5% (2)
60% (23)
34% (13)I know that different people prefer different gameplay styles, and some people like challenging games while others like relaxing games. I designed Tomb Explorer with the option of having levels that have a time limit so that you have the challenge to finish the level before the timer runs out, OR the levels can be played with no time limit, so the only thing hurt by taking your sweet time is your score. That way there's no pressure if you just feel like exploring the map at your leisure.
Now, if I'm going to be making maps for the BYOND populace to play, I want to know what kind of maps they prefer: challenging maps with time limits, or relaxing maps with no time limits. What is your preference?
Poll: Do you prefer Tomb Explorer maps with or without a time limit?
Login to vote.
| |||||||
Perhaps implement time limits in the form of a bonus score that diminishes over time*... This will not impose a "hard" limit on any players wishing to take their time, but will offer incentive to be timely...
*(I assume that the time taken to complete a level already affects the bonus rewarded for completing the level, but this would make a more direct correlation, to the point of getting no time-related bonus if you run out the clock) | |
If you play it with no time limit, it will diminish your score based on how long you take to finish the level. Here's a breakdown of the formula. If you had 4000 treasure at the end of the level, based on the number of ticks (for seconds, divide by 10) to complete the level, this would be your ending score:
4000 treasure in 200 ticks: 5000 4000 treasure in 400 ticks: 4000 4000 treasure in 600 ticks: 3333 4000 treasure in 800 ticks: 2857 4000 treasure in 1000 ticks: 2500 4000 treasure in 1200 ticks: 2222 4000 treasure in 1400 ticks: 2000 4000 treasure in 1600 ticks: 1818 4000 treasure in 1800 ticks: 1666 4000 treasure in 2000 ticks: 1538 4000 treasure in 3000 ticks: 1111 4000 treasure in 4000 ticks: 869 4000 treasure in 5000 ticks: 714 4000 treasure in 10000 ticks: 377 Then that score would be boosted by 10% if you found all the treasure, and you'd get some more bonus points for grabbing the golden treasure quickly after you spot it. So for a competition level where the goal is to get the best score, there's absolutely no need for a time limit other than to force you to work faster. Actually the time limit might also make it more difficult to find some of the hidden treasures, since the sense of urgency make cause players to overlook things. Time limit are the only way players can "lose", but I'd hate to discourage players by using it. | |
I hate time limits. It literally takes the enjoyment right out of the game (unless it's a sports game, of course). I hate having to rush things, and trying to do things before time is up. It's more of a "you have to do this now" rather than a "I want to do this, and have fun" sort of thing.
Of course, you can always add certain maps with time limits, and certain maps without them. Or have the host choose the option to have time limits or not. | |
I could make it an setting for players to choose whether they want a time limit or not. Playing with a time limit could give you a score bonus or something, so people could leisurely explore until they're comfortable with the map, then player it for score with the time limits turned on. It'd be like "Hard Mode".
Or I could just make it so that most of the maps don't use time limits, since people don't seem to like them. Are there certain kinds of maps that would benefit from having time limits? | |
I almost think that time limits (whether a hard "time's up, game over" or just by decreasing bonuses/scores) are a necessity for this game, though (or any game of this type) Otherwise, there's really no challenge... If I had all day to click around a level, I'd basically always find all of the treasure...
I actually think that the score decrease formula could stand to be sped up, to further increase the emphasis on timeliness... The 9 "basic" levels are virtually no challenge... Those can all be breezed through in 10-30 seconds, even gathering all of the treasure (some might take a bit more time) The user-submitted and contest levels, on the other hand, especially those with time limits, offer a challenge (in fact, I didn't finish a couple that I tried) | |
If I speed it up too much, it might negate the need to find all the treasure because you score better by finding 75% of the treasure and finishing quickly.
| |
That's a good point...
Is there perhaps some balance between the two? Though maybe "sped up" isn't quite the right wording... I think maybe "shifted up" works better... On the chart, I see that finishing in under 20 seconds nets a bonus, and 40 seconds breaks even... Maybe that could be moved up to 10 and 30 seconds (and so on down the line)? | |
Foomer wrote:
If I speed it up too much, it might negate the need to find all the treasure because you score better by finding 75% of the treasure and finishing quickly. You could always pro-rate the bonuses based on the amount of treasure found. E.g. you could limit the effectiveness of the bonuses when less treasure is found so that this situation is mathematically impossible. | |
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure how you'd do that. But I'll think about it and see if I can come up with something. :P
| |
I would have No time limit when the maps are extremely hard to find 100% all treasure, other wise keep the time limit
| |
I like MdNight's idea... Perhaps the maps should be categorized, and given the appropriate type of limit...
Small, simple maps, with few to no puzzles, relatively little treasure, few levels, etc. could be served best by a hard time limit (as these maps essentially boil down to clicking speed as their main challenge) Larger, more complex maps could have an aggressive score decrease through time (as these maps are the middle of the road) The largest and most complex maps could be given no limit, or a less aggressive score decrease (as these maps focus on puzzles and searching) Of course, the categorization would likely have to be based on human judgement... | |
I'm not sure there needs to be a change in score decrease if there's no time limit, since the goal is still the game: finish it faster to get a better score. It doesn't really matter how much better the score is if you're competing for the best score.
| |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
Of course, the categorization would likely have to be based on human judgement... Which is bad, since we all know Foomer is a robot. | |
Foomer wrote:
I'm not sure there needs to be a change in score decrease if there's no time limit, since the goal is still the game: finish it faster to get a better score. It doesn't really matter how much better the score is if you're competing for the best score. I guess that's true... I was just trying to avoid "punishing" people who take their time on levels that are more or less designed for them to do so... | |
The time limits really give the game a sense of urgency.
I think that the competition maps SHOULD have a time limit, whereas the non-competition maps don't need it. | |
I like the time limit ones.
I've been busting through The Tower for ages now, I can get to the green portal with plenty of time to spare, the only problem is, I still haven't figured out how to get rid of that damn gate once you go through the green portal. So my only frustration is not knowing all the tricks. | |
Perhaps there should be an alternative way to end a level. Maybe if you're on a level with a time limit, and you're trying to get a good score but you don't know how to finish the level, you can get as far as you can in the level until you're about out of time and then leave through the entrance! You'd get scored based on whatever loot you found in the tomb, but you wouldn't get the big bonus for finding the treasure at the end, or the points for whatever loot you didn't find.
It puts me in an awkward position since, I don't want to ruin the sense of urgency or the pressure to figure out puzzles quickly in order to advance a little further than you could before, but I also don't want to frustrate players who simply don't like the time limits, and just want to explore casually. I can appreciate both views, and perhaps it would simply be best to have two types of levels: exploration levels and challenge levels. However, given that at the moment I'm the only person who ever creates levels for this game, I don't think there's enough levels to make it worthwhile to divide them. The other thing to keep in mind is that, given the simplicity of most of the puzzle elements in this game, one of the only aspects that makes it difficult is how, with a sense of urgency, you tend to overlook obvious solutions. Still, the current pull results seem to be somewhat in favor of not having any time limits, so perhaps it would be better to restrict time limits to contests. Perhaps when a new full-scale level is released, it can be presented in competition mode with a time limit, and then after the competition be re-released without a time limit. So only the competition maps would have time limits. | |
Foomer wrote:
Perhaps there should be an alternative way to end a level. Maybe if you're on a level with a time limit, and you're trying to get a good score but you don't know how to finish the level, you can get as far as you can in the level until you're about out of time and then leave through the entrance! You'd get scored based on whatever loot you found in the tomb, but you wouldn't get the big bonus for finding the treasure at the end, or the points for whatever loot you didn't find. I like it, but the user should still be further punished for their abandoning the tomb. Say, 1/4 of their recovered treasure is donated to a museum so they don't get points for it. | |
Short of no time limit, realistic time limits would at least be better. Chip's Challenge had a mix of both, but in most of the timed boards the time wasn't the limiting factor--if it was, the board was generally very simple. Complex tombs with short time limits piss me off.