Ruinatio Go

FirstFifty · #1

Hello L19,

I’m working on a go-themed video game: just a fun little time waster. I would like you to, please try it out and share your thoughts: good, bad, or indifferent. You can play it in your browser if you’re on windows or Mac.

I have placed the game on Kongregate.com (an advertisement-funded site) where you can play it for free; no need to register.

http://www.kongregate.com/games/FirstFifty/ruination-go

The game is built using the UNITY game-engine. Depending on your browser, you might be prompted for permission to install a plug-in the first time you play it. (It’s a pretty quick and painless process. Please Google “unity web player” to allay any concerns you might have about the plug-in.) You also might need to enable Javascript

A puzzle starts with a number of white stones on a board. You must capture them all by placing black stones on the board. (White makes no further moves. All puzzles are solvable.) The no-suicide rule forces you to take some care about the order in which you place your stones. Hey, how hard could it be, right?

This is part of a larger project-probably best to gauge the level of interest first.

oren · #2

Smaller pictures, please.

EdLee · #3

Hi FirstFifty, Happy to beta test it, but rather not have to install a plug-in:

Twitchy Go · #4

Review hidden to avoid biasing anyone.

FirstFifty · #5

Thank you, Twitchy Go. That kind of feedback is very helpful.

And thank you, EdLee. The plug-in is going to be a deal-breaker for some people. I think it is actually better security-wise, than if I asked you to download and run an executable (which is an option). The plug-in can be installed directly from UNITY, a large, reputable company, while the code I’ve written gets segregated in a sandbox where it can’t access your files. Google Chrome has the plug-in built-in, so somebody using a current version of it shouldn’t need to install anything.

Amelia · #6

Toge · #7

Why did you make this game? What is it that you want to tell us?

It reminds me of the time when I was young and trying out a game-making program. I would add a new feature to the game as soon as I learned about it with no thought if it would actually make sense, and no plan how to game would look like in the end.

Your game is just that. First there's some go-elements. Then there's that simultaneous Pong-pad just because. Explosions and floating, spinning text whenever a small particle touches the Pong-pad, saying Good. Now you're asking feedback, are you serious?

illluck · #8

Toge wrote:

Why did you make this game? What is it that you want to tell us?

It reminds me of the time when I was young and trying out a game-making program. I would add a new feature to the game as soon as I learned about it with no thought if it would actually make sense, and no plan how to game would look like in the end.

Your game is just that. First there's some go-elements. Then there's that simultaneous Pong-pad just because. Explosions and floating, spinning text whenever a small particle touches the Pong-pad, saying Good. Now you're asking feedback, are you serious?

I think this is uncalled for. We have someone taking the time to make a Go-related game and you giving an extremely disparaging response. I have not played the game (on ipad mini) and some points you raised could very well be valuable feedback. However, I think the OP deserves a more friendly response.

FirstFifty · #9

I appreciate people testing my game and/or taking the trouble to post here. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t take exception to anything I’ve read, nor necessarily disagree with it. (Well, there’s this cool thing about the ball and paddle…but this is not the time.)

I’m persuaded that, at best, my game is badly tuned. The backgrounds are too busy, the effects need to be dialed back, and the time pressure doesn’t kick in when it should. But, at least now I know what direction to move. So, I’ve made a couple of quick adjustments; the backgrounds will have to wait till I have more time. It will now take a little longer to generate some puzzles. (I’m not asking anybody to test it twice.) I just tried it in hard mode and got hung up around level 7.

It’s never a good sign if someone has to ask “what were you even trying to do here?” Please note that I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence. Briefly: I was first introduced to go as an AI challenge. (I’m a middle-aged engineer.) I came to believe that the basic rules of go were similar in complexity and feel to the mechanics of games like Tetris, Minesweeper, and the like. These games, when done just right, are very popular. I am targeting that category of game.

Toge · **#10**

illluck wrote:

I think this is uncalled for. We have someone taking the time to make a Go-related game and you giving an extremely disparaging response. I have not played the game (on ipad mini) and some points you raised could very well be valuable feedback. However, I think the OP deserves a more friendly response.

- Sorry, I'm not a yes-man. I speak my mind and my impression of the game was that it's hilariously pointless. I like my games to make sense and I don't particularly fancy all the bells and whistles that are possible for the engine. That is my honest opinion.

I'm interested in design too. I like the quote by Antoine de Saint Exupéry: "perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away". It's crucial for games to have borders, so they don't become sprawling brain farts. Once the borders are established, it becomes a quest for problem solving. Come up with a good solution and you have a good game.

Problem is like follows: The game is too easy. Solutions: add timer, add pong-pad. Sure you could add endless number of artificial difficulties, but adding things is the disease that makes the game bad. A very good game will provide intuitive reasons for all of its elements. Exploding bomb doesn't demand explanation, but exploding go stones do. When no explanation is provided it will seem like the developer just discovered the explosion effect and decided to use it. This problem is self-caused and can be solved quite simply by removing the explosion effect.

jts · **#11**

FirstFifty wrote:

I appreciate people testing my game and/or taking the trouble to post here. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t take exception to anything I’ve read, nor necessarily disagree with it. (Well, there’s this cool thing about the ball and paddle…but this is not the time.)

I’m persuaded that, at best, my game is badly tuned. The backgrounds are too busy, the effects need to be dialed back, and the time pressure doesn’t kick in when it should. But, at least now I know what direction to move. So, I’ve made a couple of quick adjustments; the backgrounds will have to wait till I have more time. It will now take a little longer to generate some puzzles. (I’m not asking anybody to test it twice.) I just tried it in hard mode and got hung up around level 7.

It’s never a good sign if someone has to ask “what were you even trying to do here?” Please note that I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence. Briefly: I was first introduced to go as an AI challenge. (I’m a middle-aged engineer.) I came to believe that the basic rules of go were similar in complexity and feel to the mechanics of games like Tetris, Minesweeper, and the like. These games, when done just right, are very popular. I am targeting that category of game.

I think that over all, this is a great idea. People spend a lot of time learning the ins and outs of puzzle games with more complex rules but less depth. However, from the sound of it, the current game has both too broad a scope and too dumb an AI. Why not build capturing races that gradually ascend in complexity, with the human always favored to win, and just use the Fuego AI to make sure the computer responds competently?

TheBigH · **#12**

Is there a way to get it to work for Linux users?

EdLee · **#13**

FirstFifty wrote:

I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence.

1st50, I hope you can create something as popular as Zuma or Angry Birds and which introduces people to Go -- that'd be fantastic.

FirstFifty · **#14**

jts wrote:

FirstFifty wrote:

I appreciate people testing my game and/or taking the trouble to post here. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t take exception to anything I’ve read, nor necessarily disagree with it. (Well, there’s this cool thing about the ball and paddle…but this is not the time.)

I’m persuaded that, at best, my game is badly tuned. The backgrounds are too busy, the effects need to be dialed back, and the time pressure doesn’t kick in when it should. But, at least now I know what direction to move. So, I’ve made a couple of quick adjustments; the backgrounds will have to wait till I have more time. It will now take a little longer to generate some puzzles. (I’m not asking anybody to test it twice.) I just tried it in hard mode and got hung up around level 7.

It’s never a good sign if someone has to ask “what were you even trying to do here?” Please note that I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence. Briefly: I was first introduced to go as an AI challenge. (I’m a middle-aged engineer.) I came to believe that the basic rules of go were similar in complexity and feel to the mechanics of games like Tetris, Minesweeper, and the like. These games, when done just right, are very popular. I am targeting that category of game.

I think that over all, this is a great idea. People spend a lot of time learning the ins and outs of puzzle games with more complex rules but less depth. However, from the sound of it, the current game has both too broad a scope and too dumb an AI. Why not build capturing races that gradually ascend in complexity, with the human always favored to win, and just use the Fuego AI to make sure the computer responds competently?

I have something like that. The program generates a capturing race puzzle, the player picks a color, then plays it out against the AI. The board configurations are unnatural looking. I suppose I could do something about that.

I have my own go engines. I have my own MCTS go engines. I have a GTP interface to let my program interact with other peoples’ go engines. (FUEGO is, I admit, superior to mine.) None of this is in the little game I’ve posted, although it could be. I’ve gone through iterations of lumping things together and carving things out. I’m not wedded to any particular subset of features.

FirstFifty · **#15**

TheBigH wrote:

Is there a way to get it to work for Linux users?

The short answer is “not yet.” The long answer is “it’s possible now, but probably more trouble than it’s worth.” In theory, you could run a windows compatibility program such as Wine, install the windows version of a browser and run it under Wine, make sure you have the UNITY plug-in for it, and follow the link to my program. I haven’t tried this myself.

FirstFifty · **#16**

EdLee wrote:

FirstFifty wrote:

I said this was a “time-waster” in my introductory sentence.

1st50, I hope you can create something as popular as Zuma or Angry Birds and which introduces people to Go -- that'd be fantastic.

I’m inclined to believe that such a game is just waiting to be made… although the odds of success are kind of abysmal. But everyone needs a hobby.

jts · **#17**

FirstFifty wrote:

The program generates a capturing race puzzle, the player picks a color, then plays it out against the AI. The board configurations are unnatural looking.

If I understand what you're saying, then this approach won't work. Or, at least, it won't work the way I think it should!

If the program generates the puzzle randomly and lets the player choose the puzzle, then you need to be assuming that the puzzles are always equally hard for both sides, and the bot is always just slightly dumber than the human.

First of all, playing a random capturing race against an extremely dumb bot isn't going to reveal any of the subtlety of go, right? Second, there's no way to fine-tune the AI such that the rate of progress is going to increase at the exact same rate that the person doing the puzzles improves. What you really want, I think, is to figure out a sequence of puzzles - always biased in favor of Black - that a beginner can start out with and find the first one extremely intuitive, even simplistic, but find the final ones nearly impossible. You could design the puzzles by hand and have just a few possible sequences (this would, I think, be easiest) or you could come up with the basic principles that make capturing races easier and harder and have the program generate random puzzles that embody some mix of principles that generate more and less complex races that are more or less tilted in favor of Black (depending on how far the player has advanced). Then let Fuego take White and watch the sparks fly.

Amelia · **#18**

I think what jts says would be great. It means that someone would first just have to find out about filling outside liberties first, then next level find out about approach moves, at the harder level throw-ins would be necessary, or the puzzles could get more intricated involving more groups sharing liberties.

It doesn't sound like something easy to make, but if you manage the progression right I'm sure it would work.

TheBigH · **#19**

FirstFifty wrote:

TheBigH wrote:

Is there a way to get it to work for Linux users?

The short answer is “not yet.” The long answer is “it’s possible now, but probably more trouble than it’s worth.” In theory, you could run a windows compatibility program such as Wine, install the windows version of a browser and run it under Wine, make sure you have the UNITY plug-in for it, and follow the link to my program. I haven’t tried this myself.

What a shame. I probably won't bother with all of that.

FirstFifty · **#20**

On the subject of capturing race puzzles:
I’m confused. I first thought jts was talking about something a little bit like tsumego. But now it’s sounding exactly like tsumego. And there seems to be quite a lot of tsumego-related software available already. Is there some neglected niche? I feel I may be missing the point.

I’ll try to explain what I’m doing with capturing race puzzles a little better. A puzzle starts with black and white stones on the board, black to move. For black to win, she must prevent white from making life anywhere on the board. The puzzles have a hardness index associated with them that reflects how difficult it’s likely to be for black to succeed. The puzzles are generated while the player waits, so there isn’t a lot of time for the program to create a board configuration and make sure it has the right level of difficulty. The puzzles have different levels of hardness but are only intended to be challenging for a beginner, or for someone dodging distractions and racing against time.

A variation involves puzzles where it’s hard to tell (in the fraction of a second the program has available) whether black has a chance at all. In these cases, picking the color is the biggest part of solving the puzzle.

There are 2 different AI’s the players play against. One is a quick and dumb, pattern and heuristics bot, the other is a full-blown MCTS engine. Each seems to work best in different contexts.

Ruinatio Go

Who is online