Re: Vector programming

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:39:08 -0700, you wrote:

>> I think if your score is used as fuel the high score will always be zero.
>> You could measure "peak" score durring a game. Or perhaps the game could
>> end someother way too, and then the challenge would be deciding when to
>> get killed to maximize score - Can I rack up points faster than they
>> are draining, or is it time to quit while I'm ahead...
>>
>> Strange concept, I may like it.
>>
>Yeah, it seems like it might do some interesting things... It's not exactly
>like a bonus because it's directly tied to your "real" score (and more than
>just a portion is at risk), yet it's a little different than fuel 'cause
>your score increases (without limit) as you pass levels-- thus building up a
>"reserve" over time for harder levels.
>
>It would probably be important to not award extra lives-- that would tend to
>have the score always head towards zero on the higher levels (too many extra
>lives let the score fall for too long without leaving anything). With a
>finite amount of lives a player would likely be able to play up to a certain
>point where he's killed off, leaving his remaining score. As long as the
>game has survival skills that you can improve at, playing it again would
>result in quicker level completions (building up the score) and give you a
>buffer for harder levels later on.
>
>Seems like it would reward speedy level completion and efficiency, and the
>thought that you're *losing* your hard-eraned score on a new, challenging
>level that you're taking too long on might make for a good game-induced
>panic effect. ;-)

So the better you are, the faster you die? Hmm... a strange reward.

Or is this more like: "You are a worthy opponent and for this I offer
you a quick and painless death!" (Can I do the voice over? Please? ;^)

---
I don't know, this would probably piss me off in the long run.  I have
to agree with Paul, eventually you're going to get to a level where
you can't make it past (assuming the game gets progressively harder
like Tempest), and all your points are going to be dwiddled away
Yet in order to get better at the game you must play it until all your
points are gone (the default way of dying assuming none of the
"baddies" get you).
So to get a high score you have to become suicidal right when the game
starts getting challenging.  I like to play a game, and each time see
my high score get better and better.  If I had to play for weeks
(maybe months) at "zero points" to get good enough to suicide out at a
high enough level to get my initials up there for the first time, I'd
lose interest in the game.
I understand the "panic" reasoning (the "Evil Otto" and "Baiters"
analogy), but still having the guy who last the longest end up with
the lowest score, that would suck.
I suppose you could keep track of the highest level achieved, but if
people started using this as the basis of skill judging, then the
"scoring" would be reduced to a "fuel" analogy. (Who cares about the
score, it's more important to get to the next higher level.)
Just my highly opinionated, biased, "What do you mean the world
doesn't revolve around me?" view of things.  :^)
-Zonn
>
>-Clay
>
>(When Defender first came out I used to just *dread* taking too long and
>having those damn Baiters show up.  My pulse probably ticked up 20% when I
>thought they were getting close to appearing...  Evil Otto too... ;-)