Code center > Suggestions

New Cost coming in 2.42.2

<< < (2/5) > >>

EricL:

--- Quote ---also ... isn't age capped at 32000?
--- End quote ---

Yes and no.  The .robage sysvar and the internal code won't count beyond 32000 because the mem aray is int valued so yes, you won't find bots with ages higher than this, but nothing happens to the bot once it gets this old.  The sysvar just stops incrementing.

I'm kinda thinking about maintaining a long valued age counter that could be displayed in bot properties and in graphs.  I assume we don't want to change the sysvar or add another such as age in 100's of cycles...


--- Quote ---what about 'age' as a contributer to cost?
--- End quote ---

I like this as an optional cost.  There are times when old bots monopolize limited veggies and evolution slows down or stops (I think - or do parents get potentially mutated at reproduction time too?) because they are the only ones that get to reproduce.

Testlund:
I think age should be implemented like it works in nature. As I understand it, multicellular organisms are PROGRAMMED to simply start dying after a certain time. I don't know if it is understood yet WHY it works like that, but it's very interesting. Single cellular organisms are basically immortal as long as they keep deviding. There are allways some copies that keeps living to preserve the species. And I guess that age are also affected by radiation, UV-light and free radicals that breaks down the cells. So maybe you could put something like that in the program and the bots could develop different ways to handle it, maybe. Just some thoughts.  

Numsgil:
Again, read the link I provided to the old forum above.  The general concensus was that it wasn't realistic to cause some rather odd and random effects for aging that make organisms adhere to our preconcieved notions of what aging should be.

Griz:

--- Quote ---As another optional cost I don't see why age couldn't be a factor. Probably a logarithmic rise in cost as you age.
--- End quote ---
?????
yeah ... that was my main point.
increasing cost as a function of age.
as long as we ramp the cost up in some way ...
it might be they wouldn't reach 32000 anyway ...
and it wouldn't be neccessary to 'off' em.
it seemed to me to be more aritficail to NOT have
a max age as long as there was no 'age cost' ...
but if we can add one, this seems to me to be
a good thing.
in fact, I was contemplating seeing if it could be done
from within the bot itself with dna ...
that way, different species would end up with different
life spans ... more variation for the sim. and mutatable.


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Again, read the link I provided to the old forum above.  The general concensus was that it wasn't realistic to cause some rather odd and random effects for aging that make organisms adhere to our preconcieved notions of what aging should be.
--- End quote ---
???
but we aren't considering that, right?  
NOT taking age into consideration  ... is artificial ...
nowhere in nature, that I know of, does aging not affect the viability of an organism.
so it should at least have some cost associated with it. imo.

Numsgil:
As shvarz said here most aging effects in real organisms come in from either programmed cell death or accumulating mutations as the DNA repair mechanisms shut down.

We could have a mutation field that increases mutations in bots as they get older.  That would follow the initial idea shvarz had in that thread all those years ago.

I'm not saying that the discussion is closed, I'm just saying that it's been discussed before, and it's important to see what has been said instead of starting over.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page