|
|
 |
|
| Treehouse (v2) |
Wed 23 Feb 2005 20:06 |
 |
<Max> (SPOILER) That's why they call 'em "spoilers"! |
|
| |
| Impossible |
Wed 23 Feb 2005 19:45 |
 |
<bje> (SPOILER) Haha, lovely, I spent ages pushing those things around... |
|
| |
| Treehouse (v2) |
Wed 23 Feb 2005 19:00 |
|
|
<Tom 7> (SPOILER) Oh man, that's sneaky. I'm sorry I read the spoiler...
<Max> (SPOILER) Argh! I guess this one's cookable too, because breaking into the tree from underneath is actually part of the intended solution! Man, you are the king of cook! |
|
| |
| Memoryless Hole (v3) |
Wed 23 Feb 2005 17:40 |
 |
<Max> I did it!! Man, it is amazing how impossible this seems at first. Very satisfying to solve! I'm quite impressed that you figured this out without knowing it was possible, Brian! |
|
| |
| True or False? |
Wed 23 Feb 2005 15:09 |
 |
<Tom 7> Deleted 'cos of Brian's cook. New version will be released when STEEL tiles are released! |
|
| |
| Letter Series: m |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 21:24 |
 |
<Tom 7> Thanks! |
|
| |
| True or False? |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 18:40 |
|
|
<Tom 7> (SPOILER) Right, it is not totally rigid in that sense. But sat problems with only one solution are often easier than ones that are less constrained. |
|
| |
| Letter Series: m |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 18:01 |
|
|
<bunnyrape> I like this level; looks very complicated yet very simple.. and somehow manages to be neither.
Now i'm going back to reading "Tautology for Beginners" :P |
|
| |
| True or False? |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 16:42 |
|
|
<bpotetz> (SPOILER) Oh. That's interesting. You know, even if both rows and columns could not be partially pushed, there would still be several solutions. And I think it would still map to a satisfiability problem.
Anyway, looking forward to some cool new tiles!
<Tom 7> (SPOILER) I mean two or four pushed all the way down. In my solution, in fact, if I pushed the columns all the way down, I would reset one of the tiles blocking the exit. |
|
| |
| Bad |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 15:46 |
 |
<bunnyrape> (SPOILER) Cook: Quite a few pieces unused (one switch and a teleport). |
|
| |
| Memory Hole (final!) |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 15:05 |
 |
<bpotetz> OK - I definitely understand busy.
mjn - That's no problem. In fact, make more levels like this. We got 3 or 4 good levels for the price of 1. |
|
| |
| True or False? |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 15:01 |
|
|
<bpotetz> (SPOILER) Two or four green spheres is also OK in a column, because there is nothing that forces you to push the entire column down. I just stop pushing after I get one in. |
|
| |
| Treehouse (v2) |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 15:00 |
|
|
<bpotetz> (SPOILER) Max - this level is much cooler & more difficult than the last version. You had me pretty distracted for a while trying to break into the tree from underneith (which you can do by pushing down the two grey blocks). But I don't think you can solve it that way. Neat level. |
|
| |
| True or False? |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 11:13 |
|
|
<Tom 7> (SPOILER) So you're only supposed to need one green sphere (and definitely not two or four ;)) in each clause (column). That's not a cook, that's just my bad description.
You're right about shifting 'both left and right.' Duh. Fortunately, this new tile I'm working on solves that problem nicely!
<Tom 7> Oops, sorry, this is supposed to be Disjunctive Normal Form, not Conjunctive. |
|
| |
| Memory Hole (final!) |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 10:12 |
|
|
<Max> Yeah, I know Brian. I'm a little busy this week, but I'm playing them a little. They're just really hard! I definitely don't want them to be deleted, because now I really have to find the undoubtedly ridiculously clever solutions. It's just seriously hurting my 100% streak! ;) |
|
| |
| Memoryless Hole (v2) |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 02:52 |
 |
<mjn> Got it! Man, that was crazy. I don't know *how* you thought of that... |
|
| |
| Memory Hole (final!) |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 01:57 |
|
|
<mjn> (SPOILER) Heh heh, I've actually been playing #2; just haven't solved it yet, is all. I really like #3, because of the sending-the-block-inside thing. (I skipped #1 because I'd already found a solution while working on the original)
I find it kind of funny, actually, that I've been working to prevent people from using (mostly) harder solutions.
<bpotetz> OK, lazybones. About the memoryless levels:
All three have substantially different solutions, so keeping them all wouldn't really be so bad. I think they're all pretty interesting levels, and I can't figure out why no one is playing them. But if you want to get rid of one, the first one is flawed because you can cook it by solving it using the solution to version 2. Of course, I could fix it so it wasn't cookable...
<bpotetz> Yeah - this is a better fix than the electric strip, I think. Nice level, mjn.
<bpotetz> I am defeated!
<Tom 7> Okay, I got rid of all of them but this one (-->graveyard). Brian, it's your call on the Memoryless Hole ones. Which one(s) should we keep? Do they have substantially different solutions (I haven't solved them yet..) |
|
| |
| True or False? |
Tue 22 Feb 2005 01:17 |
|
|
<bpotetz> (SPOILER) Cook: Cool idea, guys. I like levels based on abstract concepts, esp cool np-complete ones like satisfiability. Unfortunately, there's a couple ways to cook this one. The easiest is to just ensure that there is some non-zero number of green sphere in each column, and stop pushing them down one you get one in. You could stop this by installing a grey sphere at the bottom of each column that can only be moved down, onto a panel that locks the player into the column until they push down a second grey sphere (from the top of the column) that unlocks them.
The other potential cook is that rows don't have ot be ternary - you can shift one partially in either direction. But that could be intentional. Anyway, I count 4 ternary solutions (and no binary solutions). |
|
| |
|
|
|
|