Just get back to playing actively. Specific suggestions and ideas are most welcome. A general DN 4.60 was perfect a bit less so
CC team, please have mercy!
I tried, i didn't like it with CC... Just for kicks i started a DN game and was back in love with alleg...Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Mar 6 2011, 04:50 PM) ...
Just get back to playing actively.
Viru's right to regard DN as work in progress, but it was progress in the right direction imho...
Well, whatever... i can always uninstall, at least that cannot be taken away from me `gu
-
Spunkmeyer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.
You are a bit all over the place but let me try.
There are variables you are not considering. You could say "GT Tac isn't played so nerfing Gauss is not a priority" and you would be correct. However you cannot say "GT Tac isn't played so nerfing Gauss is wrong" - the two don't necessarily go together. Gauss could be overpowered without GT Tac seeing play, because the weakness could be before you reach that stage. There are reasons why GT Tac isn't played that has nothing to do with Gauss strength. This release will restore missile strength against CMs back to how it used to be, which is going to be a huge boost to tac, and a smaller boost to sup. So if the boost is enough to overcome skill issues that are the other downfall of tac and people start playing tac, then the Gauss issue would stand out.
There needs to be a symmetry in design. (I'm one of the designers of GT btw, which is not exactly the GT that's being played right now, but it's close). My design calls for rougly equal boosts in power from Research Center developments in exp, sup and tac. If you don't have this kind of symmetry, then you make the game more "knowledge-dependent" than "skill-dependent"... so, for example, the winning tactic could become rushing a certain tech that's known to be working well and avoiding those that do not rather than playing the game skillfully.
Skill-dependent games are good. Knowledge-dependent games are bad (by that I don't mean a steep learning curve but rather hidden, "numbers in the core" or "years of experience" kind of knowledge). Allegiance is a bit of both, we should make it more of the former and less of the latter.
but let me try.There are variables you are not considering. You could say "GT Tac isn't played so nerfing Gauss is not a priority" and you would be correct. However you cannot say "GT Tac isn't played so nerfing Gauss is wrong" - the two don't necessarily go together. Gauss could be overpowered without GT Tac seeing play, because the weakness could be before you reach that stage. There are reasons why GT Tac isn't played that has nothing to do with Gauss strength. This release will restore missile strength against CMs back to how it used to be, which is going to be a huge boost to tac, and a smaller boost to sup. So if the boost is enough to overcome skill issues that are the other downfall of tac and people start playing tac, then the Gauss issue would stand out.
There needs to be a symmetry in design. (I'm one of the designers of GT btw, which is not exactly the GT that's being played right now, but it's close). My design calls for rougly equal boosts in power from Research Center developments in exp, sup and tac. If you don't have this kind of symmetry, then you make the game more "knowledge-dependent" than "skill-dependent"... so, for example, the winning tactic could become rushing a certain tech that's known to be working well and avoiding those that do not rather than playing the game skillfully.
Skill-dependent games are good. Knowledge-dependent games are bad (by that I don't mean a steep learning curve but rather hidden, "numbers in the core" or "years of experience" kind of knowledge). Allegiance is a bit of both, we should make it more of the former and less of the latter.
Want bigger games? Log on to play at the official game time: 9pmET/8pmCT/7pmMT/6pmPT every day of the week. Also Saturdays 8pm UTC.
QUOTE # Having people like me, starting to appear in gameplay related / core dev threads should ring a whole bunch of alarms, it's a wakeup call.[/quote]
Not really. Surprisingly enough, dumb voobs post CC threads all the time. There's nothing particularly noble or unique about your "CC sucks, why don't you make it into my ideal core?" thread.
QUOTE ( @ Mar 6 2011, 01:49 PM) None of that helps if people are still unwilling to use the 'balanced' pieces.
At some point boosting the unpopular is necessary if we want anything but the same old games.[/quote]
This is only true if you assume that all good strategies are currently in common use, and therefore any tactics that are not sufficiently popular must be terrible and require perking. Fact of the matter is, that's not really the case. There's a lot more to Alleg than tech choices anyway.
Not really. Surprisingly enough, dumb voobs post CC threads all the time. There's nothing particularly noble or unique about your "CC sucks, why don't you make it into my ideal core?" thread.
QUOTE ( @ Mar 6 2011, 01:49 PM) None of that helps if people are still unwilling to use the 'balanced' pieces.
At some point boosting the unpopular is necessary if we want anything but the same old games.[/quote]
This is only true if you assume that all good strategies are currently in common use, and therefore any tactics that are not sufficiently popular must be terrible and require perking. Fact of the matter is, that's not really the case. There's a lot more to Alleg than tech choices anyway.
Adept stop with the trolling
Just as a quick question, what exactly did you experience in the first 5 minutes of a DN game that made you love it that weren't present in CC?
Just as a quick question, what exactly did you experience in the first 5 minutes of a DN game that made you love it that weren't present in CC?
Get over yourselves, don't try to win arguments on the internet where the option of a punch in the mouth is unavailable
"It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
Jimen,
Spideycw actually does random and fairly unpredictable stuff in PuGs. Mostly because he can wipe the floor with pretty much every other com who plays the game today, and doesn't even need to try. As far as I can tell, the last time Spidey had an active opponent that he actually felt challenged by was when Aarmstrong was actually active (then Left4Dead happened). Maybe Virulence since or before, but you'd have to ask Spidey about that.
Back then, pugs were just as predictable as anything else: IC went expansion and tried to faceroll, TF went expansion and tried to faceroll, GT went expansion and tried to faceroll (except when Gui commanded, in which case it went sup and proceeded to faceroll), Rix generally went expansion and tried to faceroll but occasionally you got a game with rix sup. In fact I remember one Aarm vs Spidey game where it was Rix sup vs Rix sup, spidey got heavy scouts and Aarm got figbees. Aarm almost won but there was a hilariously heroic endgame sequence in which both teams tp2'd the other at the same time and our techbases happened to be just far enough apart that our figbees were able to rip to and kill the garrison before they killed ours.
Just so you know how long ago this was, Spidey mentioned in the thread, "thank you Aarm for going figbees instead of XRM cheese so I didn't have to." In the ensuing squad tourney, Drizzo remarked that he felt TF was a natural counter to IC and proceeded to lead Ace to victory against XT. Aarm and Spidey developed a love for Belters Sup and decided to fly it in all of the important games (read: the games against each other).
In short: Allegiance has always been pretty $#@!ing predictable. From faction choices if you can't predict with 90% accuracy what techpath a commander will go, then you really have no business commenting on a thread about balance.
Spideycw actually does random and fairly unpredictable stuff in PuGs. Mostly because he can wipe the floor with pretty much every other com who plays the game today, and doesn't even need to try. As far as I can tell, the last time Spidey had an active opponent that he actually felt challenged by was when Aarmstrong was actually active (then Left4Dead happened). Maybe Virulence since or before, but you'd have to ask Spidey about that.
Back then, pugs were just as predictable as anything else: IC went expansion and tried to faceroll, TF went expansion and tried to faceroll, GT went expansion and tried to faceroll (except when Gui commanded, in which case it went sup and proceeded to faceroll), Rix generally went expansion and tried to faceroll but occasionally you got a game with rix sup. In fact I remember one Aarm vs Spidey game where it was Rix sup vs Rix sup, spidey got heavy scouts and Aarm got figbees. Aarm almost won but there was a hilariously heroic endgame sequence in which both teams tp2'd the other at the same time and our techbases happened to be just far enough apart that our figbees were able to rip to and kill the garrison before they killed ours.
Just so you know how long ago this was, Spidey mentioned in the thread, "thank you Aarm for going figbees instead of XRM cheese so I didn't have to." In the ensuing squad tourney, Drizzo remarked that he felt TF was a natural counter to IC and proceeded to lead Ace to victory against XT. Aarm and Spidey developed a love for Belters Sup and decided to fly it in all of the important games (read: the games against each other).
In short: Allegiance has always been pretty $#@!ing predictable. From faction choices if you can't predict with 90% accuracy what techpath a commander will go, then you really have no business commenting on a thread about balance.
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.
Jesus christ either you're dumb as toast or you have the short-term memory of a goldfish.Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Mar 6 2011, 01:26 AM) Of course, we could always give commanders options! You know, the ability to choose for themselves which strategies they're going to take for their particular faction, rather than trying to make those decisions for us by cheesing up particular things so that they're the only viable choices for that faction! Once upon a time, there was somewhat more to commanding than "pick your faction and techpath, stack the settings, check to see if the other comm is notorious enough to be utterly predictable, and carry out one of the three or four strategies that are simple and familiar enough that the gaggle of idiots some would deign to refer to as your 'team' only need to be yelled at a little bit".
Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain.
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Apr 1 2009, 09:35 PM) But I don't read the forums I only post.