You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently there is a round_reset flag associated with each round. If check, the points from previous round will not be carried over to this round, with the effect of everyone starting this round equally from the perspective of point achievement. This may help to prevent the possibility of the same person/team winning all of the round prizes, as currently in the HPU case, where no round reset is checked. In addition, in the HPU case, the scoreboard shows an "overall" slide, which is duplicate to the last round (round 3) because of the no reset.
This approach also causes problem where if the game designer reset the round 2, but not reset round 3, in the case of more than 2 rounds. The current implementation will reset round 2, and carry over the points of round 2 to round 3, making round 3 semantically a continuation of only round 2, not the overall round which the designer possibly intended. It becomes more confusing and hard to explain to player, when the number of rounds increase.
One proposal is to simply round reset with only one global round_reset flag. if it is checked, all rounds will be reset; an overall score should be displayed in the scoreboard; and additional prizes should be associated with this overall "round", which means at the end of last round, there may be potentially 2 set of prizes, one for the last round score, one for the overall.
If the global round_reset is not checked, all scores are accumulated for each round, hence no need to display the "overall round" score, and the latest and last round is the overall round, same as the prizes.
This is a design choice to be made by the game designer depends on what kind of game dynamics he want to achieve or try out. The default value could be no round reset, a simpler scenario and less prize options.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In addition, the round reset should affect the energy score (both goal and consumption), and other point earning game mechanics such as team participation. Currently it is not.
Currently there is a round_reset flag associated with each round. If check, the points from previous round will not be carried over to this round, with the effect of everyone starting this round equally from the perspective of point achievement. This may help to prevent the possibility of the same person/team winning all of the round prizes, as currently in the HPU case, where no round reset is checked. In addition, in the HPU case, the scoreboard shows an "overall" slide, which is duplicate to the last round (round 3) because of the no reset.
This approach also causes problem where if the game designer reset the round 2, but not reset round 3, in the case of more than 2 rounds. The current implementation will reset round 2, and carry over the points of round 2 to round 3, making round 3 semantically a continuation of only round 2, not the overall round which the designer possibly intended. It becomes more confusing and hard to explain to player, when the number of rounds increase.
One proposal is to simply round reset with only one global round_reset flag. if it is checked, all rounds will be reset; an overall score should be displayed in the scoreboard; and additional prizes should be associated with this overall "round", which means at the end of last round, there may be potentially 2 set of prizes, one for the last round score, one for the overall.
If the global round_reset is not checked, all scores are accumulated for each round, hence no need to display the "overall round" score, and the latest and last round is the overall round, same as the prizes.
This is a design choice to be made by the game designer depends on what kind of game dynamics he want to achieve or try out. The default value could be no round reset, a simpler scenario and less prize options.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: