[XML] infected neutrals

[Donelladan]

I have no real idea about what it would take, but I don't think coding would be that difficult since bot are already coded.
Basically it is like we put the code from the bot, and give him all neutral, with the bot randomly attacking everyone else than him as he would do.

So, imo, coding should be relatively easy.

[OliverFA]

I have no real idea about what it would take, but I don't think coding would be that difficult since bot are already coded.
Basically it is like we put the code from the bot, and give him all neutral, with the bot randomly attacking everyone else than him as he would do.

So, imo, coding should be relatively easy.

That makes a lot of sense and I believe you are completely right. It is just a matter of replacing the bot code with the infected neutrals code. In fact I suppose that the infected neutrals code is a lot simpler than the bot code, as infected neutrals always behave the same way.

[cicero]

Anyone heard from cicero? It's his idea so it's probably best if we double check all the details with him before submitting.

Cheers, JB

I've just logged in for only about the second or third time in 5 years or more ... I'm not playing games and just drop in randomly to see how CC is doing. I usually look at how many new maps there are live and in development, how many games are in progress and, just for old time's sake, check how deep my long loved suggestion is buried here in the Suggestions forum.

This time I'm amazed to find it right at the top of the pile! (Even before this post of course.) So now I'm reading from JoshyBoy's post quoted above onwards to see what (if anything) all the activity is about ...

[cicero]

Hmm. Well I've read the intervening pages ...

I've discovered that this "suggestions" forum is now just the ante room for the "submitted suggestions" sub forum from which I believe new features are actually plucked. So being top of the pile in this forum isn't such a big deal

I see that much of the discussion in the intervening pages is just re-hashing what was worked through back in the era I was participating, namely;

Should it be XML only or a game option?

My intention always was that it should be a game option and I'm pretty sure that in my era that was generally agreed. There were maps even then (I think somewhere in the intervening pages I read there were 71 in 2008 compared to the 270+ you have now) where the infected neutrals would almost certainly overwhelm the players, but I retain my original opinions (shared by some of the recent contributors) that; (i) winning a game by ensuring you are the last to survive is a legitimate goal target if you're playing with IN (infected neutral) hordes on the board and (ii) that the existence of the IN option doesn't force anyone who doesn't like it on a particular map (or at all) to use it. As an analogy I certainly never enjoyed the freestyle option when I was here and, apart from the handful of games I played to form that preference, never played it. I didn't argue that the option should be removed because it ruined the CC game experience (even though for me it did). Having said that perhaps there are now maps that would be totally broken by the use of the IN option. If so I still think it would make for a broader, more varied (dare I say more enjoyable?) experience for the option to be removed (or forced to "off") for those maps at the game creation stage, not via XML control. As has been noted, both in my era and recently, a very significant disadvantage of combining IN implementation with XML control is that it renders all existing maps unusable with IN until or unless the XML is updated.

Shouldn't the IN behaviour be more random?

No. Really it shouldn't. Read the earlier pages of discussion to see why the logic in the final suggestion is as it is. Zombies (I mean IN) are stupid and predictable. Using one's understanding of their predictable behaviour to influence the outcome of a game in your favour is the skill element that enhances the game. Any random elements to their behaviour just add more luck to a game mechanic which already has plenty (dice and drop).

Personally I think simple ideas well implemented work best, but hey I'm not here to suggest that I have the final say! Far from it, I'm glad the idea still prompts such impassioned debate and hope maybe one day it'll be implemented in some form - game option, XML, with 'triggers' ... who knows.

I'll leave the final say to someone else from the old old old days who it seems also still drops in very occasionally

This suggestion is still the best suggestion that hasn't been realised on this site.

C.

I'll certainly drop in again later in the year to see how you're all doing and if IN have been implemented in the meantime I shall start a game

[Metsfanmax]

So a zombie 3 will attack with 3 dice and a zombie 1 will attack with 1 die. It works thematically because a zombie territory should always be a threat, even if there is only one, and zombies are not known for their strategic thought, and will charge a loaded shotgun. (If a zombie 1 attack fails, then it remains a zombie 1... because they're already dead )

Does this mean we have to code in a trigger that says only attack once if a zombie territory has one troop left? Does it try this once every turn? How does that work?

[degaston]

So a zombie 3 will attack with 3 dice and a zombie 1 will attack with 1 die. It works thematically because a zombie territory should always be a threat, even if there is only one, and zombies are not known for their strategic thought, and will charge a loaded shotgun. (If a zombie 1 attack fails, then it remains a zombie 1... because they're already dead )

Does this mean we have to code in a trigger that says only attack once if a zombie territory has one troop left? Does it try this once every turn? How does that work?

Here's what I was proposing:

Code: Select all

Before the game starts, define an aggression factor between 0 (zombies never attack) and 100 (zombies always attack)
After every player's turn, the zombies get a turn.

=== Begin Zombie Attack ===
Build a list of every unique combination of a zombie territory bordering a human territory. (Not including bombardments or conditionals)
Shuffle the list in random order.
For each item in the list:
  Generate a random number from 1 to 100
  If the number is less than or equal to the aggression factor, then a single attack is made. Zombies attack with one die for each troop on the territory, up to 3. Defending humans roll 1 or 2 dice as usual.
  Any defending troops lost in the attack are added to the attacking territory.
  Zombies do not lose any troops when attacking, only when defending. (I had not specified this before, but it seems like the most consistent behavior when combined with the idea that even a single zombie troop can attack.)
  If the human territory is defeated, half of the zombie troops advance to the defeated territory.
Repeat for the rest of the list. If a human territory is defeated, then any other zombie attacks on it will be ignored.


The aggression factor could be adjusted between rounds to give the humans a chance to build up before the zombies get too aggressive. I hope this answers your questions, but if not, let me know.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, it does, thank you. It seems like this is the best option out of all the above, based on what I can tell. The original "give one troop to every neutral territory" is broken for the reasons mentioned. Your version prevents that while still giving the zombies meaningful power via the attack with one troop tactic.

[degaston]

Yes, it does, thank you. It seems like this is the best option out of all the above, based on what I can tell. The original "give one troop to every neutral territory" is broken for the reasons mentioned. Your version prevents that while still giving the zombies meaningful power via the attack with one troop tactic.

So is there any interest in actually making this happen?

[Metsfanmax]

Sure, I have some interest in seeing it through. We'll need to pick the best approach and update the OP, and make sure we've done our best to address the concerns of koontz, chap, etc.

[vrex]

I've just logged in for only about the second or third time in 5 years or more ... I'm not playing games and just drop in randomly to see how CC is doing. I usually look at how many new maps there are live and in development, how many games are in progress and, just for old time's sake, check how deep my long loved suggestion is buried here in the Suggestions forum.

This time I'm amazed to find it right at the top of the pile! (Even before this post of course.) So now I'm reading from JoshyBoy's post quoted above onwards to see what (if anything) all the activity is about ...

CICERO!! Long time no see! I know how you feel about this suggestion... frankly i feel it too <3 (i think )

I think the concerns could easily be addressed with testing, I am trying to convince Icepack as of now to consider testing it, and of course let me in on it

Thanks to agentcom for directing me to Icepack, the main testy-coder guy [Again, THANK YOU! ] All i know is the future awaits... ( i think ... ) {Icepack is known to be verrrry busy recently}

An update, cause i feel like it. Turns out only one guy really handles the coding for either this site or the site in which they test things out. Guess who it is? It happens to be, in theory, the busiest person known to exist on this site!

Thats right! Its the WEBMASTER!!

show

[MagnusGreeol]

- Love this idea, But how's about instead of a predictable alphabetical from A-Z, The infected randomly jump from alphabetical A-Z to Z-A, that way there's no predicting which way They actually turn? So the first round could be A-Z, the second and third Z-A, and randomly jump back and forth with unpredictablity? We could call it the AZZA effect? ")

[degaston]

- Love this idea, But how's about instead of a predictable alphabetical from A-Z, The infected randomly jump from alphabetical A-Z to Z-A, that way there's no predicting which way They actually turn? So the first round could be A-Z, the second and third Z-A, and randomly jump back and forth with unpredictablity? We could call it the AZZA effect? ")

I made a suggestion in this post that this be a new setting instead of an XML change, and that the zombies attack randomly between every player's move. The pseudo-code description is here. I've actually tested this on a live board and it works pretty well.

But with the current condition of the site, and how long it takes to fill a game, I don't really think that another setting would be very helpful at this time. It would just divide the player base once more between those who want to play it, and those who don't. So first they need to find a way to fill games faster. I think a game matchmaker or unlimited wait-lists for freemiums would help, but I don't see any signs that anything is being done in this area.

[vrex]

The only way i see it even getting within one planet distance of happening is testing. Well, i also do want to test it as it was originally suggested to work, NOT as an XML, as a game option.

Testing is, dare i say, impossible though since the webmaster is the only one who codes things into the test site. In any likelihood, i am going to be in containment with IN for my [warning: cynicism!] whole lifetime.

Like cicero said a few posts earlier all this discussion is a re-hash. Testing is the ultimate way to find out what, if anything, is 'broken, unfair, or "overpowered" ' with this option.

Yes, i disagree with most of what has been said recently on the 'problems' of this option. [such as each neutral receiving one army being too powerful]

However, that is only because ** I WANT ** to see what happens on Feudal war haha.

Anyway, i am just one guy who loved this suggestion in it's original form, far be it for one guy to stop any changes the community wants. I will see you around, i track this suggestion, it's the only reason i log on anymore >.<