Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
Signaler ce message
Sure. Almost every single Williams table on offer, except for maybe Golfers (not familiar with real machine, so unsure) and possibly a few of the older tables. But almost every single other one has had the EB rules diddled. Roughly half of them have had available extra balls limited to 2 per ball in play (cut down from 4 - 5). And almost the other half will allow you to max all available EBs on a single ball, including tables that never worked that way, like Getaway which simply doesn't work like that in the real world. And all of them have a hard limit on EBs that is less than standard rulesets, which averages out to about half of what should be available
The approach they have taken to EBs per table is random, and for the life of me I cannot understand what they hoped to achieve. Especially given that Zen award their own EBs for score or special (which real machines never did). So if they felt a need to put a bit of a limit on EBs, how about just removing the ones they arbitrarily added themselves, instead of the messing with the original rules?
If you want to know how this messes up the ROMs (so the game will tell you that you were awarded an EB when you were not, or an EB is lit when it is not), the best examples I can share are STNG and Adams Family. But there are others. Take Battle SIm mode in STNG. If you complete it, the game will tell you that you earned an extra ball. But oh no, if you already have 2 EBs in the pocket Zen is like "♥♥♥♥ you, we don't care what the game wants to do. Stick that EB up your ass!"
To make matters worse, because of this limit you will find that it also has a compound effect of removing some EBs from the table. Again, I'll use STNG as an example. Lets say you have 2 EBs in store. And then you make the 15th right ramp EB shot, which would normally award you an EB. It won't in Pin FX because if you have 2 EBs already and then make that 15th ramp shot, that potential EB is gone for good. So its not just a hard limit that is the issue here, it's that the implementation of it creates further limits. It's poorly thought out, and has the reverse effect of what I think they were trying to achieve.
And when they made these changes (which occurred with the first "full release" out of early access), effectively cutting EBs in half for most tables, that didn't even warrant a mention in the patch notes. Imagine if Activision nerfed a gun and made its bullets half as powerful and said nothing in patch notes. That's why I say they have little respect for the rules. Or the players for that matter.
Its fair to ask why this bothers me. You could just say "its the same for everyone, so who cares?" I get that, but end of the day, I just think that the original game designers put way more thought into these tables than Zen themselves. And when I play a "sim" I want an authentic experience. I'm not interested in Zen's "flair"
On a more selfish note, I was planning on using Pin FX to create in-depth video tutorials on how to get high-scores on the Williams tables I know. But I canned that idea when they changed the rules as drastically and thoughtlessly as they did. Because I didn't want to create tutorials that would only ever be relevant for Pin FX, but rather for the original machine, Pin FX, FX3, VPX, etc. To go into depth as it stands, I could only really do it by adding caveats for Pin FX, which also means adding caveats to the strategy, which would make the tutorials unnecessarily long. Screw that.
Factory Defaults suggest a maximum of 4 Extra Balls held on hand at any point, and no Extra Ball per Ball in Play limit, according to the WPC platform. Put simply, it's more than just double; it's infinite.
So given your statements, you too had memories playing with settings that deviated from the defaults, and adjusted objects on the playfield. Isn't that the same thing, influencing how a game plays away from the original intention?
Operator adjustable. These settings above exist on the real thing, according to the WPC platform. People have done this with their own machines; look at Pinside.
Pinball Arcade did this too. Likewise Encore/Redoubt, when they built Williams Pinball Classics for PC (which is absolutely awful, looking back).
Pinball 2000 games had this too, by default. Don't like it? Change Replay back to Credit, no problem.
That's Williams WPC talking, not Zen. I'll give an example of this happening on default settings, using Judge Dredd. You always light an Extra Ball every 6 Crime Scenes. If you're already capped with 4 on hand and have no EB BIP limit, you don't get it when it's claimed.
Even on default settings, you can get robbed of EB opportunities.
Redundant. The default settings do this, too. Any one-timer is at risk, regardless of settings. Suppose you only go for multipliers and Battle Simulation as your EB sources, saving Warp 8 until later, and ignoring the right ramp. It's possible to cap at the default 4 and completely miss the opportunity of getting your 15 ramp EB.
I'll use Twilight Zone as another example. If you cap your held EB's at the default 4 before lighting the one from Dead End, you lose this opportunity.
I went to playfield.dev to test this out myself. I set the Max EB Count to 1 solely for quick access, since all non-zero values have the same effect. I left BIP as the default OFF, and everything else as is. I earned an EB through the Robots, and that made the one from Dead Ends unavailable until I drained. If I surpass that condition before I drained, tough.
Even with a Max EB Held Count of the highest possible value, 10, one-timers will always have that risk. You could avoid Dead Ends all game and still have that happen, albeit at a very slim chance. This is provided at least one or two LITZ cycles can give unintended Dead End shots with the chaos ensuing.
If every WPC game had a default of 4 held on hand and unlimited EB per BIP, then I'm led to believe it's not the designer's choice.
WPC killed the option of having a hard limit, which is unlike System 11 or anything from Data East/SEGA/Stern. Is it the game designers putting in more thought, or is it a feature they wanted but is out of their control? Either way, I'm personally not questioning the game designers or the rules put in each game. I'm questioning the choices made on WPC when it was built.
If we had a "Pure" mode on Williams where everything is set to the defaults (save for Free Play, which is needed), including Specials and Replays as credits, then we'd be feeling better about this. Myself included, since I don't really want EB's for meeting score requirements or earning Specials.
If you chased infinite EBs in STNG, you did so at high risk, and at the cost of score. In STNG for example, the only repeating EBs are Battlesim (which few people are able to successfully complete) and 8x. While it was possible to repeat the mission, spamming battlesim generally results in lower scores (because you're not completing other missions otherwise) and the risk of accidental drain was great. There was also the 8x mulitplier, which will never be infinite if you go for warps (which you will be forced to if you want high scores) because warp 5 hols the multipliers. So it was near impossible to maintain a forever game.
In other words, the rulesets made it extremely difficult to play infinitely. I was considered a world class player in my hayday and I couldn't do it. Theory and practice ain't the same thing.
And yes, I know many of these variables are operator adjustable. But did you EVER meet a pinball operator that set up EBs for score or specials? Did you ever see one come out of the box that worked like that? No, you haven't. There's a lot of settings in those adjustments that no operator ever used, or any player ever saw in the wild.
I am well aware of this, and I developed strategies around it. But the difference is that a limit of 2 BIP means that many players will hit this limit frequently. A limit of 4 is a lot tougher for most players to get to anyway, so its far less likely to effect the game for most players.
Sure, in theory that is possible. But if you can record a video of yourself achieving 4 EBs before hitting that 15th ramp, I'll change my player name to "PinballWiz is the Best!". But it's pretty easy to get 2 EBs before hitting 15 ramps.
We've been over all this before and I've listened to all your arguments defending what Zen have done here and I'm pretty sure that's because you're the one who put pressure on Zen to do this in the first place.
You can rabbit on all day long about WPC this and operator settings that, but the reality is that no operators ever turned specials into EBs, and I didn't ever recall finding a machine that the operator set to EB BIP limits of 2.
And do you think its normal for a game dev to make such drastic changes to the way their game works and neglect to even mention it to the player base?
Either way, we're both making a pretty good case for VPX superiority here, I'm willing to bet the VPX versions of these tables are more like the real thing than Pin FX. Just like FX3 is more like the real thing.
Yes. I played a Simpsons Pinball Party out in the wild with EB's and Specials that awarded score in place, at one point. Supposedly it was on Extra Easy settings or similar before somehow reverting back to factory defaults on power on (major board problem?). It was terrible, and it had a few big mechanical problems I wanted to help fix. No TV, dead switches, and a non-functioning coil that prevented a drop target from lowering. The operator never did anything about it, and it eventually left the building. Shame too, because it was a great source of practice.
This same operator/company had similar machines out in the wild who, from what I remember, didn't know how to work pinball. A simple wiring issue that I found and helped resolve on a Metallica, and updated to one of the last revisions from a very early build. Pinball is fairly remote now where I'm at -- that operator left the area here.
I met another operator who was moving around an active Vector playfield trying to get it to work, shaking it up and down from the cabinet, after explaining the issues it had. That location has since closed down.
Look around. Others have suggested a limit and have exploited things like Castle Multiball all day, back in the TPA days. I'm not the one who suggested it in the first place. https://digitalpinballfans.com/threads/proper-extra-ball-limits-in-all-games.7459/
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/official-williams-and-bally-software-upgrades/page/18
If FX3 had a BIP limit, then they deviated, too.
I only played a few FX3 tables, but they all played with settings much like I remember the original tables, save for Zens inclusion of spec and score EB awards. They do NOT have a limit of 2 BIP. But they do have a limit of 4 BIP (if memory serves) which is generally where one would expect the number to be. As of right now, the rules in FX3 tables are closer to default.
As for TPA, well that game played so ridiculously easy that abusing EBs would have been exposed endlessly. Exactly like I did with Medieval Madness with FX in early access. And that's my entire point really. Adjusting rules like that is a poorly thought out band-aid attempt to address a poor likeness of the original thing. If they do a good enough job of recreating the way these tables typically played (and to their credit, usually they do) then adjusting EB rules from Williams default is not necessary.
We do agree on one thing at least - EBs for score and specials is silly.
I admit that I don't know why Zen changed the EB rules on Williams tables, but I suspect the answer is far more mundane and boring than some of the conspiracy-theory style ideas some have mentioned. My guess would be that there's a certain small amount of code that's common to both Zen original designs and Williams recreations, and the Zen tables had the EB limits we see today, so the Williams tables inherited that behavior. If that's the case, it wouldn't be hard to change, but would probably have to be done table-by-table if the Willliams tables don't all do it the same way.
Not hard to do, but probably just hasn't been a priority to date. Of course, it is possible that Zen has some master manifesto or pinball philosophy about how things should work and the EB rules are part of that. I wouldn't mind reading that manifesto, if that was the case. I'd love to get inside their heads and learn why they do certain things.
It's hard to imagine Zen treating this as a matter or principle to the point that they'd let it ruin a potential deal with Stern, but I guess we'll see.
You're right when you say this isn't a coding issue. Its simple number adjustments, a monkey could do it. So not a technical issue, no. They could fix it in a heartbeat. And all they'd have to do going forward is remove EBs for score and special and restore the EB rules to original defaults. And then they just need to make sure they don;t make the same mistake I'm about to explain.
I do know why they changed the rules. It is because I exposed a weakness in one of their tables (Medieval Madness), and I demonstrated the issue by playing a game that went for some 30 hours, scoring close to 100 billion before I tapped out on ball 1 with 3 EBs spare.
The point I was trying to make was that the table played far too easily, and one shot in particular made it way too easy to activate MB, which in turn made it too easy to keep going for Super Jackpot EBs.
But of course the community overreacted, and rather than look at the cause everyone just focused on the symptom, which is why Pinball Wiz and I suspect others as well, put pressure on Zen to do something about it. Unfortunately their decision was to cut the available EBs per BIP by half. And not just on the one table that was a problem, they messed with almost all of them.
And when they did this they didn't even think it warranted a mention in the patch notes, or any kind of explanation whatsoever. Obviously to them it was a trivial matter. And to many players who don't know better, I'm sure its trivial as well.
I imagine Zen's goal was to bridge the gap in scores on the leaderboards between the top 2 - 3 positions and everyone else. And while that did bridge the score gap in total, it had the reverse effect in some ways because the % of those disparities is mainly greater now.
And I believe that one of the reasons for this is that the few of us that are aware of these changes and their ramifications are now playing the game around it. Using the STNG example I provided above, very few players would even think to refrain from hitting the shuttle ramp knowing that if they happen to do so with 2 EBs in the pocket, they just robbed themselves of an EB.
Like I said to Pinwiz earlier, this was always a thing with Williams tables, but a EB per BIP limit of 4 is far far more forgiving than 2, which means that this was never really an issue that average players had to contend with. With Pin FX, now they do.
Maybe Wiz is right, maybe Stern wouldn't be so concerned by these sorts of changes. But Gary Stern is the most passionate pinball man on the planet and I'd truly be surprised if he would willingly grant them free reign. I think he'd be far more concerned about preserving the legacy. Maybe I am wrong.
But one thing I can tell you fur sure is that some mates of mine who still play pinball actively today (and they adore Stern tables) would throw up in their own mouths if they bought into Pin FX only to find their favourite tables trimmed down as thoughtlessly as Zen have done with the Williams tables.
If I knew Zen were going to do what they did, I wouldn't have bought a single table. I've been hanging around hoping they'd see the error in their ways. I don't think thats going to happen now, so I'm probably just going to dive into VPX instead.
We already agreed on this and talked about this earlier. I've raised this with Zen as well; I never liked a 2/BIP limit. Some games also self-limit rather well.
EDIT 2: Allow me to introduce you to Stern Insider Connected. Game adjustments in the operator menu don't matter on what score you post online. I know, because there were tournaments I competed in with this hooked up. No extra balls, no problem. I still posted scores in the 85th-95th percentile; I'm almost certain there are scores below me with Extra Balls enabled.
Insider Connected is not affiliated to Farsight or Zen in any way, shape, or form. But if Zen or anyone else wants to get modern Sterns recreated, Stern will probably want Insider Connected available there. Stern left Farsight not because of game rules; they left because they felt they got burned with the Stern Pinball Arcade app.
EDIT: Getting back to you regarding Simpsons. Details on the rules at one point:
- Score awards when Extra Balls and Specials are earned. No Replays.
- TV mode settings: Extra Easy
- Otto settings: Extra Easy.
That's the tip of the iceberg. I couldn't tell what the TV timer was because it wasn't working. Regardless, the operators went Novelty and Extra Easy at one point, given the manual. I was pretty much the only high scorer on that machine. Funny, considering how the machine Factory Reset on its own a few times before it left, meaning back to defaults!My memory is a little hazy on those discussions because I was very sick at the time, but I recall that discussion starting because you were defending what Zen had done. And on more than one occasion you've jumped in to their defence on this topic after I piped up about it. If I am recalling correctly, that discussion ended with you showing regret on having advised Zen on this topic. I could be wrong because I was under a cloud of meds at the time.
You're right - most tables that have theoretically eternal EBs do self limit pretty well. I think the biggest infinite EB offender is Indy Jones. 8x EBs forever, EBs in missions, EBs in Path or Adventure. Last time I looked FX3 version of Indy had a 4 x EB per BIP limit. Yet no one will be able to demonstrate a game that goes all day because apparently no one is good enough to abuse it eternally.
And like I have said many times, in all my years of playing real tables, never once saw this be a big issue. And as a pinball operator (of almost all exclusively Willliams tables set up with default rules) not once did I ever see any machine I owned or worked on with a ridiculous score. It simply doesn't happen if you set them up right
It only happened in Pin FX Medieval Madness because the lock shot was near unmissable at the time (ie, not set up right). They rectified that and it's really all they had to do. See the FX3 version, which does not have these EB limits. After several years of existence, still no one has been able to achieve an eyebrow raising score on it.
Thats the most amazing part of this to me. Zen had their own living example of a version of this table with default rules (plus Zens EBs for score/spec) that was not a problem. They didn't have to screw up the rules, not on MM or any other table. But for some unexplained and undocumented reason, they screwed almost all of them.
Tell me this - how do you feel about the fact that when Zen did this, it didn't even earn a mention in patch notes? It speaks volumes to me.
Lol can only agree with that last comment. I was never really a fan of going back from the 90's till i got hooked on those early solid states. VPX, Zaccaria and the power of VR got me locked in and fixated. Gorgar was the standout on the Williams collection, when i used to bash it on the PSP.