[XML] infected neutrals

[RobinJ]

I'll leave it at this: great idea!

[herndawg]

This idea is great,
I think the zombies should attack the weakest armies. Whenever I get chased by zombies they always catch the slower weaker ones behind me first. That would motivate deploying onto other places to avoid them attacking you and you could lead them where you want with ones.

I didn't read ALLLLLLL the responses so if someone said this already then call me poo

[Twill]

OK, I didn't make it all the way through the thread but is seems the biggest issue is this tie-breaker for equally large neighbours.

==1==
What if you went with the rebel analogy and had it based on the most number of neutral territories taken by each player...i.e. revenge killings.

Bob has taken 3 neutral territories
John too 4 neutral territories
Bob and John both have 5 armies neighbouring a neutral
Neutral attacks john.

Problems: What if nobody has taken any neutrals.

==2==
Base it on total number of armies on the board - who is the biggest threat in the grander scheme.


==3==
It attacks everyone - Wait until there are 5 armies on the territory, attack bob with 2 and john with 2, have 1 left over. Or Bob with 1, John with 1, sarah with 1 and jane with 1. etc etc.

With a fan method they would circle out from a central point, and set up a perimeter - say someone Deadbeats with 10 armies and 2 bordering territs.
Each one gets 4 armies attacking it (leaving the extra "remainder" 1 in the original territory)
Territ 1 is taken with no loses (4 advance) Territ 2 is taken with 1 loss (3 advance) Original territ is left with 2 defenders (the mandatory 1 and the "remainder")
Because territ 1 has 4, it continues it's attack:
Territ 3 gets 1 attacker, territ 4 gets 1 attacker, 1 left as mandatory, 1 left as a remainder.

It's methodical, predictable, equal and, I think, easy to code.




Now, other issues I have are that it's too simple a calculation - You can not deter an attack - it WILL come.

I think I mentioned earlier (it may have been shot down, I don't know, didn't check) that you have a simple calculation:

If the defending army is x% bigger or smaller then I attack, if we are evenly matched I dont.
One would be a desperation attack (x% bigger) and one would be an "easy pickings" attack.

It would negate the possibility of you being screwed by a deadbeat who you had a stable border with at 10:10 each, but now that there is a zombie there, it's going to nuke you and leave you very exposed (rather than very defended)
If you have the % requirements, then you can still defend against that one border, they are still a threat (because they are going to keep building 1 per turn until they can kick your ass) but they will not instantly attack you and leave you fully exposed.

I'm only talking 25% over 25% under so it's easy to calculate and explain.

i.e. 13 neutrals would attack 10 or less
3 neutrals would attack 10 or more (once they get over the 4 threshold)

4 neutrals would attack 3 or less or 5 or more but not attack 4.

Those are my 2 thoughts.

[wcaclimbing]

sounds good, Twill.
I like it.

EDIT: the third problem, besides the two you mentioned, would be to decide WHEN the zombies will make their attacks. Cause going at a set time would give some people an advantage, playing right before or right after a zombie.

[the_fatty]

is this gonna happen? i like the idea a lot.

[Twill]

Officially to-do, once we sort out the details.

Buckle down, write a proposal, we'll poke as many holes in it and once Lack has some time to get down to coding we'll get this (or a form of this) in.

Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.)

Would this be better as a game option or as an XML per-map feature?

[wcaclimbing]

i think game option would be the way to go.

Cause AoR maps are really popular, but players will want the choice of zombies or no zombies.

Cause most maps that are all neutrals are still good to play without them being zombies. zombies would just be an extra option to add a bit more fun to those maps. it would be a "dont want it, dont play it" kind of thing.

[4V4T4R]

Officially to-do, once we sort out the details.

Buckle down, write a proposal, we'll poke as many holes in it and once Lack has some time to get down to coding we'll get this (or a form of this) in.

Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.)

Would this be better as a game option or as an XML per-map feature?

awesome

i still think that a cycling zombie turn order is the fairest way to go (and has the
advantage of being predictable, unlike a random order)
also i like the idea of zombie's splitting to attack several territs.
this would create a quicker, more zombie-like spread

[Twill]

Oh and for the record, we really are going to have to change the zombie name.

It gets the idea across...it just doesn't really fit the theme

Rebels
Freedom Fighters
Liberators
Terrorists
Pains-in-the-ass


Anything but zombies

[cicero]

Officially to-do, once we sort out the details.

Buckle down, write a proposal, we'll poke as many holes in it and once Lack has some time to get down to coding we'll get this (or a form of this) in.

Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.)

"Yesssss ..... !!!!!!".
There is a god/lack!
<genuine weeping>

Oh and for the record, we really are going to have to change the zombie name.

It gets the idea across...it just doesn't really fit the theme

Rebels
Freedom Fighters
Liberators
Terrorists
Pains-in-the-ass


Anything but zombies

"Noooooo ...... !!!!!!"
<genuine weeping>

As a last ditch, but genuine, attempt; read some of "World War Z" by Max Brooks. Check out the reviews at Amazon. Alternatively try his other, related, book "The Zombie Survival Guide". Both present zombies as a scientific phenomenon and are written in a documentary style. [They are fiction ... I'm not that crazy!] ... but they portray the zombies in a journalistic/realistic way and in so doing integrate them with 'real life' in such a way that they genuinely do seem to fit the theme at conquerclub.

Only in preparing this post did I find http://www.worldwarz.net. Pay it a visit. There is a "World Map" on which you can click various territories to see/hear extracts from the book (sadly the extracts don't do the book justice). There is also a "risk calculator" ... Now if those two facets are not 'signs' from zombie heaven I don't know what would be .

Seriously, please reconsider. Apart from anything else I do think the 'zombies' need to be dumb(ish) in their behaviour and none of the counter suggestions proposed so far meet that need or, really, explain their motivation to behave in the way that the CC zombies do (or "will" after final tweaks) ...

Cicero
<breaking off for an extended period of hysteria - I may well be back to make constructive posts later>

[Twill]

Natives
Barbarians
Restless Hordes
DeadBeat(er)s (get the zombie pun...they are dead...but they beat on people...oh, how funny am I )
Killer Turtles
The 5th Column
BOB's Cousin ROB

We'll poll on the name later

You still need to work on the attack rules for tie breakers, if it's going to stay a simple @4 armies: attack or if something more complex would be better (I think it would, to stop massive game disrupting deadbeating) and when they will attack.

[Stoney229]

Oh and for the record, we really are going to have to change the zombie name.

It gets the idea across...it just doesn't really fit the theme

Rebels
Freedom Fighters
Liberators
Terrorists
Pains-in-the-ass


Anything but zombies

How about "Revolutionaries".

But still... I agree with cicero. I'm not into zombies like he seems to be, but no other name really seems to fit. A rose by any other name (i.e. "poop") would still probably smell different

[crzyblue]

I think we should name them Twill's... Twill's attacked so and so

[4V4T4R]

i agree that zombies is really the only name so far that makes sense,
except maybe orcs or uruk-hai.

[cicero]

... We'll poll on the name later

You still need to work on the attack rules for tie breakers, if it's going to stay a simple @4 armies: attack or if something more complex would be better (I think it would, to stop massive game disrupting deadbeating) and when they will attack.

Agreed.

Thinking aloud ... (and using "NZ's" to indicate the "things-to-be-named") ...

naming
It is important that the naming is in some way consistent with the behaviour. I find names such as rebels, terrorists etc unhelpful. At present in a game my own armies are. of course, the forces of good. Anyone else is a rebel, a terrorist etc. So really these kinds of names for groups of "others" ends up defining them as other players. In which case it seems likely we are going to produce some kind of AI behaviour ... which is not the suggestion which has been approved is it?

Adopting a descriptive kind of naming such as "infected neutrals" which explains why the neutrals aren't behaving as expected might be useful.
__________

victim selection
I believe this does need to be predictable and too much complexity will interfere with the ability of players to do this. (Although BOB will soon be updated I'm sure to highlight the NZ's victims.)

attack method
Some posters have suggested diverting from auto-attacking after the victim is initially selected ...

I think that both the above need to reflect that the NZ's are not players and so will not look exactly like players making turns. There has to be some connection of motivation between the naming and these two.
__________

'turn' position
I think that the question of just when the NZ's play is something of a red herring. It has been noted that, in all games, players playing nearest the beginning of a round have an advantage. It has been noted that, in games with NZ's the player going last - assuming the NZ's play after everyone else - will have an advantage in that they will, at end of their turn, be able to predict, with absolute accuracy, how the NZ's will attack. Is that such an overwhelming advantage? If, as has been suggested, that player fortifies to avoid being attacked by the NZ's in many situations the other players will take advantage of such moves. It would seem these two kinds of advantage offset each other to a great extent.

In any event surely, over time, the fact that I play first in a game and gain an advantage, or play last in a NZ game and gain an advantage, will be levelled out by all those games in which I don't?
__________

best medium to take these points forward
It would seem that a thread for each of these points would be useful to make the conversation continuous and coherent. Also it might be useful to limit the users working on the thread if only to stop any more "I just think it should be random!" posts ...

Which I guess sounds like I'm proposing a usergroup. But it's the public forums which have got us this far ...

Your thoughts mods? And others? What's the best way to proceed?

[wcaclimbing]

Which I guess sounds like I'm proposing a usergroup. But it's the public forums which have got us this far ...

Your thoughts mods? And others? What's the best way to proceed?

Sounds good.
If the group gets made, I want in

[yeti_c]

BOB's Cousin ROB

Er - Not sure if you realise - but BOB is short for ROB?!

DeadBeat(er)s

Whilst I like this name - it's also tricky to use - as this would redefine the term "Deadbeat"...

And also - who would want to actually turn on "Deadbeats" for their game!?

C.

[Twill]

Clearly the attempt at humour was lost on you yeti mate

[Stoney229]

Clearly the attempt at humour was lost on you yeti mate

hmmm. or the other way around.

[4V4T4R]

best medium to take these points forward
It would seem that a thread for each of these points would be useful to make
the conversation continuous and coherent. Also it might be useful to limit the
users working on the thread if only to stop any more "I just think it should be
random!" posts ...

I think separate threads might confuse the issue. It (the nz's) is one topic.
Splitting into separate threads would convey the appearance of separate
proposals, while in reality all parts of how the nz's work need to be worked
out together in order for the end result to be complete.

[vrex]

in regards to the subtle suggestion by twill that adding this option will promote deadbeating... it would only assure the deadbeaters that someone ELSE will win the game...unless they are not playing for points...i dont think they will deadbeat anymore than ususal the coding for this will only get harder if we make the attack time/who they attack more complex...these neutrals, as stated by cicero, are DIM and PREDICTABLE

[Axel_999]

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this already, (didn't feel like reading past the 2nd page) but if zombies go on a rampage and could win the game, wouldn't the player to survive longest win, since the game would end after all players except one die?

[4V4T4R]

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this already, (didn't feel like reading past the 2nd page) but if zombies go on a rampage and could win the game, wouldn't the player to survive longest win, since the game would end after all players except one die?

yes, this was already established

[Twill]

Bump.

There are still several issues outstanding - target selection being the major one.

Can someone come up with a simple formal proposal of how exactly this should work, then we will all know we are on the same page.

[crzyblue]

I propose that it attack anyone with a full territory bonus, if none apply then the one with the most territories closest to that zombie