Start Positions

I was discussing with a group of players the way starting positions are determined when a player dies and restarts. As of 1.09 the starts are determined like so:

Bolo like starts allocation are now implemented. WinBolo
trys to avoid starting you near tanks and enemy pillboxes. From the Bolo
Version History document: "Improved start position allocation for maps with
very few start squares defined, to cope better with certain "creative" map
designs. For example, if you have a map with only two start squares, and
you have a game of two teams where each team has a pillbox close to one of
the start squares, then each team will effectively have their own 'private'
start square, because with only two start squares to choose from when
bringing a new tank into the game, Bolo will choose the one near the
friendly pillbox, not the one near the hostile pillbox."

The thought put forward is that this disadvantages the team that is losing. This is because they are more likely to have pillboxes placed close to their bases and will have to start from a random start point that is away from where they need to be to refuel and continue playing. As they backed more into a corner, the less likely it is for them to be able to start near it.

What are other player's opinions on this?

Ofcourse not dying is also a good way to get around this.

"Not dying" kinda limits your options in a losing situation where a good suicide may get you to steal a pill, etc. But perhaps I'm wrong... maybe the losing team doesn't need to have anyone die, but should slug it out with the agressing team and try to stay alive.

What about being able to choose your own starting position after you die? Perhaps it'd be a "coin toss". You request a certain start, and if you're lucky you get your starting position. If you're not, you get something else.

in reality, the way you do the start points is incorrect elvis ..... the way start points actually work (since the bolo documentation has proven itself wrong in numerous occasions for example grass turning speed rates) is this:

Bolo chooses a random start point, it decides if this start point is worthy of being used (weither any pillbox's or tanks are within sight, so 21 tiles or whatever sight range is for tanks, and within 7 or whatever pillboxview range is of pillbox's) if this startpoint is inadequate it increments the startpoint ID and tests that start point, if it goes through the entire range of start points without choosing an adequate startpoint, it will end on the original startpoint it randomly picked, and use that start point. Weither the pillboxs/tanks are allied makes no difference to the starting algorithm, as I understand it this algorithm is the same for lgm parachute points. So in reality the 2 start points with pillsbox's close to both would result in a random start point.

Min

Nova wrote:

"Not dying" kinda limits your options in a losing situation where a good suicide may get you to steal a pill, etc.

Exactly. The 'don't die' logic is flawed. Even the top players may die half a dozen times in a game.

I'm not going to pretend to understand the current bolo respawn contruct, or the one min described. It's obvious the current respawn system works poorly. Instead, it seems to me that only something very simple is needed: code bolo to respawn players no more than one time in any one spot consecutively. Isn't that all that's needed?

I appreciate you looking into this Elvis. It's something that's at the top of the list for upgrades, IMO.

I must of forgot my smiley after the second comment.

or maybe a rotation thing around the map, randomly select at the beginning of the game if that player goes clockwise around the map or counterclockwise. put a center spot in it and go from there.

Acro wrote:

Nova wrote:

"Not dying" kinda limits your options in a losing situation where a good suicide may get you to steal a pill, etc.

Exactly. The 'don't die' logic is flawed. Even the top players may die half a dozen times in a game.

I'm not going to pretend to understand the current bolo respawn contruct, or the one min described. It's obvious the current respawn system works poorly. Instead, it seems to me that only something very simple is needed: code bolo to respawn players no more than one time in any one spot consecutively. Isn't that all that's needed?

I appreciate you looking into this Elvis. It's something that's at the top of the list for upgrades, IMO.

The "don't die" logic is flawed, but only slightly. Because in a tight pillwar when every millisecond counts, even if you respawn right at your quad, you're still out of the action for a moment long enough for them to take your pill, spike, whatever. I've always found that when I stay alive most of or even for the whole game, I win.

But according to the way elvis described the way winbolo respawns you, it does seem to be a problem. Acro's idea might help.

Acro wrote:

Exactly. The 'don't die' logic is flawed. Even the top players may die half a dozen times in a game.

I take not dieing very seriously ...... in alot of games that I play, I won't even die once.... I only die alot if I'm losing and spiked out, accidently dieing trying to get fuel off heavily spiked bases ... otherwise my death counter remains at 1 or 2 deaths ... unless I'm just screwing around

Min

Although my "don't die" post was meant largely as a joke, I do agree with Min on dying being a bad move in a game.

If you die there is a chance that you will restart in a position that isn't close to where you want to be. So it will take you some time to get back to where you need to be. The larger the map also the longer it take will take to get there, even without having to regather trees or get supplied off a base. How long does it take a player to take down a pillbox or steal a base? What if you die again on the way back because you are trying to get through your opponents front? It is true that some times you do start in a more advantageous position either by starting right where you need to, or where another player has just died leaving dead pillboxes for capture. However what are the risks agsinsts that?

Open games are a different story, dying can be an advantage in some situations. It may be easier to restart with full everything then go find some trees on map that is turning more and more into water. This is especially true if you are on the "defending" team of an open game. (Most open games tend to end up being a small group of defenders in a fort versus the majority of players these days) If you have a team member who is alive in the fort and capable to repair it might be quicker to die and restart with trees allowing you to guard/repair while they do the same.

I guess in summary, dying can be a disadvantage due to the fact it will take time to reposition and get back into the game. This disadvantage is less in open games as you start fully armoured allowing you to start playing from wherever you restarted without having to go find a friendly base.

I didn't mean to sidetrack this...heh, but what I'd like to see is the common 'respawn 5 times in the same spot' thing eliminated. Does anyone else have any opinions on my super-simple solution? Good? Impossible to code? Problematic due to...? :?: :arrow: :idea:

well said elvis.

Acro: I doubt it would be that tough for elvis to code, but I personally would prefer if the original macbolo algorithm is implemented.... becuase in its original form is far less likely that you'll respawn in one spot alot of times unless that spot is the only unspiked startpoint on the map. In which case you should mention to your allies not to spike their own start positions. It will also encourage map makers to move start points a little further away from land (at least 7 squares) so that they remain mostly random.

Min

can do.

Min: Just a little side question. Is there any special way you should put starts besides the obvious? (Don't put them within neutral pillbox range, don't put them all in the center where they can be easily spiked.) Examples: Starts per quad, how far away you should put them from the mainland, and anything else that comes to mind.

Nova wrote:

Min: Just a little side question. Is there any special way you should put starts besides the obvious? (Don't put them within neutral pillbox range, don't put them all in the center where they can be easily spiked.) Examples: Starts per quad, how far away you should put them from the mainland, and anything else that comes to mind.

well nova, it depends on the startpoint behavor your looking for. for example if you want start points that only get used midgame, you should put them near neutrals so they arn't used until the neutrals are lifted. In my opinion you should keep the start points 8 squares from mainland (so that if someone spikes their own start point, it won't effect how the startpoint is choosen, but its really up to you the map designer based on the effect your going for, also where you put the startpoint ID is important as well since the same startpoint algorithm was used for lgm and tank positions, this can also have an effect on how your design your map, since this will effect how quickly lgm's come back. (if you spike your own quad and the startpoint is in range, unless all other startpoints are covered, your lgm will never come back in your own quad .... this has a huge effect on how things act) and for example, if you put consecutive startpoint ID's in the start area there is a far greater chance of tanks/lgms coming back in that start area, were as if you stagger the ID's, it will appear more "random" ..... so in reality, it all comes down to what behavior you as the map maker are looking for.

Min

A'ight, Min, thanks for the tip.