On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2009, comex wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> We played this a couple years ago and it was fun. Anyone interested >>> enough for me to do a more complete contest description (tighten the >>> Agoran-legal language of the below and fiddle to find good values for >>> M,P,T, etc)? >> >> Also, what about allowing teamwork, i.e. if a square is surrounded by >> 3 squares belonging to me, ehird, and Wobble, but Wobble and I were >> allied, the square would turn one of our colors rather than gray? > > One option is random in that case so three-way alliances worth 1/3; problem > is its non-deterministic (official result won't match practice gui result > and will have to be hard-coded each time). > > Second option is rotating priority (arbitrary list order maintained; any > time there's a three-way situation, highest on the list gets it and drops > to bottom of list; three-way interactions processed in sequence on board. > Deterministic but probably highly unpredictable anyway. > > Other systems worth considering? > > -G. > > > >
I think a simple system is the best for something like this, as it will be happening perhaps multiple times during round. The random sounds the best because even per tick it could end up happening multiple times. In the priority queue which of the 3 places where i'm meeting up with two other players is the first to be resolved?
