[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Vox Populi Chess variant. A crowd plays itself at a game with only one winner.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rich Hutnik wrote on 2011-05-16 UTCAs has been noted, this format has gone through revisions. In the most recent form, which is for Connect Four (Captain's Mistress), it goes under the name 'Massive Multiplayer ________' and you stick the name of the abstract strategy game in there. Some other tweaks also have been done: * In play, there isn't scoring, just trying to be on the winning side. * When it is your team's turn to vote on a move, you vote. * When it isn't your team's turn, you can choose to defect to the other team. There is an options to limit the number of times you can defect, with the current preferred number of defections to be one. * If all players defect from one team, they all lose, and the game is over. * Run digitally, it would be idea to keep players anonymous, so no one knows who is whose team, or even the number of players on their team. As an added note, this format could be used in scientific research to study loyalty and defection patterns among team members, and you add or remove elements from the environment to see how it impacts the loyalty of players in the game. Rich Hutnik wrote on 2008-09-26 UTCThanks for the reply here. Pretty much, this is an earlier set of rules. It lays out the framework for it. It has gone through multiple revisions since it first was posted. I will say that one would be expected to play multiple games, to determine a real winner. A second way to do this is to have it so that you want to be on the winning side at the end of the game. You can defect late, and still remain. People on losing side get knocked out of the game. Eventually you get down to two people. I have done an analog version (boardgame) using another game besides chess, and it worked. Being on the winning side the longest can remain a tiebreaker though. What you do want this to test is the ability for people to judge the state of the game, their team, and be able recommend competent moves. It is something that is also mean to add intrigue to any game pretty much, as spectators watching the crowd will wonder how the crowd will function. It is also a way to have kibitzing done as an actual game. And this is ideally suited for a game like chess and Go (abstract strategy game, perfect information, no luck). As more play happens, more tweaks can be made. Consider this a germ of an idea with some development behind it. I do see you have a concern with people being punished for defecting. I believe it shouldn't be rewarded or punished, just rewarding the best judgment. One could end up awarding a higher score to the player who started on the losing side. But, I don't see where the idea is to 'come back'. It is meant you decide to jump ship before it is too late, as it is going down. Jythier wrote on 2008-09-26 UTCIs there any way to 'come back' to win if you start on the losing team, spot the other team is winning due to not voting on your move and doing something to substantially damage your position, and switch teams, over someone who was on the other side who always votes for a bonehead move but gets outvoted every time? As far as I can tell, the winner is whoever stays on the winning team the longest - making staying on a team the longest the primary way to win, and the atctual winning a 'hope for the best' kind of thing. Rich Hutnik wrote on 2008-07-31 UTCCharles, thanks for the comment. The idea was to try to get abstract strategy games in a format that would work for gameshows. One could also have the whole Vox concept work as a suggestion for two players in battles with one another, and he Vox game being a side game an audience can play. We do need to get this implemented, and played. It is, of course for 3 or more players. No sure how you could sanely do two. I do have ideas for a 3-5 player specific version that I should be able to try. I will likely use a simple game like Hex or Gomoku, as the base game to see how well the voting works. Charles Gilman wrote on 2008-07-30 UTCGood ★★★★A game for any number of players, and all in constant interaction with each other, but using just the one board and set of pieces. This makes quite a contrast with tournaments, in which each player has to concentrate on their immediate opponent. 5 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.