Arimaa Forum - Print Page


    
      
        Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> How about a Mob vs itself format?
        
(Message started by: docreason on Mar 15^th, 2010, 8:54pm)

Title: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by docreason on Mar 15^th, 2010, 8:54pm

I have been wanting to get this format implemented and tried out, to see how well it goes. Mob vs itself (Vox Populi or Massive Multiplayer) consists of the following:
* Take a crowd (mob) and divide it up into two teams.
* When it is your team's turn to make a move, you vote on what your team would do as a move. You use some tiebreaker to resolve the move.
* When it isn't your turn, you have the option to defect to the other team (and get to vote the next turn that team votes).
* Game ends when one side wins, or everyone on one side defected (all those who defected at that time would lose the game).

The object is to be on the winning side when done. I am not sure what you do exactly to handle scoring, but ideas would be welcomed.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by Fritzlein on Mar 15^th, 2010, 9:23pm

Can you switch teams multiple times, and if so, is there a permanent memory of which team you started on?

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by RonWeasley on Mar 16^th, 2010, 5:14am

Defecting doesn't seem to work if that means you automatically lose. But a mob v mob game could be fun.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by Arimabuff on Mar 16^th, 2010, 5:21am

First of all, if a defector is considered losing I don't see why anybody would ever defect unless there is some kind of timely defection. Plus if you can defect anytime, I don't see a strong incentive to win, it's more like a game of throwing a grenade hoping it'll blow in someone else’s hand. Plus the debates of one team can't be kept secret from the other team. Plus other problems that I haven't thought of yet.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by Eltripas on Mar 16^th, 2010, 5:24am

I like this, without the defecting.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by Adanac on Mar 16^th, 2010, 6:33am

We could have 4 Mobs with World League rosters which would allow for a 2-round World League Mob Championship. It would build comraderie amongst the teams and maybe add to the rivalries in the live competitions.

I don't know if it's just my imagination, but it seems that the Arimaa community has been growing very rapidly over the past 6 months. Maybe we could hope for a 2011 World League Mob contest with at least 10 members on each team?

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by docreason on Mar 16^th, 2010, 7:40am

on 03/16/10 at 05:24:54, Eltripas wrote:

I like this, without the defecting.

Feel free to implement it however you want to do it (fixed mob is fine). The defection is in there for every man for himself/herself. In a case like the Internet, having defection allows people to jump ship if they are on a losing side, and don't know the players.

The idea of losing instantly means you are on the losing side. You don't lose by just defecting, but by being on the losing side at the end of the game. What happens when only a few people are left on a side, they have to struggle with whether to defect or not, because if they all defect, they lose (all admit their side is lost or will lose). The defection element should add an element that makes a game interesting to watch. This was a goal I had in mind for it, because I would like something that would get games to be able to be televised and people watch.

As I played around with this, I happened to see that Mob with defection would be useful for scientific research. You could study loyalty and defection patterns, and see how they work when you introduce different elements into the game.

By the way, if you want fixed teams, here is an idea for it: You have team captains that either make the final decision or tiebreaker. Players can vote the current captain out and then someone else take over.

The other method suggested is team play with voting and determining what move to make. A version that might help people learn the game is to have fixed team captains (and sides) and team members that help kibitz and consult with the captain.

I do suggest people play around with this. I am just proposing it as an idea. The format can be applied to just about any pure abstract strategy game, like Arimaa, and Chess, and also games that more simple games like Connect Four.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by docreason on Mar 16^th, 2010, 7:49am

on 03/16/10 at 05:21:45, Arimabuff wrote:

Several things here:
* You can only defect when it isn't your turn. And defection alone isn't a loss. If everyone defected on a side at once, then it is like a resigning (no one left) and all the defectors lose.
* As for the incentive to win, I would be in favor of allowing people ONE chance to defect during the game. You do feel a need to offer the best move for your team, because you do want to play to win the game. The next point would be a possible reason why.
* I would set this up as an Internet game you play in, where you have no idea who is on your team. We could likely let players know the size of the game, but not know who is on your team. There is no debate, because you don't know who your teammates are. You just propose the best move. The game resolves what was the most popular move by your team (vote upon). It is a game you jump in and play on the side, for entertainment purposes, that would possibly generate interest in the game by people watching.

Ok, another idea here is to look to have fixed teams, but divide the spectators up into two teams they are with that they would follow. The spectators have an option once per a game to defect to the other side (or it doesn't have it restricted), and you can show how many spectators are on a given side. If you were to, say, have 100 spectators involved, you end up having something that resembles the percentage numbers they show when they televise poker and backgammon. Have the defection happen as normal here.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by docreason on Mar 16^th, 2010, 7:50am

on 03/15/10 at 21:23:31, Fritzlein wrote:

Can you switch teams multiple times, and if so, is there a permanent memory of which team you started on?

One can have that, if it helps. I am also thinking it would be interesting to track that.

-----------------------
Also, in regards to what I have written and seeing discussion, how about fixed teams, but allow each team to allow ONE person to defect sometime during the match? This person can't suddenly then defect back and use up the other team's defection as a game mechanic. The would need to be a timing mechanism to handle when they defect. Or you could say there would be ONE point in the game where one or more people could choose to defect, and then that is it for the team.

This doesn't quite fit in what I wrote above, but I did want to not write another post.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by RonWeasley on Mar 16^th, 2010, 9:41am

Hard to tell if docreason sees such games happening interactively or by owl like our current Mob game. If it's an owl game, I would (because I could) participate.

The defection idea might have it's entertainment value, but I worry it could produce drama like reality TV where people are voted off the island or stage. If I think there's the potential of people getting offended, however entertaining that is to the public, I would decline to participate.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by docreason on Mar 16^th, 2010, 9:57am

on 03/16/10 at 09:41:30, RonWeasley wrote:

Is an owl game where you just watched? What I have done is list a variety of permutations. The form I initially proposed would involve people playing independently, for themselves. They would vote on the move for who they are left, and could change sides if you feel your side was going to loose.

I wouldn't have voting anyone off, and when you play, the only thing you know is what team you are on, and possibly the number of players on your team. I want to remove politics from the game played over the Internet, to just have players do raw inputting into what to do as a move, but allow them to switch sides later, when they think their side is going to lose the game. Players wouldn't communicate with each other at all, so they can't conspire.

I believe if a game has enough players, then someone making a dumb move to sabotage things wouldn't take an effect.

The main thing about this is that you run it on the side somewhere, as something to follow casually. I would say a game like Arimaa might be a bit more tricky to do this. I would say that you would likely vote on each step, then the other side would make a move and do the same. Or even vote on what piece to move as a step, and then the move where.

So, you run this on the side as something in passing, that people could just jump in and play for the heck of it. Think of it as an experiment in group dynamics, using Arimaa as a game to try it out with.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by Victorwss on Mar 16^th, 2010, 6:03pm

One different idea: Choose 16 players to both sides, give each person a piece and put all people of each team in their private forum. If a piece is killed, the corresponding player is out of the game and cannot access the forum anymore.

Title: Re: How about a Mob vs itself format?
Post by docreason on Mar 20^th, 2010, 10:46am

on 03/16/10 at 18:03:43, Victorwss wrote:

Ok, that would add an interesting political angle I wasn't thinking of with this. It might be interesting. I think it would be good to have the basic format working first, and then go from there. So, is there a chance to have prolonged play stats, where a person starts as a rabbit and works their way up the chain?