From news-rocq.inria.fr!jussieu.fr!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cais.net!nntp.uio.no!solace!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.uoknor.edu!aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu!jmorris Tue Mar 26 12:13:25 1996 Article: 4536 of rec.games.corewar Path: news-rocq.inria.fr!jussieu.fr!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cais.net!nntp.uio.no!solace!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.uoknor.edu!aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu!jmorris From: jmorris@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (MORRIS,JOSH) Newsgroups: rec.games.corewar Subject: the ignorance of multiwarrior Date: 26 Mar 1996 00:06 CST Organization: University of Oklahoma - University Computing Services Lines: 57 Distribution: world Message-ID: <26MAR199600065182@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 Is it just me, or does it seem as if the Multiwarrior hills are all but igonored? Especially the experimental. I see so much more potential for expansion in the idea of multiple warriors than in the classic one on one. you could have an "Ongoing" hill -- one where the battles never actually end, but just go on continuously. Programs are entered immediately when submitted and just do battle with whatever warriors happen to be on the hill at the time. now, granted, this rips away any shred of averages (unless a warriors is submitted multiple times) and would take a dedicated server, but would come even closer to the original simulation - that of an immense supercomputer that is constantly being invaded by attacking programs. whatever program happens to be left on the hill at any given time becomes the master until defeated. this would change strategies quite a bit, i think. for one, p-warriors would be nearly useless. they would only work if the boot decision was made after scaning for enemies rather than checking the last match (as there are technically no "last matches, everything is continuous). I don't really like the idea of pspace anyway - it does add a whole new dimension to the game, i agree, but on the other hand it tends to break down the illusion of a computer being invaded. on another note, warriors that switched from one strategy to another via self-bombing (or such) would be less effective than warriors that excercised a continuous battle. just a thought. not too coherent, but i hope the gist gets through.some other thi some other things...i never got any feedback about my idea for team action on the multiwarrior hills, writing programs to work together. no one cares about multiwarrior core war? can someone tell me what the "assert" line is for? i know how it works, but not why it is there. and, finally...i had a program on the multiwarrior hills for awhile whose sole purpose in life was to mimic the actions of others. its name was CopyKatQ2. let me know what you think (if anything at all)... ;name CopyKatQ2 ;author harleyQ2 ;strategy to make others do all the work spl.b $-101, $0 add.a #-12, $-1 jmp.b $-2, $0 --- see? all it does is constantly split itself to locations within core. if it hits nothing, it doesn't slow much. if it lands on another warrior, it gains the powers and abilities of said warrior...simple, inneffective, and with much room for improvement - but it worked fairly well on the multiwarrior hills where i could mimic programs written by more talented core warriors than I. joshua harleyQ2