Code center > Suggestions

Death Rate

(1/4) > >>

Endy:
Where'd everybody go? Seems like this place was abandoned all the sudden...

Wanted to recommend adding in either an optional age limit or a random death rate option. I've, been working with a version that I rigged up to have an actual age limit. The evolution rate is amazzingly fast compared to normal. The death rate basically ramps up the selection process, improving what is actually evolved. Canni's still come about, but the age limit kept them from dominating by becomming immortal, like they do other times.

I'm planning on changing the code again to see what effects a random death has. I thinking that random death may be the true spur that drives evolution on. Provided they have enough time and resources they can adapt to pretty much anything. The one thing they can't out-evolve is a pure random death.

Its pretty amazing to be able to watch the population change completly after just a couple of seconds. I'm also thinking that with a little more area the bots will be able to speciate. It's not precisly the distance that keeps creatures in the real world seperated. More accuratly its the fact that their death rate simply does not support crossing the distance.

Numsgil:
I think it's been sort of quiet since we don't have anyone actively moving the current version forward.  Though I've been flirting with the idea of starting a fresh version (again ) some time soon.

Random death and age limits are definately good tools to play with.  I think in the latest version you can use Eric's aging costs to create an effective max age.  Random death isn't really do able at present I don't think.  I would be interested in seeing the effects of it on a population.

Jez:
Have been around just not active.

Isn't random death just adding a dice throw to evolution? Wouldn't suprise me if it caused evolutionary swings but would suprise me if it helped create anything useful. Random death isn't the predator option that was talked about on the forum before, surely it would be as likely to wipe out the useful mutations as weed out the bad.
Like you pointed out, the bots can't out evolve it, so why would they bother trying?

Setting an age limit I could imagine forcing adaptive mutations though.

***

Would be cool to have you back working on a new version Nums', there's a whole flock of F1 bots that seem to have problems...

Numsgil:
I'm expanding my programming horizons at the moment, exploring new programming methods, things like that.

I might give tie feeding a look since there's been trouble with it.

Elite:
I've just set up some sims using an age limit (massive instant death age cost becoming active at a certain age) and they indeed seem to work really well:

When I turned up the movement cost, the bots responded within a few hundred cycles and became noticably more conservative with their movement.
When I turned up the DNA upkeep cost, the average DNA length of the bots dropped rapidly. Within a few thousand cycles they had lost a gene or two, merged two other genes into one, and posessed a much more minimalistic genome.

What seems to be happening is that since living very long isn't an option anymore, the bots have to act in the best interests of their progeny or their DNA will die with them when the age cost gets them.

Nice find.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page