[jawslouis]

Thanks for the feedback :) I appreciate it!

1. I can try experimenting with the border thickness. Selectable tiles would have a light gray border, instead of the dark green/blue border.

3. I'm planning to add a way to view the 'next state' in the next version of the game. But still trying to figure out a good way to visualize the 'influence' of each tile, besides the color.

4. Yes, also will try out the hexagonal board shape. And give players more options for the board size too. I think it's the right size for smaller screens like a mobile phone, but desktop users might want to play with more tiles.

5. Thanks for suggesting the pie rule. I looked into it, but think it'll be too confusing, especially for 1st time players. The 'weak stone' would be easier to understand for new players - perhaps except for those with a Go background :)

[ALittleLight]

It never occurred to me that the first stone might be a weaker stone. I spent a few minutes trying to figure out why the computer could play next to my first stone, and if I played next to the computer, the computer could then take my first stone. It was very counter intuitive and frustrating, like the computer had an advantage somehow.

[silexia]

I agree, I actually got the impression that the computer in hard mode had an advantage unfairly beyond just the first move.

[ianthehenry]

> I looked into it, but think it'll be too confusing, especially for 1st time players.

I think the current weak stone is already very confusing, judging by my experience and some other comments, but I have not done any real playtesting.

But I would argue that first time players shouldn't play with the pie rule: they should just get the first-player advantage. It's a nice way to handicap the AI while the player learns the rules -- by the time someone knows the game well enough to play the balanced version, they have to learn a new rule. Just like new Go players start with extra stones on the board -- the game is the most fun when the two players are equally balanced, not necessarily on equal footing.

I think there's an implementation that makes it pretty intuitive: the first stone played doesn't get a border (or a more clear visual indicator that it's not capturable :). So the second player can choose to capture it, or to play elsewhere. If they play elsewhere, the first stone then becomes "locked." I think that's clearer than like switching colors or something.

The strategy for first-move play seems easier to grok than the strategy for a 55% weak stone, but I have to caveat that with: I play Hex, so it's familiar to me.

[jawslouis]

I've updated the UI of the game, so that it's more obvious that the 1st stone is weaker than the subsequent ones. Hopefully that will help with some of the confusion.

I agree that a 55% weak stone is not ideal, but it seems to be the easiest way to balance the game for now. Having the 1st stone become "locked" if it doesn't get captured, would also be surprising for new players.

I also did think about just letting players enjoy the 1st-player advantage, but on hard AI, green wins 43-7. That was what made me think of a way to balance the game in the 1st place.

[Kinrany]

A mode where tile colors are displayed as numbers would help with understanding the rules.

[moconnor]

Just indicate which stones will become capturable next turn.

[kurbin]

Agree with other commentors that the 'weak stone' is difficult to understand for new players