I Googled it. Nobody else has made this sequence up before. So it's mine. I'm naming it after me. You heard it here first.I call it NAL's Double Cross Sequence, and it goes like follows:5, 21, 45, 105, 405, 525, 945, 945, 2205... (as far as I've calculated).And the description I've given this sequence is as follows:For each term t[n], t[n] is the lowest number of squares that can be arranged into n different cross shapes with rotational symmetry of order 4.Or in mathematical terms:For each term t[n], t[n] is the lowest solution to n=w²+4(w*h), where w and h are positive integers, which can be expressed with n different pairs of w and h values.Or in image terms:That's a graphic representation of t, or 21. You can arrange 21 squares into two different cross (or plus) patterns which have branches of equal thickness and length. For the formula w²+4(w*h), the thin, large cross has a width of 1 and a height of 5 (counting only squares used beyond the central "square"), and for the stubby chubby one, a width of 3 and a length of 1.1²+4(1*5) = 1+4(5) = 1+20 = 213²+4(3*1) = 9+4(3) = 9+12 = 21I've taken to calling 21 the first Double Cross number for that reason. 33 is the second one (1,8 and 3,2). The lowest even Double Cross number is 60 (2,7 and 6,1).The first Triple Cross number is 45 (1,5; 3,3; 5,1) and the first Quadruple Cross number is 105 (1,26; 3,10; 5,6; 7,2). The first Cross number outright is 5, which is simply a width of 1 and a length of 1.The one choice I made in defining the actual sequence was that the chosen number could contain MORE than n sets of widths and lengths. This is why 945 is both term 7 and 8 in the sequence - it can be written in 8 different ways, but there are no smaller numbers that can be written in exactly 7 different ways - 2025 is the smallest case.What purpose does this serve? None that I can tell. Hooray for casual mathematics! But it's neat how the sequence works - that the differences between terms can fluctuate, even being 0 in some cases. And how it's (I would assume) totally possible for a term to be even, but they tend to be odd every time. Even the divisibility by 5, and even 105 - I'm not mathsy enough to explain it, but I like it.If you want to tit around with it further, here is a copy of the Excel spreadsheet I used to calculate the first nine terms of NAL's Double Cross Sequence. Sheet1 contains the raw values for pairs w,l, and Sheet2 contains the quantities of appearances of given numbers. You'll need to expand Sheet1 in both directions to get accurate readings in an expanded Sheet2, but it's all formulaed up!
Each month I used to make games, two or threeExperimental nature were their themeBut now burnout has come and tackled meThat frequency is merely now a dreamIn part it’s since I now make games full timeThough no control I earn a salaryI’ve no complaint, the feeling’s quite sublimeThat Lemmings guys could think something of meIt isn’t like my idea pool is dryI’ve got enough for three lifetimes or moreYet I can’t seem to even try to tryTo make a game to pass Innoquous 4So here’s a final note, it’s to my brainEngage yourself or I will go insane! :|
Ha! Got your attention!But seriously, I do actually like it. No, I'm not trying to be different. I'm not trying to separate myself from the group of two types of people - those that dislike the new logo, and those that are following the crowd and just saying they don't really like it. I genuinely like it. Why?It's professional. Bullshit to anyone that says otherwise. It is. It looks a little childish, yes, but it's not unprofessional. It's very well made.It suits the target audience, as stated by YoYo Games and Mark Overmars. Game Maker pitches itself as an easy game development platform. Most people that use the program don't evolve their skills past games that use the simplest D&D actions and the resource sprites. Game Maker's popular in schools and even universities as an introductory tool into the world of coding. That is what it is pitched as. The new logo shows this off perfectly. Yes, it can be used for advanced games written entirely in the program's coding language. Yes, many people don't acknowledge this. But the logo shows off what the program is designed for.It's better than the ball and hammer. It's newer, it's nicer looking, it's shinier, it's more modern. It looks like a tool for today's program, not for one from 1999.The logo's haters haven't done themselves any favours in my opinion. The juvenile threats to stop using the program or to boycott the use of the new logo are stupid. The online petitions were an overreaction which Sandy Duncan, YoYo Games CEO, then capitalised on by publicising - that's thousands of people that have just learnt about Game Maker through the "Recent Activity" box on the petition site. Note - I don't have anything against people expressing their opinion if they do it maturely. I respect those that managed to express negativity to the icon's design without having a tantrum.Just to cap it off - it's not a big deal, YYG are still going to get my £20 when they release the final version of the program, and I stand by my opinion. If you want to disagree, you know where the comments go.Game-wise, I've nothing at the moment that's getting my serious attention. That's all on that matter.So, yeah. NAL out!