6 ms·

11 moves felt like too many. I made my first moves without thinking ahead, and before I knew it, I’d accidentally solved the puzzle on my first try. I felt that

by jrh206 4y ago

11 moves felt like too many. I made my first moves without thinking ahead, and before I knew it, I’d accidentally solved the puzzle on my first try. I felt that the puzzle lacked that elegant “idea” at its core that makes a good puzzle great. (Just my personal opinion) That said, the visual design is beautiful, and it’s inspiring that somebody was able to create this.

rsaz 4y ago
I think the number of moves isn’t the key stat here, just the number of tries to complete in that many moves. I do wonder what the minimum required moves to complete a level is, but it seems it would be at least close to 11. How many moves did it take you?
- jrh206 4y ago
  I completed it in 11 moves and assumed that that was the minimum.
  - rsaz 4y ago
    Ah, think I misunderstood you originally. Anecdotally, it took me a couple tries and some thought, and I felt quite satisfied when I figured it out! I also find it takes me a few tries on puzzles like this to see if I really like them, so hopefully if you try some harder ones in the future you’ll enjoy it more.
- sumul 4y ago
  The minimum is 11 today. It varies by puzzle but is always the minimum for that arrangement of tiles. Assuming my solver is any good.
sumul 4y ago
I really appreciate the feedback. This is one of the main things I think about, and relates strongly to the part I mentioned about puzzle generation and difficulty variability. I do want this to feel like a consistently great puzzle. For comparison, the median number of tries it took people to solve yesterday's puzzle (10 moves) was 7. Figure #35's median was 19 tries! Today's puzzle is definitely one of the easier ones, fwiw. I've vaguely noticed some patterns of tile arrangements that create interesting sequences that are nontrivial but solvable if given some thought. I would love to develop a more formal system where these patterns are used to build up puzzles with more intent than the random boards I'm currently making. If this sort of thing is in anyone's wheelhouse, I'd love to hear from you.
- jrh206 4y ago
  You might find Jonathan Blow’s talks interesting. This one springs to mind: https://youtu.be/C5FUtrmO7gI https://youtu.be/C5FUtrmO7gI Also this breakdown by Game Maker’s Toolkit: https://youtu.be/2zK8ItePe3Y https://youtu.be/2zK8ItePe3Y
  - sumul 4y ago
    Will watch, thanks so much.
- Closi 4y ago
  The “number of tries” metric might be out if anyone else solved it like I did (ie going back to see if there was some smarter solution). As for your comment about nontrivial puzzles - absolutely! 100% agree - the joy in a lot of puzzle games like bejewelled is unexpectedly clearing half the board with a clever move!
  - sumul 4y ago
    Not sure exactly what you mean. It only logs the number of tries for your first solve, but you can keep playing around with it after that without affecting your stats (or the global stats).
    - Closi 4y ago
      Sorry, I mean that I went like this: * Solve two pieces * “Oh, maybe if I did it the other way around I could get that in one” <Reset> * “ok that worked but I wonder if it’s different if I did this…” <Reset> * “Ok actually all of those have been exactly the same number of moves, but how about if I just reset and do the first again?” <Reset then complete> I just mean I’m not sure I would class the above as “4 attempts” to show difficulty as you are just using it to test scenarios (ie the above person found it trivial even though it took four ‘attempts’)
      - sumul 4y ago
crazygringo 4y ago
Either you got really lucky or I'm really dumb :) -- because it took me a solid 6 attempts to solve the game. No matter what I started with, I always had 1 piece left over on all previous 5 attempts.
- t_mann 4y ago
  today's puzzle? I find it hard to fail unless I explicilty try. I can see but two dependencies in there (you need to connect the diamonds on the left and the circles on the right), and both are very easy to spot (one of them you're very likely to resolve even if you just click around). Edit: ok, there are a few more dependencies, but they really easily resolve on their own.

by jrh206 4y ago

rsaz 4y ago

I think the number of moves isn’t the key stat here, just the number of tries to complete in that many moves. I do wonder what the minimum required moves to complete a level is, but it seems it would be at least close to 11. How many moves did it take you?

jrh206 4y ago
I completed it in 11 moves and assumed that that was the minimum.
- rsaz 4y ago
  Ah, think I misunderstood you originally. Anecdotally, it took me a couple tries and some thought, and I felt quite satisfied when I figured it out! I also find it takes me a few tries on puzzles like this to see if I really like them, so hopefully if you try some harder ones in the future you’ll enjoy it more.
sumul 4y ago
The minimum is 11 today. It varies by puzzle but is always the minimum for that arrangement of tiles. Assuming my solver is any good.

sumul 4y ago

I really appreciate the feedback. This is one of the main things I think about, and relates strongly to the part I mentioned about puzzle generation and difficulty variability. I do want this to feel like a consistently great puzzle. For comparison, the median number of tries it took people to solve yesterday's puzzle (10 moves) was 7. Figure #35's median was 19 tries! Today's puzzle is definitely one of the easier ones, fwiw. I've vaguely noticed some patterns of tile arrangements that create interesting sequences that are nontrivial but solvable if given some thought. I would love to develop a more formal system where these patterns are used to build up puzzles with more intent than the random boards I'm currently making. If this sort of thing is in anyone's wheelhouse, I'd love to hear from you.

jrh206 4y ago
You might find Jonathan Blow’s talks interesting. This one springs to mind: https://youtu.be/C5FUtrmO7gI https://youtu.be/C5FUtrmO7gI Also this breakdown by Game Maker’s Toolkit: https://youtu.be/2zK8ItePe3Y https://youtu.be/2zK8ItePe3Y
- sumul 4y ago
  Will watch, thanks so much.
Closi 4y ago
The “number of tries” metric might be out if anyone else solved it like I did (ie going back to see if there was some smarter solution). As for your comment about nontrivial puzzles - absolutely! 100% agree - the joy in a lot of puzzle games like bejewelled is unexpectedly clearing half the board with a clever move!
- sumul 4y ago
  Not sure exactly what you mean. It only logs the number of tries for your first solve, but you can keep playing around with it after that without affecting your stats (or the global stats).
  - Closi 4y ago
    Sorry, I mean that I went like this: * Solve two pieces * “Oh, maybe if I did it the other way around I could get that in one” <Reset> * “ok that worked but I wonder if it’s different if I did this…” <Reset> * “Ok actually all of those have been exactly the same number of moves, but how about if I just reset and do the first again?” <Reset then complete> I just mean I’m not sure I would class the above as “4 attempts” to show difficulty as you are just using it to test scenarios (ie the above person found it trivial even though it took four ‘attempts’)
    - sumul 4y ago

crazygringo 4y ago

Either you got really lucky or I'm really dumb :) -- because it took me a solid 6 attempts to solve the game. No matter what I started with, I always had 1 piece left over on all previous 5 attempts.

t_mann 4y ago
today's puzzle? I find it hard to fail unless I explicilty try. I can see but two dependencies in there (you need to connect the diamonds on the left and the circles on the right), and both are very easy to spot (one of them you're very likely to resolve even if you just click around). Edit: ok, there are a few more dependencies, but they really easily resolve on their own.