Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dookious"
m (fix some word) |
(the point of 1.60 - energy management experiment) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Beautiful word cloud! So, what is more, double or public? » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | Beautiful word cloud! So, what is more, double or public? » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Not sure. =) I'll have to re-run it and check the counts. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | I know I lost a lot of points with 1.60, but check out that wicked survival score. =) Over 95%! The change was one I was working on a couple weeks ago. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It uses my old, hand-crafted energy management for the first 200 shots (~5 rounds), then switches to a formulaic energy management system that tries to maximize energy differential. I track my own hit percentage and the raw odds of hitting (i.e., what [[Random Targeting]] would get) for all shots. This gives me a way of projecting an (hopefully accurate) expected hit percentage for any situation (since calculating RT odds is easy) at any bullet power. So I test the return on all increments of .01 and choose the best. Optionally (and enabled in this version), if it's a negative return, I don't shoot at all. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of course, Robocode scoring is not purely [[Survivalist]], so I knew there was an inherent problem with this. But I was having trouble coming up with another way of doing it. Any time I'm obviously going to win the round anyway, maximizing damage differential isn't helping my survival score, and I'm better off racking up bullet damage instead. Maybe I'll tinker with that. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:38, 14 May 2009
Beautiful word cloud! So, what is more, double or public? » Nat | Talk » 02:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure. =) I'll have to re-run it and check the counts. --Voidious 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I know I lost a lot of points with 1.60, but check out that wicked survival score. =) Over 95%! The change was one I was working on a couple weeks ago.
It uses my old, hand-crafted energy management for the first 200 shots (~5 rounds), then switches to a formulaic energy management system that tries to maximize energy differential. I track my own hit percentage and the raw odds of hitting (i.e., what Random Targeting would get) for all shots. This gives me a way of projecting an (hopefully accurate) expected hit percentage for any situation (since calculating RT odds is easy) at any bullet power. So I test the return on all increments of .01 and choose the best. Optionally (and enabled in this version), if it's a negative return, I don't shoot at all.
Of course, Robocode scoring is not purely Survivalist, so I knew there was an inherent problem with this. But I was having trouble coming up with another way of doing it. Any time I'm obviously going to win the round anyway, maximizing damage differential isn't helping my survival score, and I'm better off racking up bullet damage instead. Maybe I'll tinker with that.
--Voidious 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
