This topic is for the purpose of discussing #1027: architorture's NES Contra in 09:53.72

Sorry that formatting came out a bit funny. The lazer: Player A:- - - - Player B: - - - -

Shouldn't a two-player run be faster than a one-player run? Or does the lag cancel out the additional firepower? The one-player pure speed movie is 09:34. Are you sure it's not faster to use the spread gun for both players instead of lasers? I'm thinking there might be something to double lasers, but I'm not convinced it's faster. Did you do some testing on this? I'm thinking it's an aesthetic choice, which is not a very good idea in my opinion. You should go with whatever is fastest. Anyway, I haven't watched yet so I'm not voting yet.

>Shouldn't a two-player run be faster than a one-player run? Or does the lag cancel out the additional firepower? The one-player pure speed movie is 09:34. You would think so, but the lag is apparently quite big. There was another attempt at a 2-player movie which was 10:08, so this improves on that at least.It's at http://tasvideos.org/753S.html I guess I should reject that now, but I will watch this first.

Just watched the movie. Was looking pretty nice for first tas ever. 2 player runs are always a pain to make, and somehow you chose to do a 2 player tas for a first attempt... respect for that. I don't know the game well enough to vote, so I won't. I also would think a 2 player tas should technically be faster. If lag really does make it slower, I would be wondering if there are actually 20 seconds of lag (this version is 20 seconds slower than the 1-player run). Also; if the game is very laggy (with 2 players), and since you are controlling 2 players, the rerecord count seems relatively low (this is just something I noticed... a movie will never be judged on its rerecord count).

Rewatching the Contra 1-player movie (which is for Famtasia, bleh), it seems everything just breaks faster. Perhaps enemies have more health in 2-player mode. Or Genisto does something genious which I fail to realise. The 1-player Contra was also around 10 minutes until Genisto came and improved about 30 second in one version, which is the current one. I wonder if that has any significance. Probably not. EDIT: i'm also not a big fan of twiching like a madman whenever you have some free time. Maybe that's just me.

YAY! An improved 2-player! I was sad that the other 2-player version was abondoned. I like this one, and while a 2-p should theoretically faster, lag will certainly slow it down. I will watch this as soon as a get a chance

The top of the waterfall has just a touch, but somehow, this allowed me to jump to the higher platform which I had never seen before. Unfortunately, this put me at the floating island a little too soon, so it really didn't save much time (but it did a little). If anyone would care to further explore this, I would like to know exactly how it works.

It's been mentioned, but I don't know why or how it works. I don't think it has to do with lag, since it happens semi-frequently with only one player. Also, Genisto did it once in his one-player run. Edit: Watched most of it. Will watch the rest later. It seems like you could have benefited from having player 2 (LANCE) pick up Laser in Jungle. Fire is bloody slow, and everyone knows it sucks. I have to think that Laser x 2 would make Base1 go faster, especially the last circle-thing you have to destroy before the boss (Edit 2: Never mind about the laser thing. But would another weapon be faster than fire and not produce lag?). Also, in Waterfall, Base2 and Snowfield (and maybe later levels), after you destory the boss, you weren't as close as possible to the exit that leads to the next level. Consequently, after losing control, the computer had to move your players a few steps forward. If that makes any sense, would it be faster to get as close as possible to the exit before losing control, or does that not make a difference in the time? I would vote no if this was one player, even if it was faster than the currently published run, because of not taking advantage of the scrolling/jumping glitches in Waterfall. However, since this is a 2-player run, I don't know if those glitches will work or not. So, in lieu of that and the fact that I haven't watched the whole thing, I will refrain from voting.

The second player could just catch up during the boss fights.

The re-record count is low because I was constantly restarting after I figured out the level enough. I tested them pretty well, but I guess not well enough :) Lag isn't ever really an issue with the lazers, so that's not a problem. No matter how much lag you had with double spreads, it wouldn't be 20 seconds slower than a 1-player run. I just went with lazers for style - I guess this was a mistake. I did make the conscious decision not to get the spreads, but I'll attempt another with them. Like I said, I could control the spread lag in most spots, but I just don't like all the missed shots, especially in the bases. Oh, and I won't twitch so much :)

Looks very good for a first try, you obviously have understood the concept of playing frame by frame and getting it done fast, however I think you need to study the game more and figure out what weapons actually do the most damage. I would also like an answer as to why the 2 player run is slower than the 1 player run?

I would also like an answer as to why the 2 player run is slower than the 1 player run?

2-Players = Lag = No Spread = Slow Or so I've heard.

Even with no lag, I would guess they are about the same. The bosses should be killed a little faster, but not so much that you'd notice. In the 1-player run, they're killed almost instantly. This should save some frames. Furthermore, in the bases, there are some spots that have 2 locks to break (and in one wave there are 4) that are done faster with 2 players. This will save a couple of seconds. In return, there are spots on Waterfall, Energy Zone, and The Hangar where player 2 would need to catch up before time can be optimized. For example, hitting the fire areas at exactly the same time in Energy Zone. I'm playing around with spacing out the shots with the double spread to prevent lag, but I'm guessing that the run will look exactly the same as the 1-player run.

Now, firing the spread shotgun constantly can be helpful, can't it? Because it narrows the stream by putting out shots in fewer directions when there are too many shots on the screen?

can 2 player run obsolete the currently published pacifist run, otherwise we would have 3 contra runs. That seems excessive.

I think we have three Battletoads runs and Contra is a rather popular title.

Now, firing the spread shotgun constantly can be helpful, can't it? Because it narrows the stream by putting out shots in fewer directions when there are too many shots on the screen?

But there's still the same amount of bullets on the screen. Maybe. At least according to this theory.

Yes, but you might be able to hit a smaller target more efficiently!

I don't know why it's so hard to see it. It's no mistery, really... Only like 20 bullets (arbitrary number, just making a point) can be on the screen at any given time. If you press B while there are 19 shots in the screen, your spread gun will fire only 1 bullet. It's OBVIOUS

Right, but can you use that to your advantage?

In any case, time should be gained on things with high health because with alternation you can fire a shot on every frame as opposed to every second one.

I'm suprised by the lack of voting for this run... I think that the pacifist 1p run is getting exceedingly unecessary. I vote that this (or another) 2-player run replace it. I voted yes, though I suspect it is improvable. This run is certainly better than krieg's submission, though obviously slower than the 1p run. Watching it though I don't see where you lost 20 sec though. The hangar level had some lag moments that might be able to be reduced. The twitchy stuff was a little excessive, but not enough to warrant a no vote. Though I liked what you did just before the stage 5 boss, where it looked like on person lying down and one standing still. I encourage to do another attempt though and compare frames with the 1p version and see exactly where it is slower and try to find the cause. (It seems nobody has attempted this). I must say I like the choice of avoiding the spread gun, for me that created added interest (I really have no idea if it is faster/slower, my guess would be that it is equal).

Okay, I compared the 1p Genisto run with this run side by side, both at 50% speed. And I sped things up if there was a major difference in speed after a miniboss or after a level. In the first level it was completely even until the boss fight, when Genisto was about a second faster. For all bosses, it's a combination of the fact that the 1p mode scrolls faster (therefore the boss appears and can be hit about .5 to a second faster) and that the spread beam just works so well. And for that delay in showing the boss, it doesn't matter where the lagging player is. Even if the two players overlap each other, the screen still is further back than when playing 1p, and the bosses still take longer to scroll to and show up to be damaged. On the second level this run was a little ahead until the last room before the boss. In that room, the big target in the middle was killed much faster by the spread beam alone than the other two weapons combined. And in the boss the spread beam was faster again. In total Genisto was about 1-2 seconds faster in this level, I think. For the waterfall, everything went smoothly until the bridge with the fire running across it. However, at that point, in this run, the first fire couldn't be crossed with the first jum onto the bridge, so the two guys had to wait and jump again to get over the first flame while Genisto was on the second. That wouldn't have been a real problem, because Genisto had to wait for a moving platform later on, but when you compare the placement of the 1p platform and the 2p one, the 2p was poorly placed. I don't know whether the flame and platform have to do with luck (with or without manipulation), famtasia vs FCEU, or 1p vs 2p. But whatever the case, that lost the 2p run few seconds. I'm not sure about the boss scrolling part, since it was out of sync at the time for me, but I resynched it to find that the boss fight (when the boss was shown) took about the same amount of time. In the fourth level the 2p run did much better with the two lasers, and ended up actually beating Genisto's time for this level. I think it was by about .5 to 1 second. In the snow level, the main problem came from those spikey tanks. Not only was there the second or so delay in each one showing up, but they seemed to roll for a longer period of time. I think it may have something to do with the fact that Genisto ran forward as far as possible and jumped back at the same pace of the tanks until he could fire on them, while this run had the two guys stand and wait where the tank would end up. Also, Genisto jumped forward once the tank was destroyed before the front part of the tank was gone from the screen (since I think the tank doesn't take up space in its topleft corner) while this run waited until they could run forward. In all I think this lost about 2 to 3 seconds, and this was repeated twice. Once the final boss UFO was reached, the boss took longer to appear as usual, but the fight took about the same amount of time. The energy zone basically came down to the randomness of the laser/fire beams in the level. That and the usual .5-1 second delay to start the boss. The timings seemed to always be kinder to Genisto, so I think there may have been some luck manipulation in his run (since he did have a pretty high rerecord count). The next level had a lot of spots where Genisto's run was simply more optimized. I know it's not completely possible to match the 1p speed in this level (since some speed is gained by the forward going carts, which can't really be taken advantage of by both players without losing any speed, I'd think), but there were a lot of differences between the two runs. I forgot where exactly, but near the beginning one run took the high path and the other took the low, and the path that Genisto took saved about 1-2 seconds. I don't know whether it's possible to take that path as efficiently with 2p and with the different luck timings, but that's where some of the difference came from. At another point Genisto jumped onto a cart going forward from a higher platform to maximize the amount of time on that cart since he landed the furthest to the left possible, but in this run the two guys (who I think were overlapped) simply dropped onto the cart, losing maybe a few frames. Near the end Genisto jumped over some of the alternating spike things, but both 2p runs I've seen haven't done that, so they end up being maybe a second slower. And right after that there are a bunch of gun turret guys that are placed in such a way that neither run has been able to get through it without stopping for a moment, but Genisto ducks and lets a bullet pass over him while this run jumps in place at one point. I think Genisto's way is probably faster, but I couldn't tell for sure since it wasn't synced right after the alternating spikes. And off course there's the boss lag, but he was killed at about the same time, though it was still out of synch for me so I couldn't tell for sure. But I noticed that in Genisto's run the boss walked towards the left, while in this run he jumped. And in the final level a lot more things get killed in this run, sometimes sacrificing a frame or two to turn around and shoot things, but that might have to do with lag. The miniboss took a bit longer to kill in the 2p run, but I'm not sure whether that was from the monster taking longer to appear, the actual battle being slower, or a little bit of both. And the final boss took the same amount of time to kill, but took longer to appear in 2p. So that's all the differences I was able to notice. After comparing the two, I feel that there won't be any way of ever catching up to the 1p speed with 2p unless some tricks with death or some other sort of glitches are found. With the slower scrolling and increase in lag, I don't see any way of making up that lost time. (Unless the spread doesn't cause lag in most areas like I'd think it would. That was my interpretation anyway. But if it didn't cause much more lag, I think it might be possible to match the 1p run) Anyway, I'm voting yes because a lot of the slowdown areas can't really be helped (like the scrolling to the boss, and possibly the timings if they can't be manipulated). To me it's about as entertaining as the 1p run, which is a rather big feat.

A quick question: could lag be reduced by placing p1 and p2 at the same spot all the time?