http://robowiki.net/w/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Thread%3ATalk%3AXanderCat%2FInitialization_Code_Runtime_Reduction_Effort%2Freply_%2817%29Thread:Talk:XanderCat/Initialization Code Runtime Reduction Effort/reply (17) - Revision history2026-05-05T10:51:15ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.34.1http://robowiki.net/w/index.php?title=Thread:Talk:XanderCat/Initialization_Code_Runtime_Reduction_Effort/reply_(17)&diff=28890&oldid=prevWompi: Reply to Initialization Code Runtime Reduction Effort2013-02-17T15:55:17Z<p>Reply to <a href="/wiki/Thread:Talk:XanderCat/Initialization_Code_Runtime_Reduction_Effort/reply_(14)" title="Thread:Talk:XanderCat/Initialization Code Runtime Reduction Effort/reply (14)">Initialization Code Runtime Reduction Effort</a></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>Uh, I wouldn't change anything in this direction. It was just a quick test (<10 seasons) and I doubt it solves anything. To me it just shows a dependency and might worth further test. I'm still convinced that another skipped turn handling (like Voidious suggested) would be far better. Maybe raising the cpu variable for rumble clients would be a workaround - but this would need that everyone develop his bots within the normal cpu range and not abuse this workaround. Probably not a good idea but like many others I get more and more annoyed by the skipped turns because it complicates even very simple tasks.</div>Wompi