From RoboWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
HTTP Error 500, Internal Server Error?507:25, 1 November 2017, 19 October 2017
Varying NUMBATTLES of RoborumbleAtHome?1011:04, 12 October 2017
Adding opponent APS in bot comparison? 922:27, 9 September 2017
Literumble queue size? 106:35, 8 September 2017
weirdness in pairing121:36, 7 September 2017
What's required for a bot to have KNNPBI?519:06, 21 August 2017
How can I deploy roborumble client on a server?000:34, 21 August 2017
Preconfigured client link is down ;(411:40, 20 August 2017
Allowed Robocode versions notification117:16, 31 December 2015
Clear LiteRumble history507:35, 19 November 2015
LRP (ish)2100:49, 6 December 2014
Starting your own LiteRumble1004:31, 19 November 2014
Minirumble219:43, 4 August 2014
strange stats for jk.mega.DrussGT 3.1.3302:36, 20 April 2014
Roborumble Bot Details Gives Server Error714:19, 21 November 2013
more informative landing page121:25, 19 November 2013
Better Priority Battles817:29, 18 November 2013
LiteRumble preconfigured client - Error (404)221:15, 24 October 2013
Clarity & Other suggestions414:49, 29 June 2013
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

HTTP Error 500, Internal Server Error?

Since today, when uploading results, this message keeps appearing in my RoboRumble client: Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:

Did anybody observe similar results?

Cb (talk)18:59, 31 October 2017

Ah, this was caused by a bug due to a new check I added for dropping battles more than 24 hours old (to prevent old versions being added back by mistake). Can you try again and let me know if it is fixed for you now?

Skilgannon (talk)19:16, 31 October 2017

Yes, now it works, thanks :)

Cb (talk)23:28, 31 October 2017

It seems that when uploading out-dated pairings, it is still receiving http 500, which cause those out-dated pairings to be doubled (another bug) and re-uploaded twice each time... And then failing with doubled time, which grows like crazy.

Will you change the response to something like "200, out-dated pairings dropped" or so to fix this? Thanks ;)

Xor (talk)04:32, 1 November 2017

Well, that was the intention, but it seems that Python doesn't auto-convert datetimes to strings so my logging was crashing it. Should be fixed now!

Skilgannon (talk)07:25, 1 November 2017

More information: Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985874,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 0.1,16657,4100,5 Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985874,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 aaa.ScaledBot 0.01d,15278,3625,1 Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985874,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 mld.DustBunny 3.8,14411,3784,0 Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985874,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 cb.nano.Insomnia 1.0,11918,2981,1 Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985875,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 ayk.WallHugger 1.0,8941,2568,0 Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985875,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 yk.JahRoslav 1.1,8499,1922,0 Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
Unable to upload results meleerumble,35,1000x1000,Xor,1505812985875,SERVER abc.Shadow 3.84i,24248,6434,28 rampancy.Durandal 2.1d,7268,1522,0

this is what I'm getting constantly (everytime it uploads).

Xor (talk)04:33, 1 November 2017

It's been a while since we have updated the rumble client version, and the new version brings several important fixes. I'd really appreciate if someone set up a quick benchmark for a battle or two for each bot in the rumble, and then run it on old and new versions to make sure we don't have any regressions. Once this is done we can upgrade the client =)

Skilgannon (talk)19:10, 8 October 2017

As far as I know, Robocode hasn't been officially released yet. The website and GitHub still name as the latest version, and there is no download. You can only get it by building from the latest git master. What I linked to was a draft of the new changelog.

I don't think any new releases will be made until poor Fnl finishes dealing with all of the bugs reports I piled onto him. What I have been doing for the past week is emptying my mental list of annoyances with Robocode onto its bugtracker.

So currently, it is still in development, and it's a bit too early to do regression testing with this new version.

What does need testing, however, is Robocode on Java 9. We already found CPU constant calculation and team JARs to be broken there, and doubtlessly there are more issues.

MultiplyByZer0 (talk)21:01, 8 October 2017

Looks like Fnl is busy as we speak. May be it is the time to complain/bug report everything on our minds.

to MultiplyByZer0, thanks for spotting so many extra bugs.

Beaming (talk)21:37, 8 October 2017

Robocode has been released.

MultiplyByZer0 (talk)20:17, 19 October 2017

Great. As soon as we have a benchmark comparison making sure no subtle score changes have crept in or tons of bots are now broken I'm happy to change the LiteRumble over!

Skilgannon (talk)20:26, 19 October 2017

Varying NUMBATTLES of RoborumbleAtHome?

Recently, I noticed that more than half of the battles are dropped as queue is full — however, this won't happen even if I wait a few minutes. Seems that all the rumble clients are uploading battles periodically, and that upload is pretty concentrated — e.g. All four clients of mine upload ~200 battles within ~3 minutes, which makes the queue get full immediately. And If I take a look at literumble/statistics, I can see that there are 5 to 7 clients uploading within 2 minutes.

It generally takes a client about 15 min to finish 50 battles, but if we vary this to primes, the uploads will get evenly distributed, reducing the high concurrent which causes a lot of dropped battles.

Xor (talk)01:38, 8 October 2017

Reducing NUMBATTLES would probably help here too. It would also reduce the delay which is the main cause of duplicated pairings for new bots being entered. Maybe a NUMBATTLES of 20 in the main rumble would be good enough to solve the client component of this.

However, I think one of the main causes of the full queue is the batch processing for Vote/NPP/KNNPBI, since the queue needs to paused while this is running. Because it is paused the projected processing time goes very high, and it stops accepting new uploads. I have an idea on how to tune this, it should help a bit.

Skilgannon (talk)09:50, 8 October 2017

However, even a NUMBATTLES of 3 can't prevent most of the battles from being dropped ;/

Seems that with 8 clients running the rumble at the same time, no attempt will help without stopping some clients.

Worth mention that I can notice dropped battles when there are 6 clients, also not frequently. Seems that with 2 more clients, the effectiveness dropped considerably?

Btw, one thing that's really interesting is that the duplicates of multiple versions can last hours. Seems that some clients are not checking participants list for hours.

Xor (talk)14:56, 8 October 2017

Got it — maybe after the queue is paused for batch tasks and then resumed, it keeps near full as there are still much parings uploaded. Like some DoS, this decreases the ability to handle high concurrent (although the average pairings uploaded per minute is not very high, they came in during a short period of time, and get dropped)

Xor (talk)15:53, 8 October 2017

Then I think increase the queue size a little after batch task (and then decrease to normal size slowly to make sure new uploads won't wait forever after some flood upload)

Or, we can handle uploads during pause separately — don't let them take place in normal queue, rather, store them in a separate queue (and cap it with normal uploads per minutes * pause time).

Xor (talk)16:02, 8 October 2017

I was running 8 clients, that was probably causing it. Particularly melee clients cause a huge number of uploads for the amount of processing time required by the client.

I'll save my clients for when there are less others running =)

Skilgannon (talk)19:13, 8 October 2017

I've been experiencing constant "queue full" messages in the past 2 hours in MeleeRumble, with 3 melee clients + 3 rumble clients. This should really be happening this often?

Rsalesc (talk)02:19, 12 October 2017

I noticed that every time the queue is paused for batch tasks, not until I pause the clients for a few minus, did the massive queue full messages stop.

That may because when the queue size is near max size, the capacity of handling high concurrency decreases dramatically, although the average processing power doesn't decrease at all.

Use a separate queue when it is paused may help, imo.

Xor (talk)04:11, 12 October 2017

Adding opponent APS in bot comparison?

Would you mind adding another column called Opponent APS in bot comparison? When sorting with opponent APS, it could be really useful to see the difference of two bots against bots with different APS range, as in the Diff Distribution graphic, but with more information, especially the bot name. This could also help us to create a good test bed ;)

Xor (talk)15:46, 5 September 2017

I can take a look (although not this weekend, I'm away from home). However, what would you consider appropriate behavior on bots which had been removed from the rumble, but which are a shared pairing? The APS/diff image does this by just ignoring those pairs, but I don't think we want to do that here. Do I put a 0.0?

Skilgannon (talk)21:36, 7 September 2017

Can we assume that APS is relatively stable? Since we can click into the detail page to see the history APS even when that opponent is removed, can we simply put that value?

Opps this assumption breaks when comparing ancient bots ;( Then polluting the table must be a bad idea. However, why don't we use NaN or N/A instead of 0?

Xor (talk)00:05, 8 September 2017

NaN sounds most appropriate. I don't want to have to fetch each bot object that is not in the rumble anymore to look up its last APS.

Skilgannon (talk)06:30, 8 September 2017

Done. I also added a link on the BotDetails page to find the bot on the wiki.

Skilgannon (talk)16:19, 9 September 2017

Awesome! Thanks a lot.

Since you in a wish granting mood, would it be possible to have api call which returns only summary table with APS, PWIN, etc for a given bot in a given game. Right now, I parse but its spits the whole comparison table, which is overkill and wastes the bandwidth. All I need is info stored in the header table.

I do it to plot APS vs bot version for my bot, but I can imagine other will be interested in this too.

Beaming (talk)19:08, 9 September 2017

WoW that's amazing! Thanks a lot!

Xor (talk)22:27, 9 September 2017

Literumble queue size?

LiteRumble says OK. Queue full,XXX vs XXX discarded.

and it is discarding hundreds of battles :\

Xor (talk)06:14, 8 September 2017

If the queue gets too long then the priority battles have a severe lag, so the rumble gets really inefficient. Max queue size is based on projected processing time.

Skilgannon (talk)06:31, 8 September 2017

weirdness in pairing

Hi, after recent bot removal and restoring we have strange artifacts: asymmetrical pairing reports.

Have a look at Galzxy 01 stats and sample.Walls 1.0 stats. You can see that Galaxy 01 has 18 battles against Walls. Byt if you look at Walls stats there are no reports on these 18 battles with Galaxy 01. Galaxy 01 is simply missing in the list of Walls battles.

Beaming (talk)17:43, 7 September 2017

You just need to wait for Galzxy to get another battle, and it will be fixed again.

Skilgannon (talk)21:36, 7 September 2017

What's required for a bot to have KNNPBI?

I've seen many bots have KNNPBI; however my bot still have no KNNPBI (all zeros) after a long period of time ;(

So what's required for a bot to have KNNPBI?

Xor (talk)17:46, 20 August 2017

Finally after having 978 pairings the KNNPBI is shown. Anyway, still wondering what made KNNPBI to be all zeros.

Xor (talk)18:05, 20 August 2017

And in 0.022b the KNNPBI is still all zeros, see

Xor (talk)18:07, 20 August 2017

You should have more pairings but I don't know how does it decide.

Dsekercioglu (talk)18:21, 20 August 2017

The computation of those values are batched, they are computed every 24 hours. One possible explanation for the older version to be still all zeroes is that maybe only the latest version of a bot is considered when doing the computation? Not sure about this, though. Just makes sense, had a really superficial look at the code. You can probably try to figure it out here:

Rsalesc (talk)20:46, 20 August 2017

KNNPBI (and the other batched rankings, NNP, Vote) are calculated once every 8 hours, since they can't be calculated incrementally. If you remove your bot before it is calculated, it won't be calculated, since it doesn't get recalculated on old bots.

Skilgannon (talk)19:06, 21 August 2017

How can I deploy roborumble client on a server?

A thread, Thread:Talk:LiteRumble/How can I deploy roborumble client on a server?, was moved from here to Talk:RoboRumble. This move was made by Xor (Talk | contribs) on 21 August 2017 at 00:34.

Preconfigured client link is down ;( is not available now ;(

And doesn't has an archive of it ;( does anyone have a backup of it?

Xor (talk)09:10, 20 August 2017

By the way, I'm really wondering how is LiteRumble working ;) I used to think the battles are all on the cloud, but then I discovered which shows a lot of contributors with familiar names ;) How can I set the battles to run on my computer and submit the results to LiteRumble? Didn't see any discussion about it.

Xor (talk)09:21, 20 August 2017

That isn't needed anymore, the newer versions of Robocode are preconfigured to support Literumble.

Just download, edit robocode/roborumble/[roborumble/meleerumble/etc].txt to have your name, and you can run battles on your computer to contribute to the rankings. The website just displays the battles that users have uploaded in a nice way.

Skilgannon (talk)10:08, 20 August 2017

wow that's very convenient

btw, is there any plan to support robocode

Xor (talk)10:14, 20 August 2017

It should be tested a lot to be sure that there isn't any errors.

Dsekercioglu (talk)11:40, 20 August 2017

Allowed Robocode versions notification

Hi Skilgannon,

Would you mind bumping this thread when you are changing the Allowed Robocode versions?

I run my clients pretty much unattended, so they try to upload rankings and fail. Unfortunately, there is no way to notify a human unless one stares at the console all the time.

But updates in the wiki thread would propagate to my rss reader quite quickly.

Happy New Year and thank for running the LiteRumble.

Beaming (talk)17:10, 31 December 2015

No problem. I actually only changed it about 2 hours ago, if you didn't notice I would have posted something =) I'm also going to add back those historical bots which were removed because of the compatibility issues. Have a good New Year!

Skilgannon (talk)17:16, 31 December 2015

Clear LiteRumble history

I have created my own LiteRumble instance running as a google app, as described in previous discussions. Now I want to know if it is possible to delete the battle history and the participated robots? I am experimenting with it since we want to have a roborumble event at our office and I want to delete my previous "testing" robots and matches and have a clean slate when we do the event.

Frbod1 (talk)14:05, 18 November 2015

You should be able to delete the data from the AppEngine web console. Otherwise you can simple make the clients upload to a different named rumble, and the old one can be for the demo/setup bots.

Skilgannon (talk)20:22, 18 November 2015

I have tried to remove the data from the datastore by selecting all database entries and delete them. But the data on the webpage is still there, so the data must be stored somewhere else. To create a new rumble seems like a annoying workaround :)

Frbod1 (talk)06:54, 19 November 2015

There may still be a copy in Memcache - if you clear Memcache and the datastore everything should be gone.

Skilgannon (talk)07:05, 19 November 2015

Haha, didn't reload the page before I submitted my last comment. I seem to have found the problem at the same time that you mentioned it. Thank you anyway!

Frbod1 (talk)07:35, 19 November 2015

Found the problem. Had to delete all database entries AND the memory cache.

Frbod1 (talk)07:14, 19 November 2015

One thing I really missed from the old rumble was the LRP, but without ELO/Glicko we can't really do the whole straight-line fit any more. So, instead I have added a Score Distribution image on every bot's details page. The red is APS and the green is Survival (as seen in image the mouseover). The image is directly embedded in the HTML using data URIs, so if you are using IE, 8 and later only, otherwise pretty much everything supports it. I'm also planning to add this to the BotCompare page so you can analyse differences in score compared to opponent score for both APS and survival.

Skilgannon (talk)22:28, 10 May 2013

Ahhh, neat stuff. That's very nifty with directly embedding the image data there. For some reason the image is displaying very tiny for me though under Firefox 20.0. It gets scaled to the box around it properly under Chromium, but not Firefox.

EDIT: Nevermind... the styles.css file was being cached and that was the problem. A ctrl-r fixed it.

Rednaxela (talk)22:48, 10 May 2013

Ah yeah, the styles.css was changed so you need to do a hard-reload.

I've now added the KNNPBI to the bot-details Scores Distribution, and the bot-compare has a Diff Distribution.

Skilgannon (talk)12:50, 11 May 2013

There is something fishy with a chart in the right part close to the end. If you look at above CunobelinDC score distribution you would see that there is no corresponding red points for stronger opponents, while blue and grean are there. This is quite common theme for other bots as well.

Also have a look at this EvBot score distribution you would see the problem with normalizing, i.e. about 1/4 of the space in the right part of the chart has no points. Which is non optimal use of the chart space.

Beaming (talk)15:44, 18 November 2013

Is it still showing the problem? I don't see anything wrong right now. I had some issues with (I suspect) bad bytecode and versioning, but that should be fixed now.

As for the EvBot chart, that is because in meleerumble nobody gets higher than ~75%, so the top 25% is empty. Although I guess I could normalise to the top score, I'd rather have the charts consistent as better bots are released.

Skilgannon (talk)16:55, 18 November 2013

Aha, I see now why melee charts were somewhat off.

But I insist that I do not see red points for X>95% for CunobelinDC. Look at 5 the rightmost green points, I cannot locate red (APS) or blue for the same X values. It might be aliasing problem or may be points are just on top of each other.

Beaming (talk)17:41, 18 November 2013

Green is survival, and so the X value is the average survival score of the enemy bot. The red and blue use enemy APS as the X value, not survival, and since survival scores are higher the green dots go further to the right.

I've actually thought about changing the X axis to just be enemy APS to make it easier to interpret. Or ordering the X-axis by rank instead of using APS values.

Skilgannon (talk)08:22, 19 November 2013

I've changed it so they all use APS on the X axis, so it should be clearer now.

Skilgannon (talk)10:03, 19 November 2013

Starting your own LiteRumble

Does anyone have some advice for starting up a custom and/or private LiteRumble? I've got a new batch of programming students that I'm leading through Robocode and I'd love to run a custom bracket with just my kids in it as I've done in years past.

Tkiesel (talk)17:50, 18 November 2014

Sure, it's easy enough.

  1. Create your own app on Google AppEngine
  2. Download and extract the code from bitbucket
  3. Change the app name in app.yaml to the name of the app you created
  4. Download and install the Google AppEngine python SDK
  5. Run the following in the code directory: update . && update batchratings.yaml
  6. This should give you an empty LiteRumble instance running on your app

Once you have a copy of LiteRumble running, all you need to do is modify the rumble client in roborumble.txt to point to your new server for uploads. You also need a new participants list, which you can host on appengine too if you don't mind continually re-deploying, or you can make a wiki page somewhere. The client just parses everything between the two <pre> tags.

Have fun!

Skilgannon (talk)18:14, 18 November 2014

Excellent. I can just host participants on a Dropbox text file. Thanks for the info!

By the way, a favorite thing I do when introducing my kids to Robocode is to have a pair of them (driver and gunner) pilot sample.Interactive at a moderate simulation speed against some sample bots until they get used to it. Then they face DrussGT. Thought you'd want to know that you've caused some laughter and groans of frustration from some prospective high school coders!

Tkiesel (talk)18:23, 18 November 2014

Brilliant. I've always found the sample.Interactive very difficult to control, I don't think I'd stand a chance against DrussGT =) I bet if I set the bullet colour to something more similar to the background it would make it even harder for interactive users >:-D

Skilgannon (talk)18:30, 18 November 2014

That's always the kicker is that they have a very very hard time adapting to a top of the line bot like DrussGT or Diamond. I've had students say it's like the bot is reading their mind. Then I drop the bomb that the bot can't see bullets, while the students can. It's a great and impactful "Math is POWERFUL" moment!

Of course, set the sim speed low enough and get a patient non-wasteful gunner, and they will trash DrussGT because they can dance juuust aside of each bullet. But as long as I set the sim speed such to keep them on their toes, it's a rough but educational ride. Fun for spectators too!

Tkiesel (talk)18:35, 18 November 2014

I have some ideas about dealing with interactive users - closer range, not letting energy levels get below the enemy, varying colours of dark blue and grey bullets - perhaps that should be something I work on next. I've neglected Robocode and I've been working on more pure ML/AI problems instead, but this is something more in the behavioural side which AFAIK hasn't been done yet.

Skilgannon (talk)18:55, 18 November 2014

Awww, high school students have all the fun. XD

Chase03:05, 19 November 2014

The sample bot Interactive is hard to control. For 1v1, all you would really have to change in response to what you see is orbit direction, distancing, current aiming GF, and bulletpower/when to fire. Everything else could be automatic 99+% of the time.

Would anyone be interested in a SuperInteractive wiki collaboration? Perhaps a challenge for driving it against DrussGT?

Sheldor (talk)04:06, 19 November 2014

I was thinking of a fairly simple "SuperInteractive" which does regular wave-surfing, but also allows you to click on enemy bullets, which it will then dodge. Targeting, I feel, would be stronger without any human intervention.

Skilgannon (talk)04:31, 19 November 2014

Tkeisel Can I contribute to your Literumble please?

Tmservo (talk)02:11, 19 November 2014


It looks like there are a lot of megabots in the minirumble right now. Has anyone else noticed this, or is it just a problem on my end?

Sheldor (talk)17:44, 2 August 2014

It seems like a bug in code size detection. Since I am the one who contributed most of the battles, the bug must be on my end. I have no idea what caused it but this phenomena was noticed before once rumble switched to accept robocode with versions 1.9.[0,1,2].

I run a stock client with no modifications, but I do not much about code size detection by the rumble.

Beaming (talk)20:11, 2 August 2014

I think it is a bug with the rumble client in 1.9.x. Unfortunately I am really busy right now, but if anybody wants to submit a patch to Fnl on SourceForge I'll be happy to include the new version in allowed clients.

Skilgannon (talk)19:43, 4 August 2014

strange stats for jk.mega.DrussGT 3.1.3

I just looked at the roborumble page and there is something strange. How come that jk.mega.DrussGT 3.1.3 has more than 100% of PWIN?

Beaming (talk)01:57, 19 April 2014

I looked on it now and it has exactly 100% PWIN. But what is really interesting about DrussGT's score, is that it has some extremely high scores against some very good bots, like for example 88% against Phoenix and even 99.82% APS against Hydra!? I know that Druss is very good, but >99% against the #12 bot Hydra is still extremely much in my opinion.

Cb (talk)20:35, 19 April 2014

yep, DrussGT just knows somehow where is my bot firing and where it will be when bullet arrives to hit it. May be its telepatic or jk find a way to break out of the java virtual machine :)

Indeed score is back to 100%. May be it was a matrix glitch.

Beaming (talk)21:10, 19 April 2014

Hydra is bullet shielded to death by DrussGT

Tmservo (talk)02:36, 20 April 2014

Roborumble Bot Details Gives Server Error

I've been getting Server Error whenever trying to see details or do a comparison with game=roborumble. It works fine for other game types.

Skotty (talk)22:38, 18 November 2013

I think roborumble just do it more often. I notice the correlation with stats upload time. At least right around when my client uploads data it gives this error. May be CPU cycles taken for stats recalculation.

Beaming (talk)01:11, 19 November 2013

I've just fixed a bug where removing a bot would corrupt the rankings list (it was still storing it in an old format - gah!) until another battle was uploaded and processed, which saved it in the new format. This should fix the problem.

Skilgannon (talk)08:16, 19 November 2013

One more thing I noticed, once I retire a bot. I see them both new and old one in rating for quite a while. Is it related to the fixed bug?

Beaming (talk)13:52, 19 November 2013

That's a longstanding-ish normal thing. IIRC, to keep clients from fighting over removing/readding bots, I think the server doesn't remove bots until a certain amount of time since the last upload for that bot.

Rednaxela (talk)15:33, 19 November 2013

LiteRumble doesn't do that, the moment a client requests a bot to be removed it removes it. However, it keeps all the pairing data against it for 365 days in case it is re-added so that battles don't have to be re-run.

I'm guessing the delay was due to a client taking a while to re-download the participants page.

Skilgannon (talk)21:23, 19 November 2013

Thanks, Skilgannon. It's all good now.

Skotty (talk)15:42, 19 November 2013

I actually don't think that's what the issue was, I've fixed another bug in the priority battles generation which will give more weight to bots that are missing more pairings. I've also got a lot more debugging so I can see what is happening if this pops up again.

Skilgannon (talk)14:19, 21 November 2013

more informative landing page

It would be nice to have some more links on the LiteRumble landing page to general info about Robocode and RoboRumble. Even just and RoboRumble wiki page would help a lot imo. A few times I've found myself wanting to mention the RoboRumble to an outsider (like just now) and I sometimes have to provide multiple links, or if I'm just providing one, I use I'd rather provide, but it basically assumes familiarity with Robocode / RoboRumble.

Voidious (talk)19:32, 18 November 2013

Good idea. I'll see if I can add something over the next few days, perhaps a link to the RoboWiki RoboRumble page and to the project homepage.

Skilgannon (talk)21:25, 19 November 2013

Better Priority Battles

A while ago I made a change with the priority battles to do a global search for bots that didn't have full pairings, instead of a descent towards lowest by following the lowest bot of the current processed pairing. It really helped with making sure that all pairings filled out ASAP. I've now added something similar to battle count, so only bots with a battle count within 10% of the lowest will get priority battles once pairings are full. It is already making a difference in directing priority battles to more recently added bots.

Next to add is a "lowest APS against enemy" column to rating details.

Skilgannon (talk)09:34, 12 September 2013

Good to hear, thanks Skilgannon. I actually thought it had already been doing that for some time.

Chase11:10, 12 September 2013

It did have priority battles based on battle count, but it was a 'gradient descent' method, so it gives a priority battle to the bot in the uploaded pairing with less battles, and eventually it will 'descend' to the bot with the least battles. The new method goes directly to the bots with lowest battles: if the currently uploaded bot is one of the 'priority bots' it intelligently selects which pairing to give as priority weighted towards pairings with lower battle counts, but the new behaviour is if the currently uploaded bot isn't one of the priority bots, and now instead of giving a priority battle to the currently uploaded bot with less battles it gives a random pairing to one of the 'priority bots'.

Skilgannon (talk)11:24, 12 September 2013

Cool, nice work!

Voidious (talk)16:12, 12 September 2013

I've noticed that there are currently 4 bots in the roborumble which seem sort of stuck at around 950 pairings. I'm running my client, and it appears to just be running random pairings; it's not running pairings for any of those 4 bots. I do have a number of bots that my client won't run due to the "major.minor" version issue, but it's only about 30 bots, and there are will over 100 pairings missing from each of the 4 bots without full pairings, so that doesn't quite explain it. Might be worth looking into.

Skotty (talk)13:39, 18 November 2013

I'm not quite sure what was happening, I think it might have been due to changing code without changing version number. But I've re-deployed the code with a new version number and it seems to be fixed now, those bots are getting priority battles again.

Skilgannon (talk)16:43, 18 November 2013

Do you have a list of what 4 bots those were? I'm wondering because doesn't automatically update when the same version number already exists.

Rednaxela (talk)16:53, 18 November 2013

eem.EvBot v4.4.5, 12.7, zezinho.QuerMePegarKKKK 1.0, EH.nano.NightBird M. EvBot was the most recent release. My client was running quite a few battles for EvBot initially (when it only had about 400 pairings) but when it got up to the 900's, suddenly it was just running random pairings of all bots despite the 4 being short roughtly 150 pairings each. It appears as though all 4 of those bots are now getting priority again, as they have each picked up at least 50 pairings since this morning.

Skotty (talk)17:02, 18 November 2013

Appengine code, not bot code :-)

Skilgannon (talk)17:29, 18 November 2013

LiteRumble preconfigured client - Error (404)

I´d like to use the preconfigured client explained here( , but it gives me a 404 Error while trying to download this. ( sure , I could use the BitBucket page ( ,but I would appreciate it very much to use this comfortable feature.

MAESchortens (talk)20:34, 24 October 2013

Thank you for telling me, the link is fixed.

Skilgannon (talk)20:46, 24 October 2013

Thank you, now it is working fine.

MAESchortens (talk)21:15, 24 October 2013

Clarity & Other suggestions

Robocode is a game for teaching people how to program as well as a great way for experienced programmers to test their knowledge and skills. The wiki is pretty nice and user friendly. But both the old and the new rumble pages are entirely unfriendly. It would be good to:

  • On the landing page, describe what the bot classes are, or at least link to the wiki explaining the bot classes & types of rumble.
  • On the rankings explain what the columns are at the top of the page:
    - WTF is : APS, PWIN, ANPP, Vote, Survival etc? Its not exactly what I would call noob friendly.

Any other suggestions for improving friendliness of the rumble pages? In the same manner as bot authors can set up their flag, how about allowing them to also set up a link to their bots robowiki page? Then when you click on bot details in the rankings, the bot's page has a "Bot Details on WIki" link. Might be neat.

I know its more work for you chaps to implement, this is a friendly suggestion list. I think you are doing a great job of it at the moment! :)

Wolfman11:54, 5 April 2013

Explaining the different scoring systems is something I've been meaning to do for a while, so absolutely. I was actually thinking of doing it as mouse-over text on the rankings page, although maybe a separate page would be better? As for explaining bot classes, I'd rather keep the server entirely free of any sort of class-specific data, and leave everything up to the client configuration.

As for the back-to-wiki links in the bot details, how about a link that searches for the bot name on the wiki? That would minimise the amount of admin, and would just involve adding a bit of HTML to the BotDetails page.

Skilgannon12:45, 5 April 2013

I think it would be nice to have one or more new columns on the Bot details table which would tell whether a certain bot "Voted" for the bot currently being viewed, and whether the bot currently being viewed "Voted" for a certain bot. It would also be nice to see whom else a certain bot voted for, if the vote was split multiple ways.


Sheldor (talk)12:59, 29 June 2013

You can infer that from the NPP score. If you got 100NPP against them, then they voted for you, if they got 100NPP against you then you voted for them. NPP isn't symmetric so you their 100NPP doesn't necessarily align with your lowest NPP, but you can just check your lowest APS score, and it will tell you who you voted for (multiple if there were ties).

Skilgannon (talk)13:08, 29 June 2013


Sheldor (talk)14:49, 29 June 2013
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Personal tools