Author Topic: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?  (Read 11268 times)

Offline shvarz

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2014, 08:45:00 AM »
Panda, all of them. I guess bot size has a limit, so maybe not that as much (although you could still crank up the rate at which bot size grows with chloroplasts). You can crank up the rate at which chloroplasts contribute to waste. And you can increase the actual energy cost per cycle of having chloroplasts. You can also tone down the amount of energy that a bot gets every cycle via chloroplasts.

My point is: if the problem with having simple equations for chloroplasts is that bots always evolve chloroplasts and then sit and feed on energy (which is what Bots told me), then there are ways to deal with that via other balancing functions.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid things in big numbers" - Serious Sam

Offline Panda

  • Global Moderator
  • Bot Destroyer
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • Computer Science Undergraduate (nerd)
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2014, 01:17:44 PM »
The plan was originally that all of those would occur and the area limiting part wasn't going to be implemented but that was Bots decision to include. If you have a look at http://forum.darwinbots.com/index.php/topic,3487.0.html. I implemented that at one point; however, I had problems releasing it. I think this is the sort of thing you're talking about more, aren't you?

Offline shvarz

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2014, 02:04:18 PM »
Yes, exactly what is discussed there. I think Nums' suggestion sums it up nicely:
http://forum.darwinbots.com/index.php/topic,3487.msg1383180.html#msg1383180
"Never underestimate the power of stupid things in big numbers" - Serious Sam

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2014, 02:29:05 PM »
Adding radios to robots with more chloroplasts is not a bad idea. But we should do so in a way not to hit the limit on size.

Never cared for the body<---->chloroplasts slider. How should the program auto adjust for something like that?

Overall, no one actually figured out how much energy a robot gains from using chloroplasts.

As for costs, I always prefer costs a user can set. That is what I did.

Finally, I actually am willing to send a version to Shvarz with no 'correction for robot population by area' for further testing. What I was attempting to avoid is the picy attached. But it seems it happened anyway. All my robots in internet mode enabled survival evolution now use chloroplasts.

edit: Picy not attached because I can not RDP to windows7 from XP.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2014, 02:32:10 PM by Botsareus »

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2014, 04:48:17 PM »
What specifically do the current chloroplasts do?

chloroplast cost nrg to build
chloroplasts give nrg(based on the area formula)
chloroplast decay(fixed amount?)
Make a bot heavier and bigger
Anything else?
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline Shadowgod2

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2014, 05:54:09 PM »
Make a bot heavier and bigger

i know they make a bot heavier (very obvious) but i don't think they get bigger do they? i've never seen any noticeable size gain even between 0 and 32000 chlr.

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2014, 08:28:33 PM »
I have enough to make improvements to chloroplasts, it will also simplify the program. Update soon.

Offline spork22

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2014, 08:36:19 PM »
Hopefully there'll be less killer plants of doom. I've already made 3.. all of which are dangerous
Hubba Jubba Lollywash!

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2014, 08:40:13 PM »
Word up  :)

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2014, 11:11:13 AM »
I've always avoided ageing costs, I haven't really liked them. :/

Here is what I currently have:

Robots get more radii the more chloroplasts they have.
Robots with less chloroplasts lose chloroplasts faster then robots with more chloroplasts.

A picture of results is attached. (Pond-mode, Weather, and Tides on)

Should I add aging costs to this or not?
Any ideas?

Panda are you cool with that? Or, do you want me to disable point mutations as well?

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2014, 12:09:11 PM »
I am going to attempt to crank up point mutations a bit first.

All aging costs I have just attempted where completely op.

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2014, 12:37:36 PM »
Robots get more radii the more chloroplasts they have.

What would you say about doing it the other way around? (unless it's too late for more suggestions here) You could make the amount of chloroplasts limited to bot size. A maximum of 500 chlr per 1000 body or something like that. So the bot would have to convert lots of nrg to body to have room to store chlr.

Quote
Should I add aging costs to this or not?

I think all costs should be affected by the ageing cost setting, if they aren't already.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2014, 12:40:00 PM by Testlund »
The internet is corrupt and controlled by criminally minded people.

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2014, 01:49:44 PM »
A little late there because I already started the league  :( Looking more bio accurate and less crap to configure.

I may end up playing with age costs...

Offline Botsareus

  • Society makes it all backwards - there is a good reason for that
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4483
    • View Profile
    • DJ Paul Kononov
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2014, 01:54:00 PM »
I have an idea, chloroplast efficiency gets lower with age...

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Did anyone else want chloroplasts?
« Reply #44 on: October 05, 2014, 02:15:20 PM »
I don't like it. I think aging costs should be completely independent of other costs, like it is now.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.