HOME WORLD FORUMS WIKI VIDEOS
9580 members and stacking!
     Welcome guest, please login or sign up

3 Pages V < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Downstacker's Guide to the Galaxy, Some techniques I do when I downstack
Rating  4
myndzi
post Oct 24 2011, 11:55 PM
Post #31


Tetris Grand Master
Group Icon
Posts: 1,932
Joined: 26-June 09



http://www.colinfahey.com/tetris/StandardT...s_2007June4.zip

^ This has some decent downstacking AIs. It's geared for keeping the stack low, and it's good at playing messy and platforming, etc.


--------------------
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 25 2011, 12:10 AM
Post #32




Posts: 0
Joined: --



QUOTE
I think its possible to make a methodical guide to downstacking

I think this would be a misconception. Having an exact procedure to determine something doesn't mean at all that it would be considered 'methodical' for a human player.

QUOTE
The balance, then, is not adding to your workload by creating lines that get in your way later, but gradually filling in your residue so that it gets gracefully cleared out. The best solution will always leave the next garbage hole accessible, preferably by the exact piece you have ready at that point, and it will leave your residue in places that it won't interfere in the upcoming lines.

But it all depends on the goal. For example, if your goal is just to maximize the downstack and not care about attack, the nature of residue won't matter at all. But if you want to maximize attack and downstack, the situation would be more complex.

Take out the factor of TPM by forcing the player to place a block at every game cycle. Then consider these three possibilities:
1- You are given a certain field and the task to minimize the time required to dig through it.
2- You are given a certain field and the task is to maximize efficiency until we clear the last garbage line
3- You are playing a two player game

QUOTE
Re: quantifying downstack efficiency, it seems to me that it is pretty easy. The problem is branching choices, but you can prune branches with an algorithm for example based on how bad you will allow it to get in the interests of future awesomeness.


You can kill off a tremendous number of possibilities just by making an artificial crash state and allowing common sense to kill off 'unwanted' possibilities. Now there is no standard for an 'unwanted' possibility. But, for example, in the first case, you could define an unwanted possibility as:

-can't allow more than 2 blocks above the first garbage position
-can't allow more than 3 blocks above the second garbage position

and so on. For example, for the second case you could have:

- can't allow more than 6 blocks above the first garbage position
- can't allow more than 8 blocks above the second garbage position

and so on. If these positions were chosen sensibly (I have just written numbers off the top of my head), they could provide a lot of advantage if someone was actually interested in implementing a solution through exhaustion.

What is still left are few more things. I am not sure how exactly randomizers work but unless randomizer 'positions' are immense, I don't think they should be an issue?

Second issue is that how do we define our desired 'goal' in first two cases (this is not a problem in the third case). Whatever end states we reach after pruning, we need to be able to give them a rank. If we fine grain the rankings too much there might be an issue that we might end up having run in chaotic behavior because of lack of clear objective and randomness. If we keep them lower in number, we will have more concrete behavior. Or in the simplest case, we can just keep the objectives binary (like the third case). But would it be true that hold piece can reduce this chaos to a great extent?

In any case, the point of writing all this down was that with simplification of game's rules and pruning, it might be possible to exhaust the possibilities. Well, in principle, it is always possible to exhaust the possibilities but what we want to able to do is to exhaust based upon current resources. The simplifications would necessarily be:
==synchronous play, which means:
-compulsory block placement if there is no action
-hold, if it is implemented, should be within the actual placements
==play style
-don't allow any 'holes' in placements. This would drastically reduce the number of placement options
==no softdrop or twist rewards
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Paradox
post Oct 25 2011, 12:17 AM
Post #33


Tetris Grand Master
Group Icon
Posts: 1,841
Joined: 2-November 10




QUOTE
I think this would be a misconception. Having an exact procedure to determine something doesn't mean at all that it would be considered 'methodical' for a human player.


I meant that I think you could make it methodical even for a human player. Even when we just downstack we still follow some sort of logic that we aren't completely aware of


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous
post Nov 4 2011, 09:35 PM
Post #34


Tetris Professional
Group Icon
Posts: 595
Joined: 29-June 09



QUOTE(wksrdg @ Oct 24 2011, 07:07 PM) *

Goo


Oi, sorry for the late reply and updates. I've been really busy for the last week and a half.

Anyways, "throughput" probably does a better job describing this system than "efficiency", but it's easier for me to use because I've been using that term for the past 2 years. c;

That is some pretty interesting analysis though. So, what you found was that for the piece sequences in the fumens was that initially, RavenDarkSky's piece placement is better for those few frames, but overall my piece placement will end up being better overall in the long run?


--------------------
My awesome downstacking guide, last updated (Jan 29, 2013): Downstacker's Guide to the Galaxy
Tired of the same old Tetris games? Read my idea for a revamped Tetris game! The Next Evolution of Tetris
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Nov 5 2011, 03:04 AM
Post #35




Posts: 0
Joined: --



QUOTE
That is some pretty interesting analysis though. So, what you found was that for the piece sequences in the fumens was that initially, RavenDarkSky's piece placement is better for those few frames, but overall my piece placement will end up being better overall in the long run?

Basically yes, this is what I tried to do in the second part. Trying to make a decent guess for what clears the blocks left would potentially be used. Obviously, in a non-spin it is easier to guess this reasonably well.

But even leaving aside that, the modification in the first part is fairly important in my opinion. The reason is that it standardizes the value of efficiency (or whatever you wanna name it). I will try to explain this a bit. Look, for example, how big the values for efficiency are that I calculated before the first part. The reason is that we haven't calculated these values starting from a flat field. As a result the values calculated don't provide an "intuitive" comparison to, for example, the efficiency values for simple clears.

So what I assumed was that the green blocks initially were the non-garbage blocks, supposedly representing a situation occurring within a versus game. The values calculated in first part are the "adjusted" values representing simply a weighted average approach. Intuitively it only adds up "attack+downstack" for those blocks that have been placed during the fumen steps and then divides that value by total blocks used (in the fumen steps). I think this kind of adjustment is absolutely necessary when comparing fumen diagrams from efficiency point of view.

For example, suppose a fumen starts with a simple ready made tetris position. You just put a line block and get a tetris. Would you calculate efficiency by just dividing 1 tetromino over "attack+downstack" value for the whole tetris. I think the better way is just to see how much that particular tetromino placed "added" to the "attack/downstack" invariant, based on simple ratio. The value that results is not inflated unnecessarily and is intuitively comparable to efficiency values for the actual clears.

If you actually happen to have a non-spin game, you would only have 19 efficiency values at most, single(2), double(3), triple(4), tetris(5), b2b(5). For a game like blockbox you would only have 10 values, as you already know. My only difference in calculating those (from your method) is to use the precise values (as I listed on the first page).
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous
post Nov 11 2011, 08:51 AM
Post #36


Tetris Professional
Group Icon
Posts: 595
Joined: 29-June 09



QUOTE(wksrdg @ Nov 4 2011, 10:04 PM) *




Oi, I was trying to think of some kind of rebuttal, but I'm not smart enough to think of anything. I can tell that you've obviously put a lot of thought into this already c;

I don't think it's necessarily wrong to calculate the piece efficiency without taking into account the green blocks though. Even though they don't necessarily take into account the true efficiency of each piece, from a relative standpoint to the field position, they are accurate in showing that one sequence of piece placements is better than the other sequence of piece placements. And you don't have to go through a whole bunch of other calculations.

QUOTE

For example, suppose a fumen starts with a simple ready made tetris position. You just put a line block and get a tetris. Would you calculate efficiency by just dividing 1 tetromino over "attack+downstack" value for the whole tetris. I think the better way is just to see how much that particular tetromino placed "added" to the "attack/downstack" invariant, based on simple ratio. The value that results is not inflated unnecessarily and is intuitively comparable to efficiency values for the actual clears.


For instance, if you do have a tetris position already made, putting in an I piece is the best possible thing you can do relative to that field position. Using (attack + downstack) / tetriminos may not reflect the efficiency of the pieces already placed, but it can still be useful in comparing sequences of piece placements relative to a field.


--------------------
My awesome downstacking guide, last updated (Jan 29, 2013): Downstacker's Guide to the Galaxy
Tired of the same old Tetris games? Read my idea for a revamped Tetris game! The Next Evolution of Tetris
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sisu
post Nov 29 2011, 07:42 PM
Post #37


Tetris Professional
Group Icon
Posts: 863
Joined: 9-November 10



/r/ general comparison of solo downstacking modes

e.g. BlockBox, Cultris II, NullpoMino, Tessellate, TOJ


--------------------
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apocalypse
post Dec 9 2011, 05:32 PM
Post #38


Tetris Apprentice
Group Icon
Posts: 104
Joined: 26-June 09



First off, I would like to thank anonymous for posting my video as an example, I feel honored...
Also, I am not as "techy" or smart as these guys, giving such support to the topic, but my opinion is that good down-stacking isn't something you develop with just practice like stacking fast. Fast stacking requires lots of practice because you familiarize certain patterns, you might not be conscious of it but its memorized, you have more control over that. Down-stacking in the other hand requires a lot of improvisation, you receive garbage that you cannot predict or control(unless you are a uber nerd and have the formula for it). For good down-stacking you MUST enter that mindset of seen the lower gaps in relation to your incoming pieces and see the best possible way of using these(which is something "duh").

I had to play thousands of games to enter that mindset, survivor mode really helped me a lot and I feel there are way better down-stackers out there, my speed is a huge factor to my down-stacking, people like meow, radiance, anonymous and trance(which I'm sure there are more people but these guys are coolest imo) that have such efficiency down-stacking that makes my speedy down-stacking look foolish, they might give you the key to "entering the mindset".

I like anonymous input on keeping the field flat for an easier down-stacking, Blink keeps a nice flat field which makes it easier for him to set up combos and clear garbage, probably one of the best at it. Meow with his patience guided me to understanding that important factor(hes the guy you should seek if this is an issue for you as it was for me).

I know I probably talked a lot of bs and said things you already know, but I didn't understand these things myself, I kept playing and playing and playing with desperation, believing I would suddenly be good at it.

So, conclusion, "patience and focus".
;}


--------------------
☠ Apocalypse
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jkwon23
post Mar 5 2014, 05:23 AM
Post #39


Tetris Professional
Group Icon
Posts: 559
Joined: 3-July 10



"What does this tell us? None garbage line clears are bad, and theoretically, you should maximize garbage singles. Here is the most efficient game you can play:



Clearly, this situation is highly unlikely, and actually impossible to do with the bag system. Theoretically though, this placement is what you should be striving for."

Where is it? D:


--------------------
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anonymous
post Mar 5 2014, 05:36 AM
Post #40


Tetris Professional
Group Icon
Posts: 595
Joined: 29-June 09



QUOTE(jkwon23 @ Mar 5 2014, 12:23 AM) *

"What does this tell us? None garbage line clears are bad, and theoretically, you should maximize garbage singles. Here is the most efficient game you can play:



Clearly, this situation is highly unlikely, and actually impossible to do with the bag system. Theoretically though, this placement is what you should be striving for."

Where is it? D:


thanks for pointing it out, I accidentally messed up the fumen while editing earlier. The missing fumen is this:



--------------------
My awesome downstacking guide, last updated (Jan 29, 2013): Downstacker's Guide to the Galaxy
Tired of the same old Tetris games? Read my idea for a revamped Tetris game! The Next Evolution of Tetris
User is offlinePM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

©2009-2014 Hard Drop Community & Forum
harddrop.com is not sponsored or endorsed by The Tetris Company or its subsidiaries.