T-spins have easily been the most controversial change to come out of the post-TTC standardized gameplay. More than infinite spin, and more than crazy wallkicks, t-spins as we know them today directly attack the very nature of Tetris: tetrises. The t-spin has been around in some form since the dawn of Tetris... But only recently have they been explicitly recognised by the game to earn an artificial bonus. A reward so great, in fact, that they are much preferred to tetrises, taking their place as the focus of winning strategies. I don't object to such a gameplay gimmick, per se... The New Tetris certainly emphasized building 4x4 squares more than clearing tetrises, and The Next Tetris promoted a cascade of singles. These are solid concepts and interesting diversions from standard play. My problem with the current implementation of t-spins is that they are standard play. We're not talking about a "spinoff" here. This is the new standard. Sure you can still play the old way, but if you want to play well that's simply not an option. We've debated t-spins a million times already... So why am I making this thread? Well, I feel the need to defend the "old way" of playing. I feel it's too quickly dismissed as simple, with t-spins heralded as bringing a never before seen depth to the game. This thread is calling bullshit on that argument. I use t-spins all the time in TGM, and am fully satisfied with the natural benefits they provide. (Examples intended to be interpreted with high speed 20G conditions.) Code: | | | | | [] | | [] [] [][][][] | | [][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hmm, by poor fortune our player has found found himself in an uncomfortable situation. Specifically, column 5 is worrysome... Pieces spawn in that column all the time, and unless something is done to fix the unstable topology there will almost certainly be a hole there. Holes in the centre are notoriously hard to clear at high speed 20G, and are generally avoided even if it means several holes on the sides. Code: | | | {}{} | | {}[] | | [] []{}[][][][] | | [][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Given an L piece, setting up for a t-spin is my preferred solution to this problem. It brings considerable stability to the screen, and it is very easy to get the L piece in place. Even if a T piece doesn't come soon enough, we have mitigated the damage to a hole in column 4 with possible further mitigation to column 3. Code: | [][][] | | [][][][][][]| |{} [][][][][][][]| |{} [][][][][] | |{}[] [][][][][][] | |{}[][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some standard building to the right, with a noteworthy I placement on the left. It is trivial to pass the I piece over this t-spin formation, even at high speed 20G. Code: | [][][] | | [][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | [][][] | |{}{} [][][][][][]| |[]{}{}[][][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | [][][] | |[][] [][][][][][]| |####################| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | [][][] | |[][] [][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can even mirror the t-spin formation with a Z piece. Code: | [][][] | | [][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | [][][] | | {}{}[][][][][][]| |[]{}{}[][][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | [][][] | | [][][][][][][][]| |####################| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | [][][] | | [][][][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |{}{} [][][] | |{}{}[][][][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |[][] [][][] | |####################| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |[][] [][][] | |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Or you know, whatever. Code: |[][] [][][][][][]| |[] [][][][][] | |[][] [][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |[][]{}{}[][][][][][]| |[] {} [][][][][] | |[][]{}[][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |####################| |[] [] [][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |[] [] [][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | |[][][][][][][][][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Or bail out while you're ahead. I've found myself doing these moves and other variations fairly often recently, and I think they are pretty cool TGM-specific t-spin tricks. Distinguishing traits: -strong benefit to survival -primarily used to fill holes, not necessarily clearing lines -high speed 20G-accessible flowing placement The focus is not on clearing lines with fancy wallkicks... It's doing elegant moves that benefit survival for survival's sake. To me, restoring stability to a disordered screen with a handful of cleverly placed pieces is extremely satisfying and very dramatic. And t-spins are just a small part of the overall vocabulary TGM players improvise with.
Some of those later things are quite interesting. I've had the tsd-style setup in TGM a few times, and then seemed to just have a total drought of t-pieces. I'd not thought of things like that.
Yeah, and sometimes you'll get a T piece in a moment of weakness where 20G prevents placement in the t-spin formation, making you wait for the next T. It's good to know your options.
TGM1 especially seems to have a randomiser that also deliberately tries to screw you. It'll never seem to give me a piece when I want it. Only when I really don't want it. Or, I'll go through a huge period of wanting it, then I'll get to a point where I change tactic and give up waiting for it, only to get it the next piece after.
Well, it's much MUCH better than a pure random randomizer. And because of the way the randomizer works, a piece you haven't gotten recently continues to be highly probable until you finally get it. So it's good to hold out as long as the risk remains manageable.
Well, yeah. I despise the pure randomiser in N-Blox. It's so irritating to get over 4 S pieces in a row, especially when you've nowhere convenient to put them. Sort of makes you appreciate the subtleties in the randomiser employed in TGM.
to be honest - i even didnt know about tspin's before i found this forum. for me a killed line is equally worth, regardless what piece or what technique did it. sure, t-spins are cool to fill certain holes, but that really should not give more points. at least not more than a tetris, because a tetris kills more lines, and line clears are the essence of classic tetris, right? the question is: how would you score a square building? s a 4x4 square worth a tetris? because it takes quite some thinking to put together a square? or is it worth even more? hard to decide, i think.. because those squares also not too seldom form by pure luck... and by the way: TSPIN movements show totally unrealistic physics behaviour.. imagine a real world tetris of some kind, or a tetris with a very slow rotation animation. a tspin could never happen, because the piece would jam / collide with other cubes in the arena while trying to rotate. but ok... thats not only true for tspins, but many other movements...
i would agree if you're talking about T spin triples. yeah like L, J, S, and Z spin triples, and I spins in general (of course i'm only talking about SRS). i'm still waiting for O spin behavior to be implemented. what's the hold up on that? pretty simple really, you would create an overhang, and if there was an O shaped hole anywhere in the playing field the O would warp to it.
yeah... Ospin... but is it any good? sure, i am by myself a freak adding strange things to tetris (mario like jumping, pushing, gravgun) but... pieces warping over / under barriers ?!? ah there comes another idea i had Code: | | | {}{}{}{} | | [] | | [] | | [][] | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ suppose you have landed ti I piece as shown in the figure above. in the real world, if you would try to but a beam that way onto an obstacle, it would just rotate and fall. why not implement some kind of algorithm, that lets a piece slip of garbage automatically, if it is 1. not balanced and 2. can rotate+move down ?
