| Author |
Message |
Danny Van den Berghe (Dadragon)
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 12:40 am: | |
A very interesting function that would open up a whole class of new games is 'simultaneous moves'
The most classic example is the "paper-rock-scissors" game.
Many other interesting games are possible which require both players to move at the same time instead of turn based.
Or is there is the way to force simultaneous moves in Z-o-G as it is now?
Simultaneous moves makes for more strategic variations and adds an element of uncertainty (what will the opponent do?).
It is more realistic since in real life we also act simultaneously.
No idea how the game AI would deal with it, however...
But it would be great to have it , if just for being able to play "paper-rock-scissors" on my computer |
Andreas Kaufmann (Andreas)
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:25 am: | |
It should be possible to implement "paper-rock-scissors" for Zillions already now.
The order of moves will be:
1) Zillions makes a move, but don't show it, e.g. places piece "InvisiblePaper" with completely transparent image to certain position.
2) Human player makes a move.
3) Zillions move is revealed, e.g. "InvisiblePaper " piece is replaced with "Paper" piece, which already has a correct image. |
Derek Nalls (Omegaman)
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:58 pm: | |
A consideration of the theoretics of simultaneous-move games has already taken place which should make interesting reading:
"Chess Variants"
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/chessvariants
See messages 1666-1696.
When I recommended a non-standard W-B-B-W turn-order to minimize the first-move-of-the-game advantage (for white), L. Lynn Smith went further by recommending simultaneous moves to perfectly, totally eliminate the first-move-of-the-game advantage for any player.
Subsequently, he advanced many practical ideas and devised logical rules for handling every possible conflict he (and others who challenged his notions) could think of. Although I found his theories intriguing and well-reasoned, they crossed a demarcation line with me since one of my primary game-design principles is that I am opposed to allowing the rules for any game to become cumbersome (highly-complicated) for the players (which would be unavoidably necessary to prevent chaos under simultaneous moves). I remain content with turn-based games following a W-B-B-W turn-order to this day.
L. Lynn Smith has probably learned even more about implementing and managing simultaneous-move games since that discussion of appr. one year ago. Ask him! |
L. Lynn Smith (Interrupt27)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 8:53 am: | |
Check out the Outfox implementation for a simple rock-paper-scissors application.
I've also been tinkering with coding to allow two players to actually play a simultaneous game. It involves dummy pieces being selected on a field to the side of the game.
This will probably be demonstrated in a simultaneous FIDE Chess game. I just need to find a few free days to pound it out on the 'puter. |
|