[XML] infected neutrals

[WidowMakers]

I think that instead of this being a gameplay option it should be an xml option cause otherwise basically a bunch of maps could be thrown out of whack with an option like this added, but as an xml option the map maker could decide if he/she wanted it in or not, and it could make for alot of interesting maps

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before...

And we decided that all the current maps would be great "as is"... No current maps will be "thrown out of whack"...

C.

Well once Maze Craze gets done, that map would really be CRAZY. Imagine all neutral borders starting at 2 and then after the first round jumping to 3. Plus any conquered border territories respawn to 8 and then jump to 9 at the end on the next round.

Plus occupied neutral border territories respawn at the start of each players turn. So there is no way (once a border territory is attacked) that you can eliminate all neutrals. CHAOS! PURE CHAOS!

MAZE CRAZE INDEED!!!!!

WM

[cicero]

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before...

And we decided that all the current maps would be great "as is"... No current maps will be "thrown out of whack"...

Well once Maze Craze gets done, that map would really be CRAZY.

CHAOS! PURE CHAOS!

MAZE CRAZE INDEED!!!!!

Actually I've been following Maze Craze a bit recently, because I really like the idea, and it hadn't occurred to me to consider what would happen with infected neutrals let loose ...

Has WM created the first unplayable map (with infected neutrals) ... ?
If so it would be just typical of him ... ( )

Seriously though, I notice you're currently discussing the neutral respawn level for the maze 'walls' ... perhaps the level should be tempered slightly? <Decides to go and make a post ...>

[yeti_c]

You might be right Cic... but I'm not 100% sure... I think Maze Craze would be pretty hard to play with IN's - however - the way to play it - would to NOT kill any neutrals... you would need to keep them all in check... but if you captured one... then that could be game over... of course - taking a neutral wall with one of your lone armies - next to 1 players main camp... would be a genius move...

Remember of course though - that the neutrals regen NEXT turn at the start... and will only respawn to 8 once captured... so as long as the neutrals were kept in check... or once they'd attacked and spent themselves - they won't regen UNLESS another player takes the territory...

C.

[WidowMakers]

Has WM created the first unplayable map (with infected neutrals) ... ?
If so it would be just typical of him ... ( )

Nope the map doe snot have them attack they just respawn. The goal was to make rebuilding borders.

Maze Craze with infected neutrals would make...
Respawning Attacking Zombie Walls of DEATH!!!!


That has a nice ring to it.

WM

[cicero]

[PROPOSAL UPDATED] on several fronts ...

1 You'll remember ...

Code: Select all

         If TargCount = NumTargs Then // ie neutrals are attacking the last target territory
            advance all possible armies
         Else
            advance all remaining armies - (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs) armies


... and I noted, as well as answering the associated question, that there was an error in that pseudo code.

I have corrected it:

Code: Select all

         If TargCount = NumTargs Then // ie neutrals are attacking the last target territory
            advance (all remaining - 1) armies
         Else
            advance (all remaining - (3 + (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs))) armies

2 I have changed the 'delay 5 seconds' statement into lower level pseudo code. This introduces a new variable FutureOffset. Review the proposal to see the changes (5 lines of pseudo code are affected).
I have also changed the placing of this delay so that where an attack is made even if the battle is not won the delay occurs. Previously the delay only occurred when a battle was won. This seems 'fairer'. I don't see the infected neutrals running out of time very often; even in a speed game they have 5 minutes or 300 seconds = 300/5 = 60 attacks ... Nonetheless I thought it best to cover the possibility.

3 I have tweaked the Instructions page documentation slightly both to reflect 2 and for general clarity. I still think that a Q&A post is required though.

[Joodoo]

wow, this is an excellent idea since we introduce a "third" party, I would be interested to see how the games would change with zombies

[Soloman]

just wondering when this update will be implemented

[cicero]

just wondering when this update will be implemented

it seems even though you have pmed lack and twill there has been no response... *sigh*

Sorry, that is my fault for leaving that impression simply by my not reporting back on the response. Sorry all!

In fact both Lack and Twill PM'd me back within a very few days of my PM to them. It wouldn't be fair to publish a specific timescale for Infected Neutral implementation because, apart from anything else, Lack hasn't given me one .

However I can confirm that Lack remains enthusiastic about the suggestion, very complimentary about our proposal as it stands and keen to implement. There are other programming tasks (nope, I don't know what they are) which must take priority over Infected Neutrals, but after those then Infected Neutrals are currently next on the list. Fingers crossed

The PM exchange referred to in my previous post occurred on 7 April. I don't have any more up-to-date information at the moment Soloman.

However I'm just back from a vacation and will be contacting Lack/Twill shortly ...

I, or they, will post here when there's news.

[max is gr8]

No the worst would be Arms Race!!! Everyone would be out first round

[yeti_c]

No the worst would be Arms Race!!! Everyone would be out first round

No they wouldn't

No neutral starts above 3 - and neutrals cannot bombard.

C.

[max is gr8]

Does it say that in the code?

[max is gr8]

Why not, they should be able to bombard they may be stupid but not that stupid. Also I have thought of an idea for a map, perfect for this game type. Circus Maximus. Also i think the terminator points should go to winner at end.

[yeti_c]

Does it say that in the code?

Yes.

C.

[yeti_c]

Why not, they should be able to bombard they may be stupid but not that stupid. Also I have thought of an idea for a map, perfect for this game type. Circus Maximus. Also i think the terminator points should go to winner at end.

All discussed before.

C.

[WidowMakers]

I do see an issue with Infected Neutrals only attacking alphabetically.

In Maze Craze for example, the lower right portion of the map will be safer that the upper left. Due to the alpha/numeric layout IN will tend to attack up and to the left.

SO my suggestion is that the IN pick a random direction based on the number of options available. Basically use random.org to pick the path the attack.

I know this has probably been discussed but it will make Maze Craze very predictable.

WM

[Ditocoaf]

I do see an issue with Infected Neutrals only attacking alphabetically.

In Maze Craze for example, the lower right portion of the map will be safer that the upper left. Due to the alpha/numeric layout IN will tend to attack up and to the left.

SO my suggestion is that the IN pick a random direction based on the number of options available. Basically use random.org to pick the path the attack.

I know this has probably been discussed but it will make Maze Craze very predictable.

WM

This has been changed already. There was a long discussion, including a IN summit that I was invited to but missed . They changed it to use the MOD function, instead.

Which reminds me. Cicero, when this comes out, you've got to set up a IN game for the most active members in this thread. A sort of celebration.

[Joodoo]

Will the zombies have cards, because that could introduce another twist...

[WidowMakers]

I do see an issue with Infected Neutrals only attacking alphabetically.

In Maze Craze for example, the lower right portion of the map will be safer that the upper left. Due to the alpha/numeric layout IN will tend to attack up and to the left.

SO my suggestion is that the IN pick a random direction based on the number of options available. Basically use random.org to pick the path the attack.

I know this has probably been discussed but it will make Maze Craze very predictable.

WM

This has been changed already. There was a long discussion, including a IN summit that I was invited to but missed . They changed it to use the MOD function, instead.

Which reminds me. Cicero, when this comes out, you've got to set up a IN game for the most active members in this thread. A sort of celebration.

What is teh MOD function? So can we have an update on what IN will actually be? Explain exact what they do and how they work.

WM

[lancehoch]

What is teh MOD function? So can we have an update on what IN will actually be? Explain exact what they do and how they work.

WM

The mod function is:

No no... MOD is a function that returns the remainder of a Division function...

i.e.

10/3 = 3 Remainder 1

10 MOD 3 = 1

C.

well yeti here has told us what a mod actually is as even i was not sure i was guessing srry for all the capital letters and what may have been implied i was just really trying to make sure readers saw the important parts i have actually thought of a new way to describe the formula which i will now post...hope it is understandable

let 'qualifying territs' refer to the psuedo code where IN first sorts its attacking territs by army count (high to low) therefore (10, 10, 9, 7, 5) results in (10,10) these are 'qualifying territs'

(highest army count on qualifying territs)/(number of qualifying territs)=X remainder Y)

[therefore according to the proposal (10,10,9,7,5) becomes [10,10] becomes 7/2=remainder 1 [because of -3]]

hope that helps

For the actual code, see the third code box in Cicero's first post on page 22.

[cicero]

Apart from anything else WM's questions confirm that Infected Neutral behaviour is going to raise lots of questions ... and so the Q&A post (which I've yet to write) will have to be good

[Ditocoaf]

Congrats on the modship, cicero! Well-earned.

[yeti_c]

I think we should rename this to

"Infrected Neutrals"

C.

[cicero]

I think we should rename this to

"Infrected Neutrals"

C.

You've got me yeti ... I frankly have no idea what you mean ... ? ? ?

[yeti_c]

I think we should rename this to

"Infrected Neutrals"

C.

You've got me yeti ... I frankly have no idea what you mean ... ? ? ?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=54165&p=1395506

C.

[cicero]

Ah ... Mr Twill should get himself a new secretary!