Log in

21 January 2013 @ 02:40 pm
Too Big to Solve?  
Not my tagline, but a good description for the Mystery Hunt that just happened. One line of dialogue after last year's Hunt that I led with in my wrap-up was a question of when is too soon for a Hunt to end. I said, in this era of a few competitive teams trying to grow to get over the winning hurdle, constructors aiming bigger was a mistake. The Hunt ending after 36 hours (Midnight Saturday) is fine if that makes the solving experience stretch over the weekend for everyone else. I won't comment generally on this year's effort but it seems a great example to point back to of too much ambition by too many people towards the further militarization of the size of Hunt so that by 2025 the team "The whole of new USA" can go after the coin against "USSReunited" for at least a month. The sense of "puzzle" versus "grindy work" is also a discussion I have every year and I don't choose to repeat myself. I've felt since 2008 that the Mystery Hunt is far from an event I'd regularly attend in person although I'm glad to have finally been onsite to play with Team Luck with whom I've been a "free agent" now for three years.

I had a good solving year as things go relatively, but it was mostly demoralizing personally. I soloed Palmer's Portals, for example, but spent many hours after basically solving 8/10ths with a need to tweak a very small and underconstrained set of things to get from that hard work state to a finished state. At some stage I told the team "I'm going to solve Portals and the Feynman meta and then go sleep" and I met this goal but in many times the expected time when I gave the statement. I led the solve of both Danny Ocean (with zebraboy stating the most necessary last bit to get my work over the cliff) and Richard Feynman (with Jasters). I obviously co-solved lots of the logic puzzles and other puzzles, and gave various finishing help to a range of things too. I think I did this best for "Kid Crossword" once when he had spent a lot of timing mastering the hard steps of a crossword/scrabble puzzle -- and could quite impressively fast rewrite out the set of steps I wanted him to do about the puzzle -- and the follow-up steps were not obvious but I led the killing of the beast. This was too often the feel for these puzzles, and my assassination rate was far lower than I wanted. My Sunday was spent earning 3 puzzle answers by actually going to an event, and then falsely believing the power to buy some answers would let me finish solving the Indiana Jones mini-metas -- where I had already mostly soloed Adventure 2's snakes with 5/8 answers, but then killed myself dead on #1/Ouroboros for the rest of the day for so long solving, as many solvers will say in hindsight, the puzzle that was meant to be in one of a dozen ways and not the puzzle it was. Let me state here as I did for hours with my team, the phrase "I'm not cut out for this" is horrible flavor. It implies both cut this out and, in a different way, also don't cut this out. This makes you want to cut it out, which takes a lot of time, but also to not invest too much time in cutting it out, so as to save the wasted time of doing a task you are being told not to do. Other wordings are far safer, and implied negatives within positives is one of the five worst flavor failure modes in my opinion. Puzzle editing and flavor text is an art and is certainly the biggest variable from year to year and constructing team to constructing team.

So yeah, Mystery Hunt happened. And there were the usual share of overwhelmingly incredible Aha moments. Endgame seemed very fun and I wish all teams could do just that for the weekend or at least a lot more things like that. More of that, and more sleep, would have both been some good choices this year. If only the puzzles solved on schedule.

ETA: And as I added far below around comment #300, as a solver who was both frustrated yet had fun in this Hunt, I do want to thank everyone on Sages for the incredible effort they put in. Making a Mystery Hunt is a gift for all solvers whether it matches expectations or not, and as a mostly thankless job I do want the constructors and editors and software engineers and graphic designers and cooks and phone center workers and everyone else to know I appreciated all you did over the last weekend to give us several days together for puzzling.

Further, as I was asked to write a larger piece elsewhere that has given me personally a lot more attention as the face of the criticism, and as I use the phrase "My team" a lot in general as solving forms this kind of bond, I want to be very clear: since Bombers broke up after 2009 I have been a free agent. I have solved recently with Team Luck but am not a core part of their leadership and these opinions I state are my own. I intend to form my own team next year to go after the coin again, and if you have a problem with what I have said anywhere on the internets, please hate me for it. I believe in my posts I have been offering constructive criticism, but even what I have said is without all the facts of what went on inside Sages so I could easily be speaking from ignorance a lot of the time.

EFTA: Thanks to tablesaw for pointing out this chronologic feature of posts. If you want to see all the additions to this post in time sorted order, go here http://motris.livejournal.com/181790.html?view=flat. We're on page 14 at the moment.
motrismotris on January 24th, 2013 01:46 am (UTC)
When a logic puzzle is too large for me to bother to solve it (the 50x50 crypto PbN), that might be a problem. But maybe I shouldn't talk as that was a clear software puzzle. And I did use software to assist Color Sudoku just because I have great tools. We had two other people on paper there.
Adrianywalme on January 24th, 2013 02:11 pm (UTC)
FWIW, testers did the PbN by hand and even told me it was too easy. As for the size, I guess my perceptions have been skewed by predominantly solving on griddlers.net, where 50x50 is commonplace -- sorry for that mental blind spot!
motrismotris on January 24th, 2013 02:52 pm (UTC)
I do hate large PbN so it was more, at the time after some people had tried a theory or two and explored code, I was told don't look at it further. I peeked and agreed.
Gemini6Icegemini6ice on January 24th, 2013 03:18 pm (UTC)
Btw, thank you for adding the numerical values of the symbols to your solution write-up! I suspected that the "enchanced" symbols were 10s/20s/30s/40s but couldn't see a pattern in how things were modified (that is, I wanted "horizontal bars" to mean 10s, "vertical bars" to mean 20s, or something of the sort!

However, I'm still unsure what would/should be the first deduction from what was given? Should we just have assigned some values to symbols and seen if it led to a contradiction?
Dan KatzDan Katz on January 24th, 2013 09:34 pm (UTC)
We did PbN by hand; the people solving showed me they'd gotten a cross in the center, and from that I predicted they'd likely be getting other symbols from the code in the other spots. I imagine it was very hard as a pure logic puzzle, but once you guessed what you were aiming for, it was very approachable.
Gemini6Icegemini6ice on January 25th, 2013 05:01 am (UTC)
What was the first deduction you made in PbS, out of curiosity? We deduced the single digit / 10x+single digit relationships but we didn't know where to start assigning values.
(Anonymous) on January 26th, 2013 10:46 pm (UTC)
We spent ~15 minutes trying to do PbS as a "pure" logic puzzle when Dan noted the (incorrect, incidentally!) cross we'd drawn in the middle of the grid, and inferred that we'd end up drawing five symbols -- one in each corner and the cross in the middle. From there, we got the lower-left corner by noting that the vertical symmetry and overall structure were only really compatible with one of the symbols. It took a bit of fudging to get it to fit without producing any contradictions, but once we had that it gave us enough information about symbol/number mappings to do the rest relatively quickly. We actually didn't notice the digit/digit+10 relationships until we worked out the entire mapping, embarrassingly enough.

I'm sure that description made any number of purist PbN solvers cringe, but I thought PbS was a very enjoyable puzzle.
Gemini6Icegemini6ice on January 28th, 2013 10:13 pm (UTC)

So you got a cross from pure logic to begin with? One of my problems was that I was thinking the single-symbol rows were probably small numbers, not large numbers. It would have been nice to have a "0" row or column. ;)