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

[mice]

only shows scores for the currently logged in gamertag.

No, the QR code is generated from the loged in user. All is still shown.

I count the first loop as the moment from when your press start

I do too and I think it's quite logical. You've done your first loop when you're starting the second "lap", right? Hence, you're in the first loop from the beginning and you then get into the second loop.

is that I'd love to see split/separate high-score boards

Welcome to the discussion!

So, user case, as everyone sees it and is the natural inside-the-box kind of thinking thing:
Press Start -> Select Easy/Hard/Insane (except if hard or insane is selected in the options menu)
-> Play to game over -> View local hiscore table (from played difficulty setting) -> Upload top score for that user/difficulty (through QR)
-> Press Start -> Select Easy/Hard/Insane (except if hard or insane is selected in the options menu)
-> Play to game over -> View hiscore table (from played difficulty setting) -> Upload top score for that user/difficulty
-> View online table for the selected difficulty

"Issues" with this, as I see it (imho, of course and I would most likely not find good references for any my points):
* You're never going to invite people over to play with you so all you're ever going to see is your name at the top in all of the local tables. Hence, they're useless, you could have them all in one list instead only showing the top for each difficulty per user (if you actually invite someone someday).
* The divided global lists will have fewer entries in each. Quantity is good, generates interest. You shouldn't separate you user base.
* The divided global lists won't make the players, that select Easy, to recognize that there are people so good that they get the same amount of score as they are on harder difficulties.

If I was to do as everyone else have done I wouldn't have made a retro gam...ey, wait a minute...

[HydrogLox]

only shows scores for the currently logged in gamertag.

No, the QR code is generated from the loged in user. All is still shown.

On the XBLIG version - for another gamertag to appear on the local table wouldn't that gamertag also have to purchased the game separately? I imagine that could happen but I think that is a minority case - especially in the light of your later comment. Remember I'm debating from the point of view that it is pointless to have "Guest" scores in the table.

You're never going to invite people over to play with you so all you're ever going to see is your name at the top in all of the local tables. Hence, they're useless, you could have them all in one list instead only showing the top for each difficulty per user (if you actually invite someone someday).

This is basically an argument stating that all the scores in the table belong to the logged in user anyway (in the majority case anyway). And I think it is the strongest argument for dropping the "top five scores" nature of the table and simply listing the highest score for each mode for the logged in gamertag (e.g. one for "insane", one for "hard", one for "easy", etc.). I'd default the QR code to the score of the mode that is set in the options menu (which can be made clear by the button text "Upload {mode name} Score" ).

Select Easy/Hard/Insane (except if hard or insane is selected in the options menu)

Can you point me to the discussion that lead to this? What are you trying to accomplish - remind "easy" players that "real gamers don't play on easy"? Keep it simple - default to "easy" upon installation and simply change modes through the options menu. Now you could plaster the current mode name all through different places in the game to reinforce that there are more modes. You could also mention in the start page that the game was designed around the the "hard" mode (I always thought it was curious that Halo was "designed to be played on Heroic" - telling me "Heroic" is "Normal" - but that the "Normal" difficulty was below "Heroic").

* The divided global lists will have fewer entries in each. Quantity is good, generates interest. You shouldn't separate you user base.
* The divided global lists won't make the players, that select Easy, to recognize that there are people so good that they get the same amount of score as they are on harder difficulties

It's your game - but then do what Norty suggested - add filter options to the web page so that the table contents can be restricted to a single mode and/or system, and of course modify the game to make it possible to submit a score for each mode.

If I was to do as everyone else have done I wouldn't have made a retro gam...ey, wait a minute...

People's "retro-spectacles" are pretty rosy - they tend to forget about the warts that were imposed by the constraints of the contemporary technology. So people only want to be reminded of the "rosey parts". In other words it should feel retro when they play the game - but the UI framework might as well take advantage of modern capabilities and insights.

Also, I did tick 'fix looping bug', but as to how I'd like to see it fixed?

I was actually surprised to see the positive response to the infinite play (novelty?). Over the years I've come across many accounts from shooting game enthusiasts which typically stated that their preference was towards games that had run-lengths of 20-30 minutes and that if a game had loops, a pass should be no longer than 20 minutes, typically assuming that there were only 2 passes. I think STGs are supposed to be short and intense. There are plenty of other genres that primarily require stamina of play rather than stamina and persistence of practice to develop skill at play. There shouldn't be a problem with a mode having an actual score ceiling - if you are getting close to it, it is time to challenge the next higher difficulty mode. The highest difficulty mode probably will have you weaving so much that it is impossible to claim all points on the stages anyway - so it becomes a matter of navigating the most profitable path.

[n0rtygames]

"Issues" with this, as I see it (imho, of course and I would most likely not find good references for any my points):
* You're never going to invite people over to play with you so all you're ever going to see is your name at the top in all of the local tables. Hence, they're useless, you could have them all in one list instead only showing the top for each difficulty per user (if you actually invite someone someday).

Casual players love coop shmups. I got quite a few entries on my coop leaderboard and even a zany youtube review on the game played in coop. Do not underestimate the casuals. Also, I quite like being able to sort of see my progress incrementally on local high scores and one personal best on the leaderboards.

* The divided global lists will have fewer entries in each. Quantity is good, generates interest. You shouldn't separate you user base.

I really don't think you should combine all scores together. Would you compare an Expert SDOJ score to shot?

* The divided global lists won't make the players, that select Easy, to recognize that there are people so good that they get the same amount of score as they are on harder difficulties.

Sure it will. Remember your early days, how you discovered that there were high scoring players out there. It's a step they need to take for themselves. Don't force them in to it and more importantly don't compromise on your core audience on the off chance that you might give birth to maybe 1 or 2 potential future high scorers.

If I was to do as everyone else have done I wouldn't have made a retro gam...ey, wait a minute...

You need to enlarge everything nearest neighbour 2x before you can make that claim.

[mice]

On the XBLIG version - for another gamertag to appear on the local table wouldn't that gamertag also have to purchased the game separately? I imagine that could happen but I think that is a minority case - especially in the light of your later comment. Remember I'm debating from the point of view that it is pointless to have "Guest" scores in the table.

You can log in with any account and play the game that is installed on the HDD.
And also this is quite common:

(although I did use my Japanese account instead for my second go...)

simply listing the highest score for each mode for the logged in gamertag (e.g. one for "insane", one for "hard", one for "easy", etc.).

But limiting it to the logged in user isn't necessary, is it?

Can you point me to the discussion that lead to this?

Because of this suggestion:

You could have easy as default, and add a difficulty selection when a new credit starts. However, if the difficulty setting is changed to hard in the options, then this in-game selection is removed. This way, noobs can play EASY mode until they feel ready then try HARD. Shmups fans can turn HARD on and not ever see the difficulty selection.

but then do what Norty suggested - add filter options

Yes, and as I said earlier, I can't do that until everyone has an option to upload their scores for all difficulties (after the update).


Super thanks! Keep it coming!

[mice]

Also, I quite like being able to sort of see my progress incrementally on leaderboards.

That's a point I've been thinking about too. Could maybe visualize this with a graph or just plain entries when pressing the username in the global view. Another way is to just spam the boards with all results, but then the overview isn't the same.

[n0rtygames]

Just do it like any other shooter. Please

Also how the flip do I even view the high score page from my desktop instead of having to scan on my phone. Can't find the link

EDIT: FIRST POST IS AMAZING.

[mice]

Just do it like any other shooter. Please

I wouldn't let you go through all of this if it wasn't for me hating Akai Katanas way of showing it.
There is something really wrong if I can't find/see the info I'm after, easily.

[n0rtygames]

Just do it like any other shooter. Please

I wouldn't let you go through all of this if it wasn't for me hating Akai Katanas way of showing it.
There is something really wrong if I can't find/see the info I'm after, easily.

http://www.n0rty.com/twintigershark/

Runs every 5 minutes.

[mice]

Haha, cool!
But you know that these snaphots are lies, right?

[n0rtygames]

Haha, cool!
But you know that these snaphots are lies, right?

What do you mean?

if someone wants to submit a new score for hard or something - go delete your save data then play only on hard.

This is a temp solution and will keep people off your back til you get around to implementing whatever you see fit.

btw, 10 minute shell script for 3 pages of discussion. 90% wanking

[HydrogLox]

You can log in with any account and play the game that is installed on the HDD.

OK - I only tried it with a local gamertag - which of course doesn't connect to XBL - though I do imagine that it is only true if the console is the primary download console for the gamertag who purchased the game (i.e. purchase gamertag visits friend, downloads game onto their console - recorded score will only be for the purchase gamertag - when friend uses game with their gamertag on their console they only get demo mode).

But limiting it to the logged in user isn't necessary, is it?

No - but I see it as the only way to justify (only) a single local high score table in the game. We've established that another user is only going to appear in the table if an XBLA account is logged in on the primary download console of the XBLA account that purchased it. But wouldn't the tendency be for the purchased XBLA account to be logged in on the primary download console even when friends come over? So is it even worth showing scores from players who aren't currently logged in (how often will there be multiple XBL gamertags on a single console)?

If you are entertaining multiple gamertags in the high score table how about this

• gamertag purchases game.
• gamertag invites friends to play. XBL friends are better at game - swamping the purchase gamertag out of the local high score table.
• purchase gamertag cannot submit a score until friends scores are beaten.

This even applies to the single gamertag high score as the friends high score will be registered as theirs. I think a local high score reset is mandatory.

Also, I quite like being able to sort of see my progress incrementally on local high scores.

Following that reasoning the score entry should also list a time stamp - because after taking a break from the game you'll likely need to get "back into form" and you'll want to see if/that you are closing the gap on your earlier accomplishments.

• And we are back to a separate local table for each difficulty mode (not a bad thing).
• And we need a way to select a gamertag in the table (defaulting to the one that is currently logged in to reduce the pain).

Because of this suggestion:

This way, noobs can play EASY mode until they feel ready then try HARD. Shmups fans can turn HARD on and not ever see the difficulty selection.

Which can already be accomplished via the option menu anyway. I don't see any added value in the extra step - if anything it is patronizing to EASY players. You've already made your point by not having a NORMAL mode - no need to rub it in.
I don't know if you remember this topic: Discussing shooter elitism with Vintagevideogamegeek.

[n0rtygames]

You are /really/ over complicating and being overly analytical on this.

Time stamps are not necessary.

"Oh look, there's my last personal best - now I know what to aim for"
"Shit, I'm in the middle of an intense run.. I had like what.. 20m or something? Was it 21? 27? Shit."
"Oh I got 24m...hmm"
"Ahh hey, I improved by 3m"

Secondly you do not give the user the ability to select gamertags or do anything regarding other players. You just don't.

Thirdly - yes, shooter game elitism exists. I remember that topic very well, but I don't necessarily agree with or care for casual players when it comes to scores other than providing them with the novelty of actually being able to submit a score. Like I said to Mice about 5 pages back - do you really care about the crappy player in 100th place who got a game over in stage 1 when you're talking about players who can hit loops?

Just gonna make it clear, as an adult developer employed in full time development who understands the importance of respect for customers - when it comes to casual players and scores - here's my actual stance on the matter:



Learn to play.

BTW, what you described about friends dominating the high score table? That's perfectly normal. It's been this way for donkeys years both in the arcades and on home ports of games that have local high score tables with limited spaces.

In short, that player needs to step his game up - because his score is irrelevant. So your friends beat you? Welcome to competition. Put in the time.

[HydrogLox]

EDIT: FIRST POST IS AMAZING.

Like the use of the T34-85 diorama. Is that going to be a selectable wallpaper?

[spadgy]

Also, I quite like being able to sort of see my progress incrementally on leaderboards.

That's a point I've been thinking about too. Could maybe visualize this with a graph or just plain entries when pressing the username in the global view. Another way is to just spam the boards with all results, but then the overview isn't the same.

For me, a glance at a local leaderboard full of my name is all I need to monitor my progress, and I do utterly agree with n0rty here. Even if the local leaderboard doesn't save, while playing a session it's just nice to get a feel for your average scores and progress. I don't need anything more intricate to analyse.

As for the ability to enter different names using one signed-in Gamertag; that feels essential on XBLIG. I regularly meet with other shmup players (I had MX7 over just this weekend to play Chronoblast, and met with about eight other forum members the weekend before to session a shmup or two). My shmup crew love to meet up and spar over shmups, watching our names muscle one another down the local leaderboard, which serves as a competition ground for the duration of a given meet-up. If XBLIG demands I'm logged in to play the game, then the ability to enter a score-board name (three letters, ideally ) independent of Gamertag is something much appreciated, useful and makes the game more suited to competitive local play. And the types that do that kind of competitive local play might be a fraction of your audience, but perhaps the most vocal faction?

[HydrogLox]

"Oh look, there's my last personal best - now I know what to aim for"
"Shit, I'm in the middle of an intense run.. I had like what.. 20m or something? Was it 21? 27? Shit."
"Oh I got 24m...hmm"
"Ahh hey, I improved by 3m"

More like "Damn I'm still short 3m of last years high score - at least I'm 1m better than last weekend."

do not give the user the ability to select gamertags or do anything regarding other players. You just don't.

Kind of a 180° (- but OK). See here.

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.

do you really care about the crappy player in 100th place who got a game over in stage 1 when you're talking about players who can hit loops.

That crappy player in 100th place cares because he is still better than the one in 101st - and with a little more work he could soon be better than the one in 95th. I would imagine that's why Super Stardust HD has a 500000 entry global high score table.

Learn to play.

... is at the core of the STG genre. But everybody starts as a casual and easy mode is the "gateway drug".

It's been this way for donkeys years both in the arcades and on home ports of games that have local high score tables with limited spaces.

In an arcade you are competing in a public area - the arcade owner can reset the table and in some cases the table went away at the end of the day when the power got turned off. For today's home consoles the web table is the public competition area - but on the local table you are primarily competing with yourself. Even in previous home console generations you can usually clear the high score table - in the worst case you simply swapped to a new memory card and in many cases the high score table didn't even survive the gaming session.

because his score is irrelevant.

... not to the player. The gradual building of skill, getting better scores than yesterday, last week, last month, or last year within any one game is part of the experience.

I really don't think you should combine all scores together.

Here I have to agree. You simply cannot compare, for example, a 2m EASY score to a 2m HARD score. Being able to get a 2m EASY score probably means you are struggling to get to 1m HARD.

[n0rtygames]

Kind of a 180° (- but OK). See here.

That's not a 180 - because my question was answered about the QR code being profile specific.

That crappy player in 100th place cares because he is still better than the one in 101st - and with a little more work he could soon be better than the one in 95th. I would imagine that's why Super Stardust HD has a 500000 entry global high score table.... is at the core of the STG genre. But everybody starts as a casual and easy mode is the "gateway drug".

Globally, you support larger numbers. I think I support about 200 per board or so in Chronoblast? Really can't remember - but past 200 - sorry, you're not ranking. There are technical reasons for that too, given the nature of the p2p high score system. I'm not transmitting 1000 scores at once across XBLA.

In an arcade you are competing in a public area - the arcade owner can reset the table

You can delete your save data. There are no unlocks so this does not come with any ill effects. I'm talking about local scores.

... not to the player. The gradual building of skill, getting better scores than yesterday, last week, last month, or last year within any one game is part of the experience.

Sure, excuse me while I just allocate a theoretically infinite amount of storage space just because that ONE guy might suddenly find the joy of shmups and become next years #1 DDP player and send Prometheus running for the hills.

Even if I scale the scores up to 500,000, what happens to player #500,001? At some point, I've gotta say "fuck that guy"

So does it make any difference if I make that cutoff point at 100? 200? 300? 400? 500? 600? 700? 800? 900? 1000? 2000? 3000? 4000? 5000? 6000? 7000? 8000? 9000? 10000? ( )

At some point, player n+1 is getting disregarded. But he really could be the next Gus one day. If he's truly the chosen one, he'll endure the pain and embrace it.

[spadgy]

Added my two-scents via the poll.

Honest I'm a journalist!

My two scents, by the way, are squirrel and human.

[n0rtygames]

Honest I'm a journalist!

OUT.

Infinite shame. *Infinite* shame.

[mice]

All hail Toaplan!

[n0rtygames]

Is this your drawing?

[HydrogLox]

I'm not transmitting 1000 scores at once across XBLA.

Nobody does - typically only pages of 10 scores with short cut navigation to first, last, and "my highscore" or "my friends" neighbourhood are supported.

You can delete your save data. There are no unlocks so this does not come with any ill effects. I'm talking about local scores.

I figured as much - but at the same time I have to wonder how many console owners know about that little dusty corner - especially as XBLIG games are stowed away in their own little area.

and become next years #1 DDP player and send Prometheus running for the hills ... But he really could be the next Gus one day.

Pursuing that line of thinking there is little point showing any score other than the player with the highest score - because that is the score to beat. Certainly anything beyond 3rd is excessive because nobody cares who made 4th in the Olympics.
There are many competitive pursuits where you compete in your particular skill class - or in this case your neighbourhood of scores. The recreational pursuit here is to improve your own score and possibly to improve your global standing - knowing full well that you will never be 1st. If its about being 1st find an obscure game that nobody plays and claim the 1st place (and yet ... still nobody cares).

Even if I scale the scores up to 500,000, what happens to player #500,001?

Wouldn't you feel better if you had 500,000 gamertags to fill your Chronoblast highscore table (no matter how lousy their scores may be)? Not that I'm going down the "build it and they will come" road. I'm not even sure that Super Stardust HD started out with 500,000 slots. Ultimately the size of the active player base drives the optimal size of the global listing. But you're right there will always be "n+1" - that is what the "show me the bottom of the table" navigation shortcut is for - to find out what score you have to beat to get onto the table (though I suspect most people use it to answer the "how many people actually have played this thing" question).

[mice]

Is this your drawing?

No, it's from the toaplan design documents that came with the "Soundtrack Collection".
Best PDF ever!

[mice]

In my mail just now:
This is a letter from Xbox LIVE Indie Games team at Microsoft Japan.

\o/
(currently doing a stupid dance)

[n0rtygames]

Sweet - I'm guessing that's the same I had a while back. You getting a feature?

Let me know and I'll take a photo when it pops up on the main page, then you can turn your dance in to a full on rave with flashing lights.

Just checked and you're currently top downloaded - so probably gonna be a featured game very shortly. There's a bunch of STGs on the main indie page on the japanese marketplace again.

Feels good, feels good!

[emphatic]

Wow, that's awesome! Congrats!

[spadgy]

Yeah... great! And deserved too! Excellent news.

[mice]

Thanks!

Sweet - I'm guessing that's the same I had a while back. You getting a feature?

Yep.

Code: Select all

DONE! * millionth score outside of screen
DONE! * Fix Loop bug
DONE! * longer pickup floating
DONE! * Difficulty: Insane

Now what? How do I handle the erroneous green / blue weapons?
Is it just the final form of the green weapon that's overpowered?
And the final form of the blue that's under powered?
Should they meet in the middle then?

[spadgy]

To me green is a beast at most power levels (at least compared to the other weapons at equivalent levels), but it's certainly the top end that feels too much. It's power at low levels helps with recovering from a death at a tricky point, so it's appreciated, but eventually it becomes responsible for making life too easy.

Blue seems about right at the top end (depends which way you take the power of the other weapons), but to me feels hellishly weak in the build up.

Red seems pretty nicely balanced throughout it's power levels.

Of course, the point of different weapons is they have their own pros and cons. So I guess getting them all balanced and still varied is a hell of a job.

By the way, is there a score bonus for picking up a power up of a particular colour when you are already at max power for that colour? Introducing that at least keeps power ups interesting when you don't need them.

[mice]

Thanks!

is there a score bonus for picking up a power up of a particular colour

Yes, you get 5000 for it, same as a large star.

Blue seems about right at the top end (depends which way you take the power of the other weapons), but to me feels hellishly weak in the build up.

I've heard people saying that it's too weak for bosses at max power but ok to play with (at max and not) during the levels.

This is going to be tough to fix.

[n0rtygames]

Do you have to start the entire buildup from 1-maxpower when you switch powerups?

If not, borrowing from Cave (you know, those ex toaplan dudes) might be smart. Have a powerup/bomb vessel before a boss fight letting you actually choose.

Dunno how badly that will break shit though.

If you made it so the damage output of the blue weapon was exactly the same as red - with the same rate of fire but with a wider spread, we could do the Batsugun thing of getting super close to the boss so all our shots connect.

That'd also add an interesting skill element of using the blue weapon for good scoring during stages but having to get more aggressive during the boss fight to counterbalance this.