4 ms·
>If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it. It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states, and for some applications cons
by shadowpho 9mo ago
>If the goal is consistency, then wall-clock isn't the simple way to do it.
It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states, and for some applications consistency isn’t super important.
Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time. It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty.
Doing state limit with a time limit might be better way to do it, but is harder.
- Dylan16807 9mo ago> It’s simpler than doing a limit on number of states According to who? A counter that you ++ each move sounds a lot easier to me than throwing off a separate thread/callback to handle a timer. > Doing a time limit also enforces bot moving in a reasonable time. It's designed for specific hardware, and will never have to run on anything significantly slower, but might have to run on things significantly faster. It doesn't need a time cutoff that would only matter in weird circumstances and make it do a weirdly bad move. It needs to be ready for the future. > It puts a nice limit to set up a compromise between speed and difficulty. Both methods have that compromise, but using time is way more volatile.