Steam Community :: Discussions

Opus Magnum

All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos Workshop News Guides Reviews

Create and share your opus magnum!

After you've mastered the basics, browse and subscribe to puzzles made by other players. Feeling creative? Design your own puzzles with the in-game editor and share them!

Home

Discussions

About

Workshop> Opus Magnum> All Discussions

Dast

18 Jul, 2019 @ 12:01pm

Anyone know why their is no "2D" score graph?

Hello,

I enjoy trying to find solutions that are maybe not the fastest or cheapest, but are pretty fast and pretty cheap (so if one "arm" can be made much better at only a small cost in the other I tend to do it). I have no idea if I am any good at this but find it fun.

On the score graphs it shows the quality of your solution compared to others on cost on one bar chart, and compared to speed on another. I am curious why they didn't just put a single 2D grid with cost on one axis, speed on the other and your solution marked as a data point. A colour-histogram would then show how you did compared to all solutions in both speed and cost. (So you could see "Ahh, I am at a point that is optimal for at least one choice of weighting of the two" (or more likely "Wow, their are single solutions both faster and cheaper than mine"

< >

Showing 1-5 of 5 comments

sailing94

20 Oct, 2019 @ 1:54pm

because you are also ranked on the area a solution takes up.

Dast

23 Oct, 2019 @ 3:30am

Yes, a 3D graph would probably be too much to interpret though.

Alcator

24 Feb, 2021 @ 12:01am

Originally posted by Dast:
Hello,
On the score graphs it shows the quality of your solution compared to others on cost on one bar chart, and compared to speed on another. I am curious why they didn't just put a single 2D grid with cost on one axis, speed on the other and your solution marked as a data point. A colour-histogram would then show how you did compared to all solutions in both speed and cost. (So you could see "Ahh, I am at a point that is optimal for at least one choice of weighting of the two" (or more likely "Wow, their are single solutions both faster and cheaper than mine"

Because Speed generally goes against area and/orCost, so optimizing for one usually ruins another. You are 'supposed' to try each puzzle three times, one for fastest, one for cheapest, one for smallest.

Dast

4 Mar, 2021 @ 2:50am

If speed and cost did NOT fight against one another then yes my suggestion would indeed be pointless.

The entire point is that faster machines will usually be more expensive and vice versa. The game provides a wonderful set of tools for trying to optimize one or the other. But sometimes you will be doing a puzzle and you will see a trick, something that seems clever, that adds a lot of speed at low cost, or subtracts a lot of cost at not much speed cost. These "easy wins" as you would think of them in an engineering environment are not rewarded by any of the games metrics, and I don't see any real reason not to keep them.

Bascially, if you want to play 3 times (once for speed, once for cost, again for size) then maybe you would also be intrigued by that tiny bit of the 2D histogram where someone made something almost as fast as your fast solution AND not that much more expensive than your cheap one and maybe you would try and beat that.

Meh, if no one else likes exploring compromises then no problem. Just a suggestion.