Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies
-
How about...
We add a new Trueskill rating but instead of skill it tries to rate CPU of players and adjusts after every match!For each game we figure out the slowest CPU (if we can do that?) and then we tell Trueskill that that player played and lost against all other players of the match in several 1v1s. Over time Trueskill should come up with a ranking of all player's CPUs ??? xD
-
@katharsas that's like using a spade to dig a tunnel under the atlantic. I like the novelty of the idea but you're probably not going to get a very good metric out of it
-
@katharsas said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:
How about...
We add a new Trueskill rating but instead of skill it tries to rate CPU of players and adjusts after every match!For each game we figure out the slowest CPU (if we can do that?) and then we tell Trueskill that that player played and lost against all other players of the match in several 1v1s. Over time Trueskill should come up with a ranking of all player's CPUs ??? xD
I have attempted this at the past - on the LUA side we can only retrieve what the current game speed is with no indication as to who causes that. With the benchmark map this doesn't matter - as only one person is in the game
. -
Hm in this case the solution is really simple. We are minus one after each game with no delay and add after game with delay .
Example : we have 5 players : A , B, C, D, E . A has a slow comp pruduces -1 or -2. All gamers have default CPU score rate 100 .
First game : A B C . (game speed -1) = rates A 101 B 101 C 101
Second one : B C D (game speed 0 ) = rates b 100 C 100 D 99
3 : C D E (game min speed 0 ) = rates C 99 D 98 E 99
4. D E A (game speed -1 becouse we have A) = D 99 E 100 A 102
After some time (50 games for player) A will have CPU score around 150 .
Also we need a some saving system : Player with -1 can not pass 200 , with -2 = 300 -
I do not think such a system would work in practice as it takes too long to converge while at the same time the system is easy to manipulate. Even when that is not intended. As an example, if you often play 1v1 ladder and 4v4+ custom games then you gain CPU rating from ladder where as you can lose them from the custom games, evening out on 100 or whatever number is desired at that point in time.
Running a separate benchmark map that simulates the game is the best approach in my opinion. The benchmark map would run at full speed. We could for example take the real time (system time at end - system time at start) it took to run the benchmark as your score. We still need to dive into the details of this
- nothing is set in stone. -
I have a 11 year old computer, rates a 240 on the old benchmark and I won't touch that button again.
I know on a full out survival map I'll be the lowest cpu but not by far, so I don't do survival with 12 players.
It's really not hard to do, just don't join games you will lag on.
-
-
@brainstormer
"its evident I'm not the reason for the bottleneck."Is it? You have 0.0 ping so it looks like you're hosting, or borked somehow? can the host be behind?
-
Obviously to himself he has a ping of 0ms. Also, this game is peer to peer and doesn't have hosts. In the screenshot you can see he is at +1 sim speed while others are -2 and -1, so he is not the bottleneck in that game.
-
@chaksur said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:
noticed their ram was clocked lower than it could be. .
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/nnqt8k/linus_is_wrong_explaining_mhz_vs_mts/
