Difference between revisions of "Talk:Thorn"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Skilgannon (talk | contribs) (→MicroBot throne: necessity) |
GrubbmGait (talk | contribs) (random precision) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
: I couldn't have my triple-throne status being taken! =) Necessity is the mother of invention. It's interesting to note that +-1 pixel of randomness is approximately 0.5% more accurate than a random distribution between +-4. --[[User:Skilgannon|Skilgannon]] 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | : I couldn't have my triple-throne status being taken! =) Necessity is the mother of invention. It's interesting to note that +-1 pixel of randomness is approximately 0.5% more accurate than a random distribution between +-4. --[[User:Skilgannon|Skilgannon]] 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :: Precision is everything, even when polluted. I use +/- 0.6 pixel and even that is good enough. --[[User:GrubbmGait|GrubbmGait]] 09:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:21, 10 October 2009
MicroBot throne
Just by a hair =), but congrats on retaking the MicroBot throne! You've really made an impressive return, great work. --Voidious 14:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Doh! So much for that hair. :-/ Good luck in your throne hunt(s)... --Voidious 02:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you have MiniBot rated 2nd too, you will be one that got 2nd in three rumbles, while Skilgannon got 1st in the same rumbles =) --Nat Pavasant 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I think that must have been a record for the shortest time holding a roborumble throne. Maybe later I'll try to make a competitive (i.e. wave surfing) mini, but for now I think I'll stick to tinkering around with Thorn. --Kev 03:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think my time with the MiniBot throne earlier this year might've been even less. I updated Komarious to overtake WeeksOnEnd by a hair, but overnight while I slept and my RR clients ran, CunobelinDC came along to crush us both! I had to laugh, though, as it was one of the most bizarre Robocode experiences I ever had. --Voidious 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- And both time, it is Skilgannon! Blame him. :P --Nat Pavasant 04:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't have my triple-throne status being taken! =) Necessity is the mother of invention. It's interesting to note that +-1 pixel of randomness is approximately 0.5% more accurate than a random distribution between +-4. --Skilgannon 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Precision is everything, even when polluted. I use +/- 0.6 pixel and even that is good enough. --GrubbmGait 09:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
