koontz1973 wrote:degaston wrote: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:
degaston wrote: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?
koontz1973 wrote: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.
koontz1973 wrote:degaston wrote: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!
koontz1973 wrote:degaston wrote: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).
koontz1973 wrote:degaston wrote: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?
koontz1973 wrote:degaston wrote: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.
koontz1973 wrote:degaston wrote: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.
koontz1973 wrote: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?