Code center > Darwinbots3

Combat System and other things

<< < (2/6) > >>

abyaly:

--- Quote ---I see where you're comming from, but I think envisioning a "venom sac" in the bot makes the most sense. You don't necessarily want bots of the same species, for instance, immune to each others venom or poison.
--- End quote ---
Under the system I suggested, the "sac" would be a separate bot set up in a way so that it isn't succeptible to the poison. For example, a poison that stores some sort of strange action, like spinning around, would be entirely ineffectual in a bot that has no muscle. A poison that constantly produces fat could be contained in a bot with a small shell (if shell restricts growth). This way specialized parts become necessary to handle the deadliest toxins.

Jez:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---
--- Quote from: abyaly ---

If you are going to do apparent size instead of distance, it would be fitting to do apparent relative velocity as well.
--- End quote ---

Hmm, yes.  How would you set up something like a simple following gene though?  It wouldn't tell you if an object was moving away or towards you, so following it would be difficult.  Maybe give the relative speed comming towards or away from you, and the change in angular position to you.  But then you'd end up with the orbitting problem early bots had before relative velocity sysvars were introduced, since a bot would probably just turn to match the target's angle instead of using .dx or .sx.
--- End quote ---
What a cool idea! The bots are way to accurate atm (IMO). Even top end predators (I.e. cheetahs) have bad hunting results (something like 1 in 10 attempts are succesful or was that lions?) Nothing nature has produced does internal trig (AFAIK) when trying to catch something that is moving. It all comes from practice. Bring back the old days when the bots were a bit more hit and miss!


--- Quote ---I am playing with the idea of shell locking the volume of a bot.  A bot that tried to increase its size (say, by eating another bot) beyond the limit imposed by the shell wouldn't be able to do it.  But part of me feels that it would make shell have too much of a downside and bots would be better off without it, defeating its purpose except for a very limited niche role.
--- End quote ---

You know that bit earlier when you were talking about the ability to place shell on specific parts of the bots body? Well this seem to tie in nicely, I'm thinking limpets and crabs here; one produces a shell that grows larger as it does, while the other sheds its shell and then has to wait for a new one to form.
Thinking about that though the crab might be hard to do without allowing growing space inside the shell, not sure how it really works.

Trafalgar:

--- Quote from: Jez ---What a cool idea! The bots are way to accurate atm (IMO). Even top end predators (I.e. cheetahs) have bad hunting results (something like 1 in 10 attempts are succesful or was that lions?) Nothing nature has produced does internal trig (AFAIK) when trying to catch something that is moving. It all comes from practice. Bring back the old days when the bots were a bit more hit and miss!
--- End quote ---

(Small) cats are capable of determining the location of a small critter underneath a layer of snow from sound, and pouncing and grabbing it *through the snow* on the first try. Cats are, in fact, rather remarkable predators.

Lions and such can't necessarily catch their prey because they have evolved concurrently, and the prey runs quite fast, and the hunter will eventually tire as well. They generally go after weaker pack members, since they're easier to catch. Ancient humans (or a human with remarkable physical fitness today) could catch them, however, simply because such humans have ridiculous (running or walking) endurance, and can follow the animal until it gets tired and can't run any more.

As for skills, aside from humans and some (or all?) great apes, and perhaps a few other species, much animal behavior and skills are actually innate.

Chickens, for instance, will scratch at the ground to look for food regardless of whether they have a parent who demonstrates it to them or not. And different species of fowl, for instance, eat different things, regardless of the fact that nobody teaches them what to eat (guinea fowl, for example, eat ticks and other small bugs, but do not scratch at the ground, and are supposedly quite good in a garden for taking care of insect pests without killing your plants - unlike chickens, who will trample everything, eat some of the plants, and even dig up recently planted seeds while scratching at the ground).

Chickens and guineas also seem to be quite incapable of comprehending the consequences of perching on or near their food or water supply, as they will poop into it without even noticing, and seeing the results later doesn't dissuade them from perching there again later (You actually have to set it up such that it's impossible to perch over it, or that they can't poop on it if they do). If I had to guess, this would probably be because in a jungle (or any part of the wilderness, really), where their ancestors evolved, pooping into a river, lake, or swamp probably wouldn't do much to it, and you're not likely to have a fixed food source underneath the tree you're perching in, what with having to forage for all your food.

Jez:
(Small wildcats)

--- Quote ---It takes the least amount of stimulation to induce a cat to stalk and the most to get it to eat. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense. Because hunts typically end in failure approximately two thirds of the time, an animal which waits until hungry to hunt would lose on two counts. First, it might not catch anything immediately. Second, the cat's energy-depleted state would decrease its hunting efficiency and make it even easier for prey to escape.
--- End quote ---
(The Fundamentals of Feline Behavior, Part 1)
http://www.mmilani.com/feline-behavior-fundamentals.html

Cheetahs, I was wrong to mention them, are described as –

--- Quote ---one of the most accomplished of hunters within the wild cat species - it catches up to 60%-70% of prey that it hunts. The lion on the other hand has a relatively low success rate (less than 30%) and combats this by hunting collectively
--- End quote ---
(Wild cat behaviour)
http://www.abf90.dial.pipex.com/bco/behav01.htm

I still think that learning plays a great part in hunting even with cats, one cat I knew, raised by people who let it draw blood without complaint, would go for your wrist (even someone’s throat once) when you tempted it with a piece of string. Its favourite game was to attack the postman’s legs in the morning...
Kittens are born with the innate sense to hunt I guess, that’s what the whole ‘play’ attitude of younger (higher IQ) animals is for, to train the instinct to a talent surely.

Are you thinking of the Arctic Fox and Lemmings when you mention the ability to detect prey through snow? I didn’t find any information on how effective they were.

When you mention prey/predator relationships V evolution I have to admit that would play an important part in all relationships.

One of the things your post has made me think about is the relationship between our bots and the ability of prey to avoid its predator, the innocent side step when you play tag for instance, something our bots don’t really have the ability to do anymore.
We are perhaps in a very difficult position because both species have, potentially, the same abilities. Plus bots have shots, extending their killing range beyond their position. It leaves less space for manoeuvrability; for prey to escape.

On a parting note, I think that birds in general don’t have the same ability to control their faecal ejection as some other species. I could be wrong, I certainly couldn’t find confirmation of the fact, it’s just something I seem to remember from an essay I did on different digestive tracts once.

Trafalgar:
Hmmm. I don't remember where (or when) I read about (what I'm remembering as) cats hunting things moving in the snow, and considering wikipedia's article on cats currently says that cats are not able to tolerate being both wet and cold very well (if it's accurate), perhaps it was about some other species instead. I thought it was cats since I seem to recall it (it being whatever it was that I read) saying that they were able to detect their position under the snow due to their swiveling ears.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page