Thread history

From RoboWiki
Fragment of a discussion from Talk:RoboRumble
Viewing a history listing
Jump to: navigation, search
descTime User Activity Comment
No results

Hopefully we don't need to wipe 1v1 rumble. I am more just concerned with bad configurations, running with Java10 etc that have accumulated.

Have you managed to make a patch for the melee priority battles?

Skilgannon (talk)15:45, 3 October 2018

The rumble clients load version number dynamically, maybe we should tweak this to append Java version after version number as well to prevent running and uploading with Java 10 incidentally.

And since we have rolling average, the accumulated effect of bad configurations should be fixed automatically (after a lot of battles).

A patch for melee priority battle is harder than I thought, as the data structure (currently, very bad, string) needs a redesign for the extra 1 bit of information. And almost every line of code needs a rewrite as it depends on the implementation details of the (not extensible) data structure.

Xor (talk)16:05, 3 October 2018
 

Done! After some refactoring, the rumble client should upload only pairings containing the prioritized bot, or containing the predetermined random bot when running prioritized battles.

The only flaw is that when the rumble server returns prioritized pairings, etc. A and B, if B is not evenly distributed, then B will get biased battles (meet more A). Is literumble using this feature currently? How not evenly distributed is bot B returned in this case?

Xor (talk)00:44, 4 October 2018

Bot B is randomly selected from missing pairs, or if pairings are complete then randomly selected, with weighting biased towards lower number of battle pairs. It should be ok (and regardless, much much better than the current situation)

Skilgannon (talk)15:23, 4 October 2018

Great! I’ll send the patch to fnl after some test.

Now I need some test bed on literumble, or deploy one myself.

IIRC, everyone is able to create a new rumble game on literumble by writing rumble client config?

Xor (talk)00:56, 5 October 2018

You can do it on literumble and I will delete when you are done.

Skilgannon (talk)06:58, 5 October 2018

Something strange happens.

http://literumble.appspot.com/BotCompare?game=roborumble&bota=aaa.n.ScalarN%200.011d.148&botb=aaa.n.ScalarN%200.011d.145&order=-Diff%20APS

ScalarN scores APS 0% and survival 0% (it was all 100%/100% before recent 1-2 days) against some bots with APS lower than 50, after 1.9.3.3 is allowed. However I've been testing my bot with 1.9.3.2 and 1.9.3.3 since the first day and nothing strange happens.

I noticed that Anonymous uploads in http://literumble.appspot.com/RumbleStats, which is the only machine besides my servers. I'm pretty sure this strange score does not come from my servers.

Is that possible to see whether some strange pairings comes from a specific uploader?

Xor (talk)06:52, 6 October 2018
 

Some time ago I accidentally set up the gigameleerumble, while it should have been named meleeTop30rumble. You can remove the gigameleerumble, all bots have around 10-20 pairings.

GrubbmGait (talk)15:11, 6 October 2018
 
 

Well, another special case is the initialization process. When every battle is a prioritized battle, should we have something special to prevent the slow down?

Xor (talk)02:02, 7 October 2018

Potentially I could add something on the literumble side, yes. Also, if there are less uploads for melee then it can send back priority battles on every pair, or at least more often. Right now it only sends back priority on a fraction of the uploads.

Skilgannon (talk)20:01, 8 October 2018
 

Another question — will literumble return prioritized pairings all the time? or will it stop after each bot gets enough battles.

Xor (talk)03:18, 7 October 2018
 
 
 
Personal tools