(Link to video)
  • Recorded with FCEU 0.98.15
  • Luck manipulation
  • Fastest time to get the CPU bankrupt (by last player input)
Yet another improvement, by 16 frames, still using the same strategy. The time is now 00:30.03 (1802 frames) ... almost under 30 seconds, but unless I missed something unexpected, I don't think it's possible to do any better.
I spent the last 1-2 days figuring out the game's randomness completely (different variations and frame timings) by looking at the code and memory viewer, and made a program that simulates it. Then, given the initial random values, it tries all possible timings that lead to victory and only keeps the fastest one ... doing about 500000 re-records worth of work in 15 seconds.
The result was only 10 frames faster than on the last run, but it should be optimal. Then right when I was going to record this run to submit (after finding and testing the best combination), I found another way to manipulate the card order: when entering the player's name, both the amount of letters I enter and the time between each (including End) affect it. Trying different ones until I found a pattern in the results allowed to save 6 more frames.
The delays are now down to this:
  • 7+0 for the card order
  • 0+2+4 to get Community Chest
  • 0+0+4 to visit jail
  • 0 for the CPU to buy Oriental
  • 2+1 to buy St. James
  • 0+0+1 to buy Tennessee
  • 0+1+5 to buy New York
  • 3+2 for the CPU to go bankrupt
Total: 32

Bisqwit: Processing.

Joined: 10/10/2006
Posts: 14
I'm sure you guys have probably thought about this already, but would it cut off any time at all to change the computer to "hurry up" instead of "relax"? It would only take a second or two to go in and change it, and even if the computer only has a couple of turns where they are waiting for money to be paid out or given, it seems like it would speed it up to compensate for going into the menu and making the change. Any thoughts on this?
Editor, Skilled player (1938)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3244
NapstrPSX wrote:
I'm sure you guys have probably thought about this already, but would it cut off any time at all to change the computer to "hurry up" instead of "relax"? It would only take a second or two to go in and change it, and even if the computer only has a couple of turns where they are waiting for money to be paid out or given, it seems like it would speed it up to compensate for going into the menu and making the change. Any thoughts on this?
Welcome to the forum. Conceivably, using "hurry up" would lower .avi time, at the cost of lengthening input time. It would save input time only if the CPU player lands on rent or income tax. The makers of Monopoly movies (me included) like to see CPU players go bankrupt long after the final button presses. However, I personally believe that aiming for fastest input or fastest CPU bankruptcy is no longer a means of entertainment for this game. I submitted a concept demo a while ago showing how 4 CPU players can all go bankrupt, without pressing anything in-between. http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4396 The reason I decided to use relax and not hurry up at the end is stated in the submission text (yes, I intentionally switched it back to relax at the end). There are many rejected/cancelled Monopoly movies. Search the Gruefood forum.
Post subject: Thanks for the reply!
Joined: 10/10/2006
Posts: 14
Yeah, that was my first post here. I've been checking out this site since about mid-summer and it has grown a lot, I've just been too lazy to join. I'll probably never make a movie, but I have a pretty good knowledge of most of the NES games on this site, and a good amount of SNES knowledge, so I may try to help when possible, but the people on this site have a great idea for what they're doing. However, it's pretty amazing that times can continue to improve for games that were thought to be near-optimal.
Post subject: Re: Thanks for the reply!
Senior Moderator
Joined: 8/4/2005
Posts: 5770
Location: Away
NapstrPSX wrote:
it's pretty amazing that times can continue to improve for games that were thought to be near-optimal.
That's the precise reason it isn't that amazing. What's thought to be near-optimal, should be made optimal at one point or another.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.