GCPP:Proposal-Arlequin
Puzzle Codename: Arlequin
| Contact | |
| Username: | Behindcurtai |
| Additional contact info: | forums, email, etc. |
| Project forum thread: | Discussion |
Game concept
Based on board game: Time Agent. Tiles are preset with color paths, and hidden. Tiles are exposed, rotated into place, and you try to connect paths from top to bottom.
Objective
Connect paths from top to bottom. A given path can only occur in a narrow range; in many cases you cannot connect all the paths at once.
Gameplay
The basic game play: You start with a board, all face down. The board is divided into sections two tiles wide. Path 1 can only be made using section 1 and 2; path 2 can use sections 1-3; path 3 can use 2-4; path 4 can use 3-5; and path 5 can only use 4 and 5. The exact nature/width can be adjusted during playtesting. Note that the board game never had more than two of these paths per section, while as described here there are three paths in some sections.
On each turn, you select a reachable tile (one where there is a connected path leading to), turn it face up, and rotate it into place, at which point it is fixed.
Like Alchemistry, the goal is to connect paths. Unlike alchemistry, the colors on the tiles are fixed, and preset. It is not "Connect any path from starting point to destination", and it is not "100% knowledge". It is "Connect path from limited options", and "hidden knowledge.
In particular, getting a path to the bottom tile might not actually lead you with a finishable path -- the last tile might not connect. But since you can see where the tile is, and can place it to connect to the destination, you can now see where you need to get the next target to. So, as you first work downward to see what's at the bottom, you next work upward to try to connect them.
And, work done to connect one path may break another path due to overlap of the areas.
Note: Although described here as "Connect from the source at the top to the target at the bottom", the board game actually played as "Connect from the target at the bottom back upwards towards the source". See variability for reasons/differences
Scoring
The more paths you connect, the better your score. And, the more tiles you use, the better. It's probably easy enough to just get paths made. Using as many tiles as possible is harder, and so scores more.
Variability
The original board game had "secondary sources" that were mixed into the "hidden" section of the board. Even if you could not connect a path from the known source at the top to the target at the bottom, you could connect from the hidden sources to the targets.
This actually means that there is a difference between "Start at the targets" and "start at the sources".
Additional factor of the board game, left off for simplicity, that could be added in at the high end game play: In addition to the paths described above, there is also a "master path", that has targets in all of the destinations, and sources all over the top, as well as two hidden sources. This "master path" must always be connected (paths for this are in addition to the paths for the other items). If at any time the "master path" is broken (in the board game, it is assumed to exist in the "hidden" tiles, but must always be connected in the non-hidden tiles), the game is over.
End criteria
For basic levels: When all tiles are turned or all paths either connected or cut and unconnectable. For advanced levels: Either that, or when the master path is cut.
Difficulty scaling
Ouch.
Crafting type
Not specified.
Known problems
1. Potential length of play. 2. If the player can just "dismiss" the puzzle when it's not going well, there's no real challenge to get a high score. 3. There's no good way that I can think of to scale for difficulty. While "fewer path connections per tile" is one way, it does introduce increased unsolvability into the puzzle. 4. Since "unsolvability" is a serious potential, the scoring curve needs to be based on "Theoretical max for the actual board". **5**. While trying to discuss how skill is shown on the forums, it seems that there is a basic playstyle that will give you a "best possible" -- the amount of hidden information is very large, the amount of skill is low. In a nutshell, it's like saying that you only score in carp if you get an MP -- while a skilled player can get an MP, or even an MP chain, scoring only for MP's is too much luck based except at the very top.
Notes
The original board game was competetive. Different people wanted or did NOT want different paths to be complete; tiles could be re-rotated after they were displayed.
Images
none
