[XML] infected neutrals

[The Neon Peon]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=40294

[CreepersWiener]

Squeaky wheels...

[Queen_Herpes]

It is comical to me that players vote against new options. Right now, the vote is 3 for and 3 against. if you're against it...it really shouldn't affect you. It will be a game OPTION, so you don't have to play it this way if you don't want to. I'd love to hear from someone who doesn't want this as to a reason that it shouldn't be implemented as it wouldn't be de riguer in all games.

[CreepersWiener]

It is comical to me that players vote against new options. Right now, the vote is 3 for and 3 against. if you're against it...it really shouldn't affect you. It will be a game OPTION, so you don't have to play it this way if you don't want to. I'd love to hear from someone who doesn't want this as to a reason that it shouldn't be implemented as it wouldn't be de riguer in all games.

I agree, if there is someone really against the option, they should post their concerns and difficulties that they foresee. I mean, are there programming issues? Are there conflicts with certain boards? I mean if you wanted to play with neutral zombies, but not that many of them, you could choose a board like Classic or Europe...but if you wanted to battle a lot of Zombies during your game, you would choose boards like Waterloo or Pearl Harbor and/or play Nuclear spoils. A board where I see problems is with Treasures of Galapagos...If all those neutrals become Zombies...it might really suck! But...HEY...You chose the freakin' map! Just like with other options...you might not have as much fun with FoW on Classic as you would on Siege...so it becomes a matter of experimentation and personal preference.

(Also, I played CircVs MaximVs with No Spoils once...that was the last time I did it! It really sucked and went on forever!)

[837204563]

I'm against it because it doesn't make the game better and implementing it would take time and resources that could be better spent on something else.

[CreepersWiener]

I'm against it because it doesn't make the game better and implementing it would take time and resources that could be better spent on something else.

Time? Like, actual linear time...or like theoretical quantum physics time?

And how doesn't it make the game better? I mean I don't think it has ever been mentioned on making the game better, but only offering another gaming option to Conquer Club...which is a good thing? Right? To make the "game better" would mean that you don't think the game is "better" already.

This option would let Neutrals armies able to attack players. PLAYERS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THE LUXURY OF HIDING BEHIND NEUTRAL ARMIES!

If that isn't at least helping make some people's understanding of making a game better...then I guess I can't help you.


I really hope you understand the mechanics behind this particular philosophy.

Zombie neutrals should be considered as a viable gaming option as FoW.

[837204563]

What zombie neutrals amount to is a very stupid computer player controlling the neutral armies. The only way this could make the game better is if you a) thought there weren't enough players in eight player games, in which case you simply should ask for that or b) think adding a bad player makes for a better game, in which case you should simply invite some bad players into your games.

[CreepersWiener]

What zombie neutrals amount to is a very stupid computer player controlling the neutral armies.

What?

The only way this could make the game better is if you a) thought there weren't enough players in eight player games, in which case you simply should ask for that or b) think adding a bad player makes for a better game, in which case you should simply invite some bad players into your games.

Sorry...but I have to add...Doulbe WTF?!?!?! Maybe too drunk right now...but, what are you trying to really convey?

[837204563]

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to come back to this when you are less drunk.

[00iCon]

*) Zombies are dead troops. Therefore the number of zombies per turn could be based on the number of armies killed each turn (divided with 3 for example), although I think it is better to just keep it capped at that the zombie army get territory troops (1 per 3 territories).

OMG YES!
I'd love to see zombies when playing Hive.

[drunkmonkey]

Zombies + Nukes = Madness. I'd love to see this now.

[frankiebee]

How crazy would this be on maps like Feudal War or AoR

[pmchugh]

This would change the face of 1v1, this or 1v1 team games has to be the next big update.

[taco_man1]

i

want

this

now

please?

[Sir. Ricco]

Someone needs to start a lobbying group.

[BBoz]

Only suggestion against your functions is the alphabetical choice" attack. This might make players come back to choose names like "zzzzzJim" so they are least likely to get attacked by the zombie.

Don't worry this was never actually the idea; it was that the Infected Neutrals choose alphabetically by Territory Name but this has been superceded. See the FINAL PROPOSAL on page 22 for details.

What happens in a situation where two territories have the same number of large armies. Say like 2 next to Zombies that each have 20 armies. Which is chosen? The same would apply in a situation where the Zombies are surrounded by all 1's. Would it be random? Territory Name Alpha?

[BBoz]

Looking again, it looks like in the Pseudo Code it would be alphabetical by territory name after army size. Just need to add that to the description for players.

[Thomassaurus]

How crazy would this be on maps like Feudal War or AoR

That would be impossible. If it was +1 on every neutral.

[iamkoolerthanu]

Such a territory will attack its largest neighbour(s) and continue until battle is won or the attacking territory has less than 4 armies remaining.

2 questions.
1. Would the defeated territory then become neutral?
And 2. If an infected neutral with 8 armies is bordering 2 territories, one with 5 armies, and one with 6 armies. It would attack the 6 armies, but if it won 2 dice, and that was brought to 4 armies (making one bordering country have 5 while the other has 4), would the infected neutral attack the 5 now? Or would it 'press auto-attack' against the 6 in the beginning?

[Thomassaurus]

This is a reply to the Neutral Zombies idea http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=40294 But since its over 30 pages and this is pritty much a completely new idea I made a new post.

I like the neutral zombie idea but I can see problems with it.
The maps weren't made for the neutrals to attack the players, it would be completely changing the roles of the neutrals and would result in unbalanced gameplay.

Concise description:
Insted of the zombies being neutrals they could be dead people left over from battles.
(hence zombies are dead people and battles bring dead people)
After any big battle say over 6 troops were killed, and you dont leave a good amount of troops on that territory zombies can break out, more zombies depending on the amount of troops that were killed.

Specifics:
Zombies will break out new zombies and/or take there turn at the end of each round.
If they break out they will break out on territory(s) that had lots of killing daring that round. They get +1 on every territory owned by zombies. They will spread out and go after different players. When they attack even if the dont completely take out the attacked territory if there was enough death that territory can be taking over by zombies the next zombie turn.

If you attack a zombie territory and fail you will just make them stronger by given them more dead people. the next zombie turn the zombies you killed will come back to life and any other dead people you gave them will become zombies.
Even if you killed them all if you dont leave a good amount of troops on that territory they could just come back bigger and badder.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
A new game type I'm sure lots of players will enjoy. See how much support the zombie neutrals idea had.

[Thomassaurus]

See new zombie idea: www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=113425

[taco_man1]

why are you trying to drastically change an idea that has already been vetted by 30 pages of discussion?

[Blinkadyblink]

Games with a lot of armies tend to take a long time anyway, and I think that this would just add another disincentive for people to attack (even if you win, the territory could be taken back by zombies next turn, and then you'll be a really easy target for another player.)

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Bump for the mods. This one has been around for a while and I know has many people waiting for it to be implemented.

[pmchugh]

I agree great suggestion.

Also great job by the admins cleaning up this forum, it seems you got that all important "Mods pay attention" vibe, though of course I doubt any of it will be implemented any faster