forums.marpirc.net

OK, is it me or are would I be correct in seeing a massive tie in MARP's future in the lemmings prototype?
<p>

I suggest the following: All players start with x lives, probably three, but maybe five's better. Any lemming that should have been saved, but you didn't, is a loss of a "life". Any level that isn't finished in three minutes [not when the credit ends, when three lemmings minutes (about 90 seconds by my estimation) pass, even if it covers two credits] also accounts for a loss of a "life". However, if you COMPLETE level 4, 8, 12, etc., an extra life is gained. (8, 16, 24, etc. could be used, too - each "segment" is eight levels long though, right?)

<p>

It would be a bit interesting keeping track of lives - but it would generate the competition I think we want...

<p>

Do you think this suggestion has any merit or am I just smoking smog out the top of my head... which would require a lot of talent now that I think about it... GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

So are you rescinding the one-credit rule?
<p>

It seems like you have to sacrifice 5 guys in the first 6 levels,
unless I'm missing something. So you have to account for "necessary"
deaths.

--
rpeng@usc.edu

Well I can't personally rescind the one-credit rule, we have to agree
by motion to do that. I think this is one of the rare times we can
rescind that, however. Course, that's my opinion - I'll expand on it
if required...

<p>

As for neccessary deaths - yes - there's a case where you have to put
three blockers to save the other 22. That doesn't count as three
lives lost, that would count for no lives lost. But if you put one
lemming that little pit on the builder level and it doesn't get
saved, that would be one life lost because the death
was "unneccessary".

<p>

GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

I don't like the proposed scheme, since it requires everyone to know what deaths are 'required' and which aren't. I always used to think that on the first 'blockers' level, you had to use 4 blockers - now I find that the fall to the exit is not too high, and it is possible to only use 3. What I'm saying is that the proposed scoring mechanism is too hard to use.
<p>

How about if instead we score the game as the number of lemmings saved, full stop? You're allowed to continue as many times as you like, but if you fail to complete any level then it's game over.

<p>

Just a suggestion, of course. And to be honest, I've not played lemmings enough in MAME to know how the credit thing works - I just played it a lot on Amigas, Atari ST's and such like a long time ago.

--
zwaxy@bigfoot.com

We need to do something about the time limit on this game if we are
going to see anything more than the first half dozen levels.

<p>

I agree that the number of lemmings saved should be the primary
measure and then the time taken should be the tie breaker (fastest
game wins). Saving the most lemmings is more in the spirit of the
game and so should be rewarded the most.

<p>

I am uncomfortable with the idea of unlimited continues though. I'm
also unhappy with the 'game over when you first fail to complete a
level' idea. Later levels of the game are brutal in regard to
mistakes - make one and you can't complete the level.

<p>

I'd be happier to see a limit on the continues - even if it is as
high as 50 or so, whatever will eventually prove sufficient for a
good player to finish the game. It will not be easy to work out what
that number ought to be - anyone have some overall game timings for
Lemmings on other platforms?

<p>

As for mistakes where you can't finish the level, I believe the
scoring should permit some mistakes, say 3 before it is game over.

<p>

Cheers,
Tim

--
tmorrow@bigpond.net.au

Maybe we should do one point for every lemming saved and take say...
ten points away from every additional credit over one you need to
use? Maybe that would be better. Then we can screw the unneccessary
life bit or any subjectivity... but I'll leave all of that up to you
to decide. GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

Seems reasonable to me, every continue takes away ten lemmings from
the total and game's over when you reach a negative score; of course
you shouldn't count the ones that you are saving on the round when
this happens and final score might be the total of lemmings plus
(number of last completed stage * 10). Double-clicking the nuke to
respawn the round should end the game at once or cause a big penalty
(say -20 on lemmings total)
I know this would break the "one coin per game" rule, but this game
is too addictive and it would be a very boring playing with just one
coin.

--
benedetti.franco@tiscalinet.it

Yeah - that scoring system works. I think it should be automatic
game over for anybody who winds up repeating a level, frankly. I'll
leave that for the "motion period" - shouldn't be too long before
that starts. GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

I still think that a few mistakes should be permitted just like most
other games on MARP. Later levels in the game don't have any margin
for error. I completed the Sega Genesis/Megadrive version of Lemmings
years ago. I recall that some of the levels took several retries even
once I knew what to do. I can't understand the problem with
restarting a level. You are already being penalised as the time
doesn't restart so you've lost any time used in the previous try. I
can't see anyone finishing the later levels under the proposed rules.

<p>

There is possibly a problem with the 10 lemming penalty per continue.
If you can find a way to save 10 more lemmings at some stage of the
game, it's not worth it if it takes more than a credits worth of time
to do it (3 lemming minutes, 1.5 minutes real time). Not sure how
often this occurs.

<p>

I believe the aim of the game should be to always have rescued the
maximum number of lemmings at each point of the game. Any player that
has rescued more lemmings after x stages than anyone else should be
declared the leader.

<p>

The current scoring proposal appears to reward fast play over
rescuing the maximum number of lemmings. Perhaps there should be two
categories - speed play and max lemmings.

<p>

Cheers,
Tim

--
tmorrow@bigpond.net.au

Okay, here's how I'd rather see it scored:
<p>

You start off with some base value (100*starting level).

<p>

For each level cleared, you get 25 points minus the number of
lemmings who didn't survive (so blockers that remain are still
counted as surviving), and an additional point for each lemming that
was actually saved.

<p>

The base value is ONLY awarded if the first level is completed.

<p>

This gives people an incentive to play some of the later levels,
although it still short-changes the levels in the middle, and there's
no multiple-credit requirement (if we do still want that, we can take
each credit as a separate game and then the final score is the
average of every game - which is how we should be handling multi-
credit recordings anyway, in my opinion... yes, it's great that you
broke the 1st place score on your third credit, BUT your other two
scores sucked, and you should still be held accountable for that).

--
mdenham@coinet.com

I don't agree with you, Tim. If you do a little mistake (i.e. you
waisted the only two floaters in the level) you can switch the game's
speed to a complete stop. This would mean having to wait for time to
expire and then getting new floaters with three minutes to go: this
will cost you 10 points, and/or a fewer lemmings to save; doing a BIG
mistake (so that you can't finish the round even with newly
respawned "actions") ends the game at once; many other games tolerate
some little mistakes but will have no mercy for bigger ones (I just
recall wonderboy: some areas can't be done without the axe, so
loosing it would be a fatal error). I just finished playing lemmings,
ending the game with 1600+ saved, no nuke, using about 100-110
credits, and I did A LOT of little mistake, in some cases I only
saved 1 or 2 lemmings using 2-3 credits (round 65 is a real pain, 10+
credits)

--
benedetti.franco@tiscalinet.it

Apologies, I'm confused. Specifically which of my statements don't
you agree with? Can you explain it in another way? If you mean some
games won't tolerate errors then I agree with you although I don't
see wboy as an example nor why it's relevant for lemmings. I thought
you could always get back after dying at any position of wboy (based
on my experience of the console versions of the game) but I'm not the
expert you are at the arcade version

<p>

Finishing lemmings using 100-110 credits even if it was a quick dry
run just reinforces to me that some margin for error should be
allowed in the game. Level 65 is a case in point where an error
should be allowed. If it makes the game too easy this way then the
scoring should cover rankings adequately - those using less credits
will have higher scores just as it should be.

<p>

Cheers,
Tim

--
tmorrow@bigpond.net.au

Let's try this scoring system thought:

In the game, you start with 0 points. Every time you save a lemming,
you get 1 point. Every time you have to continue a game, you lose 10
points. When your score goes BELOW zero, the game is over. Any time
you are forced to repeat a level (which includes the super-nuke),
your game is also over.

Your MARP score will be:

10 points for each lemming saved.<br>
100 points for each stage completed.<br>
-50 points for each continue used.<br>

So in essekappa's case, I approximatly guess he finished 72 stages
saving 1600 lemmings in 105 credits. So his score would be (72 *
100) + (1600 * 10) - (105 * 25) = 7200 + 16000 - 5250 = 17950

What do you think about this thought? GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

<i>Let's try this scoring system thought: In the game, you start with
0 points. Every time you save a lemming, you get 1 point. Every time
you have to continue a game, you lose 10 points. When your score goes
BELOW zero, the game is over. Any time you are forced to repeat a
level (which includes the super-nuke), your game is also over. Your
MARP score will be: 10 points for each lemming saved.
100 points for each stage completed.
-50 points for each continue used.
So in essekappa's case, I approximatly guess he finished 72 stages
saving 1600 lemmings in 105 credits. So his score would be (72 * 100)
+ (1600 * 10) - (105 * 25) = 7200 + 16000 - 5250 = 17950 What do you
think about this thought? GB9 </i>

<p>

Actually, it's (72*100) + (1600*10) - (105*50) = 7200 + 16000 - 10500
= 12700.

<p>

If we take out the continue penalty, but change it to a per-credit
average, it becomes:

<p>

((72*100) + (1600*10)) / 26 = (7200 + 16000) / 26 = 23200 / 26 = 892
(roughly).

<p>

By the other scoring system listed there, the score is:
1600 - 25*10 = 1350 (or, doing a per-credit average instead of a
penalty, 1600 / 26 = 61).

--
mdenham@coinet.com

Oops... I originally typed 25 point penalty - but I thought the
components would be more equal if I did 50 - so the original scoring
I wrote was 25 - sorry

<p>

If we played per credit - he actually played 105 credits, so his per
credit average would be like 225 points. We'd be back to the
original situation - 170 * 10 + 7 * 100 = 2400 / 1 = 2400

<p>

In the other system, it would be 1600 - 105*10 = 550 - if by credit,
it would be about 15 points - playing just the first credit like
we've been doing would be 170 / 1 = 170. GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com