mices - Gun.Smoke tribute, Broken Pearl, Twin Tiger Shark

[n0rtygames]

Out of interest, why stage select only on hard?

Surely easier to just do a practise menu and launch a specified stage under at a certain difficulty?

[trap15]

Why do people want the loop bug to be fixed I think it'd be awesome to have another infinite looping game, for the first time in like 20+ years

[emphatic]

Checkpoints for Insanity mode please.

[trap15]

^^^ YES PLEASE

Insanity mode should be way harder, infinite looping and checkpoints Best game in over 20 years if it happens!

[n0rtygames]

Pretty please can you put a filter on the score page so we can switch between difficulties?

[mice]

Why do people want the loop bug to be fixed

I was wondering that too. Need to come up with a way to fix it and leave it at the same time...

Checkpoints for Insanity mode please.

But, there're checkpoints there now for all difficulties? I must missunderstand something, what do you mean?

Pretty please can you put a filter on the score page so we can switch between difficulties?

On the web page or different tables in the game?

God I'm tired, youngest have been up all night...

[Jaimers]

Why do people want the loop bug to be fixed

I was wondering that too.

Probably for the same reason that nobody has made an infinitely looping game in the past 20 years. Because people figured out it's a terrible idea and nobody wants to play a shmup for over several hours.

You can add an endless mode to the game though if you really want to keep it. Maybe one that scales from easy to insane or something like in Eschatos.

[n0rtygames]

On the web page or different tables in the game?

God I'm tired, youngest have been up all night...

On the web page :0)

Also, get sleep!

[emphatic]

Checkpoints for Insanity mode please.

But, there're checkpoints there now for all difficulties? I must missunderstand something, what do you mean?

Sorry, I forgot. Maybe add instant re-spawn to the normal modes?

[HydrogLox]

On the web page or different tables in the game?

On the web page :0)

To get the "expected" effect the QR code may need to be changed - in the current situation it is only necessary to submit the highest score of all the modes. If you want to see your high score in any one mode on the Web, the QR code would have to submit one high score for each mode. The current game table only holds the top ten - your "easy" scores can "push out", your top "hard" - so you need a separate place to store each gamertags high scores, etc. - are we close to having separate tables in the game yet? ... and people wonder why there are so few "little" changes.

[n0rtygames]

To get the "expected" effect the QR code may need to be changed - in the current situation it is only necessary to submit the highest score of all the modes. If you want to see your high score in any one mode on the Web, the QR code would have to submit one high score for each mode. The current game table only holds the top ten - your "easy" scores can "push out", your top "hard" - so you need a separate place to store each gamertags high scores, etc. - are we close to having separate tables in the game yet? ... and people wonder why there are so few "little" changes.

dafuq?

I know this, I only asked for a change on the website so I could filter by a column in a database and not have to scroll through a bunch of "For fun" / "Easy" modes to see the hard mode stuff.

His QR codes already contain the mode information which gets submitted to a database.

The only change needed is this:

WHERE mode=modename;

Not too fussed about having a filter in game - or really any changes to the game at all. Quite happy with it as is, it just has a few quirks that only need ironing out if Mice deems it to be necessary. Also adding a filter in game is not particularly hard either. However I do not expect moon on stick for 69p

[HydrogLox]

I know this, I only asked for a change on the website so I could filter by a column in a database and not have to scroll through a bunch of "For fun" / "Easy" modes to see the hard mode stuff.

I don't know what the QR code currently contains but in the simplest case only the highest score with its mode (easy/hard) will be submitted (it doesn't seem to submit the score of the current game but the highest score on the game's table). Based on that assumption:

• The web database only holds one score (and its mode) for each gamer tag (i.e. not a high score for each mode).
• Typically that score will be the "easy" one.
• To get onto the "hard" filtered list your are going to have to beat your own "easy" score - so your best hard score may not be available for public comparison even though it may be better than some of the ones that are listed.
• A gamer tag will only ever be listed on either the "hard" or "easy" list - never both.

Typically this type of request comes with the expectation that a gamer tag will appear on both filtered list - one high score for each mode ... which requires more changes.

[mice]

@HydrogLox:
You're right in almost all of your assumptions. The new version of the game needs to split the tables up and upload the best for each table when requested. Or, maybe, if you could just select what score from the hiscore list to upload.
Needs some thinking. The feature, in one way or another, needs to get in there.

[n0rtygames]

Why didn't you just design the bloody thing properly in the first place?! Too much time mucking about - that's why! *donk*

Simplest way - which I do (also suggested you do this a few pages back before the game was released iirc) - Maintain a list for each one, tag the high scores.. you're working with an object orientated language. Don't just submit numeric values - submit an object.

Code: Select all

class/struct/whatever ScoreEntry
{
   eDifficulty mSkill = eGameMode.Hard;
   int64 mlScore = 9999999999;
   string msTag = "Foobar";
}

List<mScoreEntry> mEasyScores = new List<mScoreEntry>();
List<mScoreEntry> mHardScores = new List<mScoreEntry>();

void InsertInto(eDifficulty aDifficulty, ScoreEntry aScore)
{
   switch (aDifficulty)
    {
       case eGameMode.Easy:
            insertintoscoreboard(ref APPROPRIATELISTHERE);
            break;

       case eGameMode.Hard:
            insertintoscoreboard(ref APPROPRIATELISTHERE);
            break;
     }
}

On your server side logic as we discussed before, only insert a score if it is higher or better then simply filter based on a simple parameter when viewing scores. All your scores can live in a DB - you just select with a WHERE clause. The only level of separation you should probably be worried about is on the client side.

Code: Select all

1. Select * from scores - where gamertag = playername and difficulty = difficulty
2. If match, compare submitted score.
3. If submitted score is lower, return - do nothing
4. If submitted score is higher - remove old entry and insert new one

No massive re-engineering is needed. This is a trivial thing and it sounds like whatever thought process you're applying to it has resulted in it seeming massively overcomplicated.

There. Then a left/right filter select on the score screen.

In the mean time can you just put a filter on the webpage?

ref is magic and it is your friend

[HydrogLox]

Simplest way...

One of current issues (if I'm correct) is that the QR code submits only the top score on the table. (A version 10 QR code can hold up to 1728 5.5bit characters). Even if the entire table was submitted "easy" scores could flood out any "hard" score. It makes sense to send the top score and not the most recent score - that way you can decide much later to submit - you don't just have one narrow window right after the run to submit your score. All mode high scores need to be submitted in a single QR code. But without separate mode tables the mode high scores would have to be managed separately. So Mikael's decision to maintain symmetry of the game and web table implementations makes sense.

[n0rtygames]

Simplest way...

One of current issues (if I'm correct) is that the QR code submits only the top score on the table.

Yeah so you just add up/down selection to the menu and submit whatever the currently selected score is... Server side logic handles dealing with whether your current score is worthy of being inserted in to the DB

[HydrogLox]

Yeah so you just add up/down selection to the menu and submit whatever the currently selected score is.

• When the table is flooded with "easy" scores there is no "hard" score to select.
• You are imposing excise and your "customers" will hate you for it.

[mice]

In the mean time can you just put a filter on the webpage?

Without having it filtered in the game, the page won't make sense when filtered.
Since some of your scores for one difficulty have been overshadowed by another, because of the "only top one gets uploaded" (no, not confusing for us who knows how it works, but for those actually expecting to find themselves there when filtering).

I have to figure out how I want this, so please continue submitting suggestions/opinions on the matter.

[n0rtygames]

Yeah so you just add up/down selection to the menu and submit whatever the currently selected score is.

• When the table is flooded with "easy" scores there is no "hard" score to select.
• You are imposing excise and your "customers" will hate you for it.

You seperate the score tables as I've said above with an actual code example! It's not a tremendous leap of logic to assume that tapping left or right on the stick would also cycle whichever list of scores you're looking at. The same way most console ports have implemented it. It's a system that works. Just indicate it clearly to the user.

So Mikael's decision to maintain symmetry of the game and web table implementations makes sense.

It is not designed in a scalable or well thought out fashion. A little harsh but this is what I usually consider "constructive feedback". I'm not attacking Mice - I just don't get why you're refuting a better design which would take about 30-40 minutes to implement if a cup of strong coffee was present.

"Is it scalable?" should be a mantra for anyone designing a system/product.

You are imposing excise and your "customers" will hate you for it.

I dunno - I think that's taking textbook material way too far man. This is a genre that needs the extra degree of separation. The ability to cycle through score tables is a given in any shmup that has had a console port and if anything this community has only ever really complained when too many scores are bundled together when really a clear distinction should be made (Jamestown lumping coop with solo play, DFK lumping Green Heli with basically anything..)

However - you do make a good point about at least trying to minimize the amount of button pushes the player has to make. See the infuriating high score tables of Pink Sweets/Muchi Muchi Pork!

A simpler solution is to incorporate this on the main menu:
HIGH SCORES (EASY)
HIGH SCORES (HARD)

You can still submit the highest score for the relevant board and you've only added one stick movement to the main menu. However if you then start adding in additional difficulties - your main menu is gonna get congested. So, best place to put an option to switch scores? Same damned place the console ports do...

[mice]

Options forward, right now:

• * Single list: Select score to upload
  * Single list: Select Upload -> Best Easy/Hard/Insane score to select from
  * One list per difficulty: Best score uploaded
  * As it is.

At the moment, the last option is in the lead.
If you want to compete on being the best Hard player, you play hard. So last option coupled with a "reset hiscore list" option might suffice.

[HydrogLox]

So last option coupled with a "reset hiscore list" option might suffice.

If that issues a QR code to remove the current high score from the global list - that way budding high score chasers can toss the "easy" training wheels and start over on "hard". But this is still a rather arcane way of working around the problem.

One list per difficulty: Best score uploaded

This one is probably the best. Reasonably speaking nobody is going to be hopping between difficulties so simply submitting the single high score of the current table or the currently chosen difficulty is probably a good compromise.

[HydrogLox]

You seperate the score tables as I've said above with an actual code example!

But you are already suggesting separate tables for each mode in the game - this started out with you asking for a simple filter on the web page and me predicting that this is going to snowball to all sorts of changes on the game side.

It is not designed in a scalable.

In what sense? I think we have already arrived at the conclusion that each mode will need its own score table both on the game and on the web page. The only way you can stick to a single table in the game UI is by tossing the "top ten score" idea and simply list one high score per mode for the currently logged in user. The other potential scaling problem is trying to submit more that one score per QR code.

a better design which would take about 30-40 minutes to implement if a cup of strong coffee was present.

Core logic maybe, what about UI changes, testing? Maybe its time to keep a recorded log of what you spend your time on - guard that "optimism" around people who might take your word for it.

I dunno - I think that's taking textbook material way too far man.

My issue wasn't with scrolling between separate tables - my issue was with scrolling within a single table. We are dealing with a clientele of smart phone toting easy button pushers. I think one can get away with simply submitting the high score for the current table or for the currently selected difficulty - but I would also expect bug reports that their high score doesn't show when they never submitted a QR code for that particular difficulty.

[n0rtygames]

Core logic maybe, what about UI changes, testing? Maybe its time to keep a recorded log of what you spend your time on - guard that "optimism" around people who might take your word for it.

80% procrastinating, 10% wanking to shake off the procrastination, 10% coding. The 40 minutes is spread to allow for realistic distribution of wanking breaks - point is if you actually sat down and worked solid, you'd get it done quicker than you realise!

I get that Mice's goal is to try and deliver a user experience with one high score screen - but frankly I can't offer any suggestions on that as I think this approach is just really silly. Trying to force in the retro feel when you're dealing with tech that didn't exist in the arcades back then (uploading scores) is weird and you've already destroyed part of that with having a menu to begin with.

Why attempt to force this when all of the console ports of successful arcade games keep things separated? Also separation is a good thing.

Would you want to put Batrider Normal and Advanced in the same score list? No!

Also I gotta say this is a pretty weird comment:

We are dealing with a clientele of smart phone toting easy button pushers.

Your core audience should always be the heart of the western shmup scene. You can make concessions to cater for casuals.. easier difficulties, autobomb mechanics - go for it. But if you start thinking of your player base as a bunch of knuckle dragging retards who can't even navigate a menu something has gotten a little weird.

In order to allow for proper competition, you gotta have these levels of separation.

* Jamestown, lumping coop/solo together
* Pink Sweets/Pork lumping 1.0 with 1.01 - why?

Then you have SDOJ which allows you to filter out scores using the overflow bug, choose a specific difficulty and a specific ship type. Futari will let you filter by character or both - also lets you filter individual leaderboards. The port of Ketsui lets you separate the different loops because they are seen as different scores in their own right.

Scoring mentality is not casual mentality - so why smartphone toting "easy button pushers" even come in to the equation is absolutely alien to me. Did you at any point throw yourself in to a fit of rage and start throwing controllers around the room because Cave imposed excise upon you? Did you hate Cave for it?

I dunno. Different mindsets I guess. What you see as a detriment to the user experience is something I consider an enhancement - so we're not going to agree.

[HydrogLox]

Also separation is a good thing.

There is no argument on that point. The argument was if this separation was possible by only changing the server-side logic - without any significant changes on the game side.

Also I gotta say this is a pretty weird comment

Simply trying to capture the mentality that relies daily on technology without any concept under what constraints it has to labour under - technology that might as well be magic. This same mentality tends to have little notion of where the line is between what is reasonable and what might as well be magic.

In this particular case there could be the expectation that a snap of a single QR code will submit all the high scores. Once faced with the realization that they have to snap one QR code for each mode they get flustered proclaiming they shouldn't have to "work so hard" and that all of this shouldn't even require a single click of a button.

Your core audience should always be the heart of the western shmup scene.

I was more thinking of your general XBLIG consumer which is a much broader spread.

In order to allow for proper competition, you gotta have these levels of separation.

True. Or you could decide that there is only one competitve mode - "hard" - and those are the only scores that go to the game and web table.

so why smartphone toting "easy button pushers" even come in to the equation is absolutely alien to me.

To engage those who actually might be ready to be introduced to the genre through the more accessible "Toaplan Tribute" style (compared to more "esoteric" styles typically only appreciated by die hards)?

[n0rtygames]

There have been endless debates on this and the only sane conclusion I've heard on the matter of trying to get casual players in to the genre is to NOT make the games accessible.

BUT... I can totally understand snapping a single high score though per table and that much I do agree with. The only reason I would advocate snapping individual scores would be if multiple gamertags are scored in the same high score table.

e.g

1. Jim, 9999999
2. Bob, 8888888

How does Bob upload his score? Are saves profile specific? Does upload score search for your gamertag before generating the QR code?

[mice]

If that issues a QR code to remove the current high score from the global list

No, that would only be for the local table. Difficulty setting is already taken into account at the score reg on the web.

but frankly I can't offer any suggestions on that as I think this approach is just really silly.

The only issue with this is that if you play good easy rounds and fill it up, it could be hard to change mode and get a score in.
But otherwise, why would you want different local lists for each? All you'll ever see is your name at the top on each of them.
Wouldn't it be better to have them all visualized at the same time?

Why attempt to force this when all of the console ports of successful arcade games keep things separated? Also separation is a good thing.

I don't think they even thought it through, they just did it because it's the natural thing to do. And as I said, all I see is my name at the top of them...I already know that before flicking through them.

Does upload score search for your gamertag before generating the QR code?

QR is generated for the user logged in on the controller pressing the button and taken that users highest score.

Don't give up on this, please continue to disagree, you two will soon come to an agreement that is suitable for us all.

[n0rtygames]

There is no argument on that point. The argument was if this separation was possible by only changing the server-side logic - without any significant changes on the game side.

huh?

This was never the argument and if it was the argument, why did you mention all that stuff regarding "imposing excise" and so on?

I asked for a filter to a mysql DB via some cgi script or similar for my own personal benefit - not as anything customer facing. When the discussion got to the point of talking about the actual broken nature of the high score system I provided some pseudo C# with a solution.

Unless Mice is silly enough to be running a MS based webserver then I quite clearly was not talking about changes only on the server side given that the game is written in C#.

There has to be significant changes on the game side. The implementation on the game side is what's causing all the sodding problems. The server side changes are a million times easier than the client side and involve about 3 lines of code to add a WHERE clause to the mysql query.

[n0rtygames]

If that issues a QR code to remove the current high score from the global list

This seems like a really dangerous suggestion btw. I don't want to come across as too much of an asshole but when you're starting to suggest things like allow clients to do anything other than push entries (in this case you're suggesting that a client be allowed to request a deletion) then you are asking for trouble and this is a very worrying proposition.

This model does not have any authentication and uses very minimal encryption - to the best of my knowledge.

[HydrogLox]

is to NOT make the games accessible.

Nobody is messing with the game itself - I just personally feel that the "Toaplan" style is generally more appealing to the "Western" palate than, for example, the "Cave" style (especially once we get to the Deathsmiles end of the spectrum). We are talking about the ease of use and logic of everything around the actual game. I'm getting the sense that you yourself have been at times mystified by some of the UI choices that were made by the more established design houses - almost as if the UI was bolted on as a quick afterthought.

The only reason I would advocate snapping individual scores would be if multiple gamertags are scored in the same high score table.

I wouldn't disagree with you there. And I'm also a bit handicapped as I don't know the gamertags in the PC and OUYA are managed. So my discussion focuses more on the XBLIG side of things. If I understand it correctly:

• Only Xbox Live gamer tags that have purchased the game can start it up.
• Player 2 will simply end up being something like "Guest" (There is the separate argument whether or not comparative competitive score play between separate 2 player runs is even possible - the competition is between the two players involved in a particular run).

So on the local table its impossible to tell the "Guests" apart - which is an even bigger problem on the global web table. So why bother putting "Guest" scores in the local or global table anyway? With that out of the way you can simply choose the highest score in the table of the currently logged in gamertag - no individual score selection necessary. It could also be seen as a cheeky way of limiting score submission to paying customers (at least for the XBLIG version).

Difficulty setting is already taken into account at the score reg on the web.

My concern was with getting rid of that annoying "easy" score that is preventing the new lower "hard" score from showing up on the web - but at this point in time you have probably decided to already show both scores.

All you'll ever see is your name at the top on each of them.
Wouldn't it be better to have them all visualized at the same time?

I think the "top ten" table makes little sense if the table only shows scores for the currently logged in gamertag. If it's only for one gamertag, show the high score for each mode played and stop right there. "Top ten scores" only really make sense to compare scores from different players and there a "Top ten players" may be better anyway so that the best player cannot dominate all the entries of the table.

you two will soon come to an agreement that is suitable for us all.

• Having separate tables for separate modes seems the most natural.
• Or: you could declare "hard" as the only "competitive" mode and only track those scores - but you would be shooting yourself in the foot for adding an "insane" mode which is also competitive in nature.
• Or: if only the scores for the currently logged in gamertag are shown anyway only show one high score per mode in the table.

I would also suggest separating the web scoreboards by system (PC, XBOX, OUYA) just in case it turns out that the varying platforms introduce unique nuances in difficulty.

(in this case you're suggesting that a client be allowed to request a deletion)

No it's a valid point but

• This is for a recreational game - not a bank. Hopefully there will be no gambling based on the web table.
• The risk is already there in the form of submitting a fraudulent high score. This is just an automated form of the "honour-system" high score web page.
• It wouldn't have to be implemented as a deletion; score records could simply be marked as invalid to prevent the previous higher ("easy") score from keeping the lower ("hard") score out.
• This is a non-feature if the web table(s) show(s) one high score for each mode for the same gamertag.

[spadgy]

Added my two-scents via the poll.

The other thing (discussed briefly with mice in the game's thread in 'Shmups Chat') is that I'd love to see split/separate high-score boards for the various difficulties (however many there end up being). I'm motivated to play 'Easy' as I can score higher there, but 'Hard' for the benefit of my ego. So it feels a shame as it stands when, for example, and 'Easy' score replaces my 'Hard' score.

Also, I did tick 'fix looping bug', but as to how I'd like to see it fixed? I don't mind how much it loops, as long as it's standardised for all players. I think three loops total would be great for the game's rhythm/pace, and that each loop should definitely introduce a new difficulty (I presume those currently getting onto fourth, fifth loops etc are seeing a repeated difficulty?). But if it just has a second loop, or infinite loops, as long as there's a level playing field for everyone it's cool (infinite loops do take away the emphasis on performance/scoring, and instead prioritise just survival, so I warm to capping the loops.

And to clarfiy, when I say 'three loops', I count the first loop as the moment from when your press start (1-1 - 1-5). I know it can be confusing, in that some call the first loop the moment from when the game kicks into its first new loop (2-1 on).