[XML] Killer neutrals being part of bonus

[Kabanellas]

Concise description:
Enabling the possibility of Killer neutrals being part of bonuses

Specifics/Details:
Basically, the XML should allow bonus to be dealt before triggering any Killer neutral. A change to XML sequence should work as follows:

-Bonuses
-Killer neutrals
-Reinforcements

How this will benefit the site:
A simple change that will open to a vast field of new possibilities in terms of game-play, enabling the creation of short/limited duration bonuses.

Initial post:

I've been suggesting for a while now, that Killer neutrals could be part of bonus.

Basically, the XML should allow bonus to be dealt before triggering any Killer neutral.
This simple change could open a vast field of possibilities in terms of game-play.

On this example, in my map 'Age of Bucaneers' if Pirates manage to get and hold the 'Loot regions' for 1 they turn will be rewarded for it. Of course that this 'Loot regions' are KN so they will have to go for it every turn.

One of the cool things in this case is that these loot regions will give 3x (bonus) the number of neutrals in it. So it's always a gamble. You can loose 1 to kill 2 and get 6, but you can lose 4 or more and still get those same 6.

I'm sure that different possibilities could appear in many other maps....

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I really like this idea and agree it would open up a number of options. I also look forward to Age of Buccaneers being able to be created, since it seems like a really cool map

[rishaed]

This would have to have an appropriate risk/reward outlay. If you can take a standard bonus for lets say +3 and the KN bonus is +6 with three territories of 2.... It might be better just to hold the Standard bonus over time (because over time your win/lose ratio) usually equals out but sometimes it just isn't worth it. The problem being that if the KN bonus isn't high enough that no one will use them.

[DoomYoshi]

Good idea.

[Kabanellas]

wondering if Mr. bigWham will read this post..

[koontz1973]

I am wondering as well and hopes he strives to listen to the map makers themselves. This would be a great little add on, not only for the map that kabs has drawn, but for others as well that would come later.

[Robespierre__]

good idea!

[koontz1973]

Just a quick bump to get this back onto the radar.

[isaiah40]

I do hereby approve this suggestion!

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Hoping XML updates are being considered soon and that this one and the others listed in here will be added

[Kabanellas]

bring it back up...

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

bring it back up...

This feature needs to be implemented, if for no other reason than it should be easy to do and it will let Kab make another awesome map Really though, I think it would add to all mapmaker's ability to create a variety of different bonus structures in new maps.

[JamesKer1]

SUBMITTED

[thenobodies80]

Totally in favour of this suggestion.
Just want to remember that we need to put very attention in implementing this one due backward compatibility problems. It shouldn't be "read KNs after bonuses", but "read KN after bonuses if" to preserve existent maps.

[bigWham]

Totally in favour of this suggestion.
Just want to remember that we need to put very attention in implementing this one due backward compatibility problems. It shouldn't be "read KNs after bonuses", but "read KN after bonuses if" to preserve existent maps.

should we should move the killer neutrals to trigger after bonuses are issued?

because that would be easy. making XML changes and coding a conditional process flow is... less easy (and hence may not happen quickly).

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Totally in favour of this suggestion.
Just want to remember that we need to put very attention in implementing this one due backward compatibility problems. It shouldn't be "read KNs after bonuses", but "read KN after bonuses if" to preserve existent maps.

should we should move the killer neutrals to trigger after bonuses are issued?

because that would be easy. making XML changes and coding a conditional process flow is... less easy (and hence may not happen quickly).

I don't believe there are any maps which currently use Killer Neutral territories for bonuses, since at this point there'd be no way to claim the bonus if they had. Because of this I don't think tnb80's concern needs to be worried about. Just moving killer neutrals to triggering after bonuses will work great as a way to implement this suggestion.

[bigWham]

Totally in favour of this suggestion.
Just want to remember that we need to put very attention in implementing this one due backward compatibility problems. It shouldn't be "read KNs after bonuses", but "read KN after bonuses if" to preserve existent maps.

should we should move the killer neutrals to trigger after bonuses are issued?

because that would be easy. making XML changes and coding a conditional process flow is... less easy (and hence may not happen quickly).

I don't believe there are any maps which currently use Killer Neutral territories for bonuses, since at this point there'd be no way to claim the bonus if they had. Because of this I don't think tnb80's concern needs to be worried about. Just moving killer neutrals to triggering after bonuses will work great as a way to implement this suggestion.

additionally i think having 2 types of "killer neutrals" would be confusing to players... we would need to differentiate them, and every time they were used in a map it would need to be clear which type was in play (and potentially multiple types). i do not think the confusion would be worth it.

however, if we want to change it across the board i have no problem with that, and it can be done easily... however i am sending this back to Suggestions to make sure we consider all aspects of it.

[Kabanellas]

Hi BW!

people would just start getting used to idea that "killer neutrals" could also be part of bonus. It's just a matter of the map legend indicating that intention, accordingly.

they would continue to be the same old bastards that implode all your troops standing on them... as usual...

[degaston]

Would this include having killer neutrals as part of a win condition? I would really like to use this for my Murder 1 map where going for the winning objective is similar to making an accusation in the game "Clue". If you fail to hold all of the objective territories, then the remaining troops on 1 (or possibly more) of those territories would be lost.

[koontz1973]

however, if we want to change it across the board i have no problem with that, and it can be done easily... however i am sending this back to Suggestions to make sure we consider all aspects of it.

The suggestion as it is is a good one. No older map will need to be updated or revised if this goes ahead. I would honestly do what you said was easy and move the KN to after bonuses are awarded. As ypu said. easier tp do and just as effective without the headache of having two types of KN in the map process.

Would this include having killer neutrals as part of a win condition? I would really like to use this for my Murder 1 map where going for the winning objective is similar to making an accusation in the game "Clue". If you fail to hold all of the objective territories, then the remaining troops on 1 (or possibly more) of those territories would be lost.

This will work as the win condition can be made up of a continent.

[spiesr]

The suggestion as it is is a good one. No older map will need to be updated or revised if this goes ahead. I would honestly do what you said was easy and move the KN to after bonuses are awarded. As ypu said. easier tp do and just as effective without the headache of having two types of KN in the map process.

Do you know why thenobodies80 said it would be an issue with existing maps?

show

[koontz1973]

The suggestion as it is is a good one. No older map will need to be updated or revised if this goes ahead. I would honestly do what you said was easy and move the KN to after bonuses are awarded. As ypu said. easier tp do and just as effective without the headache of having two types of KN in the map process.

Do you know why thenobodies80 said it would be an issue with existing maps?

show

I believe that nobodies was saying that when this goes ahead, it needs to be tested to make sure that no older map becomes effected by the change. When something changes in the way xml is read, it can cause strange things to happen on maps.

Right now, the way the xml is read, it goes,
reinforcements
killer neutrals
bonuses
so what you get is the KN being enacted before bonuses for all maps. If we change it for this suggestion, it will read the xml like this:
reinforcements
bonuses
killer neutrals

We just need to make sure that the old maps with killer neutrals on are not damaged by this. None should, but we just need to make sure we test this more than the other neutral suggestions and on all maps with KN.

[chapcrap]

The suggestion as it is is a good one. No older map will need to be updated or revised if this goes ahead. I would honestly do what you said was easy and move the KN to after bonuses are awarded. As ypu said. easier tp do and just as effective without the headache of having two types of KN in the map process.

Do you know why thenobodies80 said it would be an issue with existing maps?

show

I believe that nobodies was saying that when this goes ahead, it needs to be tested to make sure that no older map becomes effected by the change. When something changes in the way xml is read, it can cause strange things to happen on maps.

Right now, the way the xml is read, it goes,
reinforcements
killer neutrals
bonuses
so what you get is the KN being enacted before bonuses for all maps. If we change it for this suggestion, it will read the xml like this:
reinforcements
bonuses
killer neutrals

We just need to make sure that the old maps with killer neutrals on are not damaged by this. None should, but we just need to make sure we test this more than the other neutral suggestions and on all maps with KN.

I'm in agreement with koontz on this. The only way this would effect existing maps is for adding a small bonus for a larger territory count. This would only greatly effect maps like Salem's Switch and Trench Warfare. And when I say greatly, I meant like 1-2 additional troops at most before having a lot of terts nuked.

[koontz1973]

I'm in agreement with koontz on this. The only way this would effect existing maps is for adding a small bonus for a larger territory count. This would only greatly effect maps like Salem's Switch and Trench Warfare. And when I say greatly, I meant like 1-2 additional troops at most before having a lot of terts nuked.

This is what nobodies was on about. These maps that have lots of killers on them would provide additional troops before the killer is implemented. But the two maps that have been mentioned above, both would cost more troops to take than what you would yield in a bonus. So GP wise, nothing will change, but as I said, this will need testing a tad more.

[chapcrap]

I'm in agreement with koontz on this. The only way this would effect existing maps is for adding a small bonus for a larger territory count. This would only greatly effect maps like Salem's Switch and Trench Warfare. And when I say greatly, I meant like 1-2 additional troops at most before having a lot of terts nuked.

This is what nobodies was on about. These maps that have lots of killers on them would provide additional troops before the killer is implemented. But the two maps that have been mentioned above, both would cost more troops to take than what you would yield in a bonus. So GP wise, nothing will change, but as I said, this will need testing a tad more.

Well, I think it would change a little bit, because as of now, you get no additional troops, so opponents have no need or desire to take the KNs from you, but you definitely would have a bigger (not a lot) desire to hit some of them if they were yielding a bonus. I think it does change GP a little, but not enough for me to care about. The maps should all still be fine as is, IMO.