72 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
72 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
# Experiment 005 Hypothesis — Private Until After Play
|
|
|
|
## Reason for the Pivot
|
|
|
|
Experiment 004 produced a real self-directed question but no satisfaction. Better room scaffolding would improve predictive play, yet would not address the larger repeated failure: abstract answers and completed predicates have not been valuable by themselves.
|
|
|
|
Experiment 002 remains the strongest behavioral signal. Pressure sustained activity and its coupled thermal action briefly caused contextual tactics, but multiplicative upgrades collapsed the run into one wall-blast answer. Experiment 005 removes growth while retaining direct action, pressure, coupled consequences, and recoverable failure.
|
|
|
|
## Question
|
|
|
|
Does one simple physical tool become enjoyable when it supports improvised rescues, accidents, and weaponization in a changing field—without construction, hidden rules, or stat progression?
|
|
|
|
## Core System
|
|
|
|
The player directly pilots a small keeper around a sanctuary. Its field has two fully disclosed modes:
|
|
|
|
- pull every loose body in range toward the keeper;
|
|
- push every loose body in range away from the keeper.
|
|
|
|
The field does not distinguish rescue pods, raiders, or wreckage. Position and timing determine whether the same input helps or harms.
|
|
|
|
- Pods are saved on touching the sanctuary.
|
|
- Raiders capture pods and damage the sanctuary.
|
|
- Fast wreckage destroys raiders but also damages the sanctuary.
|
|
- Saved pods repair sanctuary integrity.
|
|
- Field charge and player impacts prevent continuous maximal use.
|
|
- A sanctuary breach vents the field and resets integrity rather than ending the run.
|
|
|
|
All laws are stated. There is no discovery test and no permanent build. Randomized spawns define the changing problem while the player always chooses exact actions.
|
|
|
|
## Competing Interpretations
|
|
|
|
1. Recoverable chaos plus coupled tools creates enjoyable improvisation.
|
|
2. Pressure creates input persistence but not enjoyment, repeating Experiment 002.
|
|
3. Rescue/defense supplies a valued consequence missing from prior abstractions.
|
|
4. Shepherding bodies with radial forces feels like another awkward steering task.
|
|
5. The system has one dominant positional answer, such as camping at the sanctuary and repelling.
|
|
6. The absence of power progression removes the main reason Experiment 002 lasted.
|
|
7. Three minutes is endured because it is a timer, not because the activity is wanted.
|
|
|
|
## Strong Evidence
|
|
|
|
- a deliberate save after an accident changes the situation;
|
|
- using wreckage against a raider without an explicit prompt;
|
|
- relocating because pull/push would affect mixed nearby bodies;
|
|
- changing priorities based on pod, raider, debris, and sanctuary state;
|
|
- continuing into optional overtime;
|
|
- a player-described moment whose outcome was surprising, understandable, and useful.
|
|
|
|
## Ambiguous Evidence
|
|
|
|
- finishing the timer;
|
|
- high rescue count;
|
|
- rapid input;
|
|
- survival without breaches;
|
|
- overtime entered merely to check whether anything changes.
|
|
|
|
## Failure Signals
|
|
|
|
- stationary field spam solves most states;
|
|
- activity feels like object babysitting or imprecise mouse-less herding;
|
|
- consequences are unreadable during clutter;
|
|
- the player waits out or dutifully finishes the timer;
|
|
- no event creates a memorable decision or recovery.
|
|
|
|
## Feedback to Request
|
|
|
|
1. When did they first want to stop, and did the shift timer make them continue past that point?
|
|
2. Was there one situation where they intentionally used or avoided affecting multiple object types at once?
|
|
3. Did any mistake create an interesting recovery, or did errors only add cleanup/frustration?
|
|
|
|
Do not ask whether they “like recoverable chaos”; ask about concrete moments.
|