I acknowledge SRS has superior speed, but I just can't bring myself to try and overcome the horrific tetlag that comes with the switch.
i'm competent in both styles, my previous 40 line record was in SRS. but i just really prefer ARS. TOJ by the way would be 100 times more appealing to me, even with the horrible DAS, if it had rotation selection.
I don't know about that. I'd say it'd be between 20g ARS and 0g SRS, as top speeds for both of those are 200+ tpm. But there isn't nearly as large a field of 0g srs players compared to japanese TGM guys. So I don't think we know for sure.
ARS wins in 20G hands down. As for 0G, the average number of inputs per piece with SRS is lower than that of ARS due to the initial orientation and the 4 rotational states. TGM doesn't do SRS justice with all the sub 20G delays, and that's the area that SRS is supposed to excel in.
The downward orientation lends itself to grabbing on to the surface much more easily, especially when DASing. Synchro + DAS Synchro stops piece from getting stuck and opens up a wide range of practical placements. Due to the tetrominoes rotating at an even level, ARS can push off of one row tall walls instead of jumping right over them and it can rotate under overhangs that SRS normally can't rotate under.
We've had similar discussions about this in the past... It would actually be a lot of work to show, specifically, why TGM's L/J stances are preferable and why the wallkicks are more practical. If you're willing to actually invest some effort to learn to use TGM-specific tricks, then maybe I would make an effort to show you these things as clearly as possible. In general, DIGITAL's got the right idea though.
I'm not buying it. You're talking about downward J/L/T, because 20G is faster mostly because horizontal stoppage (going left or right, and then something stops you). Then there's the rarer single-hole-in-the-floor-fits-perfectly-for-downward-J/L/T. There's a simple solution for grabbing with these in 20G SRS: rotate twice (or once for double), and then DAS! Now you may say you place J/L/T downward more than upward, and in that sense you save time, and that's fine, but I'd need some sort of math or something to believe that. Now on the other hand, upward orientation is definitely better than downward in the sense that you don't get stuck in those middle-field traps, and have more options. Wa? You mean it makes it so you can do stuff somewhat like SRS can already do? How does it make it faster? So you're saying ARS has wall-kicks that favor speed more? I see what you're saying with the one row push-off, but I doubt that sort of thing overcomes the movements saved from 1: four orientation I/Z/S and 2: L/J/T rotate twice push offs only present in SRS.
I'm only talking about J/L. I hate the T orientation in ARS actually. DASing after rotating is a slow compensation. As for upward being better for mobility, yes, it opens up your options, but most of those placements are inelegant and slow. You end up tapping more in SRS than in ARS. There are way too many Ti-ARS videos out there I'm not even going to bother providing examples. It's not about having as many placement possibilties as possible. It's about having as many practical placement possibilties as possible. SRS may give you a lot of options but most of them are garbage. And point me to a game where SRS can perform DAS Synchro. Yes, those wallkicks favor speed and they are much more flexible than SRS in regards to utilizing them in combination with DAS. Four orientations make little to no difference when you DAS almost the whole time. Hmm, it might even make it more confusing.
By "garbage" do you refer to moves that are more useful for clearing garbage or sending garbage than they are for single-player stacking? As I understand it, DAS synchro needs rotation-movement rather than rotation-gravity-movement, which in turn needs 1G DAS. Games with 1G DAS and SRS include Ti, ACE, Evo, Heboris UE, and Lockjaw. Does synchro work in any of these?
No, I mean garbage as in worthless for high speed play. I don't recall it working in any of these. Of course, I've never played Ti or ACE, but according to Heboris, they don't. As for LJ, I'm sure you would know best.
First I'll start by pointing out that you said "hands down." If you still don't think SRS is faster than ARS after reading this lengthy post, then I'm confident at least you'll wipe off that "hands down" attitude. I had to wait until my day off to compile this stuff, so please don't just breeze over and disregard it. Try to keep an open mind. Let's address why 20G is faster than sub-20G in the first place. Tetrominoes begins on the ground, so you can just run the tetromino into obstructions. This interception prevents you from making unnecessary button presses. With experience, the process can be very fluid and effective. Here's a simple example of what I'll call an "intercept." Now, I want to explain myself better about downward L/J/T, because I don't think you really grasped what I was talking about earlier. I'll call the manuever in question a "grab." It pops up every now and then, and you say that because SRS has to rotate twice in order to do this, ARS has an advantage. Let's look at the flip side. What's this? ARS needs to rotate twice in these cases? Didn't you say "DASing after rotating is a slow compensation"? So you have to look at it both ways. When you do, SRS is equal if not faster than ARS in this sense: unless you can show grabs occur more frequently. You said, "As for upward being better for mobility, yes, it opens up your options, but most of these placements are inelegant and slow." Upwards is useful for speed because it natually overcomes middle traps. That way you don't have to prevent/correct traps or synchro your way out, you just keep playing "elegantly." The out-of-your-way options that require many taps, I say ignore. Their existence won't prevent you from playing efficiently. How does it make it faster? Wall kicks: you keep saying they're better or faster, but I have no idea why. Really, I wish I could argue with you guys about this, but wall kicks and push offs honestly save about one button most of the time. SRS has wall kicks and push offs, too. I know they're useful because I use them! And they, too, save about one button most of the time. I simply see no way to show one system is faster or more practical in this sense. I really wanted to test this for myself to make sure I wasn't being crazy. I am wrong sometimes, afterall. You said "As for 0G, the average number of inputs per piece with SRS is lower than that of ARS due to the initial orientation and the 4 rotational states." I want to show you this still holds true for SRS. In the past I've done this little test for many different games. Average input is the best way to judge efficiency, and from efficiency comes speed... comes which rotation system can be more optimal for speed. For ARS, I took Arika's TGM3 GM Master Mode video. I took one hundred tetrominoes starting on level 605. This pace wasn't too fast, so he didn't make many (any) mistakes, but it was still fast enough to be fluid and "in the zone." I counted the number of input per tetromino including IRS rotations, minus hold and lock input (not important). Then I recorded a sample game under TGM3 WORLD rules. I played a fifty-line game, and took the middle one hundred tetrominoes because I didn't want to have an advantage for starting with a flat state. The video and the data. The results: ARS = 1.77; SRS = 1.65. So there you have it. If you want to account for locking, it would be 2.77 and 2.65. Keep in mind jin8 is a very talanted player, and after analyzing his play frame by frame while making this data, it's easy to see that he is remarkably efficient. Also keep in mind that the input/tetromino stat is surprisingly consistent. Game after game of Lockjaw, my keys/tetromino wouldn't go more than +-.05 . In other words, you can repeat the test many times, but I'm confident that if you play close to optimally, you'll find similar results. In conclusion, if you want to say ARS is more practical or natural or instinctive... or whatever, that's fine. I might just side with you on some of those points, but I will certainly disagree with you if you say ARS is faster-- especially if you say "hands down."
without really deciding on an opinion i would quickly offer up that comparing an ARE game to a no ARE game in terms of elegance is a bit shady, but i find this type of comparison very interesting. i think a lot has to do with the differences in stacking--the typical 20g pyramid ends up getting built quite a bit differently by someone well versed in SRS. more gaps, more terrain in general. but that's still just my impression, i think i'm going to have to conduct a similar study myself before drawing any real conclusions.
My question is, does the fact that srs can "kick" out of holes make game play faster or slower? Are we talking about which one is faster in a game where the player plays with perfect form, leaving no holes where a piece can get stuck?
When you say "kick out of holes," you must be talking about those crazy last priority wall kicks. You see, a good player knows not to bother with that. You memorize the twists that work, and then you add them to your repertoire. I, personally, never see those "kick-outs" when I play.
They're faster because they make the pieces magically warp to the other side of the screen, perfect for stacking. To really determine the winner: optimized TAS of two games, one ARS, one SRS, same piece sequence
GBA games can be TAS'd, so why not try it on Lockjaw? It supports both SRS and ARS, and its randomizer is determined by the number of frames from power-on to game start. Does anyone have the formula for generating the "power-on pattern" of Sega's arcade Tetris game?
