Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scarlet"

From Robowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(ya)
 
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
:: Yeah, definitely. Sorry this discussion got spread across two pages. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 
:: Yeah, definitely. Sorry this discussion got spread across two pages. --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
The funnest part of this robot is that it works far better then I really figured it should.
 +
 +
Nene is very good at dodging simple targeting (not to shabby vs adaptive). Where as RougeDC is very good at hitting very adaptive movement (not to shabby vs random/simple).
 +
 +
Common Wisdom dictates that these two things should balance each other out and create an overall decent robot, by making up for each others weaknesses. The awesome part is that in this case this holds entirely true. But I entirely expected the exact opposite result (as things usually go).
 +
 +
&#8212; <span style="font-family: monospace">[[User:Chase-san|Chase]]-[[User_talk:Chase-san|san]]</span> 14:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:32, 17 October 2011

Scoring above Phoenix - very impressive! Which combo is this? --Skilgannon 10:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Combination is Nene MC59k7 + RougeDC willow, and it completely surpassed our expectations. — Chase-san 10:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Scoring above Phoenix where Etna 1.4 did not, was really mostly due the gain of bullet shadows between Nene MC49k7 and MC47k7. While not doing much to APS score, the switch to the RougeDC gun really makes it... not so much of a pushover when fighting strong bots like Shadow ;) --Rednaxela 12:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

He means between MC47k7 and MC59k7 (Etna 1.4 vs Scarlet 1.0's movement versions respectively). :) — Chase-san 13:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
(Er, yep. Silly numbers getting mixed up in my head) --Rednaxela 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Strangely nostalgic for me to see Dookious drop another spot. =) Keep up the good work. --Voidious 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you run Scarlet in RoboResearch? I was going to replace SilverSurfer in my tough-matchups test bed, but I'm getting this error in every Robocode version I've tried:

Thead 0: Unrecognized output from robocode, "cs.ags.Scarlet: Got an error with this class:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Can't overwrite cause".  Killing battle.
Problem running sample match, aborting

It works fine running it in the same Robocode install used by RoboResearch, so I'm not sure what's going on. Both 1.0 and 1.1. Any insight? --Voidious 15:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Er... I have run Scarlet under RoboResearch, and it worked just fine. That's a really strange error. Also, is there not a full stack trace sent to the command line? --Rednaxela 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No stack trace. It's also "Thread 0", when normally battles are run on "1" and "2", so maybe it's in the setup phase (copying robot JARs into place and such), though that makes even less sense to me. Thanks for the feedback, I'll try and figure out what's up... --Voidious 18:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Another piece of info is I get a similar message for sample.VelociRobot on a fresh install. That's happened for a while and I always just delete the sample bots and move on. I figured it was some anomaly with un-JAR'd bots and RoboResearch... This is on the CLI, not the GUI, btw. --Voidious 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking this is caused by the "robocode.jar" issues you're having with Roboresearch on User talk:Chase-san? I know Scarlet only works on Robocode 1.7 and up, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for sample.VelociRobot (I don't think that specific sample bot existed in 1.6). --Rednaxela 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. Sorry this discussion got spread across two pages. --Voidious 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


The funnest part of this robot is that it works far better then I really figured it should.

Nene is very good at dodging simple targeting (not to shabby vs adaptive). Where as RougeDC is very good at hitting very adaptive movement (not to shabby vs random/simple).

Common Wisdom dictates that these two things should balance each other out and create an overall decent robot, by making up for each others weaknesses. The awesome part is that in this case this holds entirely true. But I entirely expected the exact opposite result (as things usually go).

Chase-san 14:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)