From: kahlerm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Michael Kahler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pinball
Subject: Re: Inflated scores
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:10:31 GMT
Organization: Seattle University

In article <4#qq7d#@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
>In article <LFS.92Nov19232546@arcadia.mitre.org> lfs@mitre.org (Lyman F. Sheats Jr.) writes:
>>>Well, you can't have that today, because you can get a million just by having
>>>the ball accidently fall into the graveyard.  And things like "OOooh, FIVE 
>>>million!" sound kinda stupid.
>>I mentioned this before, and I know just about everyone disagrees with
>>me, but I really believe points are all relative and you should take them
>>in stride.  Whether you make a million point shot on a game like Whirlwind
>>or a billion point shot on a game like Cue Ball Wizard, the points really
>>shouldn't matter -- it's the excitement of making the shot and scoring the
>>points associated with the shot that's supposed to be fun.
>
>The problem is more point inbalance rather than point inflation.
>It doesn't matter to me if my top score on TAF is 571,000,000, 571,000
>or even 5170.
>Oh, it impresses the mass audience (read: the ones who stick in far more
>quarters than all of us combined) to have big huge million point score
>totals, so that is why they are there.
>The problem is point imbalance- billion point shots merely for the sake of
>having a billion point shot- that sort of thing. Take, for example, a
>Dr. Who. You can bounce a ball around for 5 minutes and still have a score
>of under a million. Start multi-ball, however, and you can have a score up
>in the hundreds of millions in a very short period of time. That is imbalanced
>scoring.
>Now take a good game, like TAF- well balanced scoring all around. When you
>score the big 50 million for touring the mansion, you've >earned< those 50
>million. 
>Actually, IMHO, TAF is one of the most balanced games, scoring wise, that I've
>ever played.
>
>Just some random observations.
>r.


I coundn't agree more with the above description, inflation versus imbalance.
I recall the first machines I played that actually had 'score reels' (not
just scoring lamps) had no trailing zeroes on the score, and the maximum
score was probably 999 (POINTS!).  That made the rebound bumpers worth a
full 1 point a piece, and the maximum shot was probably 10 or 20 (this was
a LONG time ago!)
Somewhere out there, someone came up with the idea of adding zeroes to the
scores to make them look bigger, eg 10 points for the rebounds, easy to
do, just add a fake zero on the right of the score wheels.  Now we have
100 and 200 point shots, soon to become 1000 , 2000 etc.  Well next
machines showed up capable of showing a score up to 99,990 points, with
maximum shots up to around 25,000.  So what was next? Allow a feature to
show if that score was 'turned over', eg a 100,000 point light.  Some
games might have even had a 200,000 point light. This must have been
about the time of digitalization (eg the microprocessor) as most original
electronic games had 6 digit scores, 999,990 maximum.  Of course this
lead to 7 digit displays, then 8 digit (or more, capable of showing 9 or
more digits).  Thats where wer'e at now, scores ranging in the billions. 
I suppose it will just keep heading that direction, as most of the
'un-sophisticated-playing' crowd will look at two games and play the one
which has higher scoring shots (the first ever million, the first ever
gazillion, etc).  So the manufacturers must keep making bigger scoring
shots and displays just to keep ahead of the 'other guy'.  What would most
people play, a game with a 100,000 point jackpot or a 100 point jackpot?

Back to the original point, as above, its not the size of the score that
counts, but how it was achieved.  If 1 billion is the replay score and you
have to work 10 minutes to get it, allright with me.  But when someone can
make one shot after playing 1 minute and out score someone elses long,
hard work, thats wrong.

Hey, atleast BOP allowed for some distinction, eg. the billionares club.   

//////////////////////////////////
/ Mike Kahler                    /
/ Seattle University             /
/ kahlerm@sumax.seattleu.edu     /
//////////////////////////////////