itch.io

in positions like this, X should almost never take the top-right space on their next turn (unless O takes center of course), as if they do, O can  force them to take center and almost always have a guaranteed win (the exception being when there is another grid near the top-left of this and near the bottom-right, which is usually avoidable).

oh, you changed it. good.

I did the exact same thing each time, zero varience

this is axiom of determinacy in action.

for symmetrical boards, you should have the AI choose randomly among the positions symmetric to those  it would otherwise choose from.

can you please attempt to make an "impossible" difficulty AI? try to make one that never loses within the first two boards.

O can win as soon as X makes a move for the center, as long as O can tie the board. this is mate.

how to win with O against X's hard AI:

does the AI detect and counter potential forks the same way it should when opponent is threatening a 3-in-a-row? because it should, either by immediately threatening a 3-in-a-row of its own or blocking the potential fork. the game below is a case where it fails to see my fork.

winning against hard AI

I like this. I actually made a trio of baba is you levels with a similar idea.

here are the level codes if you're interested (and have the game):

first: 9FEK-7GGV

second: BPJA-XUPZ

third: N8RY-JTB2

The first one is a good tutorial for the basics, the second one I'm not proud of, but lets you experiment with and understand some other key details, and the third one is the most difficult (remember to take into account what it says in the bottom middle for that one).

wait, that's not detected as a failure? it should be. considering how many things make mills, it's defiantly something you need to actively avoid in the endgame. I do this by stockpiling on some taverns, which you can get by harvesting hops.

?

surprisingly, I don't think this has been done before

I feel like this lacks an interesting puzzle. no offence, but the last level seems kinda anticlimactic.

it just feels weird that there is just one tutorial level I guess. I wonder if it would be better if the tutorial and the main level were on the same screen? I don't really know what say in these situations, I agree there should be a tutorial somewhere in there to address potential ambiguity of what the win condition is, but at the same time, most things are either a standalone level or part of a set of levels.

perhaps you could just add one line of lore before and after, to increase the sense of compleation.

this is also clearly not a puzzle-platformer

cool game, but I don't think this is puzzlescript

I like this

that's it? I feel like there could have been more than 1 level

most of the mechanics seem ignorable, unless there is a secret ending I am missing.

is this made with puzzlescript? it was tagged as such.

was this made with puzzlescript? it is tagged as such.

this is still incorrectly tagged puzzlescript

it's a silly thing, but technically true

the small difference in color can make it difficult to tell, but there is a small opening that leads towards the chest.

you probably could have mirrored the levels. it would feel different because of left/right bias. I think it would work well for some of the levels you have.

thank you! not everyone does. spread the word.

then don't tag it as puzzlescript

then don't tag it a puzzlescript

I just realize it said loop edges must start and end at blue dots, meaning the corners must be at blue dots.

can you have a sensitivity setting? I like my  sensitivity high, especially for PC. the reaction time just isn't the same without it.

just try backtracking to get loot an you'll be fine. also don't try to fight unless you can one-shot

shiny egg canablisam, though, is a different matter.

was this before the discount was caped at 5?

I mean they don't need to be equally available, just that there should be strategies that make any singular one of them easy in the late game (they can even still be mutually exclusive, it's just that ). 

you could also just make it an accessibility feature in the settings, since probably 60-80% of people would find the time goal to be just right, and that it would be too easy for such people if you lowered it (it would be an honor-type system though, in terms of people not using it when they don't need it, but I think people would respect it, kinda like assist mode giving you extra life in Mario odessy)

timing is a notoriously hard thing to adjust for, because you don't know how long people will take on each step while thinking about things, especially on as short of a timescale you have here. The times it does work are usually when a predictable, repreatable interation is initated by the player, allowing them to take the time they need to adjust to it.

I wasn't  talking about the threshold, just the "some cheap relics make trivial" part (and my personal strategy to maximize synergy)

it would make an excellent sacrificial relic to destroy with many of the consumables that make you destroy a relic, since most of the time it would be easily compensated for by simply keeping a charge handy on your artifact. Something like "Hawk eye" is not always so easily done away with, since you use it on every board, and depending on the state of your artifact, you might need special measures to compensate for it, especially against a boss or something.