Oh no, it’s already taken! Ok I’ll get yellow, so that I can be faithful to the second part of my name at least.
3 Likes
I didn’t see the start of the discussion and then I was asleep 
I probably will be very busy for the next couple of weeks. Might not be able to commit to long discussions and a (Sensible/coordinated) move a day.
I would like to be part of the kibitz if there’s a kibitz thread 
2 Likes
I’m a bit concerned that it feels like we’re rushing into the next game without having solved the incentive problem. A game on a 13x13 board (or even larger as the votes are looking right now) will take a really long time (maybe 3-6 months?), and we can’t change the rules midgame, so it’s really important to get it right before we start.
Personally I still feel that having a profitable way to drop out is the best solution so far, but I’m not saying that I think my solution is perfect yet. I would like us to continue discussing alternatives, and I hope we will have a good solution in a week, but if we don’t then we shouldn’t start the game prematurely.
Waiting a week extra or so to make sure to get the rules right is definitely worth it for a game that could take half a year, and lead to many unhappy players if we get it wrong.
6 Likes
For some people being awarded virtual points may not be a strong incentive, as has been pointed out. In contrast some people may care a lot about the points (and maybe even try to maximize their expected points). So I think it highly depends on how every individual player perceives these objectives.
I’m okay with trying any of the options in the poll, although some of them seem a bit complicated. Whichever system we go with, I will try to mostly stick to the guidelines, but I’m taking the liberty to potentially play moves contrary to the incentives if I believe that it’s beneficial in a diplomatic way.
2 Likes
You’re right that we should solve the incentive problem before the game starts, but what I fear, is that the incentive problem will not be solved in a week, but also not in two weeks, nor in five. It will be a discussion with many opinions thrown around, eventually dying out because nobody could find a consensus. Maybe we could run a few quick simulations of each of the proposals (set up a board position, ask people what they would play if they were a given colour), see how it would work out, fixing problems along the way?
I also believe that the incentives should mostly be fixed if the board is large enough (so that most people have an easier time living) and if there is competition for second place.
I will close the polls tomorrow, so that we could discuss the finer details.
3 Likes
While incentives are very important, it is also vital that we decide upon a game pace. I think some of us don’t want the game to go slowly, but too fast will also cause problems with players missing turns.
Everyone should express and confirm what time settings work for them. I think this game will take at least 3-6 months, so we should keep that in mind.
Another possible timing mechanic is to allow people to indicate that they are “Ready” to proceed, which would immediately end a round earlier (in practice, as soon as the arbiter can notice and process it) if everyone indicates that they are ready. This essentially gives more time to the next round. If this is combined with 48 hour rounds, then the ready mechanic could even shift the deadline of the next round sooner by 24 hours, if the previous round is cut short to under 24 hours.
4 Likes
I’m assuming that it’s a worse problem if the game is too fast, than if the game is too slow. The worst benefit of going too slow is that players will drop out, but in these cases we could try to substitute players. People missing their turn because the pace is too fast is more detrimental to the game itself.
5 Likes
In the poll I selected all options featuring 24h / move, but this is only my preference. 48h / move would also work for me.
Edit: If we decide on a 48h / move schedule I would suggest that we slightly modify it such that the deadline occurs at the same times each week, for example the periods for one move could be
Monday + Tuesday
Wednesday + Thursday
Friday + Saturday + Sunday
i.e. 3 moves per week. Then some kind of rhythm can be established and it’s not different every two weeks.
3 Likes
Yeah, I think stuff like this is exactly what we need.
I hope you’re right, but I’m not very convinced given the direction the planning is going now.
Remember that in the first game, if maximizing score was the goal, we would have ended with 2 groups on the board (you and me).
Now imagine 8 players on a 13x13 (or even 17x17 board). You need 8 eyes to be guaranteed immortal (and some eyes which would be real normally will be false). Of course, probably not everyone will turn against you at once, probably only the players next to your group are interested in capturing it. But let’s assume someone only manages to make three eyes or so, and their three neighbors capture them. First of all, they are going to see the attack coming in advance, and will already be less motivated to play (like Martin seemed to be in the first game, once it was clear that he wouldn’t get three eyes). Secondly, once they’re captured, they might have an extremely small chance of making another living group, so then we will have a player without clear goal in the game. They will probably be happy to help in capturing any other players group, that sounds fun and could also be the best chance they have to make life, to make more space on the board.
Thus once players start being captured, more and more will be captured as well. I wouldn’t expect more than 4 players to survive on the 13x13 board. (note that when someone is captured, that doesn’t mean that they’re eliminated. It’s very hard to eliminate a player completely. Thus we will likely have many player with stray stones on the board, willing to keep killing, even towards the end of the game)
I think it’s important to 1. Make sure that “mostly eliminated” players still have something to play for and 2. Provide an incentive to drop out to limit the number of such players.
The counterargument to a dropout mechanic seems to be that people don’t believe that an imaginary reward is more motivating than staying and affecting the game. I don’t have a problem with the situation where someone wants to stay and affect the game. The problematic situation is where someone has lost hope in the game, isn’t really that interested in playing anymore, but is playing on just because it feels like the right thing to do.
In such a situation, where the player might not actually care much either way whether to continue playing or not, a dropout mechanic would allow them to make a rational decision on when to drop out for the best reward, instead of arbitrarily resigning at some point, just because they don’t feel like affecting the game anymore.
3 Likes
Idk what ones are taken out of like 3 of them so here is my order:
(I know 2/3 taken and 6-9 taken)
Could I have 5>1>4
Edit: didn’t know it shows at the top.
Can I have 5 please
2 Likes
I don’t know if you (anyone) can solve the incentive problem or force people to play by some rules that tell them which incentives they should prioritise.
Realistically speaking, if someone disagrees with playing a certain way (say the rules say you need to prioritise points even at the risk of losing your whole group) and the rules say you must play this way, I think players are likely to just drop out.
When people disagree with rules sometimes they make their own house rules or stop playing that game in future, usually in favour of another game.
In ordinary Go, some people find it fun to try to minimise the difference in score when they know they’ve lost, others would just prefer to resign. Similarly some opponents don’t mind playing out won games, others hate the tediousness of it (not that I agree, can always be endgame swings).
On the other hand it does make sense to agree on a certain set of rules now and make sure people know what they’re signing up to. I personally would want to start the game soonish while there’s as much enthusiasm with the sign ups as there is now, in case it wears off in a week or so
4 Likes
I’m well aware that there is not “one perfect solution”, and I’m also well aware that we can’t (and shouldn’t) force anyone to play in a certain way 
If people lose enthusiasm after a week, they probably shouldn’t sign up for a game that lasts half a year 
(that said, I also think we can start pretty soon. I just want to be ready when we do)
2 Likes
Interesting that no one selected black. Some other games have very different color popularity statistics
8 Likes
I’d like to bring some Madeleine and other mignardises
3 Likes
Thanks for the vocabulary expansion~
Apparently mignardise (small dessert) derives in French from mignard (delicate), from mignon, which seems to be the same word used as “tender” in filet mignon.
So mignardise is the counterpart of amuse-bouche, a small appetiser.
Lime the best.
It could just be that we always have black and white in normal go and people want a change
3 Likes
To be fair there’s a difference between losing enthusiasm during a game and losing enthusiasm because the start of the game is delayed.
3 Likes
I have closed the polls in the top post, and made the following summary:
As for player incentives / goals, the earning of points and the elimination / resignation of players: from discussion here it seems an alternative option has become the most popular, namely the “last player standing” goal of the game. Players will be eliminated if they do not have enough stones on the board in a given round.
Is there anybody who is particularly against these decisions? If so, please let it be heard now, or stay silent eternally.
7 Likes
I find evenly-sized boards less appealing, and would prefer 13x13 > 15x15 > 14x14.
Also I really think we should keep the board smaller, especially with the longer time controls proposed. I’m already a bit on the fence on whether I should really commit to this long of a game… did the players who voted for sizes larger than 13x13 really think about how big of a difference that will make?
2 Likes