[XML] infected neutrals

[cicero]

I do think there should be a bit of a pause or an intentional slowing down so that people can see what is going on, especially in a speed freestyle game. maybe the IN has a 1 minute turn (their moves take 10 seconds, but you then have 50 seconds to absorb what happened). Just from a user-interaction perspective it would be important.

In a Freestyle game I can see your point... however - for Sequential - then it's not an issue as you have all the time in the world to see what the previous "players" did...

However - I'm pretty sure the server would just calculate it VVVV quickly... so the 1 minute round would be 1 minute of observation for the players... which might just piss people off.

I feel like I'm missing something.

For the reasons in my previous post I can't see that there is any distinction to be made between freestyle and sequential. (Since the Infected Neutrals are always playing a sequential turn).

On the other hand I do see that in a speed sequential game (as opposed to casual sequential) it could be considered a disadvantage to play first after a particularly complex move by the Infected Neutrals since you might need a minute to read and catch up on what had happened ... which the other players wouldn't since they would catch up 'on your time'.

Oh what the heck. How about a 5 second delay after every successful attack?
In other words whenever there is an advance and hence the game log is written to?

To be honest even though I was arguing against it, when the infected neutrals are let loose on CC I'm going to be hanging around at the end of rounds to watch the infected neutrals play and it'll be cool to see them playing in a kind of 'real time'

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

Cicero

[vrex]

sweeet! like the delay feature....thanx for pointing the way on the proposal cicero. i really CANT WAIT for this option to be implemented...im going to have fun playing around INs....but i have to wait...*siiiiiiigh*

[Ditocoaf]

Yeah, I think the INs will definitely be more fun and interesting if you can watch them move. I often do this with opponents, allowing me to see their progress, instead of just loading the page to find the map changed dramatically. Also, watching the neutrals will help people see how their actions have effected the logic.

HURRAY for ditocaf, premium for life for you!! (ok, maybe not)

Well if you're not going to give me free premium, could you at least check your inbox? I've had an application for an ad-hoc group sitting in there for a while.

[yeti_c]

HURRAY for ditocaf, premium for life for you!! (ok, maybe not)

Well if you're not going to give me free premium, could you at least check your inbox? I've had an application for an ad-hoc group sitting in there for a while.

Send it again - there's a high chance his PM box binned it off.

C.

[cicero]

OK ...

I think we're now pretty close.

Just three small points I'd like to finalise:

(i) Naming
As most of you know these creatures started out as "Zombies" and, following a veto on that, I've adopted "Infected Neutrals". There were loads of other suggestions fairly early in the thread none of which particularly grabbed me. Personally I'm 100% in favour of "Infected Neutrals" now.

(ii) Assuming "Infected Neutrals" is accepted are there any better ways of describing them than "incubating" and "fully" as I am currently using?

(iii) Take a look at the [CURRENT PROPOSAL] and you'll see I've updated to include all recent discussion. Further I have now explicitly included each entry to the game log. It comes out fairly verbose, but no more so than for a human player:

deploy phase:
infected neutral player gets 1 army added to <territory name>
infected neutral player gets 1 army added to <territory name>
etc ...

attack phase:
infected neutral player attacked <territory name> from <territory name> and conquered it from <player name>
infected neutral player attacked <territory name> from <territory name> and conquered it from <player name>
etc ...

end phase:
incubating infected neutral territory <territory name> now fully infected
incubating infected neutral territory <territory name> now fully infected
etc ...
infected neutral territory <territory name> incubating
infected neutral territory <territory name> incubating
etc ...

If we are all happy with (i), (ii) and (iii) and no-one can think of a (iv), (v) or (vi) then I think we have a [FINAL PROPOSAL] !!! !!! ...

Cicero

[champagne and fireworks at the ready]

[greenoaks]

in keeping with the infection of the neutrals i propose

incubating with symptomatic, infectious, contagious or carrier

hearing 'the infected neutrals are now contagious' makes me want to run and hide.

[Ditocoaf]

actually, in the log, I think it would be better to just refer to them as "infected neutrals", rather than "infected neutral player." Just to keep it clear that this is meant as a gameplay feature, not an AI player.

[cicero]

actually, in the log, I think it would be better to just refer to them as "infected neutrals", rather than "infected neutral player." Just to keep it clear that this is meant as a gameplay feature, not an AI player.

Yes I think so.

Also perhaps we should keep "infected neutrals" as the generic term and use "active neutral" (I don't really like "fully infected") and "incubating neutral" as the in game descriptions. So we have:

deploy phase:
infected neutrals get 1 army added to <territory name>
infected neutrals get 1 army added to <territory name>
etc ...

attack phase:
infected neutrals attacked <territory name> from <territory name> and conquered it from <player name>
infected neutrals attacked <territory name> from <territory name> and conquered it from <player name>
etc ...

end phase:
incubating neutral territory <territory name> now active
incubating neutral territory <territory name> now active
etc ...
neutral territory <territory name> incubating
neutral territory <territory name> incubating
etc ...

... ?

[yeti_c]

That definitely works...

C.

[Ditocoaf]

This looks awesome, and completely ready; I can't wait to try it.

I've been thinking... someone is going to try to play this on Feudal War (or one of the Realms maps)... You almost think there should be a one player, or one team, option on those maps, to fight against the INs (I don't actually think we should have this). Basically, the winner on these maps would be the person that can hold out the longest against the neutrals. Of course, if everyone dies in the same round, whoever's attacked last wins...

[cicero]

Ditocoaf ..

Yeah, we've all had that realisation dawn on us at different times throughout the lifetime of the thread. Cool scenario huh ?
Not only Feudal War etc either, a similar situation can be created on any map by a large deadbeat ...
And of course the last attack never takes place. As soon as there is only one player left on the map they win. (Though on re-reading your post I think you probably understand that.)

Shall we start a collection (as in $$$) to get Lack to code this first ?

[Seriously I'll wait for feedback from a few more of the regulars, update the proposal and then formally let the powers that be know we are finished.]

[cicero]

Is it only me that sees greenoaks' avatar as a horde of shambling zombies/infected neutrals ?

[vrex]

Its all so ... beautiful!! lol most definately agree with naming them INs or infected neutrals and then having incubating neutrals are active and neutrals are now incubating show up in the game log! (waits to celebrate with cicero)

[yeti_c]

Is it only me that sees greenoaks' avatar as a horde of shambling zombies/infected neutrals ?

It's a good job you're getting married soon!!!

C.

[Ditocoaf]

Wait a minute... I have one question. If there are more than one IN territories capable of making an attack, then what determines which one attacks first? I can't find it in your draft proposal, and I think it could be important because this could often decide who wins. Of course, it's likely that that is addressed in the second draft proposal, and my horrible looking skills are at play here.

[blue sam3]

it was there, it's whichever has the most armies in it (I think)

[yeti_c]

While NumAttTerr > 0 // as long as there's one or more territory that can attack, attack !!
// the following two lines must be INSIDE the While loop since the territories capable of attacking may have changed since the last iteration
arrange the qualifying territories in an array AttTerrs() // indexed 0, 1, 2 etc
sort the AttTerrs() array by number of armies then by alphabetical order
AttTerrInd = 0 // set the attacking territory index to zero; to point to the first attacking territory

C.

[cicero]

While NumAttTerr > 0 // as long as there's one or more territory that can attack, attack !!
// the following two lines must be INSIDE the While loop since the territories capable of attacking may have changed since the last iteration
arrange the qualifying territories in an array AttTerrs() // indexed 0, 1, 2 etc
sort the AttTerrs() array by number of armies then by alphabetical order
AttTerrInd = 0 // set the attacking territory index to zero; to point to the first attacking territory

Actually there's an ambiguity in the pseudo code there: Sort by number of armies 'low to high' or 'high to low'? Alphabetically 'a to z' or 'z to a'?

[PROPOSAL UPDATED] << this is always a link by the way for those of you who continue to struggle to find the current proposal ...

I've updated to fix the ambiguity.
Also updated the use of 'infected', 'active' and 'incubating' as discussed on page 29.
Also added "With colour codes added active neutrals are identified by a preceding 'a' and incubating neutrals are identified by a preceding 'i'. These replace the usual 'n'." to the Specifics section.
Also corrected a logic error (which I'm disappointed yeti didn't find ).

Cicero

[yeti_c]

(Shows how deeply I read the logic then!!!!)

C.

[Ditocoaf]

So on, say, Feudal War, it would be advantageous to have the Rebel Territory starting base, since if it ever gets to the point where the Neutrals wipe everyone out, and many of the IN territories have the same number of neutrals, they'd attack your areas last. (I'm assuming, say, there's 5 neutrals right next to each castle, and each player has only 2 armies, in their castle. The INs will attack the Barbarians first, finishing with the Rebel Territory, so the Rebel Territory wins. This situation is greatly simplified, but you see my point.

[vrex]

wait the rebels win? what about barbarians? lol well according to the proposal the first attacking neutral would be determined by alphabet order(since they all have the same number of armies)...then the first human target would be determined by how many armies they have (if they have 2...a person could influence it by going down to 1 army) then it would be up to the dice...but even if this might occur i think it is the integral part of playing with INs set to on...

if persons want to avoid the possible advantage of being on ... a certain castle with IN set to on then they could either attack the INs ignoring other players or cooperate to whittle down the threat or avoid playing on feudal war lol but personally i dont see a potential issue...but perhaps i dont want to, after all i REALLY want to see INS as soon as possible

[Ditocoaf]

wait the rebels win? what about barbarians?

Barbarians will be attacked first, rebels last. I think.

lol well according to the proposal the first attacking neutral would be determined by alphabet order(since they all have the same number of armies)...then the first human target would be determined by how many armies they have (if they have 2...a person could influence it by going down to 1 army) then it would be up to the dice...but even if this might occur i think it is the integral part of playing with INs set to on...

if persons want to avoid the possible advantage of being on ... a certain castle with IN set to on then they could either attack the INs ignoring other players or cooperate to whittle down the threat or avoid playing on feudal war lol but personally i dont see a potential issue...but perhaps i dont want to, after all i REALLY want to see INS as soon as possible

Basically, I'm just advocating not resorting to alphabetical order. I want to see this done as much as anyone, but I just want it to be as good as possible. On a Feudal War map, I find it doubtful that anyone will even be able to fight eachother; it will just be who can hold off the zombie horde the longest. In that case, it could very well just come down to alphabetical order determining who wins.

[cicero]

Can someone post an image showing what Feudal Wars looks like when the game is initialised with six players?
I'll be in a better position to make a response with that information.

Although, just in case it heads off your question, note that the order of attacks by the INs in their turn is decided first by the number of armies on their territories (largest first) then by the name of their territory names (a-z).

So if the IN's have 6, 3, 4, 12, 6 armies on their territories A-Land, B-Land, C-Land, D-Land, E-Land then they will attack in the following order: D-Land, A-Land, E-Land, C-Land. (B-Land can't attack.)

Target selection is decided only by the number of armies never alphabatically.

So if D-Land has player neighbours with 7, 5, 6, 7, 1 armies then it will attack the two 7's only. (Territory name has no effect.)

Etc ... ? Does your question still stand ? If so, can you post the image requested ?

[Ditocoaf]

I understand that target selection is never decided by alphabetical order, but which IN territory that attacks first is sometimes decided alphabetically. I'll try to find the image, but I don't really think it's important. It would only be in rare situations that it would matter.

[vrex]

well until he posts image if IN had 5 armies on each territory bordering a player(s) with 2 armies each and IN armies were on 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' and 'e' territ names then according to the logic the IN armies on territ name 'e' would never attack and the player bordering that territ would ALWAYS win UNLESS players attempted to get their 2 army down to 1 and NOT every player thought up the genius idea of doing so. (IN would always attack with 'a' territ first followed by 'b' 'c' 'd' in THIS hypothetical situation because if all the IN territs have the same # of armies they resort to alphabet order) ...alphabet order is what ditocoaf is worried about. I am aware that the likely hood of IN ever using alphabet order to determine who wins is fairly small... but personally after IN looks at 'how many armies do i have?' there is not much else to go on save alphabet...so i cant think of a better option...can u ditocoaf?