> Ok then, we could at least *try* to order them by difficulty. Here is the ranking > scheme I would propose, to start off the discussion. We should rank the difficulty > along several axes, for example according to the intelligence, dexterity, and patience > required to solve the level. I think 5 levels of difficulty are enough for each category, > their meaning could be something like this: > > 1 - very easy > 2 - easy > 3 - requires some experience > 4 - difficult > 5 - very difficult
> If we had those scores for every level, we could even display them in the level > menu! I hadn't considered ranking the difficulty along several axes yet, but it sounds very interesting to me. This is a fine compromise between strict difficulty ordering and relative ordering : we'll just have to rank the levels by "overall difficulty" (say int+dex+pat if we follow your example), but make sure that we "shuffle" hard "int" levels, hard "dex" levels and hard "pat" levels among the overall hard levels. Plus, ranking levels in such a way is quite an objective alternative. Our appreciations shoudn't differ that much. I would just add a forth (and minor) axe : knowledge of the game. Some levels may be found very easy by us harsh Enigma players ;-), because they don't require much intelligence, dexterity or patience. But if you have to do something "smithing a sword by firing a laser on a hammer" in order to succeed, beginners may take ages to find the solution. We could rank the levels along the knowledge scale with only 3 levels (e.g. 1-beginner, 2-advanced, 3-expert), and just make sure the levels order fits this condition. But Daniel's system suits me very well ! Aurore. PS: maybe it would be time to change the topic ?! ;-) _______________________________________________ Enigma-devel mailing list Enigma-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
