Re: [spoon-discuss] Yay for PGo

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 2, 2004, at 12.26 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:

> > Or would it be enough to simplify the turn-order rules so that the 
> > game doesn't
> > end up deadlocked?
>
> I wasn't there... how did it end up deadlocked? They seem like good
> turn-order rules to me.

We got into a situation with too many alliances, where it wasn't to 
anyone's advantage to place a stone - the Baron had just played, thus 
stopping em and all eir allies from taking the next move; eir opponents 
didn't really want to move because the other side would then get going 
again; and the Baron's allies couldn't afford to ditch the alliance 
because e had too many pieces that would capture theirs if e became an 
enemy.

The other problem with the turn order is that we developed unofficial 
alliances in order to allow one 'team' to make sometimes as many as 
eight consecutive plays. The game turned into a reflexes-style game: 
whoever was online right when the checking period ended would gain 
tremendously, unless one of eir opponents managed to chuck out a move 
at the last possible second.

What I'd prefer, perhaps, is a turn-based thing. Maybe we come up with 
a Turn order, and at the end of each CP, the moves made during the CP 
take effect in Turn order?

--
Wonko

How can you prove whether at this moment we are sleeping, and all our 
thoughts are a dream; or whether we are awake, and talking to one 
another in the waking state?
                -- Plato

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss