PLAYER57832 and several other posters have suggested incorporating various elements of randomness into the behaviour of the zombies.PLAYER57832 wrote:Like it, but wouldn't it be better to randomize the attacks rather than have them automatically attack alphabetically. Also, I would say randomize whether armies are pushed forward or remain ... etc
Agreed. This would also allow some other xml features by creating the possibility of a neutral turn.KoE_Sirius wrote:I think its a brilliant idea.
It does mean that zombie behaviour is affected by the luck of where you start, but that is an element of randomness which already exists at ConquerClub. It is not a new one.Lone.prophet wrote:if it is alpabetical than it has do do with the luck where you start
maybe make it attack the weakest/strongest territory it can first than if they are the same alpabetical maybe
richardgarr wrote:I believe that the original idea stated that zombies needed to have 4 or more armies in order to attack, If 1 man is deposited on each zombie terr per turn, attacking would be limited, by making sure a player always attacked a zombie terr , reducing it to 2 armies , it would ensure you would never be attacked by zombies touching your lands, so the zombies would only be able to attack with armies that had 4 or more, alphabetically would be the most random way of doing this. A player with a little foresight could use this tactic to his advantage easily. As well if you try to reduce the zombie to 2 men , a player might lose and then be attacked themselves as a result.
timmytuttut88 wrote:what if zombies win? or they eliminate someones target in an assasin game?
If zombies eliminate a target in an assassin game the person whose target it is wins. The fact that the zombie behaviour is predcitable means that this is something all players can take into account when considering their turns: If the zombies are about to eliminate a player's target then the other players should see this and act!richardgarr wrote:I would recommend that all players involved lose points, based on the same calculations used for regular point loss,...the amount the zombies have could be derived from the average score of all players in the game. Those points would simply go into zombie land, never to be seen again.timmytuttut88 wrote:what if zombies win? or they eliminate someones target in an assasin game?
This might actually help with point inflation.
sheepofdumb wrote:I'm not scum, just a threat to the town. There's a difference, thank you very much.
ga7 wrote: I'll keep my vote where it should be but just in case Vote Strike Wolf AND f*ck FLAMINGOS f*ck THEM HARD
The Weird One wrote:I think this is a good idea.
wicked wrote:agreed, I'm scum. vote wicked.
Dariune wrote:Who said thaf > if i dont (f*ck SAKE!!!) go soon shi gfonna get in troubl with Jen. Teehee
I not drunk im tipsy and my key board is shite thats akl
Just to reiterate my position my suggestion is not about AI players. It's an interesting topic, but not for this thread. Perhaps AS players? Artificially Stupid? That describes my zombies pretty well. [Continuing the off topic train of thought - I like the idea that the site provides a programmable AI engine that could, perhaps, be 'programmed' using XML or something. Each of us would be able to write our own AI code and paste it into the engine. There could then be AI tournaments etc with the points going to the programmer ... Like I said - interesting, but off topic ]Twill wrote:Or you could get really cutting edge, set up a rules based system for deciding if they should attack (for an AI coding example, see ... <snip> ... Or there are other systems this could be based on other than territory names or randomly. For example, it could be based on who holds the most territories, who has killed the most natives (revenge is sweet), path of least resistance, path of most resistance, closest target (map makers would have to take this into account in their designs), only attack when provoked (i.e. attack only if attacked first), attack if relative player armies in country being attacked is less than 10% or above 75% (easy pickings vs desperation), set by the map maker ("motives"), randomized motive but announced.
Yes. They would always behave in an utterly predictable manner. (And this will apply equally to maps designed before zombies and those designed specifically with them in mind.) But that doesn't mean you could predict the behaviour with any certainty until it was too late. I'm probably being a bit over the top here, but I think a sub-chaotic behaviour would result. There would be a kind of "butterfly effect" possible in that players could radically change the route of the zombies by attacking tactically.Twill wrote:I think alphabetical territories is a mistake because in some maps (because this feature hasn't been designed for) the computer would always go one way. Always.
I agree that this option would not suit some maps. And certainly some of the newer maps with pre-defined large numbers of neutrals may not be appropriate. Remember that neutral zombies is intended as an option not a default setting. It should be switchable just like Fog of War. Some maps will suit NZ's (Neutral Zombies) and others won't - we all have our preferences for certain game options on certain maps and this intended to be another option.Twill wrote:For example, in midkemia, Qwan starts with 6 neutrals, it would always attack earennial, which would suck to start there, kind of like alcatraz in LA.
And this is where the sub-chaotic behaviour kicks in I think ...Twill wrote:it's just too simple of a system and will get boring after a while, there needs to be uniqueness if not randomness. if you have a classic map, and neutrals end up in kamchatka, they will always attack Alaska, Alberta, Northwest tarritories, greenland, iceland, great britain, n. europe, s. europe, egypt, congo etc etc etc. no matter what the opposition looks like - it's like a one player suiciding in a 3 person stand off - someone always gains and someone always loses, and nobody likes being on the losing side and nobody can control it.
I think it needs less work than you think. But you've got me thinking enough that I'm going to go and do some play testing on Classic map (since I have the board game) and report back to the thread ...Twill wrote:I like the idea, it needs a lot of work before we consider implementing it though
Users browsing this forum: No registered users