This is a concern that has recently been brought to my attention. The argument is that currently (particularly with 3-state switches) players are encouraged to create and solve puzzles that are very easy to solve as they’re made, but near impossible for other players to solve, providing an unfair point advantage. Additionally, it can encourage new players to create many easier puzzles for the sake of solving them themselves. The recommendation is also that points be docked retroactively for self-solved puzzles.
While I had good fun demonstrating the trapdoor concept with switches - I strongly second this suggestion.
Trapdoor as Omei explained it: “This may be a good model of a “trapdoor” function, essential to modern cryptography. It’s a function that is easy to compute, but computationally infeasible to invert, i.e. discover the input from the output.”
The puzzles run in flawed simulations. While puzzles are fun, more time spent in lab is better for science. This change will help.
I overall agree with you, but I think that your solution creates a potentially equally problematic scenario, where creating puzzles actually gives an edge to your competitors, as you create a puzzle that only others can earn score from.
I might be wrong about the idea that such a thing matters in the race to #1 though, as non of the players actually finished the puzzle pool.
Lol, did Jieux put you up to this? I have admittedly gained points from many of my puzzles (ALL of which I solve), but for me it was never about the points. Rather I solve my own puzzles simply to save my solution so that I can always return to it…something which seems to be impossible (through Eterna) otherwise. If I were to lose the 200 puzzle advantage I’ve gained from my puzzles…then I would rapidly make up the loss. I feel like Malcolm would take a harder hit though since he has vastly most puzzles than I and he likewise solves all of his own puzzles.
I would weight self made and scored player puzzles 30 points if you make the puzzle but 100 points if you solve another player’s puzzle. Forget about retroactive adjustment. I have received quite a bit of entertainment (and frustration) trying to solve other player’s puzzles and would not want that motivation to stop other players motivation to make a puzzle due a point thingy which include both Malcolm and cynwulf28 puzzles. Since it looks like lab points are being added to total points now I might suggest additional points for original lab designs in addition to successful designs. Group designs with fewer than 10 nt changes and lowest id# gets the “original design” points. I would think you would want to motivate both good designs and new designs.The script can’t be that hard so I might tackle it over the next week or so on a past completed lab to see if this is even worth consideration.