search

McGill-CSB / PHYLO

a gaming framework to align genomic data
phylo.cs.mcgill.ca/edge
Other
11 stars 14 forks source link

Add puzzle ID and High Score to the Play(ing) puzzle window #47

Open HolterPhylo opened 11 years ago

HolterPhylo commented 11 years ago

Please, add "High Score" to the Play(ing) puzzle window.

This would give a player a good incentive to try to meet / beat the current high score. In other words, a greater challenge than only meeting the part.

Regards.

alfredkam commented 11 years ago

@waldispuhl thoughts?

ill add the high score indication on the next iteration

HolterPhylo commented 11 years ago

:)

waldispuhl commented 11 years ago

That's a good suggestion but I'm still wondering if we should do it. If we do some players may not want to submit sub-optimal solution. But we know that these solutions can be useful for us. So it's something that we must debate.

alfredkam commented 11 years ago

leave it as an option?

HolterPhylo commented 11 years ago

Suggestion:

Make a button to see the high score (only available after more than the par is reached) and with an auto-summit in the background if the player "quits" the puzzle instead of using the star (the quit button == the star :)).

Currently the scoring does not take the 1-2-3 star level into account anyway (you played at or over the par == you get the point).

HolterPhylo commented 11 years ago

... the background auto-summit could be done to the credit of a non-player account (maybe Phylo himself :)) and be hidden.

MeadMeg commented 11 years ago

After submit, show the highscore and option to try again. Make it clear that this would give more points. One set of points for beating par. Another set of points for beating the high score. At the very least - you shouldn't have to click TWICE to see the highscore (submit, wait, learn more). On the screen that appear after the submit, the "learn more" section should be set to "open" by default. You will get MORE submissions this way.

waldispuhl commented 11 years ago

That's a good idea. Thanks. Actually it's a bit similar to the submission process used in the expert version. We'll probably use you system you suggested.