This might need further review, as I might be confused myself. But comparing the problem statement with what I used to pass the validation tests, I’m currently in a mindset where:
The xp needed to reach the next level is ( NextLevel * Sqrt(NextLevel) * 10 ), rounded down.
…ought to be replaced with:
The xp needed to reach the next level is ( CurrentLevel * Sqrt(CurrentLevel) * 10 ), rounded down.
Ah, crap. You know, looking at my code, you’re right. How did I not catch this? My apologies. Could some CG individual please change the puzzle description as indicated? Thanks.
Unfortunately, changing the problem statement slightly lessens the joke since it no longer matches the CG formula, but it’s either that or rewrite the tests and invalidate all currently submitted solutions (12 at this writing). Sigh.
Another option is to change the verbiage to replace:
In the statement
“You’re given the current level and XP needed for BlitzProg to level up” -> “You’re given the next level BlitzProg needs to attain and the XP needed to get to that level”
In the Input
“An integer Level for the current level BlitzProg has reached” -> “An integer Level for the next level BlitzProg is working towards”
** In the output**
“The level BlitzProg has reached” -> “The next level BlitzProg is working towards”
This might be a nicer change. Thoughts?
You are right JBM, I too noticed that just after approving it - serves me right for solving it after approval. Bad Bob.
I think the simplest would be to update the statement the way JBM mentions - just replace “next level” with “current level” or “level”. For me it’s not much of a problem if it doesn’t match the actual CG formula - who bothers about that one anyway?