Speedrunning to reach a target score?
4 years ago

I am new to this space and have been interested in working with retro style indie and classic arcade games on best score for esports. I now realize it would be of benefit to jump into speedrunning and learn more.

On this note, I am curious how much speedrunning is done to reach a target score. For points based games, the idea is to have the fastest tine to a target score. Someone could speedrun a pinball machine or Galaga.

Has much been done in this area?

Kent, England

There are score based games that are speedran on a 'time to x score' basis (e.g. https://www.speedrun.com/Doodle_Jump#10_000_Points ) but personally I am not a fan. Seems a bit arbitrary but just my opinion.

My interest is in testing skill. The ability to have flexibility in configuring I see as a strength. I can see what makes sense flowing out if the players competing rather than the nature if a game itself. I am interest in the best at a certain time rather than the best of all time.

England

Speedrun to see who can comprehend that post fastest

ShikenNuggets likes this
Antarctica

I’ll be coming in dead last, that was pure gibberish lol.

I apparently did an arbitrary post to try to explain the benefits of arbitrary conditions. In this, if my interest is not on seeing who is fastest at a game of all time, but am interested in seeing who us the most skilled among a pool of players at a certain time, the ability to change conditions such as target score helps. I can also tweak number of lives. I can also do handicapping. I can look at the entire field of players and change target score for them based on a target score they set prior.

My interest here is to test skill.

Edited by the author 4 years ago
United States

are you Skynet?

drgrumble and Tenka like this

I would like humans to learn how to maximize their potential and be able to see how quickly they can adapt. I will put this next to your Skynet comment in that, I see it would be of benefit for humans to end up learning how to out-adapt machines.

An example of one form of competitive play would be: Players play for a set number of minutes. Average of scores is target of score (Median, average of median, etc..) to reach in the following round. Player with top score and then down picks seating in next round. Next round consists of players trying to reach target score with the fastest time. This is arbitrary goals based around what players develop, then the way a game is naturally designed. and trying to complete it.

There is other cases to, of having another target. For example, players race to be the first to acquire a certain amount of gold in a game. This is a race that isn't based on reaching a point in the game. It is a race to a target, but not a location.

Pardon any confusion I am generating here. Combine my being an outsider to this space, looking to learn from it, with my use of a phone to post that generates typos. Chalk up any confusion or being wrong as an outsider, who sees things differently.

Antarctica

All of what you said is great if the game(s) you're using are devoid of randomness (which is probably almost no games). Either that or you're assuming every player knows how to manipulate the game to behave in their favor. The idea is flawed in that someone could play better overall (have cleaner movement, better timing, stuff that requires more "skill", etc), but simply get a lower score or a slower time because of some randomness like needing to jump/dodge extra times.

Sure, you're testing to see how well people can adapt to that, but you're also going to see people fail just because of things they can't control within the game. In other words, you're not comparing pure skill all the time - you're comparing skill relative to what the game gives to work with.

Edited by the author 4 years ago

There was a post on here about the problem with RNG and speed running. I can have single screen games, have events happen at the same way in a games, and other things to normalize the race.

In this you raised an interesting point that connects to a possible tradeoff between what skill demands and what people want to watch. I see chess has issues generating spectators because it gets played out. On the other hand, if you go purely random environment, people may find the chaos fun to watch but players feel like they are not mastering anything. People watch to see upsets happen.

I will add here also that there is talk of risk vs reward in good game design. I hold this can be a place that makes for both the test of skills and also makes things interesting to watch.

United States

If you're really interested in learning more, check out the tournaments that have taken place, and those happening right now to gauge how well they're attracting a community. Look at how they've evolved and changed their rules.

Back about 10 - 15 years ago, I played in a small tournament that was pretty fun where each week the goal for the game would change: score - get top score no matter how speed - complete the game or goal as fast as possible survival - reach the farthest point in the game

Most of those score games were shmups, but that might have been the tournament organizers' preferences more than anything. Some puzzle games, like Tetris could be played with score goals in mind.

Not many here have interest in competing for score. You should check out the shmup scene to see if there's interesting in live competitions for high score, or maybe they're already happening.

I think the problem you're going to have for competing for score is the game pool. Taking away all the games that don't have score, have trivial scoring, or even random scoring, you're left with a small pool. Maybe don't limit whatever it is you're thinking of doing to just counting score.

Zenic, thank you. I am trying to juggle a lot of things, a bunch theoretically, while also jumping into see what works practically. I actually was looking at a number of combinations and possibilities, and saw speedrunning as a way to broaden my perspective. I actually am interested in hearing what people say that strong disagree and why, so it can modify what I have in mind. I also hope maybe some new ideas come out, and I can have feedback on what I had not working in the past, so I know what might be able to be tweaked.

I am actually interested in working on all of the above. When I looked at tournament configruations, I saw some things like this: Goals: Fastest time Complete Game % Game complete/level Sub-goal completion fasted Target score/target resources acquired High score Run out of lives/resources Within a time limit (Caravan) Kill screen/target level/% complete Misere’: Low score. Games with negative scores like Astrosmash support this. May be best with timer. Points for goals completed. Endurance: Longest lasting time Combined with misere’. Endurance plus low score. Battle Royale: Last remaining player as players who don’t meet threshold are knocked out Regular interval Based on lead player Artistic performance; How players play in game is rated. By judges during or after. Nero: By audience during. Can be an elimination. If player fails to sufficiently entertain, they are eliminated. Last player left standing wins.

Parameters Number of continues None 1 or more Can they earn more? Continue point Number of lives: Do they earn more? Single life to start? Starting level Difficulty level Can player gain resources (lives, continues, etc…) as they play? Weaknesses: Is player set back resources/lives/time/etc… at start. This can be used for handicapping.

Field structure: Individual player Team play (score one point for each opposing/team member defeated) Take top result of top player on team. Take top X results for a team Decide if it is for beating all players in field or only opponents. Crowd (Randomly assigned to teams and play): Fixed teams, Drop out, Defects.

Hybrid Event types: Fastest time to target score. If no one gets to score, then highest score wins. If tied, then fasted time to that. Also run Battle Royale and reduce the number of players as time goes on to eliminate players targeting score only. Or drop lives. Players play a set number of minutes. Average of scores is target of score (Median, average of median, etc..) to reach in the following round. Player with top score and then down picks seating in next round. Next round consists of players trying to reach target score with the fastest time.