Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:Knight/VersionHistory/APM?/reply"
m (Reply to APM?) |
m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I was tuning against AS and magically a firing wave flattener with time-since-decel and all that stuff, besides usual attributes, gave me a good result. Only thing a did different from my past attempts was to build *really* separate sets of trees. The flattener stats and the hit stats were on a single set of trees in the past. Now they are distributed over two sets, each one with a bunch of trees. Then I normalize the logged buffers (dividing by max) and weight them by something like 60%/40%. This helped me to give a proper weight to the flattener. Not sure, but I suppose you already do this. | I was tuning against AS and magically a firing wave flattener with time-since-decel and all that stuff, besides usual attributes, gave me a good result. Only thing a did different from my past attempts was to build *really* separate sets of trees. The flattener stats and the hit stats were on a single set of trees in the past. Now they are distributed over two sets, each one with a bunch of trees. Then I normalize the logged buffers (dividing by max) and weight them by something like 60%/40%. This helped me to give a proper weight to the flattener. Not sure, but I suppose you already do this. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The hard thing now will be to keep this good results without being hurt against simpler bots. I hope it is just a matter of tweaking the movement enough so that the flattener threshold is not hit that often. And well, close-rangers, I can handle them separately in the future. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:24, 7 November 2017
Thank you!
I was tuning against AS and magically a firing wave flattener with time-since-decel and all that stuff, besides usual attributes, gave me a good result. Only thing a did different from my past attempts was to build *really* separate sets of trees. The flattener stats and the hit stats were on a single set of trees in the past. Now they are distributed over two sets, each one with a bunch of trees. Then I normalize the logged buffers (dividing by max) and weight them by something like 60%/40%. This helped me to give a proper weight to the flattener. Not sure, but I suppose you already do this.
The hard thing now will be to keep this good results without being hurt against simpler bots. I hope it is just a matter of tweaking the movement enough so that the flattener threshold is not hit that often. And well, close-rangers, I can handle them separately in the future.
