> I think this idea could work very well, and I like the idea of > reordering the level packs to reflect difficulty and putting them in > bundles of 100 each, but it might actually reorder the levels too much > by difficulty, leaving 20 or so very hard levels at the end that would > discourage players. I remember from the original games that while > overall the levels increased in difficulty, there were rarely > consecutive very hard levels -- many of the levels above 90 could be > solved in just a few tries and in just a few minutes. I think mixing > up hard levels and easy levels to some extent could reduce frustration > for new players. Maybe instead of using a rating system purely of > difficulty, we could use one of difficulty and interest combined, or > some other factors. I'm not sure there will be a problem with > ordering levels completely by difficulty, but it's a good thing to > keep in mind.
I like the idea of reordering the current levels into four level packs of ~100 levels each. Is anyone willing to coordinate this effort? Some of the old levels could also use a small update (use newer stone types/floor tiles, add easy mode, more hints). It's probably a good deal of work, but it's one of the last remaining things that need to be done for a 1.0 release. The first level pack should also gently introduce most of the objects in the game. Also, I agree with Jacob that a strict ordering by difficulty is probably not what we want. The first 50 landscapes should be relatively easy, though. - Daniel _______________________________________________ Enigma-devel mailing list Enigma-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
