[Home]Sparklies

ec2-3-94-129-211.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Advent calendar | Webcomic

Sparklies is a two-player abstract strategy game, designed by DouglasReay and AlexChurchill, with programming by AlexChurchill and Rachael Luckett. To play the game, click [here]. The rules in HTML, with pictures, may be seen [here].

Sparklies now supports play online! Using MoonShadow's ToothyChat server, you can play against someone else by selecting "Start new game" and "Play online", entering a game name that you've agreed, and having one of you choose to play black and the other to play white. The black player currently has to make their move before white sees the board, but from then on, you take turns precisely like you would at the same computer. Ticks-mode games work best online, as there currently isn't a "history" or "show my opponent's last move" function, but each move in ticks mode is small.

DouglasReay took it to WorldCon? on the 5th-8th August 2005. The WorldCon? version is [here]. Since then the game has received a graphical facelift, support for performing multiple pings in quick succession, and several new play modes including "ticks-mode" and online play.




Beginner's Guide to Sparklies



One player is black, the other player is white. You play on a 9x9 grid of squares.

Each square can be controlled by black, white, or nobody. They all start off controlled by nobody. When all the squares are controlled by somebody, the game ends, and the player controlling more squares wins.

Each square can be red, green, or blue. They start off randomly coloured. Red squares have power over greens, in a way that will be explained shortly; greens have power over blues; and blues have power over reds. Other than that, there's no difference between colours.

Players take turns. On your turn, you do three things, in this order.
1) You choose one square that nobody controls, and take control of it.
2) You choose one square that you control, and "activate" it.
3) You choose one "active" square you control, and "deactivate" it: what this means will be explained shortly. This might result in activating other squares.
After step 3), if there are any active squares left, you can go back to 3) and deactivate another one of them. You don't have to - you can choose to just end your turn, which deactivates all your squares without activating any others. But if you've activated squares in 3), you'll usually want to make use of those activations by having another step 3).
When you finish a step 3) with no active squares (or choose to end your turn), that's the end of your turn, and your opponent gets to do 1), 2) and 3) themself.

So, what's this "deactivation" that happens in step 3)? It's the way that you can create chain reactions. Basically, if a square is "active", you can choose to change its colour and make it no longer active. When you do this, you look at the four squares that touch this one, because there's a chance that by deactivating this one, you might "capture" one of them. ("Capture" will be explained in a moment.)
A neighbouring GREEN square can get captured if you've deactivated this square to RED, and the green square also touches another RED square you control.
A neighbouring BLUE square can get captured if you've deactivated this square to GREEN, and the green square also touches another GREEN square you control.
A neighbouring RED square can get captured if you've deactivated this square to BLUE, and the green square also touches another BLUE square you control.

In other words, turning this square red might let you capture neighbouring greens. Turning it green might let you capture neighbouring blues. And turning it blue might let you capture neighbouring reds. That's what the three little diagrams below the board represent: they're a reminder that "red captures green, green captures blue, blue captures red".

So what happens when you capture a square? Two things. You take control of it (if you didn't already control it), and you also "activate" it. This means that when you go into another step 3), the newly captured square will be active, and you'll be able to deactivate that one, changing its colour and potentially capturing more squares.


That's it. That's the whole game. Take turns to control, activate, and deactivate squares, hopefully setting up chain reactions so that when you deactivate a square you can activate others, which lets you take control of multiple squares in a turn. At the end of the game, if you've taken control of more squares than your opponent, you win!

There are a number of consequences of these simple rules. Some of them are explained in the [HTML rules with pictures], which you might like to look at to illustrate what you've just read.

'S good. --DR

Themed Rules



They still need some work, particularly if they're to actually explain the game. But a themed version of the rules follows:

The Kingdom is electing its first ever Prime Minister! You are the
leaders of rival parties competing to be elected when all the ignorant
townspeople have voted. Each town has one of three groups in power:
the church (red), the farmers (green) or the merchants (blue). When
they decide to support one player's party or the other, they will be
displayed with a border in that player's colour (black or white).

On each turn, first you may send campaign leaflets to a town which
doesn't yet support either party. They will convert to your side,
but the group in power in that town will not change.


Then you may personally visit a town that already supports you. You
only get to freely choose one visit per turn, and that has to be to a

town that already supports you; but if you play things right, the
surrounding towns may also ask for a visit from you, even if those
towns didn't support you until now!

When you pay a visit to a town, two things happen. First, you may
influence the town's council so that a different group is in power.
For example, if the merchants were in power in that town before, you
could choose to put the church in power, the farmers in power, or
leave the merchants in power.

Then the citizens tell the neighbouring towns of your visit. If the
neighbouring towns are influenced enough by the new governors of the
town you're in, they will immediately declare support for you and
invite you to visit them as well. If the town you are in has the
church (red) in power, they have influence over the peasant farmers
(green), so any neighbouring farmers town will decide to support you
and invite you for a visit, as long as another one of their neighbours
is also a church town supporting you. If you are in a merchant town
(blue), their bank accounts are persuasive to the churches (red), so
any adjacent church town which is also neighbours to another merchant
town which supports you will ask you to visit them. And if you are in
a farmer town (green), they supply goods to the merchants (blue), so
you will be asked to visit any adjacent merchant town which is also
neighbours to another farmer town supporting you.



If more than one town asks for a visit from you, they all declare
allegiance to you immediately, but you can chose which order you visit
them. After finishing any visit, you can choose from any remaining
towns which have requested a visit, no matter when this turn they made
the request. But you must make the visits this turn, and you can't
save them until you see what your opponent does.

Once you have no more visits pending, it's your opponent's turn. Turns
continue in this way, first sending campaign leaflets to one undecided
town, and then making one initial visit to a town that supports them,
followed by any requested visits by neighbours.

When every town has declared its allegiance to you or your opponent,
the votes are tallied. At that point, the player with the most towns
supporting him is elected as the first Prime Minister!


JavaScript ToDo


Online-related


I'd originally thought of this as being the javascript parsing the online channel not just for SPARKLIESElephant, but for SPARKLIESElephantGame? and SPARKLIESElephantChat?.  However, as a stopgap measure, just using an HTML frameset to have Serge's chat client visible has its appeal.--DR

2006-09-13  I believe we are currently pending on a bug which meant the elephant game  did not load right?  Do we have all the information needed to track this bug down, or are more test cases needed?  Is there anything I can do to help? --Pallando
As worked on today, we believe Elephant should be playable again :) --AC

Both on and off-line


	Alex	Douglas
T1 C a1
C c5
A a1
A a5
D - D -
------------------------
T2 C b2
C d6
A b2
A d6
D b2G
D c5R
D b1R
------------------------
T3 C d6
C b2
A d6
A b2
D c5R
D b2G
D b1R
Excellent idea. Rachael and I'll do that when we get a chance. Would have to give some thought as to whether this should be included in saved games. --AC
go for the simplest implemental thing first.  You can always add that later, if you make the format sufficiently self describing. --DR
Decided not to include history in savegames - rather, each history item is a savegame itself. Each item is a hyperlink to view the game state as at that move; savegame() should check whether historylist contains the current game when saving/sending it. Also make savegame() get called each step player B makes when player A has passed-to-end. On load, if game names don't match, blank history; otherwise, add the newly loaded game to the historylist (after checking for duplicates). "Step back"/"step forward" buttons, and perhaps a "play" mode that loads each history step in turn. --AC, 2007-06-30

Idea for another tab: the reverse of history.  Something that will let you take an online game board (or maybe one from a history or an observer mode?) and spawn off a solo game so you can play out "what if" questions.  Or, less elegant than a tab, a button that let's you produce a savegame string in offline format, so you could then load it in another browser window.


You might find [bitstream.js] useful for compressing your state. See the RouteWords source for usage. - MoonShadow

Rules document could use live hyperlinks to game states illustrating points--DR

Solitaire mode.  DR was impressed with the Xbox game HeXen?, with the way it gradually introduces game concepts.  But really a lot of games do it - set up a series of simplified challenges as a tutorial.  Each challenge requiring a slightly larger subset of the end skill set.  Chess and Go both have puzzle/practice formats (eg "White to mate in 3, how?", "Can you form an eye here in time?", "Corner a king with just a knight and bishop and king.", "use this smaller Go board").  With sparklies some base skills that would seem suitable for isolated practice are:
Find the pair suitable to form a quadrille on a board
Rotate a quadrille
Pick a point near a quadrille to enlarge it the most when rotated
Achieve a properly activated diamond/harlequin pattern in the fewest possible moves, from a random owned 4x4
Once we implement html links to particualar save game states, such a tutorial/puzzle page could be contstructed quite easily.



Feedback



Wow wow wow, online play works.  It lives!  I've got two web browsers open on the same computer, and they are happily updating each other every time I take a move.  I think there may be one or two instabilities, but I'll wait until I'm at a stable computing environment and can reproduce them before posting.  Fantastic job Alex and Rachael. (And praise to MoonShadow too for the server) --Pallando
Yay, glad you like it :) You're giving me undue credit though; I haven't touched the code for months, and all the recent developments to the game, particularly the ToothyGDL integration  for playing online, are solely Alex's. --Rachael

play-anim.html
Hmm.  You've gone from using 'large-shape' to indicate both activated status AND 'you can play here' status, to using 'walking-ants' to indicate activated status.  Obviously this is less ambiguous, and less ambiguity is a good thing in a user interface.  I have a couple of questions:
1. Is it possible to +also+ have a 'you can play here' status indicator?  Maybe as an button in option mode, that can be on by default and turns off by advanced if the player wants?
2. If so, which way around do you think would be best?  Large for 'you can play here' and walking ants for 'activated' or vice versa?  To me, I think I find a static presentation more restful on the eyes, and so wonder whether having large mean 'activated' and walking ants for 'you can play here' might be the more intuitive way around, --DR

Louise's comment - "no definite preference between the two user interfaces, but things the walking ants are a more obvious indicator"

WorldCon?


The sparklies have had a few games played so far, but mass computer have been unavailable, and no printer available to print out paper rules.  I think I may seek out a Glasgow cybercafe with a printer tomorrow, and get your new version onto floppy then too. --DR (general response positive so far)

DR supplies more con feedback:
We get quite a few people who see the board, look interested, look at the rule page, decide not to read it and turn away.  It needs an attention grabbing first paragraph that gives them a cue as to what sort of game it is, makes them think it will be fun to play it.

Comments


Add your comments here! In particular, comments on how clear (or otherwise) the [rules] are would be very much appreciated. What bits are hard to understand? How could they be made clearer?
Propogation phase makes no damn sense.  If I can't capture by choosing to change colour instead of deactivating, then tell me outright.  You've spent only as much space on the hard phase as you have on the 'choose a square' phase.  --Vitenka
Thanks for commenting! But, um... I've tried a few times to understand this comment, and I'm afraid I can't tell what the bits after the first sentence mean. Deactivating *is* when you choose to change colour or not. And you can capture then. In fact, that's the only time you can capture. What do you want to be spelled out clearer in your "tell me outright" sentence? And if you mean phase 3 by "the hard phase", there's four or five times as much explanatory text in phase 3 as there is the other two? I don't understand! We'd very happily try to reword it if you could have another go at telling us how you think it needs changing... --AC
Ah. Or it could be that if you were actually trying the game, it was failing to capture because of a horrendous bug I introduced last night while standardising to just one gridsize and ruleset. If that's the case, profuse apologies, and please try it again: I've fixed that. --AC
Ok, will try again later.  Maybe my comments will have some bearing then :)  --Vitenka

Titchy comment: The name "Sparklies" is quite cute, the themed rules make a reasonable amount of sense - but Sparklies is not a name that fits with the themed rules. --CH

Two small comments...  "Deactivating" a square doesn't sound like something which causes something else to happen.  I haven't been following the discussion but didn't you have a different word for this earlier?  Secondly, don't you need some indication on the board as to which squares are "active", or am I missing something? --K
On the term "deactivated", I agreed when DR suggested the term "deactivate" (it used to be part of the word "ping", which we were using in a mixture of two ways). But I couldn't think of anything better. "Process"? "Visit", borrowed from the themed rules? Neither seems quite right, but you do have a good point. The rules may be in for another reworking yet. As for an indication of which squares are active... well, the rules don't actually say this, but at any time the available squares to be clicked for the current phase are coloured brightly, while the others are coloured dimly. In phase 3 the only squares which will be valid selections will be those that are active, and so being brightly coloured when the game says "Choose a square to deactivate" is an indicator of being active. If the user has clicked a square and then wants to check which other squares are active, they can click the Back button to see. So it's pretty much equivalent to having an indicator of which squares are active... but not quite the same. Are you finding that you want one? I'm a little loath to clutter the display with anything else, but I have wondered myself whether an indicator of being "active" would help. Perhaps another border, inside the player's colour, that pulses softly or something. (It feels to me like the word "active" suggests some kind of animation... but maybe this is just me.) I'll see what my parents and brother think when we visit them this week... --AC
I think it probably just need mentioning in the rules.  I can't play it at the moment so I was just fiddling around and didn't see any obvious way of determining which were active.  If you put the bit about the colour being brighter in the rules then that would be fine --K
How about instead of "activate" and "deactivate", use "prime" and "activate". --GigaClon

Talking of advanced vs non-advanced players, I was reminded by [a slashdot story] that Go is one of the very few board games with a decent handicapping system.  This really would be something to get right in Sparklies, because I feel it has the same potential.  Options we considered were: Giving an extra captured piece, giving an extra activation, giving an extra deactivation phase.  My current thoughts are that an advantage should be something predictable, not disrupting game play through out, and not something someone could look at a later game position and think "They could only have reached this situation via a handicap bonus."  In other words, the game play a player learns through playing games with a more advanced player should be the same game playing skills they will need later to play properly.    As such, there is an appeal to anything that can be done once off in the first round.  However since there is only once possible activation in the first round, and most deactivations in the first 2 rounds don't get used, that seems a little limiting.  Do we have anyone willing to be a total newbie, who we could test advantages upon? --DR
Pieces near the edge seem weaker than pieces near the centre.  As such, I have two thoughts:
System A - let the weaker player start the game with additional controlled pieces in predefined positions (first the 4 corners, then the centre of the 4 edges)
System B - let the weaker player start the game with 1 additional controlled piece.  The greater the handicap, the nearer the centre of the Board they may play it.


DouglasReay writes: Excellent!  Is it intended that in a rectangle, if you tell it to do Blue->Red a green that isn't next to that red, but happened to be activated from earlier, will deactivate? 
Ummm... it's known, but not necessarily desired. What it actually does is ping /all/ active squares in the region to the right colour. I should probably make it only do those of the expected colour, though. --AC
Consider 3:9:2:4:1:201212221220010120200210000210213021202001011601535221600353101602535101600010122:3,  and as black select H4, then turn E7 to blue and start cycling from D4 to H8, starting with R->G.  Nasty on G4 isn't it?  You actually do better to make your initial rectangle D4 to F8.
Later on in the same game: 3:9:2:4:1:201212221220010520200210540610454551602545411601454521600545401602454501600010122:9  lets you take B2 then activate F4 and away you go...  very very pretty.


There do seem to be a couple of other loose anomalies.  I've had activated non-colour-due-to-turn-but-still-in-highlight-rectangle turn.  I've also had an owned square without two owned neighbours get active again. (But not repeatably.  Could a fast series of clicks have a different effect?) --DR
Hmm. It's hard for me to track this down without reproduction steps. (And could you clarify what you mean by your second sentence? I don't understand it.) It is possible that multiple quick clicks in a row might interfere: I'll ask on a different page. --AC
Ok, I think I've traced down something that might be similar.  Try the following:
Load 3:9:2:4:1:143420001054532087268683477286864352078675522276883312087663506286665506211260183:4
Turn off advanced mode if it is on
as Black, take control of F2
G3 -> Blue
Make note of the activation status of F2 (It should, correctly, be inactive)
Now reload the game, staying in simple mode
as Black, take control of F2
This time, select F2 again, as though you were going to change its colour
Hit back
G3 -> Blue
Make note of the activation status of F2
For me, the second time, F2 was activated.
30th June, 2007 - now fixed (AC & DR)

Other bugs fixed:
No longer sometimes get a blank square when doing "Rotate All" on a quadrille
Online tenticks play now works correctly when changing player (see /Elephant)

Variants


November, 2005 - I've just thought up a variant that might be quite fun to try with a physical board at GamesEvening (I've now got the glass pieces I ordered - Wheeee).

You use the standard rules, except that players take it in turns to deactivate pieces.
IE
1. Black controls a piece
2. White controls a piece
3. Black activates a piece
4. White activates a piece
5. Black deactivates a piece (changing its colour, controlling and activating where relevant)
6. White deactivates a piece
repeat steps 5 and 6 until condition X at which point start again at 1
or condition Y (board is full) in which case the game ends.

I thought of a couple of possibilities for condition X:
mutual agreement
AC - probably won't work
each player has deactivated 10 pieces (or the chance to do so)
DR and AC tried this one 2005-11-08
neither player has any activated pieces left
We allowed "Pass".  - cf Antony allowing Brutus to speak first
stalemate (same pattern reached three times after being warned on second time)

Took from 8:15 to 9:45 for 8 turns each under the 10 deactivations rule

I'm presuming that activated pieces stay activated through steps 1 and 2.
Definitely, really interesting dynamic, and in some sense simpler, (in same sense as allowing repeat pings)

I'm not sure if the order should always stay black then white.  Possibilities include:
Always black first
Alternate: black first then white first
The player with the fewest controlled squares first
I'm also not sure that it is always an advantage to go first, but think it likely on balance.
two activations in a row is VERY powerful (like chess variant where 2 moves in a row)

One could also make it always Black first, but give White 11 deactivations rather than 10.  Or indeed give black first control, but white first deactivation.

Thoughts, Alex?


2005-12-13 Pallando writes: Ok, we just played two variants on a 5x5 board.

Variant 1 "ten ticks" as above.
Variant 2 "white control, black control, black activate, white activate, black deactivate, white deactivate (repeat last two steps nine more times)" or, to use a short hand "Wc,Bc,Ba,Wa,(Bd,Wd)*10"

As I went out to the car, two things occurred to me.
a) we could have done "Bc,Ba,Bd,Wc,Wa,Wd,(Bd,Wd)*9"
b) if we let the first to deactivate have 11 deactivations, instead of then repeating the same colour being first to control, we could swap on alternate turns, thus getting: "Bc,Wc,Ba,Wa,(Bd,Wd)*10,Bd,Wc,Bc,Wa,Ba,(Wd,Bd)*10,Wd"

Further thoughts...

We could combine these to make a simpler statement of sequencing.  "Every X moves, the player whose go it is gets to control and activate a piece as well as deactivate one, followed by the other player doing the same, followed by another X plain deactivation moves, etc."  X for the above would be 21.

It would be interesting to try various values for X to see how it alters the character of the game.  Should X be varied with the size of the board?

Combinations to try:
  X=09 on a 05x05 board
  X=09 on a 09x09 board
  X=09 on a 15x15 board
  X=15 on a 05x05 board
  X=15 on a 09x09 board
  X=15 on a 15x15 board
  X=21 on a 05x05 board
  X=21 on a 09x09 board
  X=21 on a 15x15 board
  X=35 on a 05x05 board
  X=35 on a 09x09 board
  X=35 on a 15x15 board
obviously that's quite a lot.  Which sub-set of the above would tell us most?


2006-01-31 DouglasReay and AlexChurchill played a 9x9 BcWcBaWa? X=15 WcBcWaBa? X=15 then repeat
Game took 8:00 - 9:40 with 20 minute break.  Lasted 7 turns.
Thoughts Alex: liked board size, ruleset, control alternation, tail length promoted tension between agression and stability more obviously than X=21
Would like to try wrap around version (electronically, drag board to re-center)
Thoughts Douglas: still think board size too small to develop second base and get true granularity.
Ebb and Flow from alternation good - did NOT feel unfair.  Maybe tail length alter through game for larger size board.
Center area still more powerful than edges.
The version [here] now supports ticks-mode games, both even number of ticks (same first capture/activate/deactivate each turn) and odd number of ticks (alternating).

Interested parties are invited to play and bash it. I'm afraid there isn't any documentation yet, but ticks mode is in many ways simpler than normal mode, and you do have the guide below the board indicating precisely what will happen next. --AC


Trawling through AlexChurchill/GameDesign it looks like a hexagonal board (and possibly 3 players) might be worth a re-visit using the ten ticks rules, as the time limitation would counter the ease of propagation, while being more easily able to breach walls would add tension.  Certainly it would be nice if we formulated our rules in such a way that they would easily generalise to more than 2 players.--DR
An interesting possibility. I've been attempting to code things wherever possible not assuming that there are two players (so using a "playerafter()" function rather than "3-player", etc). Ticks mode might also make multiplayer on a square board more feasible. The only thing is, ticks mode does slow down the rate of advancement of the game somewhat. Suggestions for how to keep things moving at a reasonable pace gladly accepted. --AC
Worth trying out physically first, I'd suggest.  Anyone want to have a go at a 3 player tick mode game this Tuesday? I'd suggest a hexagon with side 5, and order of play: C1C2C3A1A2A3D1D2D3 8*{D1D2D3} D1D2D3D1 C2C3C1A2A3A1 etc.  --DR
2006-03-14 DR, AC and ET played a 3 player game, from 9:15 - 11:55  final result: AC 22, DR 21, ET 18.  This varied from the start where DR was attacked from both sides, fought back vs AC< leaving ET with free rein over half the board.  Thinking time varied from 5 seconds (for obvious good moves you had thought about in the other person's go) to several minutes (generally deciding which of two fronts to play in first.  Rarely more than 3 or 4 close contenders for "good move").  Observations:
DR - I liked the fluidity; while there were still safe areas, there was no longer the invulnerable 2 thick wall effect, which meant more of the board had a geographic effect upon areas of content.  More of the board was under contention. (And indeed, was contended)  I think there was 'thought in depth' (aka chess), rather than a bredth scan (eg scrabble or zatre)
AC - Enjoyed it.  Not sure if hex, 3 player, or both.  Brain stretching.  Had a fair amount of politics/diplomacy/backstabbing.  Several times players missed seeing what their opponent might do.  Seven ticks rather than 8 might work better.  6 or 9 would almost certainly be worse than either 7 or 8.
ET - Board size about right.
Worth noting: there was a definite 'end game' phase, when people were counting the number of uncontrolled hexes left, and calculating strictly on pieces taken rather than strategic position.  RULING: the game ends immediately a control counter is placed upon the last uncontrolled hex (whichever phase that happens in).

Also noted.  The advantage of moving first: C - mixed.  Sometimes you want to be first, sometimes last to capture.  A - always best to activate last.  D - pretty much always it is good to be first to deactivate, execept for the rare Mexican stand-off situation where two players both have a capture lined up on the same piece. --DR   

Thought of next possible variants to play: 2 player square wrap around, and 2 player hex.  I think a game on a larger board (eg 21x21) would also be a worthwhile exercise, to see how length of tick needs to vary through a game, but that is probably best done electronically, over a week.

2006-04-04  DR vs AC wraparound 9x9 9:30 - 10:30 c1c2a1a2d1d2*7/8
Thoughts - not as fun, less geographic significance, however does as anticipated negate center square advantage.  Worth noting first 3-4 turns (up to a 4 by 4 square) were formulaic with minimal interaction.  DR thought 7 ticks was too short.  Monoculture (large area the same colour with few or no activated pieces) is tempting and initially rewarding, but vulnerable to the counter attack.
Wrap around probably harder conceptually for people to play and spot moves and not worth it (at least physically).

2007-06-30  DR vs AC 7x7 tenticks.  This was a quick game, used for debugging purposes.  Not so much a rule variant as a strategy variant.  DR, rather than building up an initial block then trying to expand it, instead tried to gain squares while thwarting AC's intended blocks.  This didn't work, and the reason I think is the ebb and flow of advantage on alternate turns. A singleton white, next to an activated black and a neutral of the colour that will capture it, or next to a black that will capture it (even if deactivated), can always be taken when  white ebbs.  This characteristic of the game is not necessarily a bad thing. --DR


History



It occured to me (DR), while we still had memories of the original conversation, it would be worth recording how Sparklies came about.

In the Spring of 2005, I was applying to Cambridge University to do the PGCE course, for which I needed to do a five minute presentation.  Having designed and tried to sell a game (TopCat?), I decided to do my presentation on game design.  I proceeded to do some online research to provide URLs for the handout, and ended up reading three pieces:
sadly all neglect to mention the (perhaps most) important narrative dimension: only one mentions 'story' but misses the point, talking about the background story rather than the more important sense of narrative within play --ChiarkPerson

A few days later, I met Alex at a party, and tried to summarise the conclusions of these articles to him, as we regularly play games together:

We decided it would be interesting to consider what sort of game we'd come up with, if we tried designing from first principles a pure strategy game (no luck or hidden state; not much bluff, trading or diplomacy) that humans could beat computers at (lots of options like Go, lots of interaction like ConwaysLife) and that had a high ratio of time it is still rewarding to keep improving your skill to time taken to learn the rules.

SeeAlso: /StrategicDepth


CategoryGames


ec2-3-94-129-211.compute-1.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Advent calendar | Webcomic
Edit this page | View other revisions | Recently used referrers | List subpages
Last edited February 14, 2008 9:51 am (viewing revision 67, which is the newest) (diff)
Search: