[XML] infected neutrals

[crzyblue]

Cic still hasn't responded to my response to his question.....

[4V4T4R]

i see the double turn now, i didn't notice before

[cicero]

Cic still hasn't responded to my response to his question.....

He hadn't. But remember this is a public thread. Not Cic's surgery. I'm not in charge here you know
I have to admit that I didn't find your last response particularly constructive and so had chosen not to reply. But let it not be said that I don't try to please ...

well then you'd have people waiting to the last minute to play... thus having everyone go at once and the last person to have they're 1 hour time limit to play end they'd get the advantage

Well yes, but that's the nature of freestyle generally isn't it? The brinksmanship of going last? But even if I've misunderstood the nature of freestyle and hence that brinksmanship would only exist in infected neutral games then even so it would still apply equally to all players.

... but the only people going to take advantage of this is someone close to holding a bonus with neutrals near it ... so not many would take this advantage ...

OK, so you're saying that the only people with an advantage are those holding (or nearly holding) a bonus. Firstly I'd suggest that such people are supposed to have an advantage; it's the nature of the game. Secondly, more constructively perhaps, I'd say that the other players will be aware of this advantage and so can choose to do something about it if they wish. If I'm playing a game with someone and can see they are about to take advantage of the position on the board, even though I myself can't, then I can choose to try and stop them taking advantage. That is normal. And as it should be.

... which is why I suggested have it go for area bonuses first. that way in said example the last person doesn't get that advantage because he still has to fort neutral

As I've posted previously making the neutrals attack continent bonuses makes them into more intelligent 'players'. That is not the aim of the suggestion. That is not the form in which it was marked as "to-do".

Hope this helps.

Cicero

[Twill]

In the rules of a certain board game similar to what we play here at ConquerClub, in a 2 player game you would deal the 2 players plus a neutral player into the game.

At the start of each round the players got their normal armies plus 50% of that in neutrals. They then played neutrals on their turn after their own move.

That meant the neutral played every turn.

So, what if the following play order were to happen:

Player1
Neutral
Player2
Neutral
Player 3
Neutral

And the zombies had a "buildup round" and then an "attack round"

Round 1 would be buildup - in a 3 player game, you get 3 armies added to each territory
Round 2 would be attacks - no buildup, just attacking and you know where it's coming from

Or, Because in a 6 player game this means that each round there would be 6 armies added to all neutral territories, making them VERY threatening, you do something like the following:

Neutral
P1
Neutral
P2
Neutral
P3

Before each player turn armies are added only to territories adjacent to ones owned by the player about to move but attacks any player based on the rules used before (because Brazil could be bordered by 3 different players, it could get 3 bonus armies in any given round, leaving P3 with the "attack" round after the neutral breaches the 4 army mark, which can be used strategically by attacking down to a certain level so the attack phase comes on a specific person's turn)

Now, this would mean that there isn't the same buildup in territories surrounded by other neutrals but you could simply have a +1 to all non-otherwise-fortified-neutral-territories at the start/end of each round (which is randomized based on the person who started the match)

Or maybe a variation on this general theme could work - multiple smaller attacks per turn rather than one larger attack per round

[4V4T4R]

i think something like:

round 1:
player1
buildup
player2
buildup
player3
buildup

round 2:
player1
attack
player2
attack
player3
attack

where the nz's build up for one round, then attack on the next, then build up on the next, etc.
could work, but beyond this I think it is at risk of being to complex.
any thoughts?

[cicero]

Twill

Whilst I'm still digesting the many and various interesting suggestions in your last post but one, you post again with - sadly - another interesting suggestion!

It seems we could talk forever considering possible variations from the original suggestion.

And don't get me wrong I'm happy to do that. Perhaps for a slightly shorter period than forever.

However, to help us progress, it would be useful to know what the particular elements of the original suggestion were that lead to it being marked 'to-do'. Without knowing this we may 'develop' this idea, perhaps using one or more of the recent suggestions, into a form where the original essence is lost. And so it stops being appropriate 'to-do'.

Hopefully you see what I'm driving it and can provide some definitive guidance from God/Lack/your own insightful, authoritative soul.

Thanks

Cicero

[yeti_c]

In the rules of a certain board game similar to what we play here at ConquerClub, in a 2 player game you would deal the 2 players plus a neutral player into the game.

...

Or maybe a variation on this general theme could work - multiple smaller attacks per turn rather than one larger attack per round

And how would that work i Freestyle?!

Gotta say - all that ^:roll:^ seems far too complex for the simple mechanics that were already suggested...

C.

[cicero]

In the rules of a certain board game similar to what we play here at ConquerClub, in a 2 player game you would deal the 2 players plus a neutral player into the game.

...

Or maybe a variation on this general theme could work - multiple smaller attacks per turn rather than one larger attack per round

And how would that work i Freestyle?!

Gotta say - all that ^:roll:^ seems far too complex for the simple mechanics that were already suggested...

C.

Thanks yeti! That saves me trying to get my head around that.

Now, back to Twill's previous post/novel ...

BRB

Cicero

[Twill]

We put it on the to-do because it seemed a generally accepted good and popular idea.

You guys are the ones who have to tell us what to do with it

That way, if it proves to be a crap idea, then we just blame it on you

When you think you have an acceptable final product, simply post it and tell us why everyone things it will work and we'll give it a go-over from a biz perspective and give the final yes/no.

And yeti - it would work the same way in freestyle - when you click "start turn" the neutrals do their thang while you are doing yours.

[4V4T4R]

I don't know if anyone's actually thought this through, but if the nz's are
getting +1 army for every territ and humans only get +1 for every 3, the
nz's would potentially get far more armies than the human players. This
means that on maps like AoR, it might be impossible for humans to last
more than a few rounds.

For example, on your first round you get 6-8 armies. These you deploy on
your castle, maybe attacking and taking a territ, or just building up an
army. Either way, the nz's then get +1 on the ~6 territs that surround
your castle, and then attack you from each one. According to dice
simulator, you are likely to loose a army for each attacking territ in this
situacion. The point is that any troops you deploy are likely to be lost to
the nz's, preventing you from getting anywhere.

In reality, not all castles touch this many territs, and you probably wouldn't
loose as many armies.


Of course, this would create a unique kind of survivalist game play, but it would be highly up to chance. Any thoughts?

[InkL0sed]

I don't know if anyone's actually thought this through, but if the nz's are
getting +1 army for every territ and humans only get +1 for every 3, the
nz's would potentially get far more armies than the human players. This
means that on maps like AoR, it might be impossible for humans to last
more than a few rounds.

For example, on your first round you get 6-8 armies. These you deploy on
your castle, maybe attacking and taking a territ, or just building up an
army. Either way, the nz's then get +1 on the ~6 territs that surround
your castle, and then attack you from each one. According to dice
simulator, you are likely to loose a army for each attacking territ in this
situacion. The point is that any troops you deploy are likely to be lost to
the nz's, preventing you from getting anywhere.

In reality, not all castles touch this many territs, and you probably wouldn't
loose as many armies.


Of course, this would create a unique kind of survivalist game play, but it would be highly up to chance. Any thoughts?

I don't see a problem with that at all.

[yeti_c]

This has already been discussed...

And yes it would be "last man standing"... and it would be COOL!!!

C.

[4V4T4R]

yes i agree that it would be cool, and didn't say that it was a problem!
I also know that the last one standing situacion was already discussed, what I don't know is if anyone
actually analyzed the probability behind it. So I figured that I would.

[jakejake]

great idea

[Plutoman]

What is wrong with them going immediately after the last person has played?

As I see it, if everyone has taken their turn and played in a freestyle game, the server would easily be able to calculate the neutral zombies fast, for the next round.

And in sequential, they would just go after everyone has played in that round.

[vrex]

draft PROPOSAL
IMPORTANT notes: This post is the current draft proposal of this [To Do] suggestion. Anyone contributing to this thread must read, and re-read, this draft proposal since it will be edited frequently both as a direct response to future discussion in the thread and to make it a more thorough proposal.

Once a FINAL proposal is produced I will draw it to the attention of the site owners/moderators.

Any future posts which result in this proposal being updated will be acknowledged in the thread with a [PROPOSAL UPDATED] response.

At present everything is still open to discussion. When discussing, please quote concisely from the proposal to make the thread easy to follow.
_______________________

Back Story/Motivation
The neutrals have been infected by an unknown virus. This affects their behaviour making them irrationally, unreasonably aggressive. They attack any un-infected armies without thought for their own safety and with no real goal in mind; in fact whether they still have a mind is open to debate.

They always attack the largest concentrations of un-infected armies on their borders and continue the battle until they destroy their enemy or sustain such casualties that they cannot continue.

Since the virus is unknown, there is no antidote.
_______________________

SECOND REVISION/DRAFT PROPOSAL Suggestion Idea:
Additional game type option:
Infected Neutrals : Yes | No

Specifics:
With Infected Neutrals set to No game play is as now.
With Infected Neutrals set to Yes game play is as follows:

> Any neutral armies on the map are infected.
> The infected neutrals take their turn last in the game round.
> At the start of the infected neutrals' turn one army is added to every territory held.
> Infected neutrals do not receive any bonuses of any kind, positive or negative. Motivation/Gameplay Note: This makes 'sense' since infected neutrals cannot benefit from the political structure of a continent. Equally they are not affected by factors such as frostbite on "Age of Realms" or drought on Dustbowl since they disregard their senses.
> All neutral territories with 4 or more armies are capable of making an attack and so will auto-attack a non-neutral neighbour* until they win the battle or have 3 or less armies. If they win the battle they advance all possible armies. If they have no non-neutral neighbours then they cannot attack (just as for normal players). NB Infected neutrals cannot make bombardment attacks. Motivation/Gameplay Note: This makes 'sense' since infected neutrals cannot operate bombardment technology. Also it would give infected neutrals an unfair advantage since they would effectively be able to advance along bombardment lines which players cannot.
> The infected neutrals continue their turn until they cannot attack further as defined by these rules.
> Regardless of game settings infected neutrals make no fortifications.

_______________________

* Infected neutrals are aggressive and irrational, but predictably so. An infected neutral turn will progress as follows:

If more than one neutral territory is capable of making an attack then the order is decided as follows:

(i) select attacking territory with the largest number of armies
if more than one territory qualifies:
(ii) select attacking territory alphabetically (see footnote 1)

When making an attack the target territory selection will be as follows:
[Remember bombardment attacks are not possible.]

(i) select bordering territory with largest number of non-neutral armies
if more than one territory qualifies:
(ii) select bordering territory occupied by player with the largest total number of armies in territories bordering the attacking territory
if more than one territory qualifies:
(iii) select territory alphabetically (see footnote 1)
_______________________

The player who wins gains no points for beating the infected neutrals any more than they do now for eliminating neutral players.

It will be seen that infected neutrals cannot win any games and so the question of points lost does not arise **. This firmly positions the infected neutrals as a gameplay feature and not an AI player.
_______________________

Why it is needed:
It would introduce interesting new ways of playing and tactics ...

• Neutral territories are no longer handy defences, but are actively dangerous!
• A deadbeating player does not benignly lapse, but his armies become infected and attack! Perhaps you won't ignore the player who looks like he might deadbeat after all.
• Even if there are no infected neutrals in the game to start with (because of the map/player numbers combination) some may be introduced by a deadbeat or, in maps including the option, by a successful bombardment or a "killer" territory (no maps yet exist with killer territories) ...
• When considering an attack on another player the fact there are "infected neutrals behind him" needs to be taken into account ...
• You may actually decide to deploy/fortify your armies away from infected neutrals since this will make them turn elsewhere ...
• Several players have asked for AI over time and, rightly, this has been rejected since this is a player/community based site. However the infected neutrals would introduce some positive elements of AI players (though 'intelligence' is stretching it a bit).
• Imagine a 1v1 (where 1/3 of territories are automatically neutral) ...
• Imagine a growing infected horde (it cannot auto attack since it is surrounded on all sides by other infected neutrals) ... which you deliberately release knowing, because of their predictable behaviour, that the infected neutrals will attack your opponents ...
• Map designers could take into account infected neutral behaviour when designing maps ...
• In heavily infested situations human players will have to cooperate to eliminate the infected neutrals first ...
• In extremely heavily infested situations human players may not, even with co-operation, be able to eliminate the neutrals ... in which case the player able to survive longest will win.
• Assassin games ... "someone kill the infected before they give the game to .. oh shit - too late!!"

_______________________

** Infected neutrals can't win or gain points ..
It is important to note that existing rules do not consider neutral armies as a player and hence the neutral armies cannot win. Under existing rules:

standard game
If at any time there is only one player left that player wins.
(whether the player holds 99% of the territories or 1)

assassin game
If at any time one player is eliminated (by whoever) the player whose target that was wins.

terminator game
If at any time a player is eliminated by the infected neutrals then the points are awarded to the player who last took a territory from the eliminated player (as per the rules to cover deadbeats). If no player had previously taken a territory from the eliminated player the points are awarded to the last surviving player at the end of the game (again as per the rules to cover deadbeats).
_______________________

Footnotes
1 References to 'alphabetical order' mean ASCII order (and refer to the names of the territories). Hence numbers come before letters etc.

Implementation of this would probably be more straightforward and processing/server efficient as 'XML order'. To facilitate XML=alphabetical order it would be necessary to revise XML for all maps to ensure the [borders] sections presented the borders in strict ASCII order.

this tread has gone pretty dead, the only addition to what is above would be that a deadbeat player does not immediately become a IN...instead their is a one round 'incubate' period anyway cicero i think this may be able to be finalized...

[4V4T4R]

i like it as it stands

[yeti_c]

So any news on this Twill?

C.

PS I know that this looks like a bump - but it isn't really - I'm merely enquiring of the Twill whether or not it's in a fit position for tender.

[vrex]

BUMP!! lol this is my last attempt to get cicero or twill to notice we are done with tweaking the idea and it can be 'finalized'.
unless others post after me this will fall into obscurity until someone uses lacks 'to-do' list to find it

[4V4T4R]

yeah cic where'd ya go? Do you have any other ideas on this?

[Ditocoaf]

this would be a neat gameplay option. do it.

[cicero]

vrex, 4T4V4R and anyone else with a 'v' in their user name ...

I've not disappeared.

I don't think the proposal is quite ready yet.

There were some fairly detailed posts a while back - from Twill and others - making various suggestions. I still need to consider them at length and draw the best parts together. Or at least summarise the variations so that we can decide in this thread which ones are the best.

Recently I've been pretty busy elsewhere, but (even before the recent bumps) I was about to come back to the poor, lonely, infected neutrals. [Life is hard in quarantine - even for an infected neutral.]

I'll post something substantial before the end of the weekend.

[vrex]

sweet, looking forward to it cicero i had forgotten about those 'twill novels'

[cicero]

OK, drawing on the last 10 pages - which I've just re-read and re-considered in full - the main variations on what is already included in the draft proposal on page 16 appear to be as summarised below. Against each one I've made a firm personal decision. If you think I've seriously misjudged then please explain, articulately what the correct decision is and why. Equally if you agree with my conclusions please post to that effect - particularly those who have been following/contributing to this thread for some time.

In three out of four you'll see that I've gone with what is already in the draft proposal, but don't think I'm being defensive about 'my' idea; my decisions are all genuine attempts to discern what is best for the CC/IN experience; hence my long post in explanation. In the absence of any well-supported and convincing arguments to the contrary I'll update the 'draft' proposal to a 'final' one including my decisions and then ask for formal review from the CC team.

1 extended inclubation period for deadbeats going infected ...
There is already an incubation period. Everyone gets advance notice of a potential deadbeat; for two turns you see the person miss their turn ... sure on your third turn you don't know 100% that the person will now deadbeat by missing their final turn, but it seems to me to be a positive part of the infected neutral effect for players to have to form a strategy - a contingency plan - based on the imminent possibility of an infection outbreak. Therefore I can see no real need/merit for this.

2 fortifications for the infected neutrals ...
The basic argument for fortification seems to be to facilitate the movement of neutrals away from central isolated territories (where all neighbours are also neutral) to peripheral neutral territories (where some neighbours are players) so that they can engage in attacks and in so doing to avoid the build up of large forces of neutrals (in said isolated territories).

An intrinsic part of the infected neutral idea is the build up of just these kinds of isolated armies which a clever player can then release to his/her advantage. This in itself is a good argument for leaving isolated neutral armies immobile. It has also been pointed out the movement of particularly large neutral armies (AoR: Magic and large deadbeats for example) will have a decimating effect on whoever they move towards. I believe it is better to allow the players to decide when/if such large armies come into contact with players rather than the neutrals having an (ultimately to all intents and purposes - random) urge of their own. It is important to stress again that these infected neutrals are not intended as AI opponents but as an interesting gameplay option. As has been noted, in games with particularly large infestations of neutrals it will be a matter of 'last man standing' to decide a game. It is important that rampaging (via fortification) neutrals do not overly influence the outcome. Players will (rightly) have enough problems managing their borders with infected neutrals whilst also trying to weaken their opponents without further 'reinforcements' of neutrals arriving from isolated territories.

Even in games with smaller infestations mobile neutrals would still have too much of a game skewing effect. In both medium and small infestations the neutrals will (rightly) be little more than an irritation unless players make mistakes. It is right that the neutrals have a minor role in such games and that players have the major roles. Therefore it seems to me that fortification is an unnecessary complication, and strengthening, of the infected neutral behaviour.

3 turn order for the infected neutrals - affecting both sequential and freestyle games ...
It has been argued, unsuccessfully in my opinion, that the the neutrals need to take their turn in some other way than simply "at the end of the playing round".

In sequential games it has been correctly pointed out that playing immediately before the neutrals (playing last in the round) gives an advantage. It is also true on CC generally that playing last in the round is a disadvantage. It seems to me that, even if not exactly equivalent, these two balance each other out to some extent. I think that the advantage gained is not so overwhelming as to excessively unbalance individual games and, over time, playing multiple games will even out such an advantage just as it does with playing first/last in general.

In freestyle games it seems to me that the case is even more clear cut. There is already some brinksmanship in freestyle about playing last. Infected neutrals, in some scenarios, will increase the desire of some players to play last. This seems to me again to be a legitimate tactic and one which other players - who may not have such a motivation to play last themselves in a particular game - will have to take into account when formulating their own strategy. Again the neutrals are a gameplay element - it is not for them to take this into account. The players must.

4 'target selection' logic for attacking neutral armies ...
I can see the benefits - to fairness and consistency of gameplay - of the neutrals attacking in a more complex manner that simply auto-attacking a single neighbour.

In order to get this post posted I shall incorporate the new attack logic - which takes into account all the suggestions made and incorporates, I believe, the best elements - into a new draft proposal and post separately.

Looking forward to your responses in the meantime to 1 to 3.

Cicero

[vrex]

concise, well thought out and generally awesome as usual cicero, you should get an award or something

In regards to-
1) hadn't thought of it that way, completely agree with you cicero.
2) never liked the idea of INs' fortifying, now there is a concise argument for it; once again, completely agree cicero!
3) strangely enough ive heard that going first is a disadvantage too! once again your precise evaluation reiterated in the form of your post has proven to me that your opinion is one i completely agree with

i really cant wait to see how you have changed 4...but i suppose i will have to i suppose we will have to go back to page 16 to see changed proposal but you will tell us in post when you have changed it?

cheers cicero

vrex