This and other bridge-related links can be found on the links page at www.bridgebuilder-game.com .
Zatikon is back and free to play! https://www.chroniclogic.com/zatikon.htm
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuBtw, people posting in-line images, could you pls take the time to use your gfx prg to crop them? baggio's bridges have lots of sky, and I know how the buttons look! (they're not working as inlines, so it's no big deal in this case). It's not the size alone (although that adds up on a gfx-intensive thread), it's the screen space as well...
Beaujob, the deck cheat goes like this:
Build light steel where the back of your deck will be, after that, build the deck. The deck will use the pre-built steel, at much lower cost, but same strength. The light steel will still show up as the usual line in the editor if you look closely.
You can use heavy steel as well; that way, it'll cost more, but you have added strength.
The seed to this was laid with my http://pontifex.mendelsohn.de/forum/crooked1.pxb" target="_blank">crooked1 bridge published on the http://www.chroniclogic.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=6&topic=9" target="_blank">Turns thread (which cost less than it ought to have, without me noticing), and Gray and I realized what this meant while we were chatting about it on icq. http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>
Imagine the agony of deciding whether to use this advantage clocking in at more than for the contest bridge, whether rule 3 stating "Anything other than the previous two conditions is fair game." covered this eventuality, what would happen if we decided not to use this advantage, someone else had indepently discovered it from the "Turns" posting and won with it, etc.
In the end, we decided to ask ChronicLogic, which resulted in the announcement you all read. ;-)
(Edited by mendel at 4:02 pm on Oct. 27, 2001)
"Send in any bridge, someone will win."
(Edited by mendel at 12:47 am on Oct. 23, 2001)
You talk about "individuality" and "discussing with friends". You can't control the latter, so the first is moot. This is no written exam after all, this should be fun. Real bridges are always constructed as a team effort, and often there are public hearings.
A seperate forum is not an unfair advantage.
How is having something that everyone can use unfair?
Not having people to discuss the contest with is a disadvantage you impose by denying this forum. You impose it on those who don't have friends to discuss pontifex with (or friends who are not as good at it as my friends are ;-). People who discuss with friends do not have the disadvantage. Having the forum would be more fair.
It's your contest, you decide.
If I don't like your decisions, I don't need to participate. I could even run my own contest :-)
But still there's the urge to put in my 2 cents ;-)
Instead of proscribing what motivates people, why not let them decide themselves?
Suggestion: make a 5th "contest designs" forum; forbid talking contest designs/scores outside of that and don't restrict it inside. General discussion about the contest (about the rules etc.) should stil be going on in the "General" Forum.
That way, players who feel they'll be demotivated by these things can stay clear of that forum; players who feel that will motivate them can read it.
What we need now is a poll (Gray, are you listening?).
Quote
Btw, the "settling time" issue is connected to the issues disussed in the "Strongest bridges?" thread. I would suggest adding a mid-air Ũ-cost box (see "A new kind of record" ) to your bridge that self-destructs when it hits ground; once that happens, Chronic may start the train.
I'm not sure if the rules need to be amended for that since it's not the bridge that breaks links when the box hits. Ben/Alex, what do you think?
Now did you feel frightened?
Gotcha! It's all made up! Scary rumour to heighten the tension! ;-)
ChronicLogic, please understand me right this time - it is not a practical suggestion in defiance of your post, but a humorous repartee not to be taken seriously ;-) (Edited by mendel at 1:57 pm on Oct. 26, 2001)
On another note, supposedly providing support for something that then does not work so well in the way it is supported has been Microsoft's way in the case of more than one technology it did not like. Providing OpenGL without HW accel will make unwitting consumers experience that OpenGL=slow, direct3D=fast - which might look completely different if it was HW accelerated out of the box, or it was only supported if you downloaded the (accelerated) drivers.
Is this still Pontifex-related? Since Pontifex relies on OpenGL, I guess it is, in some way. I fear this could degenerate into a (brainless?) pro/con Microsoft debate, but I trust we bridgebuilders are above that http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>.