@ 2022-03-14 11:00 PM (#30448 - in reply to #30360) (#30448)Quote Reply TopPosts: 1801
Country : India
prasanna16391 posted @ 2022-03-14 11:00 PM
Thank you everyone for participating in our second daily contest series.
Congratulations to Walker Anderson for winning the contest, and to Freddie Hand and Montelucci for finishing 2nd and 3rd respectively.
In the Early Bird leaderboard, congrats to Kartal Nagy, Thomas Luo and Freddie Hand for taking 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively.
I'll respond to the comments shortly, but in general it looks like people have enjoyed getting to know Rassi Silai and its patterns. For my part I'm very happy with LMI for providing a platform to promote this new-ish puzzle genre. I hope to see more done with it in the future. I know that bakpao has already posted some very cool variants of it on his blog https://puzpao.blogspot.com/ .
It was very interesting to see how some solvers learned the patterns quickly and climbed the leaderboards and the variance there was compared to the more familiar Tapa in the first series. Some newer solvers were able to complete the puzzle on all 16 days which is also very nice to see. Looking forward to getting back to participation for the next daily series.
@ 2022-03-14 11:16 PM (#30449 - in reply to #30360) (#30449)Quote Reply TopPosts: 1801
Country : India
prasanna16391 posted @ 2022-03-14 11:16 PM
I think IHNN has responded to most of RealShaggy's concerns and thoughts, I'll add this much:
- I agree that the scoring systems could be more prominently displayed. We will do that for future series, perhaps as a link by itself next to "Rules & Info" so that it is standardized and remains there. I think it was all mentioned in detail during the Tapa Train introductory posts but we failed/forgot to carry it forward here. That'll be rectified.
- We were a bit cautious with Rassi Silai about going beyond the "top 100 get points" system because we still had some concerns (maybe Tapa is popular so it had that many players, maybe the shading interface is better, etc.) and wanted to wait just one more contest before we changed that. We addressed the penalty system this time, and think that is good to stay, we will address the scoring now that we know the format itself has been successful over two very different genres. Since we are looking at this long term, we wanted that bit more information before acting.
- Regarding early bird rankings, as well as the scoring system, I want to remind people again that this is supposed to be a format where the priority is to encourage more participation. So we largely want to keep things light and easy to understand. That is mainly why I agreed with the changes in points above, but I also want to caution that we will be against any complicated solutions and formulae. This is not meant as a response to the posts so far, I like IHNN's suggestion and that'll definitely be something we keep in mind when discussing tweaking the scoring. I'm just pre-emptively mentioning this so that people know what we are going for.
- I welcome more feedback and discussion, hopefully from newer solvers as well.
- I agree that the scoring systems could be more prominently displayed. We will do that for future series, perhaps as a link by itself next to "Rules & Info" so that it is standardized and remains there. I think it was all mentioned in detail during the Tapa Train introductory posts but we failed/forgot to carry it forward here. That'll be rectified.
- We were a bit cautious with Rassi Silai about going beyond the "top 100 get points" system because we still had some concerns (maybe Tapa is popular so it had that many players, maybe the shading interface is better, etc.) and wanted to wait just one more contest before we changed that. We addressed the penalty system this time, and think that is good to stay, we will address the scoring now that we know the format itself has been successful over two very different genres. Since we are looking at this long term, we wanted that bit more information before acting.
- Regarding early bird rankings, as well as the scoring system, I want to remind people again that this is supposed to be a format where the priority is to encourage more participation. So we largely want to keep things light and easy to understand. That is mainly why I agreed with the changes in points above, but I also want to caution that we will be against any complicated solutions and formulae. This is not meant as a response to the posts so far, I like IHNN's suggestion and that'll definitely be something we keep in mind when discussing tweaking the scoring. I'm just pre-emptively mentioning this so that people know what we are going for.
- I welcome more feedback and discussion, hopefully from newer solvers as well.