Free Allegiance Forums

ICE is here. Patches welcome.

QUOTE Now when people ask why do new players leave it's because the learning curve is too steep or the game is too cooperative or the playerbase is too elitist or the game is too dead. Neither of those first two elements should be changed imo and the third is pretty hard to police well. The 4th only gets better with exposure and player retention efforts. But after five years or so away from the game my main problem with coming back to it is the game is insanely slow. It's the slowest multiplayer game I've ever played. I honestly think if we could make some core gameplay changes that would help a ton with player retention when we do get a Steam release - and we need to make good use of that.[/quote]

If you mean the playerbase is elitist right now, I'd disagree. You have a handful of elitist players in a small playerbase.

QUOTE Obviously I don't think anything radical should be done because it's too much work to suggest for others and anything radical has trade offs I'd have to think about more. I'd absolutely love suggestions on ways to speed up the game and force more engagements without sacrificing the game's strategy and think even just getting those ideas floating would be a good outcome for this topic.[/quote]

Factions are balanced around time windows. This is far too difficult. I agree, however, that those two-hour slugfests are draining. But I see the prospect of a huge two-hour game as a pro of our game. All games today are too short and repetitive.

QUOTE Now I know that for some people having changes like that is unnecessary. The game has stayed pretty much the same asides from factions and light balancing changes (as well as the occasionally stronger rework like for SY) for a decade. But if you want people to pick it up that's gonna happen way more easily if there aren't tons of moments they can comfortably browse the internet with VG in a side screen. And I'll also say as used to these elements as people are I don't think we actually enjoy them for the most part. You know why everyone loses their head and strategy basically stops occasionally when two bases are in the same sector? Because people love fighting in this game and outside of pushes and bomb/TT runs there's very little of that. Probably half the game is just moving through space. I think that's fine and has to be part of the game, but I think the sheer amount of nothing happening, especially when you're a newb, is really bad for player retention. I'd love for people to have some ideas on how to make this better.[/quote]

In proper sized games, there is always something happening. If you can't think of something yourself, you can scout, probe, miner o, or find cash/tech. But I understand your point. Travel time is a faction balance, a map balance, and an econ balance. Everything in Allegiance takes time. Going on Miner O takes time. Ripcording home takes time. Ramming a bomber low sig to an aleph uneyed takes time. These are subtle strategy elements that would be reduced and watered down if map sizes or game speed were reduced.

I personally push for a dedicated DM lobby for the players that become frustrated with this, or simply want to blow some @#(! up.

QUOTE Before going into some changes suggestions because I'm sure I'll get the "ruining the game, appeal to LCD, etc" comments I'll just raise this question:
Why do people love this game? What is it's unique appeal that has been strong enough to band a community for a game that basically died within a couple years and has been kept alive by passionate fans for two decades?
I think most people would agree that it's different because it blends genres and requires cooperation in a different way than any others. I've never played a game more team dependent or where the elements of a team are as important nor with as flexible focus. It's a legit war game. You are part of an army with limited forces that have to work together and split up in any way you choose and there's so much damn power there. I've never seen any game where the average player is this engaged in the outcome of a close match - not even very competitive oriented games like ranked MOBAs. The team chat and ability to coordinate with people - learn specific players name capabilities and playstyles as well as decide what to do as a team. It's very very cool. My main point in drawing this up is to say none of what I want to change should effect the core elements of Allegiance that have made it so fun and so engaging for a long time. I just want it to be those things - but a little faster.[/quote]

The only thing that I can personally think of to speed up the game while maintaining the integrity of the game (EVERYTHING has a balance involving a time window) is increasing the potency of endgame tech.

That's really it. That's all I can think of. But again, the game is already carefully balanced. It would have to be little things like HTT speed, Bomber speed, SB energy for aleph crossing heavy cloak.

QUOTE -Pods oxygen is good for 90 seconds.[/quote]
I like the idea of playing with pod timers. Pod pick-ups are more necessary in long sector walks with KBs at risk, pods aren't following a team of bombers for five whole minutes in small games. There's really not much that this takes away from other than nerfing rolling on podded teams and decreasing the time you spend in a pod.

QUOTE -Pods move 15% faster[/quote]
As long as they're not able to outrun ships. This is a significant balance change like pod oxygen. Adding both may break counterattack balancing.

QUOTE -Alephs have 1.2x higher sig. Or possibly alephs within two connections of Garrison have 1.2x higher sig if the first choice is overkill.[/quote]
This is another game balance issue, but mainly for small numbers scouting. I'm not opposed to the idea of it. Any player who's been playing for a month knows how alephs are spaced around each other in sectors.
The reason that this is a game balance issue is because of randomized alephs. You may know where the alephs are, but you don't know which ones will be to which sectors. Factions with varied scan ranges will be affected by this in a small way early game. It will affect all factions equally, though.


QUOTE -Teleportation starts you moving at your current move speed when you teleport (or was this already there?)[/quote]
Your speed gradually reduces, unless you boost. This mechanic should not be changed, and I don't even think it can be.

QUOTE -All small ships can teleport.[/quote]
Nope.
Nope nope nope nope.

QUOTE -Fueless ships gain fuel slowly over time.[/quote]
Nope.
Nope nope nope nope.

QUOTE -Give scouts strong acceleration. No one wants to play scouts partly because they're so easy to pick off for any fighting class ship. Their only advantage in that scenario is higher top speed non boosted and the ability to hold prox. Let them use that advantage more strongly and maneuver better around ships/cons they're healing by increasing their accel.[/quote]
Strong? No.
A buff? Sure. Belts scouts and Dreg scouts would be OP as $#@!, though.

QUOTE -I'd be in favour of a hybrid fighter/scout with okay dps and scout range (no nan or prox) in all factions but know this would take away from the uniqueness of Giga. I think it'd be easier to swallow than every new player being asked to play scout constantly though. Unique ship model is an issue, I guess you could just re use fighter and make it a different shade to be easy.[/quote]
Everyone plays Giga anyway. Otherwise, no.



I'm working on streamlining Cadet material, I wouldn't be opposed to streamlining some of the game as well. There are many unforgiving game mechanics on an individual level, but these balance out the game on a grand scale. A lot of these proposed changes change the natural flow of the game, a lot of these are also good for the players from an experience perspective.

I'm not opposed to reducing some of the boredom.

What's VG?

I think a lot of the problems you are referencing are due to player density. The game was not really designed for 5v5, and many things have been adjusted so it is even playable down this low. Realistically things hit their stride in the 12+ per side range, and really get going in the 15-20 per side range. when you have 40 people running around, everything is interesting.

that being said, I really do like the idea of bringing the pod timer down to like 90 seconds.

Don't increase the speed, it makes them too easy to suicide.

AEM wrote:QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 13 2017, 11:51 AM) As I have said before what Allegiance really needs is an alternative "arcade" mode that maintains similar gameplay but plays much faster. I play other games that last between 5-20m each. I only log into Allegiance for special events, mostly due to games taking too long. I would prefer to play normal games, but many of us just don't have the time.

Basically what I suggest is to have a relatively small number of sectors and start with bases in multiple sectors. Ideally commanders would be able to place bases prior to the game starting. That would require too much coding effort though. So we should allow for selecting faction and tech with bases automatically placed. I would suggest starting with two tech bases, a primary that has some basic research already done and a secondary that has no research done. To win destroy all tech bases or just the Garrison. You can't build additional tech bases or garrisons. Start with three miners and don't allow any more to be built if they are destroyed.

Only make the parts of the map where stations are visible, so there will still be a little scouting to be done. Greatly reduce pod life and increase speed. There should a timer after which sudden death mode begins if he game is still taking to long. This makes it easier to win, perhaps by removing shields from tech bases and Garrison.

People who have time can play traditional Allegiance (if enough players), and the rest can stick with the quicker arcade version.

This is a great idea.Half way between Deathmatch and full blown Allegiance.

I agree that the game would benefit from more arcade / action and 5 minute pod rides are particularly disruptive. In bigger games with coordinated teams pods are not much of an issue, and raises the stakes when committing to a bomb run / opening furball / miner rush etc.

While being an interesting mechanic in a squad game, I also think it does more harm than good in most games we see today, where it just creates a lot of down-time for players, especially newbies - which we should cherish and spoil like our children given how few there are.

Luckily there is an option in the game already that would accomplish this without having to write a single line of code; turn pods off in the game options!

One-Man-Bucket wrote:QUOTE (One-Man-Bucket @ Aug 14 2017, 02:02 AM) I agree that the game would benefit from more arcade / action and 5 minute pod rides are particularly disruptive. In bigger games with coordinated teams pods are not much of an issue, and raises the stakes when committing to a bomb run / opening furball / miner rush etc.

While being an interesting mechanic in a squad game, I also think it does more harm than good in most games we see today, where it just creates a lot of down-time for players, especially newbies - which we should cherish and spoil like our children given how few there are.

Luckily there is an option in the game already that would accomplish this without having to write a single line of code; turn pods off in the game options!

Pods should be off in the cancerous, small 5 v 5's we keep having to play.

WOW! it took us a long time to code and relearn the game
please do not change the pod time or the O2
you either take them off or leave it and that is on the option
Allegiance never was an arcade game and never will be....

Decrease research times by 10% - 20% for all factions.
Increase speed by 10% - 20% for all ships, miners, constructors, pods, HE3 regeneration, mining time at rocks, etc.

I assume it would create a faster game.
I'd be curious to see how that would work.

Interestingly, I did develop a core that I think would address the majority of these issues. Basically what I did was a) slowed down mining (yes, this means there's more action and more stuff going on at any given point because you're no longer stuck to a narrow window to hit miners), b) sped up all of the ships (not pods, but meh), and c) tweaked the game to favor mid-late game bomb and HTT runs.

IMO the problem isn't that the game lasts 30-45 minutes. Some people might like the whole "oh my let's play for 5-20 minutes" arcade thing and it'd be a tough sell for them to play something longer, but why the hell do we want to compete with established franchises at what they do best? We can't make Allegiance "league of legends... but IN SPACE!" because there already *IS* a League of Legends.

What we have to do is target the soccer-watching, football-loving demographic. The people who watch Nascar for the few crashes, the people who watch Baseball. For the vast majority of players, a game of soccer is ~60 minutes standing around, ~28 minutes jogging, ~2 minutes of action. Yet it's the most popular sport in the world.

The problem we have is that games can sometimes last one, two, even three or four hours. The problem we have is that after mini3 hvy ints with afterburner 3 and pulse probe 2 and prox 3 it is almost impossible to penetrate those defenses, and EWS3 hvy scouts will see basically anything coming making it almost impossible for the gat3 qf3 adv figs with hvy boost and minepack 2 to fail to stop an HTT run.

Endgame tech should be able to end the game.