General > Off Topic

Evolution

(1/4) > >>

Anonomous Guest Person:
New features are usually great, right..?
The only problem is they add up over time, turning something simple into something complex.
And complex things can become complicated.
And unfortunately, with the current mutation system, which is pretty much totally random as far as I know, only bad mutations seem to sprout.
Now, this will hopefully be fixed in version 3.0, but even so....
As a mere oppinion, I think that if someone decided to run an older version of DarwinBots, before Poison, and Venom, and such were added, as well as the current version of DarwinBots, the older version would have more good mutations then the newer.
So, for more "good" mutations, we either need a better mutation system which has more of a chance to make smaller, more related changes more frequently then larger, more drastic changes....
Or we need to make less commands. Which could be very difficult.
Or, on a third hand, we could consider it blessing that good mutations are rare. (Though, if you read another point I recently made, then hopefully you've figured out that good mutations can die off before they even start, thus making a mess of the whole natural selection idea.)
As yet another option, we could consider it a curse, and do nothing about it at all, and hope that programming methods will evolve in such a way that actual genetic mutations won't be needed for a species to "evolve."

PurpleYouko:
Here is an idea that I have been considering for a while.

How about we take the existing value and only allow it to mutate by a relatively small amount each time. This applies to both the value stored into a location and the value of the location.

The amount of change can be controllable from the mutations window.

The sysvars are reasonably well segregated into like commands at like memory locations so small changes would mean similar commands.

In this system a command like .repro could easily become .mrepro or .sexrepro but it would be much less likely to become .refpoison.

 :D  PY  :D

shvarz:
Good idea PY and AGP!  But large changes should still be possible - just less likely.  I am all for it!  This is a very good point and should improve DBs a lot without big changes!
 :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

Zelos:
I agree that big mutations should be very rarly, like in a dna friquency, ATGTCATG has a bigger chance to become ATGTTATG then TAGTTAA, it is of course possibly but very unlikly

Numsgil:
Good idea.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page