[XML] infected neutrals

by **Joodoo** on Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:50 am

I have some questions regarding certain scenarios. If ther are 2 players left in say, a 8 player freestyle standard game and they both have 1 territory left (and their territories do no border, it is only surrounded by infected neturals). When Player B ends his/her turn (still with the above situation), does Player A get the win?

by **TheForgivenOne** on Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:56 pm

Depends whoever gets killed first by the Infected Neutral. It's sort of like a "Nuke" situation, if 2 people nuke each other to end the game, whichever card was played first nukes first. So basically, who ever has the territory with either the Most Troops on it, or whoever's territory has the name that starts closest to A, they would be attacked first. (Can't remember off the top of my head which is being chosen, so i gave both options)

by **Army of GOD** on Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:21 am

The real question is.

WHAT ARE THEY INFECTED WITH?!

by **Joodoo** on Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:20 am

Army of GOD wrote:The real question is.

WHAT ARE THEY INFECTED WITH?!

H1N1?

by **firsal901** on Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:26 am

something like mad human disease in the film Zombieland

by **TheForgivenOne** on Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:42 pm

Alright, i tweaked two things to the first post. If anyone disagrees, please PM me or post in here

by **MarshalNey** on Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:01 pm

TheForgivenOne wrote:Maybe Killer Neutrals should not be an "Infected", but just remain Killers.

Okay, I'll admit that I haven't visited this forum in a long while, so I'm sorry for the delayed response.

However, I've been working in the Foundry (slowly) on a map called Zombie Invasion. It's still in the gameplay stages before some serious graphics work gets done, but the idea was developed partly with the Infected Neutrals suggestion in mind. This new change you propose, which makes killer neutrals exempt, would require a possible re-think on my map.

The thing is this: my map was intended to have zombies as an unlimited force... players literally could never be rid of them, they could only hope to get to the helipad and escape. The only way to ensure that the 'zombies' (neutrals) never went away is to use killer neutrals.

If the Infected Neutrals suggestion ever gets implemented- and with a new website developer, that is a more distinct possibility- then it would seem sad to me that the zombies on my map would actually be 'zombie-proof'!

by **TheForgivenOne** on Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:41 pm

Well, for a map like Monsters, It would be impossible to maintain the Wizard. On Das Schloss, Hubschrauber A & B would kill all the Parachutes off instantly, due to having a ton of Troops on them.

Edit** Also, what the original plan was, that every Neutral would attack anything beside it, if it had the forces. Now, with Killer Neutrals, this threw a few maps like the 2 i mentioned out of whack. Now, from your map, all the Neutrals on the streets are killers, correct? Well, with this new feature coming in, it would ACTUALLY make your map nearly impossible to play, since if you have 4 starting points, and only 3 troops to deploy, you'd be kinda hooped. Because the killer neutrals, on the streets, would constantly be gaining 1 each turn, along with Neutrals in the areas off the streets. But with this, the Neutrals won't be gaining 1 each turn, but still remain as if this game type wasn't played.

The only way to ensure that the 'zombies' (neutrals) never went away is to use killer neutrals.

I'm not saying that we will remove killer neutrals off the maps. I'm just saying they won't be considered "infected". This game type would more likely give you a more zombie like feel, as each room is filled with so many infected. There still will be killer neutrals on the streets, they will come back after each time someone conquers the territory, they just won't be able to attack off their own space. Maybe create a safe room for starting terts? So that in case this gets implemented, infected won't be charging into your starting terts.

by **Queen_Herpes** on Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:36 am

I'm so in support of this as a new setting...and so opposed to letting new recrutis play it. There really needs to be a list of settings that new recruits can't access for a few games!

by **TheForgivenOne** on Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:34 pm

Alright, after reviewing over this thread, i think all the kinks have been worked out. So i will be moving this to Suggested

by **wercool** on Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:21 am

Queen_Herpes wrote:I'm so in support of this as a new setting...and so opposed to letting new recrutis play it. There really needs to be a list of settings that new recruits can't access for a few games!

by **sensfan** on Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:19 am

pure awesomeness

by **TheForgivenOne** on Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:25 am

No need for necro-bumping.

by **00iCon** on Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:09 am

Late idea! Have a 'gang up' option in which all the players are on one team against the neutrals. Once they finish them all, it turns into a normal game with the other selected options.
Don't know if this was suggested, and also didn't think it thorough. In writing it sounds like a bad idea.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:16 am

00iCon wrote:Late idea! Have a 'gang up' option in which all the players are on one team against the neutrals. Once they finish them all, it turns into a normal game with the other selected options.
Don't know if this was suggested, and also didn't think it thorough. In writing it sounds like a bad idea.

This may be completely pointless on some maps, where with X amount of players, there may only be 2 neutrals. Or, on a starting map, where the whole map is basically neutrals.

by **00iCon** on Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:13 am

TheForgivenOne wrote:
00iCon wrote:Late idea! Have a 'gang up' option in which all the players are on one team against the neutrals. Once they finish them all, it turns into a normal game with the other selected options.
Don't know if this was suggested, and also didn't think it thorough. In writing it sounds like a bad idea.

This may be completely pointless on some maps, where with X amount of players, there may only be 2 neutrals. Or, on a starting map, where the whole map is basically neutrals.

for randomly distributed terr's, perhaps change it so 1/3 are neutral.

by **TheForgivenOne** on Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:18 am

I really doubt people would play fairly with that setting. Most players would just hit everyone else, then clean up the neutrals, then kill.

by **vrex** on Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:20 am

In the case of 2 players being attacked by Infected Territories, the territory that comes FIRST in the alphabet will be attacked first. For example. Angola will be attacked before Mongolia.

No ... this isn't correct, unless a couple conditions are satisfied

-the number of nuteral armies surrounding said players are the same
-(i think) the number of armies said players have must also be the same

THEN and only then is that statement true... i was one of the ones who posted a bunch here so i should know :geek:

please get rid of that edit... and im also curious, how long do things remain last call anyway?

by **TheForgivenOne** on Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:46 pm

vrex wrote:please get rid of that edit... and im also curious, how long do things remain last call anyway?

All depends on the Webmasters decision.

by **richardgarr** on Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:55 pm

I have been following this topic for a few years now, just wondering if it will ever get implemented?

by **tkr4lf** on Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:15 am

Gah...I would never play this.

by **richardgarr** on Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:21 pm

I am so hot to play this.... really would put this site above the rest.
I understand the work to maintain a script like this one would be insane, however I can see it as a challenge to those of us who enjoy multi-level play.