Winbolo with autopilot!!!

no.

Min

Ladmo > Indy

I don't think we should give winbolo an auto-pilot because people will take advantage of it. If someone yells hold in a game, you could just keep on playing and say that you were on auto-pilot when he said hold...

zet makes a good point, but autopilot has its perks seeing how bolo can't be paused

besides, any where where a hold can be enforced would be a strict game, opens has too many newbs, if you could prevent autopilots in strict I dont see a problem with anyone cheating

Ugh, thats a good idea, auto-pilot shoulden't be allowed in strict games just open game... But you could still blame everything on the auto-pilot though so you would need something to tell if a certain player is using auto-pilot or not...

A good bot would respond to the HOLD message sent via the message interface. In fact, some of them listen to a handfull of commands this way.

If someone yells hold in a game, you could just keep on playing and say that you were on auto-pilot when he said hold...

Cool Fool does that, but we can usually tell if he's on autopilot or not because the autopilot is able to accomplish simple pilltakes and refuel. Mind you, since he's been banned this has not had to happen.

I'm also willing to help port a mac bot to the windows platform.

zet wrote:

you would need something to tell if a certain player is using auto-pilot or not...

There should be a way to prevent Jhood from using bots, because once he started using them, people would think he's a lot better than he is.

CF

There should be a way to prevent Jhood from using bots, because once he started using them, people would think he's a lot better than he is.

All you did was take my post and switch the names.

jhood wrote:

A good bot would respond to the HOLD message sent via the message interface.

If anyone ever abuses this, the defendant can rightfully say that she was askin' for it.

Yeah who'd expect other players to stop playing when hold is called?

What's different with the bot? It stops playing when it sees one of the defined "hold" strings, and unpauses when an all-clear signal is sent. Same as their human counterparts, so I think that the same consequences of abusing community-wide etiquette would apply. Also afaik those hold messages are disregarded when sent via a player-to-player message, as opposed to the "send message to all" option.

jhood wrote:

afaik those hold messages are disregarded when sent via a player-to-player message

I disregard every message Jhood sends me, regardless of its format.

CF

I disregard every message Jhood sends me, regardless of its format.

Because you realize I clicked on the wrong name? Or because you're tired of the "no dont plant that there" or "let me show you how to do this" messages?

Yeah but if bots that responded to the HOLD message people would abuse it. They would use it as a tactic. Everytime you lost your builder during an important part of the game you would just say hold. I know a few people who do it already *glares at jhood*

How could I lose my lgm when I never had one in the first place?

I know it would be adding to the problem of illegit holding, but there's no difference between bots holding and players holding.

jhood wrote:

<snip>

D'oh.

Mabey in newer versions of bolo you could make mines that don't make craters. They would still take away armour when you drove over one and you would still get the same amount but they woulden't destroy map. Then people woulden't have an excuse for making ugly maps... Nova... Anyway I also think you should take away hidden mine. Hidden mines are soo-oo annoying.

zet wrote:

Hidden mines are soo-oo annoying.

Yes, they are quite Jhood-like.

CF

I like hidden mines. They're amusing, especially if you wait nearby in the trees and watch people smack right into them. If you do it right you get instant death.

The no-crater mines are a good idea, especially for stricts, but I don't see them ever being implemented.

Thats what make them so annoying. THE PEOPLE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MINES. THEY PLACE THEM ON ROADS AND OTHER PLACES TANKS DRIVE OVER LOTS. I sware this on guy is a mathmatition. Wherever I drove there was a hidden mine. Or mabey he just mined the map really heavily. If we did have an auto-pilot we should make one that has super-mine-dodging-abilities.

zet wrote:

THE PEOPLE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MINES. THEY PLACE THEM ON ROADS AND OTHER PLACES TANKS DRIVE OVER LOTS

I would actually like to see more mines in winbolo. I have some mine-related ideas for the next version, which, I'm sure you'll agree, will make winbolo a much better game:

1) The LGM should be trained as a combat engineer, able not only to lay mines as he is now, but to stack them as well. Four or five mines on top of each other would be tremendous. The LGM should also be able to defuse mines, or remove and transplant them. He should also be able to booby-trap mines to prevent enemy LGMs from doing the same thing.

2) We need different types of mines, each with a different effect. In addition to the standard blast anti-tank mine, there should be armor-piercing mines whose main charges fire a molten copper penetrator into the undercarriage of the tank, detonating any ordnance inside. I also think the blast mines should occasionally cause mobility kills, requiring the LGM to dismount and repair the damaged track before the tank can move.

3) The tank's main gun should be able to fire a mine-dispensing canister, perhaps not at the full 8-square range. This would open up a whole new family of base-assaulting tactics, especially in open games.

4) Mines need to have a remote-detonation ability, allowing you to hit enemy tanks that are traversing the edge of a minefield.

5) Chemical mines! Once they detonate, any LGMs in the open are killed. The tank is NBC-capable, so it wouldn't be affected, but before it can send an LGM, the LGM has to don a mission-oriented protective posture suit. Not only does this take him some time to do after the "send" command, it also slows him as he moves. He also needs time after returning to the tank to decontaminate before he's ready for other run.

I think we can all agree that winbolo will totally rox once these suggestions are implemented, which I know they will be.

CF

CF - again you have excellent ideas.

How about also incorporating anti-personel mines with trip wires that the LGM has to step over? But if they don't.. then boom.

And, allow each player to control a mine clearing device with a plow on front to clear a path. Then, the LGM's would automatically follow behind and rebuild the roads, if necessary.

>:/. The LGMs are slow and easy enough to snipe all ready. Do we really need trip wires to slow them down?

''1) The LGM should be trained as a combat engineer, able not only to lay mines as he is now, but to stack them as well.'' - CF

I'm not sure you could see stacked mines in a 2D game. And It would get too complicated. When you clicked on the mines selection box lots boxes would show up Stack mines, Chemical mines, canister of mines, armour peircing mines. By the time you wanted to lay that and escape you would be dead.

I agree with the point about lgms picking up and defusing mines though. Just make a comand on the mine button.. if a mine is already placed, lgm will pick it up...in the same manner the lgm can farm trees. That seems simple enough to implement. :)

I'm also in favor of an aIndy bot port for Winbolo.

-Silent_G

Easy enough, Silent, all we need is the aIndy code. Anyone got that handy?

http://www.lgm.com/bolo/guides/brains.html