RE: Tempest Multigame (behaviour)

(must... get last... word... in... :-)

> Give the first player two quarters and your premise falls apart. [...]
> Part of "rules' playing Tempest is that you must
> always do one restart after making it to your highest level, by doing
> so it puts you on a level playing field with someone who has a 100
> quarters.
>
Ahhhh-- so we're changing the argument around now! Tricky. ;-)

> Your premise was wrong, hence your conclusion is flawed.
>
You just took the liberty of changing my premise for me. :-) Since it's
now your premise, you conclusion must then be flawed...
Tffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffppppppppppp!!!! :-P

> I think I just figured out the confusion here! You think someone can
> buy there way to a high score on Tempest!
>
> Do you know about the "fall back catch"?
>
Yep, but in my experience if I get blown back a step I just replay a
couple times and keep making headway.

> Let's say a player has the skills to only make it to level 20
> consistently. I allow him to start at level 80.
>
> He won't make, and the next time he restarts he's only allowed level
> 72, he won't make it, then level 65 (I don't remember the real
> levels), he make be able squeek through around level 27 or so where
> he'll get level 27's bonus points, but thats really not that much
> better than were he was and certainly reflects his skill level.
>
I think you'll just have to prove this to me sometime. I think there's
a decent chance that he wouldn't fall back to level 27. He's bound to
hit one of the 'easier' levels in the fall. If he gets past *anything*
post-20 he's just cheated the game and is surviving and getting scoring
points past his own skill level.

> That's what is so cool and addicting about Tempest, you can't just buy
> points! If you see a 700,000 point score on Tempest you know the only
> way the score was put there was by someone getting bonus points at a
> 700,000 point level. Regardless of how much or little money it took,
> that guy is a damned good player!
>
Yes s/he's a good player. But is he necessarily a better player than the
guy that started at level one and played up to the *same* level and only
scored 500,000 as a result? It's not proving the high-scorers are the
best players, only that they're willing to play multiple games.

We should probably just agree to disagree on this one. I'm sure
everyone else is tired of it. ;-)

-Clay
Received on Wed May 26 19:43:53 1999