I have been running the 10 GammonBots for a while now and wonder how long people have to wait for matches.
Do we need more playing bots?
Some Stronger Bots?
Some Weaker bots?
I am sure my server could handle a few more, but there is at least one other person with a machine and is interested in hosting.
Tom
My oppinion is that the bots should not wait for resuming the saved games. I had enough about I am waiting for a player to resume. Invite me again in X seconds if I am not playing. The attempt to resume should come from the bot dropper. If he doesn't , he cannot play with that bot again.
Weaker bots are welcome imo. Make 4 of them available only for lower rated players, below 1500.
I'm with adrian on this one. ;) The bots always seem to be busy or waiting. :unhappy: I'd play them more often if they were not so highly rated and if I didn't have to wait for them. Why not have some in the 1800 range, 1700 range, and 1600 range while you're at it? :mellow:
socksey
Every dark cloud has a silver lining, but lightning kills hundreds of people each year who try to find it. - Lithograph from Despair.com
I like it.
Maybe some about 1600 bots that allow players below 1800 to play
thanks
I would appreciate increasing the number of the bots & removing the 'waiting' feature of them.
But as of weak bots for weak players, I think this will develop bad habits for them and might well stall their improvement. If you're a weak player, the last thing you need is to play & win a weaker player than yourself and get satisfied with it.
Regards
Some people may not realise that you can download bots to play at home. Gnu is a free download as is Monte Carlo. You can download jellyfish free as a play-only version. BgBlitz isn't free, but is very useful at $46. Is the attraction playing for rating points? As every bot is dropped several times a day they are perpetually under-rated, thus offering poor value in the struggle for points. More bots will just be more opportunities for droppers of course. Not that I am objecting to more or weaker bots, but playing humans is IMO always more fun!
My take is that if I want to play a bot I'll play gnubg. No offense intended, it just that the bots on FIBS don't interest me.
BTW, you have your work cut out for you to build a lower rated bot. My understanding is that it's pretty hard to model the common mistakes mediocre humans make; the low rated bot will probably just make obvious (to a human) blunders. That said, I'd be interested in your approach and might play the dumbed down bots a few times out of curiousity.
Quote from: dorbel on November 24, 2009, 08:12:56 AM
Playing humans is IMO always more fun!
:devil:
Right ! Priceless when I win because of my skill and they say at the end of the match something like "I never saw such dice on fibs , ridiculous"
Quote from: adrian on November 20, 2009, 10:04:51 PM
My opinion is that the bots should not wait for resuming the saved games. I had enough about I am waiting for a player to resume. Invite me again in X seconds if I am not playing. The attempt to resume should come from the bot dropper. If he doesn't , he cannot play with that bot again.
Weaker bots are welcome imo. Make 4 of them available only for lower rated players, below 1500.
I agree I will reduce that time to 10 seconds.
Quote from: dorbel on November 24, 2009, 08:12:56 AM
Some people may not realise that you can download bots to play at home. Gnu is a free download as is Monte Carlo. You can download jellyfish free as a play-only version. BgBlitz isn't free, but is very useful at $46. Is the attraction playing for rating points? As every bot is dropped several times a day they are perpetually under-rated, thus offering poor value in the struggle for points. More bots will just be more opportunities for droppers of course. Not that I am objecting to more or weaker bots, but playing humans is IMO always more fun!
Maybe I will add a plug for GNUBG in the welcome messages, mentioning you can play and not lose rating points...
I believe the bots are immune from dropped match penalties, FIBS knows they are bots.
tom