Organization How would you like our levels to be categorized?

Everything has already been addressed that you have asked.
I can't help it if you didn't understand a single word of it, preferring instead to twist my words around to fit your arguments while showing your own ignorance at the same time.

I'm done explaining anything to a brick wall

 

You totally didn't understand a single analogy, and then twisted my words regarding each and every one of them for the sole purpose of discrediting my side of the entire project... while showing all the readers your own ignorance in not being able to understand the English language.

 

Reread all pages of this thread. All the evidence is there.

You've been making a lot of assumptions about me;
pretending to read my mind and claiming I've admitted things I never admitted;
putting words in my mouth that I never said;
twisting everything I say as though you don't understand a thing I said;
requesting explanations for things that had already been explained;
deliberately misunderstandIng analogies just so you could argue;
not remembering posts from less than 24 hours previous,
and in general...

...making yourself look like a fool.

 

Yeah, agreed that size isn't necessarily related to difficulty and I didn't imply they are related in any way -- it's just that some of us (me being one of them ) do love small, minimalistic puzzles, since the well-crafted ones often display complexity without using lots of elements. The main problem here is that, as @retrograde has stated, that we don't have a simple working method to determine the density of the levels......

And as for your example of level name v. category, I would say that it doesn't really address the issue -- assuming that the categories are finally introduced and are always accurate, a player would always consider the category as that card's true nature. Card names do serve as hints to the level's mechanism in many cases, but not necessarily so -- other times they are just for fun or based on design motifs. Once the category system is in force, authors trying to name the cards deceptively won't make much difference anymore. I've thought of adding a category called "Deception" (or whatever that sounds right), but that doesn't make much sense to me either considering it's just another big spoiler telling everyone that there's something deceptive in those levels. Allowing the presence of multiple categories would still be more inconspicuous in such circumstances.

 

I'm a minimalistic puzzle lover myself... At least I can see everything that's going on in something tiny. The larger ones that have to be repeatedly (and often rapidly) spun around, annoy me, and often have hidden zappers that further tick me off.. Lol

Having a category called deception would definitely defeat the purpose you're trying to explain. There are still going to be tags for the true focus of all these levels, and like the one I pointed out, "balance", the tag could still be one that keeps the deception in tact.

The point is, the people are searching for things they want to play, just like you and I would like to look for minimals. If they're searching for something they like to play, and your level is not tagged appropriately, they won't find your level at all.

If they run across it in the all levels list, there's no problem ...they see a level they like, they want to go ahead and play it..and they aren't aware that they're going to be deceived. The chances that someone is going to look at the tags to see what its focus is, are slim. People usually download a lot of levels at once, and tracking something down again on the site just to read its tags is unlikely.

 

Which is exactly what I meant -- tags are used for searching thru the "All Levels" list. If a "dodger disguised as a puzzle" is tagged only as a "dodger" right away, people who searched this tag and found this card would already have known that it's a Dodger. But if it's tagged only as a "puzzle" as a disguise instead, people who are searching for the tag "Dodger" won't even find it because it wasn't tagged as a Dodger in the first place.

If, however, it's tagged with both, then people who are looking for either type will be able to discover it, and both would have to actually play it to figure out what it is. People looking for Dodger might end up playing a puzzle, while those looking for Puzzle might end up playing a Dodger, which is exactly the outcome wanted by its designer.

 

Hmmm... Well there's still a problem with that idea of tagging both...Because people who don't like Dodgers, will find one in their "puzzle" search and be upset with us, and our judgement, for giving it the "wrong" tag.

Also, if it is a dodger focus… It will be obvious to anyone. I don't think you can really disguise a Dodger as a puzzle or vice versa. I'd have to see the level in question befor I could tell you what it would be classified as.

Remember that these top level classifications are for the "sole purpose" of the level, or it's "focus". If the dodgers are only a small part of it, ( like in Richardfu's example) it's generally not going to be classified as a dodger, because the focus is probably something else...and in his case it WAS puzzle.

Again, I have to see the level, because discussing it blindly like this makes no sense without something in hand.

 

Strictly speaking it isn't a "wrong" tag as both tags are given to denote the possibilities of both types, but not to reveal its actual type, and the multiple tags exist to remind people that it may not be a puzzle (A.k.a. Be prepared for it so that you won't end up disappointed! ).

The whole "dodger-puzzle" is just an example to illustrate that limiting cards to single categories would reduce all the possibilities into certainty, which is why tagging should be preferred as it is not exclusive, unlike categories. These "deceptive" levels need not be such a specific combination of dodger and puzzle. I did have encountered some levels that were intentionally complicated with zappers and traps all the way to the goal (or that the goal appears to be reachable), but in the end only after a ton of trial and error you'd come to realize the only way to solve it is to let the B-bot die.

Listing all the examples here would only further complicate the whole discussion, not to mention that the desirable classification system should be able to handle all the potential designs (rather than an induction-based one that requires revision and correction), including those in the future which are unknown

 

To the "player"… It could be seen as a "wrong" tag, and that would make the system look bad in their eyes. Not a good thing....

The cards are not limited to single categories. There's the main top level category, where everything gets thrown into because the creator will choose that. And there's the subcategory to further refine it because the top level category is going to be too full for people to want to wade through. . After that there are tags for everything else that might fit that level. So there are a lot of "possibilities", but the top level category is going to be the "certainty"

I have created a couple of levels where the B bot has to die as well. But that doesn't change what the top level category is. That doesn't change the deception..

I seriously need at least one example link in order to show you how this works. Without seeing the level you're referring to, it's near impossible to discuss this please provide a link to what you are talking about?

 

Which doesn't change the fact that there's still gonna be one single top category and people would know the answer from the very beginning

Not to mention that according to that "player"'s logic, even those "tags for everything else" might be seen as "wrong" because in the end the card might not be a dodger, or a puzzle, after all.

 

We already have a more specific polL

 

Again, please provide a link to a "deceptive" levelL so that I can show you how it works. As an example, dodger would be used for top level only. If not a dodger as a top level, then zapper would be used.

 

I think like
1. Red Robots Only
2. Yellow Robot Only
3. Ball
4. with Zapper/without Zapper
5. Motor
etc...
that means type of object used

 

Excuse me? I have never edited any of your posts.
You're doing a good enough job making yourself look stupid, that I don't have to do anything to your posts.

 

Everything above is already on my tag list... And many more!
Except motor… I don't see any purpose for mentioning that if a level has motors.

Only things that actually exist in a level should be mentioned.(with the exception of no B bot, because he's really important ). otherwise there would be a lot of tags for a single level saying "no ball, no zapper, no motor, no path, no r-bots, no ice cream, no....etc". And that would start looking really ridiculous. LOL

Some tags are: ( The spacees got yanked out by the system...hate that)
Bbot
Bbotonly
Nobbot
Zappers
Rbotsonly