Conquer Club

yeti_c wrote:

bryguy wrote:I think that instead of this being a gameplay option it should be an xml option cause otherwise basically a bunch of maps could be thrown out of whack with an option like this added, but as an xml option the map maker could decide if he/she wanted it in or not, and it could make for alot of interesting maps

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before...

And we decided that all the current maps would be great "as is"... No current maps will be "thrown out of whack"...

C.

WidowMakers wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before...

And we decided that all the current maps would be great "as is"... No current maps will be "thrown out of whack"...

Well once Maze Craze gets done, that map would really be CRAZY.

CHAOS! PURE CHAOS!

MAZE CRAZE INDEED!!!!!

cicero wrote:Has WM created the first unplayable map (with infected neutrals) ... ?
If so it would be just typical of him ... ( )

yeti_c, near the top of page 25, wrote:

Code: Select all

         If TargCount = NumTargs Then // ie neutrals are attacking the last target territory
            advance all possible armies
         Else
            advance all remaining armies - (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs) armies

         If TargCount = NumTargs Then // ie neutrals are attacking the last target territory
            advance (all remaining - 1) armies
         Else
            advance (all remaining - (3 + (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs))) armies

Soloman wrote:just wondering when this update will be implemented

cicero, back on April 14, wrote:

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

max is gr8 wrote:No the worst would be Arms Race!!! Everyone would be out first round

max is gr8 wrote:Does it say that in the code?

max is gr8 wrote:Why not, they should be able to bombard they may be stupid but not that stupid. Also I have thought of an idea for a map, perfect for this game type. Circus Maximus. Also i think the terminator points should go to winner at end.

WidowMakers wrote:I do see an issue with Infected Neutrals only attacking alphabetically.

In Maze Craze for example, the lower right portion of the map will be safer that the upper left. Due to the alpha/numeric layout IN will tend to attack up and to the left.

SO my suggestion is that the IN pick a random direction based on the number of options available. Basically use random.org to pick the path the attack.

I know this has probably been discussed but it will make Maze Craze very predictable.

WM

Ditocoaf wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:I do see an issue with Infected Neutrals only attacking alphabetically.

In Maze Craze for example, the lower right portion of the map will be safer that the upper left. Due to the alpha/numeric layout IN will tend to attack up and to the left.

SO my suggestion is that the IN pick a random direction based on the number of options available. Basically use random.org to pick the path the attack.

I know this has probably been discussed but it will make Maze Craze very predictable.

WM

This has been changed already. There was a long discussion, including a IN summit that I was invited to but missed . They changed it to use the MOD function, instead.

Which reminds me. Cicero, when this comes out, you've got to set up a IN game for the most active members in this thread. A sort of celebration.

WidowMakers wrote:What is teh MOD function? So can we have an update on what IN will actually be? Explain exact what they do and how they work.

WM

vrex wrote:

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:I think we should rename this to

"Infrected Neutrals"

C.

cicero wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I think we should rename this to

"Infrected Neutrals"

C.

You've got me yeti ... I frankly have no idea what you mean ... ? ? ?