RE: Tempest Multigame (behaviour)

> I just added one quarter, and I had made that point earlier. It's
> part of the un-written rules of Tempest. You must always restart to
> get the high score.
>
So now the "un-written rules" of the contribute to the skill-level of
the player?

> >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.
>
> There are no "easier" levels.
>
For me there are. I can get past any of the straigh-line levels in less
than three lives. Those "click" with me for some reason.

> Naw, if he makes it through a level, he has the skills to do so. You
> can't just accidently make it to the next level.
>
> Only on the very low dark blues, can you just spin and shoot and
> possibly make it, that ability disappears with the "hummers".
>
Ehhhhh. I think that a player that makes it past a level with one life
is more skilled of player than a player that makes it past a level with
with 3. If I can start at level 20 and use three lives to get past it,
that's not the same as playing from level 1, making it to level 20 and
*still* getting past it.

> Absolutely, first off the bonus is not that different, and second,
> he/she should have played his first restart, or s/he's not playing the
> game correctly.
>
Says who? Are you saying the that only way to be a "skilled player" in
Tempest is to always play two games? Sound like JAMMA pay-as-you-play
doctrine to me.

> I'm not stating an opinion, this is the way Tempest works, I'm only
> carry on this discussion with you to make the point that editing the
> EAROM *is* different than getting the score by legitimate means, and
> that someone that enters 700,000 might never be able to obtain that
> legitimately.
>
Well, duh-- I agree with you on *that* point.

The thing that I take exception to is that the High-score list somehow
equates to be the "high skill list". I think that's just wrong. My
example still holds: Player "A" walks up, puts one coin in and plays to
level 75 getting 600,000 points. Player "B" walks up, plays one game to
level 70, and gets killed off. He then puts in another quarter,
continues from level 67 (or whatever), plays to level 75 getting 610,000
points. Player "B" is ranked above Player "A", although Player "A" is
the more skilled player. (True, that if Player A would have played
another game maybe Player B would have passed him-- my point though is
it's entirely possible for the high score list to NOT list the players
in order of skill.)

When it was 1982 I remember being in arcades and seeing and "expert"
walk up to a game, play it ONCE and blow away the top score without
playing any "tricks". The wanna-bee's would then toil for hours and
finally beat the guys score. I don't think that suddenly makes them
"more skilled" than he. Sure, the "expert" could come back and blow 'em
away again if he wanted to, but the points already been made by the fact
that it took extra effort/time/money for the challengers to beat him...

Knowing the tricks for a game doesn't make you a more skilled player,
IMHO. Maybe a better informed player, but not one that's more skilled.

(I'll draw a parallel example: Asteroids. (I'll make up numbers, but
you'll get the idea.) Player A churns through 50 waves of asteroids a
gets 100,000 points. Player B hunts saucers forever, and then gets
killed off on level 9, but still has 150,000. I still say that Player A
is the "more skilled" player. Player B knew a trick that gave him a
higher score, but that's all.)

(Another example: I beat out a bunch of "more skilled" players in the
Sega Genesis College Tournament way back when because I saw a trick in
Columns that gave me a huge score (like 10x the closest other guy). I
had more points, but I don't think I had more "skill"-- they were
pulling off awesome moves and "staying alive" through raw game-playing
power, I used a trick instead.)

> (Be sure to see these, this post is *very* tongue in cheek, and I
> think the multi-kit is going to be way cool!)
>
Yeah, yeah... and I suppose I got "unsubscribed" from vectorlist by
accident too... What do you know about SMTP Mr. Moore? ;-)

> (This is MY last response on the subject, and my damned check is in
> the mail!! ;^) hee. hee.)
>
Ditto! Uhh, except I'm not sending you a check.

-Clay
Received on Thu May 27 12:46:27 1999