Thread history

From Talk:RoboRumble
Viewing a history listing
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Time User Activity Comment
16:05, 15 October 2012 Skilgannon (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Version
15:55, 15 October 2012 MN (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Version
07:57, 14 October 2012 Skotty (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Version
05:24, 14 October 2012 Voidious (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Version
05:21, 14 October 2012 Skotty (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Version
21:00, 14 May 2012 Skilgannon (talk | contribs) New reply created (Reply to Version
20:28, 14 May 2012 Rednaxela (talk | contribs) New thread created  


Anyone object to having Robocode as a rumble-approved version? There have been a number of bug fixes over time, no changes I'd expect to introduce issues, and additionally and can't actually be downloaded from sourceforge anymore apparently.

Rednaxela20:28, 14 May 2012

I actually emailed Darkcanuck about this... he said he's been busy but he'll get on to this when he has time. Until I can't really contribute to rumble as my client keeps hanging during upload - especially once all 4 clients try to upload at once.

Skilgannon21:00, 14 May 2012

Any update on this? I was looking to start setting up Robocode again, preferably a version that can be used for the rumble. I'm going to hold off until I know what version to use and where I can get it.

Skotty05:21, 14 October 2012

We haven't heard from Darkcanuck in quite a while, so as far as I know we're still at a max of on his server. Skilgannon has been playing with his LiteRumble at, and he's using 1.7.4.x, but I don't think it can handle the load we put on Darkcanuck's. Not sure how long we should wait before considering moving to a new server. We could setup a new instance of Darkcanuck's code elsewhere. (I hope everything's ok with Darkcanuck, just speaking personally.)

Voidious05:24, 14 October 2012

If someone builds a new server, I would ask to not restrict it to only a few versions (i.e., Doing the opposite, banning only specific versions, with the latest versions being allowed by default, would work a lot better.

MN15:55, 15 October 2012

If we set up a new server I have some changes which will need to be made to the melee priorities battles. The current system sends back a priority battle for each pairing, and the client just runs the first N.

Skilgannon16:05, 15 October 2012

Very well. I'm going to check my backups and see if I have a copy to use. I'm pretty sure I have a copy of, but I would rather not use that version due to the bullet bug in that version ( But if it's all I got, I'll go ahead and use it.

Skotty07:57, 14 October 2012