Conquer Club

greenoaks wrote:

cicero wrote:final proposal

It is important to note that existing rules do not consider neutral armies as a player and hence the neutral armies cannot win. Under existing rules:

standard game
If at any time there is only one player left that player wins.
(whether the player holds 99% of the territories or a single territory)

assassin game
If at any time one player is eliminated (by whoever) the player whose target that was wins.

terminator game
If at any time a player is eliminated by the infected neutrals then the points are awarded to the player who last took a territory from the eliminated player (as per the rules to cover deadbeats). If no player had previously taken a territory from the eliminated player the points are awarded to the last surviving player at the end of the game (again as per the rules to cover deadbeats).

it is my understanding of the rules from playing terminator games that all points from deadbeat players go to the eventual winner of the game. i can not find anything though that states it is one or the other.

The rules of the "killer neutrals" make it so that any person killed by a "killer neutral" (not to be confused by "infected neutral") state that the last player to take a territory wins the beans.

C.

what's the difference between a killer neutral and an infected neutral?

where are the rules you refer to ?

greenoaks wrote:what's the difference between a killer neutral and an infected neutral?

where are the rules you refer to ?

"Killer Neutrals" are an XML feature that can affect a territory - as specified in the XML...

"Infected Neutrals" are this suggestion...

C.

yeti_c wrote:No no... MOD is a function that returns the remainder of a Division function...

i.e.

10/3 = 3 Remainder 1

10 MOD 3 = 1

C.

well yeti here has told us what a mod actually is as even i was not sure i was guessing srry for all the capital letters and what may have been implied i was just really trying to make sure readers saw the important parts i have actually thought of a new way to describe the formula which i will now post...hope it is understandable

let 'qualifying territs' refer to the psuedo code where IN first sorts its attacking territs by army count (high to low) therefore (10, 10, 9, 7, 5) results in (10,10) these are 'qualifying territs'

(highest army count on qualifying territs)/(number of qualifying territs)=X remainder Y)

[therefore according to the proposal (10,10,9,7,5) becomes [10,10] becomes 7/2=remainder 1 [because of -3]]

hope that helps

yeti_c wrote:

greenoaks wrote:what's the difference between a killer neutral and an infected neutral?

where are the rules you refer to ?

"Killer Neutrals" are an XML feature that can affect a territory - as specified in the XML...

"Infected Neutrals" are this suggestion...

C.

i have no idea how that relates to my original question. so here it is again, perhaps cicero can tell me where he got the information that relates to the section i have bolded

cicero wrote:final proposal

It is important to note that existing rules do not consider neutral armies as a player and hence the neutral armies cannot win. Under existing rules:

standard game
If at any time there is only one player left that player wins.
(whether the player holds 99% of the territories or a single territory)

assassin game
If at any time one player is eliminated (by whoever) the player whose target that was wins.

terminator game
If at any time a player is eliminated by the infected neutrals then the points are awarded to the player who last took a territory from the eliminated player (as per the rules to cover deadbeats). If no player had previously taken a territory from the eliminated player the points are awarded to the last surviving player at the end of the game (again as per the rules to cover deadbeats).

it is my understanding of the rules from playing terminator games that all points from deadbeat players go to the eventual winner of the game, not to the person who last took a territory from the deadbeat.
here is an example [game]1209247[/game] in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

I suppose he means in that case, not as per the rules to cover deadbeats, but instead as per the rules to cover killer neutrals.

Ditocoaf wrote:I suppose he means in that case, not as per the rules to cover deadbeats, but instead as per the rules to cover killer neutrals.

That be the head of the nail... with said verbal hammer...

C.

greenoaks wrote:Perhaps cicero can tell me where he got the information that relates to the section i have bolded

cicero wrote:final proposal

It is important to note that existing rules do not consider neutral armies as a player and hence the neutral armies cannot win. Under existing rules:

standard game
If at any time there is only one player left that player wins.
(whether the player holds 99% of the territories or a single territory)

assassin game
If at any time one player is eliminated (by whoever) the player whose target that was wins.

terminator game
If at any time a player is eliminated by the infected neutrals then the points are awarded to the player who last took a territory from the eliminated player (as per the rules to cover deadbeats). If no player had previously taken a territory from the eliminated player the points are awarded to the last surviving player at the end of the game (again as per the rules to cover deadbeats).

it is my understanding of the rules from playing terminator games that all points from deadbeat players go to the eventual winner of the game, not to the person who last took a territory from the deadbeat.
here is an example [game]1209247[/game] in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

Greenoaks, the proposal was put together based on my understanding of the 'rules' which cover deadbeats. Like you, I don't know where exactly they are written down ... But, based on your example, it seems I had misunderstood these 'rules'. Hence ...

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

That's what you get for supposing Ditocoaf

It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ... or do we all have to have a game like Greenoaks' to discover for ourselves?

cicero wrote:

greenoaks wrote:here is an example [game]1209247[/game] in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

Greenoaks, the proposal was put together based on my understanding of the 'rules' which cover deadbeats. Like you, I don't know where exactly they are written down ... But, based on your example, it seems I had misunderstood these 'rules'. Hence ...

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

That's what you get for supposing Ditocoaf

Then again ... perhaps that's what I get for supposing.

Greenoaks !!! I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, I say again, "It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ...". Having confirmed the rules once and for all I may need to edit the proposal again ...

cicero wrote:

cicero wrote:

greenoaks wrote:here is an example [game]1209247[/game] in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

Greenoaks, the proposal was put together based on my understanding of the 'rules' which cover deadbeats. Like you, I don't know where exactly they are written down ... But, based on your example, it seems I had misunderstood these 'rules'. Hence ...

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

That's what you get for supposing Ditocoaf

Then again ... perhaps that's what I get for supposing.

Greenoaks !!! I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, I say again, "It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ...". Having confirmed the rules once and for all I may need to edit the proposal again ...

In a terminator game you get points for the players that you eliminate. When players are auto-kicked in a terminator game their armies remain on the map, and you can still get points (and cards) from them if you eliminate the deadbeat before the game is over (otherwise their points are awarded to the game winner).

found at 'instructions' 'game options'

so, i think it has nothing to do with being the last one to strike someone, it's either killed by you (and then you'll get the points obviously) or killed by the neutrals, and while the neutrals are no player and therefore get no points, the points will go to the game winner (the last surviving player that is)

the last player to be killed by the neutrals will off course not lose any points, and will only get points for the players that are either killed by himself and/or the players that are killed by 'no-one' (either deadbeat or killed by neutrals)

hope that's clear enough.

Right - I've just been doing some searching about Killer Neutrals...

Seems there is no info technically written down... so we would need to ensure this is correct with Lack...

But from what I remember - IF Killer Neutrals happen to kill someone in a terminator game - then their points goto the last person that attacked them... this is because the last person to attack them - has put them into a killing position (i.e. restricted them to only killer squares) and thus has effectively killed them!!

This is the Logic that Cicero is depending on for Terminator games with Infected Neutrals...

If no-one has attacked them - then their points will be collected by the winner of the game as per usualy DB rules.

C.

not sure if this has been taken care of yet, but... what about zombies in detrimental territories? the ones that remove X amount of armies from anyone in a territory each round (ex:the dust bowl) as it is, i don't think detrimental territories affect neutral players because they remove the armies at the beginning of the players turn (i think, though i may be mistaken) and neutrals dont take turns. will this change because the zombies now have a "turn"? or should it be rules that they're immune to the detriment? or has this problem already been resolved and i'm just babbling?

bbqpenguin wrote:not sure if this has been taken care of yet, but... what about zombies in detrimental territories? the ones that remove X amount of armies from anyone in a territory each round (ex:the dust bowl) as it is, i don't think detrimental territories affect neutral players because they remove the armies at the beginning of the players turn (i think, though i may be mistaken) and neutrals dont take turns. will this change because the zombies now have a "turn"? or should it be rules that they're immune to the detriment? or has this problem already been resolved and i'm just babbling?

yeah, I think it was determined pretty early on that no penalties would effect the zombies. This is because they can 'disregard their senses,' also because they don't get the bonuses either.

cicero wrote:Then again ... perhaps that's what I get for supposing.

Greenoaks !!! I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, I say again, "It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ...". Having confirmed the rules once and for all I may need to edit the proposal again ...

you have forgotten that in terminator games deadbeat players retain their colour and can be attacked after they have been kicked from the game.
so here i am the last to take a territory from yellow : 2007-12-03 03:59:37 - greenoaks attacked Ukraine from Southern Europe and conquered it from lucious
here i am the last to take a territory from pink : 2007-12-02 13:07:20 - greenoaks attacked Southern Europe from Northern Europe and conquered it from asuco4
here i am the last to take a territory from green: 2007-12-02 08:04:49 - greenoaks attacked Northern Europe from Great Britain and conquered it from Sars_LilBro

zimmah wrote:found at 'instructions' 'game options'

so, i think it has nothing to do with being the last one to strike someone, it's either killed by you (and then you'll get the points obviously) or killed by the neutrals, and while the neutrals are no player and therefore get no points, the points will go to the game winner (the last surviving player that is)

the last player to be killed by the neutrals will off course not lose any points, and will only get points for the players that are either killed by himself and/or the players that are killed by 'no-one' (either deadbeat or killed by neutrals)

hope that's clear enough.

not quite zimmah, you had it right in the first paragraph only

Is nobody listenening to me?

C.

nobody is because you keep talking about killer neutrals in a thread about infected neutrals.

greenoaks wrote:nobody is because you keep talking about killer neutrals in a thread about infected neutrals.

But you don't realise that the Rules for Killer Neutrals are pertinent to the point you're all talking about.

C.

there is no such thing as 'killer neutrals' in our games. so it is not possible to be killed by a neutral as they don't attack, yet. this thread is about introducing neutrals that do attack.


but this argument is rather pointless as the final proposal regarding terminator games has been altered to reflect what i found happens in my games and the rules zimmah found at instructions/game options/game type.

greenoaks wrote:there is no such thing as 'killer neutrals' in our games. so it is not possible to be killed by a neutral as they don't attack, yet. this thread is about introducing neutrals that do attack.


but this argument is rather pointless as the final proposal regarding terminator games has been altered to reflect what i found happens in my games and the rules zimmah found at instructions/game options/game type.

Er - yes there are such things as Killer Neutrals - they haven't appeared on any map yet - but they will soon... Just because you are ignorant of all the options doesn't make your opinion valid.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

greenoaks wrote:there is no such thing as 'killer neutrals' in our games. so it is not possible to be killed by a neutral as they don't attack, yet. this thread is about introducing neutrals that do attack.


but this argument is rather pointless as the final proposal regarding terminator games has been altered to reflect what i found happens in my games and the rules zimmah found at instructions/game options/game type.

Er - yes there are such things as Killer Neutrals - they haven't appeared on any map yet - but they will soon... Just because you are ignorant of all the options doesn't make your opinion valid.

C.

the final draft was changed to match what my opinion was, that is all the validation i need.

greenoaks wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

greenoaks wrote:there is no such thing as 'killer neutrals' in our games. so it is not possible to be killed by a neutral as they don't attack, yet. this thread is about introducing neutrals that do attack.


but this argument is rather pointless as the final proposal regarding terminator games has been altered to reflect what i found happens in my games and the rules zimmah found at instructions/game options/game type.

Er - yes there are such things as Killer Neutrals - they haven't appeared on any map yet - but they will soon... Just because you are ignorant of all the options doesn't make your opinion valid.

C.

the final draft was changed to match what my opinion was, that is all the validation i need.

It may well be - but your ignorance will be your undoing.

C.

greenoaks wrote:

cicero wrote:... I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other! ...

you have forgotten that in terminator games deadbeat players retain their colour and can be attacked after they have been kicked from the game.

You're absolutely right, I had forgotten that! Apologies for ever doubting that you were being constructive and intelligent in your post .

zimmah, helpfully and sensibly quoting directly from "Instructions > Game Options", wrote:In a terminator game you get points for the players that you eliminate. When players are auto-kicked in a terminator game their armies remain on the map, and you can still get points (and cards) from them if you eliminate the deadbeat before the game is over (otherwise their points are awarded to the game winner).

Thanks Zimmah.

greenoaks wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Is nobody listenening to me?

nobody is because you keep talking about killer neutrals in a thread about infected neutrals.

"Interestingly" this part of the proposal was originally written by me following a discussion with yeti_c explaining the various game types. In writing it I mistakenly credited all the effects I included for terminator games to 'the rules governing deadbeats' - ie those quoted by Zimmah. In fact some of the effects were due to 'killer neutrals' which are another gameplay feature entirely ... (Please see my post in "Q&A".)

Since the effect of "killer neutrals" doesn't directly affect the infected neutrals proposal I have not changed it since my last edit. "Killer neutrals" do introduce a new way for a player to be eliminated but that is incidental to this suggestion albeit that the two are superficially similar in their syntax.

I trust everyone is now in agreement and egos are suitably smoothed and validated ? x

cicero! did you see my answer to your q&a ? and as usual it seems even though you have pmed lack and twill there has been no response... *sigh*

vrex wrote:cicero! did you see my answer to your q&a ?

Yes I did. I think that yeti_c's subsequent post in that thread gets as close as is possible to a definitive answer at present. I should acknowledge that I already pretty much knew the answer I just wanted to flag up the difference between "infected neutrals" (this thread) and "killer neutrals" (something else entirely) ... and get the discussion on the latter out of this thread

vrex wrote:it seems even though you have pmed lack and twill there has been no response... *sigh*

Sorry, that is my fault for leaving that impression simply by my not reporting back on the response. Sorry all!

In fact both Lack and Twill PM'd me back within a very few days of my PM to them. It wouldn't be fair to publish a specific timescale for Infected Neutral implementation because, apart from anything else, Lack hasn't given me one .

However I can confirm that Lack remains enthusiastic about the suggestion, very complimentary about our proposal as it stands and keen to implement. There are other programming tasks (nope, I don't know what they are) which must take priority over Infected Neutrals, but after those then Infected Neutrals are currently next on the list. Fingers crossed

so in your proposal will a deadbeat's stack retain their colour for terminator games ?

if they do, will any territories conquered by deadbeat player A be the same colour as deadbeat player A or will they turn grey ?

what i am getting at is currently in terminator games i can get the points from a deadbeat if i can eliminate him before the game ends (otherwise the points go to the eventual winner). with infected neutrals those territories would be harder to conquer each round but still a possibility, although a smaller possibility if deadbeat player A's number of territories expand.