(no subject)

[theweaselking]

I hate SpaceChem because I'm bad at it. My solutions are rarely elegant - I tend to brute-force the solutions and the results are ugly-but-functional, with worse than average use of cycles and components. I tend to do pretty well on number of reactors, but that's it.

And my problem is, I look online to see HOW people are getting such good numbers, and I HATE THEM because their solutions are so neat.

Take this dude: I was stuck managing my last connection to get the right modules on a challenge mission, so I looked to see how other people had done it.

And this guy BUILT A COMPUTER OUT OF SPACECHEM.

Top-ranked comment is 'I clicked "Like" because YouTube lacks a "My Head Just Exploded" button.' and that's just about right.


This game is awesome, and I am TERRIBLE at it.

Comments

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

........*

[thornae.livejournal.com]

I concur with everything in this post.


I really wish I was being paid for the time I've spent trying to implement a solution that seemed awfully neat in my head, and turned out to be utterly impossible...

[dscotton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it is a really hard game. I didn't get all that far... it was interesting, but felt a lot like work. I like that they give you a comparison of your solution in terms of time and complexity (number of elements used) compared to other people playing the game. Mine were usually pretty close to the most efficient end of the graph, but a lot of the time they felt pretty hacky.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a hard game to *do*, I think it's a hard game to do *really well*.

And wow, there are people on the intertubes who are damn good at it. And it makes me sad.

[secretagentmoof]

It brings back memories of having to design finite state machines for godawful boring CS classes in college.