IMPORTANT: REDDIT

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sun May 27, 2012 3:29 pm

I agree setting up commanders is huge issue, but if one of the answers is going to be commanderless games, it HAS to be each player with individual income. A single pool would be wasted in short order.

It's actually interesting to start with everyone not donating, and a natural "commander" to emerge during the game. The only real sticking point I can see is the startup where money needs to be spent quickly and a mistake here will immediately cost the game. One way to alleviate that is to start with no money and perhaps one of each small constructor and drone as an option.

But what's really needed is a proper commander-pick/voting interface and proper commander ranking (which kind of exists now but needs some improvement eventually)

JimmyNighthawk · Post by **JimmyNighthawk** » Sun May 27, 2012 3:59 pm

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ May 25 2012, 01:10 AM) Defintely mention that July 4th game, it should be a good time with lots of old farts who now suck at flying.

I would ask that those fourth July - whose statements within the game - on 140 characters are limited, and then following quickly on a Twitter transmitted API streaming "blah blah". "
"The Show must Go On!"

"... did ya copy?"

. . .
/edit reason:
Proudly feat. by Microsoft Translation Software

TheAlaskan · Post by **TheAlaskan** » Sun May 27, 2012 4:44 pm

phungus420 wrote:QUOTE (phungus420 @ May 27 2012, 03:53 AM) If you want to save the game, PUGs need to have the option to go commanderless and just have the $$$ in a team pool (not indivual players, as that would be obviously broken) that can be invested by anyone on the team who thinks about it. This is the only way to stop the 20+ minute waits between games. This is why I stopped playing at least, not good enough to command (and if I try I get stacked against, which I understand since I suck at commanding, but it's an important reality that effects alot of people who might comm), and neither are most other players, so everyone just sits on NOAT with games never starting.

-1

One person needs to be in charge. People need to become better commanders.

Post by **BackTrak** » Sun May 27, 2012 4:54 pm

People have been saying that for years, but it doesn't happen all that often.

I had this thought a while back, maybe it's time to offer a commanderless game mode?

http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...=63094&st=0

If the Allegiance recipie was an unqualified success, we'd still be playing on the Zone and paying MS $10 a month. But it's not perfect. If you look at other online games, not very many of them are waiting for humans to ready up and launch any more. I don't think we have a big enough player base to do "auto join game with groups of friends", but we could eliminate the "waiting for commanders" detraction.

vogue · Post by **vogue** » Sun May 27, 2012 5:47 pm

BackTrak wrote:QUOTE (BackTrak @ May 27 2012, 12:54 PM) People have been saying that for years, but it doesn't happen all that often.

I had this thought a while back, maybe it's time to offer a commanderless game mode?

http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...=63094&st=0

If the Allegiance recipie was an unqualified success, we'd still be playing on the Zone and paying MS $10 a month. But it's not perfect. If you look at other online games, not very many of them are waiting for humans to ready up and launch any more. I don't think we have a big enough player base to do "auto join game with groups of friends", but we could eliminate the "waiting for commanders" detraction.

yo why haven't i ever seen that post before, i'd def be down to play that game mode if no one was stepping up to command

but my one concern is balance. pretty much a lot of that seems to be random and based on luck with a little bit of skill if you use the current treasure generating system

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Sun May 27, 2012 7:46 pm

vogue wrote:QUOTE (vogue @ May 27 2012, 10:47 AM) yo why haven't i ever seen that post before, i'd def be down to play that game mode if no one was stepping up to command

but my one concern is balance. pretty much a lot of that seems to be random and based on luck with a little bit of skill if you use the current treasure generating system

That could be interesting.

Maybe a game mode like Company of Heroes. Instead of capture points, you have ops/techbases preplaced on the map (this would have to be set, rather than randomized in the interest of fairness). You start out with a certain level of basic tech, and HTTs. When you cap a base, it generates money or unlocks better tech, depending on the sort of base.

Winning could depend on either capping all enemy bases or holding certain sectors for a length of time, like in CoH.

Of course this wouldn't be as strategically complex as Conquest but it would be a faster paced, more action oriented game mode that attracts the youth of today.

As opposed to BackTrak's ideas about treasures, I think tech and money should be tied to bases to stop people running around picking @#(! up all the time, and to keep things fair. It would also encourage hoarding resources (cash), whereas a large team wide pay day would keep things Fair and Balanced. Scout pilots could of course donate their money to whores so they always have an int to run around in.

raumvogel · Post by **raumvogel** » Mon May 28, 2012 3:57 am

I have been barking about the need for Autocomm for years. It's long over due.

Elzam_ · Post by **Elzam_** » Mon May 28, 2012 7:12 am

If autocomm were implemented, you'd probably just see autocomm's drones being ordered around by subcomm player X and then it's a game of which team has a better subcomm.

Terran · Post by **Terran** » Mon May 28, 2012 7:37 am

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ May 27 2012, 03:46 PM) That could be interesting.

Maybe a game mode like Company of Heroes. Instead of capture points, you have ops/techbases preplaced on the map (this would have to be set, rather than randomized in the interest of fairness). You start out with a certain level of basic tech, and HTTs. When you cap a base, it generates money or unlocks better tech, depending on the sort of base.

Winning could depend on either capping all enemy bases or holding certain sectors for a length of time, like in CoH.

Of course this wouldn't be as strategically complex as Conquest but it would be a faster paced, more action oriented game mode that attracts the youth of today.

As opposed to BackTrak's ideas about treasures, I think tech and money should be tied to bases to stop people running around picking @#(! up all the time, and to keep things fair. It would also encourage hoarding resources (cash), whereas a large team wide pay day would keep things Fair and Balanced. Scout pilots could of course donate their money to whores so they always have an int to run around in.

that sounds awesome

Post by **aem** » Mon May 28, 2012 7:59 am

A weakness of Allegiance is definitely having only one good game type. I haven't been in game much for years, but if lack of commanders is a problem, more arcade like game types would help. I don't think there is any point discussing this though. We probably only have had a few devs capable of something on this scale and I don't think any are active. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to work on projects this involved, but I am more of a web developer and haven't looked at C++ since R3 or R4.