Jeremy Cook on Mon, 2 Aug 2004 13:13:25 -0500 (CDT)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Yay for PGo

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:08:38PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> 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?

Yeah. Say the Turn order is the order the first member of each Alliance
moved during the first turn, or if e didn't move during the first turn,
e gets tagged on at the end of the order the turn e moved.
I also suggest we require Alliances to be transitive.

spoon-discuss mailing list