Record: Little Hats Big Rank

[Slender Man]

I got my fist hat at rank 1, so not me.

[aaaaaa123456789]

The record is 150rank 0 hats if you read.

That's impossible. As a matter of fact, if somebody had been macroing 24/7 since the scientifically believed date of creation of planet Earth (4.6 billion years ago), they would be as of right now rank 149, approximately halfway into 150.

[NickUAX]

When I was lvl 55, I only had 4 hats.

[fran10]

Smackdaddy is rank 53 with 3 hats.

[Lusiwang]

That's impossible. As a matter of fact, if somebody had been macroing 24/7 since the scientifically believed date of creation of planet Earth (4.6 billion years ago), they would be as of right now rank 149, approximately halfway into 150.

Why was there even a rank 150?

[*◄-DD667-►*]

I saw a rank 40 with 3 hats, once, I think. .-.

The rank 40 with 3 hats was Dark1Flamez.

[Heliοn]

The highest ranked account with 0 hats is "Nohat" rank 42

Oh cool i am gonna fold it

[Beaker]

Oh cool i am gonna fold it

I think it's undertaker's alt

[Lusiwang]

i think it's undertaker's alt

or is it?

[aaaaaa123456789]

Why was there even a rank 150?

Um... there wasn't?

[Surfyy]

I believe I saw one of those PRAccSIM accounts once, and one of them was rank 40 I think, with 3 hats.

[Vaktus]

I'm just wondering what the record is for haveing 2 hats and a high rank i remember long ago there was a record of 19

Whats the record? please tell me

I think I could make an account rank 40 with no hats just because I don't want to win any.

[Suuper]

That's impossible. As a matter of fact, if somebody had been macroing 24/7 since the scientifically believed date of creation of planet Earth (4.6 billion years ago), they would be as of right now rank 149, approximately halfway into 150.

Did you find just the right numbers to use for that? lol
What ranks were you assuming macroing with, and were you assuming perfect 2-min races, 4 exp hats, and no cowboy/DCing?
But actually, I doubt your calculation for a different reason. I suspect that at rank 86, exp required will not follow the formula: I would be VERY surprised if the number was NOT a 4-byte integer, and going from rank 86 to 87 would require, according to the formula, a larger amount of experience than a 4-byte integer can hold. Then, either it will loop and never surpass 4.2 billion exp per rank, or an error will occur. Another possibility is that when you rank up from rank 127, your rank will go to -128. (If you set the min rank for a level to 128, it will change to -128.)

However, it is definitely true that rank 150 could not have been reached (or even anywhere close to that) by perfect macro since the release of the game. So you are correct that rank 150 is impossible. And it will stay impossible for years and years if not forever.

[Surfyy]

That's impossible. As a matter of fact, if somebody had been macroing 24/7 since the scientifically believed date of creation of planet Earth (4.6 billion years ago), they would be as of right now rank 149, approximately halfway into 150.

PR2.
It's serious business.

[aaaaaa123456789]

Did you find just the right numbers to use for that? lol
What ranks were you assuming macroing with, and were you assuming perfect 2-min races, 4 exp hats, and no cowboy/DCing?
But actually, I doubt your calculation for a different reason. I suspect that at rank 86, exp required will not follow the formula: I would be VERY surprised if the number was NOT a 4-byte integer, and going from rank 86 to 87 would require, according to the formula, a larger amount of experience than a 4-byte integer can hold. Then, either it will loop and never surpass 4.2 billion exp per rank, or an error will occur. Another possibility is that when you rank up from rank 127, your rank will go to -128. (If you set the min rank for a level to 128, it will change to -128.)

However, it is definitely true that rank 150 could not have been reached (or even anywhere close to that) by perfect macro since the release of the game. So you are correct that rank 150 is impossible. And it will stay impossible for years and years if not forever.

I did calculate the experience theoretically needed for every rank up to 150 (http://jiggmin.com/showthread.php?t=71143)... you know, if overflow didn't get in the way

Anyway, yeah, you're probably right, exp is probably a 32-bit value. (Signed? Unsigned? Probably signed, but certainly doesn't make a difference.)
You're guessing that it will simply require lower EXP due to 32-bit truncation? I sincerely doubt it. Despite the formula can, in theory, be calculated using only integer math, the accuracy it's proven to have (I have yet to see it being a single point off) shows that it clearly uses floating point arithmetics -- double-precision at least (the 6.92 digits of accuracy of single-precision aren't enough). Therefore, I would guess that either an error would be thrown while converting back to integer, or that perhaps the EXP is just handled as a double-precision float (which overflows at 1.7977e+308, so good luck reaching the limit).

Also... have you really tested that levels are 8-bit signed? Because you did say something about setting min level to 128... I don't even see how that's possible.

[nopedk]

I'm saying you could. but it would take soooo long to rank without any xp boosting unless you steal hats.

You won't get rank 150 in this life time, bro.

[Suuper]

I did calculate the experience theoretically needed for every rank up to 150 (http://jiggmin.com/showthread.php?t=71143)... you know, if overflow didn't get in the way

Anyway, yeah, you're probably right, exp is probably a 32-bit value. (Signed? Unsigned? Probably signed, but certainly doesn't make a difference.)
You're guessing that it will simply require lower EXP due to 32-bit truncation? I sincerely doubt it. Despite the formula can, in theory, be calculated using only integer math, the accuracy it's proven to have (I have yet to see it being a single point off) shows that it clearly uses floating point arithmetics -- double-precision at least (the 6.92 digits of accuracy of single-precision aren't enough). Therefore, I would guess that either an error would be thrown while converting back to integer, or that perhaps the EXP is just handled as a double-precision float (which overflows at 1.7977e+308, so good luck reaching the limit).

Also... have you really tested that levels are 8-bit signed? Because you did say something about setting min level to 128... I don't even see how that's possible.

You are right that it needs decimal to be that accurate. It is possible an error would occur, but I am guessing that it would not, since there was no error when I got over 4.2 billion exp with the exp glitch on PR3 and I am assuming PR2 works the same way. (And that exp needed to rank up is handled similarly.)

I have tested that the min rank required for a level is an 8-bit integer. Does signed mean that it can go negative? If so, I have tested and it is signed. (Exp gained in PR3 is also signed, though it seems to work properly at that high numbers, so it could only show up as signed. (You CAN play a level in PR2 with a min rank of -128, so it treats it as negative.) I gained "-XXXXXXXXXX" exp but it added to my total, rather than subtracted.) As for that not being possible, you DO know I can do stuff, right?

[Lusiwang]

You won't get rank 150 in this life time, bro.

\

Macroing or robots*

[Publius]

Hatless is rank 23 with 1 hat (and also has the 2nd highest and 2nd lowest rated levels behind Eponymous).

l!l!l!l!l!l! is rank 47 with 3 hats.

GandalftheGay is rank 51 with 4 hats.

Publius1 is rank 53 with 4 hats.

[aaaaaa123456789]

\

Macroing or robots*

That's impossible. As a matter of fact, if somebody had been macroing 24/7 since the scientifically believed date of creation of planet Earth (4.6 billion years ago), they would be as of right now rank 149, approximately halfway into 150.

dot