Weird rumble scores

I know the difference now, Xor_Sily has no turbo boost support, so cpu constant is accurate. On most computers, cpu constant is actually much loose, because actual battles are run with turbo boost, but cpu constant, not. This is making skipped turns happening LESS.

I'm not sure I follow: what you are saying suggests that skipped turns should happen more on Xor_Sily right? I assume the reason for BeepBoop's low scores is it skipping lots of turns.

As an aside, I've also noticed that DrussGT 3.1.7 has also dropped 0.3 APS compared to 3.1.6, maybe it is also getting bad battles with lots of skipped turns?

I think it’s some change to energy management. Skipped turns hurt results against weak bots as well, but the decrease seems to be focused near 60+

I mean if you run battles on computers without turbo boost, you should get identical results as Xor_Sily.

I stopped Xor_Sily. It's some high performance server that costs $40 a week. Maybe we need some test set to verify rumble clients before entry, making it easier to serve a client.

Btw, could you re-submit a version and run rumbles on your machine, and see if we can get the correct result now?

I think the problem is that Xor_Sily is running 7/24, for months. If memory leak happens, GC will get worse and worse. Maybe I should add some auto restart script later and try again.

You can set the max iterations in the client and run it in a bash loop.

Great suggestion. I will try after BeepBoop get some stable result.

What sort of high performance server is this? If it's virtualized rather than true dedicated, it wouldn't surprise me if the exact amount of available CPU varies dramatically from moment-to-moment even if the provider is guaranteeing some number of cores worth of overall performance.

Could be interesting to some time make a tool for measuring the stability of available CPU, based on running rapidly running a series of identical micro-benchmarks and looking at the variations in how long it takes.