Author Topic: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion  (Read 3755 times)

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:16:12 PM »
A few times as a new runner I realized I was short on HP when getting to flame skip in the main category.  It has been debated that dying intentionally here is not allowed.  I personally think it SHOULD be allowed.  The way we define the rules are:
Quote
"Saving and quitting to reset Link's position (savewarping) is banned, as is intentionally dying to reset Link's position (deathwarping). Dying to the shop keeper when stealing items is allowed, however."

I think the way this is worded it makes it sound like the intent of the death is to change position emulating a save and quit, not to die to reset HP.  I think this should be allowed (as any run so far dying intentionally to have a quicker "grind" of flame skip) will not be competitive.

Discuss.

Offline captain_mop

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 8
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2015, 06:15:19 PM »
I think it should be allowed. Arriving with low HP is never the intent, and dying will lose you time.  Dying at the shop keeper saves time, because you get to skip grabbing rupees from chests.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 06:21:33 PM by captain_mop »

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2015, 07:47:25 PM »
You can still die there and pretend you didn't want to :P

But yeah, it should be allowed for obvious reasons.

Offline Disclude

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 14
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2015, 10:22:48 PM »
Should definitely be allowed to intentionally die there. It gives you no real benefit in terms of position, and it's pointless to have to do other stupid stuff just to make it past that part of the game.

Offline ZorlaxSeven

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 18
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2015, 10:24:16 PM »
And it messes with your PoP count.   ;D

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2015, 10:14:54 AM »
I was always curious on this one since nobody really talked about it back in the day. My understanding was always that intentional death was banned, which always felt silly to me. I think the current wording is against how I previously interpreted the statement, and that's fine.

I think intentionally dying to reset HP should be allowed if it does not give a speed advantage. In the case of dying to flamethrower to have health to attempt again, I think it is allowed as it costs time rather than saves time.

Offline aulos

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 34
  • Diddle-Y-A-Doo-Dat
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2015, 10:37:58 AM »
Though intentional death could be interesting in the sense that the runner would have to make a choice between PoP route or a death warp. I don't know if many deaths would be way more faster than PoP, but if not, that could bring different gameplay styles.

Offline oseabass

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 25
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2015, 04:15:56 PM »
Quote
I think intentionally dying to reset HP should be allowed if it does not give a speed advantage. In the case of dying to flamethrower to have health to attempt again, I think it is allowed as it costs time rather than saves time.

I think on occasions like this it should be allowed.  I think another debate can be had about dying to reset PoP counts and stuff (I don't know why anyone would want to) but I could see it.

So where/who can update this rule if we have a decision?  Also who else should we have weight in.  I don't wanna speak for everyone but I think this is a simple and easy fix to the category which could also help newer runners be more welcomed into the community.

Offline LoenP

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 35
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2015, 03:47:53 AM »
idk I always saw this as a non-issue because in this specific area dying to the flame is typically goign to be faster due to how much/quickly you get damaged by the fire, which is the natural outcome of attempting to do the trick while low on health regardless. I don't like "no deaths" as a strict rule one bit, as someone unintentionally dying is normally going to be in a way that doesn't assist their speedrun at all, and even in that instance someone who is unintentionally dying likely isn't going to have a horribly competitive time.

The spirit of the rule to me has always been to prevent players from using dying as a substitute for utilizing a S+Q in categories where S+Q is banned, and that's the extent it should be enforced in my opinion.

Offline giuocob

  • Deku Scrub
  • Posts: 8
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2015, 06:38:09 AM »
The rule is 'no deathwarps', not 'no deaths'. Dying to the mirror shield flame certainly doesn't consitute a deathwarp. You could construe situations where an unintentional death could be considered a death warp, but I've never seen it come up.

As far as explicitly allowing deathwarps in no s+q, highly against. There are a number of places where it would certainly be used to the runner's benefit (such as at the Roc's Feather chest), which destroys the intent of the category. If you want to be able to do that sort of thing, just run S+Q.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 06:40:53 AM by giuocob »

Offline Flynn

  • Regular Guay
  • Posts: 29
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2015, 10:13:01 AM »
The spirit of the rule to me has always been to prevent players from using dying as a substitute for utilizing a S+Q in categories where S+Q is banned, and that's the extent it should be enforced in my opinion.

I feel like this is a really solid way of interpreting this rule.

mabdulra

  • Guest
Re: Intentional Death to Reset HP Discussion
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2015, 05:45:08 PM »
I think we all agree on this now.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, y'all!