4 ms·

it would also make the game cheaper if you figure out less computationally intensive algos to win.

harigov 10y ago
I guess that maybe the point of the game.
valarauca1 10y ago
it would also make the game cheaper if you figure out les[s] computationally intensive algos to win. Yes but a player who was an absolute shite programmer could just throw their bank account at the problem. While my O(n) solution maybe eloquent, they can afford O(n^n) so provided our _players_ make the same outcome the algorithmic complexity is irrelevant if you can afford it. The game uses a soft turn based _ticks_ timer. So provided your O(n^n) solution can execute in 1 tick. Their is no difference.
- archgoon 10y ago
  > The game uses a soft turn based _ticks_ timer. So provided your O(n^n) solution can execute in 1 tick. Their is no difference. I don't think you're giving your hypothetical shite programmer enough credit here.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Yes but a player who was an absolute shite programmer could just throw their bank account at the problem. Seems to model reality fairly well.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  While my O(n) solution maybe eloquent Screeps has a speech API?
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    Holy crap if Screeps allows webhooks to generate events to your modules you could easily use api.ai to do just that!
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Cool, but my comment was really a veiled correction to the previous comment's English.
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        Cool, but that's an incredibly boring comment so I made it better. I am confused why you did not accept this pull request.
        stcredzero 10y ago
        Cool, but that's an incredibly boring comment It worked on you!
        KirinDave 10y ago
        This is that thing where people throw a dart then paint a target around it.
- karlalexpauls 10y ago
  > a player who was an absolute shite programmer could just throw their bank account at the problem There aren't (yet) any public codebases which have a handle on endgame combat. It's still more or less competitive after 2 months of play.

I guess that maybe the point of the game.

it would also make the game cheaper if you figure out les[s] computationally intensive algos to win. Yes but a player who was an absolute shite programmer could just throw their bank account at the problem. While my O(n) solution maybe eloquent, they can afford O(n^n) so provided our _players_ make the same outcome the algorithmic complexity is irrelevant if you can afford it. The game uses a soft turn based _ticks_ timer. So provided your O(n^n) solution can execute in 1 tick. Their is no difference.

archgoon 10y ago
> The game uses a soft turn based _ticks_ timer. So provided your O(n^n) solution can execute in 1 tick. Their is no difference. I don't think you're giving your hypothetical shite programmer enough credit here.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Yes but a player who was an absolute shite programmer could just throw their bank account at the problem. Seems to model reality fairly well.
stcredzero 10y ago
While my O(n) solution maybe eloquent Screeps has a speech API?
- KirinDave 10y ago
  Holy crap if Screeps allows webhooks to generate events to your modules you could easily use api.ai to do just that!
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Cool, but my comment was really a veiled correction to the previous comment's English.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      Cool, but that's an incredibly boring comment so I made it better. I am confused why you did not accept this pull request.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        Cool, but that's an incredibly boring comment It worked on you!
        KirinDave 10y ago
        This is that thing where people throw a dart then paint a target around it.
karlalexpauls 10y ago
> a player who was an absolute shite programmer could just throw their bank account at the problem There aren't (yet) any public codebases which have a handle on endgame combat. It's still more or less competitive after 2 months of play.