Really useful application of neutral creatures.

[Ontos]

Attention! Read, before you vote:

So far I haven't found any 1 argument against,but "we do not want a simple transformation of creatures defeated Anderlorda changed", which is important for maps with 3 or more sides. And I said - ok, let the mechanic (after destroying the enemy core) does not change.
The argument "so works in DK" are not well off, since many WFTO works differently - for example, spell "Possession" does not increase the characteristics of being (damage done, at least).

I believe that the true motives of the naysayers - this conservatism. "Simply leave everything, "as is" now." This conservatism prevents you think hinders see the obvious advantages of the proposed change namely, the emergence of new game mechanics (which is now dead, for all solve the digging speed and lag).
With conservatism does not go far. It would not have to stay

Spoiler: with some camels

In London, an Arab taxi stops. To sit down and requests to turn off the music, arguing as follows: "In the days of the Prophet, peace be upon him, there was no music."
The driver stops the car and says, - "Come out!"
Arab - "What, why?"
Taxis - "In the days of the Prophet there were no taxis, so get out and wait for passing a camel!"

Update - this change is now offered as an option (see.)

Let's first look at this map (my suggestion is after the description of the map):

2 Underlord. They don't have portals. There are shrines - to the mana, gold and research. The middle map - neutral territory with 3 portals. Neutral territory is closed by impenetrable stone (gray) and Holy land (in white, the Holy land is impossible to capture). Neutral grounds not to grab.

In order to fight and defeat an opponent, you need to lure neutral creatures on their territory. It stimulates the choice of priority digging into the chamber pillars of brimstone (dark - red) and seized the land. You need to choose which rooms to dig through a passage in the first place, to lure the appropriate creatures. For example, in the archive you can find cultists, and in the tavern and the barracks can sometimes be everything.

Accumulating an army, go on the attack of the opponent, will have to go through neutral territory. By this time can be seized all 4 shrines observations that are close to the opponent, and your campaign will notice.

In the end, on this map there is a lot of strategy and choice - who to involve, what to study and to use (in what sequence), may advance to invade part of the earth through the neutral, through the tunnel and use Outpost, perhaps, to send some troops on neutral territory closer to the opponent to kill neutral creatures who can pass up (unit and become creatures of the opponent).

Interested? There is intrigue in this map?
But all this is now impossible, because neutral creatures work differently than you expect in such a map.

"This is not a bug, it's a feature".

I thought neutral beings cease to be neutral only in 1 case if they came on the territory of Underlord or Empire.
But it turned out that the purple tramps swear allegiance automatically if they get into the field of view of Underlord (or Empire), this may be the field of view from the captured cells, a unit or even the wall! And become, of purple, my creature automatically turns my creatures the next who gets in his field of vision, and so on until the end!
For the moments all the creatures on the purple site will be either my or the opponents! But the new creatures from neutral portals - will be either dead or too will automatically go on the same side!


What does it mean? This means that the map I suggested above, only 1 effective strategy - a fast tunnel under neutral territory. All, now put the flag into the enemy dungeon core, GGWP!
Map of interesting, divergent, was laid waste by testing have less lag when loading the game!

Please developers - change the way the transition of the neutral creatures on the sides! It should be only 1 case - the transition of being on neutral territory! This is logical and will allow to create maps with the active role of the neutral creatures, it diversifies the gameplay!

 

[Nutter]

To Clarify, a Neutral creature is converted on sight by an Underlord, i.e when an Underlord's minion gets that neutral unit in range. That is how it worked in DK (and it worked just fine there), and that's how it currently works here, the only real exception being Occuli who can see through walls in their vision radius (and therefore are great at finding and converting neutrals). As far as I can see you've built a map which is using the mechanic in an unintended way, which isn't working and now want to change the mechanic to meet your own expectations just for the sake of this map. Obviously I don't agree with you but i'm just one person.

In the mean time, surely if you put (strong) doors on each room and had them all set to permanently closed then you would only have vision once that room was entered (with the exception of occuli as I already mentioned)

 

[Fireeye]

My main issue with the proposed change is that this would also affect regular skirmish games, which would drastically reduce the incentives for destroying the core of an enemy Underlord in Free-for-All or 2v2 games because you have to carefully goad neutral units onto your own territory to capture the units of the defeated Underlord rather than getting them as a "reward" for taking the risk of assaulting his core.

Which it may or may not be possible to introduce this as a mutator for custom games later on, I do not think it is currently worthwhile to change the entire neutral conversion mechanic just because it stands in the way of certain custom maps.

 

[Ontos]

To Clarify, a Neutral creature is converted on sight by an Underlord, i.e when an Underlord's minion gets that neutral unit in range. That is how it worked in DK (and it worked just fine there), and that's how it currently works here, the only real exception being Occuli who can see through walls in their vision radius (and therefore are great at finding and converting neutrals). As far as I can see you've built a map which is using the mechanic in an unintended way, which isn't working and now want to change the mechanic to meet your own expectations just for the sake of this map.

1. I have not created this map, I made a circuit map in excel.
2. It is obvious that the card scheme is appropriate, is an example, and similar maps, changing the mechanics of neutral creatures will be able to create all.
3. It is clear that any requests to the section of the forum "proposals" aim "to meet your own expectations".
4. You refined detail about Occulus, thank you.
5. The argument "as employed in the dungeon keeper" - a weak argument, since the War for the Overvorld many works differently - for example, in the possession as a creature, its parameters do not rise; in torture on the walls there are no torture wheels, there is no enmity between different types of entities, and so on. The game should evolve.

 

[Ontos]

My main issue with the proposed change is that this would also affect regular skirmish games, which would drastically reduce the incentives for destroying the core of an enemy Underlord in Free-for-All or 2v2 games because you have to carefully goad neutral units onto your own territory to capture the units of the defeated Underlord rather than getting them as a "reward" for taking the risk of assaulting his core.

What kind of negative influences are you talking about?
If you can capture a neutral territory, it will capture.
If there is no neutral ground of the portal, its influence is limited by the number and quality of the creatures that are there.
a) If a neutral territory can not seize b) It has a portal in) other portals not, then ...
Wait, no that - simply do not have such maps. Because this map now - just testing lags. Those who lag behind the winner.

I do not see any negative effects on the map with the proposed change. Only positive - neutral creatures finally can use the maps are not as disposable props.

 

[Nutter]

1. I have not created this map, I made a circuit card in excel.
2. It is obvious that the card scheme is appropriate, is an example, and similar maps, changing the mechanics of neutral creatures will be able to create all.
3. It is clear that any requests to the section of the forum "proposals" aim "to meet your own expectations".
4. You refined detail about Occulus, thank you.
5. The argument "as employed in the dungeon keeper" - a weak argument, since the War for the Overvorld many works differently - for example, in the universe as a creature, its parameters do not rise in torture is not the walls are not there room for torture, there is no enmity between different types of entities, and so on. In the end, the game should be developed.

1. The creation of the map isn't relevant, the fact that it is itended to be a gimmick which doesn't work because of how a mechanic works (and doesn't work in the way the gimmick needs it to) is what is relevant.
2. Again, see above.
3. Requests are fine, I was just stating that expecting to change a big game mechanic (which is working fine right now) just for a gimmick is unlikely to get much support.
4. No problem, happy to help.
5. My argument is simple, the mechanic is tried and tested in numerous games (with DK being the example I choose), and therefore is inherently intuitive for players.. anyone who has played any of those games understands that it will work in that way without having to be told.

What kind of negative influences are you talking about?If you can capture a neutral territory, it will capture.If there is no neutral ground of the portal, its influence is limited by the number and quality of the creatures that are there.If a neutral territory) can not seize b) It has a portal in) other portals not, then ... Wait, no that - simply do not have such cards. Because this card now - just testing lags. Those who lag behind the winner.

I do not see any negative effects on the card with the proposed change. Only positive - neutral creatures can finally ispozovat in the maps are not as disposable props.

The negative effect is simple, other maps (that don't use this gimmick) will (or may) stop working because neutral minions have to be attracted onto your territory to be converted rather than being converted on sight. This gets even worse when you understand that when an underlord is killed, other players can convert his minions as if they were neutral minions, which of course is changed massively if those minions have to step on another player's territory to be converted.

 

[Ontos]

After the destruction of all the relevant core dungeon creatures disappear, what kind of "transformation" you write?

 

[Ontos]

Replacement of a domino effect (all neutral creatures bound on neutral territory mapped) to the effect of entering into foreign territory - will not change the balance, as will apply to all parties.

Now, thanks to a domino effect, all the time being neutral "take the oath" the one who first referring to any portion of the neutral territory.

And this mechanic "just come first" you feel good? Just the first tunnel breakthrough. Just get in the beginning of the game lags 1 second less than the opponent. That's good, interesting, adds strategy? Seriously?

All that I propose - Let neutral creatures will be prepared by methods that require a little more skill, than the "first dig".

 

[Nutter]

After the destruction of all the relevant core dungeon creatures disappear, what kind of "transformation" you write?

After someone dies and their core is destroyed, their minions turn "neutral" and can be claimed/converted by the other players. Forcing a player to try and make them walk on their territory to do that is a bad idea.

 

[Ontos]

After someone dies and their core is destroyed, their minions turn "neutral" and can be claimed/converted by the other players.

It is clear, was not paying attention. By the way referred to in 2 on 2 games can the allies destroy the enemy dungeon core together, and then a matter of chance, to whom any unit defeated Underlord turn.

It is important to understand the following. Neutral creatures have no core dungeons (or, at least, Imperial inhibitor). Therefore, they are not A. I., which would have coordinated, gathered under the flag. Destroy them therefore is easier.

If you are worried about changing the mechanics of accession beings after destruction of the nucleus of the dungeon, just leave this mechanic as it is now. I'm only interested in the originally neutral creatures, the only problem in them. Now such beings, even with a neutral portal, even fenced in the Holy land - just disposable props, which can completely define the game by the relation of lags.

 

[Ontos]

So far I haven't found any 1 argument against,but "we do not want a simple transformation of creatures defeated Anderlorda changed", which is important for maps with 3 or more sides. And I said - ok, let the mechanic (after destroying the enemy core) does not change.
The argument "so works in DK" are not well off, since many WFTO works differently - for example, spell "Possession" does not increase the characteristics of being (damage done, at least).

I believe that the true motives of the naysayers - this conservatism. "Simply leave everything, "as is" now". This conservatism prevents you think hinders see the obvious advantages of the proposed change namely, the emergence of new game mechanics (which is now dead, for all solve the digging speed and lag).
With conservatism does not go far. It would not have to stay

Spoiler: with some camels

In London, an Arab taxi stops. To sit down and requests to turn off the music, arguing as follows: "In the days of the Prophet, peace be upon him, there was no music."
The driver stops the car and says, - "Come out!"
Arab - "What, why?"
Taxis - "In the days of the Prophet there were no taxis, so get out and wait for passing a camel!"

 

[v0id]

What we could potentially do about is that neutral units are only converted if
a) one of your units is in view range of the neutral unit
b) both units have a line of sight, which means they can hit each other by a ray not occluded by obstacles.
Wouldn't this fix the original issue?

 

[Ontos]

What we could potentially do about is that neutral units are only converted if
a) one of your units is in view range of the neutral unit
b) both units have a line of sight, which means they can hit each other by a ray not occluded by obstacles.
Wouldn't this fix the original issue?

Thanks for the reply. Do you offer a way to narrow the conversion of neutral creatures - they will get the identity only when they are in direct line of sight being Anderlord (or empire).
But let's see what happens.

Each step lasts a fraction of a second, so almost immediately, all neutral creatures will be creatures of one of the sides of the game.

In the end, still the one good thing about neutral creatures is a one - time receipt, Underlord (or Empire), which started its unit on neutral territory first.

Still all neutral creatures on a linked neutral site, given to those who have had less lag - and who dug the tunnel first .
Still, neutral creatures (room, portal) - disposable and useless for increasing the variability of the game.

 

[Ontos]

I am very saddened to have to explain the obvious, and that an increase in the variability of the game, removing the direct dependence of win the game - from lags of 1-2 seconds - is perceived as a deterioration of the game, not improve it.

 

[Ontos]

Now any neutral territory, which is equidistant from the sides of the conflict (and contains a significant quantity / quality neutral creatures) brings victory to him who dug a tunnel to her first. It is a fact.

And this negates most of the possible applications of neutral creatures.

I suggest logical fix - let a neutral creature "takes the oath" only when it came to the cell, where Underlord, or Empire. In this case, neutral territory ceases to be undivided, we break once a fetus, but becomes a cluster of grapes with which to pick the most delicious berries, and in profitable action sequences.

 

[v0id]

Thanks for the reply. Do you offer a way to narrow the conversion of neutral creatures - they will get the identity only when they are in direct line of sight being Anderlord (or empire).
But let's see what happens.

Each step lasts a fraction of a second, so almost immediately, all neutral creatures will be creatures of one of the sides of the game.

That what is shown in the pictures is intented in that way that all units convert each other by seeing each other once the first unit was seen by any unit of a player.
We could change that claiming the green walls is not enough to trigger the remaining process of converting all minions.
But once there is direct sight contact the same would happen (as intented) and this is required to work this way for already existing levels.

Still all neutral creatures on a linked neutral site, given to those who have had less lag - and who dug the tunnel first .
Still, neutral creatures (room, portal) - disposable and useless for increasing the variability of the game.

I am very saddened to have to explain the obvious, and that an increase in the variability of the game, removing the direct dependence of win the game - from lags of 1-2 seconds - is perceived as a deterioration of the game, not improve it.

This is NOT true, it is independent of lag.
The conversation happens logically only on the host and thus it will happening for everyone at the same speed.

Now any neutral territory, which is equidistant from the sides of the conflict (and contains a significant quantity / quality neutral creatures) brings victory to him who dug a tunnel to her first. It is a fact.

Of course it is!
If you put a lot of neutral units in sight of each other together, then naturally who ever sees them first will likely get them all at once.
This is intented as said and must happen, while the map designer has always the choice to separate them (eg. with walls), in which case not all are converted at once.

And this negates most of the possible applications of neutral creatures.

I suggest logical fix - let a neutral creature "takes the oath" only when it came to the cell, where Underlord, or Empire. In this case, neutral territory ceases to be undivided, we break once a fetus, but becomes a cluster of grapes with which to pick the most delicious berries, and in profitable action sequences.

Here I need to disagree, it is a choice of the map designer to separate neutral units with walls so only one room gets converted at once, or if the map designer puts all in one room so they get converted all at once.

Changing this would be rather limitting choices than doing an improvement in my opinion.
From a player perspective this would make converting units rather cumbersome and would remove a features which can be only used this way.
For example you could make interesting maps where you can not pass an area but you have sight to neutral minions behind, which allows to convert them.
Interesting maps can be made with this, because the minions which are available behind a certain spot can be restricted to those you can convert.

Let me make an example:

Legend:
- Gray tiles are impenetrable rock
- Brown-orange tiles are claimable dirt
- Black tiles are chasm
- A: a powerful artefact
- W: a neutral worker
- D: Empire door
- G: neutral Gnarling

So you can enter from the right, but there is chasm blocking you towards the left side.
However with sight contact you can convert the Gnarling behind to destroy the door.
With the Gnarling you can go then further to the left to the next chasm, which allows to convert the neutral Worker by sight contact.
The worker can now build an outpost, which allows to grab the artefact.

Such nice mechanics usable for map designs would be removed, if we would change conversation in the way you suggest.
Indeed it could improve your specific map, but would destroy other interesting maps.
However, you can fix your map easily by separating neutral units into different areas enclosed by walls.
But the above example wouldn't work and can not be fixed if we would change it like you said.

Long story short:
- We are not removing the conversation by sight feature.
- But we could make sure it does only happen between units who really see each other.

 

[Ontos]

Let me make an example:

Legend:
- Gray tiles are impenetrable rock
- Brown-orange tiles are claimable dirt
- Black tiles are chasm
- A: a powerful artefact
- W: a neutral worker
- D: Empire door
- G: neutral Gnarling

Thank you for the example, that's really convincing demonstration of the incompatibility of the conversion options creatures.

In that case, please make this setting (option for the global map as a whole) in the map editor. Then, the maps with limited transformation (through entering foreign territory) neutral creatures will not affect the old maps.

 

[Ontos]

Note, that the neutral workers die immediately after the start of the game. I do not know, it's a bug or feature

 

[v0id]

Thank you for the example, that's really convincing demonstration of the incompatibility of the conversion options creatures.

In that case, please make this setting (option for the global map as a whole) in the map editor. Then, the maps with limited transformation (through entering foreign territory) neutral creatures will not affect the old maps.

We could consider it for later when we introduce an interface to specify mutators but we can not make any promises about yet.

Note, that the neutral workers die immediately after the start of the game. I do not know, it's a bug or feature

Yes this is a bug which we found already and fixed internally.
So placing neutral workers will work again next patch.