ChickenBrick Studios Forum

[Rudeboi]

It is obvious that Cestos 2 still has several glitches but there is one glitch that has been bothering me a lot. For example, when I am in a 4 player game of minefield, and the player with the most lives remaining on his marble leaves the game, the scoreboard screen shows up and this player is given the win. Or when I am in a 4 player star collecting game, and the player with the most stars leaves the game, he ends up winning the game. This is a huge glitch that should be fixed immediately. This glitch has caused me a lot of losses. Leaving a game should automatically give u a loss. But some players use this glitch to their advantage by leaving the game when they are ahead in points or when their marbles have the most lives just to prevent the remaining players from getting a come-from-behind win.

[-TEC_joak]

agreed Champ...i noticed this glitch also, it hasnt happened recently tho so maybe thay fixed it? If not they need to fix it right away.

[-TEC_joak]

another thing i thought was odd was that there are no ties in cestos 2. The closest thing to a "tie" is getting multiple 1st, 2nd or 3rd places. I assume if there are two people who get 1st they both get a win? In BH and Minefield, the order of who falls first or loses all lives first determines who loses/wins, unlike pinball and star collector since there are no bonus rounds. what do you think about the way they set that up?

[moonfish]

Whew, this turned out to be quite a long post. tl;dr at the bottom for those of you who don't like to read much.

I sent an email somewhere on the first few days of the game about people winning after leaving. In Minefield, it's the worst thing that can happen and I'm pretty sure they fixed it.
In star collector and pinball, it's actually not a bad thing. If someone can get you beat in 3 rounds when you've had 5, they deserve to win even if they did disconnect or leave before the end of the game.

The ties are great. There were lots of complaints about Cestos 1 where a tie would be registered as a loss, and people would lose their win streak or win% because of it. I think this is a great fix.
I'm not sure about the points awarded, though. If there are two people tied for first place in a 4 player game, they are both awarded 18 points while second place would normally receive 12 points. Instead they should both receive 15 points (which is the average of 18 and 12, for the numerically challenged among us). Getting points already is pretty easy in 3+ player games, I don't see why it has to be that much easier.

While on the subject of points, I think people are awarded a disproportionate amount of points in 3 and 4 player games. In a 2 player game, the winner gets 10 points and the loser gets nothing, so there's an average of 5 points per game per player, overall. In a 3 player game, the points awarded are 14 - 6 - 0 (I think?), averaging at ~6.7 per game per player. In a 4 player game the points awarded are 18 - 12 - 6 - 0, averaging at 9 points per game per player.
On top of that, if you play 1v1 the chances are that you're going to run into someone that's better than you have a significantly higher effect on your score than in a 4 player game. If you play 1v1 against someone who's better than you, you will most likely end up with no points. If you play a 4 player game you will have this same better player getting first, but there's always second or third place giving you plenty of points. Heck, second place in a 4 player game gives you more points than winning a 2 player game!
If, like me, you're somewhat above average the chances of running into more than one person in a 4 player game that's better than you are fairly slim. I almost always get in second or better, so I'm pretty much guaranteed to get 12 points. Why would I bother with 2 player games?

If the amount of points awarded in a game are proportionate to the number of players involved, I think the game would be a lot more fair and it might actually get some people to play 3 player games.
Three player games are, in my opinion, the best balance between skill and luck. You have two balls to control so you can coordinate your movements like in 1 player. However, there are two opponents that ought to be taken into consideration so chances are they can take opportunities away from you.

tl;dr
If I would have a say in it, the points awarded would be
2 player: 10 for 1st, 0 for second
3 player: 11 for 1st, 4 for second, 0 for third
4 player: 12 for first, 5 for second, 3 for third, 0 for fourth
That way, each game will award as many points per player, and winning a game with more people in it is still more rewarding.
Also, a tie for first would divide the points for first and second over the two tied players instead of each of them receiving full points for first place.