I've posted a couple of times acknowledging that some clever players can do the deduction thing on few or no verifier steps.
My approach to the game is a) to have some fun, and b) test myself. My version of play is scan the verifiers and plug in a code and test it a few times. I'm often starting with 432 or some variant, playing the "middle of the board". Then, I'll test a second code and usually feel I've got the answer by test 4-5-6. This is all on the Classic/Easy/4 setting (except the daily challenge).
However, when up against one of the 'deduction' players I might never get to the second round of tests. My game is truncated; my fun too. I never even get to try and complete the code. This seems to be an imbalance in the game - planned or unexpected. I think it's likely unexpected by the designers who, for the physical game, have invested time/effort in calculating and producing all those red/green punchcards. I'm not sure the designers were expecting some players simply to stare at the choice of verifiers on offer and just deduce/guess the answer without testing any of those lovely punchcards.
Games where one player finishes before the others get a chance and are effectively eliminated before they get to conclude their own play seem imbalanced. I can't see this game sticking around long. My only solution, as a premium player able to create my own tables, is to limit the table to a similar skill level, so no higher than good or average. That then provides a more equal game. I don't mind losing; I just don't want to keep losing when I'm less than half-way through the gameplay and never get to actually test my code.
If the game allowed ALL players, no matter how many steps it took each of them, to at least guess the code then I could see if I got the correct answer just slower than others. I'd still have lost the game but at least I'd know I was able to make the right assumptions/guesses, and I'd have a sense of having 'completed' the game (and lost), rather than only getting part-way before being dumped out of the game.
Yes, I realise I could learn how to do the deduction method. But, having read a few explainers, it feels a lot like chess with players having to think 5-6 steps ahead and sifting through the up-to 125 possible code combinations through a process of path-elimination or digit-elimination. That's not how my mind works nor how I want to play Turing Machine. I like to think of a code, test it, revise the code, test it some more, and then make my best guess.
For these reasons I consider Turing Machine to be an imbalanced game.
My approach to the game is a) to have some fun, and b) test myself. My version of play is scan the verifiers and plug in a code and test it a few times. I'm often starting with 432 or some variant, playing the "middle of the board". Then, I'll test a second code and usually feel I've got the answer by test 4-5-6. This is all on the Classic/Easy/4 setting (except the daily challenge).
However, when up against one of the 'deduction' players I might never get to the second round of tests. My game is truncated; my fun too. I never even get to try and complete the code. This seems to be an imbalance in the game - planned or unexpected. I think it's likely unexpected by the designers who, for the physical game, have invested time/effort in calculating and producing all those red/green punchcards. I'm not sure the designers were expecting some players simply to stare at the choice of verifiers on offer and just deduce/guess the answer without testing any of those lovely punchcards.
Games where one player finishes before the others get a chance and are effectively eliminated before they get to conclude their own play seem imbalanced. I can't see this game sticking around long. My only solution, as a premium player able to create my own tables, is to limit the table to a similar skill level, so no higher than good or average. That then provides a more equal game. I don't mind losing; I just don't want to keep losing when I'm less than half-way through the gameplay and never get to actually test my code.
If the game allowed ALL players, no matter how many steps it took each of them, to at least guess the code then I could see if I got the correct answer just slower than others. I'd still have lost the game but at least I'd know I was able to make the right assumptions/guesses, and I'd have a sense of having 'completed' the game (and lost), rather than only getting part-way before being dumped out of the game.
Yes, I realise I could learn how to do the deduction method. But, having read a few explainers, it feels a lot like chess with players having to think 5-6 steps ahead and sifting through the up-to 125 possible code combinations through a process of path-elimination or digit-elimination. That's not how my mind works nor how I want to play Turing Machine. I like to think of a code, test it, revise the code, test it some more, and then make my best guess.
For these reasons I consider Turing Machine to be an imbalanced game.
