This game is a clone of Lunar Lander, published by Commodore in 1981. It is a single player arcade style game where you control a lander so that it finds it way to one of three landing sites. The goal is to land softly so that your craft is not destroyed.
This game has a few things to consider, when trying to optimize it. Below are a few of them:
Landing burns: When done at the right time, you can softly land. The screen switches between an overall view and a focused view. The transition between these two needs to be played with, as you can change some characteristics and enable a faster landing.
Landing speed Indicator:In terms of optimization, it is quickest to ensure that the "Meters Per Second" gauge reads the loest "yellow" position possible. By doing so, the bonus will not take a long...thus getting back to the next landing as soon as possible.
Landing Order: Because of the bonus multiplier, it is best to keep the "10X" for last, since it takes up more time, tallying the bonus points.
Ending Choice
For an any% run, it would seem reasonable to land on all 3 sites to demonstrate the full game's content.
Categories??
I have had conversations, with DrD2k9, on the possibility of different strategies or goals for completing this game. Between the two of us, we came to different conclusions...only to agree on this run itself. Basically, his idea was to reach the landing site without any consideration of destruction. On the other hand, I felt it necessary to protect the lander from damage or explosion.
For me, the idea was to play the game in a "Winning" fashion where landing softly would yield fuel for the next effort.
eien86: Another 'Moon Lander' clone which is quite well made, albeit rather short. This movie reaches all three landing zones quickly, which can be considered a full game completion (100%).
I have had conversations, with DrD2k9, on the possibility of different strategies or goals for completing this game. Between the two of us, we came to different conclusions...only to agree on this run itself. Basically, his idea was to reach the landing site without any consideration of destruction. On the other hand, I felt it necessary to protect the lander from damage or explosion.
To add a bit of detail regarding the different conclusions:
Per the game's manual, the goal of the game is to:
Land your spaceship safely on the only solid landing site on Jupiter. Make as many exploratory landings as possible before fuel runs out.
How fast the lander impacts the landing pads determines whether or not it's a safe/successful landing. There are 3 possibilities:
1) Crash into the pad at too high a rate of speed and explode on impact.
2) Actually land on the pad with the speed meter in the yellow zone. (What this run does)
3) Actually land on the pad, but with the speed meter below the yellow zone. -- When this occurs, the actual landing on the pad does happen without immediate lander destruction. But because the speed meter isn't in the yellow zone (which is required to earn points), the player is instead penalized on fuel and the game just decides to make the lander explode (well after otherwise landing 'safely').
The manual says this about scoring:
SCORING
The softness of the landing site is displayed on the meters-per-second gauge on the right side of the screen. If you land below the yellow zone — you crash. The softer the landing area. ..the more points you get. Try to land with the marker high in the yellow zone.
Simply from reading, this wording makes it sound like any speed below the yellow zone will result in an immediate crash (Option 1), but the truth is that a "crash" is forced even if you do successfully land the lander while outside of the yellow speed zone (Option 3).
Deciding whether or not option 3 should be considered a "successful landing" from the standpoint of a TAS is the issue. If one only considers the goal of the game to be actually landing on the surface pad without exploding on impact, then Option 3 becomes a valid approach for an any% run (and it would likely be faster than this submission). If one doesn't consider Option 3 as a successful landing, then this submission should be the any% approach.
Due to the scoring section of the manual, I suggested to NYMX that taking the Option 2 approach would be safest choice for a submission. But I wouldn't argue if the site felt that Option 3 was valid for acceptance of any% instead of this submission.
Frankly, I don't understand why the developers even coded in Option 3 to the game in the first place. If they weren't going to award points anyway and were just going to retroactively "crash" the lander if the speed wasn't in the yellow zone, then why not simply have any landing that's not in the yellow zone become an instant crash as in Option 1 above. It's this oddity that gives me ground to consider validity for Option 3 as an any% run.
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
DrD2k9 wrote:
Submission Notes wrote:
I have had conversations, with DrD2k9, on the possibility of different strategies or goals for completing this game. Between the two of us, we came to different conclusions...only to agree on this run itself. Basically, his idea was to reach the landing site without any consideration of destruction. On the other hand, I felt it necessary to protect the lander from damage or explosion.
To add a bit of detail regarding the different conclusions:
Per the game's manual, the goal of the game is to:
Land your spaceship safely on the only solid landing site on Jupiter. Make as many exploratory landings as possible before fuel runs out.
How fast the lander impacts the landing pads determines whether or not it's a safe/successful landing. There are 3 possibilities:
1) Crash into the pad at too high a rate of speed and explode on impact.
2) Actually land on the pad with the speed meter in the yellow zone. (What this run does)
3) Actually land on the pad, but with the speed meter below the yellow zone. -- When this occurs, the actual landing on the pad does happen without immediate lander destruction. But because the speed meter isn't in the yellow zone (which is required to earn points), the player is instead penalized on fuel and the game just decides to make the lander explode (well after otherwise landing 'safely').
The manual says this about scoring:
SCORING
The softness of the landing site is displayed on the meters-per-second gauge on the right side of the screen. If you land below the yellow zone — you crash. The softer the landing area. ..the more points you get. Try to land with the marker high in the yellow zone.
Simply from reading, this wording makes it sound like any speed below the yellow zone will result in an immediate crash (Option 1), but the truth is that a "crash" is forced even if you do successfully land the lander while outside of the yellow speed zone (Option 3).
Deciding whether or not option 3 should be considered a "successful landing" from the standpoint of a TAS is the issue. If one only considers the goal of the game to be actually landing on the surface pad without exploding on impact, then Option 3 becomes a valid approach for an any% run (and it would likely be faster than this submission). If one doesn't consider Option 3 as a successful landing, then this submission should be the any% approach.
Due to the scoring section of the manual, I suggested to NYMX that taking the Option 2 approach would be safest choice for a submission. But I wouldn't argue if the site felt that Option 3 was valid for acceptance of any% instead of this submission.
Frankly, I don't understand why the developers even coded in Option 3 to the game in the first place. If they weren't going to award points anyway and were just going to retroactively "crash" the lander if the speed wasn't in the yellow zone, then why not simply have any landing that's not in the yellow zone become an instant crash as in Option 1 above. It's this oddity that gives me ground to consider validity for Option 3 as an any% run.
Yes...confusing it is. If it is decided that option 3 should be the approach, the I can correct. Just let me know.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
During the TASing of this, I realized at one point that I got a lower bonus...which meant that the tally time was shorter. Well, that thought escaped me before i submitted my movie. So i made the fix and replaced it.
This came from playing with various spots of thrust and finally figuring a way out to make that landing softer, which made the bonus counter finish more quickly.
New movie submitted.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
I don't really understand the choice of goal here. This movie lands the lander thrice, one per platform. However, this seems an arbitrary choice than a means to reach a ending scene or a goal clearly established by the game.
In the absence of a clear game-given goal, I'd say any% would entail simply landing the thing as fast as possible. A maximum score category would be either (1) make the perfect, scoremost landing, or; (2) land so many times as to maximize the score. The movie as it stands now lands between these two goals, but not really hitting either.
For any% I'd accept the first third of this movie, where you land the thing as fast as possible.
Thoughts?
I don't really understand the choice of goal here. This movie lands the lander thrice, one per platform. However, this seems an arbitrary choice than a means to reach a ending scene or a goal clearly established by the game.
In the absence of a clear game-given goal, I'd say any% would entail simply landing the thing as fast as possible. A maximum score category would be either (1) make the perfect, scoremost landing, or; (2) land so many times as to maximize the score. The movie as it stands now lands between these two goals, but not really hitting either.
For any% I'd accept the first third of this movie, where you land the thing as fast as possible.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, landing on all three platforms is completion of all possible gameplay options. So if we were to accept landing on only one platform as any %, then this submission would be equivalent to full completion.
I don't really understand the choice of goal here. This movie lands the lander thrice, one per platform. However, this seems an arbitrary choice than a means to reach a ending scene or a goal clearly established by the game.
In the absence of a clear game-given goal, I'd say any% would entail simply landing the thing as fast as possible. A maximum score category would be either (1) make the perfect, scoremost landing, or; (2) land so many times as to maximize the score. The movie as it stands now lands between these two goals, but not really hitting either.
For any% I'd accept the first third of this movie, where you land the thing as fast as possible.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, landing on all three platforms is completion of all possible gameplay options. So if we were to accept landing on only one platform as any %, then this submission would be equivalent to full completion.
Yes, any% would be single (closest) landing. Getting to all three platforms would be 100% category. I guess it's up to Nymx which one he prefers.
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
eien86 wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
eien86 wrote:
I don't really understand the choice of goal here. This movie lands the lander thrice, one per platform. However, this seems an arbitrary choice than a means to reach a ending scene or a goal clearly established by the game.
In the absence of a clear game-given goal, I'd say any% would entail simply landing the thing as fast as possible. A maximum score category would be either (1) make the perfect, scoremost landing, or; (2) land so many times as to maximize the score. The movie as it stands now lands between these two goals, but not really hitting either.
For any% I'd accept the first third of this movie, where you land the thing as fast as possible.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, landing on all three platforms is completion of all possible gameplay options. So if we were to accept landing on only one platform as any %, then this submission would be equivalent to full completion.
Yes, any% would be single (closest) landing. Getting to all three platforms would be 100% category. I guess it's up to Nymx which one he prefers.
I would like to call upon the published game of [5693M], where the game was completed successfully by landing on all platforms. Its basically the same thing, except this one requires greater skill in controlling the landing at an optimal rate.
I will say this. This game has many different category variations, which I am partial to keeping the lander safe and wanting to perform all the game has to offer.
I'm sorry this is so weird, but a lot of Commodore releases were nothing like today's games...where there is a definite ending. So...with this case, I am open to reworking, if we have a consensus.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
This movie has been published.
The posts before this message apply to the submission, and posts after this message apply to the published movie.
----
[6091] C64 Jupiter Lander by nymx in 00:44.96
honestly, the explode afterwards feature was just to show off the little tune for that failure condition. :)
You can play indefinitely with perfect 10x landings, so a maximum score tas would be very boring.
I'd say 100% is perfect landings on each platform.
honestly, the explode afterwards feature was just to show off the little tune for that failure condition. :)
You can play indefinitely with perfect 10x landings, so a maximum score tas would be very boring.
I'd say 100% is perfect landings on each platform.
Would the scoring for getting 5x landings in less time offset the time it takes to get 10x landings and actually be able to max out score faster?
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
DrD2k9 wrote:
zaphod77 wrote:
honestly, the explode afterwards feature was just to show off the little tune for that failure condition. :)
You can play indefinitely with perfect 10x landings, so a maximum score tas would be very boring.
I'd say 100% is perfect landings on each platform.
Would the scoring for getting 5x landings in less time offset the time it takes to get 10x landings and actually be able to max out score faster?
That is my question as well. Certainly needs testing.
You going to do the TAS?
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
honestly, the explode afterwards feature was just to show off the little tune for that failure condition. :)
You can play indefinitely with perfect 10x landings, so a maximum score tas would be very boring.
I'd say 100% is perfect landings on each platform.
Would the scoring for getting 5x landings in less time offset the time it takes to get 10x landings and actually be able to max out score faster?
That is my question as well. Certainly needs testing.
You going to do the TAS?
Not any time soon. But I’d consider it perhaps…someday.
