complete works of sluggo VII

Article 61                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      sluggo's IBL Fall week 5 point standings
From:         chdillon@ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/03
  Article Segment 1 of 2
  (Get All 2 Segments)

Here are the latest scientifically determined IBL point standings updated
with the results of week 5.  These numbers are provided for amusement
purposes only and, once again, wagering is strongly discouraged.

slogug


Overall IBL Ratings (Summer + Fall, * = "provisional" rating)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Name             New     Old    
-------------    ----    ----
bleak            2380    2379     
Cat_Butt         2258    2262     
Hillbilly Bob    2242    2191     
DH               2157    2160     
Guy              2062    2047     
sluggo           2034    2039     
FireIce          1968    1875     
Samhain          1932    1926     
Infinity         1913    1915     
Hoov             1862    1865     
Alpha Omega      1832    1798     
Bitch            1824    ----    *
kovas            1823    1827     
palp             1816    1813     
Wild Duck        1814    1920    *
Diamond          1804    1745     
Morphine         1803    1707     
Chopin           1797    1772     
Fish             1772    1771     
Pins             1759    1785     
Cowboy           1750    1732    *
Polar Boy        1750    1750    *
Wintermute       1738    1734     
bob              1732    1743    *
Viper            1711    1711    *
grinch           1710    1710    *
Guilty           1706    1674    *
goob             1699    1694     
GreaterThan      1687    1591     
vert             1683    1677     
xman             1679    1681    *
Devastator       1648    1613    *
nature           1641    1647    *
C++              1635    1751     
PBnJ             1596    1630     
CodButt          1592    1709    *
Ixohoxi          1577    1644    *
Muff             1576    1612     
Tempest          1556    1561    *
Lone Ranger      1547    1531    *
Grimm            1538    1539     
JessO            1516    1538    *
Jedi             1511    1404     
Fanatic          1499    1502     
Max              1499    1565     
Kudo             1492    1447    *
Ghoul            1479    1503    *
Montezuma        1460    1463     
Weasel           1445    1445    *
Jolo             1426    1442     
Blitz            1423    1433     
sbcm             1409    1418     
Captain Noodle   1399    1412    *
Pretender        1383    1397     
Pi               1376    1380    *
Nassif           1355    1367     
SheepBoy         1330    1356    *
Cess             1312    1378    *
Hoss             1292    1363    *
Kimboho          1290    1293     
Altor Vax        1282    1257    *
Mucous           1275    1274    *
Nappy            1229    1239     
Zepla            1215    1232     
Apathy           1169    1174    *
IronMaiden       1097    1095    *
Two_Socks        1090    1100     
Godot            1068    1141     
Mindstab          997    1013     
Big_Bob           924     882     

(Get Next Article Segment)


Article 62                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      sluggo's IBL Fall week 5 point standings
From:         chdillon@ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/03

  Article Segment 2 of 2
  (Get Previous Segment)
  (Get All 2 Segments)

Fall IBL Ratings (fall games only)
----------------------------------
Name             New     Old    
-------------    ----    ----
Hillbilly Bob    2075    1955
FireIce          2028    1885
Pins             1957    2067
Infinity         1947    1936
Diamond          1886    1848
palp             1875    1867
sluggo           1871    1841
Wild Duck        1863    1961
Alpha Omega      1858    1806
Chopin           1852    1821
Bitch            1827    ----
Samhain          1795    1815
Guilty           1747    1712
Polar Boy        1731    1729
Morphine         1727    1583
Wintermute       1703    1701
GreaterThan      1667    1543
Viper            1658    1655
Jedi             1640    1519
Jolo             1636    1662
CodButt          1619    1720
Muff             1616    1720
C++              1601    1709
vert             1588    1582
Grimm            1569    1566
Tempest          1567    1558
Lone Ranger      1553    1538
Ixohoxi          1545    1605
Hoov             1525    1517
CowBoy           1513    1504
nature           1495    1508
Ghoul            1490    1506
Blitz            1490    1502
Captain Noodle   1398    1405
kovas            1390    1424
SheepBoy         1339    1365
Cess             1327    1395
Nappy            1314    1328
SBCM             1309    1325
Hoss             1306    1380
PBnJ             1283    1384
Montezuma        1265    1263
Big Bob          1263    1222
Max              1231    1336
Godot            1059    1133


Article 63                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: sluggo's IBL Fall Week 7 Point Standings
From:         chdillon@ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/10

In article ,
(Jolo) wrote:

>Out of curiosity, how long do you think it will be before these ratings
>settle down into something that approximates true skill?  Clearly I am not
>better than the likes of most of the others ranked below me, which include
>the likes of Kovas, Max, Tempest, and the dreaded vert.  (shudder)  This
>thought  occured to me since we are on week 7 now (OK it's really week 6,
>I can't count too well after I use up one hand) and I would think that
>would be plenty of time to reach a steady state.  I wager that you might
>have some kinda bug?

Well, the numbers you mentioned reflect only those games that have been
recorded in fall IBL.  Apparently you have won a greater percentage of
your games than those that you mentioned.  A more accurate indicator is
probably the overall ratings, which include a larger sample of games
against a wider variety of opponents. 

slugogog


Article 64                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: Bots in IBL
From:         chdillon@seas.ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/12

In article ,
jherrin1@swarthmore.edu (Justin Herring) wrote:

>    I don't want to turn this into a bragging contest, or something, but
> the other day I was bored so I fired up 73(!) Indy's and allied them all. 
> Took some doing, but I came out on top after walling in about 50 of their
> men.  Of course the real test of skill is to take on 3 digits, i.e 100+. 
> I make no claims to that kind of greatness.
> 
> Polar Boy
> 

Well, I guess the most that I have ever beaten was 10,493.  But that was
late at night and I was kinda tired, so I think on a good day I might be
able to do more.

slubbo


Article 65                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: thiI think it's time we be honest
From:         chdillon@ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/13

In article <4883bm$r1l@nrel.nrel.gov>, Carl R. Osterwald
 wrote:

>In article ,
>masushige@courier3.aero.org (Samhain) wrote:
>
>>    Actually, this is incorrect.  I started once nw, then continually sw
>> and se.  I wouldn't have minded if I started nw more than once.  The fact
>> that I started in your two corners constantly is what I was upset about.
>
>This seems to be a feature of 0.99.6--the starting position algorithm is
>not random.  What Sam reports is exactly what I have noticed, the first
>few starts are random, then from then on I always seem to start in one
>location, one that is farthest from where I need to be.  Stuart may
>have put a death penalty into the game.
>
>wharf rat

I'm not so sure about this.  On maps where the starts are close to bases,
such as in the typical tarmac 4 quadrant chew rig type map, it may appear
so because there are only really 4 start squares, but on maps where the
starts are evenly distributed around the map, it appears to be as random
as it ever was.

slogbu


Article 66                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: I HAVE BOLO FOR THE AMIGA BUT NEED AMIGA
From:         chdillon@seas.ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/17

In article ,
adamnash@cs.stanford.edu (Adam Nash) wrote:

> I HAVE BOLO FOR THE AMIGA< BUT I NEED AN AMIGA!  PLEASE< IF YOU HAVE AMIGA
> I HAVE BOLO BOLO BOLO.
> 

I DO I HAVE BINHEX FOR AMIGA FOR BOLO! PLEASE SEND ME NOW SO I CAN DO I
NEED AN AMIGA OR IS AMIGA OK?

KILLER


Article 67                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: Cheat codes??
From:         chdillon@ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/26

In article ,
emorten@inet.uni-c.dk (Erik Mortensen) wrote:

>Is it possible to get some cheat codes for the Mac Bole version?
>
>Please email me if you know any...
>
>emorten@inet.uni-c.dk

The only one I know of is "BOO!!!".  If I remember correctly, if you send
this message to "Selection on Players Menu" with no players selected while
emerging from the trees, it will kill a pillbox with fulll armor.  The
timing has to be just right, but if you do it correctly you can sneak up
on enemy pillboxes every time.  There were a couple others in an earlier
version, but I am not sure if they still work with 0.99.6.

sluggo


Article 68                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: parting shot
From:         chdillon@ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/29

In article , crusso@alink.net
(Chris Russo) wrote:

>In article <49i6ij$nmk@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>dekleber@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Drew Ekleberry) wrote:
>
>> Who said anything about a PC version?  Just because a company would make
>> the game doesn't mean it goes to PC.  I would bet that not very many PC
>> people will play Bolo becuase (from PCers I've talked to) they see Bolo as
>> "a Mac game".
>
>Most Mac people don't seem to know what Bolo is.  I doubt that any minor
>preconceived notions about Bolo in the PC community would hurt its overall
>sales.  I'd love to see identical Mac & PC versions that were
>interoperable.
>
>The more people out there on the trackers, the better.
>

How about Bolo as a collection of OpenDoc parts?
OpenBolo.....wheeeee!!!

sluggo


Article 69                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: Big games = No Base Pounding?
From:         chdillon@seas.ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/30

In article ,
chdillon@seas.ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon) wrote:

> In article , rwn@mitre.org (Bob
> Noel) wrote:
> 
> > In article ,
> > koehler@macc.wisc.edu (Pooh) wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > >    (c) X-ed out bases with 8-10 people still generate ammo very quickly.
> > 
> > I thought I had somewhere in the Bolo documentation that bases regenerate
> > faster when there are more players in the game.  So I suppose that
> > base pounding wouldn't be very effective in large games.
> > 
> 
> From 4.Bolo.Maps&BrainsFAQ:
> 
> *Ê"If I design a map intended for a large number of players, should I
> put lots of refuelling bases on it?"
> 
> Bolo tries to be relatively self-adjusting for different numbers of
> players. The rate at which each refuelling base generates supplies at
> any given moment is proportional to the number of players in the game
> at that time. If more players join a game then each base will generate
> supplies at a proportionately faster rate. This means that a map with
> 16 refuelling bases on it will be resource rich, even if there are lots
> of players in the game. Similarly, a map with only three or four
> refuelling bases on it will be resource poor, even if there are only
> two players. The same thing applies to forest growth. The more players
> there are in a game the faster the forests grow, to counteract the fact
> that there are more people consuming building materials. This is not
> particularly realistic, but it is necessary, or two player games would
> be rapidly overrun with uncontrollable forest growth, and ten player
> games would be quickly stripped of all trees.

Also, from the same file:

*Ê"How is refuelling controlled?"
Refuelling bases refuel a tanks armour first, then shells, then mines.
Armour is repaired at the rate of at most one unit per second. Shells
and mines refuel at a rate of at most ten per second. (These rates may
be lower in practice due to network delays.)
Every twenty seconds refuelling bases replenish their stocks by one
unit per player in the game. For example, if there are five players in
the game, then refuelling bases will replenish by five units every 20
seconds.


Article 70                  [ top | bottom ]

Subject:      Re: Big games = No Base Pounding?
From:         chdillon@seas.ucla.edu (Charles H. Dillon)
Date:         1995/11/30

In article , rwn@mitre.org (Bob
Noel) wrote:

> In article ,
> koehler@macc.wisc.edu (Pooh) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >    (c) X-ed out bases with 8-10 people still generate ammo very quickly.
> 
> I thought I had somewhere in the Bolo documentation that bases regenerate
> faster when there are more players in the game.  So I suppose that
> base pounding wouldn't be very effective in large games.
> 

From 4.Bolo.Maps&BrainsFAQ:

*Ê"If I design a map intended for a large number of players, should I
put lots of refuelling bases on it?"

Bolo tries to be relatively self-adjusting for different numbers of
players. The rate at which each refuelling base generates supplies at
any given moment is proportional to the number of players in the game
at that time. If more players join a game then each base will generate
supplies at a proportionately faster rate. This means that a map with
16 refuelling bases on it will be resource rich, even if there are lots
of players in the game. Similarly, a map with only three or four
refuelling bases on it will be resource poor, even if there are only
two players. The same thing applies to forest growth. The more players
there are in a game the faster the forests grow, to counteract the fact
that there are more people consuming building materials. This is not
particularly realistic, but it is necessary, or two player games would
be rapidly overrun with uncontrollable forest growth, and ten player
games would be quickly stripped of all trees.