[Abandoned] - Zombie Invasion!

[ender516]

Two questions:
Is it possible to have an "OR" losing condition- e.g., hold at least 1 gang OR hold more than 6 regions in order to survive?

Would you (or Ender) be willing to do the XML for this map?

Answers:

1. I think a requirement could be constructed as you suggest. I'll have to check, but it's late, and I have a lot of driving to do tomorrow.
2. Ooo, ooo, pick me! My other maps have stalled.

[Victor Sullivan]

Ooo, ooo, pick me! My other maps have stalled.

Aww, ender beat me to it

Is it possible to have an "OR" losing condition- e.g., hold at least 1 gang OR hold more than 6 regions in order to survive?

I believe so, yes.

-Sully

[Victor Sullivan]

Hey! You edited your post, ender! *grumble*

-Sully

[ender516]

I was in such a hurry to volunteer for the XML, I forgot to answer the first question, so I tweaked things.

[Victor Sullivan]

I was in such a hurry to volunteer for the XML, I forgot to answer the first question, so I tweaked things.

Lol. I guess I need to be a quicker clicker (and get faster internet)

But no worries, it's all you, my man

-Sully

[Top Dog]

It's awesome that Marshall can get some help w/ the map, definitely is going to speed things up in the long run. And of course I think whoever does XML coding can get the medal for helping w/ the map!Especially since I just threw together my rough drafts and offered some suggestions here and there!

As for the street fonts... I don't personally mind them... but if you want to mess w/ a few ideas and upload 'em that would definitely help!

and, are you going for a "feudal war" type gameplay w/ the Faction HQ's being like castles? and you lose your castle and you're kinda screwed?

[MarshalNey]

New Draft, Version 25:
[bigimg]http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/topdog12/ZomMapLarge25vC.jpg[/bigimg]

Changes:
-- increased the 'blueness' of the Haven names
-- tried out an effect on the Comic Sans font in the streets... I'm not sure if I like it or not, but I think it lends a more apocolyptic feel
-- Pending notice of whether a losing condition can have 2 parts or not, I went ahead and changed the losing condition to holding either 1 Gang OR 1 Haven. This should prevent any danger of early bum-rush kills, particualry in team games like quads. Plus it doesn't tie a player to defending his Gang to the death, so I feel that it opens up each building bonus area more to conquest by any player.
-- In light of the change above, I went ahead and paired a Haven starting position with each Gang. The Haven starting position have 6 troops each.

Thoughts?
(still working on the 1st post update but it is partially done)

[MarshalNey]

It's awesome that Marshall can get some help w/ the map, definitely is going to speed things up in the long run. And of course I think whoever does XML coding can get the medal for helping w/ the map!Especially since I just threw together my rough drafts and offered some suggestions here and there!

As for the street fonts... I don't personally mind them... but if you want to mess w/ a few ideas and upload 'em that would definitely help!

and, are you going for a "feudal war" type gameplay w/ the Faction HQ's being like castles? and you lose your castle and you're kinda screwed?

Thanks again btw Top Dog for uploading these updates to your photobucket account.

And yes, thanks Ender and Sully for the enthusiastic response. It appears that Ender wins, and Sully has gracefully conceded So Ender once I've nailed down the Losing Condition part of the gameplay I'm going to consider it (semi-)permanent, which means I'm guessing that the XML work may begin...

I hear ya Dog about the castle analogy, and I don't want the Gangs to be quite so central perhaps, which is hopefully been addressed in the latest update. Now a player can protect either his Havens or his Gang(s), but he does not have to hold both.

[Victor Sullivan]

I'd try to avoid doling out havens in Fort Alamo. I feel like that gives a decent advantage to those starting positions.

And I do look pretty good with a shotgun, don't I?



-Sully

[ender516]

If your requirement (losing condition) is simply that you need either 1 Gang or 1 Haven, then there should be no problem (that is, if each of these is a single territory). The code would look something like this:

Code: Select all

<requirement>
       <name>One Gang or One Haven</name>
       <components>
          <territory>Executive Offices</territory> <!-- Machiavellians -->
          <territory>Star Chamber</territory> <!-- Aarchons -->
          .
          .
          .
          <territory>Custard Stand</territory> <!-- Haven -->
          <territory>Grate</territory> <!-- Haven -->
          .
          .
          .
       </components>
       <required>1</required>
    </requirement>

I will check if the components of a requirement can be continents. This could make the code shorter, and might give more flexibility as well, for instance, if holding a Gang requires holding more than one territory.

[Victor Sullivan]

I would think continent tags would be able to be used, but I can't say with much certainty.

-Sully

[ender516]

Yes, it seems logical. Given the fact that objectives can use continents, why not requirements?

[Victor Sullivan]

Yes, it seems logical. Given the fact that objectives can use continents, why not requirements?

My thinking exactly.

-Sully

[ender516]

Ha, I found it. Granted, this is perhaps not official, but it will do (and I have other sources in the Foundry that suggest that this is correct).
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=649&t=23382#p2886745:
[spoiler=quote from link]

Losing Conditions / Requirements
Losing conditions (technically known as 'requirements') are a form of objective that you must continue to hold in order to avoid being eliminated. If your 'requirement' objective is taken from you, then you will be instantly eliminated from the game. (You can think of this as a 'capture the flag' scenario).

Let's explain it in a bit more detail: The requirements are evaluated whenever you conquer/bombard a territory, nuke a country, or are hit by a killer neutral. So if you do not meet a requirement from the initial game drop you might have a chance to conquer it and become safe (although for the most part, the 'requirements' will be bundled up as starting positions). When you eliminate someone via requirement, it works the same as eliminating someone via nuke - you get their cards and it counts as terminator points. When you don't meet a requirement your remaining armies change to neutral.

Here are the technical details, for those that love the code:

The new <requirement> tag goes in between positions and objectives. If you have a complete xml with all the toys the tags must be in the this order:


Code: Select all

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <map>
      <minreinforcement/>
      <reinforcements/>
      <positions/>
      <requirement/>
      <objectives/>
      <continents/>
      <territories/>
    </map>



So, let's get on to how they work... In this example, in order to stay alive in the game you must hold 2 out of the 4 territories in Oceania:


Code: Select all

<requirement>
   <name>Two Oceanic Countries</name>
   <components>
      <territory>Jakarta</territory>
      <territory>Port Moresby</territory>
      <territory>Perth</territory>
      <territory>Sydney</territory>
   </components>
   <required>2</required>
</requirement>


It should be noted that you can include <continent> components as well <territory> components.

Similarly, lackattack has updated the game engine to respect <required> tags on objectives. For example, you can now do this:


Code: Select all

<objective>
   <name>Two Small Continents</name>
   <components>
      <continent>South America</continent>
      <continent>Africa</continent>
      <continent>Oceania</continent>
   </components>
   <required>2</required>
</objective>

When somebody is eliminated via requirement, the game log will look something like this:

MrBenn assaulted Canada from England and conquered it from lackattack
lackattack no longer holds XXX (name of the requirement)
MrBenn overthrew lackattack who has been eliminated from the game
lackattack lost 8 points
MrBenn gained 8 points

[/spoiler]

[lostatlimbo]

With your new gameplay, its seems like it would be really easy for someone with hot dice to take you out early in the game. With Feudal War, there are 20 neturals protecting you from the nearest opponent, but if I start out with 10 and the next guy is only 6 territories away. On that note, with so many changes, will the gameplay be reviewed/restamped?

[MarshalNey]

With your new gameplay, its seems like it would be really easy for someone with hot dice to take you out early in the game. With Feudal War, there are 20 neturals protecting you from the nearest opponent, but if I start out with 10 and the next guy is only 6 territories away. On that note, with so many changes, will the gameplay be reviewed/restamped?

Thanks for the excellent feedback lostalimbo

I'm actually just floating an idea out right now, it's not really necessary to have a losing condition but it would add some dread and spice to the game. If it looks like something I'll stick with, I'll make sure to have one of the (other) gameplay CAs look it over as I realize that this would be a fairly significant change. The other changes, while numerous, I feel are mostly in line with the previous drafts but it wouldn't hurt to have some outside CA eyes on those either

As for the worry about hot dice, I realized that with my initial setup yes 10 troops could be taken out, especially in Trips or Quads games with unlucky drops. In the last version, however, I have each player starting with at least 2 areas that need to be taken out in order to be eliminated- a Haven and a Gang. That means that 2 separate attacks on a 10-stack and a 6-stack, in addition to whatever other haven(s) a player might have dropped randomly.

Now, this does not make it impossible to eliminate a player still, but nothing in the context of this map will accomplish that goal. I could put 50 troops on the start positions and it would still be possible. So the question is one of likelihood, when weighed against the downside of having the start positions dominate the gameplay if there's too big of a stack on them.

As I said before, if there are too many complaints or worries about it, I'll just nix the idea. I'd rather get this map moving forward than have it mired in debate.

So, Lostalimbo, what would you consider a 'safe' stack if we went with the current scheme of a Haven/Gang combo needing to be taken out before a player is eliminated? Or a fairer question might be, do you think the map would be better off without a losing condition at all?

I'd try to avoid doling out havens in Fort Alamo. I feel like that gives a decent advantage to those starting positions.

Well, I thought that if I was going to dole out any start positions in Fort Alamo, I'd best make it as many as possible so that no single player could dominate the area.

The benefit of using the Fort Alamo area for starting positions is that then I don't have to put any neutrals there to keep it from being unfairly dominated on the drop- it's guaranteed to be split this way. Without those 2 neutrals, my total region count goes from 68 to 70, which is the sweetest golden number for a map of this size (3 conquers on nearly every setting!). I know, 68 is still a golden number, but it's not as shiny as 70.

[MarshalNey]

OK, I've mulled over lostalimbo's objections and while I may be able to satisfy his concerns, I've got a gut feeling that as long as the losing requirement is just 1 or 2 regions, this will be a thorny issue throughout development.

So I'm going to float out one last idea before ditching the losing requirement altogether. Here it goes:

"Hold at least 5 regions or 1 gang to survive".

This idea is sort of the 'underdog' rule in reverse- any players who get too beaten down get eaten. So, if a player loses their gang and falls below 5 regions- even temporarily- they get eliminated immediately. This won't be a big factor in 1v1 games, but with 6 or more players it could become interesting.

As a companion to this idea, I'm going to lower the starting troops on the gangs to 6s. This will make the building bonus areas more open to competition, without putting a player in dire and immediate risk of early elimination due to bad luck (as it would have using the earlier losing requirements). Finally, I'm going to keep the Haven starting positions, but I'll make them normal 3s- their purpose will be to help tweak any inequity in gang starts found out during Beta, plus it will allow me to keep my golden number of 70 for the overal region count.

Update will follow tomorrow (need to email the draft to my trusty uploader Tog Dog )

[MarshalNey]

Here's the latest update, what does everyone think about the losing condition? (I'm calling it "Survival of the Fittest")

[bigimg]http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz183/topdog12/ZomMapLarge26vC.jpg[/bigimg]

The 1st post should be up to date, except for the small map which I'll do as soon as I have thoughts on the losing condition (whether it should stay or go).

[isaiah40]

Personally, I say scrap the losing condition and keep what you have.

[Top Dog]

I'd try tweaking the fonts once again... I know you said earlier they might just be filler for now...

as for the losing condition... wouldn't it make it quite easy for someone to simply take out a weaker players HQ, get all their cards, get their gang bonus, and easily take out the rest of the neutrals in the building for an extra bonus. I guess I'm saying that it could slingshot any one player into a huge advantage in just one turn.

I know the "or 5 regions" rule will help.. but I'm still not so sure about this...

[MarshalNey]

I'd try tweaking the fonts once again... I know you said earlier they might just be filler for now...

Do you mean the street names or all of them?

as for the losing condition... wouldn't it make it quite easy for someone to simply take out a weaker players HQ, get all their cards, get their gang bonus, and easily take out the rest of the neutrals in the building for an extra bonus. I guess I'm saying that it could slingshot any one player into a huge advantage in just one turn.

I know the "or 5 regions" rule will help.. but I'm still not so sure about this...

Thanks TD for the feedback
Yeah I know that losing conditions make people nervous, but this one is far more friendly than, say, Middle Ages, and that map works fine I think.

The 'or 5 regions' will prevent early eliminations, even in 8 player games unless a serious gang-up occurs (a player would have to lose 4 regions and take none in return). In addition, the gangs are not easy to take in the 1st place since they start with 6 troops- having played 3rd Crusade a lot (which also has starting positions with 6 troops) I know that most players are very reluctant to gamble their deployment attacking a stack of 6 with anything like even numbers. And the gangs give no autodeploy or other bonus (also like 3rd Crusade), so the incentive is low.

In other words, if very early elimination is a concern, it shouldn't be. I am confident that this scheme is proofed against sucker-punches I do think that eliminations will become a concern in larger-player games (6 or more) after several rounds, depending upon how aggressive the players involved are.

Also, just because the losing condition is balanced doesn't necessarily make the losing condition a good idea. If it doesn't provide any benefit but just clutters the map with rules, it should go.

So, perhaps I should explain my thinking in providing a losing condition:
(1) It will enhance the theme of a fight for survival, of the map vs. the players
(2) If a player is eliminated, their regions become neutral- and I love the idea of 'living troops' turning into undead blockers
(3) With the minimum regions requirement, I'm interested to see how this would affect team games. Often, you'll see a team with one player who has 30 regions and another who has only 2 or 3 and is just feeding his teammate troops. The losing condition on this map would force teams to have a better-rounded approach, where every member has to fight to stay strong.

So those are what I think would be the benefits, but does this outweigh the added complication to the map? That is the question, I think.

Personally, I say scrap the losing condition and keep what you have.

I gotcha Izzy Any reason in particular? I'm not convinced either way so far, I'm very much on the fence as to whether I should abandon the idea or not.

[Industrial Helix]

oh noes, a living dead map! Glad to see it back, I hope gettysburg is on the way as well

[Teflon Kris]

A losing condition is totally fitting for the theme of the map.

Important to be careful though, you are right, maybe "or 4 regions"?

[RedBaron0]

Revived from the dead only to fall back?! MN, what's your status on this?

[Victor Sullivan]

Revived from the dead only to fall back?! MN, what's your status on this?

Erm, MarshalNey's on vacation...

-Sully