Gimmick Decision For A Hack.

Discussion in 'Discussion & Q&A' started by MarkeyJester, Aug 11, 2018.

  1. MarkeyJester

    MarkeyJester ♡ ! Member

    Jun 27, 2009
    Hello all,

    Some of you may be aware that me and Natsumi have been collaborating on a Sonic 3 & Knuckles hack called "Battle Race". It is inspired around ColinC10's Sonic 2 Battle Race, it's got similar rules but we consider it to be a huge improvement over Colin's original hack.

    Anyways, let me get to the point, we have a certain gimmick in the hack, when the characters go far apart enough for one of them to fall off screen, the character whose furthest from the winning direction will die. After a few seconds the losing character will spawn in the same place as the winning character (same speed, same animation, same direction, all flags the same), however, the losing character is given some invulnerable time (they are flashing for a while so they cannot be harmed).

    In our hack, we have it such that not only does the losing character get given temporary invulnerability when they spawn, but so does the winning player. The winning player getting it has been very debatable for a very long time, and we frankly cannot decide between the two.

    This is why we need your help...

    We will explain the pros of each decision, and will let you guys decide, but since we want this to be fair, we are not going to say which one we prefer, we're gonna give you the two randomly. So here they are:

    Against giving the winning player invulnerability when the losing player spawns:
    • The winning player can be harmed while the losing player will not, but since the winning player was in full control of where the losing player spawns, the winning player should be punished. (e.g. the winning player should be punished for running into a badnik since they were in full control).
    • The winning player can abuse the invulnerability they are given by estimating when the losing player will spawn, so they can use that to get across large spikes or obstacle, which they would not be able to get through normally. (e.g. the winning player can easily get across a set of spikes, because they know the losing player is about to spawn).
    For giving the winning player invulnerability when the losing player spawns:
    • Players start with the same set of parameters (state) after respawning, which in theory should make them both as capable as each other.
    • Both players can use the invulnerability frames to avoid obstacles and enemies at equal ability (e.g. for instance, large set of spikes).
    • Both players will be able to react to incoming enemies or obstacles (especially at high speeds) with the same amount of reaction time, which will not be plausible if only the spawning player gets invulnerability frames.
    • The newly spawned player can not score a cheap quick point with the newly given invulnerability frames unfairly, because both players will be able to use the same trick or path.
    What we need is your opinion, what do you think? We would like you to explain why you think one should be chosen over the other, and why you think it's more fair.
    AkumaYin and AURORA☆FIELDS like this.
  2. Pacca

    Pacca Having an online identity crisis since 2019 Member

    Jul 5, 2014
    Triton (Moon)
    I feel like giving them both invulnerability is the best way to go. If only the loser has it, they could use it along with the teleportation to get an immediate advantage over the winner, just by jumping off of spikes or phasing through a badnik. Giving it only to the loser rewards the loser for losing, and could potentially seriously punish the winner. If things ever get super competitive with this hack, the ability for the loser to immediately pass the winner might have to be taken into account by players, which would be quite frustrating.
    ProjectFM and TheInvisibleSun like this.
  3. StephenUK

    StephenUK Working on a Quackshot disassembly Administrator

    Aug 5, 2007
    I feel giving them both invulnerability has to be the way to go. If we take the example of a pit of spikes, the losing player could respawn and traverse them with minimal effort whereas the winning player may have to slow down and tackle some platforming to navigate the same area. The only way to avoid such a situation would be to keep both players on a level playing field in that respect, so it'd either have to be both getting invulnerability or neither player getting it. Seeing as the latter isn't an option, the former seems to be the best choice.

    While the winning player can abuse this mechanic as you stated, by knowing when the respawn was coming and abusing the frames, the loser is still coming in with the same state and so no real advantage is being gained in terms of position by the winner. I can see the logic behind "the winner must be punished for being in full control" approach, but while keeping that in I can't see any feasible way of keeping it fair, unless the invulnerability time given to the losing player is so brief that they can't gain an obvious advantage but is enough to avoid a direct badnik hit for example.

    I suppose if this becomes a very divisive area, maybe an option of toggling the behaviour between the two could possibly be added, but for me personally it has to be kept equal.
    ProjectFM, Niko and Pacca like this.