Talk:Rock-paper-scissors: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(+1) |
(Alternative wording?) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Ready to come out of draft == |
|||
Ready to come out of draft? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
Ready to come out of draft? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I like it. I haven't seen any questions. I think people understand RPS pretty well. +1 for promotion. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
:I like it. I haven't seen any questions. I think people understand RPS pretty well. +1 for promotion. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: RPS is pretty easy to understand. I was more concerned about the AI player. I have been thinking about [[wp:rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock|Rock-Paper-Lizard-Spock]]. Particularly, having the same codebase be able to handle both forms of the game with minimal redundant code. That might be doable as an Extra Credit goal. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: That should be (above) ''rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: Using proper "English" for the winner (''paper disproves Spock, paper covers rock, etc.) while not being problematic, made my program entry a bit ... bulky. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: Implementing ''rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock'' would expand programs into two directions: more abstraction, or more bulk. Abstraction is good, but harder to read and/or understand. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== gooder English for winners == |
|||
I've always played this game with the following verbiage: |
|||
:::* Rock breaks scissors. |
|||
:::* Scissors cuts paper. |
|||
:::* Paper covers rock. |
|||
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:When I've played it, it was: |
|||
:::* Rock blunts scissors. |
|||
:::* Scissors cuts paper. |
|||
:::* Paper wraps rock. |
|||
:--[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 10:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 10:19, 11 September 2018
Ready to come out of draft
Ready to come out of draft? --Michael Mol 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like it. I haven't seen any questions. I think people understand RPS pretty well. +1 for promotion. --Mwn3d 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- RPS is pretty easy to understand. I was more concerned about the AI player. I have been thinking about Rock-Paper-Lizard-Spock. Particularly, having the same codebase be able to handle both forms of the game with minimal redundant code. That might be doable as an Extra Credit goal. --Michael Mol 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- That should be (above) rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Using proper "English" for the winner (paper disproves Spock, paper covers rock, etc.) while not being problematic, made my program entry a bit ... bulky. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Implementing rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock would expand programs into two directions: more abstraction, or more bulk. Abstraction is good, but harder to read and/or understand. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
gooder English for winners
I've always played this game with the following verbiage:
- Rock breaks scissors.
- Scissors cuts paper.
- Paper covers rock.
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- When I've played it, it was:
- Rock blunts scissors.
- Scissors cuts paper.
- Paper wraps rock.
- --Tigerofdarkness (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)