KevG
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 333
Registered: 08-16-2004
IP: Logged

I'm rather upset with one of our architects right now. I won't mention a name since this post is really more about the general principle. They can probably figure out who they are, but if I really thought this were simply a case of them doing something wrong I'd confront them directly.

There's a certain hold that was just updated. I spent a lot of time optimizing that hold. There's a room where I got a high score I was rather proud of. Rabscuttle beat it. I returned the favor. Was my new score beatable? We'll never know, the room doesn't exist any more.

Another room, Schik and I were tied for first place; we used completely different methods. Could one of those methods have been improved to break the tie? We'll never know, the room doesn't exit any more. This example is particulary aggravating, it appears the architect changed it solely to make both high score methods no longer work.

Knowing that if you get too low a score the architect will simply change the room really puts a damper on bothering to optimize. And yet, gamer_extreme_101 advised architects to do just that in his recent draft for his Architect's Toolkit. He was referring to unintended solutions, but the effect on the player is still the same.

We have an Architecture board to work out the kinks in a hold. Once you release it to the Holds board it's supposed to be a finished produt. Things have changed now that we have the high score system. People are going to be investing a lot of time and effort in to playing your hold as it currently exists.

While major bugs should be addressed, there's really no good reason for costing people their hard work simply for cosmetic changes. Yes, it's frustrating for an architect to realise that someone has found an unintended solution. But if it isn't found in beta testing, it should be left; don't penalise players for being clever.

I realise that this might look like I'm biting the hand that feeds me, but I'm not. With any creative work, once you release it to the public, you forfeit some control over it. Releasing a hold to Caravel.net is no exception.

The high score system is Caravel's bread and butter; it's the main commodity they are selling. Players need some assurance that holds they've worked hard to optimise won't simply change for no real reason.

---

[Last edited by KevG at 07-02-2005 05:35 PM]

Schik
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5383
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

How do you propose to solve this problem?

Not allow updating holds?

Have a.... update review team which will look at updates before allowing them? What kind of criteria would there be?

____________________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
--Mahatma Gandhi

Jacob
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3746
Registered: 10-01-2004
IP: Logged

Mea culpa!

I also wanted to know what change you were suggesting with that post. Sounds like you do indeed wish to abolish updating with the argument: if a mistake was not detected in beta, tough.

I propose the following the following set of guidelines (not for a hold update committee or anything, which I think is taking it too far, but for the architect):

1. Don't update the hold if it is purely aesthetic or for no reason, but will affect optimal move counts.
2. Possibly consider hold updating if an unintended solution, which spoils the puzzle, is discovered. Not merely because someone who got a better solution than you expected. (e.g. I updated a secret room in the third level of the hold since I'd not noticed that the room could be completed within the first few moves, making the rest of the room pointless. This was annoying for me, made the room pointless and unrewarding for the player.)
3. Definitely update if there is a bug which makes the hold/part of it, unbeatable.

My defense of updating:
1. The architect also wants to optimise the fun and ingenuity of his hold.
2. Some mistakes won't always be picked up on beta.
3. In fact, low move counts on the high score boards can be a pointer to this.
4. Some optimised solutions are unintended and take the fun and challenge out of a room.
5. The major distinction I'm making here is between a clever optimal solution and a *trivial* unintended solution. Updating should be allowed to remove the latter. I agree with you that it should not be done to remove the former, which seems to me is what you're upset about.

To illustrate, suppose an architect has made a complicated room involving an orb. This room contains a mimic (for another purpose). A player easily solves the puzzle by hitting the orb with the mimic, reducing the move count by hundreds, and gets a highscore, but bypasses every puzzle in the room. Is the architect really wrong to go back and put a trapdoor/force arrow/whatever, next to the orb, preventing this solution. This gives the architect satisfaction, since he's correcting an error he missed and greatly improving the room, and every other player more enjoyment, because they now have to complete the more complex puzzle the room sets them (assuming it's a good room, which is another matter).
Personally speaking, I don't get much satisfaction from bypassing other people's puzzles by exploiting their errors. I just think: that was a pointless room, shame they didn't pick up on that and fix it.

You say: "This example is particulary aggravating, it appears the architect changed it solely to make both high score methods no longer work. Knowing that if you get too low a score the architect will simply change the room really puts a damper on bothering to optimize."

I don't agree with anyone architect doing this and deny that I have done this. Incidentally, at no point have I used the high scores to influence the editing of my rooms, so I resent that assertion and the assertion that I would make a change just to aggravate someone or undo the work they've put in. In fact, the changes I made were purely ones suggested on the forum of mistakes I'd made and things that could be improved.
I totally agree that we shouldn't be doing things to spite other people or undermine the effort they've put into making or optimising holds.

____________________________
New to DROD? You may want to read this.
My Holds and Levels:

KevG
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 333
Registered: 08-16-2004
IP: Logged

Jacob wrote:
I also wanted to know what change you were suggesting with that post.

I wasn't really suggesting any changes as such. Mainly I wanted to throw the issue up for discussion.

Sounds like you do indeed wish to abolish updating with the argument: if a mistake was not detected in beta, tough.

Actually, as a player and in particular a player who is concerned with high scores, I would love to see it changed so any update that broke high score demos on Caravel.net was rejected. However, I realise that the architects (and some other players) would never go for that.

I propose the following the following set of guidelines (not for a hold update committee or anything, which I think is taking it too far, but for the architect):

These guidelines are a more reasonable solution. There's no reason they couldn't be made official rules, like the rule that says you're supposed to submit a hold to the Architecture forum before submitting it to Holds. You couldn't stop architects from breaking the rules, but you could chew them out afterwards.

My defense of updating:

Which are all good points. It's just that from my point of view I'd rather have a few poor trivial rooms if it meant knowing my high scores were safe. It's simply a case of valuing practical considerations over aesthetics.

You say: "This example is particulary aggravating, it appears the architect changed it solely to make both high score methods no longer work. Knowing that if you get too low a score the architect will simply change the room really puts a damper on bothering to optimize."

The room that I'm talking about contained essentially the same puzzle elements, but walls were placed that seemed to serve no purpose other than blocking off the old low movecount solutions. While the architect may have had other intentions, it appears he was trying to force his solution over any others.

I don't agree with anyone architect doing this and deny that I have done this. Incidentally, at no point have I used the high scores to influence the editing of my rooms, so I resent that assertion and the assertion that I would make a change just to aggravate someone or undo the work they've put in.

I'm not sure you should resent it. The prevailing widom up to this point has been that it's acceptable for architects to make changes to rooms to force their solutions. Pretty much the main point of my post is that the high score system forces a reevalution of when it's acceptable to change rooms already released.

I totally agree that we shouldn't be doing things to spite other people or undermine the effort they've put into making or optimising holds.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought the architect was intentionally trying to spite people. If I thought they were being intentionally malicious I would have identified them.

---

[Last edited by KevG at 07-02-2005 07:15 PM]

Tscott
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 382
Registered: 02-10-2003
IP: Logged

Since we're talking about the high score system, I'd like to point out one thing that's bugged me about some of the high scores I've seen. Entering from an unintended direction, sometimes while standing on a door to cut out part or all of the intended solution. See the 5 move demos for JtRH:Level 20 The Entrance for a great example of this. Players have completely bypassed the puzzle to upload a trivial demo and get a high score. I was a bit disappointed when I first saw this as that room has some potential in optimizing the solution to the actual puzzle but anyone who solves it as intended has no chance to get a high score, or to see how others handled the actual solution.

If that room was in one of my holds, I'd see no problem with slightly adjusting the placement of the tar mother and placing green doors a square away from all the exits to prevent this sort of trivial solution. A 5 move demo that bypasses solving the puzzle altogether goes against the intent of a puzzle game IMHO.

Likewise if a solution that bypasses part of a puzzle is found, like in my hold, HIJK, where a way was found around a red door so it wasn't required to drop as intended, I see no problem with fixing it to keep the puzzle.

Having said all that, if as you say the puzzle stayed intact but changes were made to only add more moves in these room you're talking about, this seems a bit backwards to me, and architects should have more reason than "I don't want someone solving this room in under 200 moves" as a reason to change. I don't know how to enforce it though, other than letting the architect know your thoughts (as you seem to be doing now) and hoping they'll take it into account in the future when updating.

____________________________
And I can recall our caravel: a little wicker beetle shell with four fine maste and lateen sails,
its bearings on Cair Paravel. O my love, O it was a funny little thing to be the ones to've seen.
-Joanna Newsom "Bridges and Balloons"

swann_88
Level: Delver

Rank Points: 87
Registered: 06-29-2003
IP: Logged

the main problem in this is people who get high scores by using an unintended path through rooms
starting by an unintended entrance or leaving by the entrance instead of the exit
in a lot of rooms its hard to maintain the puzzle and allow you to backtrack without creating opportunities to do this
what would be great would be if the architect had the choice of designating an entrance and exit for rooms
if the architect sets either of these you could only get a high score by using the designated point
that being said KevG should go do some beta testing for people since he seems to find alternate ways to do rooms frequently

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

what would be great would be if the architect had the choice of designating an entrance and exit for rooms
if the architect sets either of these you could only get a high score by using the designated point

I approve of players being punished for creativity. Let's go for it.

agaricus5
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1838
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Banjooie wrote:

what would be great would be if the architect had the choice of designating an entrance and exit for rooms
if the architect sets either of these you could only get a high score by using the designated point

I approve of players being punished for creativity. Let's go for it.

I disagree. This is just encouraging architect laziness again. If a player can find an unintended optimal solution, then the player should be entitled to do so. Of course, it is up to the architect to judge whether or not it is worth to update a room based on how much it disrupts present solutions, but if, for example, the lack of a single wall allows a player to bypass an entire 600 move section of the puzzle, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable to want to change it.

____________________________
Resident Medic/Mycologist

KevG
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 333
Registered: 08-16-2004
IP: Logged

Tscott wrote:
Having said all that, if as you say the puzzle stayed intact but changes were made to only add more moves in these room you're talking about, this seems a bit backwards to me, and architects should have more reason than "I don't want someone solving this room in under 200 moves" as a reason to change. I don't know how to enforce it though, other than letting the architect know your thoughts (as you seem to be doing now) and hoping they'll take it into account in the future when updating.

The problem at this point really isn't enforcement. The problem is there are no guidelines at all for an architect to use before updating; there isn't even any place where architects are advised to take high scores into account. Adding something to a sticky on the Architecture board would be a good idea.

A factor that hasn't been mentioned is time. A player should be able to reasonably assume that a hold that has been released for several months won't be changed. Architect's should be discouraged (if not outright banned) from changing older holds. While obviously problems slip through beta-testing, if an unintended solution hasn't shown up within a month or so it probably isn't worth eliminating.

With newer holds, players don't really have that expectation. An informal policy of play at your own risk could be in play. Architects still shouldn't abuse their update privilege, but a lot more latitude could be shown for updating new holds.

Valtiel
Level: Roachling
Rank Points: 12
Registered: 06-26-2005
IP: Logged

There's a lot of difference between an "unintended optimal solution" and a trivial solution. A trivial solution lets you bypass part of the puzzle. An unintended optimal solution requires completing all parts of the puzzle, but not necessarily in the order intended.

Let's take that level 20 entrance room as an example. The unintended optimal solution is to

Now, let's assume the room were built slightly differently, with a green door that lets you get back into (and out of) the central chamber without touching the orbs once the monsters are all dead. You could then spawn your mimic in the space directly below the mud mother, kill it, and exit the room without ever solving the puzzle with the orbs. This is a trivial solution (It doesn't exist, mercifully.

An unintended optimal solution requires ingenuity and skill, and requires that the puzzle for the room be solved - but not necessarily how the architect intended. Trivial solutions bypass the puzzle. Fixing a trivial solution is fine, because it's basically a bug in the level. I disagree with fixing an unintended optimal solution, because these solutions actually require MORE ingenuity and skill than the normal methods.

Of course, sometimes the line between them is blurred. In this situation, my method would be to release a new version of the hold with no changes other than a secret room, identical to the room with the unintended solution, but with that solution removed. This way, people who found the unintended solution could keep their high scores, and people who hadn't would still be able to register high scores for the hidden room.

[edit: ok, so you can't get at the level 20 entrance room from the top, at least as far as I know. You CAN, however, access it from the west, which is similar]

---

[Last edited by Valtiel at 07-03-2005 05:49 PM]

pouzzler
Level: Delver
Rank Points: 33
Registered: 05-24-2005
IP: Logged

The last post was so perfect and sensible, I have nothing more to do than go off-topic about that 20th entrance: