unforum

[Ashin]

Seems like most of the silvers are heading that way now...

[King Nicky]

I have 13 minuets until this card unlocks, think i know the answer

[Nerd]

whoa, i just guessed this - with the help of hunting4treasure of course. just read 'arc' looked at the card, and the answer just popped into my head

[xandra3004]

Only just joined this site as i was desparately trying to solve this card - I would never have got this one on my own in a million years - thanks for the hints and well done to all of you who have put the hard work in.

Now I have found this - I may be able to help out with the remaining unsolved ones (but am scared of being trouted!!!)

thanks again

[e_nygma]

[Cinana]

oh my gawd...
i am not computer literate when it comes to getting a program to run that includes a bunch of different symbols to be typed in, so I thank all of you, who have the brains to do it for us.
Thanks so much for the hints upon hints. Had to sit there and really think... then it hit me.

i can't remember who it was, or on what page, but the clues:

[almagest]

A few thoughts on all this.

1) almost no one is going to get anywhere without the hint to use the piet language;

2) I found it hard to decide which of the 18 colours was being used, and had to resolve many ambiguities by working backwards from what I expected the command to be;

3) Anyway, that nicely gives the ascii message on the stack;

4) I am totally unconvinced by the rest of the solution. About the only thing going for it is that it gives an answer which the system accepts as correct;

5) We apparently junk the main program - and just take that as validating the piet idea. We then pick just two of the small number cells. Arrange them somewhat arbitrarily and use them somewhat arbitrarily to get a sequence of about one third of the words around the edge. We then somewhat arbitrarily divide this into 4 "sentences" and regard them each as giving a clue;

6) I would have been much happier if there was something which pointed less ambiguously to the answer. For example, if the 3 red totals pointed to "shards", "of", "light".

I mention this partly in the hope that I have missed something, which someone else will point out.

But I was also thinking ahead to finding the buried treasure. The great majority of the cards seem most unlikely to offer any help towards this. Maybe the map will be useful (although I thought the cube was buried on earth). But some of the cards seem to use more generic tools which I can see being useful later. This is one. So I would like to be sure that we have properly understood how it is being used.

Any thoughts anyone?

BTW, sorry to be months late. I only started PC last week.

[Grizy]

Almagest,

Welcome to PXC.

Have you read this thread from start to finish?

It has taken a lot of players time and effort to solve this card.

To say that:
"About the only thing going for it is that it gives an answer which the system accepts as correct"
is doing a great disservice to those who worked hard to discover the answer. It was not done by guesswork.

You may be right in thinking that there is more information to be gleaned from this card; please feel free to build on what has already been done and report back your findings.

Grizy

[almagest]

I am sorry that I offended. Obviously a great deal of work went into the solution.

But I still think the solution was stumbled on by chance. There is nothing wrong with that. A solution is a solution. However, I am left feeling that there is more to get from this card.

Clearly the Piet code is meant to be used to decode and get the three word message on the stack. It fits far too nicely to be chance.

The main difficulty is that there are several suggestive words around the edge (suggestive of the final solution, that is). It is easy to produce lots and lots of phrases from them which suggest the correct answer.

The fact is that using Piet on the tiny pics does not immediately give a useful result. A result comes after much trial and error. I do not find that convincing because any extended trial and error selection of words from the border will give something that could be read as a clue for the answer.

It also bothers me that the stack message from the main run was not used. I feel we should make more direct use of 17, 19, 13. Or maybe summing is more subtle. Or maybe we should just use the digits in the picture as digits.

[magicmancraig]

Finaly got it! Feel like a right fool, knowing how easy the answer is.

Just a bit anoyed that on the day of release I answered corrcetly but with an S on the end! Oh well, better luck next time I surpose....

[almagest]

Look at it another way. Suppose you were given the card for the first time, told that it had a single word answer suggested by the picture, and asked to guess. I reckon that most people would guess the answer in 25 tries or less.

That means that stumbling on the answer is a real possibility. If you read the thread, initially people were fired up following the esoteric language idea. They successfully got it to work and took the message off the stack. But, surprisingly, that seemed to lead nowhere. People then looked at the tiny digit pics. That was tricky, because the colours were hard to discern, but they got it figured and it did not seem promising. People started to get more frustrated. More guesses started being tried. By the time someone had a successful guess, various random phrases had been generated, so people rationalised the guess.

I still think there is more to discover here ...

[Grizy]

Or maybe the answer was guessed by looking at the phrases generated which were by no means random?

Have you found any other hidden info in the other tiles?

[almagest]

Here is another idea.

Obeying the stack ascii gives: light 17, ord 19, dark 13, total 49.

Now use the digits in the picture. Start at 4 go to 9 and carry straight on. You hit shards. Now count clockwise 19 and you hit light. That is your clue.

As a clue it seems to me no better, and no worse than the ones derived from popping on the two tiny pics. But it is arguably less arbitrary, and certainly simpler.

Note that the total and the ordinary red count are the two most obvious sums, so I not just picking any two from four, but the two most plausible.

Do I think this is the solution intended? No, I am just trying to convince people of the inadequacy and arbitrariness of the current solution (and to give a few ideas on getting a better one).

[aliendial]

or the arbitrariness of the puzzle...why insist that the problem is ours?

[tom_h19]

going off what almagest has said, counting from shards round 13 times and 17 times gets "race drown" then counting round 49 times from shards gets you "creator"