Announcement: Be excellent to each other.


Caravel Forum : Caravel Boards : Contests : Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds
1
Page 2 of 2
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Poster Message
zzyzx
Level: Delver
Rank Points: 74
Registered: 02-02-2004
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (0)  
Mine's number 4. Thanks for the kind words RoboBob3000. I'm glad you liked playing it. I went a little gung-ho with the scrolls at the end, but it was my first hold ever. ;)
02-20-2004 at 05:18 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
It's kind of a shame that the caucus is already over without having had much discussion. I spent a couple of hours this weekend playing and looking over the holds, since that was the first time I'd had enough time to look at them all within a reasonably short time, so as to judge them most fairly. So I prepared a text file with my view of the question to which extent the different holds met the requirements, but it seems that is now moot, so I won't post it.

I actually found point 5 to be the most troublesome for the holds, with it strictly being met in one and only one hold, as the exact wording was:

"5. Public entry into the suite should only be possible via the waiting lobby,"

whereas most of the holds allowed return entry from subsequent passages. I had almost given up on seeing that met in the most strict sense, and was going to opt for lenient view of the word "public", but I did in the end find the requirement met. The insertion of a couple of force arrows to rpevent returning to the suite through another route, on the hand, wouldn't have cost much effort.

I found it interesting that most of the holds were built in sanctum (I think that was the name) style; I had also picked that for my hold (which I didn't have time to finish and which couldn't at all have competed with those sent in). Anyways, congrats to all the builders for finding some creative ways to meet the somewhat devious requirements.

-leroy


____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
02-23-2004 at 08:39 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
RoboBob3000
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 1914
Registered: 10-23-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (0)  
I don't know if I understand what you mean about the problems with the public entry via waiting lobbies. Could you elaborate on how that was or was not met? Which hold do you think met that requirement?

And if you have a whole text file of opinions, by all means, post it. There's still a week worth of voting to go on, and this topic never really got off the ground in the first place. I think it could use a good revival. Besides, I'm sure the authors would like feedback on their holds anyway (*cough cough* myself).

____________________________
http://beepsandbloops.wordpress.com/
02-23-2004 at 09:57 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
Point 5 was "Public entry into the suite should only be possible via the waiting lobby." To me, this means there should be only one entrance to the suite, that being through the lobby. All holds except Entry Seven allowed a re-entry to the suite from another room or subsequent passages, etc. I was torn between interpreting "public entry" to exclude Beethro, assuming he had to pass through the lobby first to reach the subsequent room, passage, whathaveyou. But since Entry Seven did this via force arrows, and since that isn't difficult, I decided to stick to the strickt interpretation. And the file isn't so much opinions (there are only a few of those), since Erik explicitly asked for an evaluation of which holds met which criteria and is pretty much just a list of which requirements weren't met by which holds. I hope that answers your question, as I am not really sure what it is that you didn't understand.

-leroy

____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
02-23-2004 at 11:19 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
RoboBob3000
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 1914
Registered: 10-23-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
Well, in my personal defense, I interpreted "public entrance" to be just that: The entrance used by the public. The other passageways from which you can exit and return in the suites in my hold (#1) are accessible only by that given Negotiator. As ie explained in the plot of my hold, Beethro is given more privledges to search around the suites (the public visiotr would, say, only get to explore the office).

I would bet that some of the other holds have similar explanations for that aspect of the rule. Beethro enters an area that is no longer "public".

____________________________
http://beepsandbloops.wordpress.com/
02-23-2004 at 04:49 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2707
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (0)  
Yeah, same here. Also, Erik's elaboration on that rule when he decided that all holds must be winnable made that quite clear.


____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
02-23-2004 at 05:09 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
Yeah, I can see that argument for your hold, since you did have a sort of "buzzing in" described in the scrolls. As I look over my "evaluation", I see I noted entry 6 also having met requirement 5. I'll have to have another look when I get home, but I am pretty sure entries 2 through 5 were somewhat lacking in that department. Other than that, your hold got -1 point for not fulfilling requirement 10 and +2 for the creative excuse. It also got - 1/2 for allowing access to dead ends via orbs 1 square diagonally away from the doorway to be blocked. The mirrored levels was an elegant idea, though. I also liked the story line, and I got a really good chuckle out of the line: the "phones are ringing off the hook, looking for" the Negotiator. :D I don't suppose the phones found him....

On another note, I allowed for two interpretations of equidistance: either same number of squares or same number of rooms to traverse between the two points in consideration. Whereas the first requires a lot more careful building, the second is more realistic. After all, when giving directions, one says "his office is two doors down" and not "his desk is 37 and a half strides away from my chair". Also, I'm too lazy to count squares and couldn't figure out how to use a demo to this end, so I only had "an eye's measurement" for the first interpretation. (Except for Eytan; I took his word for it, since he said it explicitly.)

I was a bit lenient with point 8b: the entrance "should be farthest away from the Chamber of Final Speaking, so as not to promote too-casual observance of proceedings from the public", counting the requirement met if the only rooms farther away than the entrance were strictly passages, i.e. all suite chambers were closer to the CoFS than the entrance. *poke Eytan*

Other than that, I found the requirements to be pretty straight-forward in their interpretation. Comments?

-leroy

Edit: @Eytan: I'm not sure what you mean by the hold being winnable clarifies the question of requirement 5. Hold 7 was beatable and had force arrows. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

[Edited by leroy00 on 02-23-2004 at 05:20 PM GMT]

[Edited by leroy00 on 02-23-2004 at 05:31 PM GMT]

____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
02-23-2004 at 05:19 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2707
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
quote:
leroy00 wrote:
Edit: @Eytan: I'm not sure what you mean by the hold being winnable clarifies the question of requirement 5. Hold 7 was beatable and had force arrows. Maybe you could elaborate on that.



Erik said, when asked whether holds should be beatable:

quote:
I was going to be open-ended about this, but let's say for the sake of simplicity that the hold should be beatable. The player should start at the "Public Entrance" and be able to reach a level exit, via the "Chamber of Final Speaking".


In other words, the "public entrance" is the entrance to the hold, not to the suites.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
02-23-2004 at 05:53 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
leroy00
Level: Master Delver
Avatar
Rank Points: 155
Registered: 09-30-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
quote:
eytanz wrote:
quote:
leroy00 wrote:
Edit: @Eytan: I'm not sure what you mean by the hold being winnable clarifies the question of requirement 5. Hold 7 was beatable and had force arrows. Maybe you could elaborate on that.



Erik said, when asked whether holds should be beatable:

quote:
I was going to be open-ended about this, but let's say for the sake of simplicity that the hold should be beatable. The player should start at the "Public Entrance" and be able to reach a level exit, via the "Chamber of Final Speaking".


In other words, the "public entrance" is the entrance to the hold, not to the suites.


Sorry Eytan, but I'm gonna have to give you a yellow card for non sequitor play on this. What you are addressing was covered from the start in points 8 and 9:

8. The center of the Speaking Grounds shall contain the Public Entrance, which should be farthest away from the Chamber of Final Speaking, so as not to promote too-casual observance of proceedings from the public.
9. If a visitor arrives at the Public Entrance and wishes to go to the Chamber of Final Speaking, he must first see each of the five Negotiators in their offices to gain admittance.

As you well noted, however, these points have to do with the hold entrance and not the entrances to the suites, between which it is necessary to distinguish. The only mention of entrance to the suites was our much-discussed point 5:

5. Public entry into the suite should only be possible via the waiting lobby,

whereas Erik's clarification is about something else.

The real disagreement we are having here is to the definition of "public entry." I interpret this as follows: any place to which a run-of-the-mill denizen of the Eight can get to is considered to have public entry. It seems a pretty reasonable definition. Perhaps it opens up a philosophical can of worms as to whether dungeons qualify for this definition at all, but I think we can say the Eighthers could enter a dungeon if they had the courage and desire.

It follows that if you have a "buzz Beethro in" feature la RoboBob, the rooms afterward are not subject to public entry, and a return from subsequent areas is not a problem. Now it is possible to argue that orbs also satisify the definition of limited entry in that not every Eighther carries an oh-so-big sword around with him. On the other hand, we (I) know comparatively little about "normal Eighthers", and I've never heard of a Weapons Control Law in (on?) the Eighth (although Beethro's sword surely qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction). I would agree to this extention of the definition of "priviledged entry", and perhaps there are other exceptions that I haven't thought of.

I'm not sure what your definition of public entry is, and I'm not sure without looking again whether your entry satisfies my definition. I could have a look, or you could refresh my memory.

On another note about the holds in general, I would have liked a bit more explanation using scrolls. I mean, that "here's the desk" and "here's a bed" or "that was a Negotiator you just stuff was kind of annoying, after all, DRoDers aren't dumb, but an explanation of how the builder interpreted the rules or thought his hold satisfied requirement xy might have helped. For example in entry 7, I thought there may have been meeting rooms for the Negotiators, but I couldn't figure out how they could be used.

Don't think I'm picking on your hold, Eytan, it was surely one of the best, it's just you and RoboBob are the only builders who have responded. I still haven't decided which hold satisfies the requirements most fully; I'd like to hear some other points of view first. The other builders could state theirs without saying which hold they built or that they built one at all. (hint hint)

-leroy

____________________________
You can hear happiness staggering on down the street -- footless, dressed in red.
-Jimi Hendrix, "The Wind Cries Mary"
02-24-2004 at 11:06 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts Quote Reply
eytanz
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2707
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged
icon Re: Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds (+1)  
quote:
leroy00 wrote:
quote:
eytanz wrote:
quote:
leroy00 wrote:
Edit: @Eytan: I'm not sure what you mean by the hold being winnable clarifies the question of requirement 5. Hold 7 was beatable and had force arrows. Maybe you could elaborate on that.



Erik said, when asked whether holds should be beatable:

quote:
I was going to be open-ended about this, but let's say for the sake of simplicity that the hold should be beatable. The player should start at the "Public Entrance" and be able to reach a level exit, via the "Chamber of Final Speaking".


In other words, the "public entrance" is the entrance to the hold, not to the suites.


Sorry Eytan, but I'm gonna have to give you a yellow card for non sequitor play on this. What you are addressing was covered from the start in points 8 and 9:

8. The center of the Speaking Grounds shall contain the Public Entrance, which should be farthest away from the Chamber of Final Speaking, so as not to promote too-casual observance of proceedings from the public.
9. If a visitor arrives at the Public Entrance and wishes to go to the Chamber of Final Speaking, he must first see each of the five Negotiators in their offices to gain admittance.

As you well noted, however, these points have to do with the hold entrance and not the entrances to the suites, between which it is necessary to distinguish. The only mention of entrance to the suites was our much-discussed point 5:

5. Public entry into the suite should only be possible via the waiting lobby,

whereas Erik's clarification is about something else.

The real disagreement we are having here is to the definition of "public entry." I interpret this as follows: any place to which a run-of-the-mill denizen of the Eight can get to is considered to have public entry. It seems a pretty reasonable definition. Perhaps it opens up a philosophical can of worms as to whether dungeons qualify for this definition at all, but I think we can say the Eighthers could enter a dungeon if they had the courage and desire.

It follows that if you have a "buzz Beethro in" feature la RoboBob, the rooms afterward are not subject to public entry, and a return from subsequent areas is not a problem. Now it is possible to argue that orbs also satisify the definition of limited entry in that not every Eighther carries an oh-so-big sword around with him. On the other hand, we (I) know comparatively little about "normal Eighthers", and I've never heard of a Weapons Control Law in (on?) the Eighth (although Beethro's sword surely qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction). I would agree to this extention of the definition of "priviledged entry", and perhaps there are other exceptions that I haven't thought of.




Well, note that in my hold, it's impossible to enter any room from any entrance except the public one - it's possible to re-enter one if you left it through a passageway, but there's no place you can start and end up in a suite EXCEPT the central public area - while the arrows are not right at the exits to the rooms, they do exist.

There's one set of arrows at 5N1W which prevents room-switching via the meeting room passageways.

There's another set at 3S and 4S which prevents room-switching via the final speaking room passageways. The passageways from room 1 and 4 intersect in 2W without an arrow, however.

BUT, it's still impossible to go down a passageway from one room, and end up in another, because the doors in the corners can only be opened from one side.

So, overall, the only way you can enter a room is if:
A - You come from the public entrance.
B - You were in that room already, walked down the passageway a short way, turned back and returned. Which meant you have had to enter through the public entrance earlier.

In other words, there's no way to enter any room except via the public entrance.

Eytan

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!
02-24-2004 at 12:53 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
1
Page 2 of 2
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Caravel Forum : Caravel Boards : Contests : Caucus for Five-Suite Speaking Grounds
Surf To:


Forum Rules:
Can I post a new topic? No
Can I reply? No
Can I read? Yes
HTML Enabled? No
UBBC Enabled? Yes
Words Filter Enable? No

Contact Us | CaravelGames.com

Powered by: tForum tForumHacks Edition b0.98.8
Originally created by Toan Huynh (Copyright © 2000)
Enhanced by the tForumHacks team and the Caravel team.