The Mining Problem

The Mining Problem.

Ok, mining has been a controversy for over a decade, ever since bolo has been around. There are those of us who don't mind a long game with rubbles, and there are those of us who dislike it intensely.

We find that games with carpet mining slow down the game tremendously and find it boring to fight in such game, having to rebuild rubble constantly, or be trapped in it. Yes, it's "legal", but it make for very boring games for a number of us.

I remember when I played macbolo, that we had etiquette not to carpet mine each other, and it was pretty much followed. Now we no longer have that understood etiquette rule.

So what we'd like to propose is an option for those many of us who dislike being carpet-mining - that games have the option of starting with a with a limit of 5 mines carried per tank maximum (right now they can carry *gasp* 40!).

That way, those who love fighting carpet mining World War I trench warfare style games or those big open games with nothing but water all over can still play those games,

The rest of us who want to be able to play either quick games, or games without such destructive carpet mining can choose to start maps that limit tanks to 5 mines only.

Just wanted to say that I agree with this suggestion. It's nauseating to have endless discussions on the "ethics" or "legality" of carpet mining when there's a simple way to get the problem to go away. Aside from building moats, which is a "cunning" tactic on maps like CT3, it's hard to argue that massive mining makes games more fun. And ultimately, fun's what it's about, or at least it is for me. (Yeah, I know, that's why I'm just no good. I feel bad for not treating it more seriously, etc.)

Of course, it's true that mines are effective in the sense that they hurt the other team -- if you have no lgm and nothing better to do, no reason not to drop three or forty on an enemy quad -- but that's not to say that it's desirable to have the ability to do so. Plenty of things are effective but are better left alone. A second mouse to control my ally would often be effective, but I've yet to convince anyone that that feature is desirable. If you really think you're comfortable with the practice of rampant mining, consider whether you'd like to be on the 2-side in a 2-v-3, where the "3" tells its weakest player to load up on mines and go drop them, then to rinse-and-repeat.

Finally, I'd rather not have anyone reply with something seemingly insightful like "Well, if you can't handle it, you should adjust your tactics." Of course one can always go strip mine the other side, etc. But the question is not whether the 40-mine-per-tank option should be available to those who feel it adds a dimension to the game; the question is whether the 5-mine-per-tank option should be available to those who think it doesn't. I for one don't like to spend my evenings gathering trees and playing "let's not get my builder killed while repaving my quad." If bolo is the road of life, I'd at least like a smooth ride.

Kax

Please allow me to humbly retort: Kax is ghey!!! Long live carpet mining woo-hoo!!! I think I've proven my point and I now submit to you, my winbolo friends, that Kax is ghey. Oh, and that mines rule.

Without mines could you safely call the game bolo any more? I mean the game has had those mines since 95 and in every version.

Folks,

I just want to add a few thoughts in response to an irc discussion. The opinion was voiced that "40 mines should stay, because it's always been that way." I respectfully disagree with this view for the following reasons:

(1) It hasn't been that way, really, because winbolo is not very old. It's John's game, and he can and does do what he likes.

(2) Even mac bolo wasn't that way, really, because Stu abandoned the game long ago, so the number of mines couldn't be changed.

(3) The fact that something exists doesn't mean it's not worth discussing whether change would be beneficial. I offered many examples of things in the world that are bad, that exist, and that we should change even though they exist, but was told in no uncertain terms that "Well, that's not bolo." No kiddin', they're analogies.

A few people also responded sarcastically that "Well, then we should be able to change the number of bullets! And armor! And trees!" I don't think so, but those things are also worth discussing if people truly feel that way. If the point of those comments is to make the mine discussion seem ridiculous, I think they fail in that regard. It's a sad day when a suggestion of change is mocked because other changes might also be made.

I think that if we're going to talk seriously about this, people should explain why 40 mines is the right number, because it's a number we're consciously choosing to maintain. Fi and I have offered reasons why we believe it's not. Mac bolo and Winbolo have gone through evolutions over their many versions, and each new version has brought accompanying changes. People have argued both for and against those changes. In fact, one of the most enjoyable features of mac bolo -- pill massaging -- was consciously eradicated in Winbolo. That's a substantive change, and people aren't hysterical about it (although I whine a great deal to whomever will listen). Change is a part of Bolo, and will continue to be if Bolo is to maintain its popularity.

Respectfully,

Kax

Kax is right, mines are ghey... Off with their heads (or detonators or tripwires or whatever). Long live tarmac!!!

well kax, I doubt I will be as articulate as you, but I shall do my best to express my opinion.

1) winbolo is intended to be a clone of macbolo, for better or for worse .. when it is actually fully a clone, I feel we can then discuss "improvements"
and that this point, unfortunatly there is quite a ways to go before the exact balance that macbolo has is reflected in winbolo

2) 40 mines is a good number, reason? well .. there is a couple, first, thats how many bullets you get, second, thats how many trees you get. its based on pixels, and simple math .... if you wanted to reduce mines, pick a number like 8 ... rather than 5. the math works out that way. also, 40 mines is good becuase it will waste peoples time getting that many. third, people very rarely actually get to spit out 40 mines before getting shot, or hit by pills, etc etc. fourth, mines are a valid tactic, and carpet mining is not. carpet mining is a waste of time, since the definition of carpet mining is mindless mining ... if your mindlessly pooping out mines .. I will be taking your pills, and bases .... be my guest .. mine all you like, if I don't want you mining an area, I shall take your bases so you can no longer mine. carpet mining is only truely an issue in open games. I personally rarely get more than 10-15 mines in my tank when I go on a mining run, simply becuase I know I won't get to use them all anyways.

3) I don't feel like typing anymore .... retaliate (as I'm sure you will after seeing my horrible english skills ....) and then I shall rant further.

Min

fi wrote:

The Mining Problem.


So what we'd like to propose is an option for those many of us who dislike being carpet-mining - that games have the option of starting with a with a limit of 5 mines carried per tank maximum (right now they can carry *gasp* 40!).

tanks to 5 mines only.

I would just like to say that GASPING is my trick around here.
I have been gasping here for weeks and I feel it should be pointed out that all my fans (min and one other person) will have the excitement
of my frequent gasps diluted by you if you persist in doing this, even
if you do try to cleverly disguise them with *s.

Ohh, and mines are fine if a bit predictable. We should push Elvis to
have a range of mines, perhaps randomly chosen at mine laying time. There shjould be pleasant surprise mines that will say boom and have a nice day or mines that reward the victim with some extra shield or
mines that rarely appear but have the effect of converting the entire map to swamp if touched.

Desmo

For starters,

Let us all realize tha Min made an amazing comment, with much validity when he said: "people very rarely actually get to spit out 40 mines before getting shot, or hit by pills, etc." I know from experience this is true. And I must add to what he uses later to support this commment by stating, yes it does take valued time to lay mines, they are the last to fuel into your tank. If you dont have a pill to defend your quad, and keep me from laying 40 pills, within the amount of time it took me to fuel them, shame on you!

Next, as we have discussed in prior irc conversaions, mines hold tactics and strategies which when used effectively can really make, and in some cases break a game. For those who found that vague, I will propose an....

Example: 3x3 in a map like "Jonny War", now first off not many I'm sure can state that they havent dealt with the inevitible, pill line effect that happens in Jonny. It always seems to be a division of pills stratight or close to stratigh down the middle. Furthermore, no ones moving there line, a long relentless struggle finds you still in same spot trying to make a weak hole in your opponents pill wall. this can some times come off as "borring or taking for ever" just as one fellow irc'r stated mined maps can be, but I I were to take a risk and try to go over and mine your work space for your pills making you either spend time paving, or try to rebuild pills I shoot down with the rubble present. either way it has strategically helped me and my partner. Is it prolly annoying yes, but annoying your partner with tuff discouraging, or preoccupying strategies only makes valid sence.

This brings great segway, yes trying to work with mined land can be trying and very challenging, For some, in cases I have been told annoying There are lots of tactics that people utilize or practice that can be over bearing or in the heat of a game can be downing, but that doesnt mean that were gonna start limiting there options or taking there strategies away, just because it annoys or upsets u by its complicatedness.

Another person added in recent conversation, that they would one on one me, and said sumthing close to: "GO ahead mine all game see if you beat me." In one on ones I rather mine, if I ever do, its when retreating carrying pills and being shot at, which can be very useful.

I have seen plenty of games where others have came to my quad with no mines just came there and shot at me, to die to one of my pills, when they died, their tank was thrown into my quad and made a huge blotch of rubble sumtimes this isnt the first death on my playihng field, do I get trapped rebuilding, yes, is it both part of the game and really a weakness to the one making kamakazi leaps into my quad, heck yea.

I see only one, point that really seaps though every protest to limit mines: this is that it annoys them, or makes the game to hard to work with for them, and in summary: isnt that not what the miner inttended, didnt they hope to slow you down, and distract you?

In conclusion, I will cower in shame and admit, that min is right when he pointed out that mining can be used effectively by keeping the mier busy while taking the miners pills, I have noticed in some cases for this to be true, and therefore the weakness in doing so, to the teamates that I attepted this and found this to happen, I apoligize :cry:

Thanks for reading this post, and look forward to future discussions


Add

Min makes a lot of great points ("amazing" in addbot's words), and they deserve response.

Min wrote:

1) winbolo is intended to be a clone of macbolo, for better or for worse .. when it is actually fully a clone, I feel we can then discuss "improvements"
and that this point, unfortunatly there is quite a ways to go before the exact balance that macbolo has is reflected in winbolo

I'm not sure Winbolo is meant to be a perfect clone of mac bolo. Pill massaging doesn't exist. You might argue that that was a bug that Winbolo fixed, but it was a meaningful part of the game of mac bolo, and an aspect that any true clone would include. Ditto with "superbooms." In fact, winbolo was built from the ground up to be client-server rather than ring-networked, something that has emphatically impacted gameplay insofar as (1) dogfighting is useless, and (2) individual players experience different amounts of lag. In fact, I'm confident that the change in network topography has had a far greater impact on gameplay than a limit on mines would have. Of course, it's true that client-server is an improvement over ring, but as long as we're making improvements and not sticking to mere cloning, there's no harm in making other improvements along the way.

Min wrote:

2) 40 mines is a good number, reason? well .. there is a couple, first, thats how many bullets you get, second, thats how many trees you get. its based on pixels, and simple math .... if you wanted to reduce mines, pick a number like 8 ... rather than 5. the math works out that way.

That's fine. Stimpy actually had the excellent suggestion of merely making "-maxmines" a line command for the bots. Ten mines would work as well as eight or five I'd guess.

Min wrote:

also, 40 mines is good becuase it will waste peoples time getting that many. third, people very rarely actually get to spit out 40 mines before getting shot, or hit by pills,

Addbot agrees with this, but there's a key omission here: if people rarely get 40 mines, then capping the number won't hurt anything. The thing is, when people do get 40 mines, it's guaranteed to be for a reason other than defending themselves. It's to wreak havoc.

Min wrote:

fourth, mines are a valid tactic, and carpet mining is not. carpet mining is a waste of time, since the definition of carpet mining is mindless mining ... if your mindlessly pooping out mines .. I will be taking your pills, and bases .... be my guest .. mine all you like, if I don't want you mining an area, I shall take your bases so you can no longer mine. carpet mining is only truely an issue in open games.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of carpet mining as "mindless." If two average players a newbie are allied against two good players, it's far from mindless to direct the newbie to fill up and destroy everything on the other side of the map. Also, I don't think it's possible for 40 mines to be used for anything _other_ than carpet mining. Maybe if you're a god and don't die once all game, one load of 40 mines will last you until the end. But the most likely story is that a full load of mines directly precedes a destroyed portion of the map.

An analogy is instructive. Assume you have eight people staying in four rooms in a hotel. Pair one likes a temperature of 60 degrees, pair two 70, pair three 80, and pair four 90. If the hotel can have only one temperature in all its rooms, at least four people are going to be pissed. But with individual climate-controlled rooms, everyone will be happy.

Bolo fully embodies this principle of customization. Assuming each of those four "pairs" is involved in a 1x1, each pair can choose among features in the game -- open, tournament, or strict, hidden/visible mines, and map selection. Most people on this channel would never play an open game, but that doesn't mean we disallow the option. Likewise, many people don't like playing on huge terrain maps, but we still allow players to start those games, secure in the knowledge that if we don't want to join them, we don't have to.

The "-maxmines" option is precisely the same thing. We can even leave the default number of mines at 40. But if someone wants to start a game with a maximum of 10 and deal with the strategic consequences that follow, I don't see a compelling reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so. After all, if one doesn't like 10-mine games, one can simply start another game with a higher cap. It's no different than when I say "I'll disembowel myself with a blunt spoon before I play another game on Fitzhu" and start something else.

At the end, I don't understand how adding more flexibility to the game can hurt it. Surely if we had 50 different variables, the games would be too confusing, but this particular modification is easily comprehensible and only deals with problems on the margin.

As always, I welcome further thoughts. Thanks for reading.

Kax

At least when I play, mines seem to be a last ditch effort against the other team. When players are tied up in a pillwar or boxed in a quad, either mine the other team to speed up their demise or try to force the other team to focus resources and time on tarmacing the quad o' rubble.

But why is mining is such an effective tactic? Simple, because its harder to defend against. Lets say there's a game on CT3. Both sides are dead even. One player loads himself up with mines and shells. Will it be easier to prevent him turning your quad to rubble or to prevent him from raping?

I say its easier to defend against the rape for a few reasons:
1) Pills will become angered when your bases are being shot.
2) The enemy has to be a certain distance within the base itself to shoot it.
3) Raped bases are easily taken back and they regenerate.

For mines...
1) There is nothing that will shoot at you if you drop mines in a quad, except for another player.
2) Once you get anywhere near tarmac or grass, let 'em rip. No need to be anywhere close to their bases, as long as you're effective.
3) Taking time to farm trees and then taking more time to build road over rubble is a pain in the behind.

And there you have it: why mining can be effective.

i totally agree with u addbot. it IS very hard to lay enough mines 2 wreck someone's base b4 getting the crap blown uot of us? if people don't have good enough defense around their base thats their falut. and besides, we couldnt really call it "bolo" anymore if mining taken out of the game. mining is infact one of the biggest and most exciting parts of the game and i really dont think we should get rid of it or make the amount of mines we carry, infact, a smaller number. :? and thAT, is where I stand.

I've said it b4 and i'll say it again, "Long live Mines" (especially hidden ones)!!!! Mines should not have some sort of a limit on them. this whole ideeya is EVIL.

-Madd Maxx- *<|:0)

Kax wrote:

I'm not sure Winbolo is meant to be a perfect clone of mac bolo. Pill massaging doesn't exist. You might argue that that was a bug that Winbolo fixed, but it was a meaningful part of the game of mac bolo, and an aspect that any true clone would include. Ditto with "superbooms." In fact, winbolo was built from the ground up to be client-server rather than ring-networked, something that has emphatically impacted gameplay insofar as (1) dogfighting is useless, and (2) individual players experience different amounts of lag. In fact, I'm confident that the change in network topography has had a far greater impact on gameplay than a limit on mines would have. Of course, it's true that client-server is an improvement over ring, but as long as we're making improvements and not sticking to mere cloning, there's no harm in making other improvements along the way.

Your making an arguement on something that we have no idea about .. how do we know that elvis isn't planning on implementing superboom? .. how do we know that elvis isn't planning on implementing massage? ... we don't. The change from ring topology was nessicary, due to changes in how internet networking works, it was a required change to make the game playable. macbolo was never intended to be a internet game, it was intended to be used over a lan, or a token ring setup. the internet is not kind to these sorts of setups. (NAT firewalls clomber token rings) there is a reason macbolo died off, and its not because people arn't interested in it anymore, its because the internet is no longer hospitable to its sort of networking scheme. in my opinion the client-server change was not intended to be a "improvement" it was done that way becuase it had to be done that way to make the game playable.

Kax wrote:

Addbot agrees with this, but there's a key omission here: if people rarely get 40 mines, then capping the number won't hurt anything. The thing is, when people do get 40 mines, it's guaranteed to be for a reason other than defending themselves. It's to wreak havoc.

your right ... and unfortunatly, wreaking havoc is a valid tactic, and very useful in alot of situations.

Kax wrote:

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of carpet mining as "mindless." If two average players a newbie are allied against two good players, it's far from mindless to direct the newbie to fill up and destroy everything on the other side of the map. Also, I don't think it's possible for 40 mines to be used for anything _other_ than carpet mining. Maybe if you're a god and don't die once all game, one load of 40 mines will last you until the end. But the most likely story is that a full load of mines directly precedes a destroyed portion of the map.

this came up awhile ago ... carpet mining IS mindless mining .. your right its far from mindless to direct a newbie to fill up and destroy .... thats why having a newbie do that ISN"T carpet mining. its a strategical attack on one of the resources that winbolo has (terrain is a resource) actual carpet mining is totally mindless ... its what total newbies in open games do.

Kax wrote:

An analogy is instructive. Assume you have eight people staying in four rooms in a hotel. Pair one likes a temperature of 60 degrees, pair two 70, pair three 80, and pair four 90. If the hotel can have only one temperature in all its rooms, at least four people are going to be pissed. But with individual climate-controlled rooms, everyone will be happy.

Bolo fully embodies this principle of customization. Assuming each of those four "pairs" is involved in a 1x1, each pair can choose among features in the game -- open, tournament, or strict, hidden/visible mines, and map selection. Most people on this channel would never play an open game, but that doesn't mean we disallow the option. Likewise, many people don't like playing on huge terrain maps, but we still allow players to start those games, secure in the knowledge that if we don't want to join them, we don't have to.

The "-maxmines" option is precisely the same thing. We can even leave the default number of mines at 40. But if someone wants to start a game with a maximum of 10 and deal with the strategic consequences that follow, I don't see a compelling reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so. After all, if one doesn't like 10-mine games, one can simply start another game with a higher cap. It's no different than when I say "I'll disembowel myself with a blunt spoon before I play another game on Fitzhu" and start something else.

ah yes, you mention all these "customizable" options .... but how often do you see a tournament game? ... how often do you see a strict that has hidden mines turned on? .... you don't. why is that? ... becuase people play with whatever options the people who own the bots choose .... I built minbot, before minbot was east and west ... east and west started only tournament games, with hidden mines off, on minbot, I changed it to strict. do you see anyone playing anything other than strict? ... I don't ... making the changes you suggest will just add another reason for me to no longer play. and that in my opinion would be a shame.

Kax wrote:

At the end, I don't understand how adding more flexibility to the game can hurt it. Surely if we had 50 different variables, the games would be too confusing, but this particular modification is easily comprehensible and only deals with problems on the margin.

well, adding more flexibility to the game will hurt it in my opinion. instead of having a common denominator for gameplay .. every server you join will have different settings .... I've played a game like that before, and I hated it. every server you join is different, so any skill/strategy you may gain playing one server will be gone the moment you disconnect. in my opinion bolo is like chess ... if you start changing the rules .... its not chess anymore is it? .... eg. "lets only have 5 pawns, and they will be able to hop around the board like horses!" ... it totally changes the game.

awaiting your reply, Min

Great debate, and strong points made on eachside. Thought id just add my 2 cents here

First of all a lot of you guys arnt reading everything written, or are just utterly insane and/or brain dead, because the debate was never about HOW mines can be destructive, or whether or not to get rid of them entirely. Other than about 3 people, your comments are pretty off the chart. Just wanted to point out your INSANE and suckz0r hardcore! (points and laughs til he cries)
Now that that is out of my system, Ill add my comment on the optionalization of mining in winbolo, as well as what optionalizing means imo.

Min wrote:

Your making an arguement on something that we have no idea about .. how do we know that elvis isn't planning on implementing superboom? .. how do we know that elvis isn't planning on implementing massage? ... we don't. The change from ring topology was nessicary, due to changes in how internet networking works, it was a required change to make the game playable. macbolo was never intended to be a internet game, it was intended to be used over a lan, or a token ring setup. the internet is not kind to these sorts of setups. (NAT firewalls clomber token rings) there is a reason macbolo died off, and its not because people arn't interested in it anymore, its because the internet is no longer hospitable to its sort of networking scheme. in my opinion the client-server change was not intended to be a "improvement" it was done that way becuase it had to be done that way to make the game playable.

Improvements have to be made, obviously. Changing the network layout of winbolo from ring to server-client based was "necessarily" as a matter of opinion. It could have been that way and just sucked ass and laughed at and had cauliflower thrown at it with ranch dip, all while the baby cries for mommy, but NO!, Good ole Elvis figured it needed to be improved. Same goes with other tweaks and fixes. There are things in bolo that may be implemented in winbolo, and things in winbolo that will never be in mac bolo. The interface is different. Hey, theres an "ignore alliance" option. That wasnt absolutely necessary to make the game playable either. Lots of new options infact. And I personally think they have improved the game drastically. Lets face it, do we REALLY want an exact to the dot clone as the game that died eons ago, or do we want to push this game into the new age? And yes, dont tell me "it isnt dead". GO into the mac channel, and ask ANYONE that knows ANYTHING about martha stewart, and theyll tell ya the sad news my friend. You mentioned how the option of invisible mines is there but no one uses it, and therefore mines will be the same thing. Well, then whats the problem? Why isnt it allowed to be there? I havnt heard one complain about invisimines being available. The bottom line is the players ultimately play the game for fun, and the more they can make it the way like it, then the happier people are. If you dont like it, start up a game with the old settings. Thats the end of that problem.

I know its a shocker but bolo is dead, and has been for a long time. Who knows if bolo ended in its greatest possible shape? It was abandoned by stuart. And, it is of my opinion, that Elvis is the one who is taking the spotlight as bolo creationist. If Elvis decides to replace tanks with earwigs, pills with cotton balls, and make all the maps played on my hairy ass, then i guess thats the new form of bolo. Lets just pray that day never comes.

Classic bolo, if it truely is "perfectly balanced" then the options wont really mean anything, will they? people will just play the way they did before and ignore them. So why does it matter for an option to be enabled for something like mines?

Kax wrote:

Addbot agrees with this, but there's a key omission here: if people rarely get 40 mines, then capping the number won't hurt anything. The thing is, when people do get 40 mines, it's guaranteed to be for a reason other than defending themselves. It's to wreak havoc.

I agree there is a reason to drop 40 mines all over the enemy territory. its to screw em up. and im sure kax knows that. but i agree that this ability is one that should have the option to be altered, as it is unbalanced compared to other components of the game. plus, playing a game moving at one square a minute is suxor if you ask me.

Kax wrote:

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of carpet mining as "mindless." If two average players a newbie are allied against two good players, it's far from mindless to direct the newbie to fill up and destroy everything on the other side of the map. Also, I don't think it's possible for 40 mines to be used for anything _other_ than carpet mining. Maybe if you're a god and don't die once all game, one load of 40 mines will last you until the end. But the most likely story is that a full load of mines directly precedes a destroyed portion of the map.

Min wrote:

this came up awhile ago ... carpet mining IS mindless mining .. your right its far from mindless to direct a newbie to fill up and destroy .... thats why having a newbie do that ISN"T carpet mining. its a strategical attack on one of the resources that winbolo has (terrain is a resource) actual carpet mining is totally mindless ... its what total newbies in open games do.

lets try not to focus on semantics. you guys have different meanings for carpet mining, fine. according to kax, carpet mining is dropping as many mines as you can over a defined area. according to min, carpet mining is what a newbie does, ie something that is not hurting the enemy. hard to say which is which unless u see it happening in front of you, and its a rather pointless thing to argue anyway, imo.

Kax wrote:

An analogy is instructive. Assume you have eight people staying in four rooms in a hotel. Pair one likes a temperature of 60 degrees, pair two 70, pair three 80, and pair four 90. If the hotel can have only one temperature in all its rooms, at least four people are going to be pissed. But with individual climate-controlled rooms, everyone will be happy.

Bolo fully embodies this principle of customization. Assuming each of those four "pairs" is involved in a 1x1, each pair can choose among features in the game -- open, tournament, or strict, hidden/visible mines, and map selection. Most people on this channel would never play an open game, but that doesn't mean we disallow the option. Likewise, many people don't like playing on huge terrain maps, but we still allow players to start those games, secure in the knowledge that if we don't want to join them, we don't have to.

The "-maxmines" option is precisely the same thing. We can even leave the default number of mines at 40. But if someone wants to start a game with a maximum of 10 and deal with the strategic consequences that follow, I don't see a compelling reason why he shouldn't be allowed to do so. After all, if one doesn't like 10-mine games, one can simply start another game with a higher cap. It's no different than when I say "I'll disembowel myself with a blunt spoon before I play another game on Fitzhu" and start something else.

Min wrote:

ah yes, you mention all these "customizable" options .... but how often do you see a tournament game? ... how often do you see a strict that has hidden mines turned on? .... you don't. why is that? ... becuase people play with whatever options the people who own the bots choose .... I built minbot, before minbot was east and west ... east and west started only tournament games, with hidden mines off, on minbot, I changed it to strict. do you see anyone playing anything other than strict? ... I don't ... making the changes you suggest will just add another reason for me to no longer play. and that in my opinion would be a shame.

ok. i dont think how popular something is determines whether it should exist or not. In my opinion, hairy fat people with red hair arnt very popular. Does that mean they should be annihilated?? maybe, but that would be morally wrong, and it isnt really my choice is it.
hardly anyone uses hidden mines, sure. does that mean we should remove it from the game? i dont think so. I think the option should always be there for the player to decide.
The excuse that because the bots use it, thats what it has to be seems unneccessarily dogmatic. So your saying it doesnt matter what we want, because whatever the admin of the bot sets is what we must play? Im quite positive you can set options for a map on a bot, if that is enabled. is there some reason y it isnt?
I dont understand why a mine option would make you not want to play? does that mean play in general? it would be too bad you leave us min, but i dont see the rational reason behind this. is it because we have tainted winbolo with our dirty hands?

or do you mean not play maps with the option set? if the latter is true, then that is fine. i dont play open games, they are lame. and i dont like invisible mines. that is my taste. just like some people play 2x2s and others play 1x1s or some like 5x5. its all a matter of taste. the more options, the more availability of tastes, much like the ice cream place that is in vancouver that has something like 200 flavors (this place really does exist, no joke here guys). its very popular and is pretty roxoring. i dont like the beef stew ice cream and wasabi icecream, or the curry icecream personally, but that doesnt stop me from going there and eating fine double berry ice cream now does it.

Kax wrote:

At the end, I don't understand how adding more flexibility to the game can hurt it. Surely if we had 50 different variables, the games would be too confusing, but this particular modification is easily comprehensible and only deals with problems on the margin.

Min wrote:

well, adding more flexibility to the game will hurt it in my opinion. instead of having a common denominator for gameplay .. every server you join will have different settings .... I've played a game like that before, and I hated it. every server you join is different, so any skill/strategy you may gain playing one server will be gone the moment you disconnect. in my opinion bolo is like chess ... if you start changing the rules .... its not chess anymore is it? .... eg. "lets only have 5 pawns, and they will be able to hop around the board like horses!" ... it totally changes the game.

who says every server will have different settings? and if they do, just go to the one you want. eventually, people will come to an agreeance of the preferred mode of play anyways. the skill used in a game with 40 mines and one in 10 would be marginally different, if at all. your farstretched example of using 5 pawns as knights is exactly what Kax said he didnt mean. Kax: "Surely if we had 50 different variables, the games would be too confusing, but this particular modification is easily comprehensible and only deals with problems on the margin." quite a big leap there.

anyways, i would like to see winbolo evolve beyond its larval mac-bolo days into a game of mutant-nazis vs the world personally, but for the time being, some marginal optionalizing and customization should not destroy the game at all, and instead allow each player to have a lot of fun

anyhoo, thats my opinion, flame away, u piranhaz!!!!!

In order to flame, people are going to have to read the whole thread. Chances are, most people won't 'coz its huge. It's massive! It's crazy!

Sticks wrote:

In order to flame, people are going to have to read the whole thread. Chances are, most people won't 'coz its huge. It's massive! It's crazy!

yeah, well, thats kind of a good thing. the utter morons that dont have the brain power to read a few pages i have no use for anyway, and they get filtered out, so i at least get hostile-somewhat-intellectual comments.

one more key phrase i wanted to say:

We are not "limiting the options" of winbolo (from a prior addbot post... btw whats up with the bot? where is addbo*Y*?... if your trying to be cool like sheepbot, minbot and paniqbot, it aint workin), we are Optionalizing your Limits!

Further thoughts for those of you who actually bother to read what I write, poor fools that you are...

(1) I disagree that bolo died out because of the networking situation. Bolo was one of the first true internet games out there, with its hayday in 1994-1995. It was huge on college campuses, and those people eventually graduated; meanwhile, new kids were more interested on average in First-Person Shooters than in a somewhat atavistic-looking shareware game with a steep learning curve. With progressively fewer newbies, the skill level became very top-heavy, and relatively few had the patience to get their a**es handed to them for the length of time it took to become competitive. Without new players, of course it died, and Mac's <10% market share didn't help either.

Ironically, with the advent and popularity of broadband, structurally speaking the internet has never been so hospitable to a ring topology. I can't remember any mac bolo players quitting bolo entirely because of lag. Marriage and jobs, perhaps, and the occasional bolo-induced college dropout. If token ring networking were really to blame, mac bolo would be more popular now than it's ever been.

All of that's just to say that client-server wasn't an inevitable choice or even an absolute necessity. It was a good decision, to be sure, but with four players on cable modems it probably doesn't matter too much what the networking looks like.

(2) I'm not quite sure in the abstract why mac bolo is so sacred. It's a good game to be sure, but look at the rec.games.bolo posts from the last eight years. Very few people out there were sitting around saying "Damn, it's perfect, if only world peace were this easy." But all of the reform conversations were pointless because no one had the power to change anything.

I think that in the end, people like bolo and don't want it to change. That's great -- I like it too. But there's no innate reason why the current form of bolo (or mac version .997) is the end state of an evolution. I suggested that carpet mining wreaks havoc and many find it unpleasant, to which the (inevitable) response was that "Well, yes, and that's a valid tactic, so suck it up [you whiny little beeyach]." But there's no reason the same couldn't also be said of lagging bases, shooting pills from trees so that they don't shoot back, having a different tree regeneration rate, or anything else that once existed but no longer does. The only difference that I can see is that mac bolo v.997 didn't allow those things, but if v.997 _did_ allow those things, I wonder whether people would now be saying "That's how it is, and I like it!" Or if v.997 allowed 20 bullets/trees/mines instead of 40, would people be yelling for 40? No, because then 40 "Just wouldn't be bolo anymore."

I think bolo is a sufficiently unique concept that quite a lot can be changed before it's just not fun anymore. But the more salient point is that in a -maxmines world, 40 mines would still exist (especially if it's a default), and if -maxmines really ended the world as we know it, I'm sure it could be written off as a failed experiment and deleted from the game in no time flat.

Respectfully,

Kax

I'm bored at work, so I thought I'd elaborate on how silly (sorry) I think this whole "It's just not bolo anymore" argument is. I struggle to think of a computer game anywhere that doesn't have a heck of a lot more (and more meaningful) options than bolo does. In Unreal, Half-Life, etc., you have deathmatch, capture-the-flag, "Kill the guy carrying the item," etc. It's like if bolo had an option where the winner was the player who killed as many tanks as possible. That would be a truly radical option, and there would be screams of "It's just not bolo!" But no one who buys an Unreal expansion pack complains that "It's just not Unreal Tournament anymore." Just don't play with the options you don't like.

Or, take Civilization III, another popular game. Choice of terrains, ages, civilizations to play, number of enemies to play against, methods of victory, and length of game, just to name a few. And no matter what you choose, it's still Civ III, and you can just ignore the options you don't like.

The list goes on and on. I'm just not persuaded by this "bolo is sacred" notion. Apparently mac bolo v.992 and v.995 weren't too sacred. Why is .997? Bolo is like chess only in the sense that it has strategy, you play it against other people, and the victory conditions are clearly-defined. Anything with no options would generate that result.

And as far as the point goes that "people play with what the bots tell them to," well, maybe. But it's presumptuous to say that no one with a bot would enable this option, and even if no one did, I'd start games with it. Maybe I'd play with myself, but [complete this sentence in whatever clever way you'd like].

Kax

Heh, I thought of some interesting points but first

Min wrote:

I built minbot, before minbot was east and west ... east and west started only tournament games, with hidden mines off, on minbot, I changed it to strict. do you see anyone playing anything other than strict? ...

Well, we can play tourney on sheepbot if we want, but strict and tourney have so very little differences between them except for a slight change in the start strategy. Once all bases are taken in the first 45 seconds, there is absolutely no differences. However, despite the fact that minbot didn't offer open games - people still managed to start open games even when there was no other server bot available but minbot - because open games was sufficient different to warrants people's effort in starting those game.

The Evolution of Bolo

Bolo has always evolved.

When bolo first came out - all mines were hidden - there was no visible mines option (had to imagine uh? but that was the case for a good while). After a while, due to player request, a visible mine option was released. John, when creating WinBolo also modified the hidden mine option - you can now only plant hidden mine by the lgm, whereas in Bolo, hidden mines could be planted by the tank.

Another instance of evolution to the game are the maps. You used to have the option of playing any map you wanted, as long as it was Everald Island. Some dedicated players hacked into Bolo, and modified some of the bits of Everald Island so it would look different (yet, the size of the island could not be changed). Stu eventually took the lead and implement an ability to allow players to choose which maps they want to play....

It seems to me that as long as Stu was interested programming in Bolo, he followed a path of increasing players choice….John has also increased players choice - by implementing WBN as an option to players… That is why we're not saying "Get rid of the 40 mines carrying capacity", but saying "Let's have the option to modify the number of mines a tank carry".

Why is having a -maxmines option a great thing for everyone

1) Less tension and bitching: There would be less less bitching about mining when it is actually carried out even in games of 40 mines per tankload. Aren't we tired of having people bitch or quit games when some of us start carpet mining and from which arguments, tension arises with ill feelings on both sides which leads to the game been less fun? With this option (of -maxmines) - people will enter games knowing that they have a choice - either play this game with -maxmines 40, or play another game of-maxmines 5. If they enter the game of -maxmines 40 - they have no reason to bitch at all if they are carpet mined. Just like when we play open games - we never hear anyone bitch about the mining since we all know that is how open games are played and we all have the option of playing a strict game.

2) More Players: More people would play winbolo, as there always is an increase in players when a new option is created.... and at least more playing time for those of us who can be garanteed that some certain game won't be carpet mined to hell...

3) More fun fot the mine lovers: Those of us who love mines could start maps with even more mines. If 40 mines is a good number for some of us - why not play with 60 mines then?

4) New Flavor of Open Game: Open games played completely on land. With a -maxmines 5 selected, the open games would not evolve into a water based world at all over a period of time as they do now.

All in all, adding a -maxmines option would benefit everyone, no matter whether we prefer 5 mines, 40 mines or 85 mines per tank load.

underdog wrote:

I dont understand why a mine option would make you not want to play? does that mean play in general? it would be too bad you leave us min, but i dont see the rational reason behind this. is it because we have tainted winbolo with our dirty hands?

or do you mean not play maps with the option set? if the latter is true, then that is fine. i dont play open games, they are lame. and i dont like invisible mines. that is my taste. just like some people play 2x2s and others play 1x1s or some like 5x5. its all a matter of taste. the more options, the more availability of tastes, much like the ice cream place that is in vancouver that has something like 200 flavors (this place really does exist, no joke here guys). its very popular and is pretty roxoring. i dont like the beef stew ice cream and wasabi icecream, or the curry icecream personally, but that doesnt stop me from going there and eating fine double berry ice cream now does it.
[/qoute]

You missed one of my points .... my point is that if this "option" is implemented, and people like it. they will only start games with this option .... there isn't exactly 400 games to choose from at any given time .. its not like I can just "not play" on servers with this option set ... becuase if I do that, I may as well not play at all for the amount of gametime I will get.

underdog wrote:

Classic bolo, if it truely is "perfectly balanced" then the options wont really mean anything, will they? people will just play the way they did before and ignore them. So why does it matter for an option to be enabled for something like mines?

then why waste elvis's time building these features ....

Min

Kax wrote:

Further thoughts for those of you who actually bother to read what I write, poor fools that you are...

(1) I disagree that bolo died out because of the networking situation. Bolo was one of the first true internet games out there, with its hayday in 1994-1995. It was huge on college campuses, and those people eventually graduated; meanwhile, new kids were more interested on average in First-Person Shooters than in a somewhat atavistic-looking shareware game with a steep learning curve. With progressively fewer newbies, the skill level became very top-heavy, and relatively few had the patience to get their a**es handed to them for the length of time it took to become competitive. Without new players, of course it died, and Mac's <10% market share didn't help either.

Ironically, with the advent and popularity of broadband, structurally speaking the internet has never been so hospitable to a ring topology. I can't remember any mac bolo players quitting bolo entirely because of lag. Marriage and jobs, perhaps, and the occasional bolo-induced college dropout. If token ring networking were really to blame, mac bolo would be more popular now than it's ever been.

You quite obviously didn't fully understand what I said ..... NAT (network address translation) killed bolo ..... in my opinion ..... it had nothing to do with the lag, it had nothing to do with anything else ... NAT is what killed it ....

I think bolo is a sufficiently unique concept that quite a lot can be changed before it's just not fun anymore. But the more salient point is that in a -maxmines world, 40 mines would still exist (especially if it's a default), and if -maxmines really ended the world as we know it, I'm sure it could be written off as a failed experiment and deleted from the game in no time flat

I feel that adding this option is a complete waste of elvis's valuable time... and the question is ... why waste his time with this when there is so many other far more interesting things for him to do .... especially since I don't see this "option" as doing anything but helping all the people out there that don't know how to deal with minefields along ... (pillwarriors ...... big surprise)

Min

yea what he said :D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink:

Lace@loonybin(a.k.a. chopper)

1) Less tension and bitching: There would be less less bitching about mining when it is actually carried out even in games of 40 mines per tankload. Aren't we tired of having people bitch or quit games when some of us start carpet mining and from which arguments, tension arises with ill feelings on both sides which leads to the game been less fun? With this option (of -maxmines) - people will enter games knowing that they have a choice - either play this game with -maxmines 40, or play another game of-maxmines 5. If they enter the game of -maxmines 40 - they have no reason to bitch at all if they are carpet mined. Just like when we play open games - we never hear anyone bitch about the mining since we all know that is how open games are played and we all have the option of playing a strict game.

nothing you say nor anythign we do will ever EVER stop the bitching fi ... you know that as well as I. if you don't "carpet mine" people will find another reason to bitch and leave .... "you shot me!! I quit!!", "HOW DARE YOU SHOOT MY LGM!!! *quit*" ..... "how come you raped my bases?!?!?!?*quit*" ....

2) More Players: More people would play winbolo, as there always is an increase in players when a new option is created.... and at least more playing time for those of us who can be garanteed that some certain game won't be carpet mined to hell...

having this option garuntee's nothing .. other than it will be a waste of elvis's time to implement .... "more people will play winbolo" is a load of crap..... there is a increase in players for about a week after a new release ... the longer after a release ... the less players ....

3) More fun fot the mine lovers: Those of us who love mines could start maps with even more mines. If 40 mines is a good number for some of us - why not play with 60 mines then?

mass variations in strategical thought perhaps? why not start a game with 400 armor? ... why not start a game with 1000 ammo? ... why not have bases have 10,000,000,000 resources in them? ..... the answers to those should be pretty obvious

4) New Flavor of Open Game: Open games played completely on land. With a -maxmines 5 selected, the open games would not evolve into a water based world at all over a period of time as they do now.

thats not true .... people will still mine the crap out of maps .. even if it takes longer ...

All in all, adding a -maxmines option would benefit everyone, no matter whether we prefer 5 mines, 40 mines or 85 mines per tank load.

no, having the replay logging implemented would benefit everyone, having all the weird bugs fixed would benifit everyone, having fiber optic's run to everyone on the planets house would benifit everyone .......... -maxmines will only benifit people who are mentally unable to deal with a few mines ... don't you people realize the pyschological effect of mines? ... I used to mine a strip down some maps ... and that would allow me to win simply becuase my enemy would become frustrated ... even though it was only one strip of mines ......

Kax wrote:

I'm bored at work, so I thought I'd elaborate on how silly (sorry) I think this whole "It's just not bolo anymore" argument is. I struggle to think of a computer game anywhere that doesn't have a heck of a lot more (and more meaningful) options than bolo does. In Unreal, Half-Life, etc., you have deathmatch, capture-the-flag, "Kill the guy carrying the item," etc. It's like if bolo had an option where the winner was the player who killed as many tanks as possible. That would be a truly radical option, and there would be screams of "It's just not bolo!" But no one who buys an Unreal expansion pack complains that "It's just not Unreal Tournament anymore." Just don't play with the options you don't like.

Or, take Civilization III, another popular game. Choice of terrains, ages, civilizations to play, number of enemies to play against, methods of victory, and length of game, just to name a few. And no matter what you choose, it's still Civ III, and you can just ignore the options you don't like.

uh, you also forget .. games like civ, unreal, every other games you mention are commercial products ... with thousands of players .... do you forget that on the tracker at anytime .... there is a whole 4 games? ... if not less .... do you also forget that we have maybe 100 consistant players? ....... this isn't unreal .. or civ .. and can't be compared to them..

And as far as the point goes that "people play with what the bots tell them to," well, maybe. But it's presumptuous to say that no one with a bot would enable this option, and even if no one did, I'd start games with it. Maybe I'd play with myself, but [complete this sentence in whatever clever way you'd like].

my presumption is actually that all the bots will have this option enabled ... and that I will be unable to play becuase I don't like it ..... I must have made this unclear ....

Min