Difference between revisions of "User talk:JohnCleland"
(comment) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Welcomeback! Never thought you would come back really =) Hope you will take your throne back. And I think you might want to read [[Talk:LittleBlackBook#LBB_Cheeze_Factor|this]] and [[Talk:WhiteWhale_(robot)|this]] before starting your next project you mentioned on [[User_talk:Miked0801]]! --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |
| − | | | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | Yeah, welcome back. Good luck shaking up Nano-land again. =) --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |
| − | + | Heh, not really back, too many other things to do at the moment. And I'm not sure (short of everyone randomizing theur bot names) that LBB can be topped. Also even with its strength, the margins at the top of Nano are pretty tight, so not sure how much more can be squeezed out of a nano. | |
| − | + | It will, I think, take a revolutionary idea to surpass any of the current top bots, and my previous " revolutionary ideas" proved laugahable and never made it into production, or like the PRAL and SRAL bots sub-par and not really all that original. I hate to have admit that my successful bots were very derivative. | |
| − | + | I never did have the time or dedication to get very far up the Micro ranks, let alone mini or mega, but it is still fun to peruse the cool ideas and clever coding you guys come up with. And fun to try the occasional idea in code to see whether it will fly. | |
| − | + | I hope to make it back to the arena at some stage, until then, happy dueling :) | |
| − | + | --[[User:JohnCleland|JohnCleland]] 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | The template is mainly for telling user (you) that we have moved the wiki. Actually LBB is topable, proved by [[WhiteWhale (robot)]], but I'm not sure with 'normal' coding. And actually almost every competitive robots (except Shadow) is very derivative. At least 6 in top-10 nanobot now use WeekendObsession's gun. I think I have posted somewhere else, but 'the later you come into Robocode, the harder you will invent new (and competitive) thing' =) --[[User:Nat|<span style="color:#099;">Nat</span>]] [[User talk:Nat|<span style="color:#0a5;">Pavasant</span>]] 06:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |
| − | + | Hi and welcome back to robocode! ;) Your NeopythePattern has given me a very hard time for very long time. ;) It's very hard to achieve something with new ideas with traditional coding.. As you can see I'm a big fan of Nanos and always stood for inventive ideas. However, my only truly successful invention is AOM which is Pugio's movement. I have dozens of experimental bots such as nano-sized virtual guns; nano gf targeting; various adaptive movements and so on, but it's very hard to tell whether it could be developed into something or it's a hopeless idea. I just wanted to tell, that you are not alone. ;) This is the reason I haven't dealt with robocode in the past few months. (but this could change :P) --[[User:Robar|HUNRobar]] 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |
Latest revision as of 18:20, 24 October 2009
Welcomeback! Never thought you would come back really =) Hope you will take your throne back. And I think you might want to read this and this before starting your next project you mentioned on User_talk:Miked0801! --Nat Pavasant 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, welcome back. Good luck shaking up Nano-land again. =) --Voidious 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, not really back, too many other things to do at the moment. And I'm not sure (short of everyone randomizing theur bot names) that LBB can be topped. Also even with its strength, the margins at the top of Nano are pretty tight, so not sure how much more can be squeezed out of a nano. It will, I think, take a revolutionary idea to surpass any of the current top bots, and my previous " revolutionary ideas" proved laugahable and never made it into production, or like the PRAL and SRAL bots sub-par and not really all that original. I hate to have admit that my successful bots were very derivative. I never did have the time or dedication to get very far up the Micro ranks, let alone mini or mega, but it is still fun to peruse the cool ideas and clever coding you guys come up with. And fun to try the occasional idea in code to see whether it will fly. I hope to make it back to the arena at some stage, until then, happy dueling :) --JohnCleland 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The template is mainly for telling user (you) that we have moved the wiki. Actually LBB is topable, proved by WhiteWhale (robot), but I'm not sure with 'normal' coding. And actually almost every competitive robots (except Shadow) is very derivative. At least 6 in top-10 nanobot now use WeekendObsession's gun. I think I have posted somewhere else, but 'the later you come into Robocode, the harder you will invent new (and competitive) thing' =) --Nat Pavasant 06:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi and welcome back to robocode! ;) Your NeopythePattern has given me a very hard time for very long time. ;) It's very hard to achieve something with new ideas with traditional coding.. As you can see I'm a big fan of Nanos and always stood for inventive ideas. However, my only truly successful invention is AOM which is Pugio's movement. I have dozens of experimental bots such as nano-sized virtual guns; nano gf targeting; various adaptive movements and so on, but it's very hard to tell whether it could be developed into something or it's a hopeless idea. I just wanted to tell, that you are not alone. ;) This is the reason I haven't dealt with robocode in the past few months. (but this could change :P) --HUNRobar 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
