Talk:RoboRumble/Rule Suggestions

From Robowiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
What do you think about a GigaMeleeRumble?4113:57, 7 May 2014

What do you think about a GigaMeleeRumble?

Lets take the best 30 or 50 bots of MeleeRumble and put them into a Giga category. The same thing already exists for 1vs1, why not in melee too? :) What do you think about it?

Cb (talk)11:54, 25 April 2014

I am all for it. But we need Rednaxela on board to set rules for it. And more people donating CPU cycles.

Beaming (talk)06:50, 26 April 2014

The rules are the same as meleerumble, except participants list url.

I can contribute battles until it stabilizes.

MN (talk)22:23, 26 April 2014

but we need a server, which will keep track of ranking and a client config. I presume that server part is where we need Rednaxela help.

Beaming (talk)01:56, 27 April 2014

Sorry Beaming, you got the wrong guy ;-)

Skilgannon runs the current incarnation of the rumble server. (Of course anyone else could run a separate copy if they wanted to, as the code is out there)

(Speaking of which, the rumble server currently requires a client version that isn't downloadable from sourceforge anymore it seems. Maybe it would be a good time to be updating the allowed rumble client versions?)

Rednaxela (talk)16:21, 27 April 2014

Ups. Sorry to point wrongly to you.

Indeed, we need Skilgannon, in particularly to upgrade allowed client version. I think quite a few new comers were looking for the old client, but it is not that trivial to find the old version.

I think the old client requirement, is one of the reason why so few contribute to the rumble.

Skilgannon code is free, but now we have client with built in pointer to the official server. It would be nice to just extend the official client.

Beaming (talk)19:17, 27 April 2014

All you need to do is create a new config file, similar to meleerumble.txt but with a different filename, and a different config name. Then you need to make another .bat or .sh file similar to meleerumble.bat/sh to use this new config file. The server will automatically create the new rumble when you start submitting battles. I'm guessing you will want to create a new wiki participants page.

As per the LiteRumble page, you can download a pre-configured client here. I also suggest you populate your robots directory with the bots from here.

The reason I'm not enabling newer clients to submit battles is because there was a minor rule change which will adjust scores (bonuses weren't included in the total score in certain versions, which happened to be what was most current when I initially populated the rumble data). If we want to switch to new clients we also need to wipe all of the rumble data and start from scratch.

Skilgannon (talk)18:08, 30 April 2014

Wouldn't it be the perfect time to switch clients now? Since the bugs are now gone, and I also saw that some bots like Fractal for example get always disabled. So every new bot will have 100% vs Fractal and the older bots will only have a normal score against it.

Cb (talk)18:19, 30 April 2014

Regarding switching to a newer client and wiping the rumble data... I suppose the question is how many of us are willing to contribute to get the scores back to stable state.

For the main rumble I think it'll take in the ballpark of 2156000 battles to get back to the stable point (~2000 battles per participant). At a rate of 1 battle per second it would take 25 days to get back to the stable point. I imagine we could do better than 1 battle per second if a decent number of us chipped in (remember, the bulk of the robots are very simple/fast).

Rednaxela (talk)20:56, 30 April 2014

I am also supporting the switch.

Beaming (talk)02:18, 1 May 2014

I can contribute battles until the rumble stabilizes. 4 to 8 clients.

Also, I have a custom rumble client here which is smarter than the official client.

Extra features:

- Detection of server queue overloads and upload throttling.

- Separate process/threads for uploads, shared between all local clients. (avoids idle CPU time in uploads. HUGE speed increase in melee)

- Shared battle generator/priority battles management. (minimizes repeated battles between clients)

- Communication between clients using RMI (TCP/IP), integrating clients spread over a low latency local network.

- Generates battles in melee using both bots from priority battles.

- Parallel download of bots JARs.

- Shared local repository of bots JARs, with automatic copying between clients.

Tested for over an year. Seems very stable.

I can upload the source somewhere if you want.

MN (talk)02:55, 1 May 2014

I would love to play with this client. It is a pity to see CPU cycles wasted due to queue overloads.

Beaming (talk)04:22, 1 May 2014
MN (talk)19:58, 1 May 2014

MN, would you mind to add a short readme?

How to compile this? I see it requires maven, but simple run 'mvn' does not do a thing.

Does a worker requires the coordinator running? How do they know which IP/machine to contact? Do we need standard rumble files to be present/accessible anywhere?

Beaming (talk)01:59, 2 May 2014

OK guys, so here's the plan: today at 17h00GMT (you can work out what that is in your time-zone) I'm going to change the server to accept clients exclusively. I'll leave it like that for a day or two to make sure there are no issues with the rumble client, then I'm going to wipe all of the rumbles. I'm going to speed up the queue processing for a bit as well to see if I can get the stabilisation to happen a bit faster and not bottleneck at the server.

If anybody has any objections, now is the time, because once I change accepted versions the current stats will be 'tainted' by newer versions with different rules, and will need to be deleted anyway.

Skilgannon (talk)07:23, 2 May 2014

Skilgannon, may I ask to keep old statistic available somewhere? I would think, the ideal would be to have littlerumble instant which does not accept battles but has web interface on.

Second suggestion: would it be possible to program a range of accepted robocode versions? 1.9.2 is the newest today, but months from now it will be obsolete. May be it better to have a black list mask.

Even now, as far as I know, 1.9.2 is not that different from 1.9.1. So there is no point to lock the version to only the 1.9.2 version.

Beaming (talk)14:42, 2 May 2014

Good idea with the littlerumble. I've disabled the app for now, I can set that up tomorrow and copy data across, then re-enable the app.

I'd rather have only one version for submitting battles, simply because we don't know all the bugs yet. It is better to make the chosen version easily available than to allow possibly different versions to submit battles.

Skilgannon (talk)18:09, 2 May 2014