New game: Yodd
luigi
=====
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...)
marks...@gmail.com
On 16-Aug-2011, luigi <luis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does it sound well?
No. It sounds like a Kris Burm game.
Nick Bentley
http://nickbentley.posterous.com/one-of-my-better-games-odd
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.
luigi
> On 16-Aug-2011, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does it sound well?
>
> No. It sounds like a Kris Burm game.
Quiz: Which of the following is _not_ a Kris burm game?
a) Gipf
b) Yinsh
c) Yodd
d) Dvonn
That's a tough one!
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.
christian
> 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 ;-)
Phil Carmody
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)
Phil Carmody
Better than that - it's a pen and paper game.
At a push, you can even play it on squared paper.
luigi
> 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.
luigi
> 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.
marks...@gmail.com
On 19-Aug-2011, luigi <luis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also thinking that in Odd (Nick's game) there's probably
> no turn advantage at all
This is how retardation happens. It starts with Christian and spreads.
christian
> 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.
christian
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.
marks...@gmail.com
On 20-Aug-2011, christian <chri...@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.
christian
> People have expressed curiosity over the years about "how I do it"
> - believe it or not.
I can see the masses gathering in awestruck wonder - believe it or
not.
marks...@gmail.com
On 20-Aug-2011, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> However, from a _human_ perspective, which eludes and hence
> excludes Mark
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
marks...@gmail.com
On 20-Aug-2011, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> I can see the masses gathering in awestruck wonder
Ask the awestruck masses how they didn't notice Sygo.
christian
> 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 ;-)
christian
> On 20-Aug-2011, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
>
> > I can see the masses gathering in awestruck wonder
>
> Ask the awestruck masses how they didn't notice Sygo.
Yes, despite your efforts, thanks anyway :)
marks...@gmail.com
On 20-Aug-2011, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> you came up with a couple of good games
As did you.
Nick Bentley
> 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?
christian
> 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.
christian
> 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.
christian
diagonal cuts.
luigi
> 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.
>
> 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.
christian
> 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 :)
What about the square variant?
luigi
> 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?
Here are some basic insights on Yodd strategy:
a) In the opening...
On 18 ago, 09:34, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... 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.
Outlining frameworks is also important, because:
b) In the middlegame, I'm excited to say that Yodd seems to have a
noteworthy territorial component, after all. It should be customary
for the players to try and surround territories at least three cells
wide to secure the creation of at least one opponent group there. As
this group is already doomed, while your surrounding chain can still
expect to join other groups, the local result will favor you. Of
course, the bigger the territories, the more opponent groups you can
accommodate there. Your opponent will have a hard time either
connecting said groups to each other or, even worse, creating groups
of your color, as you will likely be able to connect them to your
surrounding chain. So creating territories is key, even if this, as
opposed to Omega, was meant to be a pure connection game.
Isn't it curious how thin the line between connection and territory
games can be? I dare state the obvious: the more (potentially or
explicitly) numerous the entities you must connect (stones, groups,
edge cells...), the more your game leans towards the territory side.
On 21 ago, 16:49, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> 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.
Indeed! I had been playing with the "less groups wins" winning
condition for some time, but the most obvious implementation didn't
work because of ties. I went so far as to consider the following
awkward rule to avoid them: "The player with less groups wins. In case
of a tie, groups of size 1 aren't counted. If there's still a tie,
groups of size 2 aren't counted, too, and so on till there is a
winner." Plausible, but hardly elegant. I knew that the best way to
avoid ties was to actually check the number of groups at the end of
each turn, but it took me a while to realize that it could be done in
such a subtle and satisfactory way.
On 21 ago, 20:32, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> ps. Did you consider a square version? Might be interesting with the
> diagonal cuts.
I haven't considered it yet. I think it works in Symple because
multiple placements compensate for the limited connectivity. In Yodd,
I'd say blocking would be too easy, but who knows?
On a square grid, if two pairs of groups, one of each color, are
competing for connection around the same area, it's likely that none
of them will succeed, whereas on a hex grid one side will always do,
at the expense of the other. The latter should be best for Yodd. What
do you think?
christian
> Isn't it curious how thin the line between connection and territory
> games can be? I dare state the obvious: the more (potentially or
> explicitly) numerous the entities you must connect (stones, groups,
> edge cells...), the more your game leans towards the territory side.
>
I'm carefull with generalizations because I strongly lean to them, but
I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion. From my own
experience Havannah (3 'entities') comes to mind, with a clear
territorial component in its strategy.
> On 21 ago, 20:32, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
>
> > ps. Did you consider a square version? Might be interesting with the
> > diagonal cuts.
>
> I haven't considered it yet. I think it works in Symple because
> multiple placements compensate for the limited connectivity. In Yodd,
> I'd say blocking would be too easy, but who knows?
>
> On a square grid, if two pairs of groups, one of each color, are
> competing for connection around the same area, it's likely that none
> of them will succeed, whereas on a hex grid one side will always do,
> at the expense of the other. The latter should be best for Yodd. What
> do you think?
I have hardly any experience with Symple, and none with the
hexversion, but I feel the square version is superior because it
supports tactics that are not present on the hexgrid. And Symple as a
mechanism isn't loaded with tactics.
I feel a square version will introduce similar tactics in Yodd. I'm
not sure the 'local draw' component you mention is such a problem
because the game itself is decisive. I'd suggest you take a good look
at it. It will be a different game, that's for sure, but I feel it may
at least be equally interesting.
Nick Bentley
came up with the following possible modification:
There are no move restrictions. A player may create an even number of
groups with his move.
There's an off-board token, called a Gollum (why not?)
If there is an even number of groups on board at the end of your turn,
you take ownership of the Gollum
If the board fills and there are an even number of groups, the player
with the Gollum loses. Otherwise the player with the fewest groups
loses.
Nick Bentley
In keeping with the rules as originally written, the last sentence
should have been:
"Otherwise the player with the fewest groups wins."
christian
> I have a habit of trying to get rid of move-restrictions, so I just
> came up with the following possible modification:
>
> There are no move restrictions. A player may create an even number of
> groups with his move.
We share one habit at least, but there's always a context.
Restrictions should not hamper a game but they are necessary to shape
it 'in its perceived spirit'. That's a crucial condition because
restrictions inherently modify and shape a game concept. To perceive a
game's spirit (will, intent) is the hard part.
That being said I have doubts about your proposal. I feel the
restriction is shaping the idea in a simple and intruiging way, and
more freedom will eliminate some very interesting tactics resulting
from it.
Luis solution to the 'odd' problem is basic to the very core: just
_keep_ the number of groups odd. You can't beat that.
It's very reminiscent of the finding of Symple: simply penalize
groups.
Nick Bentley
I share your doubts. I'm just tossing out an idea. I don't know the
game well enough to evaluate it :)
Nick Bentley
> _keep_ the number of groups odd. You can't beat that.
> It's very reminiscent of the finding of Symple: simply penalize
> groups.
Not only basic, but it seems to be responsible for a bunch of the
tactics. When a simple solution like that creates tactical interest,
it's a good sign.
Nick Bentley
> tactics. When a simple solution like that creates tactical interest,
> it's a good sign.
...Which you already pointed out. Please ignore anything I say today.
luigi
> I have a habit of trying to get rid of move-restrictions, so I just
> came up with the following possible modification:
>
> There are no move restrictions. A player may create an even number of
> groups with his move.
> If there is an even number of groups on board at the end of your turn,
> you take ownership of the Gollum
("equal" suffices, but maybe "even" somehow legitimates the use of the
Gollum by letting it play a more important role in the result)
> ... number of groups, the player
> with the Gollum loses. Otherwise the player with the fewest groups
> loses.
That's an interesting variant. However, I think the ban on parity is a
more straightforward approach, and one which defines the very
character of the game, as both Christian and you have already noted.
Yodd _is_ the ban on parity. In contrast, the Gollum variant
introduces an extraneous element which does little more than serve its
prosaic purpose of avoiding draws. It doesn't enhance tactics or
strategy, yet players must take it into account at every moment.
But don't get me wrong: I'm glad that Yodd has intrigued you to the
extent of thinking of a plausible variant. I must admit that it had
never crossed my mind!
luigi
A similar token could be used in Ketchup, too:
Whenever a player extends his largest group, he places the Gollum by
his side. At the end of the game, the player with the largest group
wins. If both players' largest groups are the same size, the player
with the Gollum loses. This is equivalent to awarding the win to the
player who had the largest group for the last time in the game.
The Gollum could also be placed on the same stone which extends the
largest group, so as to eliminate any off-board reference.
On the other hand, why not simply "first-passer wins ties"?