Bots first is no way to play
- Blind Willie
- Lux Veteran
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:06 am
- Location: Satellite of Love
- vonibot
- Lux Addict
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:07 pm
- Location: the semi-holy ministry of semi-retirement
Re: Bots first is no way to play
First, Bots are code, they are not capable of being a "race". Attributing bots with human characteristics (like the ability to experience discrimination) only undermines the human experience.dustin wrote:Bots first is racist against non-humans.
Second, the Bots First Doctrine is, as always, about etiquette. Bots First simply states that humans should treat humans with respect, even within the competitive framework of Lux.
Last: yes, this topic particular is four months old. I apologize for the delay but my retirement benefits do not cover RSS feeds.[/b]
Personally, I think a good common ground is "bots first within reason" which may also be called "human benefit of the doubt". If it's going to make little to no difference to my strategy to take a bot out first, I will give my human competition the benefit of surviving. In the long run, it's advantageous to me, since the bots will not remember me killing them for 6th, while a human will. It's taking the nature of your opponent into account (including future game repercussions), which is a large, unavoidable part of the game.
What drives me up a wall is when people demand bots first yet attack human opponents. If someone is expecting me to kill a bot first but is popping my continent, they have another thing coming. Once someone is aggressive towards me, all bets are off, "bots first" or not.
What drives me up a wall is when people demand bots first yet attack human opponents. If someone is expecting me to kill a bot first but is popping my continent, they have another thing coming. Once someone is aggressive towards me, all bets are off, "bots first" or not.
- shock-n-ya'll
- LUX POPA
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:35 pm
- Location: olympic Mountains.
- Contact:
- shock-n-ya'll
- LUX POPA
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:35 pm
- Location: olympic Mountains.
- Contact:
- Blind Willie
- Lux Veteran
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:06 am
- Location: Satellite of Love
Well, if that's the case, please advertise it in your game description. Or at least tell players in the first round. Because if nobody says anything, then I will kill the weakest player first, human or bot. And I'm sick of hosts rs'ing midgame when they suddenly decide to play bots first, after never saying anything about it before.shock-n-ya'll wrote:in my room its bots first and always will be.
Thank you.
Until there comes the day that the bots are as good as we are, I will continute to look to remove the bots from the field of battle first for as AR and Voni have said before, in the interest of fair play.
I appreciate those who have spent time creating bots just as much as anybody else, and enjoyed watching Nef and her siblings rise to the cream of the bot-top. But quite frankly, unless you have 5 bots all teaming up against 1 human, bots just can't beat the better players in the game. So where is it fair that us better players should allow such a weaker player to thrive while killing a stronger IRL player? (ok there are definitely players who aren't that strong....but this is about fairness to those non-AI players in the house).
If I am in a room with 2 players and 3 bots, if I take out the humans first, I will easily beat the other 3 bots, as will any other player who has a decent amount of skill. Where is the competition in that? And if I see someone attacking me instead of a bot, or 2 players ganging up on me, it's because they know I'm stronger then the bot, at which point I personally consider them an inferior, not smarter, player (especially if there is ambiguity about the bots doctrine in the room at the time). Why should I spend my time killing the bots when others try to kill me? I can easily manipulate most of the bots paths to wreak havoc on the other players, but only when that knowledge of no-bots first is common and shared.
I appreciate those who have spent time creating bots just as much as anybody else, and enjoyed watching Nef and her siblings rise to the cream of the bot-top. But quite frankly, unless you have 5 bots all teaming up against 1 human, bots just can't beat the better players in the game. So where is it fair that us better players should allow such a weaker player to thrive while killing a stronger IRL player? (ok there are definitely players who aren't that strong....but this is about fairness to those non-AI players in the house).
If I am in a room with 2 players and 3 bots, if I take out the humans first, I will easily beat the other 3 bots, as will any other player who has a decent amount of skill. Where is the competition in that? And if I see someone attacking me instead of a bot, or 2 players ganging up on me, it's because they know I'm stronger then the bot, at which point I personally consider them an inferior, not smarter, player (especially if there is ambiguity about the bots doctrine in the room at the time). Why should I spend my time killing the bots when others try to kill me? I can easily manipulate most of the bots paths to wreak havoc on the other players, but only when that knowledge of no-bots first is common and shared.
Yes, I just quoted myselfQuite frankly, this is a game about people vs. people, not people vs. bots. Bots are the filler when you don't have a full room, therefore their pecking order on the totem pole of Lux is and should always be at the bottom.
Re: Bots first is no way to play
The problem with quote bots first Voni, is that no one plays to the Bots First Doctrine, which is more than just taking out the bot before a human. Your Bots first doctrine is more complex, and when followed is a good way to play for people who Like Bots First.vonibot wrote:First, Bots are code, they are not capable of being a "race". Attributing bots with human characteristics (like the ability to experience discrimination) only undermines the human experience.dustin wrote:Bots first is racist against non-humans.
Second, the Bots First Doctrine is, as always, about etiquette. Bots First simply states that humans should treat humans with respect, even within the competitive framework of Lux.
Last: yes, this topic particular is four months old. I apologize for the delay but my retirement benefits do not cover RSS feeds.[/b]
But what i hate is when a guy stacks next to me in oz, unsuccessfully tries to take the continent, meanwhile his 1 and 2's all over the board are eaten up, becuase he refused to place there, or used them to get the card, and ultimately I have to take him out, and he cries Bots first Bots First.
I think Dustin's point is, that Bots First (unless followed to the letter by your Doctrine) does not work. And Frankly since you have stopped playing, people stopped following the doctrine, but claim bots first.
I was recently in a game that had bots first in the desc. During play, the timer ran out, and my chat was not responding it was obvious there were connectivity problems, so I closed lux, and re entered the room. The host proceeded to asshat me and ultimately killed off all my countries in his area so I could be taken out by another player. When I said "hey you said bots first" I was told that I became a bot once I left, and re-entered. This is the kind of environment that leads to one to conclude that Bots First does not work. Because the majority of people who claim bots first, don't even know what it means, by your definition. They think that as long as they take the bots our first, they can attack and beat down human players as they like.
For most players I have noticed that claim Bot's first today , it is like claiming to be a Pro-War Christian, it is bots first only when it is advantageous.
...and to that Mike, I can only disagree that what he did was 'asshat' (not being in the room I don't know exactly what happened), but why is it that removing your 1's and 2's from a continent someone else wants is deemed 'asshatting' in the first place? bots or no bots, that's just called strategy.
My point exactly, if you read Vonibots Doctrine, in relation to the game mentioned, that 'strategy' would be in direct violation of bots first. This is why bots first, as it is played today, does not work - and only leads to dissonance.maki wrote:...and to that Mike, I can only disagree that what he did was 'asshat' (not being in the room I don't know exactly what happened), but why is it that removing your 1's and 2's from a continent someone else wants is deemed 'asshatting' in the first place? bots or no bots, that's just called strategy.
- vonibot
- Lux Addict
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:07 pm
- Location: the semi-holy ministry of semi-retirement
Re: Bots first is no way to play
Thank you. You are absolutely correct; Bots First has always been exploitable.Mike wrote:The problem with quote bots first Voni, is that no one plays to the Bots First Doctrine, which is more than just taking out the bot before a human. Your Bots first doctrine is more complex, and when followed is a good way to play for people who Like Bots First.
Unfortunately, because it is a doctrine of etiquette, rather than the 'rule of law', players can take advantage of its goodwill.
You point out another unfortunate truth, Mike.Mike wrote:And Frankly since you have stopped playing, people stopped following the doctrine, but claim bots first.
When I played, it was easier to for me to enforce Bots First while instructing new players on its merits.
Admittedly, the Bots First Doctrine is a social experiment: Can a group of individuals with competing interests work together to eliminate a common enemy before destroying one another?
Apparently, the answer is often: no.
Of course, you and I both know that irony gets the last laugh: If coded correctly, the bots would not question a Human First Doctrine. It seems humans are the flawed one’s when it comes to these things--so it should come as no surprise why I have always thought it is in our best interest to get rid of them first.
Cheers, Mike!
voni
I am not a dedicated follower of the bots 1st doctrine, but I frequently host meanwhile with the description "bots first as long as more than two are in the game". The reason is simple: Since I encourage unregs and noobs playing in my room and start games sometimes with 4 bots in they have a chance to survive. If they weaken themselves by attacking each other they frequently get slaughtered by the bots early. As we all know, noobs tend to waste armies in an early state of the game by attacking furiously. So it is some kind of self-protection as well that allows me to start games without the precaution some other hosts are using by locking out low-ranked or unexperienced players.
Just recently hosted games with 4 bots and an unreg. It is still high risk if you don't win. The grateful unreg was pleased to have a chance to play, got 2nd twice and will buy the game as he told me.
Just recently hosted games with 4 bots and an unreg. It is still high risk if you don't win. The grateful unreg was pleased to have a chance to play, got 2nd twice and will buy the game as he told me.
What Baden said. It's no fun to be in a game with suicidal n00bs and a nasty bot when the bot ends up winning.Baden wrote:...Since I encourage unregs and noobs playing in my room and start games sometimes with 4 bots in they have a chance to survive. If they weaken themselves by attacking each other they frequently get slaughtered by the bots early...
And what Vonibot said, in that "bots first" is more of an etiquette than a game strategy. I really enjoy games in which the players are polite, funny, aggressive, but not nasty and follow "bots first" when that is in the game description ... even if I end up on the bottom. After all, is it really about the raw, at any cost? I say, it's about the FUN! And "bots first" is simply more fun than not.
- mrs.vonibot
- Luxer
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:02 pm
- Location: voni's side
- Contact:
Bots...like dogs, ants, plywood and feces...lack the divine spark given by God to human beings. They may have intelligence, they may even be 'alive,' but they are not equivalent to human players and should not be treated as such. The bots first rule correctly assumes the primacy of the human race, and in my opinion, is not strict enough. Bots should not only be eliminated first, they should be banned. Nothing personal bots...my cat, Bean, is also technically "banned" from playing in my home games. It's just logical.
DEATH TO BOTS
DEATH TO BOTS
- One Big Wave
- Lux Emo Star
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:20 pm
- Location: Hiding
Bots First
from my experience hosting games it seems like when u put bots first in the game description people tend to play more civilized. and not hit someone's Income first chance they get. (example) The map castle lux si (the only map i play i love that map) in the beginning of the game u take a castle, with sometimes no army left. The next turn with 3 open castles to take a person takes the castle u just spent all your guys on. what could a person put in the game description to prevent that type of game play? For me bots first is letting everyone have a fair chance in the beginning of the the game. after that if some one is playing really poor like not defending and biting of more than they can chew. sure they deserve to be hit. but not in the first turn of the game. thanks for your time and lets have a luxen great time
- jOnNiE
- Lux Hasselhoff
- Posts: 4862
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:24 am
- Location: in the bottom of the bottle
Re: Bots First
What you are describing is not bots first, it is only attack the bots and do not attack the humans. That way is ridiculous in my opinion. Especially in castle lux.derek wrote:from my experience hosting games it seems like when u put bots first in the game description people tend to play more civilized. and not hit someone's Income first chance they get. (example) The map castle lux si (the only map i play i love that map) in the beginning of the game u take a castle, with sometimes no army left. The next turn with 3 open castles to take a person takes the castle u just spent all your guys on. what could a person put in the game description to prevent that type of game play? For me bots first is letting everyone have a fair chance in the beginning of the the game. after that if some one is playing really poor like not defending and biting of more than they can chew. sure they deserve to be hit. but not in the first turn of the game. thanks for your time and lets have a luxen great time
I have played with people that restart games because their income was attacked in a bots first game. That is what I assume you play and that is your prefs, but I would never play with you.
Here is my take on bot firsters. What I am against is explicitly imposing bots first. What I think makes more sense is "implicit" bots first: if you have an equivalent choice between killing a bot and a human, then yes killing the bot first makes sense. Lux (and Risk) is a social game where diplomacy is crucial. Bots cannot participate in that aspect of the game, and it's in your best interest to avoid making enemies. Humans have a long memory, while bots have none.
On the other hand, if a human player is weaker than a bot and can be easily killed, then he deserves to die. The killed player will not like it, but he should be able to understand why it happened to him. He might even respect you for it. This is a war game, and dying is normal... Learn from it.
Dustin uses the word "racist" to describe bot firsters. Imagine a world where the bots are human-like in appearance and intelligence. They would be our slaves, treated as non-entities. The bot makers would have built in safeguards to prevent them from hurting humans. Not very pleasant for them, right? I do not think they would like us very much. Hmmmm, I have just described the plot of Blade Runner, my favorite movie.
Racism reflects the very human fear of the unknown, of the outsider. Since it has evolved with us, then it must mean that it is good for the species as a whole! Of course, it's not fun for the individuals being discriminated against. But that is how evolution works...
On the other hand, if a human player is weaker than a bot and can be easily killed, then he deserves to die. The killed player will not like it, but he should be able to understand why it happened to him. He might even respect you for it. This is a war game, and dying is normal... Learn from it.
Dustin uses the word "racist" to describe bot firsters. Imagine a world where the bots are human-like in appearance and intelligence. They would be our slaves, treated as non-entities. The bot makers would have built in safeguards to prevent them from hurting humans. Not very pleasant for them, right? I do not think they would like us very much. Hmmmm, I have just described the plot of Blade Runner, my favorite movie.
Racism reflects the very human fear of the unknown, of the outsider. Since it has evolved with us, then it must mean that it is good for the species as a whole! Of course, it's not fun for the individuals being discriminated against. But that is how evolution works...
Mine too. But remember, the thrust of the plot was that Harrison Ford's job was to kill the bots first. And the final twist was that the next-to-the-last bot, played by Rutger Hauer, DID have feelings, apparently.Bertrand wrote:Hmmmm, I have just described the plot of Blade Runner, my favorite movie.
In the end, Harrison and Sean (the last replicant/bot) flew off into the wild, blue yonder, which makes absolutely no sense in a Lux context, a war story, whereas "Blade Runner" is much more complicated. Even its book counterpart, Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" isn't simple, either.
So I'll stick with bots first in the games I host. Luckily for you, I don't whine.
I agree as much on the part of your post I don't quote as I disagree on the "racism" analogy. Racism is far from being "good for the species as a whole" and I am pretty sure Dustin used the term ironically.Bertrand wrote:...Dustin uses the word "racist" to describe bot firsters (...) Racism reflects the very human fear of the unknown, of the outsider. Since it has evolved with us, then it must mean that it is good for the species as a whole! Of course, it's not fun for the individuals being discriminated against. But that is how evolution works...
Raging against the machine by destroying your alarm-clock is an understandable emotion while shooting the muezzin on the tower of a nearby mosque who keeps disturbing you with "unknown" noise is a crime.
I saw playing some real racists in this game. They usually don't go after the bot first - they get satisfaction by targeting human players first ("niggers", "jews", gays" etc.) instead.
I refrain from taking this game too seriously - but envisioning an analogical behaviour of some vile people here in real life keeps disturbing me. But as usual the braggart in the chat will frequently turn out as coward in reality. Happily I don't have to meet them personally.
Game descriptions like: No players with less than ... points or "no noobs" allowed are rather reminding of racism than the bots first rule.
Furthermore the ridiculous attitude of some high-ranked players acting like members of a "master race" is rather debatable than the harmless bots-first rule.
In my mind, the final twist of Blade Runner is that Dekkard (Harrison Ford) is himself a replicant. I liked that movie because it worked on multiple levels, and could be interpreted in many ways.pls wrote:In the end, Harrison and Sean (the last replicant/bot) ...
The point I tried to make in my above post is that, inevitably, bots will be discriminated against because they are different, outsiders. That, to me, was the central message of Blade Runner.
But how are we to know that? There is no way to prove this. I think that we are the product of our evolution, and that nature found the best solution to ensure our survival. That includes both good *and* bad human behaviours. But I agree that racism is a loaded word, and using it in the context of Lux is perhaps not a good idea.Baden wrote:Racism is far from being "good for the species as a whole"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests