Cheating with low voltages on a DK board

I really hope it does not get deleted, like other threads have.

Aside from the furry shit, there's valid information here that people who aren't familiar with can learn about. Folks can google random number generation, and learn about the different types that exist, the strengths, weaknesses, and costs of each, and when some are needed over others. You can also google statistical analysis of random numbers, measures of randomness, and other related topics. Then everyone might have a better ability to understand the issue in the OP, and how it could be investigated.

Or people can shitpost.

The few posts with any half-interesting pertaining to the actual subject negate the fact that this thread is filled with jabs and vile crap. The cons outweigh the pros. Just my opinion.
 
The RNG and PRNG talk can be gobbledygook to some - me included. What is easier to understand is gameplay video of DK to analyze if what Robbie is saying is true. Basically, are the fireballs on the barrel boards staying low for John Mccurdy vs for Robbie Lakeman? The answer to that is yes. And that gives a big advantage to John with more time to point press.

Then comes the hard part. Why? Is it a board thing, is it a voltage thing? What is the difference maker causing this? I'll leave that to the pro techs.

To call Robbie a cheater is dead wrong. Just cuz he has the brain power (I bet his IQ is 150) to notice a gameplay anomaly and try to replicate it for himself is far from cheating. It's more like evening the playing field. Most of the top DK players use the same "type" of DK pcb - I'm sorry that I can't remember the model # for it. But that isn't considered cheating. They figured out that one certain type of board stack that Nintendo made is best for big scores.

TG says you have to play on "original arcade hardware". To me that means the pcb, CRT, joystick and buttons. There is no mention from TG about power standards (as far as I know) so original power OR a switcher would be allowed and so would adjusting the voltage.
 
The RNG and PRNG talk can be gobbledygook to some - me included. What is easier to understand is gameplay video of DK to analyze if what Robbie is saying is true. Basically, are the fireballs on the barrel boards staying low for John Mccurdy vs for Robbie Lakeman? The answer to that is yes. And that gives a big advantage to John with more time to point press.

Then comes the hard part. Why? Is it a board thing, is it a voltage thing? What is the difference maker causing this? I'll leave that to the pro techs.

To call Robbie a cheater is dead wrong. Just cuz he has the brain power (I bet his IQ is 150) to notice a gameplay anomaly and try to replicate it for himself is far from cheating. It's more like evening the playing field. Most of the top DK players use the same "type" of DK pcb - I'm sorry that I can't remember the model # for it. But that isn't considered cheating. They figured out that one certain type of board stack that Nintendo made is best for big scores.

TG says you have to play on "original arcade hardware". To me that means the pcb, CRT, joystick and buttons. There is no mention from TG about power standards (as far as I know) so original power OR a switcher would be allowed and so would adjusting the voltage.
It boils down to what causes the game play differences seen in the video, without all the gobbledygook, it's the PLAYER that causes the games to act differently. There's another similar thread discussing this "randomness" seen in a Defender. The actions and timing of the player create the differences in the games, they may not realize it OR they might in the case of "pro" players. This is the reason "patterns" exists for specific games, if you are able to make the EXACT same moves and timing the game play will be EXACTLY alike. Remember at it's core the game is just a computer running a predefined sequence of instructions, (this is where it's important to understand that PRNGs are predictable and repeatable in the "random" number they create). Is it "cheating" if a player figures out a certain sequence of movements and timings will cause the fireballs to stay low? In my OPINION it's not any different then using a pattern on Pacman to obtain a high score. But everyone can have there own OPINION on this.
 
It boils down to what causes the game play differences seen in the video, without all the gobbledygook, it's the PLAYER that causes the games to act differently. There's another similar thread discussing this "randomness" seen in a Defender. The actions and timing of the player create the differences in the games, they may not realize it OR they might in the case of "pro" players. This is the reason "patterns" exists for specific games, if you are able to make the EXACT same moves and timing the game play will be EXACTLY alike.
I feel that this is the best explanation of the different behaviors people can experience on the exact same hardware/software. Once you reach a certain level of proficiency, knowledge, muscle memory, what-have-you, with a certain game, you will recognize those patterns, and with enough understanding, can exploit them to your advantage.

It's pretty widely known in console speed runs about how "pixel perfect" precise control is needed to get the world records there, see here, where they discuss how Mario's sub-pixel location is used to activate certain glitches to trim off precious seconds. I watched a video explaining it a while back and the guys who do those runs usually fail on the first level hundreds or thousands of times before they get it right.

There's even examples of people who technically re-program the game by controlling Mario and performing what seems like random actions in the game, but behind the scenes, memory locations/values are being manipulated (SMB3 world record holder did this to glitch all the way to credits screen). Is there any chance something like this is happening with DK?
 
There's even examples of people who technically re-program the game by controlling Mario and performing what seems like random actions in the game, but behind the scenes, memory locations/values are being manipulated (SMB3 world record holder did this to glitch all the way to credits screen). Is there any chance something like this is happening with DK?
I wouldn't call it "reprogramming the game" since technically you are not changing any of the ROMs but it's totally possible and feasible to "change game behavior" by doing seemingly random actions and timings. Even things like when the coin was dropped or where in the attract sequence you start the game may change the "behavior" Again this is very possible and even likely in this case for DK. This is where opinions about "cheating" get really philosophical. Is it cheating to exploit these behaviors which may even be bugs in the original game program? Is knowing these "exploits" and using them part of "mastering the game". I won't even attempt to answer these questions.
 
Sounds like pole position. Isn't there a certain pattern of cars that come up that guarantee no crashes if you always pass on the left?

Honestly I'm surprised there aren't more glitches in these old games. I bet there wasn't even a QA team testing code back then.
 
The RNG and PRNG talk can be gobbledygook to some - me included. What is easier to understand is gameplay video of DK to analyze if what Robbie is saying is true. Basically, are the fireballs on the barrel boards staying low for John Mccurdy vs for Robbie Lakeman? The answer to that is yes. And that gives a big advantage to John with more time to point press.

Then comes the hard part. Why? Is it a board thing, is it a voltage thing? What is the difference maker causing this? I'll leave that to the pro techs.

(This reply is aimed at people who want to learn more about this discussion. Else you are free to skip this wall of text, and not bitch about it.)

Understanding random number generation, and how the details of random numbers work (which is an entire subfield of math/engineering) are part of answering that question. Hence the discussion here. If you don't understand any of the terms being discussed, you can google them and learn more. (Or ask and I'll gladly take the time to explain, even if Mark won't.) My interest on this forum is just as much about teaching and learning, as it is fixing stuff.

Random systems can behave seemingly non-randomly sometimes. You can take a penny and flip it ten times, and there is an actual computable probability that you will get ten heads (or tails) in a row, even if the coin is completely fair and not rigged in any way. And that probability is not zero.

Similarly, you can take a room full of 25 random people, and the chance that two people in the room will have the same birthday turns out to be about 50%. That answer may not seem intuitive at first, but you can actually see why it's correct when you go through a proper mathematical analysis (and it turns out to actually not be that difficult to see or understand). But the point is, randomness doesn't always behave as you might expect.

That's also partly because of the nature of THOSE random systems, as not all random systems are equal. (And that's part of the reason for the RNG/PRNG discussion.) Other types of random systems (particularly ones that are not 'truly' random, but are designed to look 'random enough' to fool a human) may not behave the same way, and some have underlying patterns or algorithms to them that can be exploited, or that can cause artifacts that you may not expect. But you need to understand ALL of the details of a system in order to say.

And just because you see a random system behave one way once, that also doesn't necessarily mean it's repeatable. One video of one guy getting a different fireball pattern doesn't really demonstrate anything (aside from the fact that it CAN happen), as you really don't know if he just happened to get lucky that one game. Because randomness is well, random.

As for the 'difference maker', that is also what we are discussing. As toledoflyer said, if the way the randomness is generated is in any way tied to anything that is affected by the actions of the player (even indirectly), via hardware or software, then it may be possible that something that one player is doing (just as part of their style of play, not necessarily intentionally) could affect the randomness of the fireballs. And I'm not saying that IS the case here, just stating it as a hypothetical example of understanding the problem. But it's necessary to deeply understand the ENTIRE system (including the hardware, software, impact of any other factors like gameplay on the hardware/software, as well as the details of measuring and analyzing randomness) in order to actually say anything *meaningful* about it.

You have a handful of 'pro techs' here, including many people with hardware experience, and at least three actual professional electrical engineers (who are trained and experienced in the area of probability and randomness, as it's part of our job). It's arguably the best collection of people on this forum for this topic. If anyone on KLOV could come up with a theory for how it could be possible for voltage to affect the randomness of the fireballs, it would be the people in this thread. (Though it would still take some measurements and actual data and analysis to validate any theory, as that's a critical part of the scientific process, and having a theory alone is not proof.) Once you have a theory, you use it to make new predictions about a system or process, design experiments around those predictions, and then see if your theory accurately predicts the new outcomes. And without that very important validation step, all you really have is speculation.

Science is a process, not an answer. And a lot of the time it's messy, especially when you're trying to figure a problem out. But so far, nobody has been able to even give an explanation as to how it MIGHT be possible, let alone a theory that is actually testable. I suspect (as my *personal opinion*) that if it is possible, SOMEONE in the world would take the time to figure it out and properly test/publish it eventually, as it would be an interesting exercise, and they'd probably get a bit of attention for it, at least within the gaming community. But the people who usually have the skills and knowledge to look into something like this usually also don't have the time.

But in lieu of that, we can at least talk about the elements that would go into trying to solve the problem (or at least investigate it) for people who want to learn, which is still perfectly appropriate for a discussion forum. And if that sparks someone to delve deeper into it and actually produce something meaningful, that's even better.
 
Is this about the fireball deployment. If so see subroutine at #2DDB. Deploy Fireballs/Firefoxes.


Looks like Framecounter is involved. Let's define exactly the problem, then look at the source code and maybe schematics to see if there is a way to manipulate the issue.

All props to furrykef for documenting and making public commented donkey kong source code.
 
To call Robbie a cheater is dead wrong. Just cuz he has the brain power (I bet his IQ is 150) to notice a gameplay anomaly and try to replicate it for himself is far from cheating. It's more like evening the playing field. Most of the top DK players use the same "type" of DK pcb - I'm sorry that I can't remember the model # for it. But that isn't considered cheating. They figured out that one certain type of board stack that Nintendo made is best for big scores.

I can't imagine living with that level of autism through my adult life.
 
Most of the top DK players use the same "type" of DK pcb - I'm sorry that I can't remember the model # for it. But that isn't considered cheating. They figured out that one certain type of board stack that Nintendo made is best for big scores.

The PCBs are functionally identical. The ROM sets vary.

TG says you have to play on "original arcade hardware". To me that means the pcb, CRT, joystick and buttons. There is no mention from TG about power standards (as far as I know) so original power OR a switcher would be allowed and so would adjusting the voltage.

The original power supply is a switcher.
 

tenor.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom