Wow, I tried something odd and it was the right direction! Nice puzzle, but it would have been nice to be led to step two rather than fumbling around in the dark for it.
The puzzle is really quite clever, and makes sense once you get passed the being stumped, begging for help, a little crying, and then finally you arrive at the solution ;)!
[21] Oh, absolutely. But, at least in my opinion, the most elegant puzzles are the ones that give you some sort of inkling of what the method is outside of "try everything, and when something works, you've got it!" As a rather extreme example, consider the following string of characters:
TWRJCMEIDKXQYYH
I'll tell you that there's a word hidden in that jumble that you can decipher if you just know the method. But can you pull out the word that I encoded, using a rather rigorous method, without having an inkling of the method? (Anyone who's curious, TG me. :)
Obviously, this is a more extreme example than this puzzle, for which there are a couple of hints just from the overall puzzle design. But it strikes me that having to try everything is a bit heavy-handed of an approach. There are a few methods that work fairly well regularly (first letters of every word, convert numbers into letters of the alphabet, use numbers as an index into a word or phrase), but the more of these you get, and the more convoluted they become, the more solving puzzles is as much a matter of luck as it is skill.
[22] Point taken. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a decent clue for it... truth be told. So I just had faith that many of the intellectuals on here would consider the possibility that the additional words in the sentences were there to help as much as obfuscate.
Your example does remind me of a few of my other puzzles, though... lol
24 Comments
jgf
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:04 PM |
I think the answer is, "The new OWWs make me feel stupid," but it's not taking.
slog
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:05 PM |
[1] It's not "huh" either.
nrkii
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:06 PM |
I get this, but I'm missing a next step
scoutmom
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:06 PM |
Nice puzzle Murdoctor
QurqirishDragon
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:07 PM |
I've got step one, but I cannot figure out what to do next.
scoutmom
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:08 PM |
Look at where you found the parts of the first step.
aurnivi
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:14 PM |
I was just thinking that ;). [1]
nrkii
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:16 PM |
[6] thanks scoutmom...
but that was a bit of a leap to figure that out
BadMagic
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:17 PM |
Thanks [6].
hairy_lime
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:18 PM |
[6] I'm still struggling with the second part
j15bell
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:18 PM |
just not clicking. feel close tho.=(
Philana
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:19 PM |
Yes, that last step was counterintuitive, and wholly unclued.
j15bell
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:28 PM |
well now I see what to do! I got tired of trying to figure out that last step. went with associated words and the background pic.
martinp13
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:40 PM |
Wow, I tried something odd and it was the right direction! Nice puzzle, but it would have been nice to be led to step two rather than fumbling around in the dark for it.
Yawetag
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:42 PM |
OK. I've got step 1, but can't find step 2... any salt?
hairy_lime
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 07:47 PM |
[15] Sorry no salt, but don't try the last 15 things I've tried. They won't get you anywhere.
aurnivi
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 08:41 PM |
The puzzle is really quite clever, and makes sense once you get passed the being stumped, begging for help, a little crying, and then finally you arrive at the solution ;)!
Murdoctor
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 08:46 PM |
[8][12][14] Yeah, I tried something different for cluing the letters you need... can't always do the same old stuff!
Murdoctor
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 09:17 PM |
[15] Look within what you found in step 1, at the location where you found them within the sentences.
Rocketeer
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 09:23 PM |
[18] ...but you should have warned us first that you're going to use a new method - just when I thought I had you all figured out!!
;-)
previs
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:37 PM |
isn't the idea of a new method to stump people?
dajagr
Posted on Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:30 PM |
[21] Oh, absolutely. But, at least in my opinion, the most elegant puzzles are the ones that give you some sort of inkling of what the method is outside of "try everything, and when something works, you've got it!" As a rather extreme example, consider the following string of characters:
TWRJCMEIDKXQYYH
I'll tell you that there's a word hidden in that jumble that you can decipher if you just know the method. But can you pull out the word that I encoded, using a rather rigorous method, without having an inkling of the method? (Anyone who's curious, TG me. :)
Obviously, this is a more extreme example than this puzzle, for which there are a couple of hints just from the overall puzzle design. But it strikes me that having to try everything is a bit heavy-handed of an approach. There are a few methods that work fairly well regularly (first letters of every word, convert numbers into letters of the alphabet, use numbers as an index into a word or phrase), but the more of these you get, and the more convoluted they become, the more solving puzzles is as much a matter of luck as it is skill.
IMNSHO, of course. :)
Murdoctor
Posted on Wed Nov 12, 2008 06:19 AM |
[22] Point taken. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a decent clue for it... truth be told. So I just had faith that many of the intellectuals on here would consider the possibility that the additional words in the sentences were there to help as much as obfuscate.
Your example does remind me of a few of my other puzzles, though... lol
http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/2700-2-16-2008
http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/2709-8-11-2008
http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/2926-8-27-2008
EDIT: Forgot about this one, too:
http://www.tanga.com/puzzles/1129-6-14-2007
uriel_343
Posted on Tue Nov 11, 2008 05:38 PM |
Would have done better if I could count...
Please login to post