3 ms·

It looks very nice visually, but I think the input sliders are way too narrow. Point in fact, in this example they have roughly a 2:1 range, which means virtual

by mNovak 1y ago

It looks very nice visually, but I think the input sliders are way too narrow. Point in fact, in this example they have roughly a 2:1 range, which means virtually any combination of inputs 'wins' the game (is within 1 order of magnitude). That's not particularly fun, is it. Personally, I approach Fermi estimates as order of magnitude guesses for each factor (e.g. if guessing how many ping pong balls fit in a 747, you might say, "well the width of the jet is closer to 10ft than 100ft", rather than guess 22ft), so having such fine-grained sliders feels like it misses the point.

andrewrn 1y ago
This is revealing an important design distinction. The game needs to adapt to different scales. There are huge scale estimations (day 3's question is the volume of air humanity inhales each day, for ex), and smaller ones that are still useful "how many cups of coffee can a barista make in a hour". Both seem like they could still be fun, with the mechanics being more dynamic to the question's scale. Do this seem right? I ought to make this cleaner in the app. Thanks so much!
- mNovak 1y ago
  A few other points on further reflection: - If you're giving us all the factors, and all factors are necessary (e.g. to make units work out), then clicking them is a bit of a pointless activity. You could just give them as a list of sliders outright. - The above points out that there's not much of a "gameplay loop" to speak of. We make 3-4 guesses and game over. I think this places a hard cap on how much "fun" Fermi can be. Even in something like Wordle, which is also only 5 guesses, each guess builds on feedback from the last; it's interactive and strategic. - You could consider for instance maybe chaining multiple Fermi estimates, that build up to some bigger one. That would give you a mechanism to give intermediate feedback, and have a multi-step game.
  - andrewrn 1y ago
    Incredibly helpful point about the iterative aspect. A softer benefit of the chaining idea you have is that you could build an amusing narrative like pizzas eaten annually in the U.S. -> gallons of milk used -> cows dedicated just to pizza production. And if a user was ~30% low on one stage, they'd know to overestimate slightly on the next. Thanks!

by mNovak 1y ago

andrewrn 1y ago

This is revealing an important design distinction. The game needs to adapt to different scales. There are huge scale estimations (day 3's question is the volume of air humanity inhales each day, for ex), and smaller ones that are still useful "how many cups of coffee can a barista make in a hour". Both seem like they could still be fun, with the mechanics being more dynamic to the question's scale. Do this seem right? I ought to make this cleaner in the app. Thanks so much!

mNovak 1y ago
A few other points on further reflection: - If you're giving us all the factors, and all factors are necessary (e.g. to make units work out), then clicking them is a bit of a pointless activity. You could just give them as a list of sliders outright. - The above points out that there's not much of a "gameplay loop" to speak of. We make 3-4 guesses and game over. I think this places a hard cap on how much "fun" Fermi can be. Even in something like Wordle, which is also only 5 guesses, each guess builds on feedback from the last; it's interactive and strategic. - You could consider for instance maybe chaining multiple Fermi estimates, that build up to some bigger one. That would give you a mechanism to give intermediate feedback, and have a multi-step game.
- andrewrn 1y ago
  Incredibly helpful point about the iterative aspect. A softer benefit of the chaining idea you have is that you could build an amusing narrative like pizzas eaten annually in the U.S. -> gallons of milk used -> cows dedicated just to pizza production. And if a user was ~30% low on one stage, they'd know to overestimate slightly on the next. Thanks!