The rules are simple. 1) You post a piece, and the next person places it. State columns used, orientation, and, when not obvious, how you got the piece there.(e.g. IRS Clockwise, DAS right, rotate clockwise) 2) you must avoid the last 4 pieces in the history 3) the history starts at SZSZ. 4) you may not start with a S,Z, or O. 5) If the last 9 pieces have not been an I, you must give yourself an I, place it reasonably, and then hand a piece to the next player. There is no hold, and no preview. ARS. TAP style. Initial rotation system. And, to make it interesting... This game is 20G. If the piece placement is not possible in 20G, it is not allowed! This is why you have to explain non obvious placements. There are no floorkicks, and no I kicks. Just like TAP. Be glad lock delay is infinite. Do you best to make pieces as difficult to place as possible, and when placing pieces do your best to place them well. Don't try to throw the game. I'll start. I
Code: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |I | |I | |I | |I | ___________________ Z
It might be best to have everyone agree on the rules before rushing in and starting. For the benefit of people who weren't there at the time, this is an idea that Zaphod and I were playing around with in #arika. Zaphod was calling out a sequence of pieces, one at a time, and I had to place them, assuming 20G. Obviously, I didn't have the benefit of a preview, and I was trying as much as possible to play the first placement I could think of, so as to simulate some sort of time restriction. (For the curious among you, here is what I ended up with: MASSIVE LINK. It starts with garbage in the well because I was initially trying to give Zaphod an example of something else, and it later evolved into our little game.) I think this could work quite nicely if we have an independent adjudicator giving out the piece sequence, one piece per day. Anybody that wanted to participate could make a post, and update it each day with a link to an updated fumen sequence. We could run the thing for perhaps, say, 2 months (60 pieces), then at the end we would need some way of scoring each participant's sequence. For scoring, a penalty point system might work, perhaps penalizing complicated moves or messy play: for example, if a move requires the use of a double-tap without a lock reset, 10 penalty points are awarded; if a hole is created in one of the central 2 columns, 5 penalty points are awarded, and so on. We'd have to agree on a good system, but I think this might work out as a lot of fun for all the forum regulars. Edit: Right now I'm hoping no one noticed the deliberate mistake in my sequence...
and yes i think this wold make a great LJ gimmick for stack training. worst fit, but obey the randomizer restrictions.
I have some comments about the rules... long post coming. Small nitpick: in TAP, the Z is removed from the history first, not the S. Code: |I | |I | |I OO | |I OO | +==========+ History: OISZ Next: T Food for thought: We need to have a rule about not being able to play until a few others have.
Sort of, excep that it obeys the rule of other randomisers. so if we had "evil bag" then it would use the worst fit algo, but otherwise obey the rules of the bag. (hand out the seven before repeating, but try to hand out the worst of the avilable ones). and evil ARS would NEVER repeat history, and would never go for 10 pieces without an I, but would otherwise try and hand out the worst piece. The idea is it only gives out piece sequences that are theoretically possible in the original game it was based off of. and if you can deal with the really nasty but possible sequences it hands out, you will learn to stack better. The I restriction i put in was chosen out of a hat to keep people from getting starved for Is for the entire game, which is theoretically possible under the arika randomizer (but very unlikely). This whole thing started because he was giving me stacking advice for TAP, and i commented that i disagreed with his O placement, because the stack was less stable in my opinion with it there, and a z could be placed more cleanly if the O was where I would put it instead. and he said to keep handing out pieces and he'd place them. and so away it went. and i decided i'd be fair and not do stuff the arcade wouldn't. It was pretty easy to mentally do the history avoid, as it was right there in the window. but i starved him for 12 without an I before finally giving in, and almost that many for the second I. I managed to be pretty evil without being able to keep up with where exactly he was placing them. If I had the field in front of me, i could have been even more evil, waiting until he blocked the tetris hole before handing out the I. so, yeah. here we go. the history actually started ZSZS, not SZSZ. so it's SIOT with the T waiting to be placed.
Nice thought, but each person needs to get their own hand picked worst piece depending on how they placed the previous ones. if every player got the same piece sequence, then someone can come up with a way to stack it cleanly.
The unreasonable drought rule is a nice idea, but I would apply it to all pieces, as opposed to just the I. I would also increase maximum allowed distance. A distance of more than 10 (I, 9 other pieces, I) has a 9.8% chance of happening. distance of 12 (I, 11, I) is 4.6% When you are placing a piece, it's realistic that you would know the next piece as well. However, I can see why you dropped this, as you are trying to encourage difficult piece sequences. It would also take a lot more bookkeeping, and heavy bookkeeping is bad for forum games. Forcing to avoid the history makes the sequences very slightly easier than TAP, I think. The chance for it to resort to history is 0.6%, so you would expect something like 1 history repeat every 2 sections. Again, I don't think that this can be represented without heavy bookkeeping, so disallowing history repeats is a good idea. As for the piece placement, I think that TAP-ARS 20G is a suitable choice. However, I think that you should also disallow placement that require exact timing. jago has a page in his webspace explaining the various possible moves, and of these, the blocked synchro should be allowed as its a very consistent technique once you've practiced it, but the others (just frame, fling, and wallkick) shouldn't be allowed as they are only consistently possible in a TAS.
that's why all "worst fit" things turn off the history. you can't figure out a worst fit 6 pieces in advance. you can't even figure out a worst fit 1 piece in advance. All such "evil randomizer" options would have to have 0 previews. Implemented by computer, it's easy to apply the drought rule to all the pieces. However as a forum game, i only applied it to the I, because it's the piece everyone cares about, and is the one most likely to be starved, to set up things for a minimal amount of bookkeeping.
i believe "fling" synchro is too diffiuclt to perform reliably, but "just frame" is definitely possible with practice. "wall kick" is simply another type of "just frame" where the rotation involves a wallkick. But perhaps a limit on the number of allowed synchros other than "blocked" is needed.
My god... It's the Super Rotation System, with Infinity! RUUUNNN! Lol. Anways, is this topic a game, or a place for discussion?
Code: |I | |I | |IJ T OO | |IJJJTTTOO | +==========+ history: JTOI Next: S </bluntreturntotopic> [edit: fixed piece]
