Hi! Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, I really appreciate it. :)

To my taste, ideally there should be no red herrings anywhere, they usually only add cheap, shallow difficulty. If I'm not mistaken, the ones you're referring to (for example, the upside-down table in 709?) are only there to prevent unintended solutions. Basically, a failure in elegant design on my part. I really tried to not need them!

Anyway, thanks for playing (and congrats on beating the game)!

Originally posted by Corey Martin:

Hi! Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, I really appreciate it. :)

To my taste, ideally there should be no red herrings anywhere, they usually only add cheap, shallow difficulty. If I'm not mistaken, the ones you're referring to (for example, the upside-down table in 709?) are only there to prevent unintended solutions. Basically, a failure in elegant design on my part. I really tried to not need them!

Anyway, thanks for playing (and congrats on beating the game)!

No problem, thanks for the response. I have to admit though that I might not understand that game as well as I thought based on your reply. I thought I observed many, many distractors so I'm surprised to learn if they were not intentional. To be fair, my definition is somewhat imprecise (an element, such as open space or a table, that could have functional interplay with other elements but could be exchanged for an element with less functional interplay or none at all and not change the solution either input-wise or graphically).

For 709, you're exactly right that I primarily meant the upside down table. After having beat that level again just now...I don't quite understand why it's necessary that that square where the upside down table is couldn't just be wall (just something that's solid and not part of the level, like normal room boundaries). It's never necessary to stand on it or push anything there...is there a game engine reason why it can't be a wall?

In addition, all of the white walls (other than the one the boxes start on) are also vaguely distractors because they are "within reach" so at least have the remote possibility of interaction via stacking boxes on them. Couldn't those also be "simplified" into walls?

For 905, similarly, the open square at the bottom right (and all the white wall squares other than where the chairs start) could be void/wall boundary and nothing would change. That single open square devilishly opens up a lot of considerations in terms of moving the bottom table around yet it's completely irrelevant to the solution.

For both 902 and 903...half or even more than half the room is irrelevant to the solution (the same inputs would produce the same graphical results and operations even if those squares were not there). Don't get me wrong - those rooms would be much easier if you shrank them and "simplified" them - but the EXACT same key input sequences and exact same object manipulations would be the solution. So in my mind, I'd consider those distractors.

For most of the puzzles, there's a more pure or aesthetically pleasing version of the level that I preferred, but had to compromise to avoid unintended solutions.

For 709, here's an unintended solution if it was just a wall and not an empty tile with an upside down table.

http://toboggan.work/tmp/hs-709exploit.gif

902 and 903 are particular cases, it's true that there are more tables than are required. The idea was to surprise the player (wow, that's a lot of tables!), I don't agree that it leads to artificial difficulty since your choices are so limited (IMO distraction = artificial difficulty).

The white walls on the far and right sides are an aesthetic preference. Because of the decorative "walls" on the far/right side, this looks less weird to me:

http://toboggan.work/tmp/hs-a.PNG

...than this:

http://toboggan.work/tmp/hs-b.PNG

In either case they are inaccessible, but maybe if I had made them 1 or 2 units taller, you would find them less distracting? I can understand that, if so.

Ah you're right about the overturned table and in general I forgot that a wall is actually better than an upturned table, for whatever reason I was thinking in terms of rooftop and forgot walls actually *help* create solutions (unlike in PPP).

And yes, taller blocks are absolutely less distracting but I think I have to retract a lot of my general sentiment regarding "walls." I guess a better way to say things is that: the rooftop area boundary (let's call it void) is what would make things unambiguous. Walls are actually inherently more of a "distractor". That's a bit of an embarrassing mistake on my part.

So, granting that these are inside levels in terms of design and that you're right about the wall issues, does suggesting void make more sense in terms of what I mean by unneeded features that present possible solutions? That's actually why I found rooftop to be one of the easiest levels in the game barring the first few floors.

Hm do you mean that the void serving as a wall/boundary is distracting or difficult to keep in mind? If so, that makes sense to me.

No sorry, if you'll allow me to wipe the slate clean, I had intended to properly narrow my claim after my mistake w.r.t. walls:

Any situation where a square on the grid doesn't need to be walked on or pushed onto, a "void" is a strictly simpler element than an upturned table/wall/block because there is no solution possibility to calculate or account for. Is that a fair statement?

IFF I'm correct about the above (hopefully I didn't make another miscalculation), I am trying to say that the fact that walls/tables are used technically results in distractors that the engine doesn't require.

Yep, so again, that's inelegant design for the sake of avoiding unintended solutions. The only exceptions being 902 and 903 (iirc), where the unnecessary elements are there for aesthetic purposes. :)

Thanks, understood.

I think we're in complete alignment, it's just that I would argue that the a huge proportion of floor and walls themselves are mostly serving a dual aesthetic/distractor purpose in the most technical sense.

I say that because unneeded walls and floor could and *should* be replaced by "void" if you want to optimize for the absolute minimum number of solution-space-relevant elements.

In many cases, I'm splitting meaningless hairs because floor and wall are trivial distractors that don't change much.

However, in a couple of levels (especially 709), replacing even a single square of floor and wall with "void" would instantly reveal an otherwise much more difficult solution.

Thanks for clearing everything up though - I do completely understand simply not wanting to use "void" and not having the goal of absolute minimization - in my original post I had just missed the part where adding "wall" itself wasn't a valid simplification (due to the way the win condition works).

Ah right, deciding the right amount of space/empty floor tiles to give the player is a tough balance. Sometimes restricting space adds steps without changing the result (e.g. needing to do a three-point turn vs. a regular u-turn). I don't want the levels to be unnecessarily claustrophobic, but I also don't want the player to be misled either. Just need to go with gut feeling on each level, i think. :)