Optimal Weave
I played a trial run of a printed copy of Optimal Weave. It felt like it had a core of something workable, but needed polishing in order to be something I could pull others into playing with me and have them be satisfied by the experience. I should write up more thoughts on this.
Other Games
I’ve been thinking about other games which could be modified to be cohabitative.
It’s fascinating how an iterated prisoners’ dilemma naturally arises out of such patterns.
For example, Go. Play it as a cohabitative game by giving every player a persistent record of territory won. The game ends when both players pass consecutively. You can examine your territory-per-game score. Two players who manage to agree to split the board perfectly evenly, and play against each other often, will obtain a good ratio. But the temptation to defect will be there. If you believe yourself to be a stronger player than the other, this temptation gets stronger. Struggle burns territory (intersections covered by either player’s stones count for nobody, only empty points count for territory). Maybe you negotiate by telling the other player that you think you could win 60% of the board as territory, and if they believe you, then you both establish that boundary efficiently?
How about a similar iterated resource/territory score based diplomacy?
I think it would be really interesting to test AI on such games, over millions of iterations, and see which strategies did well.
Updated thoughts
Optimal Weave I played a trial run of a printed copy of Optimal Weave. It felt like it had a core of something workable, but needed polishing in order to be something I could pull others into playing with me and have them be satisfied by the experience. I should write up more thoughts on this.
Other Games I’ve been thinking about other games which could be modified to be cohabitative. It’s fascinating how an iterated prisoners’ dilemma naturally arises out of such patterns. For example, Go. Play it as a cohabitative game by giving every player a persistent record of territory won. The game ends when both players pass consecutively. You can examine your territory-per-game score. Two players who manage to agree to split the board perfectly evenly, and play against each other often, will obtain a good ratio. But the temptation to defect will be there. If you believe yourself to be a stronger player than the other, this temptation gets stronger. Struggle burns territory (intersections covered by either player’s stones count for nobody, only empty points count for territory). Maybe you negotiate by telling the other player that you think you could win 60% of the board as territory, and if they believe you, then you both establish that boundary efficiently?
How about a similar iterated resource/territory score based diplomacy?
I think it would be really interesting to test AI on such games, over millions of iterations, and see which strategies did well.