Scoreattack.net

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

01-24-2007, 1:16 PM gsk Joined on 02-08-2006 London Posts 416 Re: Non-Permissible Scores I think TAR should have its own table, as its a completely different skill needed, and different score narrative :p I kind of like the term 'milking', but I think just plain old 'exploit' is probably best - it has the right connotations of intent and circumstance. Oh and I hate the term 'Beat the clock' - too kiddie for me - sorry Peter! I think just 'pre-dream stats'. You could call it 'kiddie scoring' but that could be taken the wrong way o_O But I do think its a massive step forward in scoring. It means in one single blow SA.net's potential scores beat the JPN FB and SG - its just SM and SC left. At the moment, I've managed 7k+ in SM before the clock throws a complete mental and speeds towards me, with only a few k in the other dreams - maybe something in the museum? Maybe the 2 rollercoasters in SC might be useful too. And Miles, how do you know the Wizeman fly-through isnt a glitch? Maybe Sonic team forgot to check that side of the wall.    Report

01-25-2007, 1:41 AM Lance Way Joined on 02-11-2006 England Posts 148 Re: Non-Permissible Scores Hello all, long time no post. Luigi sent me an email recently, which brought my attention to this site for the first time in many months, and this topic was something I spent quite a lot of time thinking about when I was playing the game last. I'm aware that my opinion isn't really that important here, because I'm not actively getting scores at the moment and won't be in the forseeable future. This is meant as food for thought. Also, seeing as this is a long post, I'll sum up my opinion here for anyone who doesn't have the time to read through it: I think you should allow "trick" techniques to be used only on the criteria of whether you all enjoy using them or not. Nothing else. (Please do read the rest of the post though!) I would strongly advise that you don't try and differentiate between different tricks on the basis of e.g. "they're OK because the creators intended them" or "they're OK because they don't use bugs" or "they're bad because they weren't intended" or "they're bad because they use bugs". My reasoning is that although some of these things may seem quite clear-cut, they're ultimately subjective and in some cases are very difficult (or impossible) to prove as one or the other. It's easy to argue why we can't categorise things based on whether or not they were "intended": in all likelihood Sonic Team never expected anyone to break e.g. 500K points on a single course and thus most of the scores on the site would be in "unintended" territory, doing things that were never planned for. (But of course, we can't prove this because we don't have every member of Sonic Team here to ask personally!). However, my most important point here is that the categorisation of something as a "glitch" or "bug" is trickier than you might think, and the categorisation of something as *not* a glitch or bug is even more subjective. Case in point: everyone agrees that the Stick Canyon magnetic trick is an evil bug and shouldn't be allowed for scoring. From a coding perspective, it really is what you would call a bug: it relies on a variable not being correctly reset during an A+B+C+Start reset. (In non-technical terms, the code contains a variable that determines whether Nights is magnetised. When you do the A+B+C+Start soft reset, this variable is left how it is, rather than being set back to "Not Magnetised". This is clearly a logical error, something the programmer overlooked). However, (and I don't think this has been pointed out yet,) the Splash Garden 1 switch trick also requires that the player plays through a bug and logical error. I assume that anyone who's done this trick has noticed that, after hitting the switch 256 times, the sequence of items repeats: it spits out the group of blue chips again, then the large group of stars, then the small group of stars, then goes back to single stars, and that this cycle repeats every 256 hits? The reason this happens (at the machine code level) is a counter overflow. To determine whether the switch should give you chips, stars or a single star, the code has a counter that counts how many times the switch has been hit: if it's been hit 0 times, it gives you the chips, if it's been hit 1 time already, it gives you the stars, if it's been hit 2 times it gives you less stars, etc. The trouble is that this counter is held in a single byte of memory, and a byte only has 256 possible values (which can be thought of as the numbers 0 to 255). When machine code tries to "add one" to a byte with value 255, the usual effect is that it wraps around to 0 again. Hence, the switch starts giving you the same items again. Clearly the programmer didn't think it would be possible for someone to hit the switch 256 times, otherwise they would have had the counter span multiple bytes (thus increasing its highest possible value), or just written the code differently so that it e.g. stopped adding one to the counter when the switch was only putting out single stars. From a coding perspective, there is no technical difference between the Stick Canyon and Splash Garden bugs mentioned above: they are both logical errors which, ideally, the code should not contain. The only difference between them is that the Stick Canyon bug is (to the player) a heck of a lot more dramatic, whereas the SG bug just gives you some slightly better items after you've jumped on the spot for ages. The above is why I don't think you should classify tricks based on whether they do or don't incorporate bugs. In many cases the player (assuming they're not a programmer, and even if they are) may not notice the technical difference between what is and isn't a bug (gsk pointed out another example of this in his post above), and if it's that awkward to make the distinction, you must ask yourself whether it really matters anyway (I don't believe it does). The way I *do* recommend you categorise NiGHTS tricks is whether they help or harm people's desire to compete. Case in point again, the Splash Garden 1 switch trick: who honestly wants to waste their life pressing the jump button for fifteen minutes every time they attempt a new record on Splash Garden? Not me certainly, and if this became a requirement for SG records (which it would, were it allowed,) I simply wouldn't compete for Splash Garden anymore. (Note that this isn't some sort of half-arsed threat, as I'm not competing at the moment anyway, I'm just being entirely honest.) My final verdict: I personally think that any technique the game allows should be treated as valid as long as the players in question (you guys) *enjoy* using it in runs. I certainly wouldn't enjoy doing the SG1 switch trick, but I can stomach the Twin Seeds star-milking because it requires more skill (thus is more interesting) and doesn't take as long. The important point is that I'm not trying to apply an abstract notion of what is and isn't OK: I'm only considering whether I would enjoy doing this in practice. This is the same reasoning behind why (as was mentioned above) Akuma was banned in those Street Fighter tournaments: he wasn't enjoyable. Also, (and I don't know if this has been brought up), you could compromise by having a page on the site dedicated to getting scores with extreme or wacky tricks that people are unsure about. That way people could have a go at getting scores with them, and see if they thought that they were appropriate in practice. If the consensus decided that they were appropriate, and fun, they could be taken on as valid methods and the scores merged into the main scoreboards. If not, they could be left there as a curiosity.    Report

01-25-2007, 11:46 AM blackrabite Joined on 07-29-2006 Colorado Posts 139 Re: Non-Permissible Scores I feel that Lance has nailed the theses to the door. Some may argue that the Japanese didn't hold back, so neither should we. But, if boring, average, exploits were allowed, we're sort of defeating the original spirit of the website. Are we a community that's trying to become the best NiGHTS players or the best scorers? I feel that we have begun to weigh our worth based on a piece of paper from 1996, and paper shouldn't weigh that much! Although I feel that those scores have provided a definite drive, it's important that we not let the prospect of high scores affect our judgment. Although I would never want to impose on our host, tabitha, I feel that an extra section may be necessary for the site. I believe that scores achieved via questionable means should be posted, but in a different section from where our tables currently lie. This would also prevent newcomers from getting discouraged; it would prove that they can reach scores just as high as anybody else without having to learn all sorts of sketchy / boring exploits, while this new section could also provide a resource for those who wish to investigate said techniques. Also, thanks for coming to contribute, Lance. I don't think I ever had the pleasure to discuss NiGHTS with you since I joined. Sincerely, blackrabite    Report

01-26-2007, 9:11 AM Peter Joined on 10-27-2006 Calgary, Canada Posts 156 Re: Non-Permissible Scores Excellent points from Lance and Blackrabite. Your posts have changed my opinion on what we should allow / ban. My two cents: Allow everything. Exceptions: Memory card corruption scores (as the score is not actually achieved) and possibly Magnetism Reset (not sure how to handle this one, personally). Yes we are trying to become the best NiGHTS players however the game's vast appeal, and indeed one of the reasons this site exists, is to achieve / document ways of getting higher scores. NiGHTS is, at its' highest level, a Score Attack game. To me personally, were I somehow to achieve the highest possible score in any given Dream, that Dream would lose all appeal to me. I would have 'beaten' it. Like finshing a 'standard' video-game in the most complete manner. There is no such end state in NiGHTS (yet); we are all striving for higher scores. It's just that our methods have taken a radical direction. We are also trying to become the best NiGHTS scorers. Yes the average gamer would never spend 15 minutes jumping in place to get one star at a time, however, I suggest we are not the average gamer. The average gamer stopped playing NiGHTS years ago. Spending 15 minutes jumping in place would indeed turn off lots of players, but to me, this would only increase the dedication required to achieve a higher score, and consequently, the satisfaction of actually achieving such a score. The one example I can think of at the moment is all the people who try to complete various games in record times (Sonic 1, Super Mario Brothers). Those games, like NiGHTS, were perhaps not designed with this sort of challenge in mind. However, they provide an undefined end goal, which theoretically can always be improved upon. There is no apparent limit. You can ALWAYS do better. When I hit a new record on NiGHTS and the initial euphoria subsides, I eventually lament at a missed star or chip which would have given me an extra 20 points. This is what makes me go back, again and again. Then there's the control element. After reading Lance's post, I ran down the list of questionable strategies Tabitha listed a few posts earlier, and I was thinking that the SG Switch trick should be disallowed, for reasons of it being boring, tedious, etc... but really, is it any different from Beat the Clock? Beat the Clock is simply somewhat faster / trickier. Is it more fun? Subjective, and if one is allowed and the other not, then where does it end, no matter what we base our decision on? How can one be banned for scoring purposes, and the other allowed? If we consider this question, then we must also consider if collecting 20 chips as kids is acceptable, for the following reason: legitimate score control. I achieved a score 2k better that normal using Beat the Clock on FB. Theoretically I can achieve 20k (or more) better. Let's say we ban Beat the Clock. If I submit a score 1k better than the previous record, how will anyone know whether I used Beat the Clock or not? If I do the SG Switch only long enough to gain an additional 3k, how will anyone know? We would have to rely on trust, and I'm not sure this is reasonable. That piece of paper from 1996 is motivation, although as you all know I have my doubts as to its' legitimacy, plus we have no idea how these scores were attained, etc etc... But I digress. Which brings me to the ultimate question: What is the purpose of this website? When I googled around, back in October, I was looking for current tables of the highest NiGHTS scores - I wanted to see how my scoring (not necessarily play) stacked up to the masters. To me, scoring in NiGHTS is the ultimate reason I still play this game. Yes it is atmospheric, visionary, has a great A-life system and so on and so forth, but the score rules supreme. This is of course highly subjective and will be different for all players. So, what do we allow? Are we basing our decision on what is fun and what isn't? To me, if jumping in place for 15 mins gives me that *NEW RECORD* tag, and the rush that comes with it, then it is fun. PS, I am still very undecided about the Magnetism bug. The fact that you need to reset the game to activate it disturbs me, but again, at its' heart, it is a strategy. What to do? One final note: as you all know I have a small site where I post pics of all my personal high scores. Regardless of what we as a group decide, I will continue to post my best scores no matter which way they were achieved. If we decide to ban certain techniques, I will respect that, and not submit those kinds of scores here. For Luigi: I detest the term Star Milking :)    Report

01-26-2007, 1:00 PM gsk Joined on 02-08-2006 London Posts 416 Re: Non-Permissible Scores I dont agree with everything Lance said (I lean more to Peter's point of view about scoring satisfaction), but I do agree about creating new tables for grey areas, as we've already done for reverse Time Attack anyway. Its the perfect solution where some sense of normality and standards can be kept, but the ones that like obsessive play (including myself) have somewhere to call a happy place. So we can have a SG1-4 and an SGT, and an SG1/SGT <using switch glitch>. Either on a 'Glitch Scoring' or 'Scoring Oddities/Extremes/Experiments/Exploits' page or just on the main pages if they're labled clearly. Same with SC3 and SCT <using magnetised reset>. And I'm sure that we'll come up with more grey areas as we go along. Peter - Star Milking makes more sense than 'Beat the Clock'. The whole bloody game is against the clock. At least the former is specific and succinct. And how the hell can you think that something that requires resetting the game is in any way legit? And yeah, we've all got your score site bookmarked lol Oh and Lance, why arent you playing NiD anymore?    Report

01-26-2007, 8:10 PM Peter Joined on 10-27-2006 Calgary, Canada Posts 156 Re: Non-Permissible Scores Lui, re making extra scoreboards: how would we know a high score was achieved legitimately vs. using an exploit? This is what bugs me. If we can solve this little dilemma then I am all for your suggestion. Yes at first I thought the Magnetism trick was totally unacceptable but Lance's post changed that. What's one bug vs. another? Can we compromise on these wild names we have for our tricks: Beat the Stars and Milk the Clock, perhaps? We must be really Hardcore and / or Insane to debate this kind of stuff...    Report

01-26-2007, 10:46 PM Lance Way Joined on 02-11-2006 England Posts 148 Re: Non-Permissible Scores  Peter wrote: There is no such end state in NiGHTS (yet); we are all striving for higher scores. This is something I meant to imply in my last post, and which blackrabite pointed out: people will stop striving for higher scores if the means become too unenjoyable. Allowing very boring techniques risks bringing about an actual "end-state", at least as far as active community scoring is concerned.  Peter wrote: We would have to rely on trust, and I'm not sure this is reasonable. Well whether you like it or not you are exercising trust already, and it really is the only answer. For example: the only site record for a course that I still hold is Stick Canyon (I've just checked). How can anyone prove that I didn't use the magnetic trick to get that score? The trick can net you multiple millions of points, certainly, but it doesn't have to. If performed "badly", you could use it to get a sane-looking score. The solution is that tabitha and the other guys who were hanging around the site at that time trusted that I wasn't cheating. I assume because I'd shown myself to be interesting enough in actually playing the game. Even with screenshot-proof, the screenshot could be doctored or it could be an entirely valid shot of a hacked game (the hacking of PS and Saturn games is quite underway). A video isn't even sufficient to satisfy all doubt: who remembers that Super Mario Bros. 3 speed run that was worked out frame-by-frame in an emulator and then strung together as a full-speed video? There are easier ways to cheat at NiGHTS than this, for example: play a Japanese or US version of the game on a European saturn. It'll run slower than intended, thus making it easier to play, and also quite easy to doctor video proof of. If you were to allow techniques on the basis that you can't prove they're not being used, you would have to allow this. This is a small community. Trust is a reasonable answer.  Peter wrote: Allow everything. Exceptions: Memory card corruption scores (as the score is not actually achieved) and possibly Magnetism Reset (not sure how to handle this one, personally). I entirely agree about the memory card (it should be a prerequisite that you're playing the game on hardware that works), but as I tried to point out above, there is no objective difference between the magnetic trick and any other bugs that should or shouldn't be allowed for scoring: if the site were to allow everything, including other techniques that rely on bugs (or just incidentally feature them), this would have to be allowed to. The most obvious "weird" factor about it, the fact that you do the A+B+C+Start reset, is objectively irrelevant: to the processor, this is all good and valid code. And anyhow, there's an alternate method whereby you can just get to the end of the level magnetised and then start a new run without reseting the game. Does this make it seem any more acceptable? If it does, I'll say again that there is no technical difference between it and other more "harmless" bugs: the distinction is entirely subjective. (Which is fine, as I've said, but it really should be acknowledged.) The only logical solution (I would say) is that you judge things case-by-case. The reason I don't think the magnetic trick should be allowed for scoring is that it removes an entire level from active competition. You don't *need* to play Stick Canyon if you're playing the magnetic trick instead: it can net you a much higher score. IMHO none of the levels should be "lost" from competition in this way. There are few enough as it is. EDIT: I've just remembered that the Quake Speed Demos Archive has an almost exact parallel for this example. On one level they keep scores for (zer1m7 I think, could be wrong), it's possible to finish the level in something like five seconds (it would take a "normal" player about twenty minutes). This is because the invisible end-of-level trigger actually extends through a wall and into the area where you start the level: with some clever jumping, it's possible to touch this trigger right after you start, thus ending the level. The reason this isn't allowed for speed runs is the same reason I gave for SC: most people think it's more interesting to play the level.  Peter wrote: Spending 15 minutes jumping in place would indeed turn off lots of players, but to me, this would only increase the dedication required to achieve a higher score, and consequently, the satisfaction of actually achieving such a score. I'm sorry Peter but my feelings are just different here. My reasoning is that sometime in the next hundred years, I'm going to be dead, and I can't justify spending fifteen minutes of my free time doing something like this. Achieving a slightly higher score at the end of it is some incentive, of course, but to me it isn't worth that debt of time and tediousness. The Splash Garden trick is somewhere beyond where I draw the line regarding what is and isn't justifiable. But that's just my personal opinion (as it should be). To decide things for the site, these things really should be voted for on a case-by-case basis. I still think that giving questionable techniques their own entires, at least as a sort of "trial" before potentially being accepted, would be the best solution (if tabitha has the time to do this). After all, if the site did just accept scores with questionable means, trying to go back on that decision and filter them out of the scoreboards at a later date would be very awkward. (What if people can't remember exactly which scores were done with some subtle exploit?) These are decisions that will be hard to go back on. EDIT: Lui, about me not playing at the moment: I'm just busy doing other things really. I haven't played *any* games for months now...    Report

01-28-2007, 1:47 AM Peter Joined on 10-27-2006 Calgary, Canada Posts 156 Re: Non-Permissible Scores I don't know how to insert quotes so I'll just try to answer Lance the old fasioned way :) 1st point: Well after I thought it through, perhaps you are right and 'boring' techniques should be disallowed on the main score boards for the reason you mentioned. 2nd point: To be 100% honest, I am totally not technically inclined, so I never even though about all these ways that you could 'alter' proof in order to cheat / mislead. Seems like trust it is. 3rd point: This is why your post changed my thinking about the Magnet trick. It's a bug, like everything else. 4th point: If we as a community voted on a case by case basis, then any tricks disallowed by majority could have their own boards (separate from the main score boards, IMHO). Personally, I would still try getting scores using bugs (from time to time) and I'm sure a few others (Lui, probably) would too. So what will it be guys? Should we vote case by case? My only question would be should we use high scores achieved using tricks to compare to the JP scores? We do not know how they were achieved (IF they're real) and I'm inclined to believe they would have to have used some expliots. PS, Lance, who are you? I have seen things by you all over the net. (The Panzer Dragoon Saga stuff you did was awesome!) Are you a programmer and this is how you know so much obscure stuff about games? Lui: 'Kid Strats'. What do you think?    Report

01-29-2007, 6:03 AM Lance Way Joined on 02-11-2006 England Posts 148 Re: Non-Permissible Scores So if the community were to make decisions about whether tricks should be allowable for "normal scoring" or only for "exploit scoring", another logical question would be, what tricks would decisions need to be made about? Can we come up with a shortlist? The Splash Garden and Stick Canyon tricks I talked about above should be on there in my opinion, but as I've been out of the loop for a while I can't comment on anything else without doing some reading first...  Peter wrote: Are you a programmer and this is how you know so much obscure stuff about games? If you mean do I work as a programmer, I'm afraid not, it's just something I'm personally interested in. (Particularly in relation to gaming, including "old" games, which are quite a different animal from modern programming).  Peter wrote: I don't know how to insert quotes so I'll just try to answer Lance the old fasioned way :) I remember I had to ask about quotes when I first started using PHPBB-style forums. What you generally do is click on the "quote" button at the top-right of a person's post, which brings up a reply with the *whole* post enclosed in quote tags. You can then delete bits of the text and copy and paste the quote tags around to determine which parts of the post you'll quote. From the way most experienced forum-goes use quotes, you'd assume that it's something really intuitive, but it isn't particularly. My advice is to just play around with it and check the outcome with the preview until you see how it works.    Report

01-29-2007, 10:13 AM gsk Joined on 02-08-2006 London Posts 416 Re: Non-Permissible Scores From what I can remember the big discoveries while you were away - Soft Museum Stunts Smaller loops via the d-pad Air Braking to make tighter paraloops 12+ stunt Dreamies Misc. kid strats Going through Wizeman after hitting him Add that to SG switches, SC magnetiser, star milking, reverse runs - any others?    Report

01-29-2007, 6:58 PM tabitha Joined on 01-22-2006 Posts 536 Re: Non-Permissible Scores I think you pretty much covered it all with the possible exception of peters prof of concept of the FB2 infinite. After reading all the comments I am in favor of a separate page for - SC Magnetiser - SG Switches SC Magnetiser for obvious reasons and the SG switches as I am not interested in doing it personally and I think that it may well (as Lance observed) put off alot of competative gameplay. All the other strategies I feel should be included in the normal gameplay section. I think the Mario Kart 64 pages are a fairly good example, they have page for normal gameplay with "reasonable" shortcuts used and another records page with people using gameplay wierdness to finish track in 5 seconds and such. The obvious abvantage being that people who are interested in for want of a better word, glitch gameplay, are welcome to use it, those who aren't dont have to. As always, I am very open to ideas?    Report

01-30-2007, 7:46 AM Lance Way Joined on 02-11-2006 England Posts 148 Re: Non-Permissible Scores Thanks for the pointers guys, I've done some reading up on those things and I've even broken the Saturn out and done some playing. Now I hate to be the moaning voice of dissension, but I strongly think that the Frozen Bell "beat the clock" strat (or more specifically, the underlying exploit where you milk the trees for chips) shouldn't be allowed for normal scoring either. I read Peter's explanation, and after a bit of experimenting myself, I've managed to work out a safer version of the strategy that allows someone to milk the trees indefinitely without being in any serious danger of dying. I've managed 17,000 points with it myself, which took me up to the time-out. I'll share the strat in the original thread, as it'd be a bit off-topic here. However, in my opinion this development brings the tree exploit in line with the Splash Garden switch trick: they're both "cheesy" exploits that can simply be repeated for the full sixteen minutes, which I personally think is too long to require of scorers.    Report

01-30-2007, 9:21 AM blackrabite Joined on 07-29-2006 Colorado Posts 139 Re: Non-Permissible Scores Here are my personal opinions, provided in a case-by-case basis. I try to approach each issue with only itself in mind, though I do make comparisons to other tricks from time to time. Bias is unavoidable, but I believe that's part of the conclusion we've come to. Anyway, I hope these explanations shed some light on my stance on NiGHTS: SC Magnetiser glitch: If the method in question dissolves the ability to maintain a contiguous run, then I think it should be ignored. Resetting in the middle of the game is a pretty good indicator that the method is broken, and I believe it should be archived as such. SG Switch trick: 15-17 minutes of sitting there. Jumping. Not to mention the counter-overflow which Lance has pointed out. The prospect of having to jump for that length of time just to compete with others is a total turn-off to Splash Garden, not too mention that it is void of any real technique. TS Star Milking: So long as the Dream is finished and the score recorded, I say it's good. The difference is that I, along with many others who haven't practiced it, can not accomplish it currently. It takes a technique that doesn't come without practice. Also, this method is employed during NiGHTS flight-time, and makes the best use of time which would otherwise be discarded at the end of the run. Stunts with the Wall Glitch: I don't think I could get a Dreamy otherwise. If somebody would prove that acheiving Dreamies without the wall glitch was readily possible given a certain technique, then I would put this up for debate. Until then, I feel that even with the Wall Glitch, scoring using tricks takes a great amount of effort to learn and master. I say it's good. However, I really don't know what to say about the 12+ stunt availability. If you can do it, good for you. Also, 12+ stunts could easily be done on accident to a good stunt run, so I don't believe we should have people counting their toes as to how many tricks they've done in ten seconds. SM Small Loops: While it's obnoxious and a little tedious (and I'm surprised the developers even implemented it), the Small Loops were a deliberate product of the development team. Furthermore, it does take some level of skill to maintain the rhythm of the loops and to make sure NiGHTS doesn't gain horizontal velocity in an unwanted direction. I say this is fine.    However, this stuck-in-the-wall-whee-haw-look-at-me-insta-loop business is shenanigans. It's clear that it had evaded the developer's scrying eyes, all the while removing what technique there was to the Small Loops method of Soft Museum. There may come a time that we will wish to create a compilation of scores to send to our friends overseas in Japan, and I feel that (unless some other way is discovered), this glitch may be the only way to conquer their score in Soft Museum. For this sole reason, I feel that SM scores using this glitch should be recorded somewhere. But, for the purposes of our scoring community, I feel that scores should be limited to not exploiting this coding error. Air Braking for Small Paraloops: I believe that this is okay, as it just forces one technique upon another. It doesn't seem to glitch NiGHTS out at all, though it takes a bit of practice to get going. Additionally, the Air Brake now seems to have a use, which I believe adds an extra dimension to NiGHTS scoring. This one is a go, in my opinion. I'll either edit this post with more rantings, or I will simply post as the different methods in question come to mind. I hope you all are doing well! Sincerely, blackrabite    Report

01-30-2007, 9:24 AM Peter Joined on 10-27-2006 Calgary, Canada Posts 156 Re: Non-Permissible Scores My votes: Separate Boards: Magnetic NiGHTS SG Switch Exploit / FB Chip Exploit (Beat the Clock) TAR (Which we already have) Allowed for normal scoring: Milking Stars as NiGHTS Gillwing's tail / Wizeman's body Airbraking Small loops / stunts in SM Stunt ribbon wall halting    Report

01-30-2007, 9:49 AM gsk Joined on 02-08-2006 London Posts 416 Re: Non-Permissible Scores Yeah I agree with the above. And Ben what the hell are you talking about? What stuck on the wall thing? If someone has left me out of a Soft Museum trick that they knew for ages about, I'll kill someone...    Report

Page 2 of 3 (35 items) < 1 2 3 >

Scoreattack.net » Score Attack - ... » General Discuss... » Non-Permissible Scores

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Score Attack - General Forums |- General Discussion |- Score Submission |- Off topic |- www.scoreattack.net Score Attack - Strategy Forums |- Beginners Section |- Spring Valley |- Mystic Forest |- Soft Museum |- Splash Garden |- Frozen Bell |- Stick Canyon |- Twin Seeds |- Bosses |- Christmas Nights |- A-Life www.Nightsintodreams.com |- iMAGNIREALM