DanBradford
New member
- Apr 5, 2013
- 648
- 0
Hi there. I'm loving TPA and loving the challenge of trying to get my scores up as high as I can, and admit freely that my goals are set by the HOF points - I want to try to get that 1000 points, not easily but I want it to be genuinely possible. So if a table has it's 1000 HOF points set to extremely difficult, I get frustrated. There's no point in an exam where everyone gets an A, but equally there is no point in an exam that nobody has ever got an A for, ever.
So for example the 5M needed to max out BH is at position 408 on the leaderboard, whereas the necessary 4B to max out CC is double what the top player has, and only 7 people have even managed 1B. EATPM: 589 people managed the 35M, DRDUDE: 0 people managed the 600M.
I know this gets moaned about a lot, and no doubt FS has some method in how they decide what score is needed to get 1 HOF point. I was wondering if you could possibly share this?
Is it based on percentages of the highest score achieved by XYZ during period XYZ? Unfortunately that's dependent on how easy or difficult the initial table is. And how buggy.
Could it be possible to make every game's HOF score related to how difficult it is to score points on? So for example 1000 points for the top 10 places, then make everything based on a percentage of the 10th best score? Or even 1000 for #1 only, then 999 for #2 etc ..... and nothing after position #1000?
I just read that BSD will be asking for 8B for the full 1000 points, and my heart sank. I used to own one, and I can assure you that only the Elwins, Sharpes and Kerins' of this world would have any chance of approaching that score on a real table (a multi-multiball jackpot only gets you 30M, and those aren't easy to grab). I bet there aren't too many machines with a GC score above 2-3B or so, so 8B sounds too high.
I've racked my brain and could come up with no better alternative than linking the HOF points award to the score, relative to other players.
Why can't you reset the goalposts for games where the goal was made initially far too difficult? By all means also make the target harder to hit for 'easier' tables that have been aced by more people.
Thoughts? Ideas? Criticisms?
Thank you for reading.
So for example the 5M needed to max out BH is at position 408 on the leaderboard, whereas the necessary 4B to max out CC is double what the top player has, and only 7 people have even managed 1B. EATPM: 589 people managed the 35M, DRDUDE: 0 people managed the 600M.
I know this gets moaned about a lot, and no doubt FS has some method in how they decide what score is needed to get 1 HOF point. I was wondering if you could possibly share this?
Is it based on percentages of the highest score achieved by XYZ during period XYZ? Unfortunately that's dependent on how easy or difficult the initial table is. And how buggy.
Could it be possible to make every game's HOF score related to how difficult it is to score points on? So for example 1000 points for the top 10 places, then make everything based on a percentage of the 10th best score? Or even 1000 for #1 only, then 999 for #2 etc ..... and nothing after position #1000?
I just read that BSD will be asking for 8B for the full 1000 points, and my heart sank. I used to own one, and I can assure you that only the Elwins, Sharpes and Kerins' of this world would have any chance of approaching that score on a real table (a multi-multiball jackpot only gets you 30M, and those aren't easy to grab). I bet there aren't too many machines with a GC score above 2-3B or so, so 8B sounds too high.
I've racked my brain and could come up with no better alternative than linking the HOF points award to the score, relative to other players.
Why can't you reset the goalposts for games where the goal was made initially far too difficult? By all means also make the target harder to hit for 'easier' tables that have been aced by more people.
Thoughts? Ideas? Criticisms?
Thank you for reading.
