40ba96f64974bd8085b227f3ba8a2712c88c356d
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 SirStone
|
b68707c867 |
Energy economy: the cliff becomes a SLOPE, plus a finishing cap. 11% less energy.
The user's request: "when our bot is low OR enemy is low, it is useless to use high power instead low fast bullets have more chances to finish the enemy. Let's do a math slope: starting from some health down, the power goes down with it." 1. ENERGY SLOPE (`TR_POWER_ENERGY_*`), replacing the old hard step at 50 energy: cap = ENERGY_MAX at/above ENERGY_HI, ENERGY_MIN at/below ENERGY_LO, LINEAR in power between, clamped. Defaults HI=80 LO=20 MIN=0.5 MAX=3.0, so no cap >=80, 0.5 at <=20, and e.g. E=65 -> 2.375, E=50 -> 1.75, E=35 -> 1.125. Rationale: bullet speed is 20-3p, so lower power = FASTER bullet (less lead error, higher hit chance), fires more often (10+2p) and drains slower (p/shot). E[dE] = p(3P-1) => break-even hit probability is 1/3 INDEPENDENT of power, and our measured rates are 5-27%, far below it. 2. FINISHING CAP (`TR_POWER_FINISH_KILL`, default ON): cap power at the SMALLEST bullet that still removes the enemy's remaining energy - `E<=4 -> p=E/4` (min 0.1), `4<E<=16 -> p=(E+2)/6`, `E>16 -> no cap`. Rationale, and it makes the user's instinct stronger than a heuristic: server 1.3.1 caps the damage SCORE at the energy ACTUALLY REMOVED, so overkill is WASTED damage AND ~6x the energy for ZERO extra score. Damage is 4p (p<=1) / 6p-2 (p>1). Both are min-composed with the existing far/below-average caps, may only LOWER power (exhaustively tested), and are exempt while ramming. `TR_POWER_POLICY=0` still returns the uncapped control exactly. MEASURED ENERGY SAVING (offline replay of the DrussGT fixtures, 28,797 ticks): arm shots energy meanP E/1k ticks vs cliff control(uncapped) 1913 4646 2.43 161.4 -90.2% cliff (today) 2363 2443 1.03 84.8 0.0% slope 2404 2178 0.91 75.6 ** 10.9% LESS ** slope+finish 2404 2167 0.90 75.3 ** 11.3% LESS ** So the slope spends ~11% less energy than the cliff AND fires slightly MORE shots (2404 vs 2363) - both directions at once. HONEST NOTE on the finishing rule's reach here: ticks where the enemy is low (0 < E <= 16) are only 2252/28797 = 7.8% of these fixtures, so finishing adds just ~11 energy of saving against DrussGT. It matters in CLOSER fights, not this one. Verification: test_power_policy 58 (was 26) in BOTH the default and TR_POWER_POLICY=0 control arms - slope at E=100/80/65/50/35/20/5, powerToKill across E=0.1..100, the inverse-cover property for E<=16, monotonicity, ram exemption, and an exhaustive sweep proving power <= preference. Guards: test_gun_harness 39, test_vbullet_metric 11, test_power_selection 3, test_adaptive_radar 41, test_tfil_ring_weights 24, test_ram_decision 40, test_rack_membership 48, test_selector_tiebreak 19, test_tm_pattern_registration 20, test_vbullet_admit_gate 12. acceptance 12/12 PASS. ModularBot compiles release. Adds `common_libs/tests/measure_power_policy.nim` (the energy/histogram tool) and updates docs/env_reference.md for the new `energySlope|finishKill` log reasons. NOT MEASURED: the battle/hit-rate effect. The offline figures use the fixture shooter's energy as a proxy, open-loop; the RELATIVE saving is the meaningful part. |
||
|
SirStone
|
c9825dfb0b |
power policy: cap power by range and energy, gate 3.0 on above-average chances
Implements the user's energy management request: "firing from more than 200px should be a 'not good chances zone' so faster bullets and more chances to hit matters more than single hit damage with low chances. When we are lower than 50 health, same thing. I would like to use 3.0 power only when the chances of hitting are higher than average." Design: a CAP on top of the existing `bestPower`, not a rewrite. `bestPower` still answers "which bin does this gun's own data prefer"; the policy caps it: ramming -> 3.0 (reason ram, exempt) dist > TR_POWER_FAR_DIST (200) -> 1.0 (far) elif selfEnergy < TR_POWER_LOW_ENERGY (50) -> 1.0 (lowEnergy) elif pEst <= pRef -> 2.0 (belowAvg) else -> 3.0 (full) power = min(gunPreferredBinPower, cap) # can only LOWER power p=1.0 is the right "low" tier on the measured mechanics: bullet speed 20-3p so p=1.0 gives speed 17 vs 11 at p=3.0 (55% faster = less lead error), fire interval 10+2p so 12 ticks vs 16 (33% more shots), and drain 0.083/turn vs 0.1875 (2.25x slower). All three things the user asked for at long range. pEst = the chosen bin's virtual rate (gun aggregate when the bin is empty); pRef = the gun's aggregate mean unless TR_POWER_REF > 0. No-data guns are vacuously below-average -> cap 2.0 (conservative, documented). Control arm: TR_POWER_POLICY=0 = uncapped = today's behaviour exactly. Knobs: TR_POWER_POLICY, TR_POWER_FAR_DIST, TR_POWER_LOW_ENERGY, TR_POWER_FAR_CAP, TR_POWER_MID_CAP, TR_POWER_REF, TR_POWER_LOG. TR_POWER_MID_CAP exists because the user did not specify the middle case (close + healthy + not-above-average); 2.0 is the default, flippable to 1.0. Seam: the cap lives in a pure `applyPowerPolicy` and is applied only in `selectShot` (the single place real shots are chosen), so the logic is testable without a battle. Ram is wired from `shouldRam` - the same value the movement dispatch uses for the (0,50) band. CORRECTION TO AN ASSUMPTION IN THE TASK: `offline_range.nim` does NOT call `bestPower`/`selectShot` - it only replays virtual-bullet spawn/resolve across all power bins, independent of the real shot's power. So there is no offline power-selection path that could diverge from the live one, and the acceptance test guards the metric, not the policy. Policy coverage therefore comes from the new unit test. Verification: test_power_policy 26/26 in BOTH modes (default and TR_POWER_POLICY=0 control arm); test_gun_harness 39, test_vbullet_metric 11, test_power_selection 3, test_adaptive_radar 41, test_tfil_ring_weights 24; acceptance_offline_vs_online 12/12 VERDICT PASS (live battle). ModularBot compiles. UNVERIFIED: the live effect on damage/survival/score. No A/B has run. |