Thread history

From Talk:LiteRumble
Viewing a history listing
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Time User Activity Comment
20:48, 12 February 2013 Skotty (talk | contribs) New thread created  
08:14, 13 February 2013 Skilgannon (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Individual Battle Scores)
15:03, 13 February 2013 MN (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Individual Battle Scores)
15:06, 13 February 2013 Skilgannon (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Individual Battle Scores)
06:42, 14 February 2013 Skotty (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Individual Battle Scores)

Individual Battle Scores

Is there any way to see individual battle scores in the LiteRumble? I didn't see any way to do that. It is the one thing I would really miss about Darkcanuck's server if we only had LiteRumble in the future. I find individual battle scores to be of great use from time to time (e.g. if you have a score of 62 , it makes a big difference if the individual scores are 61, 63, 62 or 86, 88, 12). And what client gave that score is also of use. It can help identify Robocode version issues. For example, just go look at the history of battles for Krabby2, and it becomes obvious something broke in Krabby2 after Robocode 1.7.3.0+ came into use.

All that aside, if Darkcanuck's server ever goes away, LiteRumble as it is would be far preferable to no rumble at all.

Skotty20:48, 12 February 2013

Unfortunately it only keeps the averaged result and the number of battles. If I changed it to keep pairings as well I suspect that each bot entry might exceed 1MB, which would break Google App Engine rules. I've considered the possibility of keeping 'min' and 'max' though, would that satisfy you?

Skilgannon08:14, 13 February 2013

That would be nice. Or maybe some kind of confidence or standard deviation or something. Not a big deal, but I would use it if it were there.

Skotty06:42, 14 February 2013
 

If you persist each battle independently, without associating it with other records (no foreign key constraints), then the only limit is total database size.

MN15:03, 13 February 2013
 

It would also increase total database writes, which is my current bottleneck.

Skilgannon15:06, 13 February 2013