ACTUALLY... everything you just said makes NO
sense. That is the whole purpose of keeping highscores, recording least amount
of moves/shots. There is absolutely no other way...
____________________________
--MrDoomMaster
____________________________
____________________________
----- Original Message -----From: fanaticiestSent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:54 PMSubject: Re: Newbie question re high scores--- In Lasertank@y..., "Vic Drastik" <vicdrastik@b...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kris Pixton" <kris@s...>
> To: <Lasertank@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:50 AM
> Subject: Newbie question re high scores
>
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> The current weird scoring system is a remnant from the early days
of
> LaserTank , which began as a fusion of the games Sokoban , in which
the
> objective was help a cellarman push beer barrels into a cellar ,
and
> CTF(Capture The Flag) , in which the objective was to reach the
flag as
> quickly as possible. In both of these games , using number of moves
as a
> measure of performance was entirely logical and fair , for obvious
reasons.
>
> LaserTank introduced the idea that you did not need physical
contact with
> an object to push it - you could just zap it with a repulsive
beam , called
> a Laser. This was the first step away from realism. It also
introduced other
> fun , but unrealistic , concepts such as blocks and mirrors , and
later such
> abstract ideas such as ice and tunnels. These improved the
playability of
> the game , but removed it from the realm of realism.
Unfortunately , the
> measure of performance was not upgraded to the obvious one
(simplest ,
> smallest solution) but remained as number of moves. This not only
encourages
> players to find really long solutions which , nevertheless ,
minimize the
> number of moves , but encourages level writers to create such
levels.
>
> For example , consider Level 555. The official solution takes 57
moves + 22
> shots + 18 turns = 97 steps. I have found a solution which takes 59
moves +
> 14 shots + 16 turns = 89 steps. That is, to gain a mere 2 moves ,
the
> official solution wastes 8 shots and 2 turns.
>
> Some other examples :
>
> Level 567 : Official : M=29 , S=36 , T=14 , Steps=79
> Level 567 : Mine : M=31 , S=29 , T=14 , Steps=74
> i.e. gain 2 moves at a cost of 7 shots.
>
> Level 6 : both solutions take 425 moves and 168 shots , but the
official one
> takes 119 turns and mine takes 118 turns. Ask yourself - which
method of
> scoring is better?
>
>
> Vic
What are you talking about? Turns are not part of the score. The
level 6 thing has nothing to do with which scoring method is better.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.