Maria

edited February 2012 in Is It Winnable?
Is #12 winnable?
«134

Comments

  • Member, Beta Tester
    Yes it is Ken.
    pgs
    pgs
    Maria_12.pgs
    4K
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Good show!
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Have you won any of the previous eleven?
  • Member, Beta Tester
    #13 was the easiest so far.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    The difficulty rating of Hard 4% is well off the mark.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    True dat! The first 14 I'm at 50%.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    15 is winnable too Ken. 1am......bed-time.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Even at this early stage we would appear to be establishing that enabling worrying back in every game is definitely not a good idea. The difficulty ratings and the winnable percentages will all have to be ripped up. In the UK at any rate, this is referred to as "dumbing down".
  • edited February 2012 Member, Beta Tester
    Well, I don't know about that but it does change the complexity of a game, that's for sure. Why don't you post that question to Gregg?
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Worrying back is okay in some games, but I think it is an overkill to have it in every one. I can imaging how annoyed someone would be if he or she had spent years playing a particular game and had posted stats, then the rules were changed and everyone else could play the easier version and post higher percentages. That would be a legitimate complaint. Of course I would be unaffected in that respect.
    The next logical progression would be to have a collection where every game is winnable, (in fact someone asked for that some time ago). When the player got stuck it would just be a case of hitting a "Do it for me" button, and lo and behold the software would rattle out the solution. What fun.
    There is a definite need to have a group of games that are difficult+ to win. The old grey matter needs a work out to fight off senility.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    It was me that asked about the always winnable games but it wasn't for a "Do it for me" button. I've got a lot of patience but working on a game for days w/o knowing if it's winnable can be a trial. I don't want to know the answer but just to know if it is possible.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    I wasn't thinking about you Ken. I think it was someone from Asia. I know how much effort you put into your games. No-one could accuse you of throwing in the towel at the first sign of difficulty.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    The reason I asked Thomas about it years ago is that my parents have a solitaire on their computer which has an "Always winnable" option in it. It doesn't make them any easier and it NEVER solves them for you but as I said previously it does give one more determination to fight the good fight when you KNOW it's winnable!
  • Member, Beta Tester
    I do recall that now Ken, now that you've jogged my memory, however I have since tracked down the post that I meant.
    "dear all, why the freecell games produce games which is NOT winable as i really think it has wasted a lot of our precious time and make us have the unpleasant defeated feeling, reason i want to play freecell games until i win just to get a victory feeling and can't win make us feeling depressed, is there anyway i know the particular game can be "winable" before i select this game to play? stephen from HK".
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Then someone comes on the Forum and says "how many possible hands are there in game X". And someone answers "Y". Then the person (YKW) comes back and says "but there are only "Z" in the game. And then someone has to explain that only the winnable ones are dealt. And the person comes back and says "I don't want some machine telling me I can't solve a hand. I am smarter than any old machine". What fun.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    I think I should point out that when I said "The next logical progression would be to have a collection where every game is winnable" I was being ironic. In other words I think that enabling worrying back in all games is already making things easier than I would prefer.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    I think you need a new Ironic board. :-))
  • Member, Moderator, Beta Tester
    General notes:

    >Even at this early stage we would appear to be establishing that enabling worrying back in every game is definitely not a good idea.

    To be honest, I suspect that the percentage of players who would even discern a difference in most games is quite low. Nevertheless, I want to improve the games especially for experts like you and others here (and it will not hurt the truly casual players a bit :) ).

    The original design decision to allow worrying in most cases was deliberate, and it may have been a more significant choice than we imagined, but it has worked out essentially as planned (even if the differences may be larger than envisioned).

    The engine allows worrying by default, and I have to take explicit action to disallow it in a game. However, the opportunity is there for adding a bonus variation for any game where it makes a large difference. In fact, I figured quite a while ago that we can name them like, "Klondike [no worries]". :)

    Seriously, if we have a list of a few games where it makes the largest difference (where you are saying 'winnable in GSE, not in PGS' a lot), I can add a few of those bonus games in the next update.

    >The difficulty ratings and the winnable percentages will all have to be ripped up.

    In an upcoming version, I plan to have the technology built in to determine more realistic percentages of both possible and likely win rates, and using something like a ratio of the two, more accurately assess the skill/luck ratings as well. (This will also allow me to determine for which games worrying back makes a signficant difference instead of a statistical anomaly.) This is a ways out, though...

    >I think I should point out that when I said "The next logical progression would be to have a collection where every game is winnable" I was being ironic.

    We have had a number of requests for exactly that, however. Some people enjoy knowing that they are playing a solvable puzzle before even starting. I do not have a philosophical problem with only presenting winnable deals as an option in the future; however, it would present a major technological challenge to do this for 800 different games (as opposed to just a few), so it may never be worth the effort.

    In any event, we are paying close attention to your concerns, and if I could snap my fingers and make it happen... (In truth, that would be almost as much fun for me as having a 'solve this game' button would be for you. I-) )

    Gregg :(|)
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Sounds like you've got it covered Gregg.
    I have seen a button in some game or other that said "Go do it for me". I'm almost certain that was the exact phrase. In whatever game it was, the player had to make the best of whatever the screenshot showed. Then it said "I can do better" and invited you to try again. The final option was to allow it to make the moves itself. In truth this would be the LAST thing I would wish for in PGS or GSE. Many players already give up too quickly. Winning a very difficult game under your own steam gives you the best buzz.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Thanks for you input, Gregg! But I'd be careful on whom you're calling an expert. Liz says that Richard has a hard enough time getting his head through their door.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Ah! That's where you are going wrong Ken. Never try to put your head through a door.You are nor Harry Potter.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Are we sure #10 is a dead duck? Because I've got a streak of 7 wins going and with your winning #8, if we can get #10, then that would be 10 wins in a row (and counting).
  • edited February 2012 Member, Beta Tester
    I'll have another crack at it Ken.

    Have increased my score from 39 to 45. Maybe, just maybe I can get some more.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    I doubt if it's possible to improve on this score of 55 Ken. There is no way that you can get the first 4D into the tableau, and without it you are just storing up problems. Have a try at my partial and see if you can spot something I missed.
    pgs
    pgs
    Maria_10_55_Max.pgs
    4K
  • Member, Beta Tester
    No, I think that's about as best as we're going to get it. BTW, is the SuperBowl going to be telecast over there? I would guess not due to lack of interest and the fact that it starts at 0030 your time.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    He will stay up if it's on. He has a keen interest in it. :)) But I hope it will be a chance to see American Football at it's best. Picking the Patriots. So that will insure a Giants win.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Yes I did see that the Superbowl was on one of the channels. Just Googled it. It's live on BBC 1 (the principal channel) at 22.55, so it will be advert free and thus totally uninterrupted. Jealous?
    I would say that there is a much higher likelihood of me watching it than there is in you guys tuning in to the Six Nations rugby which is being contested just now.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    Considering we won't won't receive the rugby on our TV. It is quite possible. Although I don't know if they have it on dish receivers.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    All you need to know is that Scotland lost to England. We totally outplayed them yet we still lost! We are good at that. That individual match is called the Calcutta Cup commemorating where it was first competed for, back in the period when Britain had an empire. It was made in Indian from melted down rupees. Apparently the cup itself was badly damaged when an England player and a Scottish one decided to use it as a football and kick it up and down Princes Street in Edinburgh.
  • Member, Beta Tester
    The Giants kicker, Lawrence Tynes, was born in Greenock, Scotland. Do you know where that is?
Sign In or Register to comment.