You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I feel like the clicks/pages numbers are a bit unintuitive at the moment. Clicks correspond to edges right now which is fine, but the pages is the length of the current path and after the game is finished is the length of the optimal path of a player's visited pages. What about we just make it the number of unique pages visited (i.e. number of nodes) for that player. What do you feel about this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think this is rather an issue with the naming (or I guess choice of symbols) on the leaderboard. Knowing the amount of visited pages isn't quite as interesting, since if the player played optimally, that's just amount of edges + 1, and if the player plays suboptimally, the page count would still inflate with detours, meaning that the total click count would only increase if the player moves back and forth between two pages a lot.
The idea with showing the optimal path is that it cuts off detours, and shows what could have been if the player didn't take a wrong turn somewhere. "I could have gotten this in X amount of clicks" is kind of the information we wanted to provide back then, page count doesn't quite provide as much interesting information imo.
Yeah I remember the original intent, but I'm not sure anymore if its that interesting actually. But more importantly for me, I feel like its quite unintuitive. Is removing it altogeher an option? Or maybe finding a more appropriate icon?
I feel like the clicks/pages numbers are a bit unintuitive at the moment. Clicks correspond to edges right now which is fine, but the pages is the length of the current path and after the game is finished is the length of the optimal path of a player's visited pages. What about we just make it the number of unique pages visited (i.e. number of nodes) for that player. What do you feel about this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: