EricBall's Tech Projects

Interesting idea, but 17 minutes!?!? Holy smokes, that's a long time!

You obviously don't remember some of the more puzzling levels in Lode Runner. I'm playing the arcade version (via MAME) and having only 3 lives is downright cruel even on the easier levels.

 

And remember, that's 17 minutes total to complete the level. That clock doesn't reset when you die. The level resets 100% and you get to try again, but that clock keeps going down. (The arcade game also has a timer which gets added to your score when you finish the level, but it gets reset when you lose a life.)

 

The 999.9 second figure comes from three sources - first the game has a "built in" tenth of a second timer. Second, if I use a six digit score routine for the total score I can show 99,999.9 seconds. And finally the SuperCharger will support up to 100 levels. So each level is therefore 999.9 seconds.

And remember, that's 17 minutes total to complete the level.  That clock doesn't reset when you die.  The level resets 100% and you get to try again, but that clock keeps going down.  (The arcade game also has a timer which gets added to your score when you finish the level, but it gets reset when you lose a life.)

 

I don't like this scoring idea, since it penalizes people who die after almost completing a level more than those who die earlier on.

You obviously don't remember some of the more puzzling levels in Lode Runner.  I'm playing the arcade version (via MAME) and having only 3 lives is downright cruel even on the easier levels. 

 

And remember, that's 17 minutes total to complete the level.  That clock doesn't reset when you die.  The level resets 100% and you get to try again, but that clock keeps going down.  (The arcade game also has a timer which gets added to your score when you finish the level, but it gets reset when you lose a life.)

 

The 999.9 second figure comes from three sources - first the game has a "built in" tenth of a second timer.  Second, if I use a six digit score routine for the total score I can show 99,999.9 seconds.  And finally the SuperCharger will support up to 100 levels.  So each level is therefore 999.9 seconds.

Ok, that makes sense. A few, maybe more-constructive, comments:

 

1. This method of scoring will lend itself to players getting the highest scores on the beginning levels. I think this should be avoided. Generally, IMO, players that get further into the game should end up with higher scores than players that don't. But with each level having the same maximum score, players will get the highest scores on the easiest levels. I think some kind of level multiplier (or divisor) should be used. IMO scoring should follow a sort of shallow exponential curve. If I play a 30-minute game where 80% of my total score was earned in the first 2 minutes then achieving a higher score isn't a very good motivator towards playing just one more game.

 

2. On the other hand, this method of scoring does directly reward good play*, which is cool. This could add a lot of replay value in finding the best route through a level. Assuming the levels are designed to allow multiple routes, of course.

 

*By this I mean it would reward players who beat the level in the fastest time without losing a life.

 

3. On a related note, if the relative points (for things like gold) are balanced well with the level bonuses, then there would be no advantage to "gaming" the system; e.g., dying and repeating the same level multiple times to rack up big points. The method for achieving the highest score would match up with the method for playing a "perfect" game (i.e., finishing all levels as fast as possible without losing any lives).

 

I still think 17 minutes is way, way too long, plus a static time limit for every level has the issue I mentioned in #1. I would maybe have a distinct time limit for every level (< 5 minutes?) and use multipliers/divisors to calculate level-end bonuses.

 

It will take more work (read: math) to balance the score so that a perfect game scores close to 999,999 points or 99,999.9 seconds or whatever, but I think it would be worth it.

 

My two cents, anyway.

2.  On the other hand, this method of scoring does directly reward good play*, which is cool.  This could add a lot of replay value in finding the best route through a level.  Assuming the levels are designed to allow multiple routes, of course. 

 

*By this I mean it would reward players who beat the level in the fastest time without losing a life.

 

I'd rather have a timer that restarts when you lose a life, but a substantial reward for getting through a level without losing one. Perhaps you could start a player with three lives and award an extra life each level but give a player a minimum of three lives at the start of each level even if a player was down to his last life when he cleared the previous level. Award a substantial bonus for any lives remaining at the end of a level, and a very substantial bonus if a level is completed with a pegged maximum number of lives remaining.

 

3.  On a related note, if the relative points (for things like gold) are balanced well with the level bonuses, then there would be no advantage to "gaming" the system; e.g., dying and repeating the same level multiple times to rack up big points.  The method for achieving the highest score would match up with the method for playing a "perfect" game (i.e., finishing all levels as fast as possible without losing any lives).

 

Alternative solution: if a level is not cleared, nothing in the failed attempt scores anything; the player's score reverts to what it was at the start of the level.

Let me clarify a couple of things. First, 16m40s is the upper limit. The actual time per level could be set lower, and possibly even set on a per level basis. (Haven't decided whether I prefer a one-size fits all, or something set by the level creator.) However, I would like it to be high enough to allow a player a reasonable chance of completing a level even if they have to lose quite a few men to do so. Second, there are two "scores" - the level timer and the "total score" which the level timer is added to only after the player finishes the level.

 

The main appeal of the pure timer versus # of men + score is I really don't want to limit the number of attempts. There's nothing more frustrating to me as being down to my last man then making a stupid mistake. There's also something appealing about rewarding players who are able to clear out a level quickly (probably because they've played the game a lot).

 

But you're probably right that there needs to be some sort of scaling factor which will also reward players for completing a larger number of levels. Hmm.. maybe something like adding 100 * the level # to the total score for each level, and downgrading the level timer to 10 minutes (600.0s or max 6000 points per level). So on the higher levels, it won't matter as much how quickly you complete the level, but you can still rack up the score by finishing the early levels quickly.

 

Oh, one interesting point. Right now, the game is 100% deterministic. There's no randomness to the enemy movement, although they do react to the player. So it should be possible to develop patterns, some which may be more dependent on timing than others.

 

I also haven't given much thought to bonuses (other than adding time for picking up gold), whether they affect the level timer or are only added to the total score. In fact, a total score bonus for gold picked up (in addition to the extra time) would be nice since it could be much higher than the time bonus without significantly impacting the gameplay. (i.e. picking up gold = 10 extra seconds in the level and 100 extra points when the level is finished).

 

Some other possibilities : time/score for killing enemies, score bonus for killing no enemies, score bonus for not dying, score bonus for completing the level under or over a certain time (skin of teeth bonus, i.e. < 1 minute remaining), score bonus for picking up the last gold.

I do like the idea of a timer rather than a set number of lives.

 

A few other comments:

skin of teeth bonus is a bad idea, I think.

other bonus ideas sound pretty cool.

 

And 100% deterministic enemy movement is fine as long as the enemies react to the players, IMO.