Now, the idea is to minimize moves and shots. But on some (many
levels, in fact) it is not possible to do both. You could go by the
total, but then which would be better, 12m, 14s or 13m, 13s, with the
same total for each? So it is decided that moves always have priority
over shots, so the 12m, 14s is better. It would still be better than
13m, 13s if it was 12m, 2000s. This isn't totally justified, but it's
the rules. Maybe there could be two scores for each level, one where
moves take priority and the other where shots take priority.
levels, in fact) it is not possible to do both. You could go by the
total, but then which would be better, 12m, 14s or 13m, 13s, with the
same total for each? So it is decided that moves always have priority
over shots, so the 12m, 14s is better. It would still be better than
13m, 13s if it was 12m, 2000s. This isn't totally justified, but it's
the rules. Maybe there could be two scores for each level, one where
moves take priority and the other where shots take priority.
--- In Lasertank@y..., Kris Pixton <kris@s...> wrote:
>
> I'm new to this game, and I have a question about the way that the
high
> scores are set up. I gather that the best score is considered to
be the
> one with the smallest number of moves, as opposed to a total of
moves plus
> shots. Could someone please explain to me why it was set up this
way? It
> means that very simple elegant solutions are not necessarily the
best. I
> don't understand the philosophy behind a system that encourages
long messy
> solutions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Kris