I think the socket communication could be classified in a category similar
to the continuousMouse.  It may be borgish, perhaps not, but due to the
questionable nature, it may be better to remove it.  I think it would be
helpful if they used normal message boards, however, since it would make
observing/reviewing these games much more interesting.  Who wants to stare
at an empty team board the entire game?



> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:04:07PM -0800, Daniel Damouth wrote:
> > From: "Mark Mielke" <mark at mark.mielke.cc>
> > intelligent 'bots
> > > I actually started coding away. As I intend all 'bots to function as
> > > appendages to a single unit, I've had to take a look at socket code.
> > What is the point of designing a robot team that cheats by communicating
> > through sockets instead of normal messaging?  The bots will be playing a
> > different game than the humans.
> >
> > Why don't you add some socket code in the server to give your bots more
> > information, while you're at it?  Or just give them 300 shields and
> > and gonzo phasers.
> Define 'cheats'. Does 'cheats' mean that rules are violated?
> By running client side, no rules are violated. In *ANY* game, the ability
> to win, in terms of potential, can be expressed entirely on how well one
> is able to exploit the given ruleset to ones advantage.
> Is "butt-torping" cheating? Perhaps many people look down on it, but is it
> truly cheating? Is the fact that a few people have found an element of the
> game that 'runs' in their favour 'cheating'?
> Why not? Because the intrique is in tackling the problem space. If the
> 'bots choose to live under horrible restrictions such as 'you can
> never ever fire a torpedo backwards if you are going faster than warp
> 4, because some people might consider this cheating', they will never
> win. Human players do such things all the time. The 'bots have to make up
> for how 'dynamic' human players are *somehow*. Accuracy and efficiency is
> where the 'bots have a chance. Is there a problem with the 'bots making
> use of information more efficiently than human players possibly could?
> Two netrek players who sit in the same room can say "I'm coming up
> from behind him, distract while I ogg". Is this not 'communicating on
> a channel other than the messaging protocol'?
> Are you worried? :-)
> mark