Multiply wave suffering

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision as of 23 November 2011 at 07:53.
The highlighted comment was created in this revision.

Multiply wave suffering

I have implemented multiply wave surfing, but my local tests shows only +0.17 APS. Then i have search TOP-20 bot's version history to find out another's gains, but there're only 2 bot's has relatively accurate records
Wintermute

0.2: APS:83.19 PL:1366 - 699 pairings

    Added HOT and LT to the weighting schemes (acts as pre-loaded HOT and LT shots)
    Changed the weighting system to give the most accurate scheme all the score, the others 0 (with a rolling average, so it evens out)
    Now surfs the second wave, and differently I believe than to other TrueSurfing algorithms: at each tick along the second wave I check what the danger would be if I decelerated at that point, and then take the minimum danger of all those decelerations, as well as continuing, as the actual danger. Also, the second wave is weighted equally to the first. (This may be changed at a later date.)
    Takes ram damage into account for enemy energy drop 

0.1: APS:82.92 PL:1350 - 698 pairings 

Garm

V. 0.6i: rank: 33 PL-rank: 24 rating: 1944.58 date: 04.01.2007

    fixed movement bug (introduced in V. 0.6f)
    now surfs the first two waves
    moves some degrees away form the enemy instead of staying perpendicular 

V. 0.6h: rank: 47 PL-rank: 37 rating: 1891.7 date: 24.12.2006

So question is "Is +0.17 APS gain corresponds to multiply WS or there're still bugs or room for improvements in my implementation"?

    Jdev10:11, 22 November 2011

    For GresSuffurd this was a long time ago, but it has reasonable reliable stats between 0.1.8 and 0.2.1. Difference is 18 ELO-points which is almost 1 full APS-point. Note that at that time the only surfingattribute was lateral velocity, and no-one had heard from precise prediction.

    0.2.1 (20070117) member of The2000Club 
    gun: GV 0.2.2 move: WS 0.1.5 
    Rating: 2000 (21nd), PL: 448-40 (37th) 
    bugfix weighting of waves 
    0.2.0 (20070114) 
    gun: GV 0.2.2 move: WS 0.1.4 
    Rating: 1992 (22nd), PL: 444-43 (38th) 
    removed nearwall segmentation 
    also evaluate second wave 
    0.1.9 (20070102) 
    gun: GV 0.2.2 move: WS 0.1.3 
    Rating: 1980 (23nd), PL: 439-43 (40th) 
    segment movement also on nearwall (3 segments) 
    0.1.8 (20061212) 
    gun: GV 0.2.2 move: WS 0.1.2
    Rating: 1982 (22nd), PL: 436-44 (41st)  
      GrubbmGait14:22, 22 November 2011
       

      Chalk also gained a lot of points in v2.5 (oldwiki:Chalk/VersionHistory) - I think about 50 ELO points, based on some chatter on Chalk/Archived Talk. There were multiple changes, but he attributed it mostly to changing his multiple wave surfing from a very basic approach to more like what I do in my bots.

      This has come up a few times lately, so maybe I should release a one-wave version of Diamond or Dookious to the rumble and see where it ends up...

        Voidious16:38, 22 November 2011
         

        I think I only gained maybe a quarter APS point from my multi-wave surfing. I'm planning on going back and working on it more in the future sometime -- first, to just verify what difference it currently makes, and then to see if I can improve it. I'm also curious how much of a difference multi-wave surfing makes in true surfing vs go-to surfing. My drive is of the go-to variety, though it may change it's mind once or twice per wave depending on the changing battlefield conditions.

          Skotty17:18, 22 November 2011
           

          I think that using bullet shadows is the cause that second wave evaluation has less impact than it used to have. The infuence of bullet shadows is that big that second wave differences are just marginal.

            GrubbmGait17:26, 22 November 2011

            But i think, that Diamond and DrussGT get ~1 APS from multiply WaveSurfing and ~1 APS from Bullet Shadows. I want to get 2 APS from this things too:)

              Jdev08:53, 23 November 2011
               

              Thanks for all for response

                Jdev06:54, 23 November 2011