On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 20 Dec 2008, at 16:56, Alex Smith wrote: > >> 1000 seems too low, given that you have to set a value down from 128; >> I'd suggest 10000 or even 100000. (Otherwise, a warrior could simply >> create lots of fake flags with its time, pretty much making it >> impossible for its opponent to win because the other program couldn't >> set the flags down to 0 fast enough; this would force a double-loss, >> pretty much.) > > he changed it.
I actually changed it one more time, to 256*150*10 (char*arraysize*10) = 384000. Didn't change any results, just wanted a consistent rule to approx. scale with array size. -G.
