En ranked, tu joues deux matchs, un coup en Position A et ton adversaires en B et la revanche (toi en B et l’autre en A). Il me semble que c’est de cette façon que l’“égalité parfaite” est gérée.
3 Likes
I’m glad you chose to apply my suggestion 
thank you !
1 Like
Une nouvelle règle :
Un nouveau type d’unité - les mines - peuvent être achetées pour 60 Pl et spawn uniquement sur une cellule sur laquelle on a au moins 1 POD. Tout mouvement depuis ou vers cette cellule déclenche la mine. La mine tue tout POD - allié ou adverse - se trouvant sur la case. Une fois enterrées, les mines sont invisibles (donc il faut avoir leurs positions en mémoire…). Les mines ne bougent pas.
Edit : Une autre possibilité serait que le coût des mines soit plus faible et/ou qu’elles tuent les POD des cellules voisines en explosant.
A new rule :
A new kind of unit - landmines - can be bought at a cost of 60 Pl and spawned only on cells with at least 1 allied POD. Any move made from or to this cell fires up the mine. The mine kills any POD - allied or ennemy - on the cell. Once burried, mines are invisible (thus, their positions need to be memorized). Mines can’t move.
Edit : Another possibility could be that mines are cheaper and/or they kill PODs on cells in the neighbourhood.
3 Likes
Super concept ! Mais il faudrait un prix moins cher ou qu’elle fasse péter les cases alentours ! 
I really like this one (selling pods for half the price – or any price really). It would make a lot of sense, and in PR 1 it would have meant huge rushes after a continent was won.
Also, what if we kept the maps from previous weeks (and bring back the two from PR 1, they were good!), and games were on maps at random? (keeping the mirror game of course).
I like the idea that an AI should be able to adapt to any terrain (instead of, you know, us tweaking them for each map).
6 Likes
One more rule to provide equal start for both players:
- Map is symmetric
- Platinum sources distribution is symmetric
- Pods starting locations are symmetric. That does not mean that my pods on one side of the map and enemy ones are on another. Instead one side of the map has 5 my and 5 enemy pods mixed randomly and another side just mirrors that.
4 Likes
Great idea. This would also allow 4-player matches, if each player starts with 10 pods in one zone.
One rule we were discussing in the chat : what if we brought back the possibility of creating drones in neutral grounds, but for a higher price (say, 2x the normal drone price).
Extrapolations around this simple rule would be :
- (as suggested by someone) that constructing drones on our own mines could be cheaper. that would involve some clever decision-making.
- maybe the price bump could be dependent on how “far” you are from your zones (but not very practical I think)
- a cooldown (dropped drones could’nt move for a full turn)
- and also dropping behind enemy lines for a super high price.
But I think simply bumping the price of neutral drop (or lowering the price of friendly drop, maybe) would be quite enough for a weekly rule. Also it would work great with some user maps.
It works well with the current input/output (except for the different prices that would have to be hardcoded I think).
1 Like
A lot of match has a result of 1/1, becuase there is often an inequality on the beginning.
I insist, I believe that symetric position, is the best to have result which respresent realy the rank.
2 Likes
Rule proposal:
Change format of the program output. Now it requires two lines: movement and purchasing. I suggest to add a requirement for terminating line - a single word “DONE”. For a week testing system should support both two line output and terminating output, later only terminating output is supported.
Having that command gives us flexibility in adding new rules which add new commands and change program output, for example selling pods, without breaking strategies which still do not support such new rules, so both outputs will work correctly:
“legacy” strategy:
4 2 1 3 2 6 //movement
2 32 1 11 //purchasing
DONE //no new command
strategy with new rule supported:
4 2 1 3 2 6 //movement
2 32 1 11 //purchasing
1 2 3 4 5 //some new command
DONE
1 Like
Fog of War:
You can’t see enemies beyond a specific number of zones.
1 Like
This ! 1 million time this!
Advance wars fan? 
What about a ‘network’ effect, where pods with more friendly neighbours are more productive. This would make the core of your territory more valuable.
This rule would change the potential value of locations both for capture and umm… liberation 
but would not require more commands (just better decisions).
Would probably work best with the other ideas about only being able to spread to your immediate neighbourhood.
but with the current mirror system, it is symmetrical : we both start with then without the advantage. that way a player that wins both games is “better”.
2 Likes
wouldn’t change anything in my (and most people, i think) case, unless the distance is 0 or 1 hex ;).
If you play two chess game one with a knigth less and another with a knight most, if the oponnent is very weak you win the 2 games but often you win one. It is better to have twwo games with equality. And with platinum it is possible when there is symetric position in the beginning ( not in chess because white and black is a little different ).
1 Like
I wouldn’t say it’s “better”. The nature of chess demands for perfect symetry (although the first move advantage is huge). Platinum is perfectly valid with an imbalanced gameworld. And in my opinion, more interesting. As a go player I can tell you that symetry doesn’t assure balance.
But I wouldn’t be against having one symetric map among a umber of maps. Also, as suggested in the chat, if the score took into account the swiftness of the victory, mirror matches would be more telling. I’ll explain. In a mirror match, there is a side with an advantage, but sometimes, one IA will take that advantage and win in 35 rounds, then in the mirror match the other IA needs 150 rounds to win, with the same advantage. I think in that case, the first IA is stronger, and I don’t think it is taken into account for the scores.
honestly, with only a symetric map, every match would be the same after two days, with the top 3 having exactly the same strategy, Then us in the top 20 all almost identical (already the games are quite the same), then maybe a hundred players with roughly the same, and so on and so forth…
3 Likes
Not only a symetric map : I think that it should be a random position but symetric. there are a lot of possibility ( more that one billion surely ).
Try the position given at the end, in the top 60 red always win.
I found it after two or three tries.
distribution=HIGHISH
platinum=120
seed=467229491
noEmptyIslands=false
startPlatinum=0
map=0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 9 0 10 0 11 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 9 1 10 1 11 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 5 2 9 2 10 2 11 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 5 3 7 3 8 3 10 3 11 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 6 4 7 4 9 4 11 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 4 5 6 5 9 5 11 6 0 6 1 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 7 6 8 6 10 7 0 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 7 7 9 8 0 8 1 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 8 8 9 9 1 9 3 9 4 9 8 10 2 10 4 10 5 10 9 11 2 11 6 11 7 11 9 12 3 12 7 12 8 12 10 13 2 13 3 13 5 13 6 13 7 13 8 13 10 13 11 14 2 14 4 14 6 14 7 14 8 14 11 15 1 15 3 15 4 15 6 15 7 15 8 15 10 15 11 16 0 16 2 16 5 16 7 16 9 16 10 16 11 17 0 17 2 17 4 17 5 17 9 17 10 17 11 18 0 18 1 18 3 18 4 18 6 18 9 18 10 18 11 19 0 19 1 19 2 19 6 19 8 19 9 19 10 19 11 20 0 20 1 20 2 20 7 20 8 20 9 20 10 20 11 21 0 21 1 21 2 21 7 21 8 21 9 21 10
startUnits=10
unitCost=20
1 Like