does bin smoothing make guns better or worse

Jump to navigation Jump to search

does bin smoothing make guns better or worse

Edited by author.
Last edit: 13:25, 21 November 2013

can someone tell me if bin smoothing makes guns radar movement better or worse

Tmservo (talk)05:52, 21 November 2013

It doesn't do much for guns, but it helps a lot for wave surfing.

Skilgannon (talk)07:17, 21 November 2013

In movement, Bin Smoothing helps bots dodge bullets with a margin of safety.

In radar, why would you use bins?

In guns, Bin Smoothing helps spot crowds in melee/team if combined with swarm targeting. In 1v1 I don't see any use.

MN (talk)01:52, 23 November 2013

see even the pros learn when they post about stuff

Tmservo (talk)04:18, 23 November 2013

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You must confirm your email address before editing pages. Please set and validate your email address through your user preferences.

You can view and copy the source of this page.

Return to Thread:User talk:Tmservo/does bin smoothing make guns better or worse/reply (4).

Instead of applying methods of estimating the correct amounts of bin smoothing, people tend to switch to kernel density and tune the kernel function. There was a lot of discussion about the best kernel function and the best function width. The optimal changes for each opponent and some kind of averaging is needed, which is usually estimated through genetic tuning.

In guns, smoothing usually has no effect because you don't need to estimate the PDF, you only need to find the peak. But when you superpose many PDFs together (swarm targeting), things change.

MN (talk)01:51, 25 November 2013

Estimating the PDF can still a useful component of finding the peak when not superimposing things, particular when the density of observations is sufficiently low. The main reasons you don't see much effect in targeting is that the usual bin sizes inherently act similar to a certain amount of smoothing anyway, and for targeting you have a larger number of observations than movement which reduces the amount of smoothing that makes sense as well. Consider what happens when your bins are significantly smaller than what is typical without any additional smoothing. (A targeting system that accounts for botwidth also reduces the amount of smoothing that makes sense, but that's a bit of a different matter)

Rednaxela (talk)14:41, 25 November 2013

For me two things make smoothing more useful in movement than in targeting:

  1. Movement needs to estimate probability at arbitrary points, instead of a single peak, so the location the probability is required at isn't related to where data is available.
  2. Movement has much less data than targeting, so smoothing is needed to fill in gaps in knowledge.

Theoretically smoothing might help in targeting, but all my testing has shown that a simple square kernel works just as well or better, while running many times faster.

I've also considered something like Kalman filters, but they are Unimodal which doesn't work for targeting or movement at all. Perhaps particle filters, although the histogram filters we have right now in VCS also work pretty well.

Skilgannon (talk)22:07, 25 November 2013

re: why in movement, agreed 100%.

With WaveSim, I've tested different kernel densities (effectively smoothing formulas) in my main gun over a huge data set. There were differences, but IIRC on the order of thousandths of a percent in hit percentage (eg 12.004% vs 12.002%). Not sure of the margin of error, either... 5k battles * ~25k ticks = millions of records, and both algorithms were running on the same data set.

Voidious (talk)01:56, 26 November 2013