I usually don't like playing maps with a short top score, like under 8 minutes or so, because so often they end up trivial like that stupid trolololol one. I just now got a 15-minute time on a fun map (ladoy?) with the next fastest at 30 min and the other two or three at over an hour. I worry that'll scare off other players who would otherwise enjoy the map. And it's sad for the person who dialed the map too; I at least am always happy when I see people play the ones I've made. Is a fast time a deterrent for you folks?
#guiltyofbragging
Quite often, the result is the opposite (for the old hands around the forums); most probably they will flock to try and beat your score.
Whenever I play a map in any Creeper World game, I never let scores bias me, except for how some times seem ridiculous :P
Well for scores sometimes it's opposite for me, if the only scores are 2h+ and the map seems easy, means it's a long and boring slog. If there is a less than 3 min scores means it's a rush map and also it's boring. But if there is some long and some shorter scores, means you can take it easy, or can try and play it skillfully and have a much shorter time ^^
I never feel bad for being fast; in fact, during the last few weeks, I've been speedrunning in the Alpha Sector. Actually, the first trolololol map was my first time playing Creeper World for speed! But before I did, I never really cared about score, so I wouldn't have been disheartened to see crazy low times. Although the obvious cheats are annoying, and some even rub it in with their names.
Like pawel345 and for the same reasons, I look at a map's scores before trying it.
I almost never look at the scores, ever, when I do its just to see how I did compared to others. but mostly I play it slow and one step at a time
by that I mean producing 200 energy but only using a total of 5 units, so I have no highest scores for anything
I never feel bad when I come first. That because I never come first. I usually turtle if I can, involuntarily, and the game only ranks players on scores, not energy efficiency or anything like that.
If anyone cares, in the rankings I'm always called "At least I feel like a winner".
Too bad there aren't categories for "finished the map with all upgrades" or "covered every cell in soylent".
Hmm. There's potential for Achievements there.
I seem to remember in CW1 (or at least its training sim) at the end of your battle you'd be shown a graph that showed things like creeper coverage, creeper killed, energy consumption, etc. If we could have something like this, that would be great.
For example - we might be awarded points if we maintained a high creeper coverage and not much creeper killed, for the risk factor. Alternatively, we might be awarded points based on how much deficit we had. I don't know. Just some ideas.
I do admit that I can be sometimes put off by a long, long list of really fast scores, causing me to look for a more leisurely paced map.
But then again, I've never really been one to play for speed, to me its much more enjoyable to achieve symmetry in building my base.
Terraforming has REALLY slowed me down, in CW3 >X
Quote from: Mimsy on October 28, 2013, 11:15:56 PM
because so often they end up trivial like that stupid trolololol one.
Be careful what you say. Comments like that could hurt quite a bit. :)
#FriendlyWarning
It has to be said sometime. Some of the named DMD maps *are* stupid and pointless.
I generally don't look at scores before I play a map. Most of the time I only play maps once. There have been a few times where I will play a map multiple times just because I know I can significantly improve my score.
I sometimes think that fast times are off-putting, but then i remember that i never play a map the first time to get the fastest time on it, but to simply beat it and experience all it has to give.
If it's a race to you, then a faster time than you can manage is rather intimidating yes.