Mario Kart MB - Print Page

Mario Kart MB
https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Mario Kart >> Mario Kart 7 >> Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
https://www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1532766001

Message started by Martijn Veldhuis on 07/28/18 at 00:20:01

Title: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Martijn Veldhuis on 07/28/18 at 00:20:01

https://youtu.be/Gmm7LpSK6hU

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nick Renzetti on 08/01/18 at 22:49:50

Should be glitch, cutting a portion of the track that definitely wasn’t intended to be possible, also isn’t just a “corner cut”.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Kleenex on 08/02/18 at 04:03:49

785F555E595A5745645358360 wrote:

Should be glitch, cutting a portion of the track that definitely wasn’t intended to be possible, also isn’t just a “corner cut”.

Same can be said about the rDDJ glidercut... Does that mean it's a glitch?

www.mariokart64.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1493337667 linking this thread from the MKWii section about the rBC3 glitch since both strats share similarities and some good points were made, like "mario did 9/11"

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Martijn Veldhuis on 08/02/18 at 05:23:37

2 Important points for a Glitch are:

- Respawn
- Going through walls to reach that point

It's both not applicable in this situation. Cutting a part of the track isn't a good reason to call it a Glitch. But I could understand it if you would cut the half track.
Matthew Huinker (AR holder from rBC1 said it cuts like 2 seconds.)
rDDJ glidercut cuts that too or even more and that's not called a glitch.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nick Renzetti on 08/02/18 at 07:20:15

rDDJ shortcut is made far more easily possible by the glider, and I would consider it to be only a corner cut. However, on rBC1 you’re using a barrier that you’re not even supposed to be on in the first place to skip over more of the track than the current glitch does, though respawn isn’t involved it’s the same principle

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by BMence on 08/02/18 at 08:20:54

1) "on rBC1 you’re using a barrier that you’re not even supposed to be on in the first place" : how can you say such a thing. Are you in the head of developers? Did you speak with them? Plus, NG WR uses walls forever. Making a NG or G category by guessing what developers thought is ueless. Ballon boost, gap cut on rMG,... can you tell which are possible on purpose? Nope.

2) Some cuts save indeed more than that cut found by Thomas, for example rDDJ final gider SC. That SC is litteraly comparable to Thomas's SC: normal roads (parallel) separed by a non-drivable area (montain or lava), if you cut too much, it doesn't count (respawn on DDJ, no lap count on BC1).

3) Who cares if that saves or cut more than glitch does. It's safe to say glitches are probably the thing developers didn't intend to create. If a cut saves more than a glitch, that makes that glitch useless. Point. There are a bunch of good respawn in the game. They don't save enough compared to some strats (example: MW final respawn, which was used in some G WRs in the past. Then we found gliderbouce was faster, so this glitch became useless).

4) Like Martijn said, no respawn involved, and you don't drive through any texture. That's litteraly the 2 only things which can make it a GLITCH, since 2011. In MKWII, there is a "SC category", no glitch one. Furthermore, than SC category is the official one on the WR site. How can those 2 games be compared therefore.

The ONLY valid argument (my opinion) is that the lap being count by the game is a random thing (for the moment). We think that's because there is a checkpoint at the limit. But that lap in the video was perhaps valid because he touched the lava after the cut. If that's the case, that would mean a checkpoint has been passed and lava is a way to "fool" the game. But in that case, that SC wouldn't be faster anyway. And it wouldn't mean either this SC should be considered as a glicth: NBC shroomcut would have, if it's the case, the same mechanics (indeed, if you do the shroomcut, then touch the road and fell off AFTER the cut, you will get the respawn where you've entered the cut approximately, which means you haven't reached the following checkpoint after the cut). So you see that's not an argument finally.

In conclusion, there is absolutely no argument to make it a glitch, at least I haven't read one valid to my eyes.

Well anyway, length cut in this track is much more less than in NBC, rDC or rMT, where lap counts without any problem. It's for me thanks to the lava, until someone shows a video where lap counts without touching the lava...

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by TvK on 08/02/18 at 11:25:44

I'm on board with Mence. I say this is non-glitch.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Martijn Veldhuis on 08/02/18 at 11:42:41

Then I think the decision is made.
Should I close the poll?

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Batman5112 on 08/02/18 at 13:49:19

First, the argument this strat is a glitch -> ddj/mg glider cuts should be glitches too is ridiculous. Those cuts are 100% intended by the developers. The glider will cancel on its own when you go to unintended areas with it.

From what I am reading, this strat abuses checkpoints, making it a glitch in my book. Correct me if I'm wrong: For all other shortcuts, you don't have to worry about driving over certain parts of the track in order to count the lap [smiley=ninja.gif] [smiley=ninja.gif] [smiley=ninja.gif]

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nick Renzetti on 08/02/18 at 14:04:42

6E4D58414D422C0 wrote:

Exactly. I think the main difference between this and rDDJ/rMG is that the developers certainly knew the glider cuts would be possible. I just don’t see how a shortcut like this could be catigorized as normal play rather than a glitch, respawn or not.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Kleenex on 08/02/18 at 16:25:48

TvK turning up and jumping on the no glitch wagon right off the bat, without any explanation... Sounds like a wolfish move to me.

47647168646B050 wrote:

Those cuts are 100% intended by the developers. The glider will cancel on its own when you go to unintended areas with it.

53747E7572717C6E4F78731D0 wrote:

Exactly. I think the main difference between this and rDDJ/rMG is that the developers certainly knew the glider cuts would be possible.

This is totally subjective though, and it's hard to set proper rules when being subjective.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by BMence on 08/02/18 at 17:08:45

OMFG I thought I was clear enough.

1) YOU CANNOT infer if a strat was intended or not by the developers. Was ballon boost intended. Was gap cut on rMG WITHOUT glider intended? Was turncut on NBC intended? Was the BC1 cut intended? Was the rMC2 WR strat intended? MP grind? You cannot say one of those was and not the others. So that's a POINTLESS argument to consider it as a glitch or not.

2) We have NOT enough knowledge to say if this strat requires to touch lava, to be enough on the right,... So we CANNOT say it abuses checkpoints or whatever atm. The principles of A GLICTH WR ON MK7 are NON-EXISTENT when you see this SC. And talking about checkpoints when WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THEM, even on other tracks, is a dumb thing. Example: do you know if you are skipping any checkpoint by doing the rCM2 WR strat? No. Perhaps you are skipping one, then passing the following checkpoint make the lap count. Same for NBC. I didn't say you had to manipule the game for BC1 PLEASE READ CORRECTLY, itr was just a possibility.

And please stop talking about MKwii that's dumb. Because as I said, the categories are normal WRs + non-SCs WRs, which is VERY different from No-glitch /Glitch.

And Kleenex, TvK was just approving my post, did you prefer a copy/past from him??!

EDIT: on BC1, you can cut even much more of the track but it won't count. You can cut less, cf. WR strat lap 1 where you are cutting the corner and even jumping over a part of it out of a MT. And the lap counts. So, if you can cut more on the track and make it count, why the fuck shouldn't it be a no glitch WR? WWe are just talking about succeeding a strat which doesn't break any of no-glitch rules.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nick Renzetti on 08/02/18 at 18:25:55

6E74464B464A424944426E270 wrote:

1) You’re right about those strategies most likely not being intended, however those are more like corner cuts than the rBC1 glitch. Also, there are differences in a lot of those glitches;

rMG: No barrier blocks you from hopping the gap.
NBC: No barrier again.
rMC2: Wasn’t intended, but I’d still say it’s not a glitch because you aren’t really cutting a section of a track all at once, but rather taking a shorter route.

2) Point. If you don’t have much knowledge on the shortcut, how can you rush to conclude that it’s not a glitch?

One could argue that a ‘glitch’ only refers to manipulating the software to advance you further up the track (Lakitu glitches). However, that isn’t the only type of glitch, I’ve played and followed several Mario Karts over the years and know when a shortcut is big enough or executed in a way where it should be considered a glitch, and this is definitely one of those times. Sometimes, it’s just a judgement call; most non-Lakitu situations are like this. In fact, there’s quite a few glitches in MK7 that are non-Lakitu, such as;

NBC
rMT
rDC
rLM

Though the new rBC1 shortcut doesn’t cut as much time as those, it’s still executed in about the same way (especially NBC, using a barrier you shouldn’t be on to angle you up and over to the next part of the track).

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Batman5112 on 08/02/18 at 18:49:36

4852606D606C646F626448010 wrote:

on BC1, you can cut even much more of the track but it won't count.

It's safe to assume you're skipping a key checkpoint then. Lets look at your example:

4852606D606C646F626448010 wrote:

do you know if you are skipping any checkpoint by doing the rCM2 WR strat? No. Perhaps you are skipping one, then passing the following checkpoint make the lap count. Same for NBC.

a. if you were skipping a checkpoint here, how come rbc1 won't count despite driving by checkpoints at the end of the level?
b. if you weren't skipping a checkpoint here, wouldn't this conclude you are skipping a checkpoint at rbc1 because it doesn't count?

as we extensively know about the checkpoint system in mkw, mkw isn't completely useless to bring up. it is prior knowledge you can bring to the table in a discussion like this one. Yes we know nothing about the checkpoint system here, but not only shouldn't you rule out the possibly it operates similarly/identically to mkw, you shouldn't exclude the issue because we know nothing about how it works. Your current rules for non-glitch already deal with checkpoint manipulation in the form of respawn glitches. Here you are taking the exact same "sc" just without the respawn giving you a helping hand. Remember respawn alone doesn't constitute respawn glitches to be glitches.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by BMence on 08/02/18 at 19:10:35

I've said all I had to say anyway. None care if a glitch can bring you near this section of the track. That's a TOTALLY different thing. What if you consider the glitch never existed. Honestly that's dumb af to consider it as a glitch because the glitch is slower and can do a "similar" thing. That makes just the glitch useless, point.

Nick, I don't understand at all your point 2), it makes no sense at all, it isn't AT ALL executed in the same way as those glitch, at first because kart doesn't go through any texture, not like the tracks you told............... Andabout your point 1)... have you ever done rMG gap cut without glider? That's litteraly 10 times more glitchy when you do it than any no glitch strat in the game. and a barrier should block you on NBC, but timing helps to go under it. Oh wait, timing, I said... and that BC1 strat, timing... mmmh??!

And about respawns, that's because they are far from the spot you fell off. Every track using glitch respawns rules that way. Nintendo patches the most problematic ones for online.

I still haven't read one valid argument to consider it as a glitch tbh, so I'm really stopping the discussion there until something interesting is written.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Kleenex on 08/02/18 at 19:16:21

0D1725282529212A27210D440 wrote:

And Kleenex, TvK was just approving my post, did you prefer a copy/past from him??!

Oh, don't mind me, I'm just memeing. :)

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nick Renzetti on 08/02/18 at 20:39:10

I’ll try to make my point as simple as possible, it’s the exact same as the Lakitu glitch without the respawn factor as Batman said. Skipping a whole big U-turn over by using a barrier to angle yourself over lava that’s out of bounds and definitely isn’t intended to be possible (you can argue all you want that we don’t know what was intended by Nintendo but it’s just common sense that Thomas’ strat was 100% unintended and unexpected).

In what course can you just jump over a big out of bounds area protected by barriers without the use of a glider and have it count as a non glitch time?

I’ve already made all my points so I’m done here, hopefully the right decision is made

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Batman5112 on 08/02/18 at 22:05:52

716B595459555D565B5D71380 wrote:

And about respawns, that's because they are far from the spot you fell off. Every track using glitch respawns rules that way.

Not MW.
this doesn't really answer my concern. Respawn glitches are a thing because you tricked the game into believing you fell from somewhere else (i.e., the game determines you must be at a further checkpoint rather than the actual last checkpoint you were at). So now, lets trick the game again, required to count the lap, but this time we'll avoid falling off and land on the track instead. In essence, it's the same principle. Same glitch.

53747E7572717C6E4F78731D0 wrote:

I’ve already made all my points so I’m done here, hopefully the right decision is made

Whatever the case it won't affect scrubs like us [smiley=lolk.gif]

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nick Renzetti on 08/02/18 at 22:30:15

5D7E6B727E711F0 wrote:

[quote author=716B595459555D565B5D71380 link=1532766001/0#15 date=1533265835]
[quote author=53747E7572717C6E4F78731D0 link=1532766001/0#17 date=1533271150]
I’ve already made all my points so I’m done here, hopefully the right decision is made

Whatever the case it won't affect scrubs like us [smiley=lolk.gif][/quote]

If I only knew how to line up SSMTs correctly, that’s what’s holding me back :P

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by SilverMK on 08/02/18 at 22:37:27

00272D2621222F3D1C2B204E0 wrote:

Well according to the coding of the game and tests ive done in-game the “out of bounds” is farther down the track
;)

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by ALAKTORN on 10/25/18 at 12:11:44

lol what the fuck people actually believe this is NG? Wow.

It’s a huge shortcut involving jumping from one plane of the track to another plane of the exact same height, this isn’t a “corner cut” or a glider cut like DDJ or jumping from above to a below place or whatever, it’s a shortcut that makes no sense in NG.

What’s the checkpoints situation anyway? Can’t this be considered a glitch on grounds of skipping checkpoints? I don’t know how this game works. How do the other ultra shortcuts work?

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Martijn Veldhuis on 12/01/18 at 03:29:42

Thomas and CatFish used this strat in their PR's yesterday.

Thomas 1:10.756 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJr7x6U4B2Q (Would be NG WR.)
Catfish 1:10.820 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9iDHh-dEyk (Would be 3rd WW NG.)
Flap 21.281 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx5g-CDPEJ0 (Would beat the previous NG BKF by over a second.)

Both 3 lap runs are failed runs.

Here some important points mentioned in the mk7 discord server today:

- how is jumping into the lava to hit the checkpoint a glitch, while jumping wide to hit the checkpoint isnt
this gapcut is just a faster way of doing the glitch
- you are abusing checkpoints just as much as you are with the normal respawn glitch
unless respawning is somehow a glitch i dont see how one is a glitch and the other isnt
if you ask my opinion we should drop the word "glitch" entirely and just use sc/non-sc
then you can actually have a discussion about what should be what
- Statement: Just make 3 categories / Answer: 1/ BC1 isn't the only track which has SC. It's a shortcut as well as many others in other tracks.
2/ Makes it confusing for the PP ranking/WRs
so would you make a category for guys using gap cut?
Glidercut if it's used one day on WS?
Turncut?
- People have voted, maybe should vote again
- on nbc you hit every key checkpoint in the intened manner
with rbc1 you're hitting a checkpoint in midair that you're supposed to hit while driving on the ground

I think this are important statements.

The time has come to make a final judgement.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/01/18 at 04:08:19

I see a lot of players saying that it is NG and I agree with them:

We have a lot of NG shortcuts in mk7 and I don't see why this shortcut suddenly should be Glitch. I understand that it is confusing that a new NG strat can beat the rBC1 G WR but that's not a reason to categorize it as Glitch. I think it would be against all logic that we used before, and that we then should start questioning other shortcuts used on tracks like NBC, rMG, RIW,... .
Like said here above: All glitch tracks that we have now are going through walls/textures or getting an advantage from respawns.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Martijn Veldhuis on 12/01/18 at 05:54:58

5A6E7978796E7579772C2A1C0 wrote:

You forgot to mention the point that there's a checkpoint in the air. CatFish also said it doesn't work online.

Some other points mentioned later:

- In mkw you dont need to skip checkpoints for it to be glitch category.
For example desert hills shortcut is in glitch category because it has a wall clip which is not intended, bowser castle also because you go through a wall, gba bc3 also because it messes up with the physics, and more. Even stuff like beam bounce on wgm or wall climb on mg are banned in no glitch category because they are glitches in the game mechanics.
By that logic - jump boosting as done in rbc1 should be glitch/sc category because its not an intended mechanic
- Question how do you know this is patched online ?
I think it's because it uses the same respawn as the traditional glitch, stupid question lol
Answeryes it does
- Ig if the sc doesn't work online it has other issues left up for debate
- bc3 cut and bc1 cut a similar area of the track

You have seen the rBC3 sc in mkw? It's exactly the same idea and Eleking said it doesn't count as non-sc.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by MKWilliam on 12/01/18 at 10:04:50

Rbc3 counts as shortcut, not glitch though. The whole thing we have here is that mk7 has different sets of rules for glitch/no glitch than mkwii. In mkwii, shortcut is the main category, as the goal is to go as fast as possible, and not all of them are inherently glitches. Mk7, we have no glitch as the main category, and glitch as the other one. If we had bc3 shortcut in mk7, it wouldn't be able to be called a glitch. It's most similar Imo to grumble volcano rock-hop, which is classed as a shortcut. But that track has glitch with starting rock glitch, shortcut with rockhop, and no glitch with none of the above. So the term glitch needs to be defined or changed before an actual decision can actually be made on this

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by ApG77 on 12/02/18 at 11:23:09

NBC turncut = cuts a part of the map with a shroom without the respawn = NG
rBC1 Thomas start = cuts a part of the map with a shroom without the respawn = NG

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Master Kek on 12/02/18 at 14:02:05

This game is stupid

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Catfish on 12/02/18 at 15:13:45

-cuts off a huge portion of the track
-you need to stop and align to do it
-patched out by nintendo for online play
-causes the lap not to count 95% of the time
-literally just a faster version of the old respawn glitch

why is there still an argument

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by WillD on 12/02/18 at 17:57:06

496B7E6C6379620A0 wrote:

I like you. Your opinions are on point [smiley=beer.gif]

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Martijn Veldhuis on 12/02/18 at 23:33:30

5766512121160 wrote:

NBC turncut = cuts a part of the map with a shroom without the respawn = NG
rBC1 Thomas start = cuts a part of the map with a shroom without the respawn = NG

This makes 0 sense. You forgot to mention everything except that. Which didn't already made sense before the discussion started.

0B293C2E213B20480 wrote:

I agree as well. I think we finally came to a solution. The staff is discussing about it right now. But it looks like they and me agree with you, Jacob and Nicola.

That 3rd reason is mentioned in the staff server. And it looks like it's enough to call it a Glitch since it's an unintended shortcut and not just a normal jump.

But things could still change.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by BMence on 12/03/18 at 01:03:16

I'm laughing hard if it's considered as a glicth because 4 people out of all MK7 players decided it. Half of them not playing the game for years. If you don't make a poll where everyone make a unique vote, this will be a mess in any way. How would a vote for mister Martijn be heavier than Thomas's vote. What the fuck?

Litteraly EVERY argument i've seen here isn't good in my pov. Because there are tracks where you cut a big portion of the track with a shortcut, and where the time gained is as much if not more than there,even if we take into account the shortness of this track? Just calculate I know you can.

2/ nbc turncut is a strat where you need to slow down a lot too. Maybe in the future you won't even need to stop with perfect timing, as it's also the case for nbc. Same goes for rMG gap cut for example. How the fuck is this even an argument, that's just how the STRAT works. Big new: you need to brake at WP u-turn. Oh shit that's a glitch!!! You have to stop for rMC2 new glider strat? So is it a glitch? l o l

3/ As it has been said 10000000 times, they patched the glicthed respawn. Holy shit. That strat has been discovered 3 years after the patch. Nintendo got lazy to make other patches after the one they made, despite other strong glitches being discovered (rMT, rDC,...). . Do you think Nintendo ever wanted to patch that strat? Even though we are not in developper's head I agree they didn't know this strat was possible. Would a patch there have been created if they knew that strat was possible but glicth respawn was impossible: we don't know, but I think they wouldn't have done anything.

4/ Lap doesn't count in a lot of cases: that's because you did the strat wrong. There is NO luck involved in TT, just precision and timing. If you have no precision and timing, you will fail strats which require it, Glicth and NG strats. And you'll have to restart.

5/ How is the argument that it's faster than the glitch respawn even an argument. There are a lot of "glicthes" you don't use but could because the normal way is faster. BC after barrel or MW (before, respawn was used in S3).

To me that's a shortcut. My arguments have been written there and on Discord. I agree with Jacob when he says we haven't made clear rules and clear terms 7 years ago so that's nearly impossible to agree with a person who believe the contrary you believe. So that's simple, in such a situation, make a poll. It's not like if it's hard to make, is it? 4 people who have no legitimity because not respresenting even half the community and not being elected shouldn't decide alone.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by IAMPRO99 on 12/03/18 at 08:34:02

reminder that considering catfish has already beaten the existing glitch time with this strat, you'd be getting rid of a wr in the game if you braindead people decided that this should count as no glitch and just because some people have been playing the game longer that doesn't mean their opinion means anything more than anyone else's and that they're automatically correct, you're all too quick to listen to someone's opinion because you feel they are superior to you, it sounds even more stupid the more you think about it

relevant edit: if you're going to compare to other tracks compare it to tracks that are more relevant to the situation, not just any track that pops into your head

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by BMence on 12/03/18 at 09:47:32

What are you even talking about? The only no-sense there is Thomas's 1:10.756 not being count as a WR at all because he purposely avoided doing the glitch respawn lap 3, and he didn't do that because there have been discussions about c onsidering it NG/G on this forum months ago and it came out of this debate that twice as much people considered it as NG than G. You guys are at first some months late come on :) :)

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by IAMPRO99 on 12/03/18 at 10:02:11

Boo hoo thomas doesn't get a WR we don't need a massive sob story about it, CF beat his time anyway and if thomas wants to reclaim he can try do so, yeah i can see thomas would have had it for however long he did which i assume wasn't even 2 days but it still got beat regardless. that's the most lame excuse for an excuse i've ever seen, seeing as thomas already did the strat once in his run already, it's going to be categorised as whatever it's decided on anyway. again just another pathetic excuse.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by BMence on 12/03/18 at 10:25:45

Sorry man but are you drunk? You've written 3 lines still I don't see any argument there, I know you can better. That's pathetic af.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by IAMPRO99 on 12/03/18 at 10:33:31

well what was your argument in your previous comment??????????????????????????????

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/03/18 at 11:45:57

041E2C212C2028232E28044D0 wrote:

Hi Mence,
I don't think that a poll is a good way to decide whether a strat should be categorized as G or NG. It would be better that the community as a whole could come to an agreement through debating.
So let us try to convince each other, preferably without swearing.

First I was with you and I inclined to call it NG. But several players brought up a few good reasons and convinced me that it is in fact Glitch.

Here is what I would answer on your 5 points:

1/ I agree, a shortcut is not the same as a glitch. And maybe yes, how big of a shortcut it is, shouldn’t really matter.

2/ I agree too, slowing down to do a strat… I don’t see why this is an argument.

3/ They patched the glitch respawn online. What tells us with 100 % certainty that, according to the game developers, it wasn’t meant to exist. So if they would have made rBC1 like it was meant to be from launch, without the possibility to glitch, then the lap would never be counted with Thomas his strat. What means: the strat is also a glitch. A shortcut that was for sure never intended to exist.
Jacob confirmed that it is not possible to do online.
Yes, at first I also looked at a video of the new strat and I saw a shortcut, there is no respawn no going through walls or anything. But it is a glitch nevertheless.

4/ The lap doesn’t count in a lot of cases: Paradox said: if we don't call this glitch, this would be the only NG shortcut that can result in laps not counting as a result of not hitting checkpoints properly.
Maybe he has a good point. But we don’t know for certain how the checkpoint there exactly works and what triggers it.

5/ Here I agree with you again: It’s obvious to me that a new nonglitch strat that is faster than glitch, doesn’t make the strat glitch.

About your conclusion:
It’s proven now that we lack clear rules or definitions of what a MK7 Glitch really is. But a poll could never make those rules. It would be mk7 time trial platforms like the Players’ Page or mkwrs.com that would try to set up the rules. And I think I can say that the MK7 PP staff has come to a consensus that it is in fact a Glitch. And also mkwrs updater Jacob said: “Well, my final verdict is that Thomas’ rBC1 strat is 100% a glitch.” His explanation was a lot longer actually. Maybe I should ask him if I may share it with you, if you want.
And maybe you are right that we may not decide it alone, but we hope that we can convince you ;)

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Murray on 12/03/18 at 15:21:35

SC :-/ :-/ :-/

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/03/18 at 22:05:21

Apparently Jacob also answered to Mence his questions:

Quote:

In response to Bmence:
“I’m laughing hard if it’s considered as a glitch because 4 people out of all MK7 players decided it”
They are better deciders than the general community because they are (I'm assuming) neutral. I trust they are quite capable of analyzing all arguments and deciding which one outweighs the other, otherwise how could they be in the position they're in?
“Because there are tracks where you cut a big portion of the track with a shortcut, and where the time gained is as much if not more than there”
It’s common sense this cannot be used as a determining factor at all. Such a principle must not be applicable to any existing glitch. Clearly an impossibility. For example, SGB and WL first respawn save less compared to almost every regular shortcut. Shall this strawman hold more merit over anything else?
“Do you think Nintendo ever wanted to patch that strat? Would a patch there have been created if they knew that strat was possible but glicth respawn was impossible?”
Both questions are hypothetical, adding no strength to your argument. Also to answer these questions forces us to see it through the developer's viewpoint and their intentions, which I thought you yourself made clear was something we shouldn't bother doing. Why are you now centralizing a big piece of your argument around this? Hypocrisy at its finest.
I shall ask, how is it possible for two strats to be categorized differently despite both relying on a pre-patched rBC1 to work, given one of the strats is already unambiguously considered a glitch? In order to change the ruling to shortcut, this is the question needing to be answered directly. Anyone with foresight knows attempting to address this question will inevitably result in some contradiction.
“Lap doesn't count in a lot of cases: that's because you did the strat wrong.”
To elaborate, failing it is equivalent to missing the favorable respawn because you didn’t go far enough forward.
As a side note to CF: “causes the lap not to count 95% of the time”
Uh, there’s no arbitrary rate of success other than from human precision. And if he’s referring to online it’s impossible.
“How is the argument that it's faster than the glitch respawn even an argument”
How can you believe your argument has any structure after asking this question? Somehow comparing the time gained between two strats which are inherently the same produces no argument, while doing the same thing except with a randomly chosen sc with no correlation to the strat in question is the definitive argument. This is the logic you use to conclude all opposing arguments are inferior? Please.
“There are a lot of ‘glicthes’ you don't use but could because the normal way is faster. BC after barrel or MW (before, respawn was used in S3)”
You can say the same for any normal respawn. Better to treat them for what they are instead of throwing the word “glitch” around.
“nearly impossible to agree with a person who believe the contrary you believe”
Or one side of the argument is being too stubborn to accept facts. This isn’t a political debate. It is so obvious both sides cannot be true in this scenario, hence it would be in the best interest for the community not to be pressured by a majority demand for something supported by weaker, less convincing arguments.
"I agree with Jacob when he says we haven't made clear rules and clear terms"
Right, nobody should have to waste their day trying to persuade others about the fundamentals of a MK7 glitch when they can simply be displayed for all to read.

Now about this piece right here:

Quote:

I shall ask, how is it possible for two strats to be categorized differently despite both relying on a pre-patched rBC1 to work, given one of the strats is already unambiguously considered a glitch? In order to change the ruling to shortcut, this is the question needing to be answered directly. Anyone with foresight knows attempting to address this question will inevitably result in some contradiction.

The fact that you respawn further on the track in rBC1 G (respawn) is because you hit the checkpoint above and/or in the lava. The checkpoint isn’t suppose to be there. They corrected it for online play, but they were too late to correct it for time trial. Thomas uses the same checkpoint to make the lap count. It is not the respawn that is the glitch. It is the extended checkpoint. Because that's what they corrected.
You are also not allowed to cross the lava earlier on the track. That's why the lap doesn't count then. the fact that you do can make the lap count on exact that spot, uses the same bug as the rBC1 respawn glitch.
Except for you don't respawn, yes. But still you are using the same bug.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Murray on 12/04/18 at 04:18:48

Why isn’t SC an option? Nobody has given an argument as to why it shouldn’t be an option.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/04/18 at 13:05:07

7C5D59414646554D340 wrote:

Why isn’t SC an option? Nobody has given an argument as to why it shouldn’t be an option.

What are you suggesting?
We make a third category? rBC1 NG, rBC1 G, and rBC1 SC?

That is not what we did when new strats were found in the past.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Murray on 12/04/18 at 14:08:56

Yes, 3 categories for rBC1 which are SC, NG & G.

In my opinion, the PP/ranking systems have made critical errors in the past regarding the classification of 3 shortcuts. Firstly, "RIW G" fits my definition of the glitch, which is stated further below. I believe the rMC2 pasta should have always been considered SC, thus never constituting towards AF and the NBC turncut likewise. I believe however that the MC pasta was intended. Nintendo knew we would be able to drive on that wall and the testers would have landed there also and notified Nintendo of it, even though Nintendo most likely knew already that it would be possible to drive on it. Yes, Nintendo probably didn't think we would have the precision to make the MC pasta faster, but that is completely besides the point. Yes, we're all here to discuss the issues on rBC1, but I felt it necessary to mention my beliefs about other "controversial" shortcut classifications. ;)

I believe that NG (possibly changed to "NO SC") should be a category explicitly for shortcuts that were most likely intended by Nintendo. Nintendo paid people to try and break MK7/find shortcuts and that was most likely a priority after MKW's failures in that area. This means that anything obvious like rMG & rDDJ glider cuts were all intended by Nintendo. If anyone mentions the rMG gapcut being unintended, it is obviously a more optimal way of doing a clearly intended shortcut. The NBC turncut wasn't intended by Nintendo because they placed signs over the gap an attempt to prevent the cut. Nobody can give any form of an argument as to why the recently used rBC1 shortcut could possibly have been intended. 8-)

So now comes the question of whether or not this shortcut should be deemed a glitch. What is the definition of a glitch in MK7? I believe a glitch in MK7 is defined as an unintended shourtcut consisting of either clipping through something (eg a ceiling/wall) to another area of the track, or gaining an advantage due to a highly favourable respawn.

By enforcing my definitions, the rBC1 shortcut doesn't fit either of two categories currently present for this track's leaderboards (NG & G), but it fits my SC definition. The MK7 community never appeared to have any clear definitions in place which help to classify shortcuts, resulting in this confusion many years later.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by paradox. on 12/04/18 at 18:28:17

In regards to Murray's proposal, I still stick with what I have previously said in that changing charts this late in the games lifespan would do nothing good for the community, and create more issues than it would solve. The most we should do is have "informal" rankings (such as the shroomless rankings). There are plenty of other things in the game that are debatable as to whether to developers knew about them or not, such as glider boosting, going through Wigglers legs and getting a boost on rMT and the list goes on.

And because I know someone will argue that my point is self contradictory, and that by this logic rBC1 should be no glitch, I will re state my reason for rBC1 being glitch. rBC1 is a glitch because the lap will only count if you do it right, and every time you do it you risk not getting a lap count. Having a strat that fails most of the time due to checkpoint issues is clearly not a no glitch shortcut. No glitch shortcuts should obviously not involve a potential no lap count.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Nicola on 12/06/18 at 10:44:22

Hi guys, it’s been a very long time since I’ve last written something here!
I’d like to voice my opinion about the new rBC1 strat.

I think there are good arguments for both parties. This strategy isn’t inherently different than some others that have been accepted for years, like the NBC turn skip and the DKJ glider sc; at the same time, it has also been patched by Nintendo for online play, and it involves cutting a huge portion of the track in a clearly unintended way.

Personally, for these reasons, I’m leaning more towards the opinion that this should be considered a glitch. It should be noted, however, that considering it a glitch wouldn’t be entirely consistent with the decisions taken regarding some previous shortcuts. Perhaps we can use this opportunity to reconsider how certain strategies are categorized, and establish a clear ruleset that regulates how we treat this game’s strategies in a consistent way.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/07/18 at 11:10:18

So Murray, I have been thinking and listening to other players about this, and this is what I think about your post:

6F4E4A525555465E270 wrote:

Yes, there are a lot of intended shortcuts in MK7. There are also a few shortcuts that are disputable if they are intended, and that we still use for NG records. But we can only convince ourselves of what was intended or not, a task influenced by personal beliefs and not by something universally concrete. But still, all the NG shortcuts that we knew until now, the lap always counted. What actually tells us that we probably are allowed by Nintendo to continue, if we make it across.
That is also the case for the NBC turncut. You say the shortcut wasn't intended because they placed that metal plate. But the metal plate only prevents us to make the cut between that height and that height. If you understand what I mean.
The RIW ultra shortcut on the other hand, I understand why you could consider it as a glitch.

58797D6562627169100 wrote:

Nobody can give any form of an argument as to why the recently used rBC1 shortcut could possibly have been intended. 8-)

So now comes the question of whether or not this shortcut should be deemed a glitch. What is the definition of a glitch in MK7? I believe a glitch in MK7 is defined as an unintended shourtcut consisting of either clipping through something (eg a ceiling/wall) to another area of the track, or gaining an advantage due to a highly favourable respawn.

By enforcing my definitions, the rBC1 shortcut doesn't fit either of two categories currently present for this track's leaderboards (NG & G), but it fits my SC definition. The MK7 community never appeared to have any clear definitions in place which help to classify shortcuts, resulting in this confusion many years later.

On MK7 there are shortcuts that you are definitely not supposed to execute, in that case they let you respawn back where you left the track before you make it across (Rainbow Road for example, you can’t jump to the track beneath you) or another installment they have in place: your lap doesn’t count (rKC for example, there is shortcut without the lap count). https://youtu.be/NMi4RaPqBSM

On rBC1 you can cut huge portions of the track by jumping over the lava. But also here Nintendo prohibits you to do so by not counting your lap.
Thomas found a way to make it across the lava and make the lap count anyway. Normally your lap doesn't count, what makes the shortcut unintended, like you said. But I think we should consider it as a glitch and not a new category called SC. These are the main reasons why I believe it is a glitch:
1. You can perform the rBC1 gap cut without your lap counting. You have to do it precisely right to get the lap to count.
2. You can not do it online. You can do it precisely right online, and still the lap doesn’t count. The same track, the same movement, no lap count.

These are two reasons why it is abnormal that the lap counts. The fact that it somehow counts the lap when it isn't supposed to, is the glitch.

This new glitch forces us to look further than how glitches looked like in MK7 until now. You give definitions of a MK7 glitch, but the rBC1 gap cut has no correlation to the rest of the glitched tracks. It's a new beast. Therefore it is obvious that it wasn’t comprehended in our current "rules”.
And I’m not sure if we should establish a clear ruleset of what a glitch is, like Nicola suggested. Because when we discover a new kind of glitch, like now, we should be able to address it.

Also when we would make this new rBC1 SC category, the rBC1 SC would likely be faster than rBC1 G while the glitch category stands for ‘anything goes’. It doesn’t make sense. You would make a new category that makes the other one obsolete.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by WillD on 12/11/18 at 14:47:30

Personally, I would be open to having separate charts for RIW. There's precedent in previous games for the 2 main issues people have brought up.

1. Not knowing if people used the USC or not.

When MKW instituted No-Glitch charts, years after the game's release, they were imported ONLY with times that were certain to have not had the glitch used, or to be so slow that it made no difference. The opposite could be true here. Only import times that are known to have used the USC OR are better than the BKT without USC.

2. You can do the USC by accident.

In MKSC, there's a technique called ticking where you would briefly hit a wall or other obstacle to bounce off and get more speed. It's more technical than that but that's the gist. It was definitely possible to do unintentionally on an intended non-ticking run. When that occurred, the eligibility of the run for non-ticking charts was instantly over. You could continue the run and submit it for ticking charts, but you would have to restart if you wanted a non-ticking record.

I also think it would be relatively uncomplicated to create a separate progression on mkwrs. As far as I know, the first use of the USC in a WR was 1'54"726 by May.

Thoughts?

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/12/18 at 05:36:49

I can agree with calling the RIW USC glitch.

Some issues:

-Maybe you can separate the RIW G and NG WR history easily, but I don't know if the PP will follow. Because we don’t know which players did the usc. And we can not start making players' timesheets incomplete by introducing RIW G charts.
-You can do the USC without going through a wall.

Edit: Jacob about the RIW WR history:

The only issue with RIW G on mkwrs is the ng record defeating the glitch record on multiple occasions in the past, including right now. Thomas should not be recognized with another WR as a result. Cole would need to code the site such that players are not awarded extra days whenever ng is superior.

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Eleking on 12/14/18 at 06:44:36

glitch
jump boosting is only used in glitch categories like rlm and nbc
also do you really wanna make no glitch such an unplayable category? a strat like this fits only glitch categories since its so inconsistent weather its lap count/wall clip landing/or even just clearing the gap without fully stopping
the glitch is that the lap counts, since it shouldnt count

Title: Re: Thomas rBC1 strat, G or NG?
Post by Frederiek on 12/18/18 at 01:41:39

We had a long debate about the rBC1 gap cut on discord and we think it’s time to come to a decision.
We decided that the rBC1 gap cut should be categorized as Glitch. Our main reasons why we conclude this are:
-No other NG strat jeopardizes a lap count.
-You cannot do the gap cut in online mode. Nintendo made changes to the track which made the respawn, as well as the gap cut, impossible to use in online play.
My apologies to those who still don’t agree with this point of view but you couldn’t convince us that it should be otherwise.