[XML] infected neutrals

[degaston]

You're making a lot of blanket statements without any justification.

I do not do this. I think about it a lot before I weigh in on an idea.

Based on your response here, I don't think you gave my first set of suggestions more than a cursory glance, because most of your questions were answered there. Here's the post:

I don't think it makes sense that zombies would get a deploy because they don't breed or mature, they convert opponents into zombies. They should get 1 attack against each neighboring player (because they're slow) in random order (because zombies don't do alphabetical). Any opponent troops the zombies kill in the attack should be added to the attacking territory (because they've been zombified). This would also imply that zombies can and will attack even with only 1 troop (and can use the same number of dice as they have troops, up to 3), because if the opponent is killed, he would become a zombie and remain on his territory. When a player attacks a zombie territory, any player troops killed do not become zombies because they would be shot in the head by their own people before they had a chance.

So after thinking long and hard about that, you wrote this?

Lets look at this idea you had then.
Zombies without a deploy. Not a bad idea but then they are just neutrals and do not really become a threat. The whole idea of this is to make the neutrals a threat. Aggression factor. You say later that you want a slider. So a neutral 3 is going to attack me 10% of the time or 100% of the time. Either way, a neutral 3 is just that. How often do you see players attack 3v3? It is not done as the defender has better odds. But lets give the zombies this idea. So you castrate them with numbers and them make them even worse by letting them attack.

So a zombie 3 will attack with 3 dice and a zombie 1 will attack with 1 die. It works thematically because a zombie territory should always be a threat, even if there is only one, and zombies are not known for their strategic thought, and will charge a loaded shotgun. (If a zombie 1 attack fails, then it remains a zombie 1... because they're already dead ) It works for gameplay also, because when the zombie territory wins an attack, it will gain the troops that it kills and become slightly more of a threat. If left alone, the number of troops on a zombie territory will slightly increase over time, given the attacker's advantage.

This is why the zombies should attack in random order, and only attack once. With a low aggression setting, this map will work just fine.

So instead of base A being eliminated first, base P is. Same difference. You eliminate a player and if you go with your once per round idea, you end up with a setting that will eliminate players one at a time over 8 rounds. Not really fun.

Each base gets an autodeploy of +2. The south pole is the only place that can attack them, and will only attack any particular territory once per round (as in one roll of the dice, not "attack until defeated"). So the most you can lose is 2, and at a 10% aggression setting, you would lose, on average, 1 every 10 rounds to a zombie attack, compared to the 20 autodeploy you get over that period. The only way you get eliminated is if you let your base drop below three troops. FUN!

I just remembered that the helicopters are killer neutrals, so they won’t be infected. Problem solved,

Killers are killers to players. Zombies are classed as neutrals. Would make no difference.

I thought that it was already the consensus that killer neutrals not be infected. This is easy to handle because it is already in the xml. Sorry for not making that clear. But even if they are infected, this still works just like antarctica because your autodeploy would be greater than the number of troops killed by zombie attack (with a low aggression factor).

How do you make sure all players get equal dice?

All players dice are the same. Sometimes the luck engine makes it seem you are losing a lot more then you really are. My dice rolls for attack are minus 12% but that comes back. But then again, dice are dice and not a setting.

I thought the whole point of this was to introduce more random factors into the game. Spoils vs. no spoils is a setting that increases the luck factor, right?

So every game has the same number of players? Speed games all have the same time limit? There’s only setting for round limits? There’s only one type of reinforcement? There’s only one type of spoils? When did all this happen?
Please provide some reason there couldn’t be more than one setting for zombies, just like there is for round limits and speed game times.

So if a setting does not work, lets implement it 5 times and hope one of them works.

How does it not work? In maps with lots of neutrals, you would need a low aggression setting. With just a few, you might need higher aggression to make it interesting.

Your earlier statement said that this prevented people from playing maps or settings that they liked. I’m saying that no one is required to use it if they don’t want to. There are many setting and map combinations that I would not want to play. Shall we disable them?

Not a bad idea. This would get my support from the get go, not as a cartoe, but as a player.

I assume you're not being serious here. Who is forcing you to use these settings that you don't like? If we took a vote and removed every setting that someone doesn't like, there wouldn't be much left.

When ever a new suggestion has been put into place, unexpected effects have happened (losing conditions and nukes games). As this suggestion stands, I have said why it would not work and it therefore needs more input to make it work. As no one will go and change all the old maps, it is far easer to get this implemented now as an xml update than it is to change them all for this.

I would rather see map makers use this for better maps to come than to roll this out over some maps and have a problematic system.

I think I have solutions for any concern you have about this. It does not require any changes to old maps. And if it is implemented as an xml change, then you lose 99% of the potential benefit to have another reason to play some old maps. And the xml change, as suggested, still has all the problems with deploy that you have been complaining about, so new maps would have to be specifically designed to work around this, and would probably not work well with any other settings. Knowing what you know about the foundry, do you really think it would be possible to develop a map that only worked well with zombies?

[degaston]

I manually played a 1v1 classic game using my suggestions with an aggression factor of 50% and no spoils. The game worked fine, and had kind of a different feel from a standard game. At the start, it seemed the best thing to do was to focus on getting a bonus and consolidating your territories to minimize the number of locations that could be attacked by zombies. Any area you weren't fighting for got taken over by zombies fairly quickly. In this game, one player controlled South America and most of Africa. The other had Australia and much of Asia. After that, it was a battle over Africa, with the zombies as a relatively minor annoyance. Once one player got the Africa bonus locked up, he quickly broke Australia and the game was over, while zombies still controlled most of the territories.

I would call it a successful trial run. The zombies were a factor, but even at 50% aggression, they did not dominate the game. Here are the rules I used:

1. Before the game starts, an aggression factor is selected from 1-100.
2. When players attack zombies, normal dice rules apply.
3. At the end of each round, zombies have a turn.
4. At the start of the zombie attack, all possible attacks from a zombie territory to a player territory are added to a list in random order.
5. For each possible attack, a random number from 0-99 is generated. If this number is less than the aggression factor, then an attacking roll is made, otherwise, this attack is skipped.
6. When attacking, zombies roll one die for each troop on the attacking territory (up to 3). Defending players also roll one die for each troop (up to 2).
7. If both sides roll at least two dice:
___a. If both attacking dice lose, then two troops are removed from the zombie territory, unless that would leave the territory empty, in which case one zombie troop is left on the territory.
___b. If both attacking dice win, then two troops are removed from the defending territory, and two zombies are added to the attacking territory.
___c. If one die from each side wins, then one troop is removed from the defending territory. (Technically, one would be removed from the zombie territory also, but the lost defending troop becomes a zombie and is added back to the attacking territory, which cancels out the loss of the attacking troop.)
8. If either side rolls only one die:
___a. If the attacking die loses, then one troop is removed from the zombie territory, unless that would leave the territory empty, in which case one zombie troop is left on the territory.
___b. If the attacking die wins, then one troop is removed from the defending territory, and one zombie is added to the attacking territory.
9. If the defending territory is defeated in the attack, then one half of the zombie troops from the attacking territory are advanced to the defeated territory. (In the case of an odd number of troops, the extra troop is also advanced.) Any new possible attacks created as a result of the defeat are added to the end of the attack list in random order (except in trench).
10. Repeat until one attack has been attempted for all territory combinations on the list.

No killer neutrals on the classic map, so I don't really know how that would play. It would be pretty dangerous if a large killer neutral were allowed to advance half of it's troops onto a defeated territory, so the easiest solution would be to say that killer neutrals cannot be infected, but there might be some other solution.

[OliverFA]

As I said before, having a setting that does not allow you to play you favourite map or size of game seems pointless and does not achieve anything worthwhile.

I guess I must have missed the suggestion to make this a required setting that everyone must use. I'll vote "no" on that.

LOL! I will vote "no" on that too Nice way to put it, because I am under the same impression

Edit:

...

Didn't see yours before posting. Great minds think alike?

Absolutely

[OliverFA]

Honestly, I am not interested in makin my proposed modifications the ones that get approved. The only thing I am interested is in getting this suggestion approved respecting the original spirit, and not morphed in something else. The only thing I am doing is proposing solutions to so called problems. It's good that Tanarri and Degaston propose their own solutions too. I am sure that if we discuss constructively about that suggestion the original goal with the original spirit can be achieved. There is a difference between saying "this particular part will not work and it needs fixing" than saying "Just because I found a flaw in the original (or revised) proposal I conclude that this will never work, so let's change it to my own like."

[degaston]

After thinking about it, there could be some very interesting strategic applications in the ability to lead half of the zombie troops away from a from killer neutral. If you can lead them towards an opponent (by weakening the opponent at an attack point), you could simultaneously "poison" their bonus with zombies, and make it easier for you to take the killer neutral because they do not reset until captured. Of course, the zombies may not cooperate - I hear they don't work and play well with others.

But this does lead me to wonder about how move order would play into this. The last person to go before the zombies would have the advantage that no one could try this trick on them without them being able to try to fix it on their turn.
Option 1: The zombie's turn comes once every (number of players + 1) turns, so the player they go after would cycle through all the players.
Option 2: The zombie's turn comes at random intervals, averaging once every (number of players) turns.
Others...?

I kind of like option 2, as it would add some suspense from never knowing exactly when the zombies will hit, and it makes the strategy listed above less likely to work.

[OliverFA]

After thinking about it, there could be some very interesting strategic applications in the ability to lead half of the zombie troops away from a from killer neutral. If you can lead them towards an opponent (by weakening the opponent at an attack point), you could simultaneously "poison" their bonus with zombies, and make it easier for you to take the killer neutral because they do not reset until captured. Of course, the zombies may not cooperate - I hear they don't work and play well with others.

But this does lead me to wonder about how move order would play into this. The last person to go before the zombies would have the advantage that no one could try this trick on them without them being able to try to fix it on their turn.
Option 1: The zombie's turn comes once every (number of players + 1) turns, so the player they go after would cycle through all the players.
Option 2: The zombie's turn comes at random intervals, averaging once every (number of players) turns.
Others...?

I kind of like option 2, as it would add some suspense from never knowing exactly when the zombies will hit, and it makes the strategy listed above less likely to work.

To be fair, it should be option 2. You never know when neutrals will act and everybody is p*ss*d equally

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

For some reason, this idea says that a player must have less troops overall than the neutrals bordering a region.

Seeing as you seem to be too busy tearing Oliver's suggestion apart to read the other posts in the thread...

That would eliminate the problem of huge neutral armies next to starting players, while giving those players free shots at the neutral armies. Following Feudal War example, those 10s are not a problem anymore, as they won't attack unless the player is a match for them.

Really, I think there's some people who've misunderstood the suggestion, likely due to Oliver making a mistake in the equation he put forward. For clarity and simplicity sake, Oliver's suggestion was to make the neutrals attack only when there's an army at least their size beside them.

[degaston]

To be fair, it should be option 2. You never know when neutrals will act and everybody is p*ss*d equally

I'm sure that within a week of this being implemented, there will be threads claiming that the zombies are fixed.

Option 3: Divide the aggression factor by the current number of players and have the zombies go between every player. You'd get the same number of attacks overall, but they would be spread out and harder to predict.

I think I like this even better. With bad luck, someone could get hit several times between turns.

[degaston]

Looking at a map like Feudal War that is unbalanced in terms of the number of territories that attack the bases, I think even this map could work if a variation on Oliver's timed trigger was used. If the aggression factor starts at 0 for a few rounds, and then is slowly phased in over several more rounds, that would give each player an opportunity to clear the zombies out of his neighborhood and minimize his exposure to attack before things get messy.

This complicates things, as it adds one or two more variables that either have to be defined for the map, or chosen by the players. I can understand the desire to avoid making the game start screen too complicated, and think it's probably about time to have both basic and advanced game start pages, but we probably don't need to get into that here. The easier solution to unbalanced maps is to disallow them from zombie mode. I don't think there are very many maps that would need to be excluded.

[OliverFA]

So I guess this suggestion is officially unsubmitted forever?

[degaston]

So I guess this suggestion is officially unsubmitted forever?

It's been around for 5 years - I'm sure the zombies will rise again... when you least expect it.

[chapcrap]

So I guess this suggestion is officially unsubmitted forever?

It's been around for 5 years - I'm sure the zombies will rise again... when you least expect it.

I don't think it's unsubmitted forever. I'd love to see this, but it needs to be correct first I think. And this effects maps in such a large way, we can't do it without CA support, I think.

[degaston]

So who decides what is correct? As far as I know, I'm the only one to even attempt play testing a set of rules for this. I think this is another case where having a sandbox site to test different options would be very helpful... *sigh*

[chapcrap]

So who decides what is correct? As far as I know, I'm the only one to even attempt play testing a set of rules for this. I think this is another case where having a sandbox site to test different options would be very helpful... *sigh*

There is a beta site (if you want in, contact IcePack), but I don't know if they would want to take the time to code this for testing or not because usually they're only coding things that are actually going to happen for sure on the site and if it's a big mess, I don't know... I might be wrong about that. I do think a sandbox type of environment would be good.

As far as who decides what is correct, I'm not sure. I'd prefer this as a game option, personally. However, I don't want to jack up any currect maps, which is why we've gotta work with the CA's IMO.

[OliverFA]

Well if that was coded it would mean that it would be implemented for sure. The thing is that degaston is right to point that theoretical discussion only can reach certain point, and that beta would be needed for fine tuning. So it would be different from the typical suggestion because it would not be set in stoned until the actual values where decided through playtesting.

[degaston]

I think the only thing that is really needed is the decision to get it done. Koontz was the only CA I recall seeing in here at the end, but I'm not sure that the idea still has his support if it's a game setting instead of an XML change.

With the ability to set aggression levels and phase-in periods (either user defined, or preset per map), this could be made to work for any map or game setting. Some map/setting combinations may require a long phase-in, or a very low aggression level in order to make them interesting, but I don't see how it could be a big mess. If the zombies are too passive, then it wouldn't be much different than the current game, and if they're too aggressive, then the objective is simply to outlast your opponents. Either way, it's still playable.

[OliverFA]

Right. The key is to find that sweet spot. But it's clear that even in this sweet spot, the setting will represent an addiotional challenge. If it just represents an ocasional anoyance, then it won't make any difference.

[vrex]

I thought the whole point was to make it an option, perhaps not even an allowable option for some cases... but a choice.

What happens when people play the original idea [without the last 5 pages of new i missed] by CHOOSING to do so?

Theoretically, fun happens and that is all... but im likely sugar coating it, since i can't actually TRY to see how hard it would be on feudal [though i was one of the ones who thought this was a GOOD idea and FUN... heheheheehe ]

What happens when someone CHOOSES the option, but the other guy doesn't like it?

Theoretically, he/she doesn't join the game and perhaps the game stays unplayed...

Granted i have no knowledge whatsoever of all the new map mechanics, and there likely lies my flaw... maybe...

Did you know infected can't bombard? i dont know what type of attack the 40 on antartica have, but if its a bombard type, it will not happen, but for all i know its a ' treat it like adjacent territory' coding, which would mean YOUR screwed!
I don't think infected were intended to make killer neutral come alive at all, so likely killer would never 'attack' out

As far as 'alphabet' cicero put in many mitigating random variations to prevent "a" and "z" from being always attacked first or last, i thought the original coding almost eliminated the chances "z" was guaranteed to die last but i haven't looked at the coding in a looooong while

For me its bad enough this suggestion has been laying dormant since 2008... now changes might delay this ever coming out

A test site WOULD help immensely, is it possible to 'clone' CC and then implement the suggestion on a site only a 'select few' can access for testing?

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Said test site already exists; however, the problem that will be run into is the code still has to be written regardless of where it's initially implemented. I could be wrong, but this suggestion is likely reasonably code intensive and hence may take a while to be considered while bigWham works his way through more immediate code upgrades.

[OliverFA]

I agree with Vrex. This is supposed to be an option. Diluting the option makes it another "me too" option and not worth to be played neither coded.

[vrex]

Which summarily means someone has to convince bigWham to at least consider testing it on said test site, wherever that test site may be... because for me, i am immensely curious how it would play out as 'originally' coded

That would be something new for sure, a suggestion actually being tested before being employed, and if there ARE 'problems' discovered via the testing, it would be at least, a discussion arising from seeing the issue firsthand.

So, anyone care to propose a new status for this suggestion...like ... TO BE TESTED!!

seriously, i hope the testing option gets at least a passing mention to the head honcho, for me, testing it seems like the best avenue for this option to 'move forward'. Which is something i would love to see. If i could code, i would do it myself, for free, if it made it any faster for bigWham to consider on the test site... but alas, my coding is ... -9000 power XD

[OliverFA]

To be tested... I like it

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

The problem we're going to have with testing it first is that before it can be tested, it has to be coded. At which point, it becomes a question of us convincing bigWham that this is a better feature to code than the next.

[OliverFA]

The best argument would be something on the line of "This feature will be legen... wait for it... dary. Tests need to be done to find the sweet spot for it, but that sweet spot does exist and will no doubt be found in short time, at which point this will become a completely new and killer feature"

[vrex]

The problem we're going to have with testing it first is that before it can be tested, it has to be coded. At which point, it becomes a question of us convincing bigWham that this is a better feature to code than the next.

Surely it can't be that hard to convince him to code on a TEST site, which isn't even this one

Then again, i'm sure he does have code to write for this site... that could be more pressing...

All i know is i want in on the testing, if that is even possible