On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:36:29PM -0500, Shaun Foley wrote:
> 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?
Hehe... thing is... this beast, whatever it is, will definately be 'borg'.
Not 'borgish'. When it comes to 'isn't this feature a little borgish?'
when adding to a 'borg', the answer becomes somewhat amusing... :-)
As for 'who wants to stare at an empty team board', it wouldn't be
hard at all for each ship to announce targets as they accept them.
F4->FED Moving to Den
F2->FED Ogging R2...
F4->FED In position around Den. Guarding it with my life!
mark
> =====
>
> > 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
> hull,
> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> vanilla-list mailing list
> vanilla-list at us.netrek.org
> https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/vanilla-list
--
mark at mielke.cc/markm at ncf.ca/markm at nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/