Bot concept - Requesting feedback

den3107 · 2016-05-02 13:56:19

So I had the idea to bring board games into EE. Games like Risk or Catan.
Now the question is: Do you think people would want such bots?
If yes, which game(s) should I then make?
Also: What other places could I post this topic to kinda enlarge the feedback I can get, because obviously far from everyone visits this section.

EDIT: Obviously the first mentioned would fail, with solid arguments given that I haven't thought of.
How would it stand with "reviving" (basically remaking (some might call it stealing)) old bots, like temple wurm, floddy's version of digbot (without microtransactions), rold's battle snake (which obviously isn't that old, so might not be a that great idea) or (as I mentioned in the bot suggestions topic) a "boss" bot (made by a guy named dark[something-something]) though?

Alright, so I'm going to try and remake one of those bots, but which one?
If you would like to vote for a bot I should revive, here is the topic where the poll is.

N1KF · 2016-05-02 17:57:24

I would rather see recreations with these using in-game switches. I think that would be more impressive.

AlphaJon · 2016-05-02 19:10:46

well, if the world actually evolves to display the game, it could be a thing. Depends on the community.

How to make the EE community vanish: make a Monopoly remake, have players play against each other -> guaranteed massive ragequit

Zumza · 2016-05-02 20:47:18

AlphaJon wrote:

well, if the world actually evolves to display the game, it could be a thing. Depends on the community.
How to make the EE community vanish: make a Monopoly remake, have players play against each other -> guaranteed massive ragequit

With worlds to be bought and Hotel Polska to construct.

sthegreat, AlphaJon

Tomahawk · 2016-05-02 22:52:38

Games like Risk are pretty long, so I'm not sure you'd get much interest. You might have more luck porting shorter games like 'four in a row' or Snap to EE, providing that you make the input system fun and intuitive.

AlphaJon · 2016-05-02 23:32:26

He's right, having players type !dosomething commands every 10seconds is going to bore them

N1KF

den3107 · 2016-05-02 23:37:21

AlphaJon wrote:

He's right, having players type !dosomething commands every 10seconds is going to bore them

I'll be able to handle it through player positions using Captain9's physics "engine", the map would basically be drawn using background blocks and probably very simplified from the original art.

Also: Edited main post with a new suggestion.

darkblades · 2016-05-03 06:46:52

den3107 wrote:

So I had the idea to bring board games into EE. Games like Risk or Catan.
Now the question is: Do you think people would want such bots?
If yes, which game(s) should I then make?
Also: What other places could I post this topic to kinda enlarge the feedback I can get, because obviously far from everyone visits this section.
EDIT: Obviously the first mentioned would fail, with solid arguments given that I haven't thought of.
How would it stand with "reviving" (basically remaking (some might call it stealing)) old bots, like temple wurm, floddy's version of digbot (without microtransactions), rold's battle snake (which obviously isn't that old, so might not be a that great idea) or (as I mentioned in the bot suggestions topic) a "boss" bot (made by a guy named dark[something-something]) though?

It's not stealing if they are dead.

Reviving a dead bot (as long the owner quit or doesn't care much anymore about it) is fine as long as it look approximately original to the bot.

Kaleb · 2016-05-03 08:02:55

N1KF wrote:

I would rather see recreations with these using in-game switches. I think that would be more impressive.

Bro I'm working on something like that.

AlphaJon · 2016-05-03 12:29:48

darkblades wrote:

as long as it look approximately original to the bot.

Actually, I think making the newer bot somewhat different is encouraged, rather than trying to make it similar.

den3107 · 2016-05-03 13:46:55

darkblades wrote:

It's not stealing if they are dead.

The reason I also mentioned stealing, is because I know some people will think that way, and I don't want to hit too many sensitive nerves.

AlphaJon wrote:

Actually, I think making the newer bot somewhat different is encouraged, rather than trying to make it similar.

I'm personally thinking about doing both, keep the focus on the original, but (for example) floddy's digbot has great potential for extra features, like the debuilding portal snake he added after a month or something.

Tomahawk · 2016-05-03 18:51:01

I don't think reviving old bots is a good idea. The new versions will never be as good as people remembered the originals to be; because they were the originals. Have some respect and let them be.

Make better ones.

den3107 · 2016-05-04 00:33:17

Tomahawk wrote:

I don't think reviving old bots is a good idea. The new versions will never be as good as people remembered the originals to be; because they were the originals. Have some respect and let them be.
Make better ones.

Why should good ideas be left as just that, ideas? You might be right they won't be as awesome as the original, but at least the people that likes the game won't have their joy denied for all eternity.

darkblades · 2016-05-04 04:26:33

Its kind of a throwback for people who never seen the old bot game for ages and bringing it back up gives them the feels . It may be not as good as the original but still a bot idea/concept that has been "extinct" is alive again except by a different owner.

Tomahawk wrote:

I don't think reviving old bots is a good idea. The new versions will never be as good as people remembered the originals to be; because they were the originals. Have some respect and let them be.
Make better ones.

depends on the concept the bot is about. We may never know if a new version is much better than the old one.

den3107 · 2016-05-04 12:01:57

@darkblades
Wasn't that bossbot from you? Where there was this boss named "error" which was ridiculously hard, while the one that was one level easier was really doable with enough players?

Also: I assume from this that there would be some demand for it?
Would there be any place where I can ask some more players and poll what bot the generale public would want most?

Tomahawk · 2016-05-04 19:03:36

den3107 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
I don't think reviving old bots is a good idea. The new versions will never be as good as people remembered the originals to be; because they were the originals. Have some respect and let them be.
Make better ones.
Why should good ideas be left as just that, ideas? You might be right they won't be as awesome as the original, but at least the people that likes the game won't have their joy denied for all eternity.

They weren't left as ideas; they were developed into bots and played by people. They had their time, and this community can't expand by digging up old bots. At any rate, the owners hold intellectual copyright, and you'd need permission from them to recreate their bots.

It takes a complete lack of imagination and ideas for people to turn to old bots and decide that remakes are an effective way of adding to EE. Go and read some bot suggestion threads if you're really that desperate.

Kaslai · 2016-05-04 20:05:38

Tomahawk wrote:

den3107 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I don't think reviving old bots is a good idea. The new versions will never be as good as people remembered the originals to be; because they were the originals. Have some respect and let them be.
Make better ones.
Why should good ideas be left as just that, ideas? You might be right they won't be as awesome as the original, but at least the people that likes the game won't have their joy denied for all eternity.
They weren't left as ideas; they were developed into bots and played by people. They had their time, and this community can't expand by digging up old bots. At any rate, the owners hold intellectual copyright, and you'd need permission from them to recreate their bots.
It takes a complete lack of imagination and ideas for people to turn to old bots and decide that remakes are an effective way of adding to EE. Go and read some bot suggestion threads if you're really that desperate.

Can this display of ignorance (and other things) be considered a bannable offence?

Processor · 2016-05-04 20:08:29

OH MY GOD HOMAHAWK THATS NOT HOW COPYRIGHT WORKS. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT IDEAS.

PLEASE, FOR THE SAKE OF EVERYONE AROUND YOU, WATCH THIS VIDEO TO LEARN WHAT COPYRIGHT ACTUALLY IS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tamoj84j64I

Next time, don't talk about things you don't understand.

/madprocessor

Tomahawk · 2016-05-04 22:36:23

Processor wrote:

OH MY GOD HOMAHAWK THATS NOT HOW COPYRIGHT WORKS. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT IDEAS.

*reads my post again to see if I'm genuinely a close relative of sloth in the goonies* <-- wow the censorship
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that the bot ideas are copyrighted, but that the bots themselves - as existing software - do have copyright. Shake some more fists if I'm still not getting it, but Floddy's bot does have copyright, as does initparse or bombot. If I'm wrong about that or it doesn't apply to remakes, then plagiarism is also a thing that exists.

Kaslai wrote:

and other things

What other things, or are you just strongly disagreeing with my opinion?

Kaslai · 2016-05-04 22:53:51

The software itself is copyrighted, yes. However making a clone of the bots, provided you don't steal any of the code, is fine. The ideas they implement are explicitly not covered under copyright. That's why games that clone the mechanics of other games almost exactly aren't illegal, even if they're being sold for money, provided that the actual copyrightable works are not being infringed, such as characters and setting. I could make a direct clone of Zelda 64 and just use different names and likenesses and I wouldn't be in violation of any IP laws.

Now, if the software was patented, then it would become questionable, but it's clear that no EE bots have been patented, and software patents in and of themselves are questionable. Plagiarism applies specifically to a direct use of someone else's work while passing it off as your own. Ideas are not works, and things like software ideas are only really ever protected if they have been patented. There is nothing ethically or legally wrong with making a new snake bot; it's just trite.

Tomahawk wrote:

What other things, or are you just strongly disagreeing with my opinion?

Frankly, idiocy. I just didn't want to explicitly flame you.

Tomahawk · 2016-05-04 23:47:00

Kaslai wrote:

The software itself is copyrighted, yes. However making a clone of the bots, provided you don't steal any of the code, is fine.

Fine, I stand corrected.

[Topic-relevant opinion]I'll always prefer people to make new features instead of reusing existing ones.[/opinion]

Kaslai wrote:

Frankly, idiocy. I just didn't want to explicitly flame you.

Well that just makes me sound like a nub, with no effort made by you to explain why you've actually said it. It's also kinda irrelevant, as you're meant to post your own opinion about remakes and let OP decide what to think.

Kaslai · 2016-05-04 23:54:22

Tomahawk wrote:

with no effort made by you to explain why you've actually said it.

The reason why I didn't say it in my first post but did in my second post was because I explained my reasons in my second post and thus was more in line with proper etiquette.

Tomahawk wrote:

I'll always prefer people to make new features instead of reusing existing ones.

That is certainly a fine opinion to have and I don't disagree. The reasoning you stated for why you hold that opinion was just invalid.

Additionally, in some cases, old bots are in a state of unusability, so if you want a version that operates well in the current version of the game, you'd have to make one anew. There are also only so many bot oriented games that can be made which work well in EE...

RhazzleFrazzle · 2016-05-04 23:56:13

If someone remakes digbot the way floody had it I'd start playing EE again.

Tomahawk · 2016-05-05 00:10:23

@Kaslai
Let's just leave this argument be, with its many misunderstandings.

I'd've preferred your criticism to be constructive and not just insulting.

/q this thread entirely.

Kaslai · 2016-05-05 00:12:45

Tomahawk wrote:

@Kaslai
Let's just leave this argument be, with its many misunderstandings.
I'd've preferred your criticism to be constructive and not just insulting.
/q this thread entirely.

It is constructive criticism though; you're just refusing to take it as such. The only person who is misunderstanding anything is you.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-05-02 13:56:19, last edited by den3107 (2016-05-05 01:21:15)

Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#2 2016-05-02 17:57:24

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#3 2016-05-02 19:10:46, last edited by AlphaJon (2016-05-02 19:11:45)

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#4 2016-05-02 20:47:18

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#5 2016-05-02 22:52:38

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#6 2016-05-02 23:32:26

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#7 2016-05-02 23:37:21, last edited by den3107 (2016-05-02 23:38:49)

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#8 2016-05-03 06:46:52

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#9 2016-05-03 08:02:55

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#10 2016-05-03 12:29:48

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#11 2016-05-03 13:46:55

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#12 2016-05-03 18:51:01

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#13 2016-05-04 00:33:17

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#14 2016-05-04 04:26:33

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#15 2016-05-04 12:01:57, last edited by den3107 (2016-05-04 12:02:47)

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#16 2016-05-04 19:03:36, last edited by Tomahawk (2016-05-04 19:07:40)

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#17 2016-05-04 20:05:38

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#18 2016-05-04 20:08:29

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#19 2016-05-04 22:36:23, last edited by Tomahawk (2016-05-04 22:37:28)

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#20 2016-05-04 22:53:51

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#21 2016-05-04 23:47:00, last edited by Tomahawk (2016-05-04 23:47:46)

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#22 2016-05-04 23:54:22

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#23 2016-05-04 23:56:13

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#24 2016-05-05 00:10:23

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

#25 2016-05-05 00:12:45

Re: Bot concept - Requesting feedback

Board footer