Wrong survival scores for some pairings

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision as of 23 May 2015 at 16:00.
The highlighted comment was created in this revision.

Wrong survival scores for some pairings

I was browsing LiteRumble and noticed the survival scores between Combat and LifelongObsession, FloodSonnet, HariSeldon, Prophet, RCBot are abnormally low.

If you look the opposite scores in the 5 opponent profiles, they are also low.

Ran the battles locally and the scores don't match.

    MN (talk)03:18, 17 May 2015
    Edited by author.
    Last edit: 03:33, 23 May 2015

    Most likely the version of Robocode the server allows is out of date

      Tmservo (talk)22:56, 22 May 2015

      The server doesn't use Robocode. It simply processes battle results sent by clients. Numbers from 0 to 35 in the case of survival scores.

      I know the server throws results away sometimes. It records results on one side of the pairing, but not the other. In an attempt to decrease the number of database accesses and cloud service fees.

      But it only reduces the amount of battles. Would explain a low number of battles, but not low scores on all battles.

        MN (talk)03:12, 23 May 2015
         

        Ran the battles locally using 1.9.2.3. Still the scores don't match.

        Combat can work with much older versions too.

        But why wrong scores with only a few pairings? Version issues usually affect the whole ranking.

          MN (talk)15:40, 23 May 2015

          There is a possibility that battle submitted client has different result when compared to your machine. For example less available memory or different java version. So if your algorithm is CPU intensive it might be forced into the "skip turn" regime and then score will be very low.

          For the last year my machines were major battle submitters and I use to run them with old Java, so if yours was compiled with newer Java it would automatically lose, since it would not be able to fight.

          I do not think that it is robocode version issue, but I recall that there we some glitches with reporting when we moved from 1.8 to 1.9. I think the only fix in 1.9.1 to 1.9.2 was in the score submission.

            Beaming (talk)18:00, 23 May 2015