TZ: Too easy = fail

[Jeff Strong]

What's your gamer tag and PSN id, Jeff?

jeffy777

...and if you ask because you want to see my scores, I'll tell you right now that they aren't world class. I've said before in this thread that I'm not that great of a player, but I'm decent enough that the game times are already running too long for my liking, so I can't imagine how long it must take to put up scores that some of you guys put up. My thumbs ache just thinking about it

 

[Mark Miwurdz]

There's your problem. You should be using your index fingers, not thumbs, on the triggers. My hands suffer (I'm 45) on long games.

 

[SlamCitySkates]

Sometimes a person only has 5 minutes to spare and wants to get a quick game in. As it is now, I don't even fire up Funhouse on TPA unless I have at least 30 minutes to burn, and that's usually not even enough since it's so easy to get extra balls on the TPA version.

And once you've seen every mode a table has to offer, it can become a chore to sit through a marathon session every time you play it. I'm tired of that style of play. I just want quicker, more challenging games...only as an option though. The current difficulty is fine for a default difficulty setting, but I'm dying for a harder setting as well. Honestly, the lack of that setting has lead to me playing TPA less lately.

YEah, Id go for that. I have similar problems with RBION - I can get tired playing it now.

Not sure how your proposal would work in practice. If, as suggested, TZ makes the bumper drains more prevalent - I consider that adding just a level of cheapness to the machine and Im no fan of cheapness! If you want to incoporate spin and less predictability to your shots, then Im all for that - but is that an easy thing to do on a video game? Id still want the default setting as well, though.

I only started playing TZ yesterday, and yes, I got LITZ really quickly (annoyingly before the gumball combo). A tougher mode to play once youve 'completed' it on the easy setting would certainly prolong the game. Weve waited long enough for it - would be a shame to see it disappear amongst the TPA machines you no longer play.

 

[Richard B]

Well exactly.

It seems to me that the solution to the easiness of TZ is to encourage cheap drains - Im not sure that this is the right way to go. Video pinball is different to arcade pinball, and if the opportunity to increase the fun of a table arises then I see no reason why Farsight shouldnt take it. One person mentioned that their average Funhouse game IRL lasts 5 minutes. Why would you want to emulate that? Youd only experience a fraction of the table.

I see TPA as a trainer for the real thing. You get the chance in your own home to learn rulesets for tables - and experience the wizard modes. Its like using Gran Turismo to test drive real cars. Sure it easier to race in GT than in real life - but thats the point. Its a game.

I will admit that LITZ is now the easiest Wizard Mode in TPA.

Im also confused by the statement that TZ is one of the hardest games ever, IRL. I suppose that depends on your definition of hardest. One of reasons that this and TAF were so popular at the time is that you could pretty much guarantee plenty of ball time on both machines. There are a whole raft of tables that came out after these that seemed determined to minimise your play time - IMHO, they are much 'harder than TZ.TZ would not have gained its notoriety if it only offered 5 minute games. It may be different in tournaments where the machine has been toughened up to reduce its game time, but thats a man made ploy to make the game less easy. There is definitely some rewriting of history here - TZ was never the hardest game of its era.

TZ was always hard, and, despite the high production numbers, was never successful among average players, and was a flop from a moneymaking standpoint. It got its reputation from hardcore enthusiasts.

As much as I'd love to see a harder mode, it will never happen since the amount of tweaking necessary to implement it is almost as much as building a new table. Even something as seemingly simple as more random kickouts requires a lot of adjusting that could cause some things to not work right.

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

There's your problem. You should be using your index fingers, not thumbs, on the triggers. My hands suffer (I'm 45) on long games.

I'm fairly certain Jeff was referring to playing on the iPad, in which case it would be his thumbs that ache.

Im also confused by the statement that TZ is one of the hardest games ever, IRL. I suppose that depends on your definition of hardest. One of reasons that this and TAF were so popular at the time is that you could pretty much guarantee plenty of ball time on both machines. There are a whole raft of tables that came out after these that seemed determined to minimise your play time - IMHO, they are much 'harder than TZ.TZ would not have gained its notoriety if it only offered 5 minute games. It may be different in tournaments where the machine has been toughened up to reduce its game time, but thats a man made ploy to make the game less easy. There is definitely some rewriting of history here - TZ was never the hardest game of its era.

Wait, what? Neither TAF nor TZ guarantees plenty of ball time. Usually quite the opposite. TAF doesn't have a ball saver; TZs generally don't have theirs turned on. TAF has the Power magnets to help players lose the ball faster; TZ has the Pops of Death[sup]TM[/sup]. Both machines will usually punish errant shots without mercy - miss the Electric Chair or Slot Machine shots just a little bit and the resulting center drain will show you exactly what I mean.

Twilight Zone gained its notoriety (and, as Richard said, did not earn especially well on location) because it only offered 5-minute games to inexperienced players...and 5 minutes was only if the table was feeling especially generous that day. Sometimes it seems to offer me only 5-minute games...and I've probably put in nearly 1500 games on the machine by now.

And I never said Twilight Zone was the hardest machine of its time...it's one of the hardest, but not the hardest. That honor would probably go to Bram Stoker's Dracula, which is even more unforgiving of bad play and requires a delicate stack to achieve the triple multiball and pull off the high scores. The Shadow also would be up there, although I've not played very much of it.

As much as I'd love to see a harder mode, it will never happen since the amount of tweaking necessary to implement it is almost as much as building a new table. Even something as seemingly simple as more random kickouts requires a lot of adjusting that could cause some things to not work right.

I know that's what FarSight said...but the programmer side of me still rebels and thinks it could be done without a huge amount of effort. I guess I'll find out when the time comes to implement Sin's physics.

 

[Mark Miwurdz]

I'm fairly certain Jeff was referring to playing on the iPad, in which case it would be his thumbs that ache.

He had posted how he was playing it on the PS3 in the TZ PS3 discussion topic on this page.

 

[SlamCitySkates]

I'm fairly certain Jeff was referring to playing on the iPad, in which case it would be his thumbs that ache.


Wait, what? Neither TAF nor TZ guarantees plenty of ball time. Usually quite the opposite. TAF doesn't have a ball saver; TZs generally don't have theirs turned on. TAF has the Power magnets to help players lose the ball faster; TZ has the Pops of Death[sup]TM[/sup]. Both machines will usually punish errant shots without mercy - miss the Electric Chair or Slot Machine shots just a little bit and the resulting center drain will show you exactly what I mean.

Twilight Zone gained its notoriety (and, as Richard said, did not earn especially well on location) because it only offered 5-minute games to inexperienced players...and 5 minutes was only if the table was feeling especially generous that day. Sometimes it seems to offer me only 5-minute games...and I've probably put in nearly 1500 games on the machine by now.

And I never said Twilight Zone was the hardest machine of its time...it's one of the hardest, but not the hardest. That honor would probably go to Bram Stoker's Dracula, which is even more unforgiving of bad play and requires a delicate stack to achieve the triple multiball and pull off the high scores. The Shadow also would be up there, although I've not played very much of it.

Dont get me wrong Im not claiming to be a TZ ace. Maybe our experiences are different.
I played TZ as a student and students are notoriously tight with their pound coins.
TZ stayed in the Union for all three years I was there. This wasnt because the Union wanted to have a table that racked up cheap plays, but because the players could get reasonable scores on it and, hence, enjoyed the game immensely. There are a number of machines of its time that stood next to it during its tenure which didnt last very long. Noticeably, Star Wars which had evil outlane drains. Dracula was also in there once and IIRC, the magnet would cause SDTM all the time.

The two machines that made me give up for a while were ST:TNG which you could almost hear laugh as it drained all your balls in quick succession and Jurassic Park (which I now ironically own) which was (and still is) a SDTM monster.

As for TAF - this was stationed in a pub next to where I worked for a year and I would go in lunch times and often be back later than I should have been and I rarely got through that many pound coins on it. Maybe I was just lucky with set ups but I found most Lawlor machines to be fair to me.

(As for TPA, yes I think TZ is the easiest. CFTBL would rival it, if it wasnt for its utterly annoying multiball.)

 

[brakel]

The way the difficulty might be implemented would be to save a version of the table before they tweak the "mesh" on the tables. When they first make the table it is more close to how it really is in real life. Then they do things like widen the mesh openings to ramps and make the mesh that represents targets larger. On most real tables you usually have to hit the center of a ramp in order to successfully go up it. Slightly off the middle and you'll it the side part way up and come back down. Most targets in real life you have to hit square on in the middle. In TPA a glancing blow will often register a hit. It could be that the table is way too hard before the mesh is tweaked but it might be what some people are looking for.

For me I like the way the tables are setup now but I can see why people want something harder. I know in real life I would never be able to play so well on these tables. But since I'm just sitting at home I want to have the experience of playing for the Kingdom or hitting the billion point shot. I play tables in the wild often enough to bring me back down to earth!

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

For those interested, the original suggestion for implementing a "hard mode" via using untuned collision meshes is here: Suggestion for the Table Difficulty Issues. Apparently FarSight's development process does not work exactly as I had speculated, as they told shutyertrap when he visited that implementing a second difficulty mode would be difficult...although they may not have thought to do it in the labor-minimizing way I suggested.

 

[Jeff Strong]

He had posted how he was playing it on the PS3 in the TZ PS3 discussion topic on this page.

I play on both, so you're both right. I have played it quite a bit more on the iPad though since it just came out on PS3...but playing on the PS3 works the thumbs too, or at least one thumb for nudging.

 

[brakel]

For those interested, the original suggestion for implementing a "hard mode" via using untuned collision meshes is here: Suggestion for the Table Difficulty Issues. Apparently FarSight's development process does not work exactly as I had speculated, as they told shutyertrap when he visited that implementing a second difficulty mode would be difficult...although they may not have thought to do it in the labor-minimizing way I suggested.

Thanks, I knew it had been discussed but I did not remember where.

 

[Clawhammer]

To add briefly to the real life difficulty of TZ conversation:
I have to stand somewhere in the middle on this. Gameplay difficulty is hugely dependent on what machine you're playing on- rubbers on/off, size of the outlanes, tilt/difficulty settings, how steep the playfield is/if it's been waxed, etc. I've read a lot on this board about the supposed legendary difficulty of TZ and in some ways I have to disagree. Yes, the left outlane and the bumpers are treacherous, but the game has a lot of extra ball opportunities and if you are dialed on the ramps, it can open up for marathons. The game doesn't have many sucker shots (obvious high scoring targets that are drain hazards- i.e. AFM's saucer). I guess the clock target between the ramps would count as one, but most people experienced with TZ are going to avoid that in single ball. The only "sucker shot," really, is battling the power and the return if you fail. I will admit that the kickout from the slot machine makes a huge difference- if it's not an easy live catch or dead bounce on the particular TZ you play, ball control can be a nightmare and difficulty is greatly augmented, at least for my play style. As has been mentioned, there are other Williams/Bally DMD games I would consider significantly harder, particularly BSD, or even games where you have to make a sucker shot continuously to get to the wizard mode (MM, AFM, TOM- this especially because you can't work on the trunk during multiball).

And yes, I think the TPA version is way too easy.

 

[Vyrastas]

Did they change something about this table? Because I'm not finding it as easy as everyone is making it out to be. I get outlane drains constantly on this one and am struggling to reach the lowest high score of 550M. I have to agree with that CV comment, it's just like that one for me (I hate CV, outlane drains all day long). I'm playing on Vita, BTW.

EDIT: Of course... after nearly 2 hours of trying I get it on the next game after I post this.

 

[Kolchak357]

It was a little easier when it first came out, then they removed an optional post on the left side. In addition most of the people saying it is too easy are some of the better players on the forum. As usual opinions vary. Fun table with lots to do. Hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

 

[xNiCeGuYx]

Still too easy!

 

[Korven]

No, it's impossible with the multiball bug still not being fixed.

 

[Clawhammer]

The removal of the post seems to increase left outlane drains significantly.

 

[Punisher]

I've only played TZ on Visual Pinball. Yes, one of my games got me to get LITZ twice in one game. But to be honest, a good amount of games would end quickly. This would be a result of the pops sending my ball hard down the middle. Then again, the nudging in VP isn't as strong as it is in TPA. The only deliberate shot into those pops from the plunger for me is to get the 10 mil skill shot to light the panel, and for the super skill shot to light the extra ball. Otherwise, I don't find it worth getting a skill shot, and risking a no-flipper contact ball. I'm eager to try the real thing near me, though.

 

[djrobx]

I was at California Extreme, there were a couple TZ tables there. One was set to 10 balls. , the other was set up to be more typical, but I found it difficult to make shots into the slot machine on that one. It took a few games to acclimate to that table's physics, but once I did, I didn't find the difficulty to be substantially different from TPA. If I had one of those machines in my living room I have no doubt I'd become great at that particular machine too. I've played the TPA version hundreds of times at this point, I know exactly how to make a lot of the critical shots - of course it's easier!

There were two "Attack from Mars" tables. One of them I felt right at home on, after playing the TPA version a lot. The other one was a drain monster! How the table is set up (slope, how well its leveled), the strength of the flippers/plungers, etc make every real table a unique experience.

I'm very surprised that the "Pro" versions of TPA tables don't offer a slope adjustment. I suspect they're afraid it would increase the amount of bug reports. Different slopes would probably find lots of new ways of getting the ball stuck. After playing real tables for an entire weekend, comparing it to TPA physics, it almost seems as if TPA's pinballs are a little bit too light (all powerball all the time!). Not so much of a gravity/slope problem, but the ball doesn't seem to lose enough momentum when it bounces off of objects on the table. I'm sure FarSight has agonized over these sorts of details though, there's only so much you can do with simulation.

 

[Sean DonCarlos]

I'm very surprised that the "Pro" versions of TPA tables don't offer a slope adjustment. I suspect they're afraid it would increase the amount of bug reports. Different slopes would probably find lots of new ways of getting the ball stuck. After playing real tables for an entire weekend, comparing it to TPA physics, it almost seems as if TPA's pinballs are a little bit too light (all powerball all the time!). Not so much of a gravity/slope problem, but the ball doesn't seem to lose enough momentum when it bounces off of objects on the table. I'm sure FarSight has agonized over these sorts of details though, there's only so much you can do with simulation.

Bobby's mentioned in a couple of interviews now that he's always wanted to add physical options like playfield pitch, outlane post position, etc. to the game. I suspect it will eventually find its way in, although when that will happen, I can't say.