I’m very proud of this scenario. (Even if you’re confident you aren’t going to play it, I think you could read the wrapup doc and in particular the section on ‘Bonus Objective’ so you can see what it involved).
It accomplished a few things I think are generally good in these scenarios:
There was underlying structure that players could uncover, which created emergent complexity in the output but made sense with the theme once the underlying ruleset was revealed/discovered.
Human thought about e.g. the theme and what patterns would be reasonable to observe was valuable, the puzzle was not optimally-solved just by feeding the data into a model and calling it a day.
Multiple levels of solution were possible, from a decent solution with little effort up to a more-involved solution that went further and dug into the underlying structure.
And also it managed to trick many players with a surprising-yet-thematic twist :P
I’m very proud of this scenario. (Even if you’re confident you aren’t going to play it, I think you could read the wrapup doc and in particular the section on ‘Bonus Objective’ so you can see what it involved).
It accomplished a few things I think are generally good in these scenarios:
There was underlying structure that players could uncover, which created emergent complexity in the output but made sense with the theme once the underlying ruleset was revealed/discovered.
Human thought about e.g. the theme and what patterns would be reasonable to observe was valuable, the puzzle was not optimally-solved just by feeding the data into a model and calling it a day.
Multiple levels of solution were possible, from a decent solution with little effort up to a more-involved solution that went further and dug into the underlying structure.
And also it managed to trick many players with a surprising-yet-thematic twist :P