Tweet
Not one of the existing tables are perfect for me and this is also not really an easy question because there are so many factors at play and most are subjective. When I look at a table and decide if it is a good table or not I consider the following (from least important to most important for me):
- Music (usually have it off anyway)
- Theme (Character) and story
- Aesthetics
- Colour Scheme
- Sounds
- Table Layout
- Rule Sheet
- Scoring Balance
For me it is especially the last three that make or break a table because they in the end determine the fun factor and longevity of the table. I definitely prefer the medium to hard tables. The tables I love the most are tables such as Pasha, Biolab and Blade where there is a nice flow to the table but where there is also a steep learning curve. They reward you for playing strategically (e.g. extra balls, kickbacks etc.) but punishes you severely for only a brief break in concentration e.g. you pay for bricked shots. They push you as a player to get better and it is so rewarding once (if
) you finally "beat" the table.
I'm now very happy with my Pasha score and feel that I have now "beaten" the table... it is around the 6th or 7th time that I have gone back to the table compared to Paranormal where I will never go back to or Sorcerer's Lair and Ms. Splosion man where I will maybe go back 1 or at most 2 more times. What I mean with going back, is each time I take on the challenge to try and improve my high score (or a friend challenge - Thanks Zuprichy
). It is amazing when you go back to a table because it can demonstrate; how you have grown as a FX 2 player, are able to get things right which you couldn't previously manage, recognise better strategic scoring opportunities and are suddenly able to keep the ball alive longer without apparently more effort.
Using Pasha as an example; I can't remember exactly but I think my scoring progression went something like: 20mil (first week), 100mil (2 months), 200mil (3 months), 350mil (5 months), 750mil (10 months), 950mil (1 year) and 2.8 bil (1 year and 1 month) - I'm really pleased about my final score if you can't tell
. Each time I managed a new score, I always felt that, that was the most I could achieve at that moment with my current skill level and understanding of the table. With most of the earlier tables before Mars, I had a similar progression. With Blade I am now feeling the need (and that it is possible) for me to try and break a Billion (950mil current score). With new tables the scoring progression is obviously (and luckily) different because as your skill level improves, you are able to go through the progression in a much shorter time, but it is still there.
To bring this back to the question I posed. Such a scoring progression is only possible if the table layout, rule sheet and scoring balance is such that the table is "tough" enough that you have to work hard at keeping the ball alive and scoring extra balls etc. and that there are no score spamming opportunities. For example Paranormal "fails" on all accounts, with the too many extra balls, magna save and ever building jackpots. Fantastic 4 is the one table I have not been able to properly play (because of the glitches) that I am very keen to play in depth because I feel Zen has the balance right with more than one scoring approach (missions or multi-balls or combination), nothing spammable, extra balls not too easy to get (especially all 6), NZ ballsaver very nice to have but quite a mission to get and some spots where if you lose concentration you can very quickly lose the ball from a bricked shot.
So... I have tried to explain when and why a table is getting close to being perfect for me. Do you agree or is there other factors at play for you? I feel discussions like these are very important and hopefully interesting for Zen to read so that they can better understand what the community want out of their tables.
- Music (usually have it off anyway)
- Theme (Character) and story
- Aesthetics
- Colour Scheme
- Sounds
- Table Layout
- Rule Sheet
- Scoring Balance
For me it is especially the last three that make or break a table because they in the end determine the fun factor and longevity of the table. I definitely prefer the medium to hard tables. The tables I love the most are tables such as Pasha, Biolab and Blade where there is a nice flow to the table but where there is also a steep learning curve. They reward you for playing strategically (e.g. extra balls, kickbacks etc.) but punishes you severely for only a brief break in concentration e.g. you pay for bricked shots. They push you as a player to get better and it is so rewarding once (if
) you finally "beat" the table. I'm now very happy with my Pasha score and feel that I have now "beaten" the table... it is around the 6th or 7th time that I have gone back to the table compared to Paranormal where I will never go back to or Sorcerer's Lair and Ms. Splosion man where I will maybe go back 1 or at most 2 more times. What I mean with going back, is each time I take on the challenge to try and improve my high score (or a friend challenge - Thanks Zuprichy
). It is amazing when you go back to a table because it can demonstrate; how you have grown as a FX 2 player, are able to get things right which you couldn't previously manage, recognise better strategic scoring opportunities and are suddenly able to keep the ball alive longer without apparently more effort. Using Pasha as an example; I can't remember exactly but I think my scoring progression went something like: 20mil (first week), 100mil (2 months), 200mil (3 months), 350mil (5 months), 750mil (10 months), 950mil (1 year) and 2.8 bil (1 year and 1 month) - I'm really pleased about my final score if you can't tell
. Each time I managed a new score, I always felt that, that was the most I could achieve at that moment with my current skill level and understanding of the table. With most of the earlier tables before Mars, I had a similar progression. With Blade I am now feeling the need (and that it is possible) for me to try and break a Billion (950mil current score). With new tables the scoring progression is obviously (and luckily) different because as your skill level improves, you are able to go through the progression in a much shorter time, but it is still there. To bring this back to the question I posed. Such a scoring progression is only possible if the table layout, rule sheet and scoring balance is such that the table is "tough" enough that you have to work hard at keeping the ball alive and scoring extra balls etc. and that there are no score spamming opportunities. For example Paranormal "fails" on all accounts, with the too many extra balls, magna save and ever building jackpots. Fantastic 4 is the one table I have not been able to properly play (because of the glitches) that I am very keen to play in depth because I feel Zen has the balance right with more than one scoring approach (missions or multi-balls or combination), nothing spammable, extra balls not too easy to get (especially all 6), NZ ballsaver very nice to have but quite a mission to get and some spots where if you lose concentration you can very quickly lose the ball from a bricked shot.
So... I have tried to explain when and why a table is getting close to being perfect for me. Do you agree or is there other factors at play for you? I feel discussions like these are very important and hopefully interesting for Zen to read so that they can better understand what the community want out of their tables.
) allows modes/missions to be built into tables that takes a lot of effort to get right (and which they put a lot of effort in to design) but actually don't matter one bit with regards to getting to wizard mode or to get a high score. Some bad examples in my opinion that I can think of now is: Howlers on Captain America, SotD multiplier as you mentioned and Mutations on Biolab.
Comment