To add validity to the competition in the eyes of non-pinball viewers, I think that the # of times that players intentionally restart their game should be minimized. Generally speaking, manufactured do-overs cheapen the value of a competition. I think that a player having to suffer the extra delay of plunging/draining their remaining ball(s) will provide an appropriate barrier to restarting a game being exploited.
I won’t be there, so there’s no bias in me trying to sway it one way or the other.
There aren’t a lot of situations where Quick Restart is helpful, but if I miss that first Tie Fighter Hurry-Up, or Hyperspace Hurry-up on ball 3 then I’m restarting as fast as possible. Turning off quick restart doesn’t make this decision any harder, it just makes it like 8 seconds longer and more annoying.
Then maybe it’s a bad idea to have goals in this event that would encourage restarts?
Maybe you only get three balls. Don’t make it? Sorry you lose. Both players lose? Rematch!
I don’t think this will be fun for the general viewing public if it turns into a match of who can restart the most times (while announcers struggle to explain why starting over will actually put the competitor closer to achieving the stated goal).
Instead of a rematch, if the goal is not met, then the tie should be settled by the higher score. The potential for watching people repeatedly fail at something is not going to be exciting. I would think the goal would be to have the matches progress in a quick fashion.
Rematches would be tedious, yes. Better to extend the time if necessary? But not much?
Deciding dual failures by score could evolve strangely - - if the goal is perceived as “unlikely” to achieve, either before the fact or during play, there could be a visible shift in strategy. Player A sees the goal is out of reach for them and switches to go for score hoping player B falls just short. Since B goes for the goal the whole way, rather than for score, B could lose despite being “closer” to reaching the goal.
But you can’t really decide ties by “how close” you are, since that’s not always clearly definable.
This isn’t a good idea because It will change strategy to encourage slowplay for hard goals. This is also a rejection of the precedent set by the speedrun race and randomizer race community that this idea has been borrowed from. If there’s 1 thing that’s less interesting than watching pinball it has to be watching a pinball machine in attract mode.
These guys aren’t flying out to Vegas to try to win a NIB Aerosmith Game! They’re just lazily turning on a pinball stream!
Also, I would like to think that the commentary team will be quick-witted enough to explain these sorts of situations. It will never be a “this helps” situation. It will also never get you any closer to achieving the goal, since the only result of restarting is losing all game progress.
This doesn’t make any sense. Look at the goals in post 94 and tell me what you think, but these are the goals that I’m practicing for. There is no objective on that list where restarting HELPS the player achieve the goal faster than ideal play. There is a calculated risk where they player may choose to restart a game (in any manner) to try to make up time lost. Doing this repeatedly would absolutely cause you to lose because you would never achieve the goal.
I would say that is part of the risk and is not really a concern especially in limited time. If Player A doesn’t think the goal is achievable and switches to score mode, how sure is Player A going to be that Player B doesn’t have the ability to accomplish it and that Player B is also thinking “I’ll just go for score”.
In all cases, the goal takes precedence. After the time expires, if neither achieves it, score settles it. If both players happen to go into the match with the “this is impossible to do” mindset and they both switch to score mode, it is still exciting and quick.
Before we start deciding what works and what doesn’t work . . . I think it’s worth at least trying the proof of concept as it was designed.
The idea of ALMOST reaching your goal only to have the game end (say you’ve locked 2 balls in the Toy Box and fail to lock the 3rd) . . . there’s drama there with needing to start over, especially if the other player has only locked 1 ball flailing around.
I don’t know how many people watch Survivor, but I think it’s insanely entertaining when they have the challenges of stacking something up to a certain height. A player can be down by a TON, and then if the player who’s winning fails to do it by the time the game ends, it’s equivalent to that giant stack of dominoes crashing down. The adrenaline rush of the other player who was LOSING, but it is now WINNING is a palpable thing.
Understood. I was just responding to Ryan’s post of rematch and BMU’s comment about not letting score settle ties. I honestly have not read the full ruleset. I was not trying to step on toes and ask for, or suggest any changes, particularly since I am not playing in it.
Updated challenge list. Start Video Mode has been removed from Star Wars. It’s been replaced by starting a Mode Multiball (Destroy the Death Star, Escape from Hoth, Escape from Tatooine, Battle Above Endor). This will be player choice in advance of the challenge being started.
Start Tie Fighter Multiball
Start Hyperspace Multiball
Start a Mode Multiball (Player choice)
Complete Escape from Boba Fett
Two Minute Drill (most points after 2 minutes)
Capture 20 ghosts
Start Storage Facility Multiball
Collect Super Jackpot
Complete 2 modes
Two Minute Drill (most points after 2 minutes)
Start Toy Box Multiball (player chooses what level)
Star Love in the Elevator Multiball
Light one of the 2X multiplier shots (player choice)
Thinking about this, one the most promising lines of attack I can think of is to take the video mode skill shot and drain as soon as completed. Then do the same on ball two and ball three. If there is any time remaining, take a mode shot and collect as many of the mode shots as possible.