It just seems to me that "completely uncoordinated client/server architecture" is a chimera that you are chasing for no good reason. After all, this system was supposedly designed after SETI@Home, and there is a great deal of coordination there. In the end, my point is merely that results would be more accurate if the server had control over the battles run. It isn't a big deal to have the server be in control. Sure, a mostly peer-to-peer RoboRumble has its poetic appeal, but I have yet to understand good practical reasons for it. -- nano
I doubt i will do many battles if you have to be online to do it. I just set the properties not the upload or download, and leave it running whenever i'm not using the computer (or even when i am, if i'm not doing anything CPU-intensive, eg. it is running now). When i get back to the computer, i upload all the results it has, often a few hundred are uploaded at a time. It works brilliantly that way. Maybe their could be a few people who volunteer to run special clients that do check how many battles each bot has, and even them up, but everyone else can run it like it is now. The robocode rules (rounds in a battle, size of battle field, etc.) should be fixed. Maybe not by the server, but hardcoded into the client. -- Tango
|
![[Home]](/images/RoboWiki.png)