What the cock is going on with STGT08?

[Arvandor]

If I could trick the Drunken Gamers into participating more, I'd be in. But last year they just didn't have their hearts in it.

[BulletMagnet]

If I could trick the Drunken Gamers into participating more, I'd be in. But last year they just didn't have their hearts in it.

The Drunken Gamers? Not primarily focused on gaming? Surely you jest!

Anyways, whenever this happens, Team Loser will, of course, be participating.

[orange]

okay what is the deal with teams, are people generally able to get into one if they haven't competed in this before or am i just fucked?

[The Coop]

okay what is the deal with teams, are people generally able to get into one if they haven't competed in this before or am i just fucked?

Depends on the team. Some teams are invite only. Meaning you can only join if the captain and other team members feel you're "worthy". Some, are first come, first serve. Anyone can join them, regardless of join date, unless the captain has a reason to not want a particular person aboard.

Then of course, there's the option I chose... making your own team.

[JoshF]

Zebra and Me's team are going to kill everyone. I probably will not play.

[orange]

okay what is the deal with teams, are people generally able to get into one if they haven't competed in this before or am i just fucked?

Depends on the team. Some teams are invite only. Meaning you can only join if the captain and other team members feel you're "worthy". Some, are first come, first serve. Anyone can join them, regardless of join date, unless the captain has a reason to not want a particular person aboard.

Then of course, there's the option I chose... making your own team.

oh god i hope my credentials are alright

[Ayanami]

I will play. I don't know if I will get the GLA together again though. Half the players did not have the time to play. Plus I think my team mates have said that they would not compete in a tournament this year if it happened.

So I will probably be shopping around for some players or join a team that will have me.

[DJ Incompetent]

Just in case it wasn't obvious enough, the thread you want is http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?t=21301


I'm perplexed as hell GaijinPunch of all people initiated the hype machine on this.
Dude. It doesn't add up...

[-Bridget-]

I'll join in again this year as well. I'll stick with Team Loser as I did last time if nobody minds.


I'll have alot more free time this year for something like this than I did last year.......

[gavin19]

Anyone sitting on the fence thinking they can't compete in this needs to sign up a.s.a.p. I can't play for sh!t and I ended up 3rd out of all 4 week players last year. That's embarrassing. Oh the memories of Twinbee come flooding back

[moozooh]

I think much more thought should be put into game choice this time around. Here is something to think about while we're at it (though I should probably have posted this in theme selection thread, but there's none at the moment), especially since the rules and circumstances of this year's tourney aren't yet set in stone. Also note that I speak from my limited experience.


I. WHAT IS NOT FUN.

1. Huge end-of-stage/end-of-game bonuses that can potentially accumulate to over 1/3 of the resulting score.

Viper Phase 1 is… well, I don't think I need to elaborate. Darius Gaiden has been an enjoyable experience overall, but it's not as entertaining to play it for score as it it to just play it. By far. Omega Fighter Special was kind of novel, but let's just not do it again because it's just ridiculous as a whole.

Batrider is fun to score in, yet it doesn't have end-of-stage bonuses. Not an encompassing example, but it's here just to illustrate that the bonuses really aren't necessary.

2. High-exponent scoring systems.

They require a lot of time to get into (more than one week, that's for sure), and require either milking bosses until the timeout (hi, GigaWing), or just neglecting scoreplay in the first half of the game because it doesn't make a big difference to score compared to the latter half (hello, DDP).

An example of a good, fairly balanced low-exponent scoring system is Progear. It's pretty easy to get into, and it doesn't have this crap where another 5-10 seconds of survival on the last level increases your score by like 10% of what it was.

3. If the scoring is very firmly based on survival, the game should not be too hard/punishing.

Which means all the stuff like "one death and you're fucked" shouldn't even be taken into consideration. Those who like Gradius 3 can still play it competitively, but it's not a good choice for a tourney week. The same goes to pretty much any other such game. Oh, and R-Type memorizers are obviously out of the question as well.

4. Knowledge-based scoring systems.

They are fun only when you get into them. Which takes much time. Learning as much as it takes to score competently in Raiden Fighters Jet in such a short time span just isn't going to be fun, even though the game is a blast otherwise.

Keep in mind that enjoyment of a scoring system (or a game as a whole) varies depending on restrictions and circumstances. Which means a game that's cool to play for score casually might not be cool to play in a one-week tourney. (Which is why I would never propose Perfect Cherry Blossom for a one-week tourney, even though I adore its scoring system.)


II. WHAT IS FUN.

1. Scoring systems that tolerate mistakes.

If a scoring system is such that you don't need to make any mistakes to have a good score, it means lots of frustration to everyone except half a dozen players who've already mastered the game before. Again, VP1 is the worst offender here. The game must not have huge multiplier chains that break once you bomb or die, or some other bullshit like that.

Good examples to forgiving scoring systems are ESPRa.De., Garegga/Batrider (unless you're really prone to losing medal chains; note that, while the scoring is forgiving, the gameplay isn't), Imperishable Night (a doujin, yes, but its scoring system is near-ideal for tourney play), and most oldschool survival-type scoring systems where you just need to shoot crap (see #3 in the previous part).


Discuss.

[orange]

nothing to discuss really your post was pretty spot-on

[MX7]

nothing to discuss really your post was pretty spot-on

[GaijinPunch]

One major flaw:
End of game bonuses are fine. They give you incentive for getting further in the game, and beating most likely a difficult end boss... not just milking everything. End of stage annoying bonuses like Viper Phase 1 (which is an awful game to start with) are not.

I'm perplexed as hell GaijinPunch of all people initiated the hype machine on this.

I'm sick of all the name calling and drama happening only in the Trading Station and Off Topic. Time to even it out across the forum.

[moozooh]

One major flaw:
End of game bonuses are fine. They give you incentive for getting further in the game, and beating most likely a difficult end boss... not just milking everything. End of stage annoying bonuses like Viper Phase 1 (which is an awful game to start with) are not.

Well, as implied by the name of the respective paragraph, [comparatively] small bonuses are absolutely fine, but read further.

The major overall problem I see with most not-very-tourneyish scoring systems are results that are full of gaps. These gaps are the plague of tournaments, because they immotivate weaker teams and make it harder (not better) to compete for the stronger ones. In other words, reducing these gaps is a good idea in general.

If you take a game with an end-of-game bonus that multiplies your current score by a significant amount (I consider ~x0.3 and higher pretty significant), it creates a noticeable gap in score, and makes many other elements of gameplay insignificant in comparison at this particular level of play (and we aren't talking popular scoreboards, let alone national/world records!).

A noteworthy example is Mushi Original. If you are a decent player who didn't put much time into the game previously, you can get perhaps 7-9 million in a week by killing shit, collecting gems and all that stuff. Now, the kicker: you get 10 million flat for each life you have at the end of the game, up to 50 million. Suddenly, it turns out that not risking at all nets (almost guarantees, actually) more points than putting yourself at risk in attempts to score higher! Whoa, can it get worse? Yes it can: the scores of every player that won't be able to 1CC it (and thus receive the bonus) in a week will be completely slaughtered, even if they milk all the stages but die on the last pattern.

Just… no.

End-of-stage/end-of-game bonuses can provide a positive incentive, but if they are large enough to be required for having a competitive score, they shift the focus onto themselves, creating these gaps in the scoreboards.

There is a good reason I'd prefer more linearish, non-luck-based scoring systems to have in a tournament; basically, they ensure several things:

1) the scores progress linearly with the player's skill and knowledge of the game;
2) there are no luck elements involved that can push the player far ahead (like it happened to me during the OFS week);
3) there are little to no unrecoverable mistakes involved (even if you lose, say, a medal chain in Batrider or Garegga, you can still restore it and make up for the loss as you progress further into the game);
4) every stage becomes equally important for scoring;
all of which is good.

[MX7]

End-of-stage/end-of-game bonuses can provide a positive incentive, but if they are large enough to be required for having a competitive score, they shift the focus onto themselves, creating these gaps in the scoreboards.

You speak my thoughts pretty much ad verbatim.

[GaijinPunch]

Okay, so we can agree that there are good end of game bonuses, good end of stage bonuses, bad end of game bonuses, and bad end of stage bonuses, right?

[moozooh]

Yes. I never even claimed otherwise. :)

Now only to put this all into practice…

[Enhasa]

I agree with moozooh of course.

I only demand a pinch of common sense with people I inteeract with. I don't think that's a very stiff order, yet, I'm short-changed here left and right.

"It's not me that's the problem, it must be everyone else!!!"

And who the fuck are you again?

That's my point. Think about it. I ought to not have any clue who you are either, yet somehow I do.

Here's a tip, as nicely as I can stand to word it: If you didn't really play last year because you were too elitist for the games being played, and you're not even playing this year anyway, why not take all your bitching, whining, and elitism somewhere else and leave the people who are actually playing alone? Everyone else seems to think this way, but who knows, you're the one with the common sense after all.

[mikwuyma]

Moozooh, I would agree with you except...

1. Your analysis doesn't take how difficult the game is into account. Yes, Darius Gaiden does have a scoring system that focuses on clearing the game too much, but it's also insanely easy to clear with autofire. IIRC, around 70-80% of the people cleared the game.

2. Technically, Raizing games are knowledge-based since you have to know a lot of scoring secrets and rank-control techniques to get a good score :-/ (There's nothing wrong with that, BTW). Look at the Wild Snail table in the Garegga board.

3. Better players are always going to get higher scores, no matter how simple or forgiving the scoring system is. They might not be winning by a incredibly wide margin, but they'll still win.

4. I think if we really stuck to your post like a mantra, we'd have to eliminate all Cave, most Raizing, and Takumi, and mostly stick with Psikyo and random 80's and early to mid 90's shmups.

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. I actually agree with you on a lot of points, but I'm not sure how applicable your guidelines are if we want a variety of games. I'd rather just give a short explanation on how the scoring system works, so people actually know what they're getting into (Viper Phase 1 )

[Herr Schatten]

eliminate all Cave, most Raizing, and Takumi, and mostly stick with Psikyo and random 80's and early to mid 90's shmups.

Call me crazy, but this sounds totally reasonable to me.

[Twiddle]

More like mass non-participation.

[Ozymandiaz1260]

eliminate all Cave, most Raizing, and Takumi, and mostly stick with Psikyo and random 80's and early to mid 90's shmups.

Call me crazy, but this sounds totally reasonable to me.

Yeah, you're crazy.

[Zebra Airforce]

I suggest a big hitbox week.

[moozooh]

1. Your analysis doesn't take how difficult the game is into account. Yes, Darius Gaiden does have a scoring system that focuses on clearing the game too much, but it's also insanely easy to clear with autofire. IIRC, around 70-80% of the people cleared the game.

I see your point. A forgivable thing about Darius Gaiden is that the end-of-game bonus is very scalable, but it still offset pretty much everything you could get otherwise (a half of sikraiken's score was from that bonus alone). One could say it's good to have most of the scoring to be based on survival, letting you play the game more freely, but I would rather avoid stuff like that. Besides, DG was severely broken by autofire, otherwise we'd have had only 15-30% all-clears, not much more. I don't think there are many other games like that, or that it makes sense to use them in a tourney.

2. Technically, Raizing games are knowledge-based since you have to know a lot of scoring secrets and rank-control techniques to get a good score :-/ (There's nothing wrong with that, BTW). Look at the Wild Snail table in the Garegga board.

Well, yes and no. Garegga is easier in that regard: all the basic scoring/surviving principles can be summarized in just a few sentences, otherwise it's all pretty intuitive: shoot stuff, dismantle bosses, chain medals, and if you see some scenery, bomb it. The only two secrets mandatory to know are the hidden extend in stage 3 and the flamingoes in stage 2. Batrider, while undoubtedly more difficult to learn, is still a pretty fun and flexible game.

3. Better players are always going to get higher scores, no matter how simple or forgiving the scoring system is. They might not be winning by a incredibly wide margin, but they'll still win.

Well… duh? Do I sound like I'm arguing the otherwise?

What I personally would like is close to what your ranking proposal is supposed to deliver: a tighter point system. It makes the competition more lively, without the situations where the next place becomes realistically unreachable.

Except I also want this on a weekly game's scoreboard as well, through a more thoughtful game choice as opposed to the ranking system.

But the most important part, of course, is that I want the worse players to not feel like what they're doing is fruitless, unforgiving labor. Game selection does pretty much everything here.

4. I think if we really stuck to your post like a mantra, we'd have to eliminate all Cave, most Raizing, and Takumi, and mostly stick with Psikyo and random 80's and early to mid 90's shmups.

Absolutely not as bad as you're probably seeing it. Here are games that I have played that arguably suit both the guidelines I described and my taste in general.

Cave: ESPRaDe, Progear. Not sure about Guwange, I never really tried to understand its scoring system.
Raizing: Mahou Daisakusen, Battle Garegga, probably Batrider (don't quote me on that, I just like the game and know many people would be enjoying it).
Konami: Gradius II GnY, Axelay (both are pretty easy to 1CC in a week).
As for Psikyo… Dragon Blaze doesn't seem half bad. Sure, it's hard as nails, but it's also simple to get into, it's not as cheap as Gunbird 2, and it doesn't have the ridiculous shining medals.

I actually propose a doujin week (or something), since there are numerous doujins that are really fun to play, and adhere to these guidelines to a great extent.

I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. I actually agree with you on a lot of points, but I'm not sure how applicable your guidelines are if we want a variety of games.

Well, I understand your concern, but on the other hand, some (many) of the good games just don't really fit the tournament format well, regardless of how good they are. For instance, I totally adore playing DDP, but doing it at a tourney would kill my interest in it rather quickly.

To give you a bottom line, a good tournament game should:

1) make it possible to learn the scoring system, basic controls and strategies in less than a day (read: 3-4 hours);
2) scale well to the player's performance, and be totally dependent on it (read: players with similar abilities who have similar experience with the game should have similar scores, not what you've seen on the GW board a year ago);
3) not have significant luck elements involved, especially during the hard parts;
4) not have sudden disproportional increases or drops in score;
5) have its scoring system working as a whole, without overprioritizing one aspect over the others.

It doesn't mean every game must satisfy every single condition, but the better they do it, the more fun they will be to compete in, almost inevitably.

[orange]

I actually propose a doujin week (or something), since there are numerous doujins that are really fun to play, and adhere to these guidelines to a great extent.

this x 1000

[mikwuyma]

I'm too lazy to make quote tags 10 times.

My point in number 1 is that it's not a bad idea to use games that are easy to beat, even if they don't run parallel to what you said.

Garegga: It still has a huge learning curve for rank control, since you don't want to shoot anything unnecessary (each bullet ups your rank), don't want to drop your medals (starting the chain over ramps up your rank), and milk bosses (not necessary, but you do get a lot of points out of it).

I'm pretty sure my ranking proposal is the closet thing to a tight point system, since each place is only one point away fromm the next.

Ok about those Cave games you listed.

Esprade: Are you kidding? Getting all of your bubbles to hit something and destroying it for a x16 multiplier can be really frustrating, and that's ignoring boss milking (which I will admit isn't necessary for a halfway decent score). In some areas you have to know how many shots you need to kill each enemy, or else you won't get a very good multiplier.

Progear: If you're ignoring it for score I guess, which isn't the point of the tournament. I like progear a lot, but to play it for score you basically can't bomb and you almost never want to die, or else you lose out on the big bonus you get from, guess what, not bombing or dying (bigger bullet canceling field, more points from bullet canceling),.

Guwange: This is DDP chaining, except across the entire game, so no.

I like cave games, but according to your principles, they're terrible choices.

I agree Mahou Daisakusen is a good choice, though it is probably too dull for some people (the opposite problem).

1) make it possible to learn the scoring system, basic controls and strategies in less than a day (read: 3-4 hours);
2) scale well to the player's performance, and be totally dependent on it (read: players with similar abilities who have similar experience with the game should have similar scores, not what you've seen on the GW board a year ago);
3) not have significant luck elements involved, especially during the hard parts;
4) not have sudden disproportional increases or drops in score;
5) have its scoring system working as a whole, without overprioritizing one aspect over the others.

1) Fair enough, though this does exclude almost every shmup made within the last 10-12 years. I think this might also devolve mostly into shmups whose scoring systems are "shoot stuff, survive", which might get a little stale.

2) Giga Wing did actually scale to player's performance, those who were better at multiplier building and surviving got higher scores. Yes, there were gaps in the scores, but you're going to see that with any game.

3) This is almost never a concern with shmups.

4) Do you mean like DDP and Giga Wing with chaining and multiplier building, respectively?

5) Most scoring systems are based on one or two concepts, so I don't really know where you're going with this.

I don't mind having simple scoring systems for 4 out of 5 weeks (we should have games with the simple scoring systems for at least a couple of weeks), but I would like something with a little depth/more complexity for one week just to mix things up.

Oh yeah, doujin week is cool. I don't really know many doujins, but I'm sure there are enough that don't have completely broken scoring mechanics

[GaijinPunch]

That's my point. Think about it.

Nah.

If you didn't really play last year

I did play last year. And once you spread your ass cheeks real wide and pull your head out you'll see that any type of displeasure I voiced is shared more or less amongst a group of only the most intelligent forum users.

Your welcome.

[freddiebamboo]

Ok about those Cave games you listed.

Esprade: Are you kidding? Getting all of your bubbles to hit something and destroying it for a x16 multiplier can be really frustrating, and that's ignoring boss milking (which I will admit isn't necessary for a halfway decent score). In some areas you have to know how many shots you need to kill each enemy, or else you won't get a very good multiplier.

Progear: If you're ignoring it for score I guess, which isn't the point of the tournament. I like progear a lot, but to play it for score you basically can't bomb and you almost never want to die, or else you lose out on the big bonus you get from, guess what, not bombing or dying (bigger bullet canceling field, more points from bullet canceling),.

Guwange: This is DDP chaining, except across the entire game, so no.

I like cave games, but according to your principles, they're terrible choices.

I would say Rade and Progear are probably the best cave games out there for tournament play (bar Dangun, but no one will vote it for a week). ESPRade has a wonderfully flexible scoring system - one mistake doesn't ruin an entire credit, x16's can be lost and then recovered quite quickly. Milking is not a great problem (as you said), if you are good enough to milk the 3rd boss and beyond then you deserve the extra score. The game is also very generous with extra lives and there is no DDP bomb bonus running through the game.

Progear is an excellent cave game for the STGT . It has a rank that operates on how well the player is scoring and though it uses the "don't die/bomb for extra score", not dying or bombing for a fair distance isn't that hard. Scoring well is very difficult however and requires skill - and is also not chain based, so a fuck up is not minus 3/4 your score for the stage, although you do have to hit the jewel streams early on.

I agree Mahou Daisakusen is a good choice, though it is probably too dull for some people (the opposite problem).

Mahou I love, but it is random as hell (bashi 1 & Stage 5 boss amongst others) and has almost no scoring system. It's a lot of fun, but not on a weeks deadline to get the perfect run.

[Rob]

mostly stick with Psikyo and random 80's and early to mid 90's shmups.

Sign me up.