Bots first is no way to play

Game of universal domination. New dice available free upon request.
User avatar
dustin
Lux Creator
Lux Creator
Posts: 10981
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Bots first is no way to play

Post by dustin » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:39 am

The following is a rant against the "bots first" doctrine:

Bots first is racist against non-humans. I was just playing in a game with 5 humans and 1 bot, a Pixie. The bot was doing extremely well, with oz secured and pushing out into Asia. Why should a good bot be set upon by all the humans? It's unfair to them. Why should weak players be propped up? It rewards poor play, while forcing good players to de-optimize their strategies.

Anyway, if hosts want to run "bots first" rooms then that's their choice and their right. But I will never host such a session. I wanted to officially say that the creator is against "bots first" in principal.

User avatar
magpie
Goat Avenger
Posts: 1640
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:17 pm
Location: Riding with the League of Extraordinary Anti Goatfecking Gentlemen ...

Post by magpie » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:46 am

depends if it is one bot.. i say play normal on one bot, but if i have a choice i will go the bot first if i have to make a kill. :D


3 or more bots i dont mind bots first....this depends if im playing some noobs also...i usaully go with the flow (i don't give a shit that is)

that is me though

:D

User avatar
smedz
Lux Scotsman
Posts: 3330
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by smedz » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:47 am

The only reason I play bots first is because so many luxers refuse to play rooms with bots, it's the only way to get these raw obsessed twonks in a game at times. I personally am quite happy to play as normal, bots are actually quite easy to predict, but as I say many of the raw whores amongst us, run for the hill at the thought of a bot. That is of course until MOTW games occur and then they love Bots, as it means they can climb further up the game position and rob even more raw from the system.

User avatar
Preacherman
Semiholy Priest
Posts: 4496
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Sweden (capital of Denmark, an island in Norway, southern Europe)
Contact:

Post by Preacherman » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:07 am

I have also never played bots first and never will, it is a pussy way to play the game. It is also infuriating to spend so much time developing bots to see them targeted all the time and not given a chance to get the ranking they might deserve.

User avatar
xanadu
Luxecutioner
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Maning the Suicide Booth

Post by xanadu » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:54 am

Preacherman wrote:I have also never played bots first and never will, it is a pussy way to play the game. It is also infuriating to spend so much time developing bots to see them targeted all the time and not given a chance to get the ranking they might deserve.
I hate playing Bots first. If you have a good kill lined up and it is not a bot, take the kill when you have it not wait because there is still a bot in the game.

User avatar
moe
fnnnarrrr
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:53 pm
Location: passed out in a church parking lot
Contact:

Post by moe » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:58 am

Preacherman wrote:I have also never played bots first and never will, it is a pussy way to play the game. It is also infuriating to spend so much time developing bots to see them targeted all the time and not given a chance to get the ranking they might deserve.
what he said.
i was playing in a game yesterday, and after ten minutes of play, a weak human got taken out before the bot, so the guest host restarted the game. 10 minutes into the game!
i agree, bots first props up weak human play. the weakest should die first, human or not.

Mouldy Dog
WOOF!!!!
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:40 pm

Post by Mouldy Dog » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:53 am

I have been playing the no bots first rule for sometime and most people seem ok about it.

The only trouble is when i play 5 bots (especially reapers) they gang up on me and make it human first.

Where is the fairness in that?

Good to see your point of view on it though Lord Creator, what do you think I should have as a new years resolution?

1/ Lose weight
2/ get divorce an shack up with a woman half my age (20)
3/give up drinking.

Cheers

:shock:

microtonal
spaghetti lover
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:50 pm

Post by microtonal » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:59 am

i've always thought bots first was BS, and have never understood the argument myself.

microtonal stands with the creator

User avatar
smedz
Lux Scotsman
Posts: 3330
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by smedz » Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:21 pm

microtonal wrote:i've always thought bots first was BS, and have never understood the argument myself.

microtonal stands with the creator
:shock:

User avatar
moe
fnnnarrrr
Posts: 1316
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:53 pm
Location: passed out in a church parking lot
Contact:

Post by moe » Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:43 pm

Mouldy Dog wrote: what do you think I should have as a new years resolution?

1/ Lose weight
2/ get divorce an shack up with a woman half my age (20)
3/give up drinking.

Cheers

:shock:
i would say gain weight, stay married, and drink more.
divorce is expensive, eating is fun, and the world looks much more agreeable thru booze colored glasses.

User avatar
KingPatrick
Alpha Male
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Near Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Bots First Issue

Post by KingPatrick » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:13 pm

Ok, I didn't see any reason NOT to make bots first until now. Most seemed to prefer it.

But to honor the wishes of the creator, no more bots first in games I host.

KP

User avatar
Kef
Lux Translator
Posts: 4471
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:23 am
Location: in j0r f0rumz, Tr0||in j0r t0pixzz
Contact:

Post by Kef » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:42 pm

I agree with Dustin as well, I just don't like killing humans for the fun of killing them first

Mouldy Dog
WOOF!!!!
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:40 pm

Post by Mouldy Dog » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:56 pm

moe wrote:
Mouldy Dog wrote: what do you think I should have as a new years resolution?

1/ Lose weight
2/ get divorce an shack up with a woman half my age (20)
3/give up drinking.

Cheers

:shock:
i would say gain weight, stay married, and drink more.
divorce is expensive, eating is fun, and the world looks much more agreeable thru booze colored glasses.
i think ur so right moo ..... :lol:

User avatar
Bertrand
Reaper Creator
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Montreal

Post by Bertrand » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:57 pm

As Reaper's creator I also dislike bots first: it makes the rankings meaningless for bots.

A suggestion Dustin, since some hosts will still want to use bots first. What do you think about a /botsFirst command?

The botsfirst setting could then be displayed on the rankings page for those games.

Even better, in those games you could fix it so that bots would not gain or lose RAW.

The botsFirst flag could also be available to the bots. I could then adapt Reaper to go after humans first when botsFirst is ON: he might manage to kill a human, and mess up the game...
The only trouble is when i play 5 bots (especially reapers) they gang up on me and make it human first.
:twisted:

Mouldy Dog, a new version of Reaper will be out soon, and you will be able to turn Reaper teaming off. You will also be able to team with a Reaper.

Mouldy Dog
WOOF!!!!
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:40 pm

Post by Mouldy Dog » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:07 pm

cool, ilkie reaper, but she talks far too much....

keep up the good work....

:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Bertrand
Reaper Creator
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:35 pm
Location: Montreal

Post by Bertrand » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:16 pm

Hummmm... I already have toned down the chatting for the next version. I've kept only the "You have been selected for termination" message, since I think it is useful to know when you are being targeted.

User avatar
Weed
Grassman
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:33 pm
Location: PA (Damn right its a blue state)

Post by Weed » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:59 pm

The only trouble is when i play 5 bots (especially reapers) they gang up on me and make it human first.
:twisted:

Mouldy Dog, a new version of Reaper will be out soon, and you will be able to turn Reaper teaming off. You will also be able to team with a Reaper.
My idea!!! And thank you Bert (can i call u Bert?) for making it happen. Can't wait.

:smt033

edit:
Bertrand wrote:Hummmm... I already have toned down the chatting for the next version. I've kept only the "You have been selected for termination" message, since I think it is useful to know when you are being targeted.
I like the one when it dies too, saying something about revenge.

:twisted:

User avatar
MinorKing
Lux Addict
Posts: 727
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Bots first is no way to play

Post by MinorKing » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:19 pm

dustin wrote:Bots first is racist against non-humans.
Is "Bot" really considered a race?

User avatar
AquaRegia
Lux Ambassador
Posts: 3721
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:20 am
Location: Lounging once more at the mods' retirement villa
Contact:

Post by AquaRegia » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:43 pm

Since no one else has spoken up in defense of bots first (Voni?), I suppose I'll take a shot at a rationale.

The purpose, when I ask people to play bots first, is not to reward mediocre human play; it is to avoid the "humans first" mentality that often occurs in "free-for-all" games with bots. As has been stated, the behavior of some bots is very easy to predict - this makes them much safer to ignore as real threats. I've been in games (say, with 3 humans and 3 easy bots) where one human player decides that the bots are not a threat and intends, from the start, to cripple and kill the other humans first no matter what. If you are on the receiving end of such "preferential treatment" early in a game, it doesn't matter how "good" you are, you lose. It's very irritating, and whether the players finishing ahead of you are protein or silicon makes no difference. "The weakest should die first" sounds great, but without bots first, many players will choose to attack a strong human rather than a weak bot.

Imagine if you were in a six-human game, and from the first turn, two of your opponents decided to focus on you simply because you were the best player, and therefore the biggest threat. Will this decrease your chances of winning, do you think? This is what I see happening in "free-for-all" games involving bots - the bots are ignored early, and finish higher than their "ability" would dictate in a fair game. This bias sometimes results in bots winning games - not a bad thing by itself, but when it happens because human players are playing "humans first", then it's the bots who are getting an unfair advantage. When it's a choice between the bias benefitting us or them, I'll choose us, thanks.

When I host, I clearly state "bots first" in the game description, and I try to mention it at the start of every game. Nobody has any reason to be offended if I then restart because someone gets taken out before a bot.

All this said, I prefer not to play with bots at all, and with the steady increase in the number of luxers, full houses have become easier and easier. I also understand completely the objection of bot makers that their "children" are being discriminated against, and I promise to try to remember to choose "easy" bots for use in online games. But I dispute the claim that bots' rankings will be "fair" compared to humans' if "bots first" goes away...

I may be wrong, but that's how I feel now.

User avatar
jOnNiE
Lux Hasselhoff
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
Location: in the bottom of the bottle

Post by jOnNiE » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:33 pm

bots first sux...........i agree with dustin and preach. It is a pussy way out of losing.

User avatar
KingPatrick
Alpha Male
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Near Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Post by KingPatrick » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:57 pm

Well I won't make it a rule anymore, or RS for human dying first, but I maintain some disrimination against the bot "race." After all, they don't have feelings!

User avatar
Mike
Lux Townie
Posts: 5662
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:42 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Camouflage Lux

Post by Mike » Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:01 pm

If someone wants to make sure that bots are not discriminated against, check out my Idea for Camouflage lux in the Feature Requests Forum.

here is the link ( i hope)

http://sillysoft.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=53185#53185

User avatar
Fane
Goldenballer
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:23 am
Location: SLEEPY (MICRO NATION OF)

Post by Fane » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:08 pm

i'm backing up aqua!

User avatar
Spir-An
Luxer
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:00 am

Re: Bots first is no way to play

Post by Spir-An » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:04 pm

dustin wrote:The following is a rant against the "bots first" doctrine:

Bots first is racist against non-humans. I was just playing in a game with 5 humans and 1 bot, a Pixie. The bot was doing extremely well, with oz secured and pushing out into Asia. Why should a good bot be set upon by all the humans? It's unfair to them. Why should weak players be propped up? It rewards poor play, while forcing good players to de-optimize their strategies.

Anyway, if hosts want to run "bots first" rooms then that's their choice and their right. But I will never host such a session. I wanted to officially say that the creator is against "bots first" in principal.
You know what Dustin? I agree with you. And I always have done. That's because I come from Dominategame, where there is no bots first rule. I think why there isn't there, but is here, is because of differences in the rating system. On Dom bots are not counted in the rating ordering of wins and losses. If a bot gets 3rd and a human gets 4th the human is counted as getting 3rd... and they *have* out of the humans only. Here I believe you change people's rating according to their absolute place, meaning that if a bot is killed later than you you've got a lower place than if all bots were killed before any humans.

Recently I played a game in which I killed a human off before a bot. There was a little bad feeling about it but not too much, especially since I apologised and said I'd forgotten the rule. And that was the truth: I had not done it 'maliciously', in breach of what I believed to be a sacred principle; but because I forgot the issue of "bots first" because I am not used to it and it doesn't seem necessary for me. :) Ultimately it made sense to me to kill off the human first rather than the bot because it was easier... which to me means that other things being equal, the bot had played better than the human... and therefore why should it be taken out first?

Now of course things aren't all equal: there is the issue of the chance of dice rolls, initial placements and enemies' choices of attacks, etc. Not to mention that bots have less pride and RAW-hunger. ;) But my conclusion is I agree with you: I think players should be taken out as and when convenient, without prejudice to their humanness/bothood.

If I ever get my hosting problems sorted out, I will host "No Bots First" games regularly... not necessarily always, but mostly I think.

User avatar
Weed
Grassman
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:33 pm
Location: PA (Damn right its a blue state)

Post by Weed » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:17 pm

Whats with the "RAW" thing? Just call it "raw", its not that important in your life is it?

/me looks at para, jt, TSA, kp, and others...

User avatar
Spir-An
Luxer
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:00 am

Post by Spir-An » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:07 pm

AquaRegia wrote:Since no one else has spoken up in defense of bots first (Voni?), I suppose I'll take a shot at a rationale.
I appreciate your stance, Aqua, but even as I was reading it I was thinking of answers I'd like to make.
AquaRegia wrote:The purpose, when I ask people to play bots first, is not to reward mediocre human play; it is to avoid the "humans first" mentality that often occurs in "free-for-all" games with bots. As has been stated, the behavior of some bots is very easy to predict - this makes them much safer to ignore as real threats.
Isn't it also the case that if they are weaker they can more easily be taken out early - to get cards? Doesn't that counterbalance the possibility of them being ignored and humans being targeted sooner instead?
AquaRegia wrote:I've been in games (say, with 3 humans and 3 easy bots) where one human player decides that the bots are not a threat and intends, from the start, to cripple and kill the other humans first no matter what. If you are on the receiving end of such "preferential treatment" early in a game, it doesn't matter how "good" you are, you lose. It's very irritating, and whether the players finishing ahead of you are protein or silicon makes no difference. "The weakest should die first" sounds great, but without bots first, many players will choose to attack a strong human rather than a weak bot.

Imagine if you were in a six-human game, and from the first turn, two of your opponents decided to focus on you simply because you were the best player, and therefore the biggest threat. Will this decrease your chances of winning, do you think?
Quite probably - but so what? Isn't that extremely sensible play on the part of weaker humans, to increase their chances of winning? That's not unfair, that's part of how the game is played.
AquaRegia wrote:This is what I see happening in "free-for-all" games involving bots - the bots are ignored early, and finish higher than their "ability" would dictate in a fair game.
No, it's not 'unfair', it's just a result that doesn't reflect the general abilities of the players, precisely. This happens all the time in human-only games.

Someone's ability will be indicated better and better the more games they play and you take into consideration: one individual game may present a highly distorted picture. Because it's a game of chance as well as skill. It's called "Risk", not "Certain Outcome Given Known Initial Conditions". Half the skill of Risk is to manage the chance/luck/risk factor, including the subjective and possibly irrational choices of your opponents. So many times a better player may be hammered, taken out or beaten by a less good player. If sometimes less good bots finish higher up than better humans, that's just another manifestation of that pattern.

Now consider the opposite situation. You are playing at least one human and one bot. The human has a chance of winning if you don't tackle them, but because of "bots first" you go after the bot first, get weakened in the attempt, the human maybe finishes off the bot, gets the cards, and hammers you into 2nd place. Because of "bots first", you lost. If you'd gone after the human first you most likely would have won. You maybe needn't even kill them, just cripple them to a point of not being able to kill you, and then kill the bot and then the human.

This was the situation I was in the other day, when the host who I had got into that position got annoyed at me, threatened to end the game if he was killed before the bot, and then did that when the bot took him out. I felt that was out of order and rated him down in the HQA section. I'd intended to follow his Bots First rule, and thus was intending to take the bot out first, but he (the host) kept attacking me so I attacked back AHAP to stop him from doing it again. As far as I'm concerned I did nothing wrong, and he was a soreass loser who abused his host power. But all of this was only possible because of the Bots First principle.

User avatar
Spir-An
Luxer
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:00 am

Post by Spir-An » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:14 pm

Weed wrote:Whats with the "RAW" thing? Just call it "raw", its not that important in your life is it?

/me looks at para, jt, TSA, kp, and others...
I'm a relative newbie, I'm just copying others... :) BTW on that subject, where does the word come from? Is it an acronym - Ranking Added-up Wrongly, Really Awful Weather, Rules Applied Weirdly? Or is it because it is a 'raw' or 'gross' account of score, which maybe needs to be refined with some tweaks?

User avatar
Weed
Grassman
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:33 pm
Location: PA (Damn right its a blue state)

Post by Weed » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:58 pm

Spir-An wrote:
Weed wrote:Whats with the "RAW" thing? Just call it "raw", its not that important in your life is it?

/me looks at para, jt, TSA, kp, and others...
I'm a relative newbie, I'm just copying others... :) BTW on that subject, where does the word come from? Is it an acronym - Ranking Added-up Wrongly, Really Awful Weather, Rules Applied Weirdly? Or is it because it is a 'raw' or 'gross' account of score, which maybe needs to be refined with some tweaks?
:smt044

Sorry i was so vague...
I wasnt talking about you personally, but all of you. People take the ranks way too seriously these days.
In '04, it was all 4,5,6 0% with virtually no rules...diplomacy wasnt what it is today, neither was suiciding.
I was the worst we had back then...

I miss the good old days.

:(

User avatar
rob
Lux Addict
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 10:21 pm

Post by rob » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:40 pm

:smt033

bots first sucks.

/discussion

Stanski
Luxer
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:08 am

Post by Stanski » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:31 am

Weed wrote:
Spir-An wrote:
Weed wrote:Whats with the "RAW" thing? Just call it "raw", its not that important in your life is it?

/me looks at para, jt, TSA, kp, and others...
I'm a relative newbie, I'm just copying others... :) BTW on that subject, where does the word come from? Is it an acronym - Ranking Added-up Wrongly, Really Awful Weather, Rules Applied Weirdly? Or is it because it is a 'raw' or 'gross' account of score, which maybe needs to be refined with some tweaks?
:smt044

Sorry i was so vague...
I wasnt talking about you personally, but all of you. People take the ranks way too seriously these days.
In '04, it was all 4,5,6 0% with virtually no rules...diplomacy wasnt what it is today, neither was suiciding.
I was the worst we had back then...

I miss the good old days.

:(
Suiciding was as bad if not worse a year ago. Nothing has changed in terms of frequency of suicide.

In addition, many of the games last year were 4-6-8. Shock-n-ya'lls room was always 468 cash off and it was very popular.

The raw whores played for second in farming matches very often (set, furball, etc.). The raw whores sat on raw much worse then they do now since they didn't reset the scores at all.

Locked