I also agree with the other side that "f******" wasn't really necessary. But IMO that's the OPs decision. Since the usage was quite mild, self-deprecating, not aggressive towards anyone.
This challenge is based on some new findings related to the Collatz conjecture and designed somewhat in the spirit of a collaborative polymath project. Solving the full conjecture is regarded as extremely difficult or maybe impossible by math/number theory experts, but this simpler task is quite ...
This post seems odd to me. Question is +7, and it has 8 answers. But the highest voted answer is +1. Just kinda odd.
There's even a comment on my answer saying "I think you've got this in the bag", yet not an upvote. I can't figure out why nobody seems to be voting on the answers here.
I don't check specifically for them, just the largest number of spaces. A 1-width corridor with 25 spaces is still better than a 2-width corridor with only 15 spaces to move in. (This assumes the 2-width is otherwise blocked by a chokepoint, otherwise the flodd would escape it)
@ProgramFOX Maybe, but the tester is (now) python, so it shouldn't be too hard to work with. If it was still done in a VS project as before, I could see that argument being stronger.
It's just weird for 8 answerers to all not be upvoting any of the competition.
Maybe more votes will come in as the results get posted?
That's an upper bound I guess. It doesn't account for when you only have 2 choices, and it doesn't account for players that immediately cut the map in half
That sounds like a decent upper bound. I don't know how tight it is. The more the board fills up, the less moves you'll have available, so the 9 isn't constant.
Most tower defense games (that I've seen) have limited paths that would be easy to graph. If you're talking about an open field it's a bit different, but pathing in general isn't too hard once you get your mind around it.
Especially if units are allowed to overlap. If they're all forced onto individual discrete spots, it's a bit more challenging to find a "group" path solution.
@Geobits The creeps can overlap. The towers can't. The field is open until a player clutters it with towers, and they generally "snap" together to avoid having holes
Wait, I've done A* before. I guess I didn't realize it's application in pathing for games
Wait... do games actually use algorithms like Dijkstras and A*? I thought they were way more complex. How do you determine where the nodes are on an open field?
Okay, so say there is a wall of towers x units in front of the spot I'm trying to protect. Will the enemy walk straight to the wall, then go around, or will he aim for the corner to cut distance?
That might have to be my favourite joke. Last night I was explaining to a friend of mine (who isn't super into computers and stuff, but finds them interesting and wants to learn more) what search algorithms are, how they work, and a couple of the more popular ones specifically so I could tell her that joke. :)
It seems you could just build a node map based on nothing but the towers, then. No need for discrete units for the creeps. For each contiguous tower area, put a node near each corner(at the minimum distance to prevent collision).
So if I add a tower by itself, it has four nodes surrounding it. If I add another tower "snapped" to it, there's still only four nodes.
The goal is a node, the start is a node. That should be it.
@Rusher From the two and a half minutes I've seen you talk about it, your game reminds me of this. It's a tower defense game where you set up your own side of the battlefield, but also you can spend money on extra creeps to try to get to your opponent
1. Having a game as a challenge here is a very different experience than playing the game normally. Simply by saying "Instead of playing this game, write a program that plays the game" you change pretty much everything.
2. It's a challenge on PPCG I don't honestly think anyone will care
Morals are rooted in formal meaning anyway. The only reason I don't kill you is because I value my own life and thus I feel morally obligated to not kill you.
Like 90% of what I do when I program is bruteforce Project Euler problems, I'm probably not exactly the kind of person who needs to worry about that kind of thing :P
Screenshot
Use /command shortcuts to perform common chat tasks:
See message history inline:
Easily preview replied-to messages:
And much, much more...
About
Legends tell of a prolific Meta Stack Overflow chatter who despised using their mouse above all things. In an effort to keep t...
Is it bad that I almost want to vote to close questions that are "finished and will never be rejudged"? They lack a winning criteria at that point, in my opinion.
I'm not a fan of that, either, but I don't much see the point of closing, honestly. There are a few KotH competitions that are stated as "over", and several more that are "effectively" over (haven't been judged in years). People might not be looking for the checkmark; they might just want to post a clever solution they came up with later. I don't see a reason to deny that opportunity just to punish(?) the asker.
It's definitely an exceptional case where challenges that can't be won continue to live. I guess there is no way to mark them as such except for writing it out in the challenge "We're done here."
I'd be happy if they were tagged as "completed", but then we'd have a tag floating around that is definitely a meta tag by any reasonable interpretation
a very promising site as far as raw talent. some participants seem to be very advanced. some talented at young age. crowd is very populist and votes a lot. good teamwork. very active chat room. site seems to have untapped possibilities for crosspollination with cs.se/tcs.se sites.
Screenshot
Use /command shortcuts to perform common chat tasks:
See message history inline:
Easily preview replied-to messages:
And much, much more...
About
Legends tell of a prolific Meta Stack Overflow chatter who despised using their mouse above all things. In an effort to keep t...
