobile versions.
Also, macros do not necessarily flatten the learning curve. Sometimes they simply serve to make up for other disadvantages, such as bad input devices, a slow computer, or high latency. Sometimes they allow you to do new things that expand the range of available tactics and strategies. Sometimes they simply make up for shitty game design.
I see no reason why the mindset should be any different here. You seem to have a "Why not?" attitude where I hold the opposite "Why?" attitude. I may not win the round but I'm going to have far more respect for the non-PC entries simply because I know of no way to skirt those systems.
I shall shun all PC entries that are not my own beginning with you, Sir Creamsteak. ;-)
My core argument here is not playing games "as presented". If they interface is bad, I call that a bad game. If they cannot get their netcode correct for good online play? Bad game. New tactics and strategies? Sure, but if you need outside help to execute those things, it's not you, it's something else.
If I play a Euro for the first time and 3/4 through the game I discover that the person who taught me screwed up a rule, I then proclaim something to the effect of "Victory is tainted in this game that is very similar to *insert game name*!". It's not seen as an improvement, it's seen as a bad thing.
From what I remember playing last month the hardest parts for me getting a good run most of the times is when you have to jump through the windows again...but I think I have improved my reflexes in this challenge via temple run 2.
Something else I just realized was that if you can bottle-neck flash's speed (or any OS speed for this game) you could make it "easier".
Two, you still have to press the jump at the right time. That is far more important and difficult than how much you jump.
Three, having to press the correct button out of three, is that really that much harder than pressing one button for the correct duration?