7 ms·
2048 in 3D
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- nmeofthestate 13y agoIf someone could implement "512 in 2D", that'd be great. I might actually win a game.
- killertypo 13y ago"128" or even "64" is more my cup of tea :)
- RBerenguel 13y agoLet's make it 4 and get back to work ;) (only joking: I only got to 1024 myself, but I prefer Threes, the split between 1 and 2 is neat, makes me think about re-reading The Gods Themselves)
- solox3 13y agoDid you know that using only three directions drastically increases the chance of you winning, because it alters the way numbers are being stacked?
- thaumaturgy 13y agoI've beaten 2048 (i.e., developed a general algorithm that consistently wins). Do you end up with game boards with more than one 128 tile, 64 tile, etc.? The game has a natural tendency to spawn multiple high-value tiles, and preventing it from doing that is the nut of the game. Pick the bottom row and make that row your "accumulator". Pick a bottom corner; this bottom corner will store your largest value. Now, keep your bottom row sorted from low value tile to high value tile at all costs: 4 8 16 128 Let's say the bottom two rows look like this: 2 8 4 2 4 8 16 128 You drop the 8 down: 2 4 2 4 16 16 128 Now, merge left or right? To the right of course, you want to keep that bottom row sorted: 2 4 2 4 32 128 Now drop down (or continue merging to the right until you can drop a tile down into the empty space in the bottom row): 8 4 2 2 4 32 128 This "locks" the bottom row into position, allowing you to freely move the upper three rows left and right without disturbing the ordering of the bottom row. Row-locking is more important than clearing the board. Focus only on the bottom two rows for most of the game (until/unless most of the board fills up). Accumulate values in the bottom row, and build matching values in the row above it. What if the game plays dirty and you end up with: 4 32 128 2 Reverse the ordering of your bottom row. You now want to gradually shift that "128" tile to the left, so build on the "4" and "32" tiles until you get something like: 64 64 128 4 Now shift left and left again: 256 4 And drop new tiles into the bottom row: 256 4 2 2 And your bottom row is ordered once again. What if a higher value tile drops into the bottom row out of order? 32 4 16 128 Ignore it. Build those "4" and "16" tiles: 32 32 32 128 And then merge right and right again: 32 64 128 And drop a new tile into the empty position: 2 32 64 128 This is the situation you want to avoid: 16 64 128 64 This is a natural result of the rules of the game, and this is where it becomes difficult for the player to win, especially when those values start to look more like: 32 128 512 128 Now you suddenly have to do a lot of work in just three rows of space to double one of those 128 values. This approach makes the game pretty easy.
- superlucy 13y agothx for the strategy... I developed something similar while playing, but this explains it much more explicitly. :)
- ajuc 13y agoI developed similar strategy, just in the top row (usually top 2 rows, because it's hard to keep hivh value tiles just the first row). The only problem is when you have no valid moves that keep the bottom row in place and you need to move up. In such case mova back down as fast as possible, and deal with that one "2" that was most probably spawned on the wrong side of accumulator row later.
- nmeofthestate 13y agoThanks for that - I have now won my first game of 2048. I can die happy :)
- lmm 13y agoThis version is actually much easier than the original.
- jaxn 13y agoI agree.
- acjohnson55 13y agoI think you're right. What makes the original so difficult is that if you're not careful, you can easily end up in a situation where the only move you're allowed is potentially disastrous. With 6 possible moves, that's significantly less likely. I just won on my first shot.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Scorpion 13y agoI feel like this version is subtly easier.
- gamegoblin 13y agoIt is significantly easier if you have the patience to reason about it for a bit longer.
- chx 13y agoYeah, I won the first time I played it, it's actually quite easy and expected to be so. I feel you could go very very far with it given the 27 slots.
- ent 13y agoIt's not even that subtle, there's a lot more room and the extra dimension helps a lot in unscrewing yourself after filling the whole board.
- Paul_S 13y agoI was expecting some clever css and js to draw them in perspective.
- danielweber 13y agoClearly that's next.
- winslow 13y agoI'm holding out for Oculus VR support.
- Geee 13y agoRubik's cube 2048?
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y agoDon't even need JS. Just use three CSS transforms.
- farinasa 13y agoWhat hackernews has become: I remade this simple game! I was getting really fed up with the flappy bird stuff and was happy to see it go. Now this? Don't get me wrong, love the game, but god damn can we say beating a dead horse?
- Udo 13y agoIt's not like 2048 is taking over the front page. People iterate on an idea that's fun for them, where's the harm in that? What have you done today that you'd like to show us?
- farinasa 13y agoI don't mean to insult anyone. I fully understand why people are doing it. But I don't understand how these get repeatedly voted to the top. Can't we start a megathread or something for these?
- Killswitch 13y agoI'm starting to sound like a broken record saying this, which is kind of sad... But here it goes again. If you don't want to see something on the front page, don't upvote it. If it makes the front page, then people wanted to see it on the front page, or liked it enough to upvote it... The whole mentality that somehow you think that the majority of HN agrees with you on being sick of seeing this stuff on the front page is clearly wrong, because they're putting it on the front page. If you see something that doesn't interest you, move onto the next. Happy St. Patrick's Day.
- farinasa 13y agoIsn't your post slightly hypocritical? And isn't talking about it better than just ignoring it anyway? You did decide to say something after all.
- Killswitch 13y ago
- nsxwolf 13y agoThis is going too far. It's now as hard for me to visualize as the 3D chess on Star Trek.
- primitivesuave 13y agoAwesome game, now somebody make an AI for it!
- jffry 13y agoAnd then a multiplayer, followed by a browser benchmark!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- vittore 13y agoThat actually made game much easier
- pothibo 13y agoFlagged.
- clueless2048 13y ago...i feel really stupid. I understand the objective of the game and the basic mechanics, but how do I know what the Q and E button do? I seems like some type of jumping occurs on the row.
- tiger10guy 13y agoSomeone should make a 4D version.
- deletes 13y agoThis is the best version of the game. --- There needs to be a clear while line separating the boxes; after intense staring I have difficulty separating the individual boxes. A "solution": keep pressing right and E and up or down if you get stuck. Make some manual moves if the board gets cluttered. Do not use the strategy to cluster pieces into a corner. ---- Solved it. http://i.imgur.com/sb3VMCY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sb3VMCY.jpg And apart from the 2D variants it required some thinking. This is THE version to iterate and improve. It has gameplay.
- ecoqba 13y agoKeep it coming! This thing gets better and better
- jbaudanza 13y agoDerivative request: Can someone make a version that displays values in hex instead of decimal?
- jaredsohn 13y agoJust built 0x800; find it here: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~sohn/0x800/ http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~sohn/0x800/. Source: https://github.com/jaredsohn/0x800 https://github.com/jaredsohn/0x800. (I was already working on a binary derivative at the time, but figuring out the font sizes is a little tedious.)
- madcaptenor 13y agoThis seems easier than the 2D version. I think it's because there are more possible moves - six instead of four - so even if you play at random there's more of a chance that some move is available.
- dubcanada 13y agoPlus you don't seem to be able to lose (or at least for me). So it's really easy!
- digz 13y agoAgreed. Though I've only played the 3D version twice, my win rate is 50% and i only see it increasing. The 2D version is a little more challenging.. I think I win roughly 25% of the time as luck plays a bigger role (at least with my strategy).
- bdamm 13y agoSoon we will re-invent the ultimate "hard" simple game: Go
- a3_nm 13y agoThe animation when performing moves along the third dimension is not very clear. When moving a square from the plane 1 to plane 3, maybe it would be neater to fade it in from plane 1 to plane 2, then from plane 2 to plane 3, rather than moving it sideways including through cells it isn't passing by.
- pygy_ 13y agoAnother option would be to have them "jump". Up if it moves to an adjacent plane, down if it goes from one extreme to the other.
- skymyrka 13y agothis version was the easiest for some reason. got it on a first try. awesome game!!! http://goo.gl/K2dbPV http://goo.gl/K2dbPV
- ivanca 13y agoShameless plug! I created a mini game called Tetris++ where your ability to do math quickly gets tested: http://cutcss.com/tetris++/ http://cutcss.com/tetris++/
- securityfreak 13y agoI think I renamed the game to 8192 http://imgur.com/2to7bWm http://imgur.com/2to7bWm
- 2810 13y agoWTH! I am addicted to every 2048, 1048 and now this!
- biggiemac 13y agoI've managed a 16384 with a score of 245892 - this version eats up so much time per attempt that it's almost depressing when I lose on a careless mistake..
- biggiemac 13y agoI'm coding up a version where the user enters the dimensions of an arbitrary hyperprism and plays in it. The controls are going to be obnoxious though, best idea I have so far is ab-cd for moves in small boxes, ef-gh for metaboxes, ij-kl for metametaboxes, etc.. I'm also trying to make a smart AI so I don't have to play said versions.