I very much like the elegant little touches the DEV. made for example in a level you should hold your device in landscape mode and it's funny what than happened. See it for yourself.
Wow, Alex. This is truly impressive that you have created an algorithm to check for all possible solutions. I can only imagine how sophisticated this must be given the complexity of the game. To this end, does it mean that the number of steps set as the "optimal" goal is ALWAYS the LOWEST number of steps that the algorithm is able to find? Or does it represent your "original" intended solution (which may not be the true optimal)? For me, I much prefer the latter definition. While it is possible that an algorithm will yield a better solution, it is "your" original solution that should "always" be the gold standard against which the player solutions should compare. This also allows for some flexibility for the player wanting to beat the game and not run into a wall so quickly. A player should not be competing against an algorithm. PS: There is a major orientation glitch. When I first started the game, the screenshots are being captured correctly in portrait mode. However, once the game is minimized to run in multitasking mode and then restarted, the screenshots are always located to landscape mode. As well, it is truly annoying that your game blocks multitasking gesture, like multi-finger swipe up to get to the multitasking bar... Ugh... PPS: Forgive me for my ignorance. What does the word "dwelp" mean? Is it an anagram for something else?
Bought it and didn't stop playing until Level 23. And I'm still excited about it. That's rare being me.
@ROGER-NL @Mudit Jaju @donfuego Thanks a lot, guys! @y2kmp3 Thanks for the detailed feedback. Please find some answers below. The "optimal" goal is indeed the lowest number of steps available for a puzzle. I think it might have been misleading to use a number that is higher than the lowest, because some players would definitely beat that and they wouldn't know what to expect for each puzzle. A three-star approach might have worked, where you get one star for completing the puzzle, one for doing it with "my" original solution and one for doing it with the real optimal number of moves, but I'm afraid it's too late for such a major design change. On the other hand, once you know there is a better solution, if you enjoy the game, you won't stop till you find that one, even if you have to put that certain puzzle away for a while. At least I know I did =) But anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter! There is indeed an orientation issue that shows up on some devices and iOS versions after returning from background, when the device thinks it's in landscape mode while it is in portrait mode (landscape mode is not even supported in the app). You have probably noticed that the volume bar changes orientation too, if you try to turn the volume up or down. I think I have found a fix for it and will submit an update soon. In the meantime, there is a workaround. If you turn the device upside down and back, this will force the iOS to refresh the orientation. Dwelp doesn't block the bottom and top swipe functionality. However, this is related to the orientation issue above. When the device thinks it's in landscape mode, the swipes work, but from the left and right. This will be solved with the update for the orientation and the same workaround applies here too. =) It is not ignorance... It started out as an acronym, but in the end I didn't know which was the best way to describe it, so I went for just Dwelp, but have your pick: "Dot weaving elegant little puzzler" or "Delightfully witty elegant little puzzler". Or maybe not so witty... =)
Roundabyte, Thanks for the explanation. I discovered the orientation workaround myself by accident and had been using it to "reorient" the device properly. I am glad that the fix is on its way. I am at level 67 now. Very much enjoying the game. There are some very clever puzzles you created. I think the fact that you used an algorithm to evaluate each level's solution space is a very wise decision. There are a few levels in which the solutions require some truly "unconventional" dot placements that are not at all obvious at the beginning (though, once I solved one of those levels and looked at it again in hindsight, I wondered why I missed the move in the first place). This is a great sign that the puzzles had been designed with cleverness in mind. Nice! I am puzzled by the levels that force you to alternate between using dots of different colors. I think this mechanic is inherently broken. This is because, for example, in the few levels I tried, it is possible to complete the connection for dots of one color while leaving dots of the remaining color in such a state that you need at least two more moves to complete the level. This means, at a minimum, you are no longer obeying the rule when executing the second-to-last move and the last move, as both moves are on dots of the same color. This can be done when still solving the level using optimal number of moves. Level 53 is one such example. There are others. My other concern is that there are too many levels requiring too many steps. Solving those levels just becomes an exercise in tedium. I highly encourage that you practice restrain and always choose "cleverness" rather than "tedium" when trying to create difficult puzzles. It is much more satisfying to solve a difficult level using only 5-6 steps that one using 10-12 steps (which exist for some levels).
I agree that some of the puzzles that require more moves might be more tedious than the rest. However, I should note that there are only 10 puzzles that require more than 8 moves in the whole 100 pack, and that includes some of them which aren't really hard, even with 12 moves, like No. 32. But I will definitely keep in mind your suggestion about the clever puzzles with less moves for the coming updates. As for the "alternative" mechanic, I think that if you manage to complete one color and have more than one remaining move for the other, it makes sense to complete the other color without feeling that you are breaking the "rule". I have decided to include these puzzles because they add a nice element to the game. They are not too many anyway... Again, thanks for taking the time to post all these thoughts!
Can anyone confirm puzzle 68 doable in 7 steps? No spoilers. Just need to make sure that this is not another glitch. Roundbyte, Even though you clarified the rules about the "alternating dots", are those levels ALWAYS possible to solve while obeying strictly the alternate rule? That is, even if a solution exists that does not follow this rule to the end, will there always be an alternate solution for which the rule can always apply. Puzzle 73 is an example. This puzzle is particularly noteworthy because there is a large imbalance in the number of red versus green dots. It takes only 2 moves to connect all of the green dots, leaving 4 moves to connect the red dots (I think it can be proved topologically that a minimum of 4 moves are required to connect the red dots). Mathematically, therefore it is impossible to follow strictly the alternate rule to the end.
wow... what a great game. beautifully crafted. a clean design. very intuitive. levels are plenty and it will take a good amount of time to complete them all. truly a breath of fresh air as puzzle games go. all in all a fantastic experience. highly recommend it. the only thing lacking so far is different mechanics (but I'm only on Lv 35 so they may still appear ahead, if so disregard this).
y2kmp3, I have really lost your trust, haven't I? =) Thanks a lot, Roger! No. 73 can be solved using the alternating rule till the end, in 6 moves. Green can be connected indeed in 2 moves, but it can also be done in 3 moves. So it would be either Green-Red-Green-Red-Green-Red or Red-Green-Red-Green-Red-Green (I don't want to spoil it).
Excellent, Roger-NL, thanks for the confirmation. After the previous glitch, no point wasting time on a level that may end up to be unsolvable. Will go back and work on it now.
Thanks a lot for the kind words! There are a few surprises waiting ahead in terms of mechanic. Keep up the good work! =)
Hi, Roundabyte. Sorry about that. Yeah, I was kinda mad about Level 19. The game was so polished that I thought I just hit a block. In the end, I actually proved mathematically that it was not possible. About Level 73. I figured that it might be possible for green to be connected in 3 moves, but I was unsure. I found that for complex configurations it was too just complex to derive a paper proof. A big reason why I am enjoying this game so much is that I can immediately hit up my feedback with you and get a reply from you on this forum. For puzzle games like this, the enjoyment comes from more than just solving the puzzles but understanding the thinking process the developer used when making up the puzzles.
No worries, I was just kidding =) I totally understand. Anyway, it's awesome to see you (and others) enjoying it so much! While it's been great talking to you, I should hit the bed now... It's past midnight over here, after some really crazy days (and nights). Later!
Please confirm Level 86 doable in 9 instead of 10? PS: Roundabyte, do you have any stats on how many players finished the game? If not, what is the "highest" stage reached? I am asking because the 80+ levels are truly and absurdly difficult. I know you said before that the puzzles are handcrafted, but there is something "artificial" about the levels' design in these later levels as if they are "generated" or "over-engineered". It is difficult to describe. I think it has to do with the algorithm vs. heuristic method approach to gameplay. Humans use heuristics to solve problems. Heuristics may not always give the "best" solutions (i.e., the most efficient; fewest steps) but heuristics are generalizable and they give "elegant" solutions (I know this is very abstract). Here, I am a bit worried that many of your "original" solutions you discovered/made for the levels were overridden by these algorithm based solutions. Searching for these latter solutions are often just brute force. For me, it is much more satisfying to discover what you intend to be the solution, not a solution found by brute force. Can you tell me how many of the levels' solution were changed because your algorithm was able to find a "more" efficient solution?
Yes, No. 86 can be done in 9 moves. In fact, it is a very good example of what I consider "clever" puzzle design. You will probably agree that solving it in 10 moves was fairly easy. What is the challenge, then? If counting the dots, one can figure out that each move will connect only one additional dot. Which means that in order to solve it in 9 steps, you will have to look for that one move that will connect two dots, while still allowing you to solve it. And that to me is a nice challenge... I haven't built any analytics into the game. If the leaderboard is any indication, there are a few people quite far into it, but none of them has approached the maximum score yet. But who knows what those that haven't enabled Game Center are doing... =) These puzzles were created over the course of roughly four months and were selected from countless others, so I really can't tell how many of them were changed during this time...
