Arch Rivals and other sports games

jbd · Post by **jbd** » Sun May 07, 2000 12:30 pm

One one credit, Arch Rivals will stop after predetermined amount of time, no matter what the score. So the scoreboard is currently measured by 'how many points you can get in 2 1/4 minutes' which is rather silly. I make a motion to change the board for that game so it is measured by


1) using a full game [not sure the number of quarters off the
top of my head, I just dump a bunch in if I want to play this way]
2) Using the point difference between teams rather than an absolute score [otherwise, letting the other team score can be a strategy because you can sometimes get the ball back faster]



I currently hold the high score for both romsets, until of course Bubble notices I beat his score again.

Some other sports games have similar problems.



A different kind of problem occurs in golf. Unless there is
a standard score actually in the game golf should be measured
by 'amount under par' and be in *reverse* (so a -5 score is
better than a 2). If extra coding is not desired, the same
effect could be had by subtracting the score from 100 (so
-5 would be 105, and 2 would be 98.)

--
jdyer@u.arizona.edu

jbd · Post by **jbd** » Mon May 08, 2000 12:30 pm

Two other comments to add:
1) Turf Masters should also be separated into courses



2) Bubble's current Arch Rivals recording for v4.0 is invalid because
it uses 2 credits instead of 1. I thought that score had looked a
little high.

--
jdyer@u.arizona.edu

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon May 08, 2000 12:30 pm

oh cool, thanks for the obvservations! we'll get that score changed
to the 2 1/4 time score in a jiffy. i'm sure bubble accidentally hit
the multipl credit button...

--
churritz@cts.com

Chad · Post by **Chad** » Mon May 08, 2000 12:30 pm

About golf scores, you should add 10 or 100 points for every hole
reached and subtract the overpar score. so if you completed 10 holes
with a total overpar score of -2 your score would be 102 or 1002.
this is for games that don't let you play all 9/18 holes
automatically on one credit.



About the point difference between offence and defense, this has been
discussed in other threads and we haven't come to a clean solution,
it's usually been decide that we use offensive score only since we
should use a method for all sports games, but there isn't an all
encompassing rule that goes for all games including offsensive and
defensive score that we've found yet. Usually some games are a lot
harder to keep defencive points off the board, so you'd want to use
(offense-2*defence) but for most games (offense-defence) is ok.

--
churritz@cts.com

bubble · Post by **bubble** » Mon May 08, 2000 12:30 pm

Good thing someone noticed what I did to get that (very) high score
since I didn't know myself how I passed to 2nd quarter, and been
trying to repeat it ever since

I'll delete the offending inp.



As for "So the scoreboard is currently measured by 'how many points
you can get in 2 1/4 minutes' which is rather silly", I'de say that
silly is to keep beating the scores when the top players have reached
a tie IS silly. JDB and I shared the 1st place for 2 or 3 times
(meaning we were tied in 2 or 3 different scores in both sets) and
still he kept beating his own scores. To state that doing so ("how
many points you can get in 2 1/4 minutes") is silly is a paradox to
say the least.
Overall, sports games have been classified this way for quite some
time now, and unless something really annoying about this scoring
system shows up, I'de say we keep it as it is.

--
bubble@mail.pt

bubble · Post by **bubble** » Mon May 08, 2000 12:30 pm

errr, as for the double 'is' in that sentence, I'm foreign so bare
with me if you will

--
bubble@mail.pt

jbd · Post by **jbd** » Tue May 09, 2000 12:30 pm

I'm not arguing that we've reached some sort of point cap, but that
the full game is much more fun than just 2 or so minutes worth. The
computer gets much more aggressive in the second half of the game and
starts passing the ball rapidly so it is much harder to steal.



It sucks a lot of the enjoyment out of the game to be playing with
the current method.

--
jdyer@u.arizona.edu

Q.T.Quazar · Post by **Q.T.Quazar** » Tue May 09, 2000 12:30 pm

I would recommend against splitting Turf Masters until more people have
completed it. Same goes for changing the scoring style. Right now,
neither is a problem, and both changes would be real nuisances. Scoring
should be as simple as possible unless there are massive tie problems
(ie: off the wall, which I still haven't changed because of my #$%%
cable, or Neo Drift Out, and maybe GTMR if anyone evr plays it again
after our one-month burst competition)



QTQ

--
qan@home.com

lagavulin · Post by **lagavulin** » Tue May 09, 2000 12:30 pm

Concerning Turf Masters, it would be a good idea to split it in 4
games, one for each course. Pole Position has been splitted ( -fuji,
-suzu,... ), so why not Turf Masters ?

--
darre@club-internet.fr

bubble · Post by **bubble** » Tue May 09, 2000 12:30 pm

The thing about arch rivals is that no competition would be
raised/lowered/affected by changing the game recording mode. And to
change the whole '1-credit-rule' just so that one can have fun
stealing the ball off the opponent... well, just doesn't make sence.
<pun>Anyway, you seem to be having enough fun recording the same game
over and over as it is</pun>

--
bubble@mail.pt

jbd · Post by **jbd** » Thu May 11, 2000 12:30 pm

Let me make an analogy...it is like if all Galaga recordings were
restricted to 3 stages, or chess games were always quit after the
eighth move. You *can* show some skill and there can be
competitiveness even in the early stages, but it is hardly as
interesting as the full experience.

--
jdyer@u.arizona.edu