The Third Go Battle Royale

Forum Games
1

I’ve decided to start a new thread for a third Go battle Royale. Welcome to join!
https://multicapturego.antontobi.com/?size=15
Players: (Colors will be decided afterwards)
@CharlieVInnie
@NeilAgg
@shinuito
@ArsenLapin1
@martin3141
@Maharani

The rules are the same as the Second one (because I haven’t got any better ideas, welcome to share).

Rules:

  1. The board will be 15x15.
  2. We can have up to 7 players.
  3. Only players may post on this thread.
  4. People may start a kibitz thread if they like, but then none of the players are allowed to read or participate on that thread.
  5. All game communication must be public in this thread.
  6. Once it is a player’s turn, they need to make a move in 48 hours unless they previously notify the players that they will need more time due to life happening (travel, work overload, etc). If they do not, they will be eliminated or replaced.
  7. I am pretty sure there is going to be a flurry of negotiation before the first move as players deal with their starting positions. We will allow extra time before the first move to give people a chance to establish themselves.
  8. Players will randomly be assigned a color and play order.
  9. At the start of the game, each player will have 3 stones randomly placed on the board. No stone will be on the first line and no two stones will be adjacent.
  10. Players will be eliminated by the new rules.
  11. Last player standing wins.
  12. Passing is not allowed.
  13. There is no ko rule.

New rules:

  1. Players start with zero points.
  2. When a group is captured, all players with at least one stone which bordered the captured group get one point and the player who’s group was captured loses one point.
  3. Players can gain points for 3 times at most in a game, whether they lose them or not.
  4. A player is eliminated when their point balance is negative OR when they have no stones left on the board.

As a courtesy to the other players, when you make a move, please put these items in your post:

  1. The move you are making
  2. A screenshot of the board after your move
  3. A link (preferably from the image of the screen shot) to the board in play
  4. A reminder to the next player letting them know it is their move.

A few notes on the style of play:

  1. I encourage people to role play as a maniacal king hell-bent on conquering territory.
  2. This is a game, it is not real life. People can (and probably will) make empty promises and do things against others. That is acceptable in the game and not to be taken as anything more than just game play.
  3. Collusion is allowed, which may end up being unfair to one or more players. If you are on the receiving end of that, don’t take it personally.
  4. This is supposed to be fun. Let’s keep it that way.
6 Likes
2

I will play.

It might be helpful to post the ruleset you will be using and ask people to state if they would like to play.

Also, you needed to post this to the Forum Games category. Maybe one of the mods can move it for you.

3 Likes
3

It seems that someone has done that :slight_smile:

1 Like
4

Sure I’ll play

1 Like
5

I’ll play.

The most “original” rule from the second game was rule 9: “At the start of the game, each player will have 3 stones randomly placed on the board. No stone will be on the first line and no two stones will be adjacent.”

1 Like
6

May I join? :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
7

I’ll sit out this round, since I already have a lot on my plate, but I’m happy to see another instance about to start.

I would recommend reconsidering the initial placement rule. Maybe three stones felt like a bit too much. How about two, with a guarantee that the stones are in opposite quadrants?

Another rule to consider is changing the elimination criteria to being the capture of X stones (where X is greater than one).

2 Likes
8

I’m in :slight_smile:

2 Likes
9

Why does it seem that I can’t edit it anymore :frowning:
Now the players are:
@CharlieVInnie
@NeilAgg
@shinuito
@ArsenLapin1
@martin3141
@Maharani

2 Likes
10

I will consider that ( how do others think about this? )
How about 3 stones being captured?

11

That would be a completely different game! I’d rather play with just one stone captured being eliminatory.

1 Like
12

I think that counters the random start so I disagree with it.

13

I like trying new stuff, but either way is fine with me :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
14

We had some discussions of new stuff in the other thread, such as randomizing the order within a turn and allowing someone to remove or change the colors of captured stones. I thought those would be interesting to try.

1 Like
15

I also didn’t play the last game, so happy to try whatever you all wish.

1 Like
16

I think I’ll take a look at those rules and choose some appropriate ones.

17

How about this? Every time a group is captured, every player which helped in capturing the group gains a point. Players lose one point when their group is captured, and are eliminated if there’s no points left. Every player can gain at most 3 points in a game.
I think this will encourage players to cooperate and attack.

18

Does that mean that losing a group of two connected stones costs one point, but losing two groups of one stone costs two points?
If I have two stones forming a tobi which get surrounded and are about to get captured, I should sacrifice a third stone to connect them so that they become only one group?

1 Like
19

Also, I’d be a lot more enthusiastic about trying weird rules on a small board, than on a 15x15 game with seven players which might last for months.

20

I am going to expand on this a little bit, please let me know if any of my assumptions are wrong:

  1. Players start with zero points.
  2. When a group is captured, all players with at least one stone which bordered the captured group get one point and the player who’s group was captured loses one point.
  3. A player is eliminated when their point balance is negative OR when they have no stones left on the board.
  4. Players can have a max of 3 points at any given time.

It seems there might be a situation where a player suicides and gives points to other players, but that is OK.

This could be interesting. I think we should try it. Maybe put it to a vote.