I think the main issue with this game is the board size. On a larger board, most players are assured some territory, and the game will be less like:
2 Likes
Indeed! It is sometimes said about (regular, two-player) 9x9 that it is like a knife fight in a phone booth. So for 5 players trying to make their moves at the same time, imagine 5 people with knives in a phone boothā¦ but also itās dark so they canāt see each other and are just stabbing left and right 
2 Likes
Reminder to spectators, please do not post in this thread (until after the game is over).
1 Like
Sorry, we accidentally morphed into some discussion maybe more fitted to the other threadā¦
No worries, @le_4TC. You didnāt do anything wrong.
The players can discuss the theory about how to play the game however they like. In fact, I think it is best to keep the discussion by the players in the posts above here in this thread, since it is in line with general strategy discussions.
However, I think it is disruptive and find it highly unwelcome to have a non-player (@ɱekriff) come in with comments about even just the nature of the game. Even just seemingly basic observations and comments can be suggestive toward how the players should approach this game.
Further, I think the only appropriate line to draw is to have no public commentary from spectators at all in this thread. Allowing some remarks can easily give the false impression that the public is welcome to make comments to influence the game, which is certainly not the case.
It is up to the players alone to figure how to play this game and what strategies they choose.
2 Likes
Well, I agree that we should keep to that rule, but I find it quite natural that people want to chime in when weāre talking about the variant in general, rather than the game in particular (and I very much was in my last few posts). And I think we should welcome more people talking about the variant, just not in this game thread but the other one about the variant in general. And itās a bit much to expect everyone dropping by to know the rules about not posting here, especially when it looks like a general discussion.
Its unfortunate that one canāt make a thread read-only for non-players (or at least I assume we canāt do that?), to make things clearer. But as things are, we shouldnāt blame people for not having read the entire topic before posting 
1 Like
I would love for people to talk more about the variant. There is even the other thread for that, and the kibitz thread to discuss things more specific to this particular game. However, spectators posting here might give the impression that itās okay for them to start to offer specific commentary and suggestions, which could be quite unfair for some of the players.
I just want to make this clear for all spectators, and the blame only rests on me for not reminding more often of my wishes.
Even when it comes to discussing the theory of this variant, it becomes a bit tricky to do that cleanly without potentially affecting the game. I donāt want anyone outside of the players to potentially influence how they might play. So, I, and some other spectators, have even kept the more sensitive strategy and theory discussions restrained to just the kibitz thread for now. Even discussing the strategic implications of the rules and the nature of the game does potentially give ideas and suggest directions for the players to take. So, I want to be careful about that.
4 Likes
If we are talking about ābest strategyā, I believe it is quite possible that voting for a draw starting with the very first round is optimal. But if the game ended in a draw after the first round ā¦ that wouldnāt be very entertaining now, would it? ^^
1 Like
Round 16 has been extended by 24 hours
The new deadline is now 2020-09-05T00:00:00Z
@Haze_with_a_Z has been deducted an āextra dayā and now has one extra day left.
@ęå»ŗę¾2 also did not submit moves before the deadline, but since the deadline has been extended, they can still submit moves before extended deadline.
All players may continue discussion and change their moves if they wish.
There will be no second extension. Failing to submit by the extended deadline will result in the move being counted as a pass.
Forgot about the game, sorry yāall. No sure itāll do much if Iām in or not at this point though
1 Like
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but anyway ā¦
Let me kick off by saying that I really enjoy this variant so far, but I have some critique that I would like to share. In the lights of the latest extention and the way the game has āfeltā to me so far, I really believe that the absence of a resignation mechanic is detrimental to the player experience. Of course it can be annoying if a player suddenly drops out, but the real chore is having to continue playing a game that you lost interest in. I would like to add that, in the event that one player suddenly gains a lot of profit due to a resignation, in my experience with multiplayer games, more often than not the other players can still balance the game by teaming up. Multiplayer games are sort of self-correcting in that way.
This is the resignation mechanic I would propose for future games:
Any time during the game a player may resign by telling the arbiter in a private message. In the event of a resignation, the arbiter reveals information about the resignation to the other players at the beginning of the following round. Players may inform other players about their resignation via the game communication, but that is non-binding (i.e. a player may lie about resigning).
The stones of a player who has resigned remain on the board (unless they are captured during the course of the game). A player who has resigned does not participate in the game anymore (obviously), and receives no points at the end of the game.
Thatās it. I think this is a simple and effective way to handle the matter. Note that with the status quo, players could already āresignā either by submitting āpassā for the rest of the game, or not submit any moves. Of course I understand that it makes a small difference for the other players, as they would have no confirmation that this player will continue passing. But that is a very minor thing in my opinion, and not necessarily a drawback.
What do you all think?
3 Likes
I would like to add that Iām not saying this because I would like to resign - that is far from it. Iām already hatching plans to steer the game into a position where I could maybe convince my fellow players to vote for a draw 
1 Like
Itās completely acceptable for a player to intentionally submit passes or moves to any effect that they wish. A player can choose to play moves (including passes) to shape the outcome of the game however they want.
I think the main difference that you are proposing is that the arbiter would confirm that a player has indicated that it is their intention to submit passes for the rest of the game, and that āresigningā in this manner would become binding and irrevocable.
I would prefer not to add this proposed mechanic, since it would introduce information about intentions being confirmed by the arbiter, and it would require binding promises about future moves (even if they are just passes).
On the other hand, it is still valid for a player to intentionally submit pass. I only worry about replacing players if it seems like they are no longer able to submit moves and participate in this game. For those that wish to submit the same orders repeatedly, I will accept āstanding ordersā (which can include passing and/or voting). One can say āthese are my moves/votes for this round and all subsequent rounds, until I change otherwiseā.
So far, no one has formally cast any resign or draw votes, and I would have mentioned this in the updates for each round. Just a reminder that any votes have to be submitted to me via PM in order to count.
3 Likes
If you do not want to add this feature, I am not going to try to change your mind. Maybe the description of the game could include this āworkaroundā as a possible option for a player who wishes to resign? I feel like new players should be informed about what to do in this case. I understand that it is regrettable if a player wishes to stop playing, but I believe this is inevitably going to happen should this variant grow in popularity.
I should clarify my position. In general, I am against adjusting the rules/mechanics of this ongoing game, unless if the players all unanimously agree to the change, or if I believe there is a significant flaw and at least all but one of the players agree to the change, i.e., this second case is to cover the case that the one holdout might be the one benefiting from a major game-breaking rules flaw.
However, for future games, the rules are completely flexible, and I would fully expect a lot game mechanics to be potentially tweaked. I personally do not prefer your suggested resign mechanic, but whether it might be included into a future game would entirely depend on the collective decision of the players and arbiter. I imagine it will be like how we play Werewolf here on these forums. The game is just a general concept, with its specifics evolving each time.
I do agree that the drop-out/resign contingencies could use further work. In this regard, I think it is also important to distinguish between a player that:
- Wishes to drop out of a game (or does so abruptly without notice).
- Wishes to submit passes and/or votes resign for the rest of the game.
- Wishes to submit passes and/or votes resign for now, but maybe starts playing more actively later.
In the first case, I would seek to find a replacement, just as I did for placing you into the game.
In the latter two cases, the player is essentially still part of the game, since taking either path could be part of their strategic plan to affect the outcome of the game as they wish. A player in these cases has the workaround of using a āstanding orderā for convenience, however, I would not want to have a mechanism that would irrevocably commit a player to case 2 and confirm their intentions to the other player through an arbiter announcement.
2 Likes
Iām sorry but somehow I canāt follow you. I fear that I did not formulate my arguments well, so please allow me to try again in a condensed form of short statements.
1.) The purpose of the game is to create a fun and enjoyable experience for players and other people involved.
2.) If various kinds of people play the game and different board positions arise, it is likely and should be expected that there will be situations where some but not all players want to continue playing.
3.) Players have the right to stop playing at any time and regardless of the reason.
4.) When players want to stop playing prematurely, they should not have to feel bad about it, or feel compelled to keep playing.
5.) How to proceed in the event that some but not all players wish to continue playing the game, should be well-defined.
As I see it, statements 2.) to 5.) are implications of 1.) As of now I donāt feel like all of these points are taken care of, and my proposing of a resignation mechanic was merely one suggestion. Furthermore Iām not proposing to change the rules of the ongoing game. This is only for future games.
1 Like
I cannot force anyone to continue playing, of course, and if someone decides to leave the game, I try to find a replacement. If a player wants to stop playing, but they do not want me to find a replacement, they could order standing orders. I think this is what Iāve said above, and could you clarify which specific points you feel are not being addressed?
While it is not fun for someone to feel compelled to continue playing in a game, it is also not fun for the other players to have opponents that quit in the middle of the game, and it is certainly inconvenient to the organizer to have to find replacement players. For games that I personally host in the future, I intend to recruit players that do make a solid effort to commit to the game. Of course, various life events do happen, and people may have to sometimes drop out (and that is understandable), but I donāt want to deal with players that are just involved on a whim, since in my opinion, itās quite disrespectful to the other players and host that are putting in a lot of time to participate.
Iām not sure how your mechanism proposal really addresses all of your numbered concerns as well. I think the main difference is that your resign mechanic irrevocably and publicly commits the player to passing in all remaining turns, whereas the current status quo (with the possibility of āstanding ordersā) allows for them to potentially return later.
Ultimately, I think the main strategic difference in your proposal is that it allows weak players to commit to elimination, making it easier to ensure that they have no further impact on the game.
1 Like
I did not mean to be disrespectful or make light of your effort. I am very thankful that you enable this game, and I want to reiterate that I enjoy it a lot.
I think that I understand your point of view better now. Perhaps I was thinking too much from the point of view of a game designer that creates a game for the masses. But if this variant is exclusively for those who are committed, that is of course fine as well.
1 Like
