separate single-player and multi-player hall of fame

[ncrecc]

in levels that allow multi-player, multi-player tapes can easily score higher than single-player tapes, because 2 players can go their separate ways and collect gems in different parts of the level, more efficiently than 1 player can. additionally, multiplayer levels with "only one player must enter exit" can almost always score at least 90 extra points, since one player can explode into gems, and the other can collect the resulting gems and reach the exit. there are other cool strategies that can emerge from this (e.g. use the death explosion to get through a breakable wall, or have one player be at the exit while the other collects the last required gem, or even just cheese a level with few gems required by getting a player's death gems and exiting right away) but suffice to say multi-player tapes can often get higher scores than even the best single-player tapes can.

with this in mind i suggest separating the tapes of a multi-player level based on whether you're playing in single-player or not. if you're in single-player and view the hall of fame, it would just show the single-player tapes, and if you're in multi-player and view the hall of fame, it would just show the multi-player tapes. so if you're chasing high-scores but don't have a friend to play with (or master multitasking skills) then you don't have to compete with those who do.

i make this observation after having achieved many top scores in "Ben 200" by Ben Braithwaite, simply by controlling two players at once with two hands and occasionally completely bypassing the intended solutions, solely because i thought to play in multiplayer when no-one else who uploaded tapes did.

[ncrecc]

technically all levels allow multi-player (e.g. if you have multiplayer/team mode enabled, then any player 2/3/4s that spawn in a level through magic ball/CE will be controllable) but what i meant here was levels that start with more than 1 player color (and thus show the player count when viewed in the main menu)

[Holger]

I think this idea makes a lot of sense.

When looking at the first level of the original Emerald Mine (level set "Emerald Mine (Kingsoft)" from the Emerald Mine Club level collection), it can be played both in single-player mode or in multi-player mode (displayed as "name: <myname>" or "team: <myname>" in the main menu, and with two players displayed next to the level preview when in team mode), but with obviously very different gameplay.

In addition, when playing in team mode, it is not unlikely to use a different user in the game (by clicking on the player name and selecting or defining a different player name only used when playing in team mode). At least, that's what my sister and I did when playing the original Emerald Mine game in team mode back in the golden age of Amiga computer games (must have been in the year 1987 or 1988 or something).

Being able to reach totally different (usually higher) scores when playing with more than one player (which cannot be meaningfully compared with single-player scores) is just another strong argument in favor of this idea.

Therefore, I think it would make every sense in the world to also use a different, separate high score list for single-player and multi-player scores (which should probably be used for any multi-player game, regardless of two, three or four players being involved).

The change would not be totally trivial within the already existing environment (including the stand-alone game and the high score server, both potentially communicating with each others regarding scores and tapes), but it should be technically feasible. And I think it should be worth the effort (after checking for potential show stoppers that I may not see at the moment).

[filbo]

> a different, separate high score list for single-player and multi-player scores (which should probably be used for any multi-player game, regardless of two, three or four players being involved)

I recommend that if you do this work, you go all the way to having separate high score lists for each [ levelset, level, number-of-players ] tuple. It is of course understood that for 99% of levels, only the [ levelset, level, 1 ] tuple will ever be filled in. Then, for 95% of levels where anyone might ever play multiplayer, only the [... 2] tuple will be filled in. BUT, for those rare-rare levels which might behave noticeably differently for 3 or 4 players, why **not** provide separate score lists?

Clearly the main answer to that is 'because it's more work'. But, while the extra work for 'add mixed-multi-player score lists; then go back later and add separate 2-3-4 player score lists' is high, the extra work for 'just add separate lists from the start' should be only a tiny increment more. So that's why I say, go all the way from the start.

You're already going to have a sparse data structure given how rare even a single multi-player score will be...

[ncrecc]

I recommend that if you do this work, you go all the way to having separate high score lists for each [ levelset, level, number-of-players ] tuple. It is of course understood that for 99% of levels, only the [ levelset, level, 1 ] tuple will ever be filled in. Then, for 95% of levels where anyone might ever play multiplayer, only the [... 2] tuple will be filled in. BUT, for those rare-rare levels which might behave noticeably differently for 3 or 4 players, why **not** provide separate score lists?

the choice is between 1 player or all players. if team mode is enabled, and a level has (say) 4 players, there is no way to play it with only 3 players, or only 2 players; all players will be present. (unless you're playing network multi-player, maybe, and there's less than 4 players present? i'm not sure how that works.)

though arguably that is a design flaw, e.g. a level author cannot choose to have their levels be for "any amount of players" as if they place 4 players then it will only be playable by 1 or 4 players and not 2 or 3. but that's the way it is presently. not that there are any levels i can think of with more than 2 players to begin with.

[filbo]

It's a long time since I played with this, and I never actually played networked, just 'multi-player' with me at the keyboard operating P1 and occasionally lurching P2 to some new useful location...

Anyway, I vaguely remember that it might have been smart enough to only manifest as many players as were configured to be in action? Or maybe I'm wrong.

Certainly if you're playing in actual networked mode it must know how many real players are there.

And, certainly, we're talking about a vanishingly small sub-corner of the RnD universe :) So whatever Holger implements (including the status quo) is probably fine...