Michael.J.Glenn@dartmouth.edu (Michael J. Glenn) (04/08/91)
Robot battle looks very interesting so far. Cute sound and graphics. But I'm a little dissapointed in the language. I think a few more interesting commands need to be put in there. Or at least some commands to make things a little more convenient... Granted you can do a lot by swiveling back and forth (while constantly checking to see if you are taking damage) until you finally lock onto a target, etc. But this gets old real fast. Makes the code ugly too. Ok, perhaps I don't have access to the interesting weapons yet, but are there other commands that we will see in the registered version or future versions? I think the "more than 2 at a time" option is a must, as well as tournaments. Do put them in. I have really enjoyed corewars, robowar, and the old robot battle, but my favorite (though a little less cutthroat) was ChipWits. Anyone remember this one? It only ran on the old ROM's, but it had the best interface and animation of the whole lot, and allowed for some very interesting robots. Basically, you programmed a robot via a flow chart like program, and the robot (which was real cute looking, glasses and sneakers) would walk around a maze, and zap grid bugs, while eating pieces of pies and coffee cups. (these he needed to refuel.) Eating diskettes would typically get him points. He could look, feel, move, turn, zap, eat, and even play music. He had 3 stacks, where he could store information on objects, directions, or numbers. (numbers from 0 to 7 were stored as amounts of liquid in a beaker, from empty to full) There were a dozen or so scenario's (mazes) to wonder around, and it was really fun trying to make the robot navigate turns, maneuver around grid bugs and watermellons, etc. (the first few you program usually run into the walls too often and destroy themselves) I would LOVE to see this return someday. Even a program that took only the general "idea" from this program would be absolutely terrific! (I'd buy it) The way the programs were written (for the ChipWits) was the most exciting thing about it too. It was done entirely with the mouse, and you would "click" in boxes, filling in a flow chart. When running the program, you could not only watch the robot walk around the maze, but could also see the flow chart highlighted box for box (command for command), which made debugging a real treat. No syntax errors were possible, only logical errors. Anything like this still in the world? Michael Glenn (Fermat@Dartmouth.edu)
bluecow@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) (04/08/91)
In article <1991Apr8.102234.8262@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Fermat@Dartmouth.edu writes: > >Robot battle looks very interesting so far. Cute sound and graphics. Thanks. >But I'm a little dissapointed in the language. I think a few more >interesting commands need to be put in there. Or at least some >commands to make things a little more convenient... Granted you can do >a lot by swiveling back and forth (while constantly checking to see if >you are taking damage) until you finally lock onto a target, etc. But >this gets old real fast. Makes the code ugly too. Ok, perhaps I don't >have access to the interesting weapons yet, but are there other >commands that we will see in the registered version or future versions? > In the registered version, no. Missiles explode when they've within a certain detonation range, so you only have to be facing in the general direction of the enemy. Also makes things like "shotgunning" effective, where you do know the exact location of the enemy but spread your shots out over an arc, to make sure you get the bugger even if he starts to move away... And missiles affect the shields (which lasers don't), making the use of shield weighting important (you can re-configure yours shields at any point). So, as you can see, a lot more variety is added even without having any funky new routines... yet. If we start receiving complaints about the limitingness of the language from registered users, though, RIPPLE will indeed change. The lasers are limiting since they must be aimed exactly, but if we had included the missiles instead, no one would _care_ about getting lasers... :-) >I think the "more than 2 at a time" option is a must, as well as >tournaments. Do put them in. > As we said in the Read Me file, if people register... >I have really enjoyed corewars, robowar, and the old robot battle, but THE OLD ROBOT BATTLE?!?!?! You don't mean _my_ old Robot Battle, do you??? My god. I didn't think _anyone_ remembered that thing. You MUST be referring to some other program... If, by some act of God, you are talking about the old Robot Battle, do you still have a copy? I don't. :-} >my favorite (though a little less cutthroat) was ChipWits. Anyone >remember this one? It only ran on the old ROM's, but it had the best >interface and animation of the whole lot, and allowed for some very >interesting robots. Basically, you programmed a robot via a flow chart >like program, and the robot (which was real cute looking, glasses and >sneakers) would walk around a maze, and zap grid bugs, while eating >pieces of pies and coffee cups. (these he needed to refuel.) Eating >diskettes would typically get him points. He could look, feel, move, >turn, zap, eat, and even play music. He had 3 stacks, where he could >store information on objects, directions, or numbers. (numbers from 0 >to 7 were stored as amounts of liquid in a beaker, from empty to full) >There were a dozen or so scenario's (mazes) to wonder around, and it >was really fun trying to make the robot navigate turns, maneuver around >grid bugs and watermellons, etc. (the first few you program usually run >into the walls too often and destroy themselves) I would LOVE to see >this return someday. Even a program that took only the general "idea" >from this program would be absolutely terrific! (I'd buy it) > >The way the programs were written (for the ChipWits) was the most >exciting thing about it too. It was done entirely with the mouse, and >you would "click" in boxes, filling in a flow chart. When running the >program, you could not only watch the robot walk around the maze, but >could also see the flow chart highlighted box for box (command for >command), which made debugging a real treat. No syntax errors were >possible, only logical errors. > ChipWits was great! I wish it were still around... sigh. The heady days of Mac youth. BTW, for part of my research I've created a high-level icon-based algorithm description language; maybe I could just slap it on the the front of RObot Battle. ;-) >Anything like this still in the world? > Robot Battle v2.0. 8-) Really, though, if we receive a favorable response to RB, there's a lot we'd like to do. RB's become a real beast, though, sitting and growing and growing and sitting for aout 2 years now. If we didn't release it now, it would sit and grow for another 2 years while still no one saw it... Better to get it out now, I think, and hear some suggestions from the real world than to have it continue its existence within the cloistered walls of our two Macs here. >Michael Glenn (Fermat@Dartmouth.edu) Tob & Chuck bluecow@unix.cis.pitt.edu
Michael.J.Glenn@dartmouth.edu (Michael J. Glenn) (04/10/91)
>>I think the "more than 2 at a time" option is a must, as well as >>tournaments. Do put them in. >> >As we said in the Read Me file, if people register... I think there is a real flaw in taking comments only from registered owners of the game. Personally, if those things above were in, as well as a few other petty changes, I would not hesitate to send my $15. (I might send it anyway, but still thinking about it) M.Glenn (Fermat@Dartmouth.edu)
bluecow@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.173104.10322@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Fermat@Dartmouth.edu writes: >I think there is a real flaw in taking comments only from registered >owners of the game. Personally, if those things above were in, as well >as a few other petty changes, I would not hesitate to send my $15. (I >might send it anyway, but still thinking about it) > >M.Glenn (Fermat@Dartmouth.edu) We agree with you. The comment in the manual talking about that is referring more or less to making major revisions at a few number of users' request; however, it's vague and misleading and should be ignored. :-} We have been accepting suggestions from people on the net who have brought up points that truly make the game easier/more fun to play. We've changed the program already to include arrays and for-next loops due to this kind of input. However, major revisions like tournament mode and more than two players are things that we've already thought about doing and _will_ do if we receive a favorable response to the version posted. There's a dilemma here: do we hold off on distributing the game for another month or two while we add yet _more_ features, all the while not knowing what the public's response will be at all, or do we decide at some point that we've expanded enough and get the thing out the door? Robot Battle has been functional since late '89. The reason it's just being released now is due to this exact kind of thing - well, let's just add this ONE MORE feature... It's addictive, and with a program as open-ended as Robot Battle, it could continue indefinitely. We finally had to draw a line, saying "this is what will be distributed. These other ideas are great, but let's see what people think about what we have first." As an aside, all the registered users we have so far are from CompuServe. A few days ago, messages about Robot Battle accounted for over 50% of the messages posted here, and yet we've received no commitment (though maybe there are some letters in the mail) from anyone from internet yet. If this is because too many features are lacking from the current version, so be it; would the addition of a tournament mode swing the tide that much? And yet we receive enthusiatic letters from people wanting to moderate a Robot Battle tourney. The fact this this enthusiam exists while playing without the advantage of the better weapons leads me to believe that there _is_ an interest. If we receive _any_ reasonable amount of support from the people on the net, we'd love to add features galore, knowing that our efforts aren't going to be for naught. Tob bluecow@unix.cis.pitt.edu
rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) (04/10/91)
bluecow@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: >A few days ago, messages about Robot Battle accounted for over 50% of the >messages posted here, and yet we've received no commitment (though maybe >there are some letters in the mail) from anyone from internet yet. I would love to give you some commitment, but I can't say I'm too impressed. My configuration: Mac SE, twin HD floppies, Sys 6.0.5, NO inits. Result: Robot Battle 1.0.2 crashes EVERY TIME I try to run it. EVERY time. -- + John Mazzocchi + "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, + + Melbourne, Victoria + but a fire to be lighted" - Plutarch + + Australia + + rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au +
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr10.033931.22918@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes: >Result: Robot Battle 1.0.2 crashes EVERY TIME I try to run it. EVERY time. Well done. I didn't even get that far. After downloading the demo, and finding it had an unreadable "document" called READ ME FIRST (why on earth have a read-me document in some bizarre useless format, anyway), I tried just launching the demo, and my cursor immediately went away. Thanks, guys, I just love rebooting my machine.
duga@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Brady Duga) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr10.033931.22918@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> rxcjm@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes: >bluecow@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: >>A few days ago, messages about Robot Battle accounted for over 50% of the >>messages posted here, and yet we've received no commitment (though maybe >>there are some letters in the mail) from anyone from internet yet. > >I would love to give you some commitment, but I can't say I'm too impressed. >My configuration: Mac SE, twin HD floppies, Sys 6.0.5, NO inits. > >Result: Robot Battle 1.0.2 crashes EVERY TIME I try to run it. EVERY time. I was having the same problem with the copy I got from sumex. However, I grabbed the copy on mac.archive.umich.edu (141.211.168.70) yesterday, and it seems to work fine. (Well, actually, there are some bugs, but at least it runs). I haven't had much time to use it yet, but I do have a major question. Will there be trig functions in the registered version? I seem to remember a post saying there would be, but I could be wrong. These seem like a must for any robot battle simulation. I have also experienced a crash after playing the game. I had quit the game and was closing all the windows onb the screen (option clicked in the go away box). After closing one window, the system died with error 10. This may not be related to the game, but has anyone else experienced it? --Brady (duga@cvs.rochester.edu)