Free Allegiance Forums

If it is a COMMUNITY core then it must be staffed appropriately such that the decisions somewhat reflect the desires of the community. Therefore I would tend to agree with AEM's larger staffing levels. A Senate-like structure would work well. Since the squads are composed of the better players in the game (absolutely 100% true statement - so please no comments from the merc peanut gallery), reps from the squads seem logical. Merc community should have a couple of reps as well. Basically, this brings us right back to the Senate. WOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!! Re-instate the Senate!!

This discussion has really devolved from what (I think) should be the main point of developing a core where the core is maintained by a zone leader to a discussion of broader game balance topics.

Maybe there should be a brand new post focusing instead on the development of a real community core, without trying to focus on other portions of imbalance in the community.

fishbone wrote:QUOTE (fishbone @ Jul 4 2007, 03:13 AM) Therefore I would tend to agree with AEM's larger staffing levels. A Senate-like structure would work well. Since the squads are composed of the better players in the game (absolutely 100% true statement - so please no comments from the merc peanut gallery), reps from the squads seem logical.

/glare.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":glare:" border="0" alt="glare.gif" />

All this is somewhat senseless without:

a) Noir making his opinion known. I'm not Noir's biggest fan but he ought to be involved in a community core project if the intention is to replace DN as the standard core.

b) A plan to get people to actually play the CC. Currently a lot of people are going to waste their time on a core that won't get played.

c) Avoiding off the topic issues such as hiders.

Now I'm not opposed to a community core in principle, but I don't honestly think it'll get played as things currently stand. It'll go into the same bracket as A+, GoD2 and PC as oddities that give good SG gameplay but never get played in normal play. Do we really need another core like that?

So Kage, how do you mean to persuade people to play CC over DN? Remember, there are DN zealots out there who won't play any other core. There are people who will join a game on another core and bitch until people move to DN to shut them up. There are people out there who will join a game on another core and intentionally ruin it to get people to move to DN. How are you going to combat this?

Added to which, people seem to like toys and factions over balance (ask a newbie which core is best and they will often say "DN because it has more factions"). If you start a new core you'll have to do without: Phoenix - licensed only to Noir, TF - Models supplied by Veggie and Noir only for DN, Upgraded Dreg - model situation as per TF. You'll have GT and possibly Effix available, and the old reskin version of Dreg.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 4 2007, 10:25 AM) So Kage, how do you mean to persuade people to play CC over DN? Remember, there are DN zealots out there who won't play any other core. There are people who will join a game on another core and bitch until people move to DN to shut them up. There are people out there who will join a game on another core and intentionally ruin it to get people to move to DN. How are you going to combat this?

Added to which, people seem to like toys and factions over balance (ask a newbie which core is best and they will often say "DN because it has more factions"). If you start a new core you'll have to do without: Phoenix - licensed only to Noir, TF - Models supplied by Veggie and Noir only for DN, Upgraded Dreg - model situation as per TF. You'll have GT and possibly Effix available, and the old reskin version of Dreg.

By definition CC = only core on which stats will count. So it wont be a problem at all to persuade people to play CC over DN. This is only way to end the "Cores War"

I see no problem with Phoenix and other factions, legally , everyhing pushed thru allegiance auto update become part of Free Allegiance and fall under FAO / MSR EULA.RTF (you can read it in your allegiance folder).

I'm sorry I'm coming to this discussion late. I just finished reading these two threads - I don't come into here that often.

There are a lot of definite advantages from some of the many suggestions in this thread, and some clear disadvantages too. Of course there are so many suggestions too that I can get away with saying that without agreeing/disagreeing with anyone /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

I'm going to talk about this with the ZLs and see if there's any selection of the above suggestions that would make things better without making things worse.

--TE

KGJV wrote:QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 4 2007, 09:56 AM) By definition CC = only core on which stats will count. So it wont be a problem at all to persuade people to play CC over DN. This is only way to end the "Cores War"

I strongly believe that stats will not be enough to persuade people off DN.

KGJV wrote:QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 4 2007, 09:56 AM) I see no problem with Phoenix and other factions, legally , everyhing pushed thru allegiance auto update become part of Free Allegiance and fall under FAO / MSR EULA.RTF (you can read it in your allegiance folder).

Legally speaking I'm sure you are correct, but doing what you want to do would create a groundswell of bad feeling towards the CC from those people who feel that their work has been stolen. There's no legal reason why Grimm couldn't add the DN Dreg models to GoD, he doesn't because it would cause nothing but drama and bad feeling all round.

I fear that I cannot support using people's work without their consent or them offering their work to the community as a whole (which is what I'd rather everyone did in the first place).

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 4 2007, 12:16 PM) There's no legal reason why Grimm couldn't add the DN Dreg models to GoD, he doesn't because it would cause nothing but drama and bad feeling all round.

I feel you're touching on a very interesting subject here, namely "Tantrum being considered an acceptable form of behavior" (for reference, see: "Noir and drone AI", "Noir and Autobalance" and others). This, incidentally, is also why I don't think Psych's suggestion (which was FP's originally) is a good idea. But I digress.


I think we need to make a clear distinction between the concepts of "community core" (as in, "a core designed/maintained by the community at large, rather than a single person") and "official core" (as in, "the one true way - stats don't count anywhere else, etc"). Those are two separate concepts that seem to be getting mixed up a lot in this discussion.

My personal stance:
Community core = good (frankly, I'm interested what the core would look like after, say, 20 iterations - what do the players really want?)
Official core = bad (variety is good, marketplace of ideas and all *hands a dime to The Pigeon*... I also enjoying messing with different parts of Allegiance and wouldn't want that ability taken away).

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 4 2007, 12:16 PM) I fear that I cannot support using people's work without their consent or them offering their work to the community as a whole (which is what I'd rather everyone did in the first place).

I fear I can not support people who used other people work to make something, then denied consent when someone else wanted to use their work. You really don't want to get me started on this Raveen besides the fact that you don't know what you are talking about since you lack certain information (as I did before).

As far as stats go, I was here from AZ 7 years back until today, and sadly, you are wrong again. People in general like stats, from tracking personal advancement and making (auto)balance possible, to more egoistical reasons. Inf fact, people used to pay 10 USD a month for it. So take a hint from just that. The fact that you will always get a couple of vocal anti-stats people doesn't mean much though.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 4 2007, 12:16 PM) I strongly believe that stats will not be enough to persuade people off DN.

I strongly believe it will. Wanna bet ? /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

And once again I never said DN couldnt or shouldnt be the CC. I just said that we need a CC.

QUOTE (Dengaroth)I think we need to make a clear distinction between the concepts of "community core" (as in, "a core designed/maintained by the community at large, rather than a single person") and "official core" (as in, "the one true way - stats don't count anywhere else, etc"). Those are two separate concepts that seem to be getting mixed up a lot in this discussion.

My personal stance:
Community core = good (frankly, I'm interested what the core would look like after, say, 20 iterations - what do the players really want?)
Official core = bad (variety is good, marketplace of ideas and all *hands a dime to The Pigeon*... I also enjoying messing with different parts of Allegiance and wouldn't want that ability taken away).[/quote]

Stats have no meaning is they are colllected from different cores. It's like playing 2 different games and merging the stats.

"Variety is good". Yes and having a CC(= OF too in my mind) isnt incompatible with still having other cores to try out new ideas and different gameplays.
Just dont have them interfere with stats, official competition (squads), training (CDT/ACS) and online documentation.