4 manipulators x 10 cycles /unit (minimum possible) == 40
Try doing that with three manipulators ;-).
Just kidding, I actually find it interesting to have you trying to optimize on manipulators and me on cycles. I wonder if there is some advanced logistics math that would enable you to calculate the minimum number of manipulators neccessary for a compound.
Heh, pwned on Gold there. I had to do the crazy moving back and forth to prevent collisions, but somehow I just didn't think of moving it to the other side, where it wouldn't be in the way...
Heh, pwned on Gold there. I had to do the crazy moving back and forth to prevent collisions, but somehow I just didn't think of moving it to the other side, where it wouldn't be in the way...
Yeah, one thing that really gets me in this game is how you don't have enough space to work with. The sources of elements are at the very bottom, so I can't put manipulators under them to push them upwards. I can't swing elements way off to the left or right and then bring them back in. If they just made the canvas bigger, the game would feel much less constricting.
The sources of elements are at the very bottom, so I can't put manipulators under them to push them upwards.
I am currently stuck on an expansion pack level where the sources are so tightly positioned that it takes eight manipulators instead of the usual two to get elements out at a rate of one per two cycles.
Another low-manipulator-count one, this time on Elxir of Life 90 (5 manipulators, 18 cycles/unit) b,6,9;b,9,10;b,3,11;c,3,7;c,3,5;m,1,11,90,1,ulodrculdorculdorc;m,1,9,90,3,wwwwwwwwwwwwwclorw; m,3,9,0,2,uoddrcludlorwwwwcu;m,13,10,90,2,cruodl;m,7,6,90,3,rwwwwwwwwwcrorrc2o;
I don't think it's too efficient, but it's a nice low number of manipulators.
Actually, we could decide that for achieving any of the following: minimum manipulators, minimum cycles, exact drop point, you would get 1 point off your score for each. This way one could get differentiation between otherwise equal solutions. The "minimum manipulator" condition becomes difficult to prove with more complex designs though. I wonder if there is some advanced transport/logistics math that could help with that. Any math grads in the forum that need a thesis project?
I'm off to get what little sleep I can get before work.
EDIT: Gah, couldn't resist brining Aqua Regia down to 4x10 b,4,9;b,10,11;t,8,8;c,8,10;b,9,6;c,2,6;t,2,4;m,1,9,90,2,lourclorcd; m,5,6,180,2,lc2lll1rol;m,10,9,180,1,2r2orrwcr2;m,13,11,90,1,crolcurodl;
36 manipulators x 6 cycles / unit (minimum possible) == 216 (and three hours of cursing)
The difficulty here was to get the minimum possible cycles, as the center source is packed too tightly between the side ones to allow for an easy 2 cycles / element extraction. The additional manipulators needed to set up the center source begin crowding the setup for the other sources and it all cascades into a world of "why the #%&! is the page so small!". The amount of back trakcing I had to do was phenomenal and the plethora of narrowly avoided race conditions in finished design is astounding.
Also note a neat trick: Due to over crowding of the center source, I had to use the "feature" that a source will not produce a collision on the cycle after it has been used. Timing issues, however, demanded that I use the center source for this purpose once before actually needing an element from it; thus I had to push one lonely iron to the bottom.
It'll be interesting to see how well lack will do with a minimal manipulator design.
You're wrong. Despite appearing otherwise, your design has a throughput of 1/18, not 1/9. So that design is painfully weak at 180 points.
As consolation, I adjusted it for 179 points: b,1,5;c,1,7;c,1,9;b,3,9;b,3,11;b,12,5;b,6,7;b,6,9;c,12,7;c,10,7; m,1,3,0,2,dljclloll;m,10,5,0,2,dolcur;m,10,1,0,2,crdoul;m,10,13,0,2,wwwcrroww; m,4,13,0,2,wwcluordw;m,1,11,0,2,wwwwwjowwwldclu; m,3,7,0,2,djlcl1lw1lo;m,10,9,0,2,ljddluoruwc;m,4,5,0,2,lljwcdouw;m,7,5,0,2,rcdrr2our;
You're wrong. Despite appearing otherwise, your design has a throughput of 1/18, not 1/9. So that design is painfully weak at 180 points.
Oooh snap! I just took the design and counted the program steps on the final manipulator, missing the fact that it skips every other turn. Oh well, I concede defeat.
6 (I suspect minimal) x 48 cycles (pitiful) == 288, note that this uses lack's "break off" trick (I suspect the designer of this puzzle was aware of it).
I doubt that the theoretical minimum of 8 cycles / unit can be achieved with 22 or less manipulators, rather I think that a 36 cycle solution should be possible with 6 or 7 manipulators.
Edit 2: I am officially DONE with this game; Pillar of Unity, seven manipulators thirty six cycle == 252
I finally found the time to do ?????? from the original game, so that I can move on to the Magnum Opus Challenge. 10 manipulators * 15 cycles/unit = 150 p,4,10;p,10,10;b,12,7;b,7,7;b,11,5;t,13,1;t,11,1;m,1,10,0,3,ordcul; m,5,13,180,3,crdoul;m,11,13,0,1,wwjculodr;m,13,10,180,1,wwjolucdr; m,7,10,90,2,wwcrolclorwcrol;m,8,10,270,2,1orclorclorwclw;m,10,7,90,2,clodrrcrrl1orru; m,4,7,90,2,clorwwwwwcl2orw;m,12,3,90,1,ll1luuodwcrdr2r;m,8,5,0,2,drcr1w11rorc1uo;
Not too bad, but terribly unoptimized. Here's what a few seconds of work does to your design: b,4,11;b,7,9;m,1,11,90,1,cluodrw;m,7,11,270,1,rrcr2ro;m,7,6,90,2,rrowllc;m,13,11,90,1,crolwww;m,11,9,180,1,wlcruod;
However, with 4 manipulators (1 less), you could do this, which is faster: b,4,10;b,10,10;m,1,10,90,2,culodr;m,13,10,90,2,cdrolu;m,7,10,180,2,olclll;m,5,6,90,3,cllorr; Or, with 3 manipulators, this: b,10,11;m,13,11,90,1,crol;m,7,11,90,1,cul22odr;m,9,7,180,3,rorrwwcr; Or, with 2 manipulators, this: b,8,6;m,5,13,180,3,crorddculoulcrorw;m,5,6,270,2,l1loclorucl11ordc; < /pridecrush>
Or, with 3 manipulators, this: b,10,11;m,13,11,90,1,crol;m,7,11,90,1,cul22odr;m,9,7,180,3,rorrwwcr;
I prefer this: b,4,10;m,1,10,90,2,clor;m,7,10,90,2,cdr22olu;m,6,6,90,3,crrollww; It's the same design, but it's a little more efficient and gets the bonus for exact placement.
The efficiency of the two is equal, and mine is faster by two cycles because for some reason you didn't grab the compound as soon as the third atom was placed. However, the exact placement is certainly nice.
Currently, though, my favourite Litharge is this one I made recently: b,1,7;m,5,13,180,3,crdordcluoulcrdolu;m,5,7,90,3,r2odlcr1olcurdolcu; I admit it's less favorable by the criteria Timo and I decided upon, but it's still awesome.
Comments
p,9,10;m,13,10,90,2,crol;m,10,13,270,2,orcl;m,7,10,90,2,cdloruwwww;m,9,6,90,3,crrow;
4 manipulators x 10 cycles /unit (minimum possible) == 40
Try doing that with three manipulators ;-).
Just kidding, I actually find it interesting to have you trying to optimize on manipulators and me on cycles. I wonder if there is some advanced logistics math that would enable you to calculate the minimum number of manipulators neccessary for a compound.
I had to do the crazy moving back and forth to prevent collisions, but somehow I just didn't think of moving it to the other side, where it wouldn't be in the way...
90 (5 manipulators, 18 cycles/unit)
b,6,9;b,9,10;b,3,11;c,3,7;c,3,5;m,1,11,90,1,ulodrculdorculdorc;m,1,9,90,3,wwwwwwwwwwwwwclorw;
m,3,9,0,2,uoddrcludlorwwwwcu;m,13,10,90,2,cruodl;m,7,6,90,3,rwwwwwwwwwcrorrc2o;
I don't think it's too efficient, but it's a nice low number of manipulators.
Also, it lands exactly on the goal.
Actually, we could decide that for achieving any of the following: minimum manipulators, minimum cycles, exact drop point, you would get 1 point off your score for each. This way one could get differentiation between otherwise equal solutions. The "minimum manipulator" condition becomes difficult to prove with more complex designs though. I wonder if there is some advanced transport/logistics math that could help with that. Any math grads in the forum that need a thesis project?
b,3,11;b,5,9;c,10,6;c,10,8;m,2,9,90,1,cluuoddwwwwcuuoddr;m,1,11,90,1,culdor;
m,4,13,0,2,wwcurordwwwwwwwwww;m,7,7,90,1,wwwwwculluoddwwwww;
unfortunately it takes 36 cycles / unit :-(.
Edit: 6 x 16 solution, bonus for exact placement, but still worse than lack's 5 x 18:
b,3,11;b,5,9;c,1,6;c,1,4;m,0,11,0,3,wwwdcuow;m,3,13,180,1,wwwwcrol;m,1,11,0,1,orcl;
m,6,11,180,1,wwrolucd;m,1,9,270,3,wwwrlorrcrrrl22w;m,6,6,180,3,wwwwwc1r2doulwww;
Philosopher's Stone in nothing less than 6 x 18 = 108 and an exact drop point!!!
b,7,8;b,7,6;b,4,9;b,9,10;c,10,6;c,12,6;c,1,4;c,1,6;m,1,9,90,3,cldoru;
m,13,10,90,2,rolwwcruoldcruoldc;m,10,8,180,1,lcllwwwlourcldowww;
m,4,6,180,2,rrolcurdwlowwwrrcr;m,10,1,180,2,wwwwwwllcruodrc1ow;
m,4,1,180,2,wwldowwwwwclu1orrc;
I'm off to get what little sleep I can get before work.
EDIT: Gah, couldn't resist brining Aqua Regia down to 4x10
b,4,9;b,10,11;t,8,8;c,8,10;b,9,6;c,2,6;t,2,4;m,1,9,90,2,lourclorcd;
m,5,6,180,2,lc2lll1rol;m,10,9,180,1,2r2orrwcr2;m,13,11,90,1,crolcurodl;
I give you Verditer:
p,10,9;p,3,10;b,5,6;b,1,2;b,2,4;b,12,5;b,11,3;
m,7,10,90,3,wwwwwwwwjddouuc;
m,11,11,270,1,rclo;m,6,9,0,3,ddcuuo;m,10,7,90,1,uucddo;m,7,12,180,1,owwlcr;m,9,12,180,1,wwcuod;m,2,6,0,1,cuodww;
m,3,12,0,1,clorww;m,6,10,180,1,owwlcr;m,3,7,90,2,crroll;m,0,6,0,3,orcdlu;m,1,14,270,1,wwwwwjrucdlo;
m,4,12,180,1,wwwwwjowwlcr;m,2,8,90,3,crroll;m,1,8,90,3,crroll;m,7,9,90,2,cllorr;m,13,9,90,1,rolc;
m,13,14,180,2,wwwwwwwjrolwwc;m,10,12,90,1,uroldc;m,10,11,90,2,wwwwwwwwwjlowwrc;m,0,14,0,3,wwwwwwjlorwwc;
m,7,11,90,2,wwwwwwcuodjwclorw;m,10,6,90,2,cruodl;m,1,0,90,1,ouucdd;m,0,4,0,1,wwwc2o;m,6,8,0,1,oldcru;
m,7,8,0,1,oldcru;m,2,0,90,2,d2owuc;m,13,8,180,2,crolww;m,13,7,180,3,crrlol;m,3,6,0,3,lwwcro;
m,9,5,180,1,crroll;m,11,7,270,2,wwdcuo;m,12,1,90,2,1lorwc;m,14,1,180,1,llcllo;m,10,1,0,1,llorrc;
36 manipulators x 6 cycles / unit (minimum possible) == 216 (and three hours of cursing)
The difficulty here was to get the minimum possible cycles, as the center source is packed too tightly between the side ones to allow for an easy 2 cycles / element extraction. The additional manipulators needed to set up the center source begin crowding the setup for the other sources and it all cascades into a world of "why the #%&! is the page so small!". The amount of back trakcing I had to do was phenomenal and the plethora of narrowly avoided race conditions in finished design is astounding.
Also note a neat trick: Due to over crowding of the center source, I had to use the "feature" that a source will not produce a collision on the cycle after it has been used. Timing issues, however, demanded that I use the center source for this purpose once before actually needing an element from it; thus I had to push one lonely iron to the bottom.
It'll be interesting to see how well lack will do with a minimal manipulator design.
Edit: And this is how much less of a hassle it is to do without aiming for the minimum number of cycles
p,11,11;b,7,8;b,3,6;b,1,4;
m,12,14,180,1,cruodl;m,7,11,90,2,cluodr;m,8,11,270,2,wwrclo;m,7,10,270,1,ollcrr;m,4,12,90,1,cluodr;m,5,8,0,1,c1lorwclorwwc2lorw;
m,1,6,0,3,uwwcdouwcddouuwcdo;m,2,8,270,2,cdouww;m,1,7,0,1,wdcuow;m,4,3,90,2,wwwwwwcrdrr2oruwww;
10 x 18 cycles == 180 (and only 15 minutes)
b,9,10;b,7,6;c,10,6;c,12,6;b,7,8;c,1,6;c,1,4;b,3,10;
m,1,10,90,2,cldourcldoruclor;m,13,10,90,2,wjrolcruoldcruoldc;
m,10,8,270,2,cldolclllwruu2od;m,10,1,90,3,oddcruowwwwrrcur;
m,4,6,90,2,rrrolcurdowwurcd;m,4,1,180,2,wwwdlouulc2olldc;
Edit:
Oh my god, I just came up with a brilliant design:
Sal Ammoniac in 1 x 12 = 12
b,1,10;c,4,8;m,4,10,90,1,cr1olcur2odl;
Cinnabar in 1 × 12 = 12
b,1,11;t,3,9;m,4,11,90,1,cr1olcur2old;
Oil of Vitriol in 1 × 16 = 16
b,10,9;c,13,11;t,13,7;t,9,7;m,13,9,90,3,cdr2olucddr1oluu;
Holy crap, what a find! Now I have to go through every stage again.
Edit: Also, you didn't beat my Philosophers Stone yet ;-) :
b,1,5;c,1,7;c,1,9;b,3,9;b,3,11;b,12,5;b,6,7;b,6,9;c,12,7;c,10,7;
m,4,5,0,2,lljwcdouw;m,1,3,0,2,dljclloll;m,10,5,0,2,dolcur;m,10,1,0,2,crdoul;
m,10,13,0,2,wwwcrroww;m,4,13,0,2,wwcluordw;m,1,11,0,2,wwwwwjowwwldclu;
m,3,7,0,2,djlcl1lw1lo;m,10,9,0,2,ljddluoruwc;m,7,5,0,2,rc1rr11or;
10 x 9 = 90
Edit 2: Sunlight Heart
p,13,10;
b,7,10;
b,5,6;
b,1,12;
b,2,8;
m,10,10,0,3,wwrclorclorcloww;
m,7,12,90,1,cluuoddrwwwwwwww;
m,11,10,180,1,uodlclowwwwwwcll;
m,4,10,90,3,cdlorucldoruclor;
m,1,14,270,1,rucdlorucdlowwww;
m,2,14,270,1,orwwwwwwwwwwwwcl;
m,4,12,180,1,lwwwcruodlcru2od;
m,1,10,90,1,crr1ollwcrr2ollw;
m,5,8,180,1,uuwwcdroluwwcddo;
m,8,6,270,1,wwwwwwdlcruu22od;
m,7,8,90,1,wwlwwwlorrwwwwc2;
11 x 16 (minimum possible) = 171
This can probably be slightly improved in the lower left corner, maybe shave off one manipulator.
So that design is painfully weak at 180 points.
As consolation, I adjusted it for 179 points:
b,1,5;c,1,7;c,1,9;b,3,9;b,3,11;b,12,5;b,6,7;b,6,9;c,12,7;c,10,7;
m,1,3,0,2,dljclloll;m,10,5,0,2,dolcur;m,10,1,0,2,crdoul;m,10,13,0,2,wwwcrroww;
m,4,13,0,2,wwcluordw;m,1,11,0,2,wwwwwjowwwldclu;
m,3,7,0,2,djlcl1lw1lo;m,10,9,0,2,ljddluoruwc;m,4,5,0,2,lljwcdouw;m,7,5,0,2,rcdrr2our;
Edit: Pillar of Unity
b,7,7;b,7,12;d,2,8;t,9,9;
m,0,7,0,3,cdd1ww22www2ww11;m,3,12,0,3,llddwwcruuro;m,5,12,0,2,ourrwwwwcldl;
m,7,9,90,2,crr2owwwwwww;m,5,7,0,2,odcu;m,7,10,270,1,clud2l11owww;
6 (I suspect minimal) x 48 cycles (pitiful) == 288, note that this uses lack's "break off" trick (I suspect the designer of this puzzle was aware of it).
I also have a faster 16 cycle solution:
b,6,12;d,2,9;d,2,6;b,7,7;t,9,10;b,6,3;t,5,10;m,2,4,90,2,wjwc2uwwwdww1uwwdw;
m,0,7,0,3,cddojw;m,3,12,270,2,rodrrcru;m,4,12,180,2,cllollww;m,3,2,90,1,uuoddrcl;m,1,0,90,1,wwwwclor;
m,3,3,90,2,wwjlolcrorc;m,9,3,180,2,cdouwwww;m,7,10,90,1,lrrrorrc;m,7,5,90,1,owrrc2ll;m,5,8,0,2,wwwjcd1uwuod;
16 x 11 == 171.
I doubt that the theoretical minimum of 8 cycles / unit can be achieved with 22 or less manipulators, rather I think that a 36 cycle solution should be possible with 6 or 7 manipulators.
Edit 2: I am officially DONE with this game; Pillar of Unity, seven manipulators thirty six cycle == 252
d,2,8;b,6,12;t,9,11;b,7,7;m,4,12,0,2,jorrwwwcll;
m,3,12,270,3,ddowlcruu;m,6,10,90,2,rwcldluor;m,7,9,270,1,r2rolwwcr;
m,7,10,0,1,1lrl2olc1;m,5,7,0,2,wwwwwwdodcuodwwcuu;m,0,7,0,3,cdd1jww22w2w11ww1;
--> Sleep
10 manipulators * 15 cycles/unit = 150
p,4,10;p,10,10;b,12,7;b,7,7;b,11,5;t,13,1;t,11,1;m,1,10,0,3,ordcul;
m,5,13,180,3,crdoul;m,11,13,0,1,wwjculodr;m,13,10,180,1,wwjolucdr;
m,7,10,90,2,wwcrolclorwcrol;m,8,10,270,2,1orclorclorwclw;m,10,7,90,2,clodrrcrrl1orru;
m,4,7,90,2,clorwwwwwcl2orw;m,12,3,90,1,ll1luuodwcrdr2r;m,8,5,0,2,drcr1w11rorc1uo;
I've been unable to beat Timo's Gold though
b,4,11;b,7,9;m,1,11,90,1,cluodrwwww;m,13,11,90,1,crolwwwwww;m,11,9,90,1,wwcruodlww;m,7,11,90,1,wcroc2rorr;m,7,6,90,2,wwwcrrollw;
b,4,11;b,7,9;m,1,11,90,1,cluodrw;m,7,11,270,1,rrcr2ro;m,7,6,90,2,rrowllc;m,13,11,90,1,crolwww;m,11,9,180,1,wlcruod;
However, with 4 manipulators (1 less), you could do this, which is faster:
b,4,10;b,10,10;m,1,10,90,2,culodr;m,13,10,90,2,cdrolu;m,7,10,180,2,olclll;m,5,6,90,3,cllorr;
Or, with 3 manipulators, this:
b,10,11;m,13,11,90,1,crol;m,7,11,90,1,cul22odr;m,9,7,180,3,rorrwwcr;
Or, with 2 manipulators, this:
b,8,6;m,5,13,180,3,crorddculoulcrorw;m,5,6,270,2,l1loclorucl11ordc;
< /pridecrush>
b,4,10;m,1,10,90,2,clor;m,7,10,90,2,cdr22olu;m,6,6,90,3,crrollww;
It's the same design, but it's a little more efficient and gets the bonus for exact placement.
Currently, though, my favourite Litharge is this one I made recently:
b,1,7;m,5,13,180,3,crdordcluoulcrdolu;m,5,7,90,3,r2odlcr1olcurdolcu;
I admit it's less favorable by the criteria Timo and I decided upon, but it's still awesome.