Upgrade client version

From RoboWiki
Fragment of a discussion from Talk:RoboRumble
Jump to: navigation, search

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.


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 is allowed. However I've been testing my bot with and 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

After more investigation, I thought that those strange score may come from some one who incidentally clicked roborumble.bat without proper configuration which however I never reproduced.

Using the latest robocode version as accepted one and allowing Anonymous uploads is risky as robocode has a lot of downloads per week and anyone who incidentally clicked roborumble.bat contributes without verifying configuration.

Maybe we should also modify roborumble client to add a field usually called "User Agent" and upload OS/Java Version etc. so that strange scores should be more trackable.

Another option is to disable Anonymous uploads when using the latest version of robocode, but this would only prevent incident roborumble runs and wouldn't verify user agent.

Xor (talk)01:08, 7 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

Honestly, I like the name gigameleerumble better ;-) Maybe we should switch to that instead?

Skilgannon (talk)19:57, 8 October 2018

I like gigameleerumble better as well ;) However is there a way to migrate old battles from meleeTo30 rumble to GigaMeleeRumble?

Xor (talk)04:27, 9 October 2018

I personally like meleeTo30 since it describes participating bots. GigaMeleeRumble might be confused with ultra-large-sized bots, since we have nano and micro rumbles.

Beaming (talk)15:23, 9 October 2018

yeah, my first impression on gigarumble was those with code size greater than 1 GigaBytes ;)

However it would be confusing for two similar rumble having quite different name;) and giga also sounds awesome;)

Xor (talk)17:29, 9 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