Subject:
|
Re: Connect Four game issues
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:48:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
566 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Iain Hendry wrote:
> I just had another thought - when we did Project X, we had scoring that included
> time, as well as accuracy being factors in determining who won. Does anyone
> think that adding the time element to this might be benefecial? Or might that
> get too complicated?
I think we decided there's a minimum move time-apparently the more time you
have, the more you can calculate out which move to make.
> is more on the software. Project X focused on software and hardware, because
> the software had to be clever, and the machine had to be fast.
There was a request at the table to do a more software oriented game for a
change. That's not say there's no hardware-but I think in this circumstance,
fast hardware is more of a requirement than a competitive advantage. Meaning if
you can't build reliable hardware that meets move time requirements, then you
can't even play (ie, pass qualifying)
> With the Connect 4 game, it could be sort of like chess - where those guys slap
> the timer (however that works). Have someone starting and stoping a
How DOES that work? Anyone know?
> Then again, complex scoring methods have caused headaches in the past...
This leads to easy Tie, Win, Loss match scoring which we've used from day one.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
| (...) Excellent ideas guys. This is gonna be slick! (...) :) I just had another thought - when we did Project X, we had scoring that included time, as well as accuracy being factors in determining who won. Does anyone think that adding the time (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
72 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
