Metanet Forums

This is a thread to post anything relevant to the in-built Metanet highscores section for N 2.0.

I'm posting to say that I've come up with a new, faster route for b3-4 (which incidentally is my own map).
I've taken the 0th by 20 frames (which is like, 1/3 a second?)

Anyway, feel free to post your own highscores (they don't have to be 0ths.)

Userlevel runs of note that aren't related to the official levels should be posted in the "Post a run thread".

(Edit: if a mod could please pin this and the "post a run" topic, I'd be greatly appreciative...)

I like this idea, to imitate the most popular highscoring threads in the v2.0 section. Seems a bit generic, but there isn't enough activity to have separate threads for 0ths, innovs, and so on I guess. Stickied.

I hope this will encourage activity. I for one, will post my activity here, although for that we'lll have to wait till February.

EddyMataGallos wrote:I like this idea, to imitate the most popular highscoring threads in the v2.0 section. Seems a bit generic, but there isn't enough activity to have separate threads for 0ths, innovs, and so on I guess. Stickied.

I hope this will encourage activity. I for one, will post my activity here, although for that we'lll have to wait till February.

Right. To stimulate activity, I intend for this thread to incorporate both conventional score reporting and relevant innovations.

Nice route, cleaned it by about 1/4 of a second, wanted to debut in this thread :P

My first post on this forum.

I managed to tie 0th on a5-1 at 1st place. It was really easy and I want to recommend others to try. :D

I hope it is maxed, but taught by experience, I always miss that one frame. xD

EddyMataGallos wrote:Nice route, cleaned it by about 1/4 of a second, wanted to debut in this thread :P

Thanks. I knew full well that time could be saved on that slope jump...

oh come on. i had a N v2 0ths thread going for a while back with AMAZING POLLS. this seems a little anticlimactic

I finally got a score on 77-0 after a few weeks of on and off trying the new method. My fingers required ice afterwards from so much walljumping

shomman wrote:I finally got a score on 77-0 after a few weeks of on and off trying the new method. My fingers required ice afterwards from so much walljumping

Well dang, nice new method. The previous route was maxed. I just cleaned 2 more frames off 0th, and I have the feeling its not maxed yet, its trickier to max this route, but certainly doable realtime.

EddyMataGallos wrote: Well dang, nice new method. The previous route was maxed. I just cleaned 2 more frames off 0th, and I have the feeling its not maxed yet, its trickier to max this route, but certainly doable realtime.

I've taken that score back, it could go up to 60, scores seem to round to 10s according to my pseudo scientific research.

That method was Oleary15's Eddy, cooper took it as soon as he found out haha.
Nice cleaning coop, looks like max, so eddy could get 62.

Got a score on 68-0 relatively recently. 4th

I just realized what a horrible idea this thread is.

We post an awesome run we got, and if Eddy sees, he's going to blast that run out of the water, especially if it's a 0th, and beat it within a few minutes. WHY DID YOU TELL HIM ABOUT 68-0 SHOMMAN? I FEEL LIKE YOU WERE TRYING TO HINT SOMETHING.

41-0 unmaxed.

2-1 unmaxed new approach.

A falling walljump is faster? Damn, that is weird man, damn v2.0 physics xD
Nicely done, I always suspected about 41-0, but not about this one.

2-1 is just bizarre...

Correction: N v2.0 physics are just bizarre. And that's saying a lot, considering we see corner kicking as a totally normal physical movement xD

I think that 2-1 frame is just based on the fact that, by doing that, you fall quicker to the floor (you spend more time running). This, on v1.4, wouldn't matter as we all know, you could just keep your full speed the other way as well.

BUT! 18-1 is pretty enlightening on this regard. Aroud 91 was pretty much maxed, and all of the sudden we did 94 and now 95. If you check the difference, you'll see all we did was not only frameperfect walljumping and turning, which in v1.4 would've been enough, but also falling to the ledges after the wj as quick as possible (we fall right at the start of each ledge, hence starting to run immediatly). That I guess kinda corroborates the fact that in v2.0 this is a thing to bear in mind.

Compare cooper's run with Voted's run, for instance.

60-0 unmaxed.

You all think im crazy, but that level, the clock ended in 383 with a 43 run, so .400 is much more even, and levels tend to max at these even counts (coincidence?), whether its 50s or 100s. Also the score was again odd at 43, and ive improve it to 44, even. Just like every other level I've unmaxed. Coincidence after coincidence? Weird. What is up with the code of this game!? Ive talked to Mare, and she has told me that maxed scores were nothing they planned for, the multiple levels on chapter 0 and 1 being maxed at 10s had nothing to do with an OCD game developer, so I dunno whats going on.

edit: some1 give 33-2 a short go. I have, dont know where a frame would be, but I dont trust those slopes one bit. Clock ends in 383, odd score at 63 is very easy to achieve at 3+ times in a row regularly, everything is pointing to a new max.

Nicely done, to be honest, I'm not surprised about that one (unlike some others like 01-1, 02-1, etc). It's hard to gauge whether the 60-0 route is maxed or not, because those corner "kicks" in v2.0 are pretty random as to whether they make you lose more time or less. Regarding 33-2, the fact that it's easy to achieve doesn't mean anything, but as a human I am, I'd like to believe there's some kind of conspiracy going on here.

What about 30-1 though, do you think it's not maxed? And it's odd.

We both suspect 30-1 is max I'm assuming, the pop and wall jump are only 2 moves, and they look fine to me, unless there is a way to clip you're foot at the end, see "frame loser v.2.1" for a case that that gives a frame. 72-2 on the other hand, totally isn't.


edit: "frame loser v.2.1" might not be the best example of a clip adding a frame, but i feel like ive seen it, and it could be possible on 30-1, however, i still think 85 is max.

Oh yeah, clipping the corner. Just used it to take 30-0 :P I don't think it's a 1 frame trick though, it probably depends on how you hit it whether you can gain 1 frame, more, or nothing.

The current route in 72-2 is probably max. But you can add thwump tricks to it.

EDIT: Tied "frame loser v.2.1" without the clip, weird huh?

EddyMataGallos wrote:Oh yeah, clipping the corner. Just used it to take 30-0 :P I don't think it's a 1 frame trick though, it probably depends on how you hit it whether you can gain 1 frame, more, or nothing.

so weird

My understanding of corner clipping is this; at a certain point on the corner, you can hit it without losing any falling speed, so clipping it means you are falling past the edge frame perfectly, which means you get to the ground below a frame earlier. How you did 'frame loser 2.1' without it confuses me, does that mean 91 is possible with a clip? well i doubt it, but maybe (half frames could explain why it isn't).

There is another type of corner clip too, it works in much the same way as a vertical corner shove (or jumping up into a horizontal corner shove) but you don't continue falling at the same speed, it pushes you a frame horizontally, and gives you move horizontal speed which sacrifices vertical speed, but it does add a frame (horizontally). It wont work in levels like 1-1 however, because it stops the vertical speed, so you don't get to the lower platform faster.

Concerning half frames, I think ill make a separate post for that, I have some questions concerning 1-1, and 61 being possible, though I've tried very hard to achieve the score, and concluded it isnt...? 90% sure it isn't.

75 on 30-0 is great, did you plan to clip your foot, or did it just happen?


edit: wrote whole post about half frames, 5 uploaded attachments, clicked 1 to make it bigger, and whole post was lost cus it loaded a new page and a draft wasnt saved and the page wouldnt reload. Thats pretty annoying, I dont have energy to post it again.

cooperverdon wrote:does that mean 91 is possible with a clip?

No, it isn't. I've done a purely frame-perfect run on this level.

The only thing that could prove me wrong is if someone would jump earlier and had the rest of the run frame-perfect (because maybe it would result in a slightly greater falling angle), but:
1.I don't believe that even the angle enlargement would help
2.It's doubtful that the angle enlargement is even possible - i'm sure many people already tried this and of course failed.

It's N though and you can be surprised on each step...

100 0ths!