Free Allegiance Forums

Hi,

I am posting so Dog and YP and AEM etc know that I was here.

Wish I had enuff internet to do some dev work but the net here has file transfers blocked.


Back to this post

--------------- Balance ------------------

I do believe that most zeroes are zeroes. " how do i launch from this room? "

But they should count as more than zero for helo balance. At least 1. Maybe a little more

the noob(0) = Helo(zero) lets me have 45 zeroes to one "vet(1)"

Now allowing 5 noob(2) to = a vet(10) ,,, maybe. Or maybe 3 noob(2) = a vet(10).

I am simply suggesting that we work out a decent low end scale.
the data needed to figure it out should be available in game histories and community knowledge

It might also be good if helo is adjusted for the comm rank.
a vet(10) comm usually needs a lot more help against a vet(20) comm

raising the higher comm helo, for the helo balance count, might adjust for comm skill by allowing the lesser comm a higher helo team.

perhaps adjust by the rank ratio ( vet(10) vs vet(20) results in vet(30) or vet(40) for the higher comm.
If the vet(20) flies then helo = 20, if comm then balance helo = 30 or 40,


This gets sticky when comms change in game, but most comms want the win and dont change.

------------------- Auto Balance Option Control

Any comm on any team should be able to turn on the auto balance option.
The dominant team ( Game Control in most cases ) probably does not want auto balance.

Auto balance is rarely used because of this.

Comms who play against a high helo team with game control need Auto Balance to even it out.
we should give all comms the Auto Balance option on/off ability.
I don't mean to let them shuffle the teams, just turn on the balance option.
If all agree to no balance then all press it off.
If anyone wants it, its on.

better overall gameplay because you don't want to comm when you just know that when the game starts,
the other team helo doubles or triples over yours.
and the noob army is gonna get stomped.


-------------- Mutiny ------------------

Mutiny is good if not spammed. Even now mutiny gets spammed at times. Or resign or draw etc.

My suggestion is to limit mutiny.

first the comm should not be able to mutiny.

second no one should spam mutiny.

Possibilities are :

one mutiny, or a limited number, per game ( the comm's buddies propose one mutiny to use up the one time chance )
one mutiny, or a limit, per person ( can be spammed by a competing group who then elect comm )
one mutiny, or a limit, per time ( 5,10, whatever minutes ) ( the comms buddies or the rebels always remember to do it on time = spam at time intervals )

I propose 1 mutiny per time period
Each mutiny attempt locks out the mutiny command for everyone else while the team votes ( plus some more time )

this eliminates competing vote spam.

the team gets a few minutes to think about who should mutiny to be comm.

the team can rat to the comm and get the spam mutineer booted.


Radar

Ps, present your own case, if you have one,

if you don't have one,
don't attack mine

YP your post changed my opinion about the drones - seriously. That is a very good point, and I can't help but agree 100%.

Your_Persona wrote:QUOTE (Your_Persona @ Sep 14 2007, 06:00 AM) What you are doing is simply exploiting a bug in the AI! Don't you even try to argue balance, or game play for this!

This game is so much more fun when its a battle of PvP with fleets of ships going at it, and good strategies and attacks planned. Sadly in its current state everyone just exploits some bugs in the AI, and now its Pwn The Drones ftw.

<irony> I agree. Gigantic battles are what Allegiance is all about. Let's get rid of miners, it's soooo boring to attack stupid AI-driven drones when you can dogfight with real human pilots instead. Let's get rid of constructors, and really simplify the whole economic part. After all these improvements, I think Allegiance needs a new name, to mark the progress we will have made. How does "Quake in space" sound? </irony>

Sure, battling with real, thinking human opponents instead of an AI that always reacts in the same, predictable way is a large part of what makes Allegiance special. But to my eyes, the vulnerability of drones gives pilots more tactical options, leading to more interesting gameplay. You can risk it and send that con without escort, but don't come to me and cry if the opposing team exploits your weakness. And your enemies' constructors are just as helpless as your own, so it's fair play.

Also, realism does not a better game make. But you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I think that this change makes it more likely that an unescorted constructor will plant (unless core authors make constructors so weak that a lucky scout can kill them in the time it takes to fly from the sector entrance aleph to the designated rock). I think that makes defending constructors less important. And I don't like that.

AEM wrote:QUOTE (AEM @ Sep 13 2007, 06:00 PM) 14v17 is perfectly fine. Thats how balancing works /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Less highly skilled players is often better than more inexperienced players. What I definitely would like to see though is ranks be counted as rank + 10 for balancing purposes. That means instead of 30 rank 1's equaling 1 rank 30, under 4 rank 1's = 1 rank 30.

Can't wait for a working AB system.

This is quite easy to adjust methodically. After a suitably long period of auto-balance games, look at how often pilots of different ranks win. If the team with fewer but more experienced pilots in a helo-even game has a smaller chance of winning, then that indicates that newbies are underranked. That should mean that newbies would win more often than they lose, ie. their win-% should be above 50 %. Then it's a simple matter of adjusting the thresholds so they promote faster. If, say, pilots of rank Inter. 4 only win 30 % of their games, then maybe the threshold for becoming Inter. 4 is too low.
After adjusting the thresholds, you would start a new evaluation period and see how the changes turned out.

(the thresholds I'm referring to are in the right-hand "Conversion table" on the leaderboard)

Ksero wrote:QUOTE (Ksero @ Sep 14 2007, 12:36 AM) <irony> I agree. Gigantic battles are what Allegiance is all about. Let's get rid of miners, it's soooo boring to attack stupid AI-driven drones when you can dogfight with real human pilots instead. Let's get rid of constructors, and really simplify the whole economic part. After all these improvements, I think Allegiance needs a new name, to mark the progress we will have made. How does "Quake in space" sound? </irony>

QUOTE (Your_Persona)be that jackass.[/quote]


I guess you don't have any idea how stupid your argument sounds, so I'll tell you. Your argument is stupid. Relating enhanced AI to removing drones, was simply foolish.


Ohh, and after all your whining, I noticed that you didn't even have an argument as to why smarter drones are bad. lmao

Your_Persona wrote:QUOTE (Your_Persona @ Sep 14 2007, 05:54 PM) I guess you don't have any idea how stupid your argument sounds, so I'll tell you. Your argument is stupid. Relating enhanced AI to removing drones, was simply foolish.

Your_Persona wrote:QUOTE (Your_Persona @ Sep 14 2007, 02:00 PM) This game is so much more fun when its a battle of PvP with fleets of ships going at it, and good strategies and attacks planned. Sadly in its current state everyone just exploits some bugs in the AI, and now its Pwn The Drones ftw.

Ksero wrote:QUOTE (Ksero @ Sep 14 2007, 04:36 PM) <irony> I agree. Gigantic battles are what Allegiance is all about. Let's get rid of miners, it's soooo boring to attack stupid AI-driven drones when you can dogfight with real human pilots instead. Let's get rid of constructors, and really simplify the whole economic part. After all these improvements, I think Allegiance needs a new name, to mark the progress we will have made. How does "Quake in space" sound? </irony>

Your_Persona wrote:QUOTE (Your_Persona @ Sep 14 2007, 05:54 PM) Ohh, and after all your whining, I noticed that you didn't even have an argument as to why smarter drones are bad. lmao

Ksero wrote:QUOTE (Ksero @ Sep 14 2007, 04:36 PM) I think that this change makes it more likely that an unescorted constructor will plant (unless core authors make constructors so weak that a lucky scout can kill them in the time it takes to fly from the sector entrance aleph to the designated rock). I think that makes defending constructors less important. And I don't like that.

QUOTE (Your_Persona)If you would be concerned that those changes would make the drones to difficult to kill, then there is this amazing piece to the game called the CORE.

See what you do is adjust the attributes of the drone that you are concerned about being overly powerful.

I will refrain from swearing at the few of you who can not grasp anything technical, those who refuse to probe, and expect to be able to eye a con when it is about to build, then have a train of people ram it until enough of your team can respond to kill it.

What you are doing is simply exploiting a bug in the AI! Don't you even try to argue balance, or game play for this![/quote]

Thats all I have to say. If anyone would like to raise a real issue please take it to the dev forum, I try not to read this trash.

The miner AI is something I'm marginally ok with because it has fewer code items to tweak.

I think the constructor change might merit more testing, possibly into R5. The changes there have very far-reaching effects for the various techpaths.

It removes a bit of the emphasis from teamwork (protecting your investment) and pushes it a little more towards Jimmy-land. Spamming cons like Jimmy did carriers and refs becomes entirely more viable so long as you keep up a modest economy when you can run them in mostly un-escorted.

Normally I'd agree with Y_P on the "core changes can happen" option, but as it stands right now:

Noir is mostly inactive with regards to DN development.
Pook has stated that he's not developing PC2 anymore but someone else is welcome to take over if they ask him, or use his core as a baseline.
Hawkwood is MIA, so no EoR changes are likely.
Anguirel supposedly took over A+, but I don't recall seeing an update and he's rarely around as well.
DrStrnglv hasn't altered RPS since I started playing
Weed abandoned SW Core
aside from Apochboi's Warpcore, that leaves ONE other active dev that I see...

Grimmwolf as head core developer for GoD II

Maybe it'd be kinda silly to rely on core changes to fix game-wide source code alterations?

Let me state it this way, then. Today, a single scout can stop an unescorted constructor from building long enough for reinforcements to arrive and kill it, if he is skillful enough. These AI changes will make stalling the constructor very hard or impossible. Therefore, to preserve the status quo regarding how easily constructors are killed, a single scout must be able to solo tp and possibly op cons in, say, about one minute.

Making constructors *that* weak would cause a cascade of other balancing issues. In short, I'm not sure that it's even possible to fully compensate for this change just by changing some values in the cores.

Y_P, I fully understand that you have your own opinion and that you feel strongly about this. I have stated mine, and I personally don't think that it qualifies as "whining" or "trash". I thought feedback and opinions was what this thread was for.

apathos wrote:QUOTE (apathos @ Sep 14 2007, 01:29 AM) I like the changes--all of them. If you will consider, YP is exactly right. We are just used to 'tradition'. If the change to drones is allowed, we will adapt, though some will grumble about it frequently.

This is a change that will require teams to probe better, react faster, or else fall behind. I'm for making the game challenging, and it's not like this will make it 'too hard'. It's just different.

There are many things about this game that are the way they are because of limitations ONLY: all the tech limitations of circa 2000, new designers, radical new gameplay, etc. What other space sim/RTS/shooter can you employ ramming as a viable strategy?

'Space drag' is an example of a limitation that has to be there just to make the game playable. But drone behavior doesn't fall into the same category.

Allegiance is not going to be made "Harder" by allowing drones to enter more quickly, its going to be made easier. Con D will be less important, you will see more cons planting, and less chance for a good offensive.

If it aint broken, dont fix it!!