 | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking —Calum Tsang
|
| | | (...) One of the reasons why I wouldn't want to do 3T is primarily because we did a similar mechanical game called ProjectX. We even needed higher resolution as we demanded people to mesh the ends of studs into each other to score a point. That and (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking —John Brost
|
| | | | | In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote: <snip> (...) I have seen some of the Project X stuff... Very, very impressive. (...) Somewhat correct. If both robots play correctly, each game ends in a draw, no matter who starts. In these cases, (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) Not that it makes a big difference to me, but that was 4 years and 13 events ago. Things (people) have changed. (...) no. it's not deterministic based on who starts. It's deterministic with no consideration of who starts. However, it's still (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | (...) The other fun thing about 3T has been the unexpected. Like the fact that bouncing blocks are a real problem, and how your opponent places blocks can effect how accurately you register them. And of course you can play against humans (a (...) (19 years ago, 3-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: rtl21 - Can Stacking —Chris Magno
|
| | | | (...) thats NESTED ifs. get it right. NESTED ifs is WAY more impressive(1) then just 64 ifs. geesh! Chris 1. ask Kevin, he thought so. ;) (19 years ago, 4-Mar-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
