Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
I'm not discarding math as a tool to detect some problems that may appear in a game, but I wouldn't use pure mathematic to develop the game, because it may result in something that is 'mathematically correct' but not playable. I could, for example, use mathematical analysis, once I have finished my game, to check if it has errors of some kind. As for the rules that are 'forced' into a game, in order to 'fix' some inconvenience derived from another previous rule, maybe the problem is in that previous rule from which the inconvenience comes. You might find that one certain rule that you like very much provides more problem than benefit. Sometimes you can find some elegant way to elude the problem (and Fergus' example is simply perfect for illustrating this), but, there can be some cases where no appropiate solution is to be found, and then you have to remove your beloved rule and start from the beginning (this is painful but quite common when you begin designing games).
Not all the rules are valid for a game, and the fact that a rule is beautiful doesn't imply that it is suitable. I wouldn't prefer allowing players to force a draw by leaving their Galaxy on Hyperspace's black hole, instead I would check the rules about Hyperspace. Maybe some of the main rules of the game do not make much sense. Perhaps the error is in the fact that leaving your Galaxy in Hyperspace's black hole (which is such an easy thing to do) gives you such an enormous advantage. Somehow, it seems like you invented Hyperspace to let pieces be trapped on it, and later discovered that having trapped pieces was too great a disadvantage for one side and tried to fix it with another rule that overcomplicates the game and makes you have to introduce 3 more criteria to define a piece's impossibility to leave Hyperspace:
1. If a piece is not on the Black Hole's square, but is in hyperspace, and three or more moves have passed the next move of the player must be to move his piece onto the Black Hole, so long as the Black Hole square is not occupied.
2. If a piece has been in hyperspace for four moves or more, and is now on the Black Hole square in hyperspace, the next move of the player after the piece has entered hyperspace must be to move it to back to ordinary space, so long as a legal move exists that will let him do so.
3. If a piece has not made one of the above moves because it was not legal (ie: the Black Hole was occupied, or there was no legal move that permitted the piece to go back to regular space) the piece must make such a move as soon as it is legal.
This set of exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and 'so long as'... is too much for me :)
PS: Please don't think that I absolutely dislike everything about your game. If you find my previous comments too harsh, you might feel glad to learn that there are certain aspects about Outer Space Chess which I do like sincerely, for example the way the 'Galaxy-Nebula system' (as you call it) works.
I appreciate the idea of a royal piece being a strong piece, and find quite interesting the way you achieve this by stating that only one piece may capture the Nebula, and then state that that piece (the Galaxy) cannot be captured (capturing your opponent's Galaxy would at least guarantee you a draw), but then, if you could find another way to reduce the Nebula's mobility, you wouldn't have needed to add the rules about:
-the Nebula not being able to move on 2 consecutive turns
-the Nebula not being able to move through 'attacked' squares, and
-the permission to capture your own pieces.
I'm just trying to provide a 'constructive review' with which, of course, you have the right to disagree.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with fixing problems with a game. But I do appreciate the point Carlos is making, because there are more and less elegant ways of fixing the same problem. Let me describe a problem I fixed in one of my games that is like the one you describe with the Galaxy. In Three-Player Hex Shogi, players may capture Kings and hold them in hand, and the goal is to make all three Kings your own. The problem here is that a player might force a draw by holding one King in hand indefinitely. There were various ways to fix this problem. For example, I could have said that no King may be held in hand longer than five turns. But this would be an inelegant solution that overcomplicated the game. Instead, I chose to provide an incentive for dropping a King back on the board. So I added the rule that the King is the only piece a player may drop when he has one in hand. Since dropping other pieces is normally critical to doing well in the game, holding a King indefinitely would impair a player's chances of winning.
Sorry. I was angry at the time, and felt like I had to vent it somehow. I certainly did not mean to seem insulting to you (although I refuse to say the same about cheesy software), and I assure you that I read your comment in full. I will now respond to comments about the game: I feel that a completely disinhibited nebula isn't much fun as a royal piece. Its far too free and keeps the game from looking (intuitively at least) like it is headed towards a conclusion. I feel it is necessary to keep it on a leash: It increases the tactical element rediculously, as it permits interesting combinations to be used to hold it in place, and makes defensive play much more urgent. I had intended to create an extremely defensive game that had a back-heavy tactical weight: Keeping the nebula surrounded. You could certainly try this as a variant, if it suits you better, but this brings up a sharp contrast with my original vision of the game. <br> <br> As to Antoine's comment: It seems black is behaving more agressively than it should. The way to play this game (at least I hope so, I haven't had the time to look into this more thoroughly) is to keep everything tightly knit and well defended in the back. Breaking up a good defensive structure is probably more dangerous here than in any other chess variant I have ever seen. I have specifically chosen the lineup so that a good defensive structure can be obtained before there is any real danger, but it must be done quickly (of course, if your opponent is making dumb moves, it is still possible to attack quickly and take advantage of the situation). This analysis is rather disturbing however, and I fear that even with the new rule that permits black to keep up with white in hyperspace the sides may still be unequal. I am fairly certain that this game is still flawed (most games are) but I was hoping it was less so than before. At this stage I fear there is little I can do about it, but I may yet come up with some burst of brilliant insight in the near future, it is hard to tell.
Nicholas, Could you please express your (often quite accurate) comments in a less insulting fashion? If you had actually read my comment instead of just observing the word 'Zillions' and dismissing my idea (and me) out of hand, you would have seen that I am equally concerned with playability by humans. If Zillions can't be programmed to play something legally (as opposed to playing it well), generally there are playablity issues for humans as well. I can't visualize the Nebula rules on the board as you have them now--I'm sure I am not unique in this respect. Even if you think my observation is entirely erroneous, you could express yourself in less abrasive, attacking language: why don't you?
1)'Nebulae are permitted to land ON squares controlled by other pieces, just not move THROUGH them'. That is what I understood when I playtested your game. Since all the neighbor squares of a Nebula are controlled by friendly pieces, it follows that the Nebula moves every other time as a Wazir. (If they weren't controlled, the Galaxy would soon capture the Nebula.) 2)I indeed tried to copy the British Chess macro. But since the Nebula is immune from capture, (verify (and empty? not-attacked? not-defended?)) doesn't work, and I had to write a verify for each square on the Nebula's path, with the enemy Nebula controlling the squares as a Rook. 3)Zillions often loses by playing 1.. Star Cluster 1c5. For instance: 1. Galaxy 2c - 2b = Galaxy2 1... StarCluster 1c6 - 1c5 ; Galaxy2 on 2a 2. Planet 1d1 - 1e3; Galaxy3 on 2b 2... Planet 1b8 - 1c6; Galaxy3 on 2a 3. Galaxy3 2b - 1d6 = Galaxy; Galaxy on 1d6 3... Planet 1d8 - 1e6 4. Planet 1e3 - 1d5 4... Galaxy 2a - 2b 5. Planet 1d5 x 1c7 and a slow win for White.
If my understanding of your rules and my implementation of them in a Zillions file is correct -- anyway, it prevents Nebulae from crossing controlled squares, including the squares which are controlled by the other Nebula, but I haven't been able to take into account that same limitation for that other Nebula, to limit the Nebula-controlled-square limitation -- I reach the following conclusions: 1)The Nebula is the least mobile piece. Indeed, I have never seen a Nebula move more than one square: there is always a friendly piece which prevents the Nebula from crossing anything. Without a pack of friendly pieces, the Nebula would be immediately captured. 2)The Galaxy is quite mobile. It is also very useful in protecting a diagonal against a Spaceship. Maybe slightly too useful. 3)2a and 2c never attract a Galaxy or Spaceship, and 2b, hardly ever. Your new rule doesn't prevent a Galaxy or Spaceship to hog the hyperspace on 2b, but it doesn't seem to matter. The Galaxy and Spaceship are simply too valuable in the regular space. 4)It seems a Planet is not significantly stronger than a Star Cluster. 5)Your game is playable as it is, and even enjoyable, which is not so easy when there is rifle capture, but only in the regular space. Maybe your black hole on 2b should be replaced by a gigantic black hole in 2a-2b-2c, which could only be entered on 2a and exited on 2c or the reverse, or maybe Galaxies should be able to send a neighbor -- any neighbor or just a Galaxy or Spaceship? -- on 2a or 2c to the price of going themselves on 2b, or maybe some eleventh piece should be added to each army, I don't know, these are just ideas that I throw out, I haven't really thought about it.
Oddly, my comment on your game quite matches yours on mine. There is a lot of imaginative stuff. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent the day to devise an incomplete zrf to implement your rules. But I'm afraid that White has an extraordinary advantage, as suggests: 1. Galaxy 2c - 2b = Galaxy2 1... Planet 1d8 - 1e6; Galaxy2 on 2a 2. StarCluster 1c3 - 1c4; Galaxy3 on 2b 2... Planet 1e6 - 1d4; Galaxy3 on 2a 3. Spaceship 1c2 - 1c3; Galaxy4 on 2b 3... Planet 1d4 - 1e6; Galaxy4 on 2a 4. Galaxy4 2b - 1d6 = Galaxy 4... Galaxy4 2a - 2b = Galaxy5 (forced) 5. Galaxy 1d6 - 1e7 5... Galaxy5 2b - 1d3 = Galaxy (forced again) 6. Galaxy 1e7 - 1d8 6... Nebula 1c8 x 1b8 7. Galaxy 1d8 - 1c8 7... Nebula 1b8 x 1a8 (regardless of the twice-in-a-row limitation) 8. Galaxy 1c8 - 1b8# Well, it should be OK if you limit the five-turn rule to pieces which enter the Hyperspace, but having said that, I can understand why a player would send a Galaxy or at least a Spaceship on 2b, but I wonder why he should bury them on 2a or 2c.
19 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.