Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:ScalarBot/Version History/:D/reply (4)"
m (Reply to :D) |
m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I think this approach makes my movement even more unpredictable than a) hit stats only; b) flattener only; c) the sum of both. As for strong guns, they are firing everywhere, which leaves no safe spot (except for bullet shadows, which, should for the same reason, improve the score dramatically). | I think this approach makes my movement even more unpredictable than a) hit stats only; b) flattener only; c) the sum of both. As for strong guns, they are firing everywhere, which leaves no safe spot (except for bullet shadows, which, should for the same reason, improve the score dramatically). | ||
| − | Worth mention that I take the idea originally from [[ABC]], but I could not recall where the page is ;/ I had tried this idea years ago, but it wasn't work IIRC. | + | Worth mention that I take the idea originally from [[ABC]], but I could not recall where the page is ;/ I had tried this idea years ago, but it wasn't work IIRC. |
Latest revision as of 16:22, 21 October 2017
Thanks a lot! The published version is using one single tree as a tick flattener and another tree as ordinary hit stats. The secret is that I don't accumulate the danger from the two trees (like some logic "or"), rather, I multiplies them (like some logic "and"). This way, I'm moving to where they are not probably firing at, instead of avoiding where they are probably firing at ;)
I think this approach makes my movement even more unpredictable than a) hit stats only; b) flattener only; c) the sum of both. As for strong guns, they are firing everywhere, which leaves no safe spot (except for bullet shadows, which, should for the same reason, improve the score dramatically).
Worth mention that I take the idea originally from ABC, but I could not recall where the page is ;/ I had tried this idea years ago, but it wasn't work IIRC.
