Sep 07, 2006 03:47
How Things Fail - how bolo applies to life
Hi all, wanted to share an idea and get feedback, if any.
I think that there's patterns of failure in well-played bolo games that hint at patterns in other complex systems related to how they fail.
I've played a lot of bolo games. Since '93 or so when it first came out. My observation is that when you are in a really good game where you have 2 entrenched teams fighting it out, the way one side or the other loses isn't gradual.
The eventual losing side can be well defended, equal number of pills on both sides, etc. What happens is that loss starts to creep in when the team repair mechanisms(ie lgms) are killed and pills start being very damaged and eventually incapacitaed. Defenders start dying more often and don't always respawn nearby, thus making it hard for them to get back to base in time.
When the defending base is over-run, it doesn't happen little by little, but instead happens all at once. Its like the defending base fights and fights and is gradually worn down, and when a critical point is reached where the damage is too extensive to repair, the defending pills seem to crumble and be captured at once. Defending players make some valiant moves to regain captured or disabled pills, and may make a stand somewhere else, but for the most part and most of the time, the game is quickly decided after that critical failure point.
Now, I know there are always exceptions and we all have personal stories of totally awesome games where we make huge comebacks and win from near total defeats. My point is that these are the exceptions and not the rules, at least in my experience.
Look at the aging human body. What kills people isn't "age". Its the failure of some critical life support system, or the failure of several. My father died when I was young from cancer. He fought it valiantly for over 2 years. However, when it finally reached his brain it wasn't long before he died. The cancer eventually crowded out and destroyed critical areas of his brain that controlled his body support systems, and he died.
So to look at aging again, when people get very, very old many of their cells enter whats called senescence. Senescence means that cells stop dividing. When they stop dividing, the can no longer repair damage to the body. This isn't the principle reason that people get 'old' but it is related. Now senescence by itself doesn't kill you. What happens at this point is that when damage is done to the body by way of infection, injury, or even minor organ failure, the total collective system of the body is no longer able to cope, resulting in the end of life. Sounds like a defending base in Bolo, right?
The case can be extended to many other situations. Economies, ecologies, nations, etc. Look at the Roman Empire and how it fell. Think about what led up to the Great Depression. Many little errors crept into each of these systems and their repair mechanisms were weak and/or failed. When a critical point was reached, the failure of each system was rapid rather than gradual.
So, what do you think? Can someone else shed insight on this, or perhaps point out flaws in my thinking?
Much appreciated,
Freeagent
I think that there's patterns of failure in well-played bolo games that hint at patterns in other complex systems related to how they fail.
I've played a lot of bolo games. Since '93 or so when it first came out. My observation is that when you are in a really good game where you have 2 entrenched teams fighting it out, the way one side or the other loses isn't gradual.
The eventual losing side can be well defended, equal number of pills on both sides, etc. What happens is that loss starts to creep in when the team repair mechanisms(ie lgms) are killed and pills start being very damaged and eventually incapacitaed. Defenders start dying more often and don't always respawn nearby, thus making it hard for them to get back to base in time.
When the defending base is over-run, it doesn't happen little by little, but instead happens all at once. Its like the defending base fights and fights and is gradually worn down, and when a critical point is reached where the damage is too extensive to repair, the defending pills seem to crumble and be captured at once. Defending players make some valiant moves to regain captured or disabled pills, and may make a stand somewhere else, but for the most part and most of the time, the game is quickly decided after that critical failure point.
Now, I know there are always exceptions and we all have personal stories of totally awesome games where we make huge comebacks and win from near total defeats. My point is that these are the exceptions and not the rules, at least in my experience.
Look at the aging human body. What kills people isn't "age". Its the failure of some critical life support system, or the failure of several. My father died when I was young from cancer. He fought it valiantly for over 2 years. However, when it finally reached his brain it wasn't long before he died. The cancer eventually crowded out and destroyed critical areas of his brain that controlled his body support systems, and he died.
So to look at aging again, when people get very, very old many of their cells enter whats called senescence. Senescence means that cells stop dividing. When they stop dividing, the can no longer repair damage to the body. This isn't the principle reason that people get 'old' but it is related. Now senescence by itself doesn't kill you. What happens at this point is that when damage is done to the body by way of infection, injury, or even minor organ failure, the total collective system of the body is no longer able to cope, resulting in the end of life. Sounds like a defending base in Bolo, right?
The case can be extended to many other situations. Economies, ecologies, nations, etc. Look at the Roman Empire and how it fell. Think about what led up to the Great Depression. Many little errors crept into each of these systems and their repair mechanisms were weak and/or failed. When a critical point was reached, the failure of each system was rapid rather than gradual.
So, what do you think? Can someone else shed insight on this, or perhaps point out flaws in my thinking?
Much appreciated,
Freeagent