In all my years of writing software, I have never had such rapid and high-quality beta testing as I did with the puzzle collection I mentioned in this diary recently. Evidently writing programs that people can use to waste time is a fantastic way to get a lot of testing very quickly. (Not that that should have surprised me, in retrospect, but.)
As a result I've now decided the beta period is over. There will still be bugs to fix, and I'll continue development as and when I have the time and energy, but I reckon these games now work plausibly enough to open them to world scrutiny. So in the unlikely event that anyone who read my previous entry on the subject was absolutely dying to link to my puzzles page and scrupulously didn't do so, they should now feel free :-)
Also, I've just added a fifth game to the page. If you're bored of the other four, go and play Rectangles for a while…
<f/x: checks> Hmm. It currently seems to be set at 0.3, which means that 30% of the width of a square on each side of the line is treated as edge, and the remaining 40% is centre. That's actually quite a lot already, so I'm unsure about making it any bigger.
Is it possible (he says, clutching at straws) that what's biting you is not the narrowness of the region that counts as an edge, but actually the largeness of the region that counts as a corner (and therefore the program isn't sure which edge you meant)? If that were the case then I could improve matters by lowering that 0.3 figure. Ideally I should arrange for it to be configurable and let people tweak it back and forth until they're happier...
Now I think about it, I do find myself pressing U a lot (handy keyboard shortcut to Undo). Perhaps a rethink of the control mechanism is in order.
Highlight the edge that would be clicked on if the user clicked, as the mouse hovers. If it wouldn't count as an edge by the click filter, don't.
You could also subtly shade active areas so they're visually distinct (without interfering with the larger distinctions on the board.)
Anyway, I think I've improved matters now without having to resort to mouse hovering.
Therefore, I've been subdividing each square into a 3x3 grid, with four "corner" sections, one "centre" section, and four "edge" sections. I've been indecisively fiddling with the parameter that states how close to the edges the dividing lines are, but the problem is that as you increase that parameter then the edge region gets shorter as it gets fatter, and vice versa.
I've now decided it might be better to be able to independently vary the sizes of the sensitive square around each corner and centre. So now the diagram looks more like a square with a small square at each corner, a larger square in the middle, and diagonal lines in between; so the edge region is octagonal, and its width and height can be varied independently.
Preliminary alpha testing suggests that this is much better all round; once I've tinkered a bit more I'll check it in and see what other people think.
That seems to me to be generally better all round. The version of Rectangles now on my website has been updated to do this; give it a try and let me know if it's any better?
And I love the way it now does a little flash when you complete the puzzle!