Conquer Club

[XML] infected neutrals

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

Postby RobinJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:03 pm

I'll leave it at this: great idea! :D
nmhunate wrote:Speak English... It is the language that God wrote the bible in.


Highest Score: 2437
Highest Place: 84
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class RobinJ
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:56 pm
Location: Northern Ireland
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (1)

Postby herndawg on Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:11 pm

This idea is great,
I think the zombies should attack the weakest armies. Whenever I get chased by zombies they always catch the slower weaker ones behind me first. That would motivate deploying onto other places to avoid them attacking you and you could lead them where you want with ones.

I didn't read ALLLLLLL the responses so if someone said this already then call me poo
User avatar
Captain herndawg
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:30 pm
Location: somewhere out there
Medals: 18
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (3) Assassin Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (2)

Postby Twill on Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:39 pm

OK, I didn't make it all the way through the thread but is seems the biggest issue is this tie-breaker for equally large neighbours.

==1==
What if you went with the rebel analogy and had it based on the most number of neutral territories taken by each player...i.e. revenge killings.

Bob has taken 3 neutral territories
John too 4 neutral territories
Bob and John both have 5 armies neighbouring a neutral
Neutral attacks john.

Problems: What if nobody has taken any neutrals.

==2==
Base it on total number of armies on the board - who is the biggest threat in the grander scheme.


==3==
It attacks everyone - Wait until there are 5 armies on the territory, attack bob with 2 and john with 2, have 1 left over. Or Bob with 1, John with 1, sarah with 1 and jane with 1. etc etc.

With a fan method they would circle out from a central point, and set up a perimeter - say someone Deadbeats with 10 armies and 2 bordering territs.
Each one gets 4 armies attacking it (leaving the extra "remainder" 1 in the original territory)
Territ 1 is taken with no loses (4 advance) Territ 2 is taken with 1 loss (3 advance) Original territ is left with 2 defenders (the mandatory 1 and the "remainder")
Because territ 1 has 4, it continues it's attack:
Territ 3 gets 1 attacker, territ 4 gets 1 attacker, 1 left as mandatory, 1 left as a remainder.

It's methodical, predictable, equal and, I think, easy to code.




Now, other issues I have are that it's too simple a calculation - You can not deter an attack - it WILL come.

I think I mentioned earlier (it may have been shot down, I don't know, didn't check) that you have a simple calculation:

If the defending army is x% bigger or smaller then I attack, if we are evenly matched I dont.
One would be a desperation attack (x% bigger) and one would be an "easy pickings" attack.

It would negate the possibility of you being screwed by a deadbeat who you had a stable border with at 10:10 each, but now that there is a zombie there, it's going to nuke you and leave you very exposed (rather than very defended)
If you have the % requirements, then you can still defend against that one border, they are still a threat (because they are going to keep building 1 per turn until they can kick your ass) but they will not instantly attack you and leave you fully exposed.

I'm only talking 25% over 25% under so it's easy to calculate and explain.

i.e. 13 neutrals would attack 10 or less
3 neutrals would attack 10 or more (once they get over the 4 threshold)

4 neutrals would attack 3 or less or 5 or more but not attack 4.

Those are my 2 thoughts.
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.

Essential forum poster viewing:
Posting, and You! and How to behave on an internet forum...on the internet
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Twill
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:54 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Postby wcaclimbing on Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:01 pm

sounds good, Twill.
I like it.

EDIT: the third problem, besides the two you mentioned, would be to decide WHEN the zombies will make their attacks. Cause going at a set time would give some people an advantage, playing right before or right after a zombie.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class wcaclimbing
 
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: In your quantum box....Maybe.
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (2)

Postby the_fatty on Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:22 pm

is this gonna happen? i like the idea a lot.
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
User avatar
Private the_fatty
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:24 am
Location: On my iSuggs (Oh yea!)
Medals: 1
Tournament Contribution (1)

Postby Twill on Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:35 pm

Officially to-do, once we sort out the details.

Buckle down, write a proposal, we'll poke as many holes in it and once Lack has some time to get down to coding we'll get this (or a form of this) in.

Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.)

Would this be better as a game option or as an XML per-map feature?
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.

Essential forum poster viewing:
Posting, and You! and How to behave on an internet forum...on the internet
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Twill
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:54 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Postby wcaclimbing on Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:53 pm

i think game option would be the way to go.

Cause AoR maps are really popular, but players will want the choice of zombies or no zombies.

Cause most maps that are all neutrals are still good to play without them being zombies. zombies would just be an extra option to add a bit more fun to those maps. it would be a "dont want it, dont play it" kind of thing.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class wcaclimbing
 
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: In your quantum box....Maybe.
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (2)

Postby 4V4T4R on Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:14 am

Twill wrote:Officially to-do, once we sort out the details.

Buckle down, write a proposal, we'll poke as many holes in it and once Lack has some time to get down to coding we'll get this (or a form of this) in.

Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.)

Would this be better as a game option or as an XML per-map feature?


awesome

i still think that a cycling zombie turn order is the fairest way to go (and has the
advantage of being predictable, unlike a random order)
also i like the idea of zombie's splitting to attack several territs.
this would create a quicker, more zombie-like spread
User avatar
Private 4V4T4R
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:38 am
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)

Postby Twill on Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:01 am

Oh and for the record, we really are going to have to change the zombie name.

It gets the idea across...it just doesn't really fit the theme :)

Rebels
Freedom Fighters
Liberators
Terrorists
Pains-in-the-ass


Anything but zombies :)
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.

Essential forum poster viewing:
Posting, and You! and How to behave on an internet forum...on the internet
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Twill
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:54 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Postby cicero on Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:06 am

Twill wrote:Officially to-do, once we sort out the details.

Buckle down, write a proposal, we'll poke as many holes in it and once Lack has some time to get down to coding we'll get this (or a form of this) in.

Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.)

"Yesssss ..... !!!!!!".
There is a god/lack!
<genuine weeping>

Twill wrote:Oh and for the record, we really are going to have to change the zombie name.

It gets the idea across...it just doesn't really fit the theme :)

Rebels
Freedom Fighters
Liberators
Terrorists
Pains-in-the-ass


Anything but zombies :)

"Noooooo ...... !!!!!!"
<genuine weeping>

As a last ditch, but genuine, attempt; read some of "World War Z" by Max Brooks. Check out the reviews at Amazon. Alternatively try his other, related, book "The Zombie Survival Guide". Both present zombies as a scientific phenomenon and are written in a documentary style. [They are fiction ... I'm not that crazy!] ... but they portray the zombies in a journalistic/realistic way and in so doing integrate them with 'real life' in such a way that they genuinely do seem to fit the theme at conquerclub.

Only in preparing this post did I find http://www.worldwarz.net. Pay it a visit. There is a "World Map" on which you can click various territories to see/hear extracts from the book (sadly the extracts don't do the book justice). There is also a "risk calculator" ... Now if those two facets are not 'signs' from zombie heaven I don't know what would be ;).

Seriously, please reconsider. Apart from anything else I do think the 'zombies' need to be dumb(ish) in their behaviour and none of the counter suggestions proposed so far meet that need or, really, explain their motivation to behave in the way that the CC zombies do (or "will" after final tweaks) ...

Cicero
<breaking off for an extended period of hysteria - I may well be back to make constructive posts later>
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)
General Contribution (3)

Postby Twill on Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:54 pm

Natives
Barbarians
Restless Hordes
DeadBeat(er)s (get the zombie pun...they are dead...but they beat on people...oh, how funny am I :roll: )
Killer Turtles
The 5th Column
BOB's Cousin ROB

We'll poll on the name later ;)

You still need to work on the attack rules for tie breakers, if it's going to stay a simple @4 armies: attack or if something more complex would be better (I think it would, to stop massive game disrupting deadbeating) and when they will attack.
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.

Essential forum poster viewing:
Posting, and You! and How to behave on an internet forum...on the internet
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Twill
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:54 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Postby Stoney229 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:06 pm

Twill wrote:Oh and for the record, we really are going to have to change the zombie name.

It gets the idea across...it just doesn't really fit the theme :)

Rebels
Freedom Fighters
Liberators
Terrorists
Pains-in-the-ass


Anything but zombies :)
How about "Revolutionaries".

But still... I agree with cicero. I'm not into zombies like he seems to be, but no other name really seems to fit. A rose by any other name (i.e. "poop") would still probably smell different :D
Score: 1739
Games: 88 Completed, 52 (59%) Won
#1302/21963
User avatar
Lieutenant Stoney229
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:46 am
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1)

Postby crzyblue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:17 pm

I think we should name them Twill's... Twill's attacked so and so :P
Sergeant 1st Class crzyblue
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:15 am

Postby 4V4T4R on Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:49 pm

i agree that zombies is really the only name so far that makes sense,
except maybe orcs or uruk-hai.
User avatar
Private 4V4T4R
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:38 am
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)

Postby cicero on Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:48 pm

Twill wrote:... We'll poll on the name later ;)

You still need to work on the attack rules for tie breakers, if it's going to stay a simple @4 armies: attack or if something more complex would be better (I think it would, to stop massive game disrupting deadbeating) and when they will attack.

Agreed.

Thinking aloud ... (and using "NZ's" to indicate the "things-to-be-named") ...

naming
It is important that the naming is in some way consistent with the behaviour. I find names such as rebels, terrorists etc unhelpful. At present in a game my own armies are. of course, the forces of good. Anyone else is a rebel, a terrorist etc. So really these kinds of names for groups of "others" ends up defining them as other players. In which case it seems likely we are going to produce some kind of AI behaviour ... which is not the suggestion which has been approved is it?

Adopting a descriptive kind of naming such as "infected neutrals" which explains why the neutrals aren't behaving as expected might be useful.
__________

victim selection
I believe this does need to be predictable and too much complexity will interfere with the ability of players to do this. (Although BOB will soon be updated I'm sure to highlight the NZ's victims.)

attack method
Some posters have suggested diverting from auto-attacking after the victim is initially selected ...

I think that both the above need to reflect that the NZ's are not players and so will not look exactly like players making turns. There has to be some connection of motivation between the naming and these two.
__________

'turn' position
I think that the question of just when the NZ's play is something of a red herring. It has been noted that, in all games, players playing nearest the beginning of a round have an advantage. It has been noted that, in games with NZ's the player going last - assuming the NZ's play after everyone else - will have an advantage in that they will, at end of their turn, be able to predict, with absolute accuracy, how the NZ's will attack. Is that such an overwhelming advantage? If, as has been suggested, that player fortifies to avoid being attacked by the NZ's in many situations the other players will take advantage of such moves. It would seem these two kinds of advantage offset each other to a great extent.

In any event surely, over time, the fact that I play first in a game and gain an advantage, or play last in a NZ game and gain an advantage, will be levelled out by all those games in which I don't?
__________

best medium to take these points forward
It would seem that a thread for each of these points would be useful to make the conversation continuous and coherent. Also it might be useful to limit the users working on the thread if only to stop any more "I just think it should be random!" posts ... ;)

Which I guess sounds like I'm proposing a usergroup. But it's the public forums which have got us this far ...

Your thoughts mods? And others? What's the best way to proceed?
User avatar
Sergeant cicero
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)
General Contribution (3)

Postby wcaclimbing on Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:13 pm

cicero wrote:Which I guess sounds like I'm proposing a usergroup. But it's the public forums which have got us this far ...

Your thoughts mods? And others? What's the best way to proceed?


Sounds good.
If the group gets made, I want in :D
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class wcaclimbing
 
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: In your quantum box....Maybe.
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (2) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)
General Contribution (2)

Postby yeti_c on Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:05 am

Twill wrote:BOB's Cousin ROB


Er - Not sure if you realise - but BOB is short for ROB?!

Twill wrote:DeadBeat(er)s


Whilst I like this name - it's also tricky to use - as this would redefine the term "Deadbeat"...

And also - who would want to actually turn on "Deadbeats" for their game!?

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Postby Twill on Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:28 pm

Clearly the attempt at humour was lost on you yeti mate :)
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.

Essential forum poster viewing:
Posting, and You! and How to behave on an internet forum...on the internet
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Twill
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:54 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Postby Stoney229 on Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:01 pm

Twill wrote:Clearly the attempt at humour was lost on you yeti mate :)
hmmm. or the other way around.
Score: 1739
Games: 88 Completed, 52 (59%) Won
#1302/21963
User avatar
Lieutenant Stoney229
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:46 am
Medals: 4
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1)

Postby 4V4T4R on Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:37 pm

cicero wrote:
best medium to take these points forward
It would seem that a thread for each of these points would be useful to make
the conversation continuous and coherent. Also it might be useful to limit the
users working on the thread if only to stop any more "I just think it should be
random!" posts ... ;)


I think separate threads might confuse the issue. It (the nz's) is one topic.
Splitting into separate threads would convey the appearance of separate
proposals, while in reality all parts of how the nz's work need to be worked
out together in order for the end result to be complete.
User avatar
Private 4V4T4R
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:38 am
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)

Postby vrex on Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:36 pm

in regards to the subtle suggestion by twill that adding this option will promote deadbeating... it would only assure the deadbeaters that someone ELSE will win the game...unless they are not playing for points...i dont think they will deadbeat anymore than ususal :P the coding for this will only get harder if we make the attack time/who they attack more complex...these neutrals, as stated by cicero, are DIM and PREDICTABLE 8)
User avatar
Captain vrex
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: in containment with the infected neutrals...
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Postby Axel_999 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:03 am

I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this already, (didn't feel like reading past the 2nd page) but if zombies go on a rampage and could win the game, wouldn't the player to survive longest win, since the game would end after all players except one die?
Private 1st Class Axel_999
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:27 am

Postby 4V4T4R on Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:58 pm

Axel_999 wrote:I'm not sure if anyone else has posted this already, (didn't feel like reading past the 2nd page) but if zombies go on a rampage and could win the game, wouldn't the player to survive longest win, since the game would end after all players except one die?


yes, this was already established
User avatar
Private 4V4T4R
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:38 am
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1)

Postby Twill on Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:42 pm

Bump.

There are still several issues outstanding - target selection being the major one.

Can someone come up with a simple formal proposal of how exactly this should work, then we will all know we are on the same page.
Retired.
Please don't PM me about forum stuff any more.

Essential forum poster viewing:
Posting, and You! and How to behave on an internet forum...on the internet
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Twill
 
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:54 pm
Medals: 11
Standard Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Postby crzyblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:40 pm

I propose that it attack anyone with a full territory bonus, if none apply then the one with the most territories closest to that zombie
Sergeant 1st Class crzyblue
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mat4023