Difference between revisions of "Talk:RetroGirl/Gun"
Skilgannon (talk | contribs) m (a bit of congrats in order =) - i was so curious i forgot...) |
(thanks =) reply) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Awesome concept - and probably one of the better uses for a high-speed gun testing scheme as well. I see you've given values for HOT, your static decision tree and Diamond's gun, but how about a few other common ones like circular, linear, random-linear etc? I'd be curious to see where DrussGT's 'fire linear before there are waves' technique holds up. --[[User:Skilgannon|Skilgannon]] 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | Awesome concept - and probably one of the better uses for a high-speed gun testing scheme as well. I see you've given values for HOT, your static decision tree and Diamond's gun, but how about a few other common ones like circular, linear, random-linear etc? I'd be curious to see where DrussGT's 'fire linear before there are waves' technique holds up. --[[User:Skilgannon|Skilgannon]] 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hey thanks! =) It does leverage WaveSim quite well - a height=9 tree goes through 1000 battles in ~30 seconds on my laptop (both cores, loading data from a RAM disk). Yes, I've also been quite curious about those comparisons... Unfortunately, WaveSim is so "wave" that I don't even have enough data in my current data sets to do LT or CT with bounds checking (I need to store enemy direction or absolute heading), and I hadn't gotten around to butchering the battle simulation to let me deduce it on the fly yet. I just did and got: | ||
| + | * 16.06 with LT from [[WaveSurfingChallengeBotB]] | ||
| + | * 16.3 with a randomized LT, multiplier = (1 - (Math.random() * Math.random())) | ||
| + | * 16.71 with CT from [[WaveSurfingChallengeBotC]] | ||
| + | * 16.48 with a randomized CT, multiplier = (1 - (Math.random() * Math.random())) | ||
| + | So I'm only getting slightly better than CT right now, which I don't find too surprising. Hopefully I can still improve it a bit further. I'm also going to test using the tree for the first 1/2/3/... shots before switching to Diamond's main gun and try to find out what's optimal there. So far, using it for up to 5 shots [http://darkcanuck.net/rumble/RatingsCompare?game=roborumble&name=voidious.Diamond%201.5.36&vs=voidious.Diamond%201.5.34 isn't looking too promising], though there are some unlucky results still there too. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 07:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:02, 16 March 2011
Awesome concept - and probably one of the better uses for a high-speed gun testing scheme as well. I see you've given values for HOT, your static decision tree and Diamond's gun, but how about a few other common ones like circular, linear, random-linear etc? I'd be curious to see where DrussGT's 'fire linear before there are waves' technique holds up. --Skilgannon 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks! =) It does leverage WaveSim quite well - a height=9 tree goes through 1000 battles in ~30 seconds on my laptop (both cores, loading data from a RAM disk). Yes, I've also been quite curious about those comparisons... Unfortunately, WaveSim is so "wave" that I don't even have enough data in my current data sets to do LT or CT with bounds checking (I need to store enemy direction or absolute heading), and I hadn't gotten around to butchering the battle simulation to let me deduce it on the fly yet. I just did and got:
- 16.06 with LT from WaveSurfingChallengeBotB
- 16.3 with a randomized LT, multiplier = (1 - (Math.random() * Math.random()))
- 16.71 with CT from WaveSurfingChallengeBotC
- 16.48 with a randomized CT, multiplier = (1 - (Math.random() * Math.random()))
So I'm only getting slightly better than CT right now, which I don't find too surprising. Hopefully I can still improve it a bit further. I'm also going to test using the tree for the first 1/2/3/... shots before switching to Diamond's main gun and try to find out what's optimal there. So far, using it for up to 5 shots isn't looking too promising, though there are some unlucky results still there too. --Voidious 07:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
