Optimize fitness by adding hard requirements to destination and waypoint states.

[GoogleCodeExporter]

When you kick off a new build search, I would assume that by taking the 
destination state and adding requirements you *know* to be true into that 
destination state could result in a significant improvement to the fitness 
evaluator.

For instance, if in my final destination I require 20 lings with attack upgrade 
and 4 hydras as my final state, it should infer based on the tech tree that I 
also require a hydra den, a lair, an evolution chamber, and a spawning pool at 
the least (one could also infer that since you need gas you would need at least 
one extractor, but its not a hard tech requirement)

This would allow the fitness evaluator to give bonus score for those required 
buildings giving a better indication of how close the build is to a solution, 
and should narrow down on a higher scoring build more quickly.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by codedlo...@gmail.com on 6 Nov 2010 at 12:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

We do this to some extent, but there are often times multiple possible 
requirements (a greater spire can allow mutas, but so can a spire, and so can a 
spire evolving to a greater spire), so making them explicit requirements is 
hard.

But yes, it would be useful.

Original comment by Frit...@gmail.com on 6 Nov 2010 at 1:46

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by AudioL...@gmail.com on 9 Nov 2010 at 12:38

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Granted, in the instance where you have a spire, or a greater spire in 
progress, or a greater spire, the bonus could apply equally to any of the above 
(although I'm not making claims as to how difficult it could be to implement.)

Conversely, it may be possible to penalize the building of certain buildings if 
they are explicitly not required (For instance, a built in penalty for building 
a greater spire if brood lords are not in any of the build steps).

Original comment by codedlo...@gmail.com on 21 Dec 2010 at 11:28