Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minesweeper thermodynamics

oscarcunningham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Minesweeper thermodynamics

#61

Post by kej »

todorov84 wrote: post #45

Interestingly, the main problem with Minesweeper is that is a game of chance (so the approach discussed in the article is very appropriate). For a minesweeper variant purely based on logic, I highly recommend the game Tametsi. It has 160 handcrafted levels, and some have very interesting geometrical arrangements. I have logged over 100 hours in this game.

Tametsi is amazing. I also like the drawing mode, and I think it should be added to the Steam overlay so that you could use it in every game.

The HexCells series is also worth a look for anyone interested in pure logic Minesweeper.

Re: Minesweeper thermodynamics

#62

Post by JackC »

npteljes wrote: post #54
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a version of minesweeper that was “forgiving:” I think this diminishes the game. Sometimes you just don't have enough information to know for sure. Experiencing this in a low stakes situation like a minesweeper game reminds us that life is like that sometimes and we just have to make a guess and accept the consequences.

Yes, this really depends on what one's expectations are of a "game". Luck, as a component, is often contested. In case of the minesweeper, I'd argue there is either A) No place for luck at all, either by making the game "forgiving", or generating a game that never has an ambiguous block, or B) The game should make luck's presence more constant. In case of Minesweeper, the most unfair event is when after a lot of pure…

This is why Slay the Spire is as loved as it is -- clearly defined skill and luck checks delivered one after the other at the precise limits of your ability.

Minesweeper is more like a quirky old wooden board game, charming because it's always been what it is, warts and all.

Re: Minesweeper thermodynamics

#63

Post by wkjagt »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #40
gregfjohnson wrote: post #4

I hacked up a version of minesweeper that was “forgiving:” if there was no selection that was provably safe, it gave you a safe move. If you picked any square that was not provably a bomb, it would not be a bomb. Typically, as long as you don’t select a number of bombs equal to the number of squares , your first move is safe. I just extended that for the whole game. If you select N-1 bombs, you always win on the firs…

> a version of minesweeper that was “forgiving:” I think this diminishes the game. Sometimes you just don't have enough information to know for sure. Experiencing this in a low stakes situation like a minesweeper game reminds us that life is like that sometimes and we just have to make a guess and accept the consequences.

I actually like the idea that it's always solvable. Like a sudoku puzzle. If a sudoku isn't solvable through logic, but requires guessing, it's considered an invalid puzzle.

Re: Minesweeper thermodynamics

#64

Post by AtlasBarfed »

modeless wrote: post #51
OscarCunningham wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, (original author here) in fact all the cells outside this region have an even better safety probability of 80.1%. I think the best move might be to start fresh in a new corner.

Hmm, but how likely are clicks on random squares to reveal more safe clicks? Seems likely that even if you hit a safe square you might still not have any safe moves. The goal ought to be to create more safe moves for the next turn, to reduce your chance of dying over the whole game, not just in the current turn. I wonder what that analysis would look like.

In the given example, if you click two squares down from the 3 in the 2-3-4 at the bottom, if you get a 3 it may reveal a 3 that will open up all the spaces around it. Which in the process may reveal what kind of 4 it is.

If you click on the square three to the right of the top 1, if that shows a 1, then a lot of surrounding squares can be revealed and again you may "walk up" to a more definitive mapping of the bombs.

I'm not even sure those are the optimal examples, but when I minesweeper it was for speed.

The real advantage, especially at this stage of the puzzle, is that those squares might quickly lead to another big field to be revealed.

Re: Minesweeper thermodynamics

#65

Post by npteljes »

JackC wrote: post #62
npteljes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this really depends on what one's expectations are of a "game". Luck, as a component, is often contested. In case of the minesweeper, I'd argue there is either A) No place for luck at all, either by making the game "forgiving", or generating a game that never has an ambiguous block, or B) The game should make luck's presence more constant. In case of Minesweeper, the most unfair event is when after a lot of pure…

This is why Slay the Spire is as loved as it is -- clearly defined skill and luck checks delivered one after the other at the precise limits of your ability. Minesweeper is more like a quirky old wooden board game, charming because it's always been what it is, warts and all.

Balatro as well, I think. Luck there is a huge factor, and it's honest about it from the get-go.
Post reply on HN