[3dem] Feedback on new game / resolution recognition

[Leandro F. Estrozi]

Dear colleagues,

Thank you all very much for the thoughtful feedback and encouragement. I 
really appreciate that so many people tried the game seriously and also 
took the time to think about how it could be improved. The hall of fame 
already has the player Roll4Fingers with an impressive 3720 points in 
hard mode!

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://rico.ibs.fr/helixplorer/resolution/__;!!Mih3wA!FpW5GGiSmJ5FTaSirkMpTr9S9aOl7IatL7JxsDbmH4lWA4remhr7jWXoztoRkbt3_M0zDftjPHq_D8GruQRoDsud-7DI$ 

Several of you correctly pointed out that the current maps look too 
optimistic compared with real cryo-EM or cryo-ET data. It is true that 
the perceived map quality is not determined by nominal resolution alone. 
Effects such as noise, modulation transfer, anisotropy, local resolution 
variation, flexibility or disorder, sharpening/blurring, sampling, 
preferred orientation, missing wedge, and many other experimental or 
processing factors can strongly affect how a map looks. I fully agree 
that a more realistic simulator could include many of these "reality 
gap" effects.

At the same time, the first goal of this game is pedagogical rather than 
to provide a fully realistic simulation. I wanted to create a simple and 
approachable way for students and beginners to start developing visual 
intuition: what broad resolution ranges look like, when helices become 
recognizable, when side chains start to appear, how map detail changes 
as resolution improves, and so on. If I add too many experimental 
parameters too early, the game may become more satisfying for experts, 
but it could also become less useful for the beginners it is mainly 
intended to help. And I don't want to lie, the time I could spend on 
this was limited.

That said, the feedback is very helpful. Some features people suggested, 
such as more finely spaced resolution choices, are already present in 
the harder levels, but I realize this may not be obvious enough. Other 
suggestions, such as better resolution spacing, random resolution 
values, sandbox mode, real EMDB maps, anisotropy, missing wedge, 
local-resolution effects, or different noise models/levels, are 
excellent ideas for future versions.

So my current thinking is to keep the beginner mode relatively simple 
and focused, while possibly adding more advanced modes for users who 
want a more realistic and technically challenging experience. This would 
allow the game to remain useful as an entry point, while also growing 
into something more instructive for experienced users.

Thanks again for the kind words, the criticism, and the ideas. This is 
exactly the kind of feedback that will help me improve the game while 
keeping its educational purpose clear.

Best wishes,

Leandro.