Skip to content

Conversation

@henopied
Copy link
Contributor

@henopied henopied commented Aug 5, 2015

if big guys are all around you and you have no good angles what are you going to do? Ignore if they are going to splitkill you unless they very likely are going to.

@jjc12
Copy link

jjc12 commented Aug 5, 2015

"discard large cells as being dangerous when no good angles" so basically, die?

@henopied
Copy link
Contributor Author

henopied commented Aug 5, 2015

Bad commit title I guess I meant ignore the splitkill avoiding mechanics unless the larger players are legitimately likely to splitkill you when you are in a bad situation.

@Apostolique
Copy link
Owner

The way I had planned to fix this was to stop adding enemies as bad angles as soon as no good angle was found.

Right now, if you are in an enemy's threat circle, the enemy is added as a bad angle. If too many enemies are around you, then it becomes impossible to find a good angle to navigate towards to. The way to fix this is by sorting enemies from closest to furthest. Then add the closest enemies one by one. As soon as you're about to block all possible good angles (when the bad angles do a full 360), then stop. This works in theory because it makes you handle the closest enemies right away. Then as you move and get in better positions, you'll restart handling enemies further away.

@jjc12
Copy link

jjc12 commented Aug 5, 2015

So if I understand correctly, this works like repulsion: We'll be an average distance away from all enemies, instead of close to one enemy, and farther away than 5 others (for example).

@Apostolique
Copy link
Owner

You can see it as a repulsion system if you want. I see it as a way to only chew as much as you can bite.

@henopied
Copy link
Contributor Author

henopied commented Aug 5, 2015

This seemed to work as a good enough temporary fix until a better patch could be made but I do agree it is not ideal.

@Apostolique
Copy link
Owner

If I understand correctly, you created a global variable called "notSplitDangerValue" that acts as a threshold value. You can then help find an escape solution by lowering it.

@henopied
Copy link
Contributor Author

henopied commented Aug 6, 2015

Yes that is correct.

@Drflash55
Copy link
Collaborator

I was thinking that when you are below about 100, you can have the bot hide inside viruses if it's a very bad situation, and then when the other person gives up, the bot can maneuver safely out of the area.

@henopied
Copy link
Contributor Author

henopied commented Aug 9, 2015

What would happen with my luck? Some tiny cell wouldn't notice the bot in the virus the bot then eats the smaller cell trying to hide in the virus the bot then gets big enough to be split by the virus and then boom game over... just saying.

@Apostolique
Copy link
Owner

There isn't much incentive to hide inside a virus when you can just run away elsewhere.

@Drflash55
Copy link
Collaborator

"Some tiny cell wouldn't notice the bot in the virus the bot then eats the smaller cell trying to hide in the virus the bot then gets big enough to be split by the virus and then boom game over... just saying."

That's only if the other cell's mass was enough to make you split at about 140.
If you are 60, and a 40 cell comes by, you'll won't get split by the virus.

"There isn't much incentive to hide inside a virus when you can just run away elsewhere."

Yeah, but then you run the risk of someone bigger than you splitkilling you, when you can just stay safe inside of the virus until they give up and leave.
But, of course, you have your opinion, I can't argue with it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants