One of the comments we get a lot is about the scoring system. For example, one user wrote:
You are "rewarded" with additional pieces and weapons, yet penalized if you dare use them all.
This is a fair critique and one we agonized over. Therefore, I think it might be nice to give some explanation why it ended up that way.
When we started coming up with the scoring system we really wanted something that measured how much butt the player was kicking. We had two very simple design goals:
- Earning a better score should be fun. Obvious I know.
- The player should be able to iterate towards a better score.
The first thing we considered was Time. Unfortunately, small changes in the ship would result in huge swings in time. Therefore, violating rule #2.
The next idea was to measure how much Health the player’s ship had when the battle ended. Initially, we thought this one worked very well. After all, if you killed the enemy faster you would take less damage. If you placed your armour correctly you would take less damage. The Health of the ship at the end of the fight says a lot about how well you did. We were happy.
Then we started testing.
The first hurdle we encountered is that a lof of people didn’t understand how to take less damage. See in our game there was no way to completely avoid getting hit. The enemy was always going to hit you with a salvo or two before you were going to start taking down their guns. Therefore, the ways to avoid taking damage was to kill the enemy faster or to place your armour so that their attacks would lose strength. But that required an extra step of thinking that proved hard for a surprising number of people. When they thought about reducing damage, they thought about avoiding hits which just isn’t possible for how the game plays. This was disappointing, but may have been workable if it wasn’t for the next problem: Piece Overlap.
When you make a game that is a bit experimental there is always the chance you will make some mistakes. Building the ship around overlapping pieces is one of those mistakes. It might not seem like a big deal, but it had some big effects on battle and completely upended the scoring system. How could something so innocuous lead to so much trouble?
For starters it meant we had to give most weapons a blast radius. If you could just make a more armoured ship by putting wood beams on top of each other the game would be very dull. Therefore, the blast radius of most weapons drives the player to push pieces apart. That caused us a few headaches, especially in feedback to the player, but mostly it worked as intended: put two pieces too close together and they both get damaged, move them apart and only one gets hit.
Of course one side effect is that if your ship gets hit near the joint, then two or more pieces will be damaged. Now, when it comes to destroying the structure of a ship this isn’t a problem. If it takes four hits to sever the link between the Caplin and the gun, then it doesn’t matter if those four hits take out two pieces or one.
Until you start scoring the player on Health.
Suddenly, we have an Aliasing problem: if an enemy bullet lands in the center of a segment it will do half as much damage to your score than it would if it landed at the joint. Now this didn’t violate goal #2, that player could iterate towards a better score. Unfortunately, it caused havoc with goal #1, fussing with the minutia of placement to get enemy bullets to land at juuuuust the right spot was irritating.
For players who didn’t see the joint problem, their score would fluctuate a bit unpleasantly but they would otherwise play the game as intended. However, for players that did see the issue they would be sucked into a game of making these miniscule irritating changes to maximize their piece placement. And with each tiny tweak a bit more fun factor was sucked away.
And that left us with Resource Minimization.
Oh that was a hard choice day in the office. We wanted players to have big crazy ships, but we also wanted scoring for a number of reasons. Thing is Resource Minimization just worked. Everyone understood the rules and the goals. The player could iterate towards a better score. And in the end it is fun. Of course, being efficient isn’t the same kind of fun as laying into the other guy with all you have, so it wasn't a perfect choice. But given the difficult constraints we had, we think we made the call that would provide the most fun to the player.
So now that you know the reason, do you look at the game a little differently? Or if you haven't played it yet, perhaps you might like the challenge of finding the most efficient solution to a given level. Or do you think we missed something and should have made a different call? Please, let us know on anti-social medial: Toot on Tooter, post on Gooplus, or even face the Book.
Until next time,
Ah Yes Dear Friends,
In time for the weekend Rigonauts has been updated. Changes include:
- 7 new achievements added. Earned achievements will automatically be rewarded when game is run.
- Fixed tier values for level 3-9.
- Outputs .mdmp error file to steamapps\common\rigonauts\
- Fixed several rare crashes.
- Music has been remastered.
- Fixed readability of game credits.
Also there are some improved diagnostic tools. So if you are one of the few users who have had problems playing the game. Please follow this link for help: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2935970
Until Next Time,