+Random Terrain Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Some of us are trying to use the least amount of energy to get a single-round high score in E.T. I assumed that "the faster you move, the more energy you'll use" was correct in the E.T. manual, but I used up 118 energy units slowly walking right to left across the screen and used up about the same when running left to right across the screen. If there is no energy unit penalty for running, I'll add this info to my Tips and Reminders page. Does anyone feel like double checking to see if I am correct? Is there really no penalty for running? Also, has anyone figured out if there is anything the player can do to get more than 20 pieces of candy (without hacking, frying or cheating)? So far the amount of candy seems to be mostly random, but I could be missing something. The tip from Northcoastgamer about restarting after the candy appears on the screen usually seems to provide more than 18 pieces of candy, but I haven't been able to get more than 20 pieces so far while doing this single-round challenge with Stella. Thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanJr Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I have not seen a big difference between walking and running, EXCEPT that you can better control usage when walking and can spend some sloppy energy running if you are imprecise. I think if you are just crossing the screen, running is the way to go, but if you are walking around looking for a call ship zone or something, walking is more efficient. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 I have not seen a big difference between walking and running, EXCEPT that you can better control usage when walking and can spend some sloppy energy running if you are imprecise. I think if you are just crossing the screen, running is the way to go, but if you are walking around looking for a call ship zone or something, walking is more efficient. Thanks. You are the second person to not see a big difference. I run in spurts when looking for zones, so I usually don't have to worry about falling into a well. If nobody pops up with last-minute evidence, I'll tell people that the manual seems to be wrong about running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northcoastgamer Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I don't see any difference. From the start point straight down to the bottom of the next site screen both used about 79 energy units running or walking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 I don't see any difference. From the start point straight down to the bottom of the next site screen both used about 79 energy units running or walking. Thanks. With three people getting similar results, the manual has to be wrong. I'll go update the Tips and Reminders page now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris++ Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'll conduct some precise tests tonight, just for my own satisfaction, but I can't imagine that the particular guys in this thread would be atypically wrong. I should have done this research ages ago. Damn...that means I'll have to change this. http://www.orphanedgames.com/articles/The%20SSC/et.htm If only I can remember my password... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+save2600 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 When walking, his energy counts down in a slower pattern singly. When running and besides the upbeat running sound tempo, you see his energy quickly decreasing by the tens and the single digits go ape shit. -edit- So much for perception being reality! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Of 2600 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I second that, using an actual cartridge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torr Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 When walking, his energy counts down in a slower pattern singly. When running and besides the upbeat running sound tempo, you see his energy quickly decreasing by the tens and the single digits go ape shit… The counter may be going down faster, but E.T. is moving faster too. IF, when E.T. moves X times as fast, his energy depletes X times as fast, it's neither more or less efficient; Energy consumption remains constant. And that is what has been hypothesized and (so far) is being proven. I don't believe an emulator, especially Stella (which is what one should be using if emulating the VCS at all), would cause gameplay to miscalculate E.T.'s energy consumption. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+save2600 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The counter may be going down faster, but E.T. is moving faster too. Great point! Ughh… gonna have to pull out the old stop watch now and measure distance over time vs. energy units depleted. Or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Random Terrain Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 Great point! Ughh… gonna have to pull out the old stop watch now and measure distance over time vs. energy units depleted. The only thing we really need to check is energy used between two locations. If we walk from one spot to another spot, then follow the same path while running, the energy used should be about the same. No stop watch needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+save2600 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The only thing we really need to check is energy used between two locations. If we walk from one spot to another spot, then follow the same path while running, the energy used should be about the same. No stop watch needed. …and you're right! We just now performed a test using the stopwatch app on an iPhone, since I wanted to see what the actual time saving was and there's about a 6 second difference between the two running from one end of the screen (forest) to the other. Thing is, on the test performed just now, we actually saved a point of energy running. Well I'll be dipped in shit. Run, don't walk! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+TwentySixHundred Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) After messing around with Stella and using ET's left foot as a sprite position reference with a background tree on the forest stage, i believe there to be no difference at all. Ran numerous times with same results and you cant inch creep (single pixel movement) without it registering energy loss. It looks to me that 1 energy variable is lost per x or y pixel movement. You can slightly tap the opposite direction as to E.T is facing and it registers by flipping the sprite without moving a pixel however no energy is lost unless he actually moves on the x/y plain. I am thinking the energy variable is tied to the x and y axis rather then detection of controller inputs. You can also fast move without using 10 energy as you would normally when stretching his neck. So unless you actually stretch his neck the fire button will not subtract any additional energy. Two screen shots showing reference points i used Edited April 22, 2015 by Tony The 2600 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Of 2600 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 You guys are awesome. Seriously. Long live the 2600 and it's vanguard of loyal devotees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.