I just realized I did state passing in my original statement. That is not what I meant. I was trying to say no passing but captures do not eliminate a player. But, now I realize that would counter the random start.
I have also wondered if randomizing the play order for each set of turns might be interesting.
1 Like
It’s true that turn order has a strong impact on what kind of alliances are possible. However, I fear that randomising the turn order every round will make the game a lot more random. Not just a little more random, but really a lot more random.
1 Like
The player who gets the opportunity to make the capturing move might not always be the one(s) who inherently deserve the most credit for the capture.
This could also create a strong disincentive for ever putting a large group into atari, since then the next player would reap the benefits.
2 Likes
I am not so sure it will have that large an impact. There are only a few times when it could be used for an advantage.
Another possible change is to remove all stones for a player once any of their stones are killed. It seems that would have a much larger impact on the game, maybe an interesting one.
1 Like
I think the self-balancing, king-of-the-hill effect does have its limits, and the number of players involved certainly plays a factor. Another huge factor is the incentive / preference structure for the players involved, i.e., whether the are playing to maximize their probability of winning (with little concern about how they place otherwise), or whether they are playing to maximizing their relative finishing position.
In games of Diplomacy (with a winner-takes-all objective), I’ve observed that the self-balancing effect is most powerful when there are only three players remaining. It becomes quite hard for anyone to win (in Diplomacy, controlling a strict majority of the territory is necessary, as opposed to just a plurality) when there are only three (or even four) players left, unless one has already secured a decisive advantage and momentum before the reduction in players has occurred.
However, in the chaos of 5 or more players left, winning seems a bit easier, since it is harder for everyone to focus on stopping the leader, when they have potential infighting occurring. Further, if the objective is maximizing position (instead of a complete focus on winning probability), there can often be little incentive to stop the leader, when efforts to do so might only worsen one’s own position.
With large number of players in the game, you might see stratification of positions:
- Players in strong positions that have the best shot of winning outright.
- Players in moderate positions that have the potential to move into a strong position.
- Players in weak positions that have little realistic shot of winning, but could potentially improve from being eliminated first.
This inherently creates a diversity of objectives. The moderate players want desperately to displace the strong players, but the weak players might gain little personal advantage in seeing a moderate player swap places with a strong player. In fact, the strong players have a good strategy in offering to help the weak players survive longer in exchange for keeping the moderate players in check…
2 Likes
And if you can’t pass? Someone will eventually end up in atari 
I don’t think it should matter who deserves “credit” in a variant called “Battle Royale” It sounds more like it should be “who dares wins” style of play
1 Like
So, then it seems we need to eliminate players more quickly than what happened in the current game. Maybe doing 4 random starting stones or guaranteeing more distribution (along the lines of your suggestion) will help that.
I like the idea of risk and reward, but there is no risk in eliminating a group with one liberty. If a group has two liberties, the first player to take one of those away is taking a risk but the second player is not. It seems in this game there is a disconnect between risk and reward.
1 Like
I was mainly thinking about how it would pathologically affect the possibility of mid-game captures. A player with a large clump of eyeless stones could be made temporarily safe, simply because they are “too big to threaten”.
Actually, envisioning a game where the only atari comes in the endgame (when one is forced to due to the no pass rule and running out of space), highlights an even greater pathology. The game would be decided simply by who happens to play next, after the weakest player is force to self-atari.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you mean.
If the capture limit it 10, and you’re trying to capture a 2 stone group, then you can safely put those two stones in atari. Sure someone could steal the two points, but they’d have a single stone right beside presumably a much stronger group.
If it’s single capture elimination then it’s a much bigger risk to steal a capture (unless you’re close to winning) than it is to put something in atari, tempting someone else to steal it.
However there could be situations where you get away with such a steal, if recapturing the sniping stone could lead to elimination also.
1 Like
Basically, I think the winning strategy would not be to control the most territory, but to try to make sure that the player that goes before you controls the least territory.
1 Like
So take into account the possible variant:
- Standard no pass capture go - lose a single stone or group and you’re eliminated.
- Win by a capture limit, first to X captures wins. The player playing the capturing move gains the stones/points for the capture.
Isn’t this precisely what was happening anyway? In the other capture go variants with no passing, this always the case if the game lasts long enough.
What was happening in this game for example?
Seems a bit weird to start calling it a pathology only now.
I’m sure that’s particularly easy to achieve with N players right?
Just make sure that you only attack the person that goes the turn before you (guaranteed win)
This would be reminiscent of Hen Fox Viper:
Not quite. In a regular multi-player, no pass, capture Go game, the end game would mostly come down to who controls the most territory (and is forced to self-atari last) rather than who just happens to follow the player with the least amount of territory (and if forced to self-atari first). With two players, the distinction is not important, but with much more than two, it makes a difference, as the latter might seem to arbitrarily award the winner (i.e., capturing an objective quite different than controlling more territory).
Of course, as players are eventually forced to be eliminated, that frees up space (if they choose to eliminate with self-atari as opposed to a suicidal throw-in elsewhere). However, how the freed up space is divided up depends on who has the most influence over that space. Each capture only eliminates that player, and the game continues to determine who’s the next to be captured.
However, with the rules that you are proposing, at the point that the weakest player has to self-atari their main group (assuming that’s bigger than X), the very next player to play can immediately end the game with a win. Of course, that player could try to spite their follower by throwing in suicidal stones elsewhere.
Imagine a four-player end game, where White and Black has monopolized most of the board, while Red and Blue each relegated to only a small corner (e.g., Blue in the top-left and Red in the top-right). Suppose Red is slightly smaller and thus has to self-atari first, but then Blue just happens to be the next player to play.
I don’t mean to say that it could not be an interesting and complex variant in its own right, but rather that it quite distinctly distorts the strategic objectives of the game. Rather than focusing on controlling the most territory, one should focus on another particular player controlling the least territory, but even then that does not guarantee victory since that other player could spite you by suiciding a single stone elsewhere instead of self-atari-ing their biggest group.
1 Like
If X > 1 there is the possibility that all players are eliminated before achieving the winning condition.
There is is also the question: Are suicide moves allowed, and if so, who is awarded the capture in this case?
As usual everything is a question of personal preference.
Why do you think anybody failed spectacularly? In a seven player free-for-all brawl, one person doesn’t have much influence on their own. It is necessary to rely on other players support. For example mafidufa was eliminated first due to being attacked by two players. Does that mean that mafidufa played bad? If you ask me, no it doesn’t.
If you mean we (as in all players) failed to create an exciting game, I respectfully disagree. There were many exciting moments.
2 Likes
I don’t remember saying that mafidufa played badly, no, and I don’t understand how you conclude that from what I said. If I recall correctly, mafidufa’s only mistake was not noticing the danger when sokoslav removed one liberty from a pink stone - or rather, believing sokoslav’s explanation that his move was not meant as a threat.
Yes. It’s a 7-player game. Two players, Red and Blue, got a huge advantage by having only one or two groups on the side or corner, as opposed to having three separate groups in the center. Gold also got only one group, but it was fully in the center with no access to the sides or corner. So, that leaves 5 players who should notice Red and Blue’s advantage and compensate for it. But we didn’t. Instead, Pink and Gold fought against Orange and Cerulean, while Green played the most non-threatening moves possible. This resulted in Pink and Cerulean being eliminated, and Orange, Green and Gold barely surviving with small groups, while Red and Blue consolidated their territories.
This outcome was entirely predictable from the start, yet we didn’t do anything to stop it.
I call this a collective failure of the five of us. Maybe just the four of us, as Pink got eliminated before they really got a chance to do anything.
My struggle against Pink and Gold was certainly exciting for me, and it resulted in my elimination. But it barely had any bearing at all on the final result of the game.
Why was that a mistake, in your opinion? Because pink left itself vulnerable?
If you consider that a mistake, how exactly do you envision multiple players cooperating against certain advantaged players to compensate? Do you believe it is possible without leaving yourself vulnerable in some way?
Do you really believe so? I strongly disagree.
Well, if you mean that it affected the result of the game because there was the question of how much of the Cerulean corner you would get, and how much of the Gold center Red would get, which could be decisive in deciding who of Red or Blue would win, then yes, our fight did have an effect. But what I mean is that it had no effect in upsetting the “either Red or Blue will win” status quo. If anything, it kept Gold and Cerulean busy and made sure we did not attack Red nor Blue.
1 Like