Hacking Hearthstone with machine learning – Defcon talk wrap-up

Re:Hacking Hearthstone with machine learning – Defcon talk w... by pmalynin on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @11:20AM (#8258050)

It's a trick from calculus, when you do an operation on a constant, that doesn't make it dependent on the variable, it is still a constant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Hearthstone with machine learning – Defcon talk w... by scrollaway on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @01:45PM (#8259015)

Funny thing here is it's not corrct to do that either. Because some attack/health values are better than some others even though they may be lower. For example, 4 attack is vastly superior to 5 against Priest, and 6 is vastly superior to 7 against all classes, because of certain cards which affects enemy minions with a minimum attack value of 5 and 7 respectively.

So War Golem (7/7 for 7) is a lot worse than Boulderfist Ogre (6/7 for 6).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Hearthstone with machine learning – Defcon talk w... by bausson on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @11:38AM (#8258158)

Wow, OK, weird.

Aren't a and h supposed to be constant here too, just unresolved ones?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Hearthstone with machine learning – Defcon talk w... by pkrs on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @02:15PM (#8259179)

You're thinking about Big O notation, which is not the case here

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hacking Hearthstone with machine learning – Defcon talk w... by pmalynin on Wednesday September 03, 2014 @10:12AM (#8263051)

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/ConstantofInteg...

[ Parent | on HN ]