Post by collieman in Dragonsweeper comments

Viewing post in Dragonsweeper comments

I can confirm that the game is always 100% solvable, and it's always possible to get a clear 100% screen BUT you do need some luck, especially in the early parts. you NEED to find the extra experience point chests sooner rather than later, you need to get some lucky shots in the early/random phase, and you need some luck to get the nome as early as possible BUT after you get up to 8 or 9 hearts it's purely a matter of skill to kill the dragon. I can't count how many times I messed up near the end because I'm getting tired and "brain no do math good no mo".

After I got good I used the cheat code to explore every question and secret, and still with total understanding of every aspect i STILL love playing to pass the time, truly a great game.

Also if you want the mouse stamp you need some SERIOUS luck not to accidentally hit a rat before you clear some space, or SUPER lucky to hit the rat king with the first few hits. The other 2 passive stamps are far easier to skill it out.

mchlnix3 days ago(+4)

If you need luck, it's not 100% solvable. It's only that, when the only way for you to lose is to make a mistake. Getting unlucky is not a mistake.

mvolution3 days ago (2 edits) (+1)

The game is always solvable, but guessing is generally undesirable — even though it technically remains solvable in a strict sense. There are certain patterns that could make the board unsolvable, or more often, situations where guessing becomes necessary. The real question is: can any board be solved on the first try, given ‘optimal play’? That’s the central point I aimed to explore in my article.

mchlnix1 day ago (1 edit) (+1)

EDIT: Seeing the full comment chain now, it seems like we are just using different definitions of solvable. I'm in the "optimal play ensures victory" camp.

I'm not sure if it was clear that I responded to collieman's comment. I think we have different definitions of solvable. I say a puzzle is solvable, if there is always a logical next move, that will lead to the player winning the game, given the limited information the game provides at the time.
From a game-dev perspective, you might think of solvable, just from a generation standpoint, that there are enough enemies of certain values, that it is not outright impossible to level up enough to win. From a player standpoint that's not enough, since in addition to these enemies existing, I also have to have enough information to find them at the time that I need them. Minesweeper itself (on expert level) doesn't have that and includes forced guesses, which can be somewhat skewed in your favor by calculating probabilities. But that means it is not 100% solvable, because you cannot solve it (without guessing) 100% of the time. And, obviously, when you have to guess, you sometimes lose, without any wrong play on your part.
I'm not even necessarily disputing, that the game is always solvable, if you ignore the pacifist achievements. But them saying, it's 100% solvable, but you need luck just makes no sense.

mvolution1 day ago (4 edits)

Agreed - players and devs often see this slightly different. Essentially, it’s “guess” vs “no-guess” maps.

Many Minesweeper fans today prefer no-guess boards, while others enjoy the added challenge of probability-based decision-making. It adds another layer to the game. It’s a matter of preference.

In Dungeon Squire and Dragonsweeper, most maps don’t require guessing, but some rare tough seeds do, like this one. I actually enjoyed it, even though (or because of) some guessing involved. The fun is to determine the safest square vs the square promising progress, that is: risk vs gain. There wasn’t any 50-50 though, but more like 1:3 or better, which feels fair.

mchlnix1 day ago(+1)

I only play NG minesweeper. The frustration of working on a puzzle for 5-10 minutes, only to lose through no fault of my own defeats the purpose for me. I had long talks with other minesweeper fans to try and understand what the allure is. Sure, being able to do the probabilities correctly raises the skill ceiling a little bit, but if it doesn't lead to victory, then what was the point? What skill have you demonstrated?

There's not another human player who was simply better, so doing your best still has meaning, or it's not a very hard end boss in a video game someone has designed to be obtuse and a bit random. It's just bad RNG.

But like I said, it's just my outlook. Perhaps my expectation, that any given task should be solvable, or at least should've been if I was more skilled, is flawed.

mvolution14 hours ago (2 edits)

I suppose those who like traditional (guessing) boards over NG, accept the risk of losing in order to benefit from the added meta games guessing-boards provide.

There’s 2 layers “meta games” added compared to NG.

analyse which fields got the lowest risk of a mine
analyse which field provides most “gain”, that is progress or meaningful hints

Often higher risk fields provide better gain, which makes it worth taking the risk.

It’s that added challenge that makes it fun (for me), even at the risk of losing the game without making actual mistakes. Nevertheless I also like playing NG, to me it’s just a different way to play 🙂

wava-22 days ago

the full clear stamp is also almost impossible for me, i did get it but i need serious luck or a bunch of planning if i know every cases in the board because sometimes in the finale i have like 14 hp but i only have a 7, 3 and a 5 and a 1 which can't add up to 14 and if i hit a wall i might not get enough experience to level up and finish the whole board

itch.io

Viewing post in Dragonsweeper comments