|
Personally, I see nothing bad in this decision. In case all services on the Web would cost something, we would return to a normal life again and not communicate at the same table we are sitting by "what's ever".
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
They could have asked for the resolutions on which to upload the photos. Just the way Google does, to upload full-sized images in a limited space and for more space, get a subscription.
After all, this is Yahoo!, who likes that?
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
One small step backwards for Flickr, one giant leap forward for mankind!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a giant leap forward for Google Photos.
|
|
|
|
|
Google Photos has a REALLY long way to go before one can consider it going forward! It is a piece of crap compared to the excellent PICASA service they're considering dropping...
|
|
|
|
|
|
With Yahoo in financial trouble, maybe it is a way to move forward on a few projects!? If the tool is any good, people should be willing to put up a bit of cash for it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm wrapping up a (very, very, basic) game for the Android platform and have encountered an interesting situation. In the game, I'm keeping track of playing statistics. For example, I'm keeping track of: 1) how many turns it took to win, 2) the quickest time to win, 3) the highest points in a game. Don't worry about exactly what these mean; I've tried to generalize them so as not to get bogged down in details. One of the settings you can define is how many points to play to. The statistics are currently being tracked individually, so that if you improve on any of the three, the new "best" gets recorded.
After playing several rounds it occurred to me that you can sacrifice one of those statistics to improve the other. For example, if I purposely take an extra 2-3 turns to win a game, the resulting score is possibly going to be bigger than the current high score. So herein lies my question: for those of you that play an assortment of games, do they track statistics/achievements as individual things or do they do something more along the line of picking a difficulty level (e.g., easy, normal, hard), and track the statistics/achievements as a whole (i.e., they all have to be improved upon in order to persist)?
Thank you for any input.
- DC
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
modified 9-Mar-16 10:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the mobile games that I play have something along the lines of:
Maximum/Minimum turns it took to win (per difficulty). (Depending on the objective.)
Maximum/Minimum points in game (per difficulty). (Depending on the objective.) Games like Pipes require the shortest distance or moves for example.
Scoring against friends and/or global community.
Without knowing the game, it's hard to determine which statistics is best. However, the best approach, for mobile IMHO, is to keep track of the best score for each difficulty since it's usually only three and have an overall scoring card for achievements to unlock other features.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that having an overall stat that combines the three you have into one score is a good thing. Then the goal could be getting all three higher to maximize the end result. If you do that then it becomes a strategic move to actually allow one to decrease to increase the others. Which adds a little something to the game.
I do think that tracking the three and recognizing a new high is a good thing also.
Jack of all trades, master of none, though often times better than master of one.
|
|
|
|
|
I completely disagree on combining stats. Three separate stats helps with replayability. Take something like Super Mario brothers. Once you have memorized the path you are done. That is unless you start making your own variations like speed runs. Or high/low point runs, or maximum/minimum coin runs.
|
|
|
|
|
do your stats by difficulty level. You can win 50 easy levels and lose one hard level and you still look like a badass...at wimpy-easy level.
Gamers know that the only level that matters is the one that is most challenging, the one that will give you the most bragging rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the game; in Wow it seems like transactions, where every achievement is tracked. There's a number showing total achievements (different weight), but no such thing as a real "score".
In the games we created in school we often chose to multiply various metrics to come to a total. Ie, number of moves multiplied by the level one is playing on. Subtract time used. That way each variable has influence on the end-score, if you want a single number to base your overall performance on.
I like both approaches, if it fits the game; a total score in Warcraft does not make much difference, but it was a nice addition in the early "Pirates!" and Civilization games. According to the last score, I became a beggar in Antigua after my retirement
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I play wow and there is no difficulty level in WoW - only one level really. You level up, but you don't get achievements just based on leveling up, they count as a whole toward your toon.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I play wow and there is no difficulty level in WoW - only one level really.
You go with your level 1 character to Scarlet Monestary - you'll find that it is hard to play if you are not "near" your own level.
It might not be the exact same thing as a level in the Super Mario games, but the concept is similar. Your current level determines the amount of XP required to gain a new level, and some things are out of reach until you reach a certain level. And, once you get there, you get a message saying congratulations with the level up.
The major difference with other games is that you do not "win", since there is no way to "finish" the last level.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I think the OP was referring to statistics per difficulty level, which WoW does not have (easy, medium, hard). Your in-game statistics count toward your overall toon whether you are level 1 or 100.
|
|
|
|
|
Aah, confusion between difficulty-setting and a game-level.
Slacker007 wrote: Your in-game statistics count toward your overall toon whether you are level 1 or 100.
I thought the achievements were account-wide, not per character.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Achievements and statistics are different in WoW. You are correct that Achievements are account level centric, while statistics are toon/character level centric.
Lookup your toon at the link below and you will see a section for Achievements and one for Statistics.
Community - World of Warcraft[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Achievements and statistics are different in WoW
I noticed, the in-game stats page is extremely detailed.
Slacker007 wrote: Lookup your toon at the link below and you will see a section for Achievements and one for Statistics.
Cool; it never stops amazing me how much of that info is public available.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If space is not too much of a problem I would write as much as I can to an audit table which you can then extract statistics from.
This means that in future when you want to provide more 'fancy metrics'(buzzword bs) you will have the history of what happened saved, so that you can report on it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
If you only give people one target, they will only play until they have taken that as far as they will ever get it.
Give people two targets, and they'll go as far as they can with the one, then continue to play to hit the other target.
If you want to throw in an algorithm to work out the combined "BEST GAME EVER!", so much the better, as it will keep their eyes on both targets.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I've certainly played games (e.g. Spacechem) where the stats are tracked separately as achievements to beat. For example, in that game you can construct a solution that uses very few "parts" but runs slowly and another solution that uses many parts but runs quickly. The number of parts you use and the time it runs for are both separate stats that are tracked independently.
It's an approach I actually prefer - it takes the guesswork out of what constitutes an overall "score" and ultimately it boils down into individual high score tables rather than attempting to create one that may not be balanced in the eyes of the players.
|
|
|
|
|
The right answer would have to be the one that would make the game more addictive/would make you more money at the end of the day.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >></div>
|
|
|
|
|
First step is to answer the question, "Why are you tracking the stats in the first place? What purpose does it serve?" The answer to that question should guide you, since the next question would be, "How can I achieve that goal or purpose better?"
So, for example, if you are tracking statistics so you can motivate the player to keep playing by making their progress visible, then you want to track and show the statistics to maximize that motivation. You also want to reward the player as often as you can to keep the player motivated.
In this case, I would track and report each stat separately and I would have a "best overall" generated using the following algorithm.
The first game played generates a time = X, turns = Y, and score = Z. This becomes the "best overall" game. Only when a game results in two of these values being equal(or lower) and one being lower would you create a new "best overall game".
This means a player could improve one of the stats(and be rewarded for it), but would not get a new best overall award if they did so at the expense of one or more of the other stats.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm intrigued by the concept of being able to make trade-offs for better statistics, but it does mean there's probably a point where all of your statistics can only get so high in relation to each other.
I've made projects that revolve around the 'high score' mechanic, and it bugs me when ultimately you can only physically get a certain high score as a limitation of the gameplay itself.
You can translate your individual metrics into a universally identifiable one; Say all of your combined metrics boil down to an overall score for the session, and still keep track of the individual metrics for the fun of it.
This kind of serves both parties; those that just want to get a high score overall (best aggregated points for the match), and those than want a high score in X way (least turns, most 'kills', best time, etc).
You can keep scoreboards on the individual metrics too to incentivise players to focus on improving them.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
