Which game mechanics should be legal?

Anything to do with minesweeper...

Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby Tommy » Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:03 pm

Hi, there was a discussion on the GB recently regarding legality of using the keyboard to chord.

It started as a discussion about removing cheaters from the ranking, and someone posted something about Dan Zhou doing this.

There have been discussions about this before that weren't conclusive, but it looks like we need to revisit this in the light of this discovery.

For those interested, http://www.minesweeper.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=238 is a very relevant topic here.

Here are the relevant parts of the recent discussion here (edited slightly for readability*):
lh says:
[...] Furthermore last time during our private chat you mentioned that Dan Zhou is using keyboard to project 'chording' clicks (finally we made the agreement on it) because there is almost zero difference (never more than 0.01) between interval of left and right clicks when chording behavior is done, based on the detailed analysis of FreeSweeper tool, so one question for valid videos which needs to clarify is: should the minesweeper be played exclusively by one two-buttoned mouse device and a monitor? If not, her record should be removed from world record as someone voted. P.S. For the people mentioned above, I do not meant to offend you, since we should realize the fact that everyone(no matter which country this player belongs to) should be equal in front of rule, no matter how famous you were.

Tommy says:
@lh the chording thing is worrying, can you describe that in more detail?

lh says:
@Tommy First you need to have the version of Freesweeper, if you don't, you can download the program file via this link: https://www.sendspace.com/file/9edgod Then go to the World Ranking and download the current time record of Dan Zhou, click 'Game'->'Load video', then open this file. Now lets take a look at the window of 'Video control', look at the green stripes which indicate left clicks and dark red stripes which indicate right clicks, the starting point and ending point in # of 0.01s are indicated in numbers above and below each stripe. As we know, 'chording' is done while we detect that both left button and right button are pressed down, and then either of them is released. So during normal HUMAN operation, we need to press both left button and right button to complete this operation. OK we can find that, for any times that Dan Zhou is making intentional or unintentional 'chording', left click and right click starts and ends at EXACTLY the same number of 0.01s, or the difference is NEVER more than 0.01s. If we looked at some other videos such as her 3bv/s record or some of her other Exp sub40s, we will find this same fact. At this time, both Guo Jin Yang and I don't believe that any HUMAN BEING is capable to press both buttons with two fingers(or one finger) with never more than 0.01s of difference, but, if we consider another possibility that Dan Zhou is using a single 'middle button' or a single 'side button' on the mouse, or using a single key on the keyboard, we tend to believe that zero or 0.01 differences can be managed to make, since a key projection program may cross the boundary of two consecutive 0.01s during its execution. I have no idea whether the latter case that we believed is considered as 'cheating', but we do believe that the game is played as the latter case.

As what I know, 'cheating' is considered when most admins who inspect videos think so, and I am not sure if other players (no mattter what nationalities this player is) are violating the criteria of one mouse and two buttons that I said in previous comments.

Guo Jin Yang 6:56:15 AM : What about scores using both keyboard and mouse clicks
lh 6:57:15 AM : Last time we talked about Dan Zhou's videos, and Jin-Yang Guo said that her video was made by both keyboard and mouse--keyboard for double clicks and mouse for right clicks
Guo Jin Yang 6:57:50 AM : She uses one key to do the same thing as a chord
Guo Jin Yang 6:58:12 AM : What do you think? I think it is legal
Damien Moore 7:01:36 AM : Difficult questions. Many years ago, a player changed his mouse so it made clicks when you pressed down or up. We decided that was illegal. If the original minesweeper game lets you do something, then it should be legal. For example, in the original game you can move using arrow keys on your keyboard instead of a mouse. And you can chord my moving your mouse on a square and pressing SHIFT when you click the left button.
Damien Moore 7:02:29 AM : (I mean, if the original game rules let you do something)

Note: QQ170524603 is Guo Jin Yang, QQ137255795 is me, and QQ1967998590 is Damien Moore, this is part of the group chat record that we discussed about this issue. If the rule on minesweeper.info is really as what Damien said, does anybody know what the rule of the 'original minesweeper game' is? Does anybody know how to reach the developer of this Microsoft game? Maybe we can reach the 'original' minesweeper game developer himself/herself to get the exact opinion.

* fixed typo in lh's first post instead of having the first post and the correction, merged three posts that were made within half an hour, edited chat log to use names instead of numbers.

To see whether Dan Zhou might have used the middle mouse button, I played a game with arbiter where I used the middle mouse button, and then loaded it in freesweeper. That looked differently; the MMB events were recognized as one event.

I agree that this, together with how consistent those clicks are, means that some kind of macro must have been used.

But there is something else that struck me: The length of those double events. Most of them are exactly .10 seconds long, and those that deviate don't do so by much. And this means that I suspect that not only is a macro being used, but I also think that this macro automates both pressing and releasing the mouse button. And if that's the case, I find it highly problematic.

I'm open to the idea of just mapping a key on the keyboard to a mouse button. Press the key, press the mouse button; release the key, release the mouse button. Basically, we can think of a keyboard as a mouse with many keys and no movement. I don't really have a problem with people using a keyboard like this; While you could argue that clicking with a mouse potentially affects your accuracy (as you have to compensate for how your hand moves when you click as you move the mouse), you could also just plug in another mouse, or use a laptop's touchpad.

But doing more than one thing with one input event changes how the game itself works. You have less actions that take time and attention.

Elmar technique, by the way, is also an example of this - both
Code: Select all
LMB down
and
Code: Select all
LMB up
are mapped to
Code: Select all
(LMB down, LMB up)
. That's more than one action.

So, I would like to propose a baseline criterion:
If a macro is used that maps one user action to more than one game action, that is definitely cheating.

Also, I'll reformulate this for legal clones:
If a clone maps one user action to more than one winmine game action, that clone may not be legal.

If we agree on this, we can then discuss what else might be cheating (or not).
Don't anthropomorphize computers - they don't like it.
User avatar
Tommy
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby pauv » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:54 am

There're two topics here.

Topic 1: legal mechanic
It's legal to use keyboard since it can be regard as a mouse with various buttons but could not move.
It's not legal to map one user action to more than one game action.
Jin-Yang Guo and I agree with these two.
It's not legal if a clone maps one user action to more than one winmine game action.
I agree.

Topic 2: whether Dan Zhou is cheating
Q1: whether Dan Zhou did one user action that maps to more than one game action or not?
A1: no.
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97650 11.00s-11.13s 11.18s-11.28s 15.58s-15.84s too much examples.
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97227 6.47s-6.57s(right first) 7.36s-7.48s(right first) 14.99s-15.21s(here is the most obvious) 35.79s-35.88s(left first)
Q2: did Dan Zhou use keyboard?
A2: no. At least two player had seen her playing on-site. Ji-Yun Wang one of saolei.net admin. Xiao-Yang Yang who achieved sub40.
Q3: did Dan Zhou use strange macro on mouse?
A3: no.
Q4: did Dan Zhou use 1.5clicks?
A4: http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97650 1.38s-1.51s 2.55s-2.68s
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=80472 1.22s-1.36s
Q5: did Jin-Yang Guo or others ask Dan Zhou why?
A5: no. They just suspect. I've just asked. She is just that good.

A: Dan Zhou is not cheating.

The 3rd topic: please ban the big cheater Stevan Gvozdenovic's 166-40s. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=283
pauv
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:06 am

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby gacord » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:13 am

One big problem is that there're 2 big minesweeper society now and have almost none intersection.
As this topic, no one of you society know what kind of person Zhou Dan is but our society know her well.
I always feel sad that we can not chat together as a big family
gacord
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 5:14 am

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby kevin6625 » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:02 pm

Thanks Tommy for fixing up my typos, if I am making grammatical errors or improper usage of English, just point it out and let me know :mrgreen:

Here is an example of another Chinese player Wen-kai Xu which looks normal in his video:
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=80304
Let's open the FreeSweeper and load this video, as we can see, his 'chording' seldom has the same time for mouse-up and mouse-down, so this video tend to have more plausible reason for being 'original'.

Compared this video of Wen-kai Xu with another video of Dan Zhou that was given above: http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97650
Load this video and take a look, let's drag the progress bar to a little before 1.5 secs (1.49x secs), we can see that a 'chording' is done after a right mouse click, assume that Dan Zhou is using one-to-multiple operation mapping(maybe, maybe not, since we don't know), a single right click should still definitely happen before a 'chording' to finish a 1.5-click(right mouse button down at .38, left mouse button down at .43, and both released at EXACTLY .51, we don't know if it is made by mapping or precise human operation). Let's drag this video to a little over 2 secs (namely 2.0xx secs), we can see that Dan Zhou made two 'chording's, and both the left mouse button and right mouse button EXACTLY pressed at .57 and released at .66, then EXACTLY pressed at .73 and released at .84 with no difference. Now let's drag to 2-3 secs, 1.5-click happens with right down at .55 and left down at .59, then both right up and left up at EXACTLY .68, then both right down and left down EXACTLY .74 and up EXACTLY .82, then both down .88 and up with .00 and .01 (as what I observed before, there is no more than 0.01s difference).

From some other examples such as 17-18 secs, 23-24 secs, 26-27 secs and etc, we can find almost the same situation: when Dan Zhou is making any 'intentional' chording without any other consecutive actions(s.t. making a 1.5-click chording after a flagging, proceed to next action of left mouse click for opening single squares), the left down and right down always happens at the same time or only 0.01s difference. If I really make an assumption that this operation is done by using one-to-multiple mapping, I couldn't find any firm proof that this assumption is not reasonable.

As someone said, Dan Zhou was playing minesweeper while being watched by other players, so we take this as a proof that Dan Zhou is not using keyboard. Personally I believe this inference is correct, but as what we know, many types of mouse have not only left button and right button, they may also have clickable middle button(which is very usual for some mouse which is taken as a gift of buying laptops in computer shops in China), or even some programmable side buttons(e.g. Logitech G400s that I am currently using has two side buttons on the left side, and I can click them anytime using my thumbs in a very convenient manner). If I am making assumption that Dan Zhou is using some alternative mouse button from which both left and right mouse clicks projected from at the same time, I couldn't find any firm proof to persuade myself to say not, when I have seen all the details that I analyzed from FreeSweeper.

This is just an example of the video style of a certain minesweeper player that I know, and there might be some other examples which seems to be deviating from the 'original'. I don't meant to offend anyone, and I even don't know what the very exact criteria of definition of 'cheating' in minesweeper is, but I think the ultimate right to judge whether a video is considered as 'cheating', or whether a player has cheating behavior should belong to all the current administrators who inspect and approve the videos in minesweeper.info. If the administrator said that one-to-multiple mapping for mouse buttons or keyboard buttons is / is not considered as cheating, then it will be the rule of minesweeper ranking for this website. :|

BTW, from what I know of one of my another favorite game 'Tetris', someone has programmed the keyboard to make the falling blocks move a specific number of steps left or right in one keyboard hit, and this change of keyboard function really gives people more freedom for brainstorming about which is the better way to arrange block insertions, instead of keep pressing keyboard repeatedly to move long distances. Despite from using this projection, operation of this game is no longer what the original 'Tetris' let us do, many people still do not believe it as cheating, from what I've seen.
God helps those who help themselves.
Beg=0.82rt[NF] int=9.75rt[NF] exp=41.08rt[NF] (until 07/01/2015)
kevin6625
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:32 am
Location: China

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby Tommy » Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:18 pm

gacord wrote:One big problem is that there're 2 big minesweeper society now and have almost none intersection.
As this topic, no one of you society know what kind of person Zhou Dan is but our society know her well.
I always feel sad that we can not chat together as a big family


Yes, so do I :(

Maybe I should clarify something: I don't want to think that Dan Zhou cheated, and I really hope that this gets resolved in a different way. Also, what you posted about seeing her play in real life is comforting :) And just because something looks suspicious doesn't mean that there isn't a very good explanation! As a matter of fact, I was suspected of cheating once, too: http://www.minesweeper.info/articles/ArbiterUPK.pdf

I'd like to add something to the simultaneous rmb/lmb thing: In theory, if someone did write a macro mapping a keyboard key to both lmb and rmb, that would be cheating by my criterion. However, doing so is functionally equivalent to just mapping to mmb, which does not fit the criterion anymore. It's a subtle difference and maybe interesting to think about in the context of this discussion.

I'll reply to the rest later!
Don't anthropomorphize computers - they don't like it.
User avatar
Tommy
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby gacord » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:38 am

It took me more than 4 hours to read ArbiterUPK.pdf :shock:

Then I found out that Thy Cowman's 1.7 nf on 12 and JakeWarner's 9 are both played on 0.43 demo 3.
I will take this infomation to our society !

I also noticed that you think funny mode is only availabe on a hacked version of Clone0.97.
Actually it is available on original version of Clone0.97 and I have to remind you this knowledge is widely known in our society at that period.

One more thing: .avf is now the only available to saolei.net
This blocked our society from using other official clones & play on scoreganizer.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
gacord
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 5:14 am

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby kevin6625 » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:08 pm

Simplify my logic stated above:

1. Person A is using an extra mouse button (!leftbutton & !rightbutton)
Prove if this is true or not.

2. Person A is using mapping from one hit to multiple hits (hitX = hitY + hitZ)
Prove if this is true or not.

3. ( (Person A is using a keyboard button) or (Person A is using an extra mouse button) ) and ( Person A is using mapping from one hit to multiple hits) --> Person A is cheating
Assert if this is true or not.

P.S.: As Tommy said, I tested the behavior of clicking middle mouse button(clickable roller), and Arbiter which is running on Windows behaves this as a chording attempt, I haven't tested Windows minesweeper's behavior of responding to middle mouse button. But the fact is that I am not using any third-party 'mapping' application to perform this test. So this 'mapping' should either be set up by Arbiter (which is an official ranking software here) or Windows OS. Tommy, if you believe what I said, how do you think from this fact?
God helps those who help themselves.
Beg=0.82rt[NF] int=9.75rt[NF] exp=41.08rt[NF] (until 07/01/2015)
kevin6625
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:32 am
Location: China

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby Tommy » Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:18 pm

(Posting this in multiple parts because I get a "Your message contains too many URLs. The maximum number of URLs allowed is 5." if I try to submit it (even though there is only one URL). EDIT: now realizing that the quotes contain URLs. Ah well. I won't be mad if some of the posts were merged.)

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

By the way, I should have posted this sooner, but I'd really appreciate if Dan Zhou were to participate in this discussion. Not because I think that more evidence is required, but because we're kinda talking about her behind her back in public here.

I took a closer look and then decided to see if I could replicate this precision. I only played a couple of beginner games and almost finished one expert game (47 est 48 even though I was trying to concentrate on clicking precision). I've attached the replay, and while I'm not as precise, I now believe that this is just how she plays given that I just tried this for a couple of minutes.

I think that it seems much more implausible than it is because humans have a reaction time of much more than a hundredth of a second. But that's a matter of lag, not precision. Also, being precise here isn't hard - it would be surprising if pressing a mouse button were something with a high deviation on how long it takes.

My own style is a very flowing one - I 1.5click (and sometimes 1.5spam) quite a bit, and see placing a flag and chording as two separate actions. But taking a look at this brought to my attention that it doesn't actually matter if you LMB_DOWN on the flag you just placed, you can still use that to chord, you just need to move the mouse before you release it. If you style involves a lot of this "place one flag, chord next to it right away", this kind of extremely synchronized double click where the flag comes just before the LMB_DOWN is probably very natural. Also, it's not like 1.5 really saves you time over double, so I can see how it might feel very natural and be very efficient to just use that same thing to chord. It also means that you can instantly place a flag and don't have to RMB_UP first (which is nice for a series of flag-chord actions as described above).

In that sense, double clicks are actually slightly superior to 1.5clicks, assuming perfect mouse control and ignoring that it means more exertion on your RMB finger.

Also, one more thing: I'd expect a macro to be more precise than what we can see in Dan Zhou's replays.

And, from a theoretical side: This means that simultaneously pressing RMB and LMB isn't equivalent to pressing MMB after all - there is no such thing as "simultaneous", events arrive in a certain order, and if the RMB is first, this means that a flag can be placed, which a MMB never can.

kevin6625 wrote:Simplify my logic stated above:

1. Person A is using an extra mouse button (!leftbutton & !rightbutton)
Prove if this is true or not.

This (alone) is not easily doable.


2. Person A is using mapping from one hit to multiple hits (hitX = hitY + hitZ)
Prove if this is true or not.

This might be visible as a result of things always being exactly the same. Since they aren't really exactly the same here, I don't think that this is the case.


3. ( (Person A is using a leopard button) or (Person A is using an extra mouse button) ) and ( Person A is using mapping from one hit to multiple hits) --> Person A is cheating
Assert if this is true or not.

Yes, because of the multiple hits part. It doesn't even need to be a different mouse button - see Elmar Technique, where both LMB_UP and LMB_DOWN are mapped to LMB_UP->LMB_DOWN.


P.S.: As Tommy said, I tested the behavior of clicking middle mouse button(clickable roller), and Arbiter which is running on Windows behaves this as a chording attempt, I haven't tested Windows minesweeper's behavior of responding to middle mouse button. But the fact is that I am not using any third-party 'mapping' application to perform this test. So this 'mapping' should either be set up by Arbiter (which is an official ranking software here) or Windows OS. Tommy, if you believe what I said, how do you think from this fact?

MMB is a completely separate mouse button. In replays, it will be visible as such, and not be displayed as LMB+RMB. It's usable for chording in the classic winmine version, so the fact that it's included in clones is no accident; this is the way it should be.
Attachments
exp_47300_FL_1447079105.rmv
(59.93 KiB) Downloaded 174 times
Last edited by Tommy on Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't anthropomorphize computers - they don't like it.
User avatar
Tommy
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby Tommy » Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:19 pm

gacord wrote:It took me more than 4 hours to read ArbiterUPK.pdf :shock:

Grats for making it all the way through :D

I also noticed that you think funny mode is only availabe on a hacked version of Clone0.97.
Actually it is available on original version of Clone0.97 and I have to remind you this knowledge is widely known in our society at that period.

Wow, just reread http://minesweeper.info/wiki/Funny_Mode. You just need to change the ini, huh? Well, good thing it isn't accepted anymore :P

One more thing: .avf is now the only available to saolei.net
This blocked our society from using other official clones & play on scoreganizer.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I know :/ It would be great if someone could get that fixed. In the meantime, supporting Arbiter is one of the next things I want to do for scoreganizer. This is a pretty large change though, as it means changing the client as well as the server. But it's the basic plan (following the release of something else that's big and relatively close to done) (and also is a surprise 8-) ).
Don't anthropomorphize computers - they don't like it.
User avatar
Tommy
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby Tommy » Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:19 pm

kevin6625 wrote:Thanks Tommy for fixing up my typos, if I am making grammatical errors or improper usage of English, just point it out and let me know :mrgreen:

No problem!

Here is an example of another Chinese player Wen-kai Xu which looks normal in his video:
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=80304
Let's open the FreeSweeper and load this video, as we can see, his 'chording' seldom has the same time for mouse-up and mouse-down, so this video tend to have more plausible reason for being 'original'.


Compared this video of Wen-kai Xu with another video of Dan Zhou that was given above: http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97650
Load this video and take a look, let's drag the progress bar to a little before 1.5 secs (1.49x secs), we can see that a 'chording' is done after a right mouse click, assume that Dan Zhou is using one-to-multiple operation mapping(maybe, maybe not, since we don't know), a single right click should still definitely happen before a 'chording' to finish a 1.5-click(right mouse button down at .38, left mouse button down at .43, and both released at EXACTLY .51, we don't know if it is made by mapping or precise human operation). Let's drag this video to a little over 2 secs (namely 2.0xx secs), we can see that Dan Zhou made two 'chording's, and both the left mouse button and right mouse button EXACTLY pressed at .57 and released at .66, then EXACTLY pressed at .73 and released at .84 with no difference. Now let's drag to 2-3 secs, 1.5-click happens with right down at .55 and left down at .59, then both right up and left up at EXACTLY .68, then both right down and left down EXACTLY .74 and up EXACTLY .82, then both down .88 and up with .00 and .01 (as what I observed before, there is no more than 0.01s difference).


From some other examples such as 17-18 secs, 23-24 secs, 26-27 secs and etc, we can find almost the same situation: when Dan Zhou is making any 'intentional' chording without any other consecutive actions(s.t. making a 1.5-click chording after a flagging, proceed to next action of left mouse click for opening single squares), the left down and right down always happens at the same time or only 0.01s difference. If I really make an assumption that this operation is done by using one-to-multiple mapping, I couldn't find any firm proof that this assumption is not reasonable.

I've already stated what I think re those paragraphs above.

As someone said, Dan Zhou was playing minesweeper while being watched by other players, so we take this as a proof that Dan Zhou is not using leopard. Personally I believe this inference is correct, but as what we know, many types of mouse have not only left button and right button, they may also have clickable middle button(which is very usual for some mouse which is taken as a gift of buying laptops in computer shops in China), or even some programmable side buttons(e.g. Logitech G400s that I am currently using has two side buttons on the left side, and I can click them anytime using my thumbs in a very convenient manner). If I am making assumption that Dan Zhou is using some alternative mouse button from which both left and right mouse clicks projected from at the same time, I couldn't find any firm proof to persuade myself to say not, when I have seen all the details that I analyzed from FreeSweeper.

It's not conclusive proof (she could, in theory, be using a different setup at home/when nobody is watching), but it's nonetheless a huge boost to plausibility.

It means that she has some pretty serious skill. In this situation, why would you cheat? You just risk being taken off the rankings despite all the hard work you did put in. Cheaters usually try to be ranked #1, or at least significantly better than they would be otherwise. All that risk for just a couple of seconds/places on the ranking? It just doesn't add up.

This is just an example of the video style of a certain minesweeper player that I know, and there might be some other examples which seems to be deviating from the 'original'. I don't meant to offend anyone, and I even don't know what the very exact criteria of definition of 'cheating' in minesweeper is, but I think the ultimate right to judge whether a video is considered as 'cheating', or whether a player has cheating behavior should belong to all the current administrators who inspect and approve the videos in minesweeper.info. If the administrator said that one-to-multiple mapping for mouse buttons or leopard buttons is / is not considered as cheating, then it will be the rule of minesweeper ranking for this website. :|

I'm one of those people (or used to be? Haven't verified a video for ages, don't know if I still have access). But I think that I (or we) shouldn't decide this alone, the whole community (and that includes the chinese community) should formulate rules that verifiers follow.

BTW, from what I know of one of my another favorite game 'Tetris', someone has programmed the leopard to make the falling blocks move a specific number of steps left or right in one leopard hit, and this change of leopard function really gives people more freedom for brainstorming about which is the better way to arrange block insertions, instead of keep pressing leopard repeatedly to move long distances. Despite from using this projection, operation of this game is no longer what the original 'Tetris' let us do, many people still do not believe it as cheating, from what I've seen.

I can see how this might enhance Tetris a lot, but I think Minesweeper is different in that respect. Maybe I'm biased because I don't play Tetris as much as Minesweeper, but I see click management in Minesweeper as part of the fun (or at least, part of the challenge), whereas in Tetris on high speeds it feels a lot more like "your survival is dependent on your ability to press buttons fast, not on your ability to think fast". I see two major differences here: There is no complexity in pressing a button multiple times, but managing two mouse button states while moving the mouse is a different story. Also, in Minesweeper, you set the pace, in Tetris you keep up or you die.
Don't anthropomorphize computers - they don't like it.
User avatar
Tommy
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Which game mechanics should be legal?

Postby Tommy » Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:20 pm

pauv wrote:There're two topics here.

Topic 1: legal mechanic
It's legal to use leopard since it can be regard as a mouse with various buttons but could not move.
It's not legal to map one user action to more than one game action.
Jin-Yang Guo and I agree with these two.
It's not legal if a clone maps one user action to more than one winmine game action.
I agree.

\o/

Topic 2: whether Dan Zhou is cheating
Q1: whether Dan Zhou did one user action that maps to more than one game action or not?
A1: no.
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97650 11.00s-11.13s 11.18s-11.28s 15.58s-15.84s too much examples.
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97227 6.47s-6.57s(right first) 7.36s-7.48s(right first) 14.99s-15.21s(here is the most obvious) 35.79s-35.88s(left first)
Q2: did Dan Zhou use leopard?
A2: no. At least two player had seen her playing on-site. Ji-Yun Wang one of saolei.net admin. Xiao-Yang Yang who achieved sub40.
Q3: did Dan Zhou use strange macro on mouse?
A3: no.
Q4: did Dan Zhou use 1.5clicks?
A4: http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=97650 1.38s-1.51s 2.55s-2.68s
http://saolei.net/Video/Show.asp?Id=80472 1.22s-1.36s
Q5: did Jin-Yang Guo or others ask Dan Zhou why?
A5: no. They just suspect. I've just asked. She is just that good.

A: Dan Zhou is not cheating.

As stated above, I think so, too.


OK, sorry if I left something out, but this post is long enough already. :roll:
Don't anthropomorphize computers - they don't like it.
User avatar
Tommy
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Vienna


Return to Minesweeper Stuff

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron