Show HN: Influence, a Go-inspired 1-minute board game
cintrest.com
cintrest.com
1. It's difficult for me to tell which spaces are open for play and which aren't -- the border is hard to parse. (Is that this cell's border, or the adjacent cell?) This isn't really an issue during placement, but it is an issue for signalling that a cell has been "captured," which is hard for me to tell.
2. Hexagon grid is absolutely the right call. :)
3. The influence mechanic is very opaque: it's very hard for me to predict what will happen next, which makes me feel like I'm playing a little "intuitively," instead of planning out my moves with intention. Some way to see "this is the current state and this will be the next state" would help with that, but I think as long as influence is a continuous quantity it's going to be difficult to visualize and predict.
4. Making the board itself hexagonal (ala Hexxagon) will give you an odd number of cells, preventing ties. Might also be nice to smooth out cell-strength discontinuities around the top and bottom edges.
5. Balancing the first-player advantage by making the first move a "weak stone" was very confusing to me, because an adjacent move by player two will "capture" my initial stone with a single stone of theirs. I didn't understand this until I saw your comment about it here. I think the pie rule would work well in this game, but it's hard for me to reason about since edge moves are offensively weaker but defensively stronger... I'm not sure how well it would shake out, if you haven't tried it already.
1. I can try experimenting with the border thickness. Selectable tiles would have a light gray border, instead of the dark green/blue border.
3. I'm planning to add a way to view the 'next state' in the next version of the game. But still trying to figure out a good way to visualize the 'influence' of each tile, besides the color.
4. Yes, also will try out the hexagonal board shape. And give players more options for the board size too. I think it's the right size for smaller screens like a mobile phone, but desktop users might want to play with more tiles.
5. Thanks for suggesting the pie rule. I looked into it, but think it'll be too confusing, especially for 1st time players. The 'weak stone' would be easier to understand for new players - perhaps except for those with a Go background :)
I think the current weak stone is already very confusing, judging by my experience and some other comments, but I have not done any real playtesting.
But I would argue that first time players shouldn't play with the pie rule: they should just get the first-player advantage. It's a nice way to handicap the AI while the player learns the rules -- by the time someone knows the game well enough to play the balanced version, they have to learn a new rule. Just like new Go players start with extra stones on the board -- the game is the most fun when the two players are equally balanced, not necessarily on equal footing.
I think there's an implementation that makes it pretty intuitive: the first stone played doesn't get a border (or a more clear visual indicator that it's not capturable :). So the second player can choose to capture it, or to play elsewhere. If they play elsewhere, the first stone then becomes "locked." I think that's clearer than like switching colors or something.
The strategy for first-move play seems easier to grok than the strategy for a 55% weak stone, but I have to caveat that with: I play Hex, so it's familiar to me.
I agree that a 55% weak stone is not ideal, but it seems to be the easiest way to balance the game for now. Having the 1st stone become "locked" if it doesn't get captured, would also be surprising for new players.
I also did think about just letting players enjoy the 1st-player advantage, but on hard AI, green wins 43-7. That was what made me think of a way to balance the game in the 1st place.
The rules are extremely simple and well defined, and yet the result is a very abstract game.
Interestingly, there is a concept called influence in go. And it is fun to learn what influence is, and how to use it. You could spend years and still have much to learn about influence in go, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the rules.
I think some beginners could benefit from see the more complex nature of Go, by letting them focus on large scale matters, and ignore the tactics of battle. The way to do this would be to let the player choose which general region of the board they want to play in, but have their stone snap to the locally best intersection as their cursor moves across the board. (The snapping, I suppose, could vary in distance depending on how much stronger the strongest move is. A very strong/important move could snap from across a quarter of the board, but if it's a less important move they'd effectively have to hover on one of its neighbours for it to be suggested.)
So effectively the player would get unassisted practise at spotting which groups of stones are weak, and where influence needs to be strengthened, but simultaneously have AI assist in dealing with local battles and making life.
I suspect this would make Go play more like a traditional RTS video game: at lower levels, the player bosses over more general goals, and individual units make local decisions on when to shoot and how to move places through a primitive AI. At higher levels, the human player takes over more of the local decision making in improving their "micro".
Though, personally I'm not sure how far one could get and staying true to the spirit, or the deliciousness of go, namely the interweaving quality of different ever-status-changing groups and also considering that stones have somewhat global effects (ladder). Perhaps the AI could also make helpful annotations to player why the move was important. Or suggest that this and that group should be strengthened. Or if player makes a move that first selects a region, then give some options to choose from.
I love abstract aspects of go (e.g. reading attack and defence, direction of play) but often situations involve local context that are too interesting to ignore, and thus tesujis. It would definitely would be fun to see how a game like you are suggesting would feel like.
One thing I really liked about go is that learning from a book, or trying out puzzles, is much easier than for example in Chess due to much less destructive change in the board.
(I'm ranked online perhaps 3-5 kyu, so take my take with a grain of salt).
Wrt. teaching absolute beginners, here's a nice but not that experimentally-minded blog post by a European player that became professional in Japan: https://www.nordicgodojo.eu/post/9/how-should-we-teach-go-to...
First, I understand you were trying to make an approachable presentation, but the rules as you presented them are incomplete (how does influence work? what is a "threshold"?), and I think for a board game that's a big mistake. What makes games like those cool is that rules work deterministically, even for games that involve randomness. Having to guess the rules is something I actively dislike.
Second, have you considered a square board instead of an hexagonal one? Using Go terminology, it feels like the groups have too many liberties.
Other than that, the game is pretty good. I feel it captures the attack/defense territory-based gameplay of Go perfectly.
Have you tried to measure the first move advantage?
edit: Wow this thing is a drug. Hard AI is deceptively good, I managed to tie a game 25-25 after several attempts, but you definitely can't afford to be sloppy if you want to stay afloat!
1. My original thinking was to keep the game simple for casual players. But now I see that there are many who want to get into more depth :) Will work on it to make the rules of the game clearer and give an option for more visual indicators.
For now, here are some explanations (which might beg more questions):
influence - at the end of each turn, the average color of a tile's neighbors is calculated, and the tile gets 30% of that color (retaining 70% of its original color)
threshold - once a tile gets 50% of the way to max-blue or max-green, it gets a dark border and is not selectable. 0% is white.
2. I originally thought about square tiles, but then it would be more complicated to figure out the 'influence' on diagonally adjacent tiles. Hex tiles eliminates that issue.
3. There is a strong 1st mover advantage in this game. To compensate, the 1st green tile is actually at 55% color. I tried to balance the game so that hard AIs on both colors would roughly capture equal number of tiles.
Glad you're enjoying the game!
A few notes.
1. I won twice 30-20 against Easy blue AI and tied against Medium blue by playing goish tactics (start at 3-4 from corners, knights moves, keep blue hexes separate.)
2. The UI lets me move before the colors on the board fully update. Maybe it's my phone that's slow, maybe it's an async implementation.
3. The game is quite fast because there seems to be little to think about. Of course I played only three games, if I played 100 of them I might start to notice patterns and foresee them even if I might still be unable to read the exact values. Even more so after 100 games.
4. Hexes are OK.
5. The overall first impression is good with that undeterministic feeling which in my case is also a bit too much unsatisfactory.
I tried that too at first but didn't do very well against the hard AI. (Easy seems pretty random and easy to beat with anything). It took me a while to realize you need to throw out Go and find the tactics inherent to this game. I've found success counting adjacent colors and making moves so that I maximize the opponent's exposure to my color. The other thing to think about is what stuff you will automatically capture without needing a move. Some moves are completely unnecessary.
Ah, so there's a temporal aspect! That makes it very different from go and any other board game I know.
I guess it only works on a computer, since everything is changing every turn, and not just the local area of your last stone.
I wonder if humans are able to grog it, or it becomes too complex to predict anything. Very cool!
The rules are simple but it takes awhile to master. What is your best score against the Hard AI? I got 27 (me on green) – 23 (AI).
Would you want to see some sort of match-making to play against others online?
See demo gameplay or view the source code at https://github.com/jawslouis/Influence-Game
Side note: I’m working on a game that has some similarities that might interest you: https://simondorfman.com/volcanoes1
Checked out your site too. Looks interesting!
I'd like to be able to see the score and the layout to analyze the game.
Really nice job, though! Fun concept.
Uncertainty regarding piece state is also my number one feedback. Maybe rather than numeric, make that states visibly discrete in some other way?
Fun and interesting game - this has a lot of potential! Great mechanic, I would pay for an iOS app in the future.
* first stone is weak, it’s ok to play it near a corner so their response is not in a strong place
* Y-shape to kill and gain territory is much stronger than playing opposite to pincer
* Always be growing passively
* If you are growing passively faster than the opponent, start a fight. If you are not, don’t.
And 29-21 as blue. Fun game!
* Visually show which tiles will lock or unlock next turn
* Show a total influence growth per player as a running score - useful to help beginners learn strategies
It seems to require some fairly fast movement, but I did accidentally trigger it a few times when I was trying to play for real.
I've tested on Firefox 89 and Chrome 91.
Thanks for posting it!
Echoing/jumping off of a few comments:
- I love the hex grid. Hexagons are bestagons and I bemoan the fact we went decimal and dozenal.
- I actually don't mind the intuitive play style that much. It's kinda fun and mitigates overthinking
- however, more obvious visual indication when a cell is locked would be nice
- It might be interesting to see a more quantitative indicator of the influence of a cell. The shade alone is hard to parse. However I disagree with numbers (or maybe make it a setting toggle). I'd personally prefer a purely visual/geometric.
- One way to possibly indicate would be coloring sub-shapes inside the hexagon. Not sure if that would look too busy.
- This game is super addicting. Nice work all around!
I also recognize the need to better see the 'influence' level of a cell, especially for players who want to get better at the game. Maybe scaling the size of the colored hexagon in each tile would work. So the colored hex would grow with 'influence', and once it reaches the border it would become locked
1) Somehow I can actually play and enjoy it. I'm usually really bad at these sorts of games (Go, Viking Chess, etc.). But I find I win a good portion of medium games while not getting frustrated.
2) All animations need to be decoupled from the gameplay entirely. Don't remove them, but they have no place in the order of move execution. I can't actually play how fast I want to play because I still have to wait _a while_ for a previous animation to "finish".
3) If I quickly move my mouse cursor around and happen to move off the board (moving my mouse while thinking), it will actually select a random piece near the border without any click event ever happening.
All in all nice, but seeing how fast paced this game is (for me at least), it needs some major work to make it play snappy and predictable.
I could also add an option in the settings to disable animations, for those who like to play fast.
The game was first invented by Piet Hein in 1942 and was independently reinvented in 1949 by John Nash while a graduate student at Princeton University.
There is a recent book on Hex by Ryan B. Hayward and Bjarne Toft, published by CRC Press [4].
Before someone asks, I didn't read Martin Gardner's column in 1957, but I was old enough to read it in 1963 as a child. I became fascinated with Mathematical Recreations monthly columns that year, and at the library I eventually read every one of the Mathematical Recreations columns he wrote for the magazine (over 300).
[1] Martin Gardner. Mathematical Games—Concerning the game of Hex, which may be played on the tiles of the bathroom floor. Scientific American, 197:145–150, 1957
[2] https://maarup.net/thomas/hex/
[3] Thomas Maarup (2005 Thesis) https://maarup.net/thomas/hex/hex3.pdf
[4] https://www.routledge.com/Hex-The-Full-Story/Hayward-Toft/p/...
I also agree with your decision to not use numerical indicators. It would definitely make things too complex and the graphical representation you have is pretty elegant as-is. Optional if at all.
But looks like there's demand for more indicators for the game's state. Will need to think more about how to have indicators without cluttering the visuals.
For people in this thread, if you're into abstract game design in the hex/table space, Nick Bentley creates some games I find very interesting, though haven't played. Bought some generic tiles once, hoping to eventually try out Circle of Life:
https://www.nickbentley.games/circle-of-life-an-ecosystem-si...
His "best" list:
My code is also up on Github. Feel free to directly take anything you like should you keep working on it! And if you ever want to brainstorm, you know how to find me.
Still trying to figure out the best way to show that information.
very nice game, will pass it around to fellow-go players
Seems like blue is at a big disadvantage even with green's first stone being weak. I've only found one path to victory: play adjacent-towards-the-edge to green's first stone in the middle, and green will do what seems to be a bad move (a diagonal pincer even further into the edge). From there just capture green's first stone and things start to be more do-able.
I personally like the AGPLv3 for web-based projects, but any explicit license so people know where they stand would be beneficial.
It’d be cool if you could sort of similarly visualize your influence on a real goban.
on first play throughs (on easy then medium AI), i thought that a lot of concepts transferred over and that i just had to consider that influence increases over time even if nothing else is played there later. the game seemed pretty easy.
then i tried hard and got stuck for a few games. i could be wrong about this, but i think the game might be easier as the second player? ive been able to win as blue on hard, but not green yet. i suspect theres something im not understanding about how the influence works, since this seems counter intuitive to me otherwise.
in any case, cool game :)
Create a "private" board, send the link to a friend and the game is on.
The AI is hard enough, took a few games until I managed to beat it.
Additional idea, make some variety of maps for fun.
Observation: Undo (twice) seems to break the game. After blue places color, green does not get the turn.