Winbolo priority

May 27, 2004 23:38 Winbolo priority
a poll to see what we think is the priority of improvements to winbolo that we would like to see in the near future
May 28, 2004 00:17
what about "make the game more like macbolo in gameplay" ??

Min
Jun 03, 2004 06:05
is macbolo very different?
Jun 03, 2004 17:18
so many options, to bad you couldn't say all the above, except that it's perfect.
Jun 03, 2004 17:25
I wouldn't say it's very different in the actual mechanics of the game, but the subtle differences all add up to a game that doesn't have the same balance as macBolo.

1) Bases begin to refuel faster after being stolen. You used to have about 6-8 seconds before a base turned solid. WinBolo gives you about 1.

2) Bases seem to refuel a little faster. This allows people to attack pill lines over and over again without having to worry about resource management.

3) Dogfighting is rendered mostly obsolete. What would be sure kills in macBolo are not even close in Winbolo. Winbolo's method of dealing with lag during tank-on-tank combat causes you to lose about 20-30% of your shots. After blowing through that much ammo, and with bases refueling so quickly, you don't have enough to take a base (or pill) and press the advantage. Vultures are tougher, and tanks can mostly drive around carrying multiple pills with no worries of getting killed.

4) Lgm's seem to be a little more fragile. I noticed my lgm died when it walked near a pill getting shot. I don't think this happens in macBolo.

5) Winbolo moves a little smoother. I liked the way macBolo allowed you to move in tics (pixels?). Lining things up seemed a lot more precise.

6) Winbolo doesn't allow pill-rubbing. I don't want to open up the debate of whether this is a bug or feature. It is different than macBolo, and it was fun to do.

There're more things, I just can't think of them at the moment. All combined, though, the game lacks the balance that macBolo had. The game is mostly centered around pills and pill lines. MacBolo's game balance allowed for a wider variance of player style. Pill line players, aggressive spikers, vulturers, base runners, tank killers, flankers, etc.


Hard8
Jun 03, 2004 23:02
I doubt it would be implemented but.............I'd LOVE to see a winbolo for mac, get some more players (even if they are heathen mac users). The map viewer wouldn't be bad either, but i'm sure Elvis is just waiting to get the bugs worked out!
Jun 04, 2004 02:26
Hard8 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's very different in the actual mechanics of the game, but the subtle differences all add up to a game that doesn't have the same balance as macBolo.
[/qoute]

I agree

Hard8 wrote:

1) Bases begin to refuel faster after being stolen. You used to have about 6-8 seconds before a base turned solid. WinBolo gives you about 1.


ya, elvis attempted to fix this at the same time he increased the base refuel rate back for 1.10 ... but apparently a graphic bug stopped him from changing it properly, and he hasn't changed it since then.

Hard8 wrote:

2) Bases seem to refuel a little faster. This allows people to attack pill lines over and over again without having to worry about resource management.


thats what a few people have said ... but after some testing, winbolo actually refuels a tad bit slower ... in single/2 player mode anyways ....

Hard8 wrote:

3) Dogfighting is rendered mostly obsolete. What would be sure kills in macBolo are not even close in Winbolo. Winbolo's method of dealing with lag during tank-on-tank combat causes you to lose about 20-30% of your shots. After blowing through that much ammo, and with bases refueling so quickly, you don't have enough to take a base (or pill) and press the advantage. Vultures are tougher, and tanks can mostly drive around carrying multiple pills with no worries of getting killed.


pretty much .... without dogfighting working properly it completely changes how the game can be played.

Hard8 wrote:

4) Lgm's seem to be a little more fragile. I noticed my lgm died when it walked near a pill getting shot. I don't think this happens in macBolo.


I've noticed this as well .... they seem fragile even compared to older versions of winbolo.

Hard8 wrote:

5) Winbolo moves a little smoother. I liked the way macBolo allowed you to move in tics (pixels?). Lining things up seemed a lot more precise.


ya, macbolo seems choppy to me ... always just thought it was my performa though ...

Hard8 wrote:

6) Winbolo doesn't allow pill-rubbing. I don't want to open up the debate of whether this is a bug or feature. It is different than macBolo, and it was fun to do.


it would be nice if the macbolo pillfiring algorithm could be duplicated well enough that it incorporates this automatically ... hrm

Hard8 wrote:

There're more things, I just can't think of them at the moment. All combined, though, the game lacks the balance that macBolo had. The game is mostly centered around pills and pill lines. MacBolo's game balance allowed for a wider variance of player style. Pill line players, aggressive spikers, vulturers, base runners, tank killers, flankers, etc.


I only noticed this lack of balance once I started improving my skill to a point where balance really became an issue ... lack of balance is one of the reasons I'm currently not actively playing winbolo ... I don't want to play one style of play all the time .. its too boring...

Min
Jun 05, 2004 00:13
For the base de-x rate (just figured out what ud was referring to), I'm wondering if WinBolo is using the same system that MacBolo does. For MacBolo, a base would be x-ed out if it was below a certain amount of armor. The base would never refuel your tank beyond that level of armor (because it wouldn't want to x itself out). Thus, it would take a while for the base to regain that minimum level of armor after being shot down.

From what I can tell, WinBolo bases lose x status as soon as they gain any armor at all. Adjusting that level upwards might alleviate some of the problems we're seeing with bases.





Hard8
Jun 05, 2004 02:44
Hard8 wrote:
For the base de-x rate (just figured out what ud was referring to), I'm wondering if WinBolo is using the same system that MacBolo does. For MacBolo, a base would be x-ed out if it was below a certain amount of armor. The base would never refuel your tank beyond that level of armor (because it wouldn't want to x itself out). Thus, it would take a while for the base to regain that minimum level of armor after being shot down.

From what I can tell, WinBolo bases lose x status as soon as they gain any armor at all. Adjusting that level upwards might alleviate some of the problems we're seeing with bases.


I think I can give a better explaination of whats actually going on with the bases ... Bases have "units" in them, each unit is equal to one "bullet" .. there is a total of 90 units in a base (assuming my memory is working correctly.) Armor "units" take up 5 "regular" units .. so there is a total of 18 armor units in a full base (enough to refuel 2 tanks that are empty with 2 armor left over to defend itself) .... the un-x rate is supposed to be when the base has 2 "armor" points which is "10" regular units it de-x's .. currently its set to "2" regular units rather than "2" armor units .. so it de-x's at a very rapid rate. shouldn't be a difficult change for elvis to make ....

Min
Jun 05, 2004 05:16
It IS 90 units. I remember this from working with BoloReich all the time. I DID wonder why the hell bases didn't have 90 armor units, though. D'oh... sometimes my thought process does not engage when it should, although Acro will probably reply with a one-word post stating simply "Sometimes?"
Jun 05, 2004 16:49
some additional info .... as far as I can tell, winbolo has a "global" base refresh and if you kill a base just before the global refresh, it will instantly change from X .... however, if you kill the base when its fairly fair away from the refresh, you can get a number of seconds of X on the base. Apparently, Macbolo had a refresh for each base, rather than a global one, so if you killed a base, its refresh would change to the instant you killed it, and it wouldn't gain any resouces until it had gone through one refresh cycle from that time.

Min
Jun 05, 2004 17:22
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz