| Author |
Message |
|
|
Here's an update for everyone, and some reasons why fast times are possible.
Best Times:
1. Easy - 0:40
2. Medium - 1:07
3. Hard - 1:38
4. Extreme - 2:36
Reasons for Improvements:
1. I recently changed from cell input first to digit, and this has made a huge difference, particularly in easy.
2. Medium depends on the puzzle given. Some grids won't even allow a time below 3 minutes, others are similar to easy. Treat them like hard puzzles but fast!
3. Practice gets you far with hard puzzles. So does a good puzzle when you're in form.
4. I discovered a particular grid (very rare) that doesn't require pencil or very meticulous and time-consuming calculations. Apart from this one puzzle, a time of less than 5 minutes is extremely difficult. I always use pencil in extremes for digits which I have 6 or more, this means if I knock out one of those pencil marks I'll often be able to solve that digit and there's no chance to forget.
|
 |
|
|
Hey!
I enjoy racing the clock while playing sudoku on the Genina phone app and I have managed to achieve some great times. However, these fast times depend largely on the particular grid given, and are not possible unless I receive a puzzle with an optimal formation (many digits/practical arrangement). I like attempting different puzzles, but I know at the very beginning if a fast time is possible or not. I would really love to see an "average time" feature added to the app which allows the player to solve, for example, five puzzles of the same difficulty category, but with slightly varying strengths. A player could choose a "single puzzle" or "five puzzle set" upon selecting the difficulty, before proceeding to the puzzle(s). An additional idea for this is the same setup as with other "average time" competitions, such as Rubik's Cube, which remove the best and worst times to calculate the players average.
I believe this would add a new level of competition to the app, and lower the level of importance of the puzzle given significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
My best is 43 seconds, not impossible, you just need a perfect grid to start and then enter the numbers flawlessly and fast. If you can't get a whole set of 1 number within the first 5 seconds, then the grid isn't good enough. Of course, you do need a huge amount of practice too.
|
|
|
|
My best time on easy is 58 seconds, totally legitimate, my top 10 times are all below 1:10. So it is possible to type the numbers fast, but for extreme it is definitely impossible to be finishing, even an amazing run, below 4 minutes. I noticed a player who had almost exactly the same time for extreme, hard, and medium. Not hard to work that one out. I think displaying the total time invested is a good idea, and perhaps you can't pause a game until you've solved a minimum of 2 cells? Or, the time should also display the average time between inputs, which would be far less than if someone had solved it themselves from the start (e.g. Time = 2:00, AveTimePerCell = 0:01.00, CellsSolved = 65, IdleTime = 0:55). Another way would be to detect either a formulaic input order, or to use the "Hint" mechanism to determine which cells can be logically solved. If the input was done in a clear pattern, or if the order of cells solved was not logical, then the time could be discarded.
Suggestions:
1. Cannot pause until a minimum of 2 cells are solved.
2. Idle time too large relative to total time: time is discarded.
3. Detect illogical input order, or patterns in input order: time is discarded.
|
|
|
|
|
