Inspired by Oluseyi''s thread about making 3d minesweeper. How about Brainstorming new variants on the game of minesweeper. For example, I find that after a while you get used to certain patterns in the numbers that make it less of a puzzle, and more of a memory test (okay, I''m not that good at minesweeper yet.. but at times). So a way to make it more demanding to the player in terms of looking at the board and thinking what the numbers mean, would be to make the mines different shapes and sizes! You could have triangular mines, l-shaped mines, rectangles etc. large ones and small ones. (Would this make it harder to work out the diagonals since in minesweeper, mines that touch at the corners are counted as adjacent.).

I think different sgaped and sized mines might actually detract from making the player think, and make it more a case of guessing. Which I think is a major drawback, getting right to the end and having to guess between two tiles and getting it wrong really annoys me .

I''ll give an example of this (at the top edge of the board):

*2--2*
*4212*
?**--?

* = Mine
- = Clear
? = Could be a mine, but might not be.

You can easily deduce that the top right and top left two squares contain mines, as there have to be two mines next to each and those are the only two squares free. This also gives the second two on the right, which in turn only leaves on possiblity for the 1 and two.

Now we still have two ? tiles. We can have no idea whether these are mines or not since they could be extensions of the others or clear.

How about you write a program that *solves* minesweeper ?

Blacksmith_Tony, you would be shown the size and shape of the squares (like you do already), so you wouldn''t have to guess if it was an extension of a square or a mine. The shapes and sizes would be visible.

So I''m assuming you''d have a random grid of random shapes then ? I think it might definatly achieve what you are looking for. At least for a while, as most of the set patterns that you notice while playing would probably be different. In the end though I think people would get used to new patterns that emerge, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I would assume that these new patterns would probably be a little more complex and there would be more of them as well, since there are more combinations available.

Although I could be totally wrong, I can''t really imagine what type of different patterns would emerge without it actually playing it .

The variants suggested all have one thing in common: you're supposed to avoid blowing up any mines. Do you know what a real minesweeper - you know, those dudes who work for the UN and try to make the world's playing fields safe for children everywhere - does? He blows mines up!

So how about a game where the objective is to somehow locate all the mines within a given field and detonate them in a controlled manner? Since some mines will be in proximity and we can take liberties (it's just a game), you could even set off chain reactions. And to simplify things, once you'd determined that there were no other mines within a set radius of a given cluster of mines you'd be free to detonate. If you detonate with a mine within radius, then it could potentially set off a chain reaction and blow you up - yes, you'd be represented by an avatar in military fatigues and the trademark blue UN badge on the left arm.

I suppose your primary tool would be your metal detector. The output from it would need to be somehow abstracted to give you spatial information that you use to pinpoint mine locations (much like the proximity counts we get with classic minesweeper). Your secondary tool would be a detonator.

This even has plug value. You could put up screenshots of mine victims and the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997, link to the Landmine Survivors Network or the Landmine Monitor and actually educate people on something that is obscure in the developed world but a serious problem in many war-torn countries.

Have at it, people!

[Edit: Typo.]

[edited by - Oluseyi on June 13, 2003 2:47:02 AM]

You know, that is a *really* good idea...

I''ve written down the idea. I like it a lot. I will be thinking about its design next days and I will put it here if i get to a point.

The goal i set in mind is to to create the pressure on the player as real life...you dont want to miss and blow yourself up, dont you? (and so I went on other way than the original idea ).

-----------------------------
Codman - "The source for all things"
"We design for eternity"

Mail: Codman_Wu@personal.ro

Tony your original example is flawed as all get out; going on your description that this is the top edge (doesn't have to be a corner, either):

ABCDEF
1 ?2--2?
2 ?4212?
3 ???--?


If this appears, you KNOW that A3 and F3 are open squares. The 2 in B1 requires that the two possible squares near it are mines -- namely, A1 and A2:


ABCDEF
1 *2--2?
2 *4212?
3 ???--?


The 2 in E1 requires that F1 and F2 are mines as well:


ABCDEF
1 *2--2*
2 *4212*
3 ???--?


Now, since the 2 in E2 can only have exactly 2 mines adjacent to it, F3 must be clear. Since the 1 in D2 has only one adjacent square (C3), C3 must be a mine:


ABCDEF
1 *2--2*
2 *4212*
3 ??*---


Now C2 has one mine adjacent and one questionable square adjacent; there must be two mines adjacent since C2 is a 2, therefore B3 is a mine. Since B2 needs 4 adjacent mines, and its requirements are met in A1, A2, B3, and C3, A3 must be clear, and the area is solved:


ABCDEF
1 *2--2*
2 *4212*
3 -**---

If you think about it a bit you'll notice that this works no matter what surrounds the area, as long as row 1 corresponds to the top row of the field. Column A and F can be located anywhere on the horizontal span and the logic will still work out.



[edited by - ApochPiQ on June 14, 2003 3:18:24 PM]

The problem is that I was describing a situation where a mine could take up more than one square.

quote: The 2 in B1 requires that the two possible squares near it are mines -- namely, A1 and A2:

The 2 in E1 requires that F1 and F2 are mines as well:

I agree with both of these statments, as that is the only way for two mines to be next to the top twos.

quote: Now, since the 2 in E2 can only have exactly 2 mines adjacent to it, F3 must be clear. Since the 1 in D2 has only one adjacent square (C3), C3 must be a mine:

This is where it goes downhill . F3 doesn''t need to be clear in this case since the mine that is F2 could extend into F3, so there would still only be two mines next to E2. Then from there you are working on the premise that F3 is empty which it might not be.

Of course for a normal game of minesweeper you would be completely right, but not in the case where single mines may cover more than one square.

Oluseyi, from the description you''ve given I get the feeling the game would be rather easy. Although it might well be a test in patience. Since you''d just have to locate all of the mines and then detonate them quite easily. Although if you are represented by an avatar and he actually moves around the map you may end up getting trapped within a group of mines, and be forced to detonate them. The actual detonation of the mines might require more thought than just clicking on them. Also how about adding something where you could try and direct the blast in a certain direction, put metal plates into the ground if you really want. This would cause a larger radius of explosion on certain sides of the mine than others. Of course this is probably getting rather unrealistic .

I think a properly thought out game like this could be very good.