I'm glad I can just see these replies so I can actually not have to play, and not have to sit here wondering what happens if your score goes high enough.
I suspect you know this, but either way: you should initialize your arrays in R to the proper length-- dynamically growing them within a for-loop as you do with values, func and results in optimxWrapper is extremely slow in R, as it creates a new array every loop, copying the old one.
I literally just made the display code use Math.pow(2) on everything, after discovering that changing the internal score by doubling instead of incremental would increase the speed exponentially with each hop, rendering it unplayable.
Also, it seems that at a certain point length, the two score boxes will shift to being on top of one another instead of side by side[1], which moves the whole playfield's place in the window. Adds a bit of an added challenge!
Cool. I'm on a MBP with 1280x800 resolution and tapping up on the keyboard moves the page to the top, which cuts off the bottom of the game board. A little annoying :(
This is the exponential function, 2^x. Where the independent variable is the number of walls jumped. For instance, after 30 jumps, your score/tile reads 1073741824, or 2^30.
Or it's the logarithmic function lg(x), where the independent variable is the score and the dependent variable is roughly proportional to the number of times you've clicked.
Well yes, logbase2(x), where x is your score, does equal the number of wall jumps. But that doesn't account for how the game is laid out. Your score is a result of the number of jumps you've made. The number of jumps you've made is not the result of your score. Therefore, despite these two functions being the inversely related, the correct relationship is 2^x. That is just my opinion though.
Sure, score = 2^walls iff log_2(score) = walls. So, being equivalent statements, one alone can not be correct.
However, as you said, one choice of describing the relationship is certainly more natural. The exponential description assigns a score to every natural number. While the logarithmic description does not.
I would interpret correct in the way that it is sometimes said, "the correct way to think about X is..." which doesn't say other ways of thinking are wrong, but limited or not illuminating.
Is it just me or do the arrows not lock to the game and push the scrollbar up, making you not see the whole game? The previous game had the same problem.
Cool. This version is more challenging since it's hard to remember the ordering of images. Also, I had to cheat to see the "final" image, the derp. That was a motivation, too: I wanted to see what the next image would be!
Quite a coincidence that I see this tonight. I was on the bus today and noticed someone playing a game on their phone, something simple where you have to trace over a pattern as closely as you can. It was frustrating to watch because every time the user wanted to repeat a level or move on to the next, they were forced to tap through a couple of intermediary screens with flashy stats that took up as much time to get through as playing a level. Contrast that to this game where starting over takes me 0.0 seconds. You jump right back into gameplay, forgetting all the frustration that came with messing up on your previous attempt. More games should take note.
It's a very valid point, but you can't fit everything at once, on the same screen. Current and high score, goals, etc. They add to user experience and satisfaction.
For some users, for some games. In many casual games, a "zero-delay" option would be a nice feature, and a nice bonus for a "remove ads" in-app purchase.
I was thinking the same thing after I failed the first time. Most people might not think of this sort of thing because 'hey, the interstitial shows you important information and it only takes a second', but the ability to just continue immediately after messing up makes the game tremendously more enjoyable.
74 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadNote though you missed the first two statements of 'somaWrapper' and in the return statement of 'optimxWrapper'.
I literally just made the display code use Math.pow(2) on everything, after discovering that changing the internal score by doubling instead of incremental would increase the speed exponentially with each hop, rendering it unplayable.
http://i.imgur.com/Q2qHoSs.png
Also, it seems that at a certain point length, the two score boxes will shift to being on top of one another instead of side by side[1], which moves the whole playfield's place in the window. Adds a bit of an added challenge!
[1] http://i.imgur.com/BW6RV2e.png
Or maybe exponential if you consider your score to be 2^(number of walls you've jumped).
I don't get logarithmic, though.
"Therefore, despite these two functions being the inversely related, the correct relationship is 2^x."
There is no "correct relationship", there is a relationship that (depending on choice of variables) we can describe as y=2^x or y=lg(x).
However, as you said, one choice of describing the relationship is certainly more natural. The exponential description assigns a score to every natural number. While the logarithmic description does not.
I would interpret correct in the way that it is sometimes said, "the correct way to think about X is..." which doesn't say other ways of thinking are wrong, but limited or not illuminating.
An early version of the code did use log2() on the score internally, but now it does pow(2) externally.
http://i.imgur.com/WBdl0Qt.png