home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!not-for-mail
- From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
- Newsgroups: rec.games.corewar
- Subject: Re: Outlaw ImpRings? - There's a better way
- Date: 3 Jan 1993 01:27:41 -0500
- Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
- Lines: 25
- Message-ID: <1i610tINN9uj@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
- References: <1hukq1INNroe@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> <1993Jan2.170839.4347@vlsi.polymtl.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
-
- In article <1993Jan2.170839.4347@vlsi.polymtl.ca> dak@shannon (Pierre Baillargeon) writes:
- >Daniel Starr (starr-daniel@yale.edu) wrote:
- >: In article <78903@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7804b@prism.gatech.EDU (Wayne Edward Sheppard) writes:
- >: > [deleted]
- >: >
- >: >If an impring had more points, wouldn't it be easier to kill?
- >: >
- >: Nope. The nifty thing about an impring, after all, is that just like
- >: a classic imp, each instruction prepares the very next one that executes.
- >: As a result, no matter how many points there are, only one -- the one
- >: about to execute -- is vulnerable to bombing/mutation at any given time.
- >:
- >: [deleted]
- >
- > Well, a ring with more points has more vulnerable point and move slower.
- Actually, no. A single ring only has one vulnerable point: the location
- about to execute. If you bomb any other location, it will be overwritten
- before it's executed. And all rings overwrite one location per cycle --
- more points just mean those locations are spread out more.
-
- --
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
- |Daniel Starr | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
- |dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu | |
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-