Conquer Club

OK I know that I have been around here for a while so I should know if this is in the wrong forum/area or not, but personally, idk where this should be. It could be in ideas, or here, or suggs and bugs

OK anyways. I was thinking earlier (at cracker barrel, great place to think i know) and i came up with an idea. What if there was a map where instead of everybody going after one another, they had to work together against a common threat. Nobody could eliminate each other, but this common threat could. It would be interesting i think. When I was thinking about it i was thinking for like a map like an alamo map, where 185 held back 5,000 for 13 days. It could be something like that. Something like they could work together or kinda go after each other in the alamo area for 12 rounds with a big territory for the mexican army that had like 5,000 neutral, and from the 13th round on, the 5,000 neutral would kinda like go on a rampage, and for a winner the last person eliminated by the 5,000 would be it. Eh anyways im tired and coming up with the rest of it as i typed and im dizzy suddenly. Off to bed. Oh well tell me what you think, ill be back tomorrow morning.

Hm... maybe something along those lines could be possible, with zombie neutrals.

InkL0sed wrote:Hm... maybe something along those lines could be possible, with zombie neutrals.

that was my thought, but it would have to have zombie neutrals no matter what



ok NOW off to bed, had been checking another site

That would be a really cool map to play, just not sure how it could be done though. With the "last man standing" objective though it could be abused and some players might actually start attacking each other. Then again, I guess you could put it in the map somehow that players couldn't attack each other.....

The game that you described seems to far from what Risk actually is to be a part of this site. Other than certain fundamental gameplay rules (involving dice, fortifications, etc.), the whole principle of the game is changed. Would it be a cool map? Maybe. It depends on the specifics. But does this general idea belong on this site? I'm inclined to say no. It's not Risk.

ZeakCytho wrote:The game that you described seems to far from what Risk actually is to be a part of this site. Other than certain fundamental gameplay rules (involving dice, fortifications, etc.), the whole principle of the game is changed. Would it be a cool map? Maybe. It depends on the specifics. But does this general idea belong on this site? I'm inclined to say no. It's not Risk.

If it doesn't require an XML change, then I would say it should be fine. It only gets in a gray area once an XML change is needed.

InkL0sed wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:The game that you described seems to far from what Risk actually is to be a part of this site. Other than certain fundamental gameplay rules (involving dice, fortifications, etc.), the whole principle of the game is changed. Would it be a cool map? Maybe. It depends on the specifics. But does this general idea belong on this site? I'm inclined to say no. It's not Risk.

If it doesn't require an XML change, then I would say it should be fine. It only gets in a gray area once an XML change is needed.

To make it so that no player can attack another player certainly seems like it would need an XML change, or perhaps even a larger change to the site, beyond map-level XML.

ZeakCytho wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:The game that you described seems to far from what Risk actually is to be a part of this site. Other than certain fundamental gameplay rules (involving dice, fortifications, etc.), the whole principle of the game is changed. Would it be a cool map? Maybe. It depends on the specifics. But does this general idea belong on this site? I'm inclined to say no. It's not Risk.

If it doesn't require an XML change, then I would say it should be fine. It only gets in a gray area once an XML change is needed.

To make it so that no player can attack another player certainly seems like it would need an XML change, or perhaps even a larger change to the site, beyond map-level XML.

Not at all, if they have different starting points, and they can't ever reach each other, then bingo, you can't attack each other.

InkL0sed wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:To make it so that no player can attack another player certainly seems like it would need an XML change, or perhaps even a larger change to the site, beyond map-level XML.

Not at all, if they have different starting points, and they can't ever reach each other, then bingo, you can't attack each other.

Okay, what about the problem of having a sentient neutral player that can attack the players? And even if that were possible, the neutral would follow some preprogrammed strategy. If each player was sealed off from everyone else, and the neutral always acted the same way, then each game would play out almost identically, no? The variations would occur based completely on dice luck. I mean, for each player, there's no strategy in deciding how to play if there's no risk that any other player can attack you and you basically know what the neutral will do and when.

ZeakCytho wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:To make it so that no player can attack another player certainly seems like it would need an XML change, or perhaps even a larger change to the site, beyond map-level XML.

Not at all, if they have different starting points, and they can't ever reach each other, then bingo, you can't attack each other.

Okay, what about the problem of having a sentient neutral player that can attack the players? And even if that were possible, the neutral would follow some preprogrammed strategy. If each player was sealed off from everyone else, and the neutral always acted the same way, then each game would play out almost identically, no? The variations would occur based completely on dice luck. I mean, for each player, there's no strategy in deciding how to play if there's no risk that any other player can attack you and you basically know what the neutral will do and when.

I don't exactly have the details worked out, you know... I'm sure there could be some creative ways to introduce some strategy.

As for how the neutrals would behave, see the infected neutrals thread in suggs and bugs.

Well, there are board games along this vein that are quite good. And I believe that it can be done. There are a number of possible ways to do it within the existing xml, theoretically. However, I will say that it requires very very careful design. And good gameplay requires test play. Board game designers put their games through repeated test plays for a reason. Broken games suck and they don't sell.

I kind of have some ideas along this vein but they are all sitting until I deal with my current plate of ideas. But the basic balancing act is to somehow make the game victory depend on cooperation amongst the players. Basically, you have to draft the game mechanics so that the cooperation is necessary or everyone loses. That is what is tough with the xml limitations. But it can be done. (You can also crate a map where players cannot attack other players - to a point. But making that map good gameplay would be tricky tough. I'd totally love to see it done.)