Overall league thoughts

[Peter]

Some little age cost couldn't be bad. I would vote against any high cost. The age-cost should have a low effect at the total costs. Higher developed bots have a harde hit then a simple bot.
The MB's are a good example there, there is often some time needed to set up a structure, where a simple bot doens't need any time at all. Well almost no time, Repro-> loss birthtie-> go.

• My opinion, no or very little age costs. Not a very good idea.
• To get against a hamster veggies and let them reproduce, I'd go for a nrg-income for veggies based at body.
• Veggies should be virus-imune. I don't want veggies acting as bots.
• An somewhat exotic suggestion. Change F1-costs harsh. Maybe 10 or 20 times normal F1-costs.
• Decrease bang-effiency or the friction.
• Increase tie-costs with regard with the shot costs. Shooting ties around you should be more wasteful. Next time aim.
• Higher cost per existing bot. And atleast keep body-costs.
• I think poison, venom, shell should be allowed. The anwser isn't disallowing but increasing the costs in my view. So allow them and increase the costs harsh.

Peter-
And how many bot responses were there to challenge #5, with eusociality

I believe you can read it yourself. If you're being sarcastic. You can also directly speak out, without trying to come over smart with a question you already know the anwser for.
There where some bots putted in some bot challenges. Main faillure isn't that it wasn't a good idea. But more that creating a bot for these tasks is pretty hard and costs time. In this league setup as it is right now, I can see most league-bots being able to participate, possible a small add is needed with some.

As you're trying to bring this league up. Can't you put the settings together and see how many bots are able to survive. I could bet there are some that are able to survive and even do pretty good. The main point will probably be the walls, most bots will try to kill the wall.
If that is the problem, I'm happy to create a starter bot that can live with edges and walls. A bot could be easy to give you a starter of what a survivable area is, for a bot.

[Moonfisher]

• My opinion, no or very little age costs. Not a very good idea.
• To get against a hamster veggies and let them reproduce, I'd go for a nrg-income for veggies based at body.
• Veggies should be virus-imune. I don't want veggies acting as bots.
• An somewhat exotic suggestion. Change F1-costs harsh. Maybe 10 or 20 times normal F1-costs.
• Decrease bang-effiency or the friction.
• Increase tie-costs with regard with the shot costs. Shooting ties around you should be more wasteful. Next time aim.
• Higher cost per existing bot. And atleast keep body-costs.
• I think poison, venom, shell should be allowed. The anwser isn't disallowing but increasing the costs in my view. So allow them and increase the costs harsh.

-I agree with the low age costs, and they should probably only set in at a high age aswell.
-I also think it's a good idea to let veggies gain energy based on body to make hamstring more challenging.
-Viruses aren't alowed so no point in imunizing the veggies.
-I don't think costs should be changed drasticaly, a large field with fluids and litle food will already be fairly chalenging. If it isn't challenging enough wouldn't increasing fluid resistance further have the effect we wan't ?
-I'm not even sure what this part would do, I don't understand how the physics engine works...
-I don't think ties should have higher costs, if you can only use negative tieloc values then ties won't be anything like in F1. I think the costs would affect larger MB's who need to make repairs often.
-Still with the costs... I agree we keep body costs... but not sure costs should be increased, small bots won't be strong fighters with the rules and settings, but they will be usefull for forming complex organisms. The whole point was to see more complex MB's and behavior, so that means more bots and more ties, so those aren't the things I would try to work against.
-I agree poison and shell can stay, but not venom... venom is just a very strong mem shot, and mem shots are one of the things that make larger organisms very vulnerable to a lot of small bots.
I may also be inclined to agree that costs for shell an poison should be reconsidered, but I still think allowing venom is too risky, it would need huge costs but then the best venom would just be to force your oponent to create venom... but shell and poison could probably use some balancing.

[Peter]

Alright, now as I  think about the rules. They do tend to push towards bigger bots.
I think I can agree with moonfisher on most points.

I think there should be allowed as much as possible. Just lower the use of particilair stuff by increasing costs. Declining stuff will just make everything more simple. No venom is good for me. I think poison and shell should be allowed.

[bacillus]

In conditions this extreme, even a tiny difference in these rules can make a decisive difference. I say we make a few 'benchmark' bots first, then fine-tune the costs so they aren't too harsh (we might learn to survive in a desert, put not in an active volcano   )

[Peter]

Ah, yes I more or less made that point a little earlier. I made a simple F3-bot. It is able to survive in multiple psycics conditions. A good test-bot, it doesn't really have a special behaviour but it'll survive in a field 12 combined with shapes, etches and the highest fluid resistance. I've got to say, that it used to bet better it the field, but I changed it a little when I found out it was defeated by 'Boost', then I added real fighting genes. But it will still survive.


For testing purposes.
Here is the bot boucer.
It wil survive in the attached sim settings. Anyone feel free to tweek in any costs.

I anyone wondered, every little step forward is a *.maxvel boost. I used to move more constant, but the sudden burts seem to help in F3.

[jknilinux]

In conditions this extreme, even a tiny difference in these rules can make a decisive difference. I say we make a few 'benchmark' bots first, then fine-tune the costs so they aren't too harsh (we might learn to survive in a desert, put not in an active volcano   )

OK, how about Bacillus's ant-bots, bouncer, a MB (PY's Inchworm2? Kinda old, but if there's a better MB that only uses ties to move, use that), ... any other IBbots that would qualify? We should also try the sim with a non-complex F2 bot, so long as it qualifies, and make sure that an IBB can actually survive better than a kill-all bot. If not, maybe continue decreasing bang efficiency..

Who would like to run the trial sims? I can't this week or next week... or any time soon. Sry.

Rules 0.5:

- Add 20 random shapes at beginning of tournament.
- No memory shots.
- No venom.
- No viruses.
- Size 12 field.
- Walls (non-toroidal)
- Low veg repop threshold, Veg repop 1, long repop delay.
- Transitory fluid resistance.
- F1 costs, with slightly higher movement costs, no/low code execution costs.
- Only negative tieloc values allowed.
- Decreased bang efficiency (30%?)- I like this idea, encourages MBs and sophisticated movement strategies
- Veggies fed based on kilobody
- (?) Lowered age costs
- (?) Lowered tie costs
- (?) High veggy cap
- (?) F1, or slightly lowered, per-bot costs

Note that poison and shell are still allowed, but should have very high costs.



Controversial?:

- low age costs? I think lowered age costs will allow more complex MBs to be made, since they don't have to constantly repair themselves. However, it will also encourage some sort of Big berthas... But, if all the bots on both sides use this strategy, then there's nothing problematic with it- we should still be able to encourage complex behavior among the Big Berthas.

- Decrease tie costs? If we increase tie costs it's just another obstacle to making IB MBs.

- High veggy cap? I like this idea.

- I don't like increasing per-bot costs either. (Also works against IB MBs)

- Also, not exactly controversial, but we need to decide on exact settings in most instances.

Perhaps all the controversial rules can be decided upon when we do the test runs.

Also, what does higher movement costs do? Charge extra energy per bang or charge extra for any movement?


A new idea- Make bang efficiency 0.


Moonfisher-

Decreasing bang-efficiency means it takes more energy to move the same distance using .up, .dn, etc... but tie-based movement systems are unaffected. Decreasing it to 0 means that the only way for a bot to move is through ties.

[Peter]

- Transitory fluid resistance.

I would go for thick fluid resistance. It couses higher movement costs. You can see that in the sim I posted. Normally a maxvel acceleration would get you pretty far, this one barely gets you one bot length further.

It seems that bots with normal movement costs are going to fail in this league. I already created a multibot that moves faster with just and only ties.
I am having trouble letting it properly turn and behave properly with etches and shapes. But it will become a nice benchamark that will probably defeat my former posted bot with ease.

[Peter]

- Transitory fluid resistance.

I want thick fluid.

OK, how about Bacillus's ant-bots, bouncer, a MB (PY's Inchworm2? Kinda old, but if there's a better MB that only uses ties to move, use that), ... any other IBbots that would qualify? We should also try the sim with a non-complex F2 bot, so long as it qualifies, and make sure that an IBB can actually survive better than a kill-all bot. If not, maybe continue decreasing bang efficiency..

I think the extra fluid resistance will kill most F1 or F2-fighers. I tested my own multiply4 in the sim I posted. It fails miserably. The combination of lesser veggies(hungry), shapes(shape, eat shape) and etches(etch hurts) will kill most. Any bot wil have to try to effectively look for food. In the above posted sim, the situation is pretty extreme for most bots.

I think most bots will have to be made special for this. In my new MB I had to build some extra genes to have it survive in F1-conditions and extreme friction conditions.

- Decreased bang efficiency (30%?)- I like this idea, encourages MBs and sophisticated movement strategies

We can always look at this, but with thick fluid phycics I doubt it will be needed. Bots burn much energie to get a little forward. Try the bot in the sim I posted in F1-conditions. Bot loses complete motion control, a little step in that sim is in F1 a few times the sim round.

Note that poison and shell are still allowed, but should have very high costs.

Somebody any ideas about these costs?

- low age costs? I think lowered age costs will allow more complex MBs to be made, since they don't have to constantly repair themselves. However, it will also encourage some sort of Big berthas... But, if all the bots on both sides use this strategy, then there's nothing problematic with it- we should still be able to encourage complex behavior among the Big Berthas.

At some time permanent waste will ruin any bot peformance. Time will waste any bot, maybe we don;t need costs.

- Decrease tie costs? If we increase tie costs it's just another obstacle to making IB MBs.

I don't think that is needed.

Also, what does higher movement costs do? Charge extra energy per bang or charge extra for any movement?

A new idea- Make bang efficiency 0.

I would say right now, no. I think it is good enough with the extra fluid resistance. We can fiddle later on.

Decreasing bang-efficiency means it takes more energy to move the same distance using .up, .dn, etc... but tie-based movement systems are unaffected. Decreasing it to 0 means that the only way for a bot to move is through ties.

I have a bot only moving by ties. Still I think bang to zero is a little extreme.

[bacillus]

If you want to use my antbot, I think the third-to-last version is the best to use.

[ikke]

I would like to add some points: total energy managed by day/night cycles as opposed to population caps to keep the system in check. Furthermore, a system with energy per kilobodypoint needs to have the nrg per turn level reevaluated. I use 8. A modified algae minimalis also helps. In my evo sims algae have evolved reproduction not based on energy but based on bodysize (8000-10000) This encourages farming.

[Peter]

Well the problem with energie caps(if meant that) could be that bots could hamster nrg to defeat the opponent. Just reaching the cap and spoil as less as possible so the opponent will feel the cap as hard as possible.

I would agree with day-night cycles, it is yet another complication. And I could possibly agree with a energie cap, that sets sun to dawn.

Why should the energie be evaluated by turn?

[ikke]

Well the problem with energie caps(if meant that) could be that bots could hamster nrg to defeat the opponent. Just reaching the cap and spoil as less as possible so the opponent will feel the cap as hard as possible.

I don't see this as a problem. If a species chooses to hoard energy and does so effectively good for them. They have to make the choice between creating more veggies to enable future growth rate or investing the energy in their own kind, but can't do both. Do I increase supplies and take the risk of being defenseless against enemy raiders. Or do I create more soldies for the attack that never comes? Do I have a barren land for an attacker to march through, do I have supplies prepositioned for an attack or do I live of the land. Varied strategies, each with their own pros and cons. The rules should facilitate all these strategies, and none of them should provide a guaranteed win.

[ikke]

Another thought: default veggie or the option of symbiosis with a co-designed veggie? This would imply one additional veggie to allow one veggie per side.

[Peter]

Another thought: default veggie or the option of symbiosis with a co-designed veggie? This would imply one additional veggie to allow one veggie per side.

I'm against it. Only a default veggie for everyone. Ofcource we could make a special veggie for this league, maybe something that will easily work it symbiose. But I would think the normal veggie does allright.
Everyone making a special veggie for itself could be harmful. It would more become a veggie-war instead of a bot-war.

[jknilinux]

Well the problem with energie caps(if meant that) could be that bots could hamster nrg to defeat the opponent. Just reaching the cap and spoil as less as possible so the opponent will feel the cap as hard as possible.

I don't see this as a problem. If a species chooses to hoard energy and does so effectively good for them. They have to make the choice between creating more veggies to enable future growth rate or investing the energy in their own kind, but can't do both. Do I increase supplies and take the risk of being defenseless against enemy raiders. Or do I create more soldies for the attack that never comes? Do I have a barren land for an attacker to march through, do I have supplies prepositioned for an attack or do I live of the land. Varied strategies, each with their own pros and cons. The rules should facilitate all these strategies, and none of them should provide a guaranteed win.

Well, I think we should try it with and without an energy cap in the trials, and see how it goes. For those trials, the new list of best bots to test might be Bouncer, Caterpillar, and Bacillus' 3rd-to-last ant. Where is that ant anyway?

Also, if we allow symbiotic veggies, then I agree that it will become a veggy-league. I think just ikke's modified Alga Minimalis for kilobodypoint feeding is good.

I can agree with thick fluid, keeping the F1 tie costs, and a high pop. cap where we instead regulate veggies with day/night cycles. Very low (non-zero) age costs and 8 nrg per turn for veggies also sounds good.

By the way, what are etches?