Talk:Diamond
I can't believed it, it almost the same thing I'm doing in my TheRiver! (I have the ideas about displacement vector, but never known that it is called displacement vector) Anyway, nicely done! Here are my result that I just ran if you want (EDIT: more, and the debugging graphics is the exactly same as one I'm creating)
The one problem of this robot is lack of one-on-one performance (or you will never see 9 2nds). I saw it lost to Shadow and Phoenix a lot.
» Nat | Talk » 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| Rank | Name | Score | Surv. | Bonus | Bullet Dmg. | Bonus | Ram | Bonus | 1st | 2nd | 3rd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | voidious.Diamond 1.0 | 14361 (13%) | 10850 | 540 | 2807 | 164 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 5 |
| 2nd | abc.Shadow 3.83c | 13453 (12%) | 10100 | 630 | 2633 | 89 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 5 |
| 3rd | rz.Aleph 0.34 | 12804 (12%) | 9600 | 270 | 2861 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 4th | abc.Tron 2.02 | 12261 (11%) | 8450 | 630 | 3052 | 127 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
| 5th | kawigi.mini.Coriantumr 1.1 | 11909 (11%) | 450 | 360 | 2998 | 101 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 6th | florent.XSeries.X2 0.7 | 9472 (9%) | 695 | 90 | 2349 | 84 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| 7th | ags.surreptitious.MiniSurreptitious 0.0.1 | 9411 (9%) | 6550 | 0 | 2785 | 68 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| 8th | tzu.TheArtOfWar 1.2 | 9240 (9%) | 6750 | 90 | 2355 | 42 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 9th | abc.tron3.Tron 3.11 | 8050 (7%) | 5400 | 360 | 2245 | 42 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 10th | davidalves.Phoenix 1.02 | 7443 (7%) | 5550 | 180 | 1679 | 32 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Not so bad... 6th place. Lost to Mellaris, Shadow, Tron and Aleph. But it used to win them in battle full of top melee bots! » Nat | Talk » 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't focused on the 1v1 movement much yet, because it doesn't matter as much as other things and I don't want to get distracted by it. (There's no hiding what a 1v1 nut I've been so far in my Robocode career.) But the 1v1 performance is pretty decent, I think it's mainly that the gun has trouble hitting surfers (no accounting for firing waves or gun heat yet). --Voidious 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Decent? It's very strong in 1v1! It's 1v1 pairings are nearly complete and it's sitting in 11th place. Though... it does get beat by the top mirror-bot in the rumble :)
Man... all these new bots are not only topping RougeDC which used to be in 12th, but are also causing shifts in ranking of old bots so they're now above RougeDC... damn... I really got to get my new stuff out of the garage to join in on this fun! --Rednaxela 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! The gun doesn't segment on firing waves or gun heat or anything, so it's not a huge surprise that a mirror movement that is reacting to bullet fire ('cause I'm surfing) works well against it. What kind of gun is on PolishedRuby? And why is there no page anywhere for it? --Voidious 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- PolishedRuby is just the gun of the latest RougeDC version, on top of a basic 'goto location' based mirror movement, with very slight alterations to energy management. No page for it because 1) Not much to say about it 2) I'm lazy. Diamond is the highest ranking bot I can see that it beats I think, so it shows well how Diamond's gun is notably lacking (in 1v1) against it's own surfing movement. Of course, I'm considering making a second version of PolishedRuby, which mirror's the enemy's firepower and firing time as well... that might demonstrate it even more clearly... ;) --Rednaxela 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow -- takes me over a year to make a decent gun and you churn out a brand new top melee and 1v1 bot in what, a month or less? --Darkcanuck 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but that's so not a fair comparison. =) Basing anything off the Dookious movement would yield a really nice rating in 1v1, and I've got plenty of experience with DC and Minimum Risk Movement from Lukious and BrokenSword. --Voidious 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It lost to a LOT of surfer, count from lowest score: Phoenix, Dookious, Ascendent, RougeDC, CassiusClay, Chalk, Shadow, YersiniaPestis, Gauss, DrussGT, Garm, WeeksOnEnd, Hyperion, LifelongObsession, CunobelinDC, MathcupAGF (not a surfer actually) and PolishedRuby (mirror, as Rednaxela mentioned) Perhaps some weight on firing scan will make you score better. » Nat | Talk » 16:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't remind me, I'm trying not to focus on 1v1 here... :-P --Voidious 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll give you some time before I resume working on a melee bot :-D Seriously, nice work! And it seems strong in 1v1 too! Are you also using your displacement targeting in 1v1? Or do you switch to regular GFs? --Skilgannon 16:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I also use the displacement targeting in 1v1, getting about 87 in the TCRM right now (full results soon). One point of note is that I invert the vectors depending on the enemy's orbit direction, just like GFs, but I calculate orbit direction relative to the bot closest to the target (whether that's Diamond or another enemy). In 1v1, it's probably not acting much different than GuessFactors, but in Melee, I think it should work better than GFs. If nothing else, it seems far more "right" to me. I was actually considering "wall smoothing" the vectors instead of throwing out ones that would end up off the battlefield, then it would act even more like GFs. ;) --Voidious 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Awesome (re)entrance you made in melee! You and justin really shake up that rusty top-10 there. Seems that in melee the gun is more important than in one-on-one. Maybe it is time to say farewell to my old CT-gun . . . --GrubbmGait 17:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was surprised how much the gun mattered in Melee. I had it in my head that HoT is OK in Melee because of bots like HawkOnFire. This is partly true, of course. But I developed the basic movement first using only HoT, and when I upgraded the gun, the performance in my test beds shot up dramatically. --Voidious 17:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Just asking quick, does this robot select enemy or do the thing like the one describe at Shadow/ShadowsMeleeGun? » Nat | Talk » 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, nothing like that. I actually don't remember ever seeing that page. Maybe I'll save that idea for when I run into a wall with other improvements. Which might be soon. =) --Voidious 14:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Congrats with going up to 7th in melee (again)! I'm guessing all those red arrows probably have something to do with it. :) --Positive 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the red arrow present the vector of the displacement vector? » Nat | Talk » 11:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I actually have no idea what caused it. =) I've just been working on the gun for 1v1. The red arrows are just some new graphical debugging in the gun, indicating the firing angles for the most similar situations. The yellow arrow is the chosen firing angle, and the yellow line through the yellow arrow indicates the "bandwidth" used in the kernel density estimator. --Voidious 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since you said you want these things pointed out to you Nat, "don't you?" would probably be more correct than "ain't you?" in this case I believe. The words "gain the last survivor bonus" behave as a verb, which means it's a matter of "do" or "do not". Well the wikipedia article does say that "ain't" is sometimes used for "do not" in some dialects, but I'd call that a rather obscure and that "don't" would make more sense. --Rednaxela 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the 1v1 changes can help in Melee, but I've had a lot of 1v1 improvement already and not much of it helped the Melee rating. My best guess is that one of my gun fixes just affected Melee way more than I realized it would... --Voidious 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
--Rednaxela 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Nice stuff Voidious! Hm, thinking about this just made my realize that my new surfing code I'm about to begin could also work as a good codebase to build melee movement on. Hopefully I can catch up to this melee activity, because even after I get that movement working I'll need to get a working melee gun since my past guns wouldn't work at all. Nice debugging graphics too btw :) --Rednaxela 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You mean you actually watch battles with interesting new bots/versions? Last time I did that was . . . eh . . years ago. Did you notice btw that in the last few months 4 bots passed the old nr 4 Tron 2.02, which held that place for, well, years? Time to convert my ideas for GraafDracula to real code, so I can take advantage of the momentum and enter the top-3. ;-) --GrubbmGait 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. =) That Melee top 3 has been the same since I started Robocoding, so I think we all have some catching up to do. :-P If you start work on the Melee movement, you can add simple radar, target selection, and power=3 Head-On Targeting and do surprisingly well. Early dev versions of Diamond were like that. From there, working on the gun and the Wave Surfing was very fun and familiar.
- And I hear you, GrubbmGait. I've watched some battles recently and I find myself thinking stuff like, "whoah, DrussGT is yellow?" =) --Voidious 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Woah 6th place! And you made your survival rate a lot higher. Damn, what are you doing to that thing? :) --Positive 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- 1.241 through 1.243 have just been changes to bullet power. It's always amusing how the simplest stuff can be worth so many points. =) 1.242 actually had even better survival, but less rating points, so I made it a bit more aggressive in 1.243. I was actually getting pretty discouraged until 1.24... I had barely improved melee performance since 1.0. But now I'm excited and thinking of some new ideas to try. =) --Voidious 01:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice stuff Voidious! Mm... bullet power... I wonder how the adaptive bullet power techniques I used in RougeDC will apply in melee. All this excitement is making me want to stay up very late tonight working on my new melee engine... If only I didn't have to wake up for work tomorrow :) --Rednaxela 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Congrats, 4th place now! I'm very curious what you changed this time. :) --Positive 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
