Timeline for Survival Game - Create Your Wolf
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2014 at 12:42 | history | edited | Manuel Allenspach | CC BY-SA 3.0 | replaced honorWolf with ProtoWolf |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 22:23 | comment | added | Moogie | @Herjan I do agree it is the simplicity of the rules that makes it challenging and fun. But it is a competition to see which wolf can do the least :P and then it comes down to the random placement of the wolves in the world that will have the largest influence on how many wolves will survive :P There is no reason to attempt to destroy, or manoeuvre other wolves to destroy them selves as the risk is too great. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 17:00 | comment | added | Herjan | @Moogie actually, I like the rules as they are, I like the boring tactic of avoiding conflict and you can make that HP idea really cool I actually came up with some ideas myself but just enjoy this game instead of redoing it because I think Hybrid is just smart instead of cheating (Even though I hate it so much that I made Hybrid, my enemy, myself) | |
| Apr 13, 2014 at 23:17 | comment | added | Moogie | @Herjan infact I would like to do something similar again. Perhaps with only slight deviations in the rules to allow for more complex behaviour: i.e. wolves have HP and reward attacking by transfering HP from losing wolf to winning wolf. And have have a constant HP lose per simulation tick to reduce the boring tactic of not moving/avoiding conflict. | |
| Apr 13, 2014 at 21:59 | comment | added | Moogie | @Herjan I guess I am not an exploitive kind of guy. I would rather play by the spirit of the rules knowing that I am able to produce a solution that does not "cheat" or "bend the rules". It is the challenge that brought on by following the spirit of the rules that gives the pleasure. If a "cheating" bot wins that is not such a problem for me. We could always redo the challenge and make the rules such that "cheating" is allowed but those solutions would not be competing against the "legitimate" solutions... | |
| Apr 13, 2014 at 11:00 | history | edited | Manuel Allenspach | CC BY-SA 3.0 | changed classes according to scoreboard |
| Apr 11, 2014 at 16:38 | comment | added | Herjan | Hey creators of OmegaWolf, DeepWolf, HonorWolf, ShadowWolf, AlphaWolf and ProAlpha, what about we replace our wolves right before the new scoreboard comes up with suicide wolves and upload our wolves under a new name? :) | |
| Apr 11, 2014 at 3:28 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @plannapus I would like to point out that a spec could say "Anything not specifically allowed is banned." if they wanted to avoid specifically forbidding every possible loophole. You have to be careful how you say it though. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 17:32 | history | edited | Manuel Allenspach | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added more "good" wolves, the more, the better :P |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 11:52 | history | edited | Manuel Allenspach | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 11 characters in body |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 6:37 | comment | added | plannapus | @Moogie it just encourage the posting of challenges that don't have loopholes: this is why it is encouraged to try out new challenges in the sandbox before posting them on the main site. Welcome to Code Golf by the way! :) | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 6:34 | comment | added | Moogie | @plannapus ok I yield to the conventions of this site as I am the newbie here. It just seems that this tradition encourages solutions that go against the spirit of the competition. No big deal I guess. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 6:19 | comment | added | plannapus | @Moogie If something is not specifically forbidden in the specifications of the challenge it is de facto legitimate, and the tradition on this site is to not change the rules once people have posted answers to it. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 4:39 | comment | added | Moogie | @Rusher I do implore you to reconsider the legitimacy of the custom number generator trick as one could perform the same trick to replace all the wolves in the simulation with their own wolf! | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 4:21 | comment | added | Moogie | @Rusher If that is legitimate then I will have to modify my omegawolf to use it's own custom random number generator to avoid that effect. Hmm... I could use it to my own advantage... or i could be altruistic and restore the Math.random() | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 4:09 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @Moogie GamblerWolf is a legit submission (and pretty clever too). You're right, it didn't change the results much. If things get out of hand, I'll just say "Ok, he wins but here are the result if he WASN'T included." That way everyone else can still enjoy not being obliterated. | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 4:03 | comment | added | Moogie | @Rusher there are some entries that try change the odds in their favor. e.g. Gambler wolf changes the random number generator of java's Math.random() to always return 1! Funnily enough it has little impact on results as the winning wolves are the wolves that avoid fighting! | |
| Apr 10, 2014 at 3:47 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @Moogie 90% of the entries are legit. So far, I've only excluded entries that changed their letter to something other than 'W', or entries that I couldn't figure out how to compile in another language (and I let them know if that's the case, but you may not see it here because I talk to them in chat). | |
| Apr 9, 2014 at 21:08 | comment | added | Moogie | This is a little cheeky! clever idea though. Not sure how this will fair as legitimate entry as I have no idea of the tests that Rusher will applying to determine a legitimate entry. i.e. if he does a test in isolation with out the other wolves present then this wolf will fail miserably :P | |
| Apr 9, 2014 at 19:41 | history | edited | Manuel Allenspach | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 103 characters in body |
| Apr 9, 2014 at 18:17 | history | answered | Manuel Allenspach | CC BY-SA 3.0 |