This is also the first time I have posted the link here. Someone please let me know if this is outside the bounds of acceptable.|||Totally acceptable and cool as well
|||Ok, so I gave it a go. Very interesting concept. However, when I try using my brain and consistently search for groups of 2 or 3 balloons to pop, I get a low score of 280. But when I click randomly everywhere very fast, I got over 150,000. The game seems to disregard strategics and favors rapid fire clicking and blind luck. The fact that rows move as you take out balloons (thus lining up more groups of colors) adds some potentially neat tactics that could be put to use if the scoring system rewarded it (which it doesn't, in practice). Great idea, you just need to tinker with those points imo.|||I appreciate the feedback!Quote:
...The game seems to disregard strategics and favors rapid fire clicking and blind luck. The fact that rows move as you take out balloons (thus lining up more groups of colors) adds some potentially neat tactics that could be put to use if the scoring system rewarded it (which it doesn't, in practice)...
The scoring system absolutely rewards strategy over blind luck. It's certainly possible to randomly click and get a decent score, but if you are able to click quickly, never clicking a group of 2, the scoring goes ridiculously high. If you noticed the background changing colors, that is when your score multiplier for pops is going up from the base. The colors of the background change depending on your current multiplier going blue->green->yellow->orange->red, where blue is 1x, green is 2x, yellow is 3x, orange is 4x, red is 5x and above. The score multiplier goes up each time you pop 10 groups of 3 or more without clicking a group of 2.
The scoring is also weighted -heavily- to favor clearing larger groups of balloons; the base scores look like this: 2=20, 3=40, 4=80, 5=160, from 6-10 is 600,700,800,900,1000 respectively, while if you pop 11 or more the scoring looks like this: (((count*count)*100)*scoreMultiplier); so 11 is 12,100, 12 is 14,400, etc. That is all before taking into account the score multiplier. And those number count all balloons that are cleared in a single move -even those that are cleared with a vertical arrow, horizontal arrow, or color bomb.
The balloons are generated absolutely at random in this one though. In the original version of KerPop, I put in a method to increase the odds of the balloons next to each other matching (since it was absolutely necessary in order to make clearable boards), in this one there is a bit of luck to it; sometimes the RNG is on your side, sometimes it isn't.
I'll make some changes to the scoring if the feedback warrants it. Right now I think poor explanation of the rules may be my worst enemy. I'll try to get that resolved in the next day or so.|||Ah, I think I found my problem: I read early that it rewards you for popping groups of 2-3 balloons, so I focused on that. Really, you should train your eye to find big groups of color because hitting just one in the group takes out all the same colored balloons around it. Then, hitting a group of 2 actually destroys your progress.
It's a good challenge because with all the different colors, there could be 10 yellows clustered together right there, but you were targeting red/blue before so you don't even notice. Or, your eye is already trained to find row shapes of one color, and a squarish blob could be right there without you noticing b/c it's random. It's pretty addictive, and you can learn to get better at it. I'm in third place atm...|||Quote:
...
I'm in third place atm...
I can proudly say that I currently occupy the first two slots. Now, my wife has this crazy theory that just because I programmed the game it puts me at some sort of an unfair advantage. What kind of crap is that? I mean c'mon, that's like saying that the guy who writes questions for Jeopardy would somehow have an advantage if he actually played the game... Well that's a bad example ...
:Edit I used to be able to claim the top two spots. Stillman is clearing using Hax!|||Not any more! I am in all the top 4 spots.|||But the big question is, did you see any mechanical flaws or bugs in play? Or things happening not as you expected them to that, either by design, or by error, need to be fixed, or at the very least explained in the instructions?|||Doesn't work on my phone
I'll try it again later, I also have to complain that you didn't pick any of the names that I suggested
|||Quote:Doesn't work on my phone
I'll try it again later, I also have to complain that you didn't pick any of the names that I suggested
As to point 1, it is currently being ported to Droid (but not iPhone, because that is a completely different language), and hopefully that release will be within the next month or so. I really have limited time to work on these games, and the other geek that helps me out (and is the brains behind the droid porting) lives a thousand miles away and has a completely different work schedule.
As for the names. I tried several of them, even mocked up some logos, but it eventually came down to what my wife said the her first time playing the concept version, "When the time is down to a few seconds, I start to panic!" I even had some harried music in there when it got below 5 seconds, but I found that it more or less made me freeze like a deer in the headlights so I removed it. I'll still take suggestions for names though; if something seems more fitting (and will look good in the header -as size is a concern for the direct droid port) I'll gladly make a graphic for it and change the name.
No comments:
Post a Comment