4 ms·
Not the same rules. :) We should not be able to make new card appear when no other one can move.
by Cynddl 13y ago
Not the same rules. :)
We should not be able to make new card appear when no other one can move.
- deletes 13y agoIntentional? It is till not trivial to win, but is (much) easier. I actually had more fun with this version. Actually not that easy, but much more fun.
- effn 13y agoI found it way harder. I'm struggling to reach even a score of 1000 when I rarely score under 10000 in the original.
- deletes 13y agoAgree, I think it is easier if you do a slow approach to it. The original is more mashing and luck imo.
- pkill17 13y agoThe game is arbitrarily winnable now. Press down until you get rows of 2-4-8-16, then collapse all the way to the left. Repeat this procedure until you get to 256/512.
- deletes 13y agoThat doesn't work, you get to 128 with some nice patterns and then the algorithm fills the screen. Maybe some clever play from then on would work, but the random pieces always mess with your strategy. If you have a static solution, please show it.
- rwinn 13y agoHehe, yeah.. I had to rip that out to make it fit in 2048 bytes. It takes a (relatively) big chunk of code to know if a move is possible.
- noiv 13y agoHave a system for the original, which sometimes fails if the board gets crowded. With this one it never fails and the board is mostly always half empty, need the 4096/8192 tiles, too.