Idea for a new multiplayer Tetris

[Blitz]

I have an idea for a new multiplayer Tetris.

Page 1 is the core idea. The rest is me trying to explain why I think this is good.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cz8Xt7Q...FEpI/edit?pli=1

Thoughts anyone?

[yazichima]

I quite like this as it addresses one of the main weaknesses of Tetris as a multiplayer game: good counterplay. Yes, there are some examples in the current game / game modes, but they largely amount to "send more garbage now" or "clear lines now". Both of which require at most a cursory glance at the opponent's field and little calculation.

Another advantage is that this could lead to more thoroughly developed "player styles". I could imagine some players developing very defensive techniques who are constantly focused on keeping the enemy energy low, while others would be very aggressive.

The question now becomes 'will there be an optimal energy level to keep that pays off the best, and is fast enough to accumulate?' I think, however, that this would play more into the previous point about player style.

When did you think this up? Is it in reaction to TUPC anticippointment?

[baseballboy4296]

I like the idea of the game a lot, but there are two things I might change about the mechanics. This, of course, would require testing, but I'm just here to give my thoughts.

1)
Instead of having a set time between captures, which may result in players capturing each piece in their bag one by one, without placing any pieces at all, and then just downstacking as soon as lines are sent to them, I would set a minimum amount of pieces that you need to place before being able to capture again. Of course, in this case, players with a high speed have the advantage, but it may set a nice balance between attacking/capturing and stacking up.

Another possible change to the capturing delay may be to combine both limits: to require at least x piece/s to be dropped AND have z seconds pass, OR just have y pieces be dropped, where y > x.

2)
In regard to garbage holes, I might have the hole have a 90% chance of changing, rather than have it change 100% of the time. A minor change, but it may suit the game better.

Let me know what you think.

[Blitz]

Instead of having a set time between captures, which may result in players capturing each piece in their bag one by one, without placing any pieces at all, and then just downstacking as soon as lines are sent to them, I would set a minimum amount of pieces that you need to place before being able to capture again. Of course, in this case, players with a high speed have the advantage, but it may set a nice balance between attacking/capturing and stacking up.

I like the idea of having piece based capture delay instead of time based because it would make it possible to balance the rate a player is able to accumulate energy vs the rate a player is able to reduce their opponents energy.
With a time based system the relationship between how quickly you can capture and how quickly you can reduce your opponents energy changes depending on how quickly you are playing. This may be a problem because if players play faster than expected, they might be able to spam doubles so quickly and efficiently that neither player has a chance to have more than one or two energy at any given time, in other words they can break the game and force an infinite stalemate.

I think a piece based system can prevent this. For example, we know that a double requires 5 pieces, or 2¾ pieces if youre using a garbage line. So if the delay between captures is less than somewhere between 2¾ and 5 pieces, then the rate a player is able to accumulate energy should always be higher than the rate a player can lose energy.

[Pineapple]

This is actually a realy interesting idea. I really like how only attacking with doubles forces you to plan carefully how you're going to proceed. I also really like that this is a much slower-paced vs mode, which means that slower players won't instantly lose to faster players.

I'd probably lower the hole change rate, though... maybe something like 60%.

And... actually? I'm thinking now about how the O piece is at a disadvantage, since it can never clear garbage... But I don't know how best to address this, or if it needs to be addressed...