My initial reaction is: it's not giving me the piece I want. It's trying to force you to clear individual lines as soon as it is possible to do so. But in real Tetris, you want to clear four lines at a time to get double score, which may mean withholding a line clear when you could have done one.
Consider this replay:
హටເח௨ඞܗТۑටܢݹ௫੬ຽߢ௧ලບঅযلЈǶ
It ends by giving me nothing but S pieces, because it wants me to take the single line clear. It won't stop giving S pieces until I do so. In actuality, any other piece would be preferable; there are available spots for all of them, and I can build up to a Tetris. But with the S piece, my only options are to sacrifice the Tetris for the single line clear, or create a hole in my stack.
It depends on the implementation of course, but clearing 4 lines at once usually brings a huge amount of points. For example, NES version at the first "level" (slowest speed):
It also increases the speed every 10 lines, so you want to plan accordingly for maximum score. You can get above that first level with either 400 points or 3600.
In modern ("guideline") tetris T-spins multiline clears tend to actually be the most point-garnering moves. It's a bit weird that the game named tetris went that way but oh well.
"Tetra" isn't completely unknown in English but perhaps the link is more obvious to Russian-speakers (the original author was Russian)? Is четыре/chetyre a cognate of Greek-derived tetra?
That is fascinating! In particular, base2048 was designed after twitter adjusted the tweet limit to 280 characters, but started counting “heavy” codepoints as double, making the previously used base65536 less efficient in the context of a tweet.
I think the reason is just that it isn't widely used. It's a very niche use-case, anyway. Even link-shorteners don't particularly benefit from something like this, and for all cases where the actual amount of data is concerned, simple base64 is more efficient.
I tried to see if I could stack a tetris. Made a 3 wide well, the game would give me L pieces to fill in the single line. Which made it pretty easy to stack up. At some point it gave me a single I piece, which I put in the middle of the 3 deep well. I would either get more I pieces or an L piece which I put in the well, the game would proceed to give me I pieces.
I think to make this a fun-ish experience would be to have the screen start filled with mostly garbage and holes and then have the the 'AI' lovingly send you the appropriate pieces to clean up the mess... I tried this by purposely messing the board and then going ahead with the game and I found it quite pleasant. Another idea would be to have it 'normal' until you got in trouble and then it would lovetris you back to health.
In a way, I got just as frustrated (well maybe not _as_ frustrated) as playing hatetris, because I couldn't easily make 4 line combos. That is, until I managed to set up endless straight pieces and stack the rest of the board save that one slot.
This version didn't exist until GistNoesis flipped the sign, so no, it's not.
This gets to a larger philosophy of open source: we should encourage people to fork when they want to iterate on someone else's work, however minor that iteration may be. This is open source working as intended.
If you take something that took hours to build and (as is claimed) spend 1 minute modifying it, you absolutely have no right to claim it’s “by” you. I think everyone except you agrees on that.
Well they also changed the name, so this new concept of Lovetris is by the new author, even if the code to make it possible is not. Lots of references to the old work as well, similar distribution (e.g. not paid), etc. If I was the author of Hatetris I'd be happy for this version!
Is that a serious argument? If you write a techno song, and I take it, turn up the BPM and publish it as “by me”, would it help my case that I also changed the name of the song?
But in more seriousness, a song is normally quite distinguishable from another song than a tetris implementation from another tetris implementation. Conceptually, having a normal tetris vs having a tetris give you the worst solution (hatris) is the same jump as having a normal tetris vs having a tetris give you the best solution (lovetris). IMHO it's not the code itself what makes a "new thing new", it's the concept behind it.
I completely disagree. I made a hatetris myself (called Lövetris) once, spent a good 20 hours on it. If someone took it, flipped a sign (or even re-skinned it) and published it as “by” them I’d be furious.
Yes, the product would be different, but 99.9% (literally) of the work would still be mine. The hard part is building the app, not changing a parameter. I wouldn’t even call that a “remix”.
That seems the opposite of open source thinking, which might be why you didn't published it and why you think that way. As an open source author myself I see this as a fair move. Just different opinions :)
"The hard part is building the app, not changing a parameter" that really depends, why didn't you take an open source implementation yourself and built on top of it? Then it wouldn't be "as hard", would it? If you want to go the hard road that's totally fine, but it's not fair to say that because you go that road you deserve something that someone else got easier using pre-existing technology. Also there's literally dozens of famous examples in science and medicine when the hard part is changing a parameter and saving millions of lives.
Also, I’m not saying it’s a problem to tweak someone’s open source project, I only take issue with presenting it as your own, with such a minimal change.
I don’t know if there are open source hatetris available, but in my case it was an assignment so that wasn’t an option.
If i build something from scratch it doesn’t really matter that it “could have been” built on open source. And in any case, it might be perfectly legal and in accordance with the license to do what OP did, I’m just saying it’s bad form. Making a minor tweak doesn’t make it “by you”. It just doesn’t.
And this is not medicine and lovetris doesn’t save any lives, so I’m bot sure it’s relevant.
Good idea! If more thought hypothetically about the consequences of various licenses I think it would be a good thing.
In retrospect some of my projects might have more liberal WTFPL on them where I really don't care if someone else said they did it, but others I would want more recognition and more copy left for their changes. (I think some of my bigger projects side with the copy left and the smaller with the liberal.)
Well, you've been given an example that contradicts your "thinking", so either your "thinking" was unknowingly incorrect, or you now choose to believe something that is patently false.
The TeX license requires you to change the name of you change a single byte.
> All of the methods described in these books are in the public domain; thus anybody can freely use any of the ideas. The only thing I'm retaining control of is the names, TeX and METAFONT: products that go by this name are obliged to conform to the standard. If any changes are made, I won't complain, as long as the changed systems are not called TeX or METAFONT.
I didn't downvote you, but I want to clarify what's going on because I know it sucks to get down voted with explanation.
The reason you're getting so many down votes is because you made strong claims in a harsh tone that turned out to be false in a trivially verifiable manner. The intent there is that you should've verified your claim through and through before attributing a misdeed to someone who simply sought to share something they thought was cool to make with others.
I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.
The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.
This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.
[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]
Legally though, just because one person's proprietary work relies upon another person's proprietary work, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes open source or public domain.
Honestly I’m not surprised. The prior work could be argued as being fair use of the Tetris copyright. It certainly isn’t stealing any market from any official licensed Tetris products or services. Morally, I can find it very easily defensible.
This “Lovetris” work is a blatant copying and republishing of someone else’s proprietary work effort with no permission. Morally, I don’t see this as an egregious abuse, but I can see why this community would object to someone not acting in the spirit of open source licensing.
I decided I would rather have the AI on my side so I forked the site and flipped a sign.
If your life feels like Hatetris, Lovetris will bring you comfort.
Enjoy :)