The Grunt That Was Left Behind V2

[GooRoo]

Designer:		GooRoo
Level Set:	2GR/GR	Area 2 "Gruntziclez" Level 7
Est. Completion:		8:30
Est. Solve:		??:??
Date to be Released:		December 3, 2015
Status:		Released
Notes:		Difficulty=Medium Size=Medium (38X38) Density=Normal
		Forum's web host
		Video
Statz Page image		Forum's web host
Statz info.
Survivorz:		4 (or another )
Deathz:		0
Toolz:		2
Toyz:		2
Powerupz:		0
Coinz:	3	+4 (hidden)
Secretz:		2
View the map!		1,308,592 bytez - Forum's web host

This is a Custom Level named the same as the 'Standard' Gruntziclez Stage 3 puzzle. The name is the same, but the map is graphically rotated (difficult in this graphics set, due to missing corner tiles for gullies and plateaus), and the mini-puzzlez are (marginally) more difficult. The SecretTeleporterTrigger will only get you the Warp Letter R , while the Question Mark Switch earnz prizez which show up on the completed Statz Page.

Previous Level 6 <- 7 -> 8 Next Level

[Perfect Grunt]

I like that this one is closer to the original again. There are a few tile glitches, where hill edges are wrong-way-round. I would also suggest to make the red brickz red.
Like it

[GooRoo]

Mar 25, 2016 8:35:48 GMT -8 Perfect Grunt said:

I like that this one is closer to the original again. There are a few tile glitches, where hill edges are wrong-way-round. I would also suggest to make the red brickz red.
Like it

The problem with rotating a Gruntziclez map is that there are no proper appearing Plateau/Gully corners. I wonder about the "red brickz red" comment, though. What do you mean by that?

[SwordGrunt]

Apr 2, 2016 13:56:42 GMT -8 GooRoo said:

Mar 25, 2016 8:35:48 GMT -8 Perfect Grunt said:

I like that this one is closer to the original again. There are a few tile glitches, where hill edges are wrong-way-round. I would also suggest to make the red brickz red.
Like it

The problem with rotating a Gruntziclez map is that there are no proper appearing Plateau/Gully corners. I wonder about the "red brickz red" comment, though. What do you mean by that?

The only meaning I can see for that is there are red bricks with their color hidden from the player, and that they should be revealed instead to make it more clear.

[Perfect Grunt]

Yes, exactly. If you do not have any clue about their color and they destroy your Gauntletz, you will discover every single brick by reloading -- this is just time consuming without much fun.

[GooRoo]

Apr 3, 2016 23:57:03 GMT -8 Perfect Grunt said:

Yes, exactly. If you do not have any clue about their color and they destroy your Gauntletz, you will discover every single brick by reloading -- this is just time consuming without much fun.

I believe what you have missed here is that only ONE of those Bricks is supposed to be broken! They are merely permanent obstacles. There is no longer any need for Gauntletz.

[Perfect Grunt]

Always think from the player's point of view: He doesn't know that and will think "whoops! Was that wrong? I should reload and try a different one!", which results in needless try-and-error and thus player frustration.

On the other hand, if the brickz are visibly red, all this frustration is not needed and the intention is much more visible.

[SwordGrunt]

Apr 5, 2016 2:03:45 GMT -8 Perfect Grunt said:

Always think from the player's point of view: He doesn't know that and will think "whoops! Was that wrong? I should reload and try a different one!", which results in needless try-and-error and thus player frustration.

On the other hand, if the brickz are visibly red, all this frustration is not needed and the intention is much more visible.

If there is no Spy tool available and no obstacles to differentiate bricks in the same area, they should always be assumed to be the same color. If the player has no possible way of differentiating bricks, then it would be bad design to make them different colors; I've used this thought as the solution to otherwise seemingly impossible puzzles on some of my levels before. This also happens a lot with actions that seemingly rely entirely on luck or randomness, but actually have a more reliable method "under the hood" that you have to figure out.

[Perfect Grunt]

Apr 5, 2016 11:34:04 GMT -8 SwordGrunt said:

Apr 5, 2016 2:03:45 GMT -8 Perfect Grunt said:

Always think from the player's point of view: He doesn't know that and will think "whoops! Was that wrong? I should reload and try a different one!", which results in needless try-and-error and thus player frustration.

On the other hand, if the brickz are visibly red, all this frustration is not needed and the intention is much more visible.

If there is no Spy tool available and no obstacles to differentiate bricks in the same area, they should always be assumed to be the same color.

This is the designer's point of view. Usually, the player can only make assumtionz about the personal designing style of a designer.

If the player has no possible way of differentiating bricks, then it would be bad design to make them different colors;

From my personal point of view, I would go a step further: I tend to call using (hidden-)colored brickz without spy tool as bad design as well.

I've used this thought as the solution to otherwise seemingly impossible puzzles on some of my levels before. This also happens a lot with actions that seemingly rely entirely on luck or randomness, but actually have a more reliable method "under the hood" that you have to figure out.

Sorry, but I do not understand this part of your post. Do you have an example?

[GooRoo]

I see that the color of the Gauntletz-breaker Brickz was an oversight of mine when I rotated the map. The original map plainly shows the red colored Brickz; my version has red Brickz, but with the rects: fields set so that the solver could not see the true state. But again I reiterate that since both Brickz will remove the Gauntletz, it should be of little concern; one restore, breaking the other Brick from the first attempt would prove that it doesn't matter which Brick is broken. Had one Brick been explosive, while the other Brick is benign, that would be cause for complaint.

[SwordGrunt]

Apr 8, 2016 0:58:47 GMT -8 Perfect Grunt said:

I've used this thought as the solution to otherwise seemingly impossible puzzles on some of my levels before. This also happens a lot with actions that seemingly rely entirely on luck or randomness, but actually have a more reliable method "under the hood" that you have to figure out.

Sorry, but I do not understand this part of your post. Do you have an example?

I meant the player having to assume certain things that are not obvious, but are logical.

In "Elite Squad", there is a section with spikes and bricks where your Spy Grunt has to uncover hidden colors, and you can only reveal one of the two bricks on the second row from a safe spot. Since that is a gold brick, the other one is obviously safe to break as there would be no way to pass through otherwise, so you need not reveal it to be sure.

The third and last pair of bricks can only be revealed by standing on spikes, and if you reach only the closest one, it is revealed to be a safe brown brick. If the solver was to try to reveal both, he would need to take an extra step and therefore die on the spikes. If this was a red brick instead of a brown one, that assumption could not be made safely as it could either be the right or the wrong brick; however, there are more bricks on the next area, so by looking ahead the solver can be sure that the red brick would be the wrong one, and proceed to break the other brick without even checking its color.

These kind of "mind games" are what I was referring to when I mentioned "under the hood" methods that have to be figured out. Looking beyond the obvious and putting things together, like pieces of a puzzle, is what I've always liked doing on Gruntz levels.

[Perfect Grunt]

I see. In this case, thinking about the colorz is in the focus of the solving process. Nothing to say against it.

[Deleted]

Easy and simple.