Vote here to voice your opinion if players should play around this feature/bug/glitch with Royals' OMOK, or should we ban it from this tournament. Main Thread: https://royals.ms/forum/threads/omok-tournament-2-0-feedback.119056/ Poll closing on Apr 23, 2018
In GMS version creating two 3 in a row with a single piece is NOT allowed UNLESS it's a move you absolutely have to make to stop the other player from winning. Maple Royals version OMOK does not allow creating two 3 in a row with a single piece as well, BUT even if it's the only move to stop the other person from winning, Maple Royals' OMOK will not allow you to place that move. I personally believe players should be familiarize with how Maple Royals OMOK work, and play around that rule instead of ban it completely. There are many different version of OMOK rules, and double 3 is allowed in most of them, so we as players should adopt to whatever rules we are playing IMO.
@Enhanced In GMS Maple and Maple Royals it is impossible to place a piece at an intersection creating two open lines of 3 at the same time the game will display an error in that chat box and won't let you do it. This is uncommon in Gomoku outside of maplestory. However a lesser known exception to that three and three rule is that it is allowed in the rare exception that it is being used to block a line of four by the opponent. In GMS insightful players would prevent lining up four pieces in a row if the blocking move would form a three and three because it is effective suicide. Therefore to prevent yourself from losing to it is only required of the offensive player to be aware of the rule and not to make attacks that would allow the player to win immediately following. In Maple Royals however this exception doesn't exist. This means players who wishes to prevent a loss to that formation will have to consider the rule defensively.
Some players feel like they want to keep the omok rule the same as GMS. So they suggest if this happened they should take a screenshot and draw the match because they view this as a bug.