Free Allegiance Forums

Achievements earned will keep people playing multiplayer games, so long as those achievements are displayed.

Scaling the main core for smaller games would be good at this point, we could always use different cores for larger events. I know it's not a marketing thing, but it would help in retention. As it is now pretty much every game is a giga game and that gets old horribly fast.

Gimme a month or so and I'll find a way to make a core that's fine at 5v5 and 10v10.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Mar 27 2015, 07:16 AM) Gimme a month or so and I'll find a way to make a core that's fine at 5v5 and 10v10.

TwoWeeks?

The old style of "medals" could be issued with little adjustment. Many can be measured, like a "bomber slayer" medal for killing 25 bombers. Or "Miner recon" for 100 first found minders. We have a player database, adding those achievements should be possible. Medals for "years service" etc etc.

Dit de old XT not have those skull like medals years ago?

peet wrote:QUOTE (peet @ Mar 27 2015, 07:05 AM) The old style of "medals" could be issued with little adjustment. Many can be measured, like a "bomber slayer" medal for killing 25 bombers. Or "Miner recon" for 100 first found minders. We have a player database, adding those achievements should be possible. Medals for "years service" etc etc.

Dit de old XT not have those skull like medals years ago?

The only medal I'm concerned with is "Temperamental Commander not booting imperfect player" award.

H4L_OMNI wrote:QUOTE (H4L_OMNI @ Mar 27 2015, 12:57 AM) 1. If you have not notice already the game is dying. So the game as is broken. There can be no other explanation or else we would have more players.

So keep on wanting to do things the same way and I promise you will see the same results. Learning curve is too much for the masses, the game should be easier. I know some of us dont want that cause it takes away our advantage.

2. This game in its hay day thrived because of multiple games at same time. I believe to launch a 5 player per side game u needed 1 per side, 10 player per side game u needed 5 per side min. 15 player game per side and so on.

3. You missed my whole point. I'm not talking about this site admin or any type of current admins. I'm talking about Joomla Content management webiste and its system of content website admin.

1. Yes, let's keep the game alive by taking away from the game. None of the people who have enjoyed this game for years will object. There is one salvageable idea from this. Make a separate Pcore where all ships have lead indicators. Boom. We both win. Now stop saying this game is broken. There sure is another explanation as to why we don't have more players.
a. Vets have played this game for so long they have moved on
b. Our marketing sucks and I aim to help fix that in whatever way possible
c. Our player retention sucks and we haven't addressed the issues that keep driving away newbies.

2. That's when it had the community size to support it. We don't have that luxury.

3. Okay. I'm not here to develop the website, so if you want to dish out ideas over it, discuss that with Thallium. He's working on our new homepage and would be much more well informed to talk about this.

Furthermore, if you would like a better explanation as to why I object to watering down the game and making it less diverse, look no further than the Battlefield franchise.

Sure, it's more popular than it used to be. But what Dice did to get there in terms of dumbing down their gameplay and making the game more generic alienated the majority of it's hardcore strategy-minded fanbase. Now the game is just a reskinned Call of Duty with vehicles. The role of Commander was removed for three straight editions, squad roles were gutted into a glorified chat room, and "perks" were added to make up for lack of skill.

But that's just scratching the surface into that franchise's problems.


I don't want to see Allegiance dumb down its gameplay to increase our chances of appealing to the 1 newbie we get a week. I would rather market the game well so that we can find those players that are looking for the in-depth and complex game that Allegiance is.

Yeah, dumbing the game down won't help any imo (although, why the hell is a nanite gun not on the default loadout for scouts? wtf). The game is what it is, which is not for everyone. Trying to appeal to a different types of gamer ain't gonna work. Better to focus on attracting the right kind of people, I mean it's a big wide world out there and niche is cool.

The website needs sorting out more than the game itself. It could be so much more.

What does a fresh player learn about the game with 5-10 mins reading time? Then they fire the game up, might see a created server if they are lucky, might even get a game if the moon is in capricorn and there's a northwesterly breeze! Then they find out it's $#@!ing hard. Iff they are around long enough then it's on to the abuse stage, peppered with boots. If they are still here, well then they'll probably stay because they love difficulty, have thick skin (or love to lol at vet rage ha ha), meet people they tlke etc etc you know the drill.

I think that within 5 mins of reading, the potential player should be made aware of this with a positive spin to influence perception (trixxy trixxy!)!! kinda managing expectation.

And customary keymap groan. lol

azzwaldo wrote:QUOTE (azzwaldo @ Mar 27 2015, 12:09 PM) (although, why the hell is a nanite gun not on the default loadout for scouts? wtf)

Hm, I'm going to look into that from a core standpoint.