Yodd is a connection game for two players: Black and White. It is played on the cells of a hex hex board, which is initially empty.
Starting with Black, players take turns placing one or two stones of _any_ color on empty cells. On his first turn, Black can only place one stone.
At the end of each turn, there must be an odd number of groups on the board.
Players can pass their turn at any moment, unless it violates the previous rule (this means Black can't pass on his first turn).
When both players pass in succession, the game ends. The player with less groups on the board wins. Draws are not possible.
______________
Double placement serves both as a first move equalizer and a way to make the game playable under the group restriction rule.
Meanwhile, apart from the intended goal of eliminating draws (they would be common otherwise), forcing an odd number of groups at the end of a turn has some interesting tactical implications which make the game feel similar to a single placement game. For example, groups separated by two empty cells can't be joined on a single turn, since the player runs out of stones to restore the groups count to an odd number. Also, the diamond connection:
| . o | o .
is still unbreakable if the opponent can't fill the intermediate cells by growing an existing group, or if he already has one group adjacent to each of the two cells.
The effect reminds me of Joäo Pedro Neto and Bill Taylor's pet modifier, under which two stones placed on a single turn can't be part of the same group.
Endgames are also quite tricky under this rule: you'll often want to join two of your own groups or create another opponent group, but you'll be unable to do it because you can't restore the groups count anymore!
Comments?
(The name of the game is still provissional. Does it sound well? My ear is not much used to English, so your help is appreciated. Alternatives: Yod ('Y' in Hebrew), Yotta ('iota' is 'i' in Greek), Splyt, Oddy...)
Which uses oddness in a different way and which I regard as one of the best games I've designed.
I look forward to trying yours. I like how, in your game, you don't really have to count anything to see whether a move satisfies the move restriction. Not having to count seems very important for play-flow.
> Which uses oddness in a different way and which I regard as one of the > best games I've designed.
> I look forward to trying yours. I like how, in your game, you don't > really have to count anything to see whether a move satisfies the move > restriction. Not having to count seems very important for play-flow.
Thanks, Nick. Odd has the advantage that the same checking you make after each move makes further counting at the end of the game unnecessary, if players are attentive enough. In return, counting the number of groups towards the score, rather than just parity, makes Yodd deeper and more scalable. The base-5 Odd board would feel too small for Yodd, I think.
On Aug 16, 9:10 pm, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Endgames are also quite tricky under this rule: you'll often want to > join two of your own groups or create another opponent group, but > you'll be unable to do it because you can't restore the groups count > anymore!
Splyt sounds nice too, but the object is as much to Joyn ;-)
I have some trouble visualizing how one could plan ahead. Of course this becomes increasingly possible towards the endgame, but how to get to a 'favorable' middlegame or how to plan in the opening, those are aspects that elude me at the moment. I also feel a shadow of a "nim- like" algorithm, but that may not be the case at all. Of course not having to count (if players are paying attention) is a great plus. My first impression is a tactical game in the 'fairly obscure strategy' category (of which Othello is a known representative).
christian
P.S. It can be played with standard material, so it's clearly not a Kris Burm game ;-)
> Which uses oddness in a different way and which I regard as one of the > best games I've designed.
> I look forward to trying yours. I like how, in your game, you don't > really have to count anything to see whether a move satisfies the move > restriction. Not having to count seems very important for play-flow.
You need to be able to trace arbitrarily complicated mazes though, to know whether the two cells of the same colour that you're joining are already connected (parity stays the same) or are not (parity changes).
Phil -- Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM. -- David Melville (on r.a.s.f1)
christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> writes: > On Aug 16, 9:10 pm, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Endgames are also quite tricky under this rule: you'll often want to > > join two of your own groups or create another opponent group, but > > you'll be unable to do it because you can't restore the groups count > > anymore!
> Splyt sounds nice too, but the object is as much to Joyn ;-)
> I have some trouble visualizing how one could plan ahead. Of course > this becomes increasingly possible towards the endgame, but how to get > to a 'favorable' middlegame or how to plan in the opening, those are > aspects that elude me at the moment. I also feel a shadow of a "nim- > like" algorithm, but that may not be the case at all. Of course not > having to count (if players are paying attention) is a great plus. > My first impression is a tactical game in the 'fairly obscure > strategy' category (of which Othello is a known representative).
> christian
> P.S. It can be played with standard material, so it's clearly not a > Kris Burm game ;-)
Better than that - it's a pen and paper game. At a push, you can even play it on squared paper.
Phil -- Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM. -- David Melville (on r.a.s.f1)
On 17 ago, 09:40, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> Splyt sounds nice too, but the object is as much to Joyn ;-)
At first, I considered having the opposite goal and was happy to name it Splyt, but found that joining is more intuitive than splitting, and that's what connection games are about in the first place. Of course, with the right to place stones of both colors, the game is still effectively the same.
> I have some trouble visualizing how one could plan ahead. Of course > this becomes increasingly possible towards the endgame, but how to get > to a 'favorable' middlegame or how to plan in the opening, those are > aspects that elude me at the moment. I also feel a shadow of a "nim- > like" algorithm, but that may not be the case at all. Of course not > having to count (if players are paying attention) is a great plus. > My first impression is a tactical game in the 'fairly obscure > strategy' category (of which Othello is a known representative).
I'd rather put it in the same category as Omega, a very strategical game in my opinion. Unlike Omega, Yodd is a pure connection game (i.e. without a territorial component), because group sizes don't matter, but otherwise they should share a fair amount of strategy space. And of course, unlike Omega, you don't need to perform multiplications (!?) in Yodd.
I can't see how a nim-like algorithm could be applied here, but maybe I'm missing something.
Yodd is a 'dynamic goals' connection game, as opposed to 'static goals' games, as Hex, Y or one of my favorites, Global Connection. Throughout the game, players can create new groups for the opponent, which immediately become new connection goals for him. That should be a plus. On how to plan in the opening, you should try to create enemy groups in the edges of the board, so that they are likely to remain unconnected, and find a place in the center for your own groups. That's how Omega is played, too.
On 17 ago, 03:39, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd has the advantage that the same checking you make > after each move makes further counting at the end of the game > unnecessary, if players are attentive enough.
I'm also thinking that in Odd (Nick's game) there's probably no turn advantage at all, as moves become increasingly 'bigger' towards the middlegame (in most stone placement games, it's just the opposite), and, with shared pieces, being one stone ahead is literally meaningless. If I'm not utterly mistaken, that should be a great feature of Odd, and one which is really hard to implement on purpose in any game design.
> In return, counting the > number of groups towards the score, rather than just parity, makes > Yodd deeper and more scalable.
Instead, I should have said "probably more scalable, but not necessarily deeper". I understand that requiring a minimum group size is really the key of Odd. I like how it re-introduces a territorial component into the game, and how it counteracts the volatile nature of the winning condition.
On Aug 20, 7:43 am, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also thinking that in Odd (Nick's game) there's probably no turn > advantage at all, ...
Like any abstract two player perfect information zero-sum game Odd is completely determined in game theoretical terms. Viewed from that perspective the statement is nonsensical.
However, from a _human_ perspective, which eludes and hence excludes Mark, you're probably right. Maybe Nick can shed some light on it from his experience with the game. Before Mark starts repeating the obvious.
Here's a guy who sets 'architecture' above gameplay. It's so funny that after years of wearing the emperor's clothes, only recently someone asked him what he actually meant by that, 'architecture'. Does Flume have 'architecture'. No, it has a simple rule leading to an intruiging game. Excellent, but where's the 'architecture'? Tell us what it is Mark, maybe we'll see it. Atoll's architecture? A mystery. Oust, Fractal? And if Monkey Queen has an 'architecture', it's a bad one if you care about gameplay.
On 20-Aug-2011, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> Does Flume have 'architecture'. No
lol
I never imagined that coining the term game architecture would cause such a ruckus. People have expressed curiosity over the years about "how I do it" - believe it or not. I never pretended to have a precise definition for game architecture. It's just a term I use to sum up how I look at game design. The rule set as something to behold. With an emphasis on *organics*. When I first saw that term, I was like, Wtf? Then I realized, Oh yeah - that's what the fuck I do. Organic design.
Originality is central of course. Maybe that's what makes architecture such a burr in Christian's bikini.
Game architecture must seem a little "Emperor" like to some, lol Especially to those who can never see it.
> As does your "intuition", which you were apologizing for again just > yesterday in the Arimaa forum.
> "So it's good to realize one's intuition may be totally off the mark."
> Good thing for you, lol
Indeed, admitting where one's judgement was wrong is a good thing. If intuition were always right it wouldn't be called intuition, now would it. _You_ are always right: a sure sign of the lack of it. So I'm almost inclined to join the masses in their amazement at how you came up with a couple of good games despite being you ;-)
> However, from a _human_ perspective, which eludes and hence excludes > Mark, you're probably right. Maybe Nick can shed some light on it from > his experience with the game. Before Mark starts repeating the > obvious.
Short answer: turn order advantage is hard to Grok. I have a faint notion that on a hexhex5 board, Even may have some advantage over Odd with a minimum group size of 5. On that size board the final number of groups between good players is almost always 3, 4, 5, or 6. I have this idea that it may be easier to make 4 than 3, 5, or 6, but I can't prove and could be wrong. If I'm right, perhaps making the minimum group size 4 or 6 would shift the probabilities to balance. Generally speaking, larger minimum groups sizes result in a better game, and I'm delighted, Luigi, that you understand the importance of minimum group size. It seems that you get the game's essential character. With large minimum group sizes, the game feels like an unusual connection game.
BUT, we should be talking about Yodd, instead of Odd, or watching Christian and Mark beat each other about the head. Luigi: I haven't been able to play it yet but I've been thinking about it a lot because it's clever and simple and original. Can you shed some light on strategy to give me a better feel for what it's about?
On Aug 18, 9:34 am, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When both players pass in succession, the game ends. The player with less groups on the board wins. > At first, I considered having the opposite goal and was happy to name > it Splyt, but found that joining is more intuitive than splitting, and > that's what connection games are about in the first place. Of course, > with the right to place stones of both colors, the game is still > effectively the same.
Usually I don't like misere variants. They're logically sound but getting rid of my men in Draughts somehow doesn't fit my emotional involvement, nor does ending up with the smallest territory in Reversi. Strategy of Draughts 'misere' is totally different from regular Draughts. In Reversi I can't tell - I don't play either and have no feeling for the games - but I can see how it might not be altogether different in terms of strategy.
Here I can't figure out how different it would be, smallest number of groups or largest. Intuitively I'd go for 'largest', but then you'd have to split yourself and join the opponent instead of vice versa.
Both variants doubtlessly have intruiging strategies and my guess is: fairly similar (more so than Draughts and its misere variants). Also, neither is counterintuitive: split as most you can or join as most you can.
It's a very clever concept in either case: a game with the option to use both colors, that has an a priori degree of clarity, isn't all that common. In Draughts for instance there are the "Stavropol" variants where you may move both colors. They reduce me to a state of acute schizophrenia. Yodd doen't seem to have that effect at all.
I agree with Mark that the name is very 'Burmish'. Whether this is a good or a bad thing I can't tell, because he's one of the few inventors with a reasonable commercial success, so the name probably won't stand in the way of that :)
P.S. Yodd might be a hard nut to write a program for.
On Aug 20, 7:43 am, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead, I should have said "probably more scalable, but not necessarily deeper".
I don't know about the latter because they're both quite unusual. What I particularly like about Yodd is the kind of simplicity at the core. Don't meddle with the board, just make sure the number of groups is odd. To realize that it doesn't involve counting must have been an "Aha" moment. And suddenly boardsize (or shape for that matter) are for the choosing.
> On Aug 18, 9:34 am, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When both players pass in succession, the game ends. The player with less groups on the board wins. > > At first, I considered having the opposite goal and was happy to name > > it Splyt, but found that joining is more intuitive than splitting, and > > that's what connection games are about in the first place. Of course, > > with the right to place stones of both colors, the game is still > > effectively the same.
> I can't figure out how different it would be, smallest number of > groups or largest. Intuitively I'd go for 'largest', but then you'd > have to split yourself and join the opponent instead of vice versa.
> Both variants doubtlessly have intruiging strategies and my guess is: > fairly similar (more so than Draughts and its misere variants). Also, > neither is counterintuitive: split as most you can or join as most you > can.
Christian, the game is _exactly_ the same in both cases. Since you can play stones of both colors, playing Black in 'Splitting' Yodd is the same as playing White in 'Joining' Yodd. There aren't _any_ strategical or tactical differences.
On Aug 21, 9:05 pm, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christian, the game is _exactly_ the same in both cases. Since you can > play stones of both colors, playing Black in 'Splitting' Yodd is the > same as playing White in 'Joining' Yodd. There aren't _any_ > strategical or tactical differences.
Beautiful, sorry for my slow pace, I was put off track by your previous comment:
> At first, I considered having the opposite goal and was happy to name > it Splyt, but found that joining is more intuitive than splitting, and > that's what connection games are about in the first place. Of course, > with the right to place stones of both colors, the game is still > effectively the same.
Taking 'effectively' as not quite 'exactly'.
So you've designed a game that is not only identical with its misere variant, but also is a Stavropol variant (i.e. moving with both sides). If that had been the challenge in a design contest, the contestors would probably have had a hard time and this would most likely have been the winner :)
