Talk:Diamond/DiamondHawk

BulletPower

Hmm.. I just noticed that DiamondHawk has an unusually low survival percent for it's score. So I wonder, does this mean the core targeting of Diamond is better than the DiamondHawk test indicates, but the bulletpower is suboptimal, or does it mean that Diamond's core targeting wasn't that great at the time of DiamondHawk but most other bots of similar score are too conservative with their BulletPower. I'm pretty sure one of the two is true and it brings up an interesting question I think... --Rednaxela 19:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, and it will be tough to figure out since the gun fundamentally changed after DiamondHawk 1.0. The DH 1.0 gun is definitely pretty weak (which is why I immediately followed it with gun work), but I thought the energy management was decent, and I'd found points there in the 1.24* versions. Unrelated, but I think the current gun has a lot of room for improvement via simple tweaks to bullet power and gun dimensions, since I haven't tweaked that stuff at all since getting my Shadow/Melee Gun working right (I think we need a term for this). --Voidious 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are many points in tweaking the bullet power, what you gain in bullet damage you lose in survival, and vice versa. About a term for Shadow/Melee Gun, how about swarm targeting? --ABC 23:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to get a few points out of bullet power by making smart choices, like firing closer to power 3 when the enemy's particularly close, or firing less powerful shots if you're very low on health, or firing with no more power than is needed to kill the enemy. -- Synapse 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Swarm targeting... It reminds me of Area Targeting =) I think Polyenemy Targeting would fit better (or Multienemy/Omnienemy targeting). » Nat | Talk » 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about 'Density Targeting'?--Skilgannon 09:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is oldwiki:AreaTargeting, just a variant with angular sections like Chase-San suggested there, and often times with fancy prediction integrated in. --Rednaxela 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be Area Targeting, but I don't think the term 'Area' fit well. Perhaps 'Density-based Angular Area targeting'? » Nat | Talk » 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly a similar spirit to Area Targeting, but I think it's advanced enough beyond the original AT to warrant its own term. I think "Density" and "Swarm" are pretty good, though the latter reminds me of Swarm intelligence, which is kind of an opposite idea. Another possibility could be "Shadow Gun"... then both ABC's bots would have guns named after them. =) --Voidious 14:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"ABC's Gun"? » Nat | Talk » 14:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Those seem fine to me, except "ABC's gun" seems to general (and in that case Tron's gun would probablyl be better). I think I'd call it... Overlayed DynamicClustering. Like normally you cluster on several headings to one enemy, and now you first overlay those with headings to other opponents. --Positive 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on "Overlayed Dynamic Clusteringl". It can be use with GF/VCS too. » Nat | Talk » 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds slightly awkward, but I think the best description would be Future Density Targeting, because we aim at where we think the densest overlap of 'futures' is. Huh, this is starting to sound like a stockmarket =) --Skilgannon 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to propose Future Radial Density Targeting though that gets even more awkward. Or, perhaps since "Future" is implied in most targeting methods, maybe it should just be Radial Density Targeting? --Rednaxela 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)