Is there a mistake in Rumble battle staging
The highlighted comment was edited in this revision. [diff]
Hi, I just looked at ranking of Vodious Jen http://literumble.appspot.com/BotDetails?game=roborumble&name=voidious.micro.Jen%201.11&order=-Battles
for a bot which is in the rumble for many years, there are quite a lot of opponents with which this bot has less than 5 matches and those are bots which are also in the rumble since forever.
I wonder why match selecting algorithm avoids particular bots. Is it normal?
What do you mean by avoiding particular bots. From the code, LiteRumble selects missing pairings first, then pairings with less battles, etc.
Given enough time, each bot should have similar amount of battles.
Ups, I posted wrong link to Jen rating, see http://literumble.appspot.com/BotDetails?game=roborumble&name=voidious.micro.Jen%201.11&order=-Battles
I do use LiteRumble to check for my bot improvement (if I run clients anyway, why not update "real" rating). But the issue I report is unrelated to my bot.
If you look at Jen pairing, you will see almost 200 bots, with which it has only one pairing. This is not normal for a bot which is many years in the rumble. http://literumble.appspot.com/BotDetails?game=roborumble&name=voidious.micro.Jen%201.11&order=-Battles
- We need to find out whether they have only 1 pairings 10 years ago. If so, we could add back the missing pairings from backup.
- From the code, "Battles" is merely a counter. If it shows 1 pairing, then there must be data loss unless it's 1 initially.
as far as I can remember, some time ago (~1 year) there was a hickup which resulted in the strange rumblerankings. Bots had disappeared from the ranking, and when they came back after a battle, their stats against others was either complete or just 1 battle. Just can't find evidence of it on the wiki
Must be this discussion Thread:Talk:LiteRumble/Hickup in rankings