Difference between revisions of "Talk:CunobelinDC"
(760 battles with rating 2102.3) |
Skilgannon (talk | contribs) (anti-PM and PL) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
2102.3 with 760 battles. Too bad that when pairing complete it no longer get priority over other robots :-( » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) | 2102.3 with 760 battles. Too bad that when pairing complete it no longer get priority over other robots :-( » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, my loss to any decent PM gun was sort of expected, as my only surfing attributes are latVel, lastLatVel and distance. If I want to improve my PL score a bit I'll have to add some time-based segments in, but I'll need to free up some codesize before I can do that. And I'm not sure where I'd manage something like that without reducing functionality. I'm sure I'll figure something out though ;-) --[[User:Skilgannon|Skilgannon]] 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:53, 1 May 2009
Whoa! 327 pairings and it above WeeksOnEnd! But it lost badly to WeeksOnEnd (edit: you seem to lost to singletick pm since you lost to WeeklongObsession too) :-( Can't wait for the stable ranking! » Nat | Talk » 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
3 Pairings to go and you will be news KING! 462 battles to go and you will be first member of The 2100 Club/Mini!!! Hope it will hover over! » Nat | Talk » 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Pairings just complete and you are still at 1st. Congratulation! » Nat | Talk » 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
2102.3 with 760 battles. Too bad that when pairing complete it no longer get priority over other robots :-( » Nat | Talk » 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my loss to any decent PM gun was sort of expected, as my only surfing attributes are latVel, lastLatVel and distance. If I want to improve my PL score a bit I'll have to add some time-based segments in, but I'll need to free up some codesize before I can do that. And I'm not sure where I'd manage something like that without reducing functionality. I'm sure I'll figure something out though ;-) --Skilgannon 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
