| 1 |
I did forget to mention that the brute force is going to be less of a hassle for smaller games where the amount of combinations is still manageable.
|
1 |
I did forget to mention that the brute force is going to be less of a hassle for smaller games where the amount of combinations is still manageable.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[quote]Is the objective function slow?[/quote]
|
3 |
[quote]Is the objective function slow?[/quote]
|
| 4 |
Slow enough that the current ([i]much[/i] easier one) runs into its limits for brute forcing higher player numbers, as @Sprung said.
|
4 |
Slow enough that the current ([i]much[/i] easier one) runs into its limits for brute forcing higher player numbers, as @Sprung said.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
[quote]In larger games [the objective function] starts to become slow enough for the hard cap to kick in but that's not a problem.[/quote]
|
6 |
[quote]In larger games [the objective function] starts to become slow enough for the hard cap to kick in but that's not a problem.[/quote]
|
| 7 |
Are
you
talking
about
the
current
one
or
the
proposed
one?
There's
a
difference
of
about
one
to
two
orders
of
magnitude
in
flops
between
them.
.
.
|
7 |
Are
you
talking
about
the
current
one
or
the
proposed
one?
There's
a
difference
of
about
one
to
two
orders
of
magnitude
in
flops
between
them.
.
.
Again,
keep
in
mind
that
currently
you
have
a
low
fixed
cost
per
combination
tried,
whereas
the
new
formula
takes
longer
the
more
players
there
are.
.
.
|
Balancer broken?