Better without Autofire

This is the main shmups forum. Chat about shmups in here - keep it on-topic please!
User avatar
Dave_K.
Posts: 4567
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:43 am
Location: SF Bay Area
Contact:

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Dave_K. »

Rastan78 wrote:What's up Dave_K? It's been a while.
Yeah, and I STILL haven't beat your Bakraid scores on my PCB! :lol:
Lander wrote:Boogie Wings / The Great Ragtime Show probably qualifies; the biplane has an RPM mechanic that controls your shot intensity and AoE overheat attack, with a cooldown rate that doesn't sync up nicely with various autofire presets.
You have to dial it in to some obscure odd numbered Hz, and even then it'll decay too fast, or tick over into AoE after holding the button for too long. Manually finding the rhythm is more controllable.
Oh I need to pull out Boogie Wings again! I never paid attention to those gauges, and this sounds really interesting.
User avatar
MJR
Posts: 1561
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:53 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by MJR »

I am committing the original sin of answering to the question of the thread without reading it. Sorry.

I've become big champion of autofire ever since I got autofire circuit on my cabinet AND hori stick with autofire option. Many previously painful shmups are so much more pleasant now.

However, I am seriously considering Capcom's Section Z as possible contender for Better Without Autofire - league. Once you get powerups, the jetpack guy starts shooting in bursts, meaning that there will be pauses in between. Using autofire in that situation may contribute to missed shots.
User avatar
Jeneki
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:56 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Jeneki »

The Turbografx version of Aero Blasters is interesting in how it interacts with controller autofire. If you turn the switches on (either setting) it results in a lower rate of fire than just holding the button with autofire off.
Typos caused by cat on keyboard.
PC Engine Fan X!
Posts: 8415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by PC Engine Fan X! »

Bassa-Bassa wrote:
Sengoku Strider wrote: PC Engine has the perfect solution to the issues this thread poses, offering multiple built-in levels of autofire.
Sorry for nitpicking, but AF controllers for the PC Engine came later, the console was bundled with a simple control pad originally. Likely you knew that, but for what it's worth.


Rastan78 wrote:Autofire circuits were absolutely around back then or they wouldn't show up in Gamest scores from the 80s and 90s. I did visit arcades in Japan in the 90s, but unfortunately that wasn't something I paid attention to at the time. My guess is they were much less common and installed in arcades where more hardcore score chasers gathered?
Discussing this with this friend who was there mid-90s, he was quite sure to have never ever found a single STG with extra fire buttons, and he really moved a lot to play arcade games in many places across Tokyo. So that guess seems legit. Moreover, if it had been a widespread practice, game makers would have started adding the feature much sooner since operators' satisfaction was always the priority. Which was the first STG with a dedicated built-in full-auto button, DOJ? That's 2002.

The argument for autofire being cheating is kind of suspect if you don't know the developers intention.
For the American arcade market, Video System Co.'s Turbo Force/Hyper Force was the very first arcade stg pcb conversion kit that gave up to three players playing simultaneously from the get-go, full auto-fire as standard -- that was quite a "game changer" in the early 1990s with that particular arcade stg title. I've never played nor saw another odd-ball arcade stg title like Turbo Force/Hyper Force since then with it's highly touted 3-player co-op capability from the get-go.

Capcom's Hyper Dyne Sidearms arcade pcb circa 1986 for the Japanese game centers (+ the USA pcb version that was distributed by Romstar exclusively back in early 1987) has auto-fire by picking up a certain icon power-up -- using a external auto-fire enhancement pcb defeats the already super fast "stock" auto-fire capability (I used to be able to get the final boss, Bozon, on my first life using just "stock" auto-fire alone with five lives in reserve but it'd end up being a 2CC affair at best -- high scores would average about 1.5+ million easily when using Sidearm's default auto-fire power up with about 30-35 minutes of actual playing time to reach the end).

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~
Bassa-Bassa
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Bassa-Bassa »

Yeah, that's not what I was talking about. I meant the first game with a built-in full-auto extra button (which just acts like the main fire button being repeatedly pressed, that is). I was trying to make the point that if external autofire circuits had been widely used in the 80's/90's, game makers would have implemented it like in DOJ, but much earlier - operators would have been asking for that even if only because the circuit costs money.
User avatar
Rastan78
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:08 am

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Rastan78 »

Here's an interesting quote from Seibu staff circa 1992:
It is the player who plays the game and decides whether the game is fun or not.
 Therefore, it is the player who decides whether or not the game will be fun with the rapid-fire device, and it is the store that decides whether or not it should be installed.
 As a manufacturer, the most important thing is that the games we make are fun to play, so as long as there are no particular problems, we don't question the pros and cons of rapid-fire devices.
Source: http://rapidturbo2000.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-161.html

Bassa-Bassa, didn't DDP add that feature as an optional dip switch in 1997?

According to another article referenced at that site the craze for modifying panels to have auto circuits began around 1988 at the time of games like Image Fight and K Tiger and gradually grew from there.
User avatar
Kiken
Posts: 3954
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Kiken »

Jeneki wrote:The Turbografx version of Aero Blasters is interesting in how it interacts with controller autofire. If you turn the switches on (either setting) it results in a lower rate of fire than just holding the button with autofire off.
Gaiares on MD/Genesis has something similar. If you mash the shot button you get an inconsistent autofire rate. But if you just hold down the shot button the game has a fairly solid autofire rate built in. I guess the programmers were concerned about people using autofire controllers to augment the shot rate of powerful weapons like T-Braster (not that this weapon has a slow default autofire frequency by any means).
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by BIL »

jehu wrote:
BIL wrote:My (unabashedly romanticised :lol:) theory, back then, was always a player aversion to the Black Fly itself - it moving a tad slow, and ostensibly suffering from a lack of oblique attack options.

Out of curiosity, did you find yourself relying on oblique attack/defense in your credits?
I played a few early credits that ended in Stage 2 collision chain deaths and went looking for strategy. First thing I found was your guide, and one sentence in particular stuck with me: "Think of this feature as both a vertical attack method and an improvised force field - a shield as much as a sword." I went back to the lab with Stage 2 carrying the 'sword/shield' mindset, and especially wanted to see how much of a 'shield' MAX BEAM really was. And yeah, changed the way I played the game almost immediately - could be a completely different, worse IMO, game with a smaller mainshot hurt box. Stage 2, it seems, is designed to 'teach' you this crucial skill.

The move to non-auto caused a lot of issues early. The moments you mentioned, universally harder bosses, serious problems with collision deaths again - including a lot caused by stupidly moving straight up into ST.2 rockets and the like, not taking into consideration the extra time needed to take them down.
I forgot to say thanks, jehu - that's a very useful window into a new player's learning process! I'm refreshing my ST at the moment, re-christening my rather ugly "scrape" terminology to GRAZE (Geo Range All: Zako Eliminator :cool: gotta respect Taito's acronym game!), among other things. Definitely writing it with parallel manual+auto strats in mind.
Steven
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue May 11, 2021 5:24 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Steven »

Rastan78 wrote:didn't DDP add that feature as an optional dip switch in 1997?
Tatsujin Ou is the earliest game I know of that has optional internal autofire as a DIP switch setting, but yes, DDP has it as well.
User avatar
pulsemod
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:35 am

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by pulsemod »

plenty of the CAVE games pre-DOJ have it as an optional feature, I wonder how it tended to be set back in the day? based on the fact that they made it optional it seems like it might've been a controversial addition with operators back then
User avatar
BareKnuckleRoo
Posts: 6162
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:01 am
Location: Southern Ontario

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by BareKnuckleRoo »

As a kid, I was firmly in the "autofire controllers are cheating" crowd, and I'm glad I've since learned better. There are still games out there where using 20 or 30 hz autofire rates are frankly a bit silly, but I can't think of any game that doesn't benefit from using a more humanly achievable rate around 7-10 hz.

I see Thunder Blaster and Blazing Star have both been mentioned, but to me both are frankly the prime examples of games that prove that button mashing as a central mechanic is lame. Both play better without the mashing element:

• In Thunder Blaster, you mash shoot to fill a meter which progressively makes your shot stronger and wider as you mash more quickly, and then you can fire off a bomb whose size is determined by how high up the meter was when you launched the bomb. To max out the meter by tapping is quite difficult. It's a neat game, but it's in spite of the autofire mechanic, not because of it, and plays better when you setup autofire for it and treat it as a shmup with a rapid recharging reusable bomb/charge shot, similar to Giga Wing's auto recharging shield.

Blazing Star has different ships feature wildly different properties, including how difficult it is to actually achieve the high speed rate needed to trigger. The charge shot is just straight-up worse for damage for most ships and isn't worth using for damage if you're capable of maintaining a high tap rate, primarily existing for the sake of score (with the exception of Aryustailm's sword/shield charge attacks, with the sword being insanely powerful but difficult to hit with). It's actually a pain to play the Pulstar guest ships without autofire as you need a fairly high tap rate to keep the options locked in place and firing forward. Windina's got the least demanding tap speed requirements, but it's still nice to have autofire with it to spare your finger, and Hellhound really wants the extra damage as it's still fairly average even with it anyways.

There's also two frankly weird ships in the mix. You've got Aryustailm, which requires a super high tap speed to get its "upgraded shot" that gives it inaccurate piercing lightning beams that deal WAY less damage and have less spread than simply tapping slowly (use a low enough autofire rate that it doesn't trigger the worthless lightning shot for best results). And there's Peplos, which goes from insanely weak to literally banned in scoring competitions due to a high autofire rate dealing unmatched damage (allowing for final boss milking). Both of them are rather odd design choices.
ZPScissors wrote:Funnily enough I generally don't play Deathsmiles with autofire, too many buttons when it is used.
This is basically the only game I play without autofire, nowadays. 4 separate shot buttons and a bomb button feel like too many to manage for me, easier to deal with the mashing. I'm curious how a setup like Raiga: Strato Fighter would have worked, with a Change Direction button instead of two separate shot buttons for each direction. Would have probably preferred that, and if I could script a way of doing that it's what I'd likely use instead. You could have Shot / Laser / Bomb/ Change Direction and make it so holding Change is what initiates the lock-on.
User avatar
Rastan78
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:08 am

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Rastan78 »

Steven wrote:
Rastan78 wrote:didn't DDP add that feature as an optional dip switch in 1997?
Tatsujin Ou is the earliest game I know of that has optional internal autofire as a DIP switch setting, but yes, DDP has it as well.
Darius (1986) has it as a dip switch also. As well as Darius II.

Deathsmiles was mentioned as being too annoying to manage the autofire buttons vs tapping. I feel this way about Esprade also even if it's far less buttons. Easier to just tap or hold the same A button since you also have to constantly press power shot as well.
User avatar
Marc
Posts: 3408
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:27 am
Location: Wigan, England.

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Marc »

Sorry, would someone mind explaining what I'm missing with Metal Black with vs without, more durable enemies aside obviously?
XBL & Switch: mjparker77 / PSN: BellyFullOfHell
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by BIL »

30hz autofire lets even the fatter, weaker MAX shot - never mind the narrower but stronger L3 one - melt through enemies with an ease not found on manual fire. It's a huge advantage in the latter half, where large enemies are thrown at you en masse. What's more, with the way the shot hitbox covers your ship's vicinity, it's almost a permanent forcefield; with the most basic evasive movement, nothing will get near you, while on manual fire, you need a sharp awareness of your surroundings, juking and micro-tapping around things that'll evaporate to 30hz.

And because you're less reliant on the Beam/Bomb system, you're much less likely to find yourself powered down to L1. Learning to balance the B/B - taking neither unnecessary risks, nor needless powerdowns - is much more of a thing in manual.

Basically, 30hz doesn't break MB in half like it will some STGs, but it definitely takes a load off. That said, even 30hz play has its charm, I think, turning the Black Fly's scrappy underdog into a crusading chariot of fire. That's why I suggest trying it out in both, rather than sticking to one or the other. It's a very artistic STG. :cool:

Assuming we're talking the ACA release here, whose 30hz is the real deal, blistering-fast. Milder autofire methods might not have as dramatic an effect, indeed this is why I always stress to newbies that they shouldn't feel overmatched if autofire isn't an option for whatever reason.
User avatar
Lander
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:15 pm
Location: Area 1 Mostly

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Lander »

Huh, my cheeky scrub run of MB had me thinking autofire would be useless on account of the built-in refire that takes ~2Hz(?) to keep at peak rate.
I'll have to take another swing and see how different it feels.
Dave_K. wrote:Oh I need to pull out Boogie Wings again! I never paid attention to those gauges, and this sounds really interesting.
I think the UI is mostly there for style, since the shot power progression - at least visually - doesn't line up 1:1 with the meter in the HUD until you top it out and get the big lightning attack.
I'm assuming there's a meaningful damage difference between max-level shot and the AoE, though it's a Data East goof 'em up so I could be wrong :P
User avatar
blazinglazers69
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2021 3:45 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by blazinglazers69 »

So I'm currently playing (and loving) Fire Shark for Genesis and although I do have the native autofire on, the fire weapon benefits greatly by tapping the button. This is because the fire weapon does a constant straight shot along with a sort of nuclear breast-stroke motion that starts as a spreadshot and moves to the side. Super unique and fun IMO.

The only thing is that the side lasers linger too long at the bottom if you just mindlessly hold autofire before folding back up, thus leaving tons of space for kamikaze ships and large ships with fast af bullets a lot of space to work against you. You can even time it at certain parts in level 7 where large green planes are at your side where if you tap the button consistently it will fire more to the side. Very smart way to balance a weapon.

If you tap the fire button gently you basically get an insanely strong spread shot AND a moving side shot to clear all the crap that comes from behind you without warning. It basically makes the fire weapon like apocalyptically strong windshield wipers.

I'm getting to stage 8 or 9 out of 10 consistently so I'll have to post a vid showing it here if anyone's curious when I finally get the clear.
Bassa-Bassa
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Bassa-Bassa »

Rastan78 wrote:Here's an interesting quote from Seibu staff circa 1992:
It is the player who plays the game and decides whether the game is fun or not.
 Therefore, it is the player who decides whether or not the game will be fun with the rapid-fire device, and it is the store that decides whether or not it should be installed.
 As a manufacturer, the most important thing is that the games we make are fun to play, so as long as there are no particular problems, we don't question the pros and cons of rapid-fire devices.
Source: http://rapidturbo2000.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-161.html

Bassa-Bassa, didn't DDP add that feature as an optional dip switch in 1997?

According to another article referenced at that site the craze for modifying panels to have auto circuits began around 1988 at the time of games like Image Fight and K Tiger and gradually grew from there.
pulsemod wrote:plenty of the CAVE games pre-DOJ have it as an optional feature, I wonder how it tended to be set back in the day? based on the fact that they made it optional it seems like it might've been a controversial addition with operators back then

Aren't the instruction cards an irrefutable way of knowing what the developers expected though?

Image

It's indeed interesting that some games technically had the option for an extra full-auto button, but if they didn't mention it anywhere in the manual, I'll still understand it as an unofficial, unadvised feature - that's why I mentioned DOJ as the first sample ever. For another instance, Final Fight also allows secretly a third button as an A+B combo, yet it's hard not to call that cheating as it's assumed the desperation move is to some degree a risk technique which demands the proper pressing of both buttons simultaneously.

An undisclosed full-auto button looks more like "there you have the feature in the case you don't want your buttons to wear out prematurely or if you get too many complaints from dedicated clients so that you don't need to invest in an external circuit, but know that the game's not about that".

It's also interesting reading that the AF circuits had some presence there even in the 80s, anyway, thanks for those bits. Seibu staff's lines sound more like your usual Japanese accommodating answer, though. Ask them about the 1CC thing without getting too much into it and you'll get the same response.
User avatar
Lethe
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 9:49 am

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Lethe »

I wonder how many people who complained about Guwange's controls never turned the internal auto on. Apparently DonPachi has some internal auto behavior that's impossible to replicate externally too.
User avatar
PerishedFraud ឵឵
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:36 am
Location: To escape from our Utopia

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by PerishedFraud ឵឵ »

Developer vision is overrated. Games are fun. You play games for fun. If autofire means more fun, it's the right way for you.

It's your fun. You be the judge.
Image
Fun Over Victory| Shitpost Central | Shmusic Archive | Old Account | tuckfouhou@gmail.com
Bassa-Bassa
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Bassa-Bassa »

But isn't that the same argument they use to disparage arcade genres? I only had fun for 30 minutes because... fuck the rules.
User avatar
PerishedFraud ឵឵
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:36 am
Location: To escape from our Utopia

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by PerishedFraud ឵឵ »

Sure? That some people don't appreciate arcade games isn't anything new, lol.
Image
Fun Over Victory| Shitpost Central | Shmusic Archive | Old Account | tuckfouhou@gmail.com
Bassa-Bassa
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Bassa-Bassa »

Likely that's overrated? I meant those who never really had the chance to do because nobody explained to them the actual game resides behind the rules.
Last edited by Bassa-Bassa on Fri Dec 30, 2022 9:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
BareKnuckleRoo
Posts: 6162
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:01 am
Location: Southern Ontario

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by BareKnuckleRoo »

Bassa-Bassa wrote:An undisclosed full-auto button looks more like "there you have the feature in the case you don't want your buttons to wear out prematurely or if you get too many complaints from dedicated clients so that you don't need to invest in an external circuit, but know that the game's not about that".
Regardless of what the instruction card says, the game is very much about "that" with serious players now, given that the expectation is that C Button auto is enabled when you're playing. Nobody wants to worry about the mashing and players are more focused on consistent/survival and scoreplay. Games remain relevant because the players playing them play them in the way that best showcases the game.
Lethe wrote:I wonder how many people who complained about Guwange's controls never turned the internal auto on. Apparently DonPachi has some internal auto behavior that's impossible to replicate externally too.
DonPachi's is unique for CAVE games because it has something later ones don't: its C Button autofire fires FASTER than you can possibly get by tapping the A button to shoot, even if you use a 30 hz external autofire. Tapping A fires the shot in a consistent burst (as with Giga Wing), but C Button auto causes the shots to fire with far less delay in between. Easiest way to compare is use type B at max power to compare, the difference is most visible with it (and it's got the strongest rapid shot in the game, on par with laser damage).
Bassa-Bassa
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Bassa-Bassa »

BareKnuckleRoo wrote:
Bassa-Bassa wrote:An undisclosed full-auto button looks more like "there you have the feature in the case you don't want your buttons to wear out prematurely or if you get too many complaints from dedicated clients so that you don't need to invest in an external circuit, but know that the game's not about that".
Regardless of what the instruction card says, the game is very much about "that" with serious players now, given that the expectation is that C Button auto is enabled when you're playing. Nobody wants to worry about the mashing and players are more focused on consistent/survival and scoreplay. Games remain relevant because the players playing them play them in the way that best showcases the game.
Yeah, I mentioned "contexts" at some point. A player who abides the official rules (i.e. doesn't use external AF) is not serious, then?
User avatar
Lander
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:15 pm
Location: Area 1 Mostly

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Lander »

Bassa-Bassa wrote:Aren't the instruction cards an irrefutable way of knowing what the developers expected though?

Image
No, because the instruction card is the lowest common denominator; if it mentioned an optional autofire button, arcade operators would have users clamouring for them to enable it.
Obfuscating that information is in the interest of the operator, which puts it in the domain of business concern.
That precludes it from being definitive over a set of "official rules", if we operate under the assumption that rules exist to create a fair and level playing field rather than to generate profit.

You could argue defaulting to no AF is a clear indicator of intent, but so is implementing an AF function in the first place. It might default to off because most arcade operators would set it that way anyway, or simply because False is the unit boolean value in mathematical logic.
Barring direct questioning of the original designers, the most absolute source of truth we have is the game code, and in this case it says "choose". That's the only universal conclusion that can be drawn outside of spirit-of-the-law interpretations made by individuals or competitive circles.
Bassa-Bassa wrote:A player who abides the official rules (i.e. doesn't use external AF) is not serious, then?
As per the above, define "official".
And "serious" too, for that matter - for one player it could mean picking the most punishing option as a form of skill dogma, for another it could mean pursuing era-appropriate arcade faithfulness, and for another still it could mean prolonging the amount of time they can spend mastering the genre by having concern for their hand muscles.
The line in the sand is fuzzy because there is no easy answer :wink:
User avatar
Rastan78
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:08 am

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Rastan78 »

This is probably a bit OT, but apparently there is a technique for X-Multiply that can produce actual 60hz autofire. Or in other words a shot being fired on every single frame. Not sure I understand it. I think the PCB allows for a second A button. By using staggered sequence synchronized autofire buttons at 15hz on 4 different buttons simultaneously you can produce this effect. Anyone familiar with this?
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by BIL »

I remember Jaimers mentioned the ACA version allows that (he was on PS4, specifically). Knowing Hamster it's probably board-accurate. :smile:

EDIT: ah, superb notes from Jaimers as always - he included the ACA manual in his video comments. I totally forgot this page, explains it all:

Spoiler
Image


EDIT2: Messing about with the ACA version (again PS4), I notice there's an option for straight 60hz, which produces the same lance-like salvo as 15A+15B. You can tell you're firing at 60hz, in either method, by getting near something solid and letting rip. The ship's "muzzle flash" animation will go from its usual on/off flicker to a solid blue glob of burning plasma death. Now that's aesthetically apropos surgical precision! Image

The game's patch notes include "V1.01: Adjusted turbo timing," so I wonder if this was added then, to simplify things.

You can tell Hamster paid a lot of mind to X-M and ImageFight's autofire options, both. Mark of enthusiasts' work. What I wonder about is, those boards (IREM M72 both) run at ~55hz... so I guess achieving the same result on real hardware might need some tinkering?
Last edited by BIL on Fri Dec 30, 2022 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bassa-Bassa
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:18 pm

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Bassa-Bassa »

Lander wrote:No, because the instruction card is the lowest common denominator; if it mentioned an optional autofire button, arcade operators would have users clamouring for them to enable it.
Obfuscating that information is in the interest of the operator, which puts it in the domain of business concern.
That precludes it from being definitive over a set of "official rules", if we operate under the assumption that rules exist to create a fair and level playing field rather than to generate profit.

You could argue defaulting to no AF is a clear indicator of intent, but so is implementing an AF function in the first place. It might default to off because most arcade operators would set it that way anyway,
The problem with this theory is that it's calling the devs incompetent - they design their game after this feature (extra AF button), but then they realize that it makes of it a way too easy challenge for the operators' demands so, instead of balancing the game's difficulty properly, they choose to just hide the feature which even involves variations in the control panel? In the hope that only PCB collectors find out their actual intent?

Isn't this a more logical hypothesis?

"there you have the feature in the case you don't want your buttons to wear out prematurely or if you get too many complaints from dedicated customers so that you don't need to invest in an external circuit, but know that the game's not about that"


Barring direct questioning of the original designers, the most absolute source of truth we have is the game code, and in this case it says "choose".
Sure thing. We do also have the instruction cards (and even the operator manual, for even more absoluteness) which says "2 buttons-only", though.


As per the above, define "official".
And "serious" too, for that matter - for one player it could mean picking the most punishing option as a form of skill dogma, for another it could mean pursuing era-appropriate arcade faithfulness, and for another still it could mean prolonging the amount of time they can spend mastering the genre by having concern for their hand muscles.
The line in the sand is fuzzy because there is no easy answer :wink:
Notice that the discussion about DDP is a digression - it's an odd case which doesn't illustrate the original argument about calling the usage of external AF "cheating", which is what BareKnuckleRoo was actually discussing there. I think it's quite clear at this point what would be my own definition of "serious player", but it wasn't me the one who used the term here.
User avatar
Rastan78
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:08 am

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by Rastan78 »

That's a two button times 15hz method that can produce 30hz. Not sure if you can reproduce the fabled 60hz 4 button method I've heard about?

Since they say you have to be using 60hz to make it stable it might not actually be simulating synchronized fire at the adjusted slower funky irem frame rate. On a real cab this would be done by running the video's sync signal through the autofire device for correct timing. The only example I've seen of this on console is Darius Gaiden's implementation on Cozmic which allows for synchro front/ back 30hz at the simulated accurate PCB refresh.

I will give it up for Hamster as well though. They have not been messing around especially since they started consulting with pros for each release.
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Better without Autofire

Post by BIL »

Rastan78 wrote:Since they say you have to be using 60hz to make it stable it might not actually be simulating synchronized fire at the adjusted slower funky irem frame rate.
Yeah, this is what I suspect too. While detailed, the wording is a little confusing (as ACA manuals can be, bless them) - "when the game is running at 60hz" implies there's a PCB/60hz toggle (as seen in a few ACA releases like Super Cobra, as well as the majority of Namco titles); in reality, the four existing ACA M72s (X-M, ImageFight, Saigo no Nindou, and Vigilante) all enforce board-accurate 55hz refresh.

So I guess the "always on" 60hz autofire seen in ACA X-Multiply might be an approximation of the real hardware's behaviour. (of course, for an arcade veteran wanting the same blistering firepower in a 60hz home version, it's a pretty decent workaround)
Post Reply