Re:243 Game – inspired by 2048
by Stately on Saturday July 05, 2014 @11:45AM
(#7992143)
It seems to be significantly easier to beat than 2048, but at the same time it's a bit challenging to get your head around matching three tiles instead of two. Good stuff.
Re:243 Game – inspired by 2048
by smaudet on Saturday July 05, 2014 @04:11PM
(#7992851)
Not beat yet, but I don't think it is possible to algorithmically.
144=3 x 48
;
48=3 x 16
16 is 'easy' to create - if you can avoid creating any three-pairs.
The trick of this game is that you can have 3,4,5 pairs. There may be some ways to choose 4 and 5 pairs along with the easier 2 and 3 pairs to win it - my efforts so far with the simple strategy produced two 48 pairs, and a seemingly random chance at producing an elusive third 48th pair, so any solution I would think would be considerably more difficult, if one exists at all.
Re:243 Game – inspired by 2048
by aardvark179 on Saturday July 05, 2014 @12:13PM
(#7992250)
Yeah, this one doesn't seem so hard. Variants like 144 are a challenge because you can fill the board with tiles that can never lead to your goal, and it's easy to get into a situation where you can't help generating them.
Re:243 Game – inspired by 2048
by smaudet on Saturday July 05, 2014 @01:56PM
(#7992520)
Beat, not too hard.
But that's because I suspect the game would make it difficult/impossible to get beyond 243.
There isn't enough space for 3-chains, this was fine for 2-chains, but for 3-chains my winning move at the end was impossible without changing my strategy.
Re:243 Game – inspired by 2048
by Elessar on Saturday July 05, 2014 @11:20AM
(#7992067)
Yeah, this variant forces you to clean up the (mental) heuristic you use you decide how best to combine blocks. With 2048 you could generally muddle your way through provided you ensured high blocks were in some corner. Here, because of the 3 combination, quite often I'll have a pair of high numbers blocking an entire row from shifting -- an issue you'd never have in the original.
BTW, change the favicon?
I kept all of my highest tiles on one column of the board, and always kept it filled up (so that one row was "static"), like with 2048.
The difference this time was that I mainly incremented them by rows, and would only put together three in a column to match up a row.
I struggled with this version, which is kind of similar: http://joezeng.github.io/144/
144=3 x 48 ; 48=3 x 16
16 is 'easy' to create - if you can avoid creating any three-pairs.
The trick of this game is that you can have 3,4,5 pairs. There may be some ways to choose 4 and 5 pairs along with the easier 2 and 3 pairs to win it - my efforts so far with the simple strategy produced two 48 pairs, and a seemingly random chance at producing an elusive third 48th pair, so any solution I would think would be considerably more difficult, if one exists at all.
243 243 243 x x
81 81 81 x x
27 27 27 x x
9 9 9 x x
3 3 3 x x
But that's because I suspect the game would make it difficult/impossible to get beyond 243.
There isn't enough space for 3-chains, this was fine for 2-chains, but for 3-chains my winning move at the end was impossible without changing my strategy.
Where do you see that?
ga("send", "event", "game", "end", 'game-won', '1000000');
I'd add at least one more level, since it should clearly be possible to reach higher tiles than 243.
Thanks for making it though, was a fun distraction.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/random_strangers/511-game-bo...