Send your feedback or ask for help here!
The game was accepted despite negative pending comments on the random game generation.
@Oli8, I’d like to know what is your stance on future updates of the game: should we consider that the game will remain as-is, or do you intend to change game mechanics in the future ?
Context for those who don’t know the game: a full-fledged MCTS with MCTS-solver loses 10% of its games against a 5-liner heuristic. I made comments to try and reduce the one-sidedeness of some random starting positions.
I do intend to improve the game in the futur.
For the random distribution problem, I’m thinking about balancing the 4*4 center square first.
I will also add a win/lose message at the end of the game, fix the “replay in same conditions” problem and other stuffs
Anyway, I’ll be listening to comments, also if anyone want to contribute feel free to message me
and/or make a pull request on the github repository.
If the 200 turn limit is reached, the winner is the player with the most pawns left on the board. We can see it now with the #1 and #2 markers on the Last battles window
I noticed that the bottom row often belonged entirely to a single player, seemingly too often to be just by chance.
Looking at the referee, the grid is filled from top to bottom, so as soon as one player has half the cells, all the remaining ones have to be given to the other player. This explains the lack of randomness in the last row.
I submitted a pull request to fix this. I took the occasion to use the game seed as well, so “Replay in same conditions” should become functional too if this is applied.
Thanks, I will look it up
Better randomness for pawn position and “replay in same conditions” functionnal.
Thanks to dbdr !