markrendl wrote:
Hmmm, I hadn't really considered this a coded addition, just something players could refer to when the situation arose.
Certainly coding it would speed up play considerably. However, I'm not sure just automoving the lowest priority player would be a very fair result.
I guess ideally, if you were to code it, I think it would be better to generate an email to the player in question and give him a week to enter a move, then automove if he didn't do so.
I'm not a coder, so I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement. The game already sends email to players who've not turned in orders and in danger of automoving I believe, so maybe something similar could be done with that?
I think it would be challenging to code the evaluation of complex tailing loops which a human can pretty easily figure out at a glance. Thus, my thinking players would sort this out manually, assuming we get a consensus on the rule.
regards,
markrendl
So, the first option I have, which is the easiest, is to prevent the loop in the first place. This would check for a loop before you are offered the option to tail. (Is the player you could tail, tailing someone else; is that player tailing someone else... are they tailing you? If so, you are not allowed to tail.) This is not hard to check, but then the slower players to move are unfairly penalized on one hand, but do gain a very slight advantage in knowing they are being tailed and that others are tailing. I like your 'scoring' better.
The bigger question I have is, what to do about it when the loop is detected. Automove, just deny the tailing option, revert the low 'scoring' players move with an email notifying them, something else?
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
