Free Allegiance Forums

Active members of CC

Adam
Andon
PKK
Quia
Ramaglor
Weedman


But wait, whats this?

(last posts by Member: apochboi)
apochboi Posted on: Today, 06:14 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 05:53 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 05:27 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 03:15 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:59 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:52 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:30 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:26 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:24 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:19 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 02:07 PM
apochboi Posted on: Today, 12:45 PM
apochboi Posted on: Feb 26 2009, 05:04 AM
apochboi Posted on: Jan 23 2009, 02:40 AM
apochboi Posted on: Dec 5 2008, 03:57 PM
apochboi Posted on: Dec 2 2008, 08:19 AM
apochboi Posted on: Nov 30 2008, 04:30 PM
apochboi Posted on: Oct 4 2008, 12:42 AM
QUOTE not to put you down you made a well worded post and much needed, but to be honest I've said all this before. I don't want to pin the probs with this team on one individual, but I do feel the core/team/project needs a stronger leadership and a more structured layout. Indeed the team needs to be larger too.[/quote]





What could be the reason for coming back from the dead? Why would someone who has done nothing for months come back?





FreeAllegiance Forums _ Community Core Office _ Retro booster
Posted by: Ramaglor Apr 9 2009, 11:48 AM
I would say drastically improve its power for one release iteration, see how it goes, then remove or balance.

Posted by: Andon Apr 9 2009, 05:06 PM
I agree. A very high thrust increase would let it work

Posted by: pkk Apr 9 2009, 06:54 PM
IMO there is no use for retro booster... It's just a toy...

Posted by: Andon Apr 9 2009, 07:37 PM
At the current state, it's a toy that eats fuel and does nothing. The least we can do is make it function like it's supposed to.

The minimum thrust for the booster should be greater than a regular scout's forward thrust, as we can expect people to just hit the booster button. Any less and the scout still goes forward, just a little slower

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 02:30 PM
Increasing the negative thrust on this increases the positive speed on it. Retroboost is a broken toy, TBH it needs removed as it is useless and will never work as planned.

Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 05:14 PM
I've played around with it, and in certain conditions it can work pretty well. Granted, the uses are pretty minimal, but they do work. It just requires a high amount of thrust to be accomplished, and at a point the ship will stop having accelleration until you hit the rear thrust button.

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 05:27 PM
As I said this shouldnt even be a topic its trashtech and i've no idea why we havent removed them from the game as yet. They will Never! get used even if they made a ship go 300mps backwards. They will NEVER get used. They need to go to free up some defs!

Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 05:42 PM
Why not tie them into some other booster tech? I've never understood why they're a separate development. It keeps people who think they're useful (And they can be fun, too) happy, it keeps people who think they're a waste of money happy (And really, they are, no matter what you do), it frees up pre/def bits, and there's little to be unhappy about.

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 05:53 PM
Attaching them to the development of other boosters makes them even more useless. You will be getting them as a by product then. It's a tech we cannot fix, we cannot make workable. Why have it wasting a couple of kilobytes of space. It looks bad on us having a peice of tech we cannot get to work lying around and being a topic of discussion.

Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 06:13 PM
Why do you say we can't get it working? I've made working versions in my own testing - I'm sure you can do the same. It only requires that the thrust be equal to the thrust of the ship

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 06:14 PM
lol so what your saying is we need different versions of retroboost for each thrust value. Look i've made my point. It's useless stop trying to argue that:

1. we can get it working
2. its going to be used
3. it isnt a complete waste of time.



Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 07:19 PM
Retro boosters are only equipable on scouts.

Regular and advanced scouts have a base thrust of 1200. Advanced scouts have a base thrust of 1440. And, if I remember right, thrust modifiers also apply to boosters.

This means we would have a grand total of two retro boosters. That would change the number of Retro Boosters by... oh, let's see. Zero. There are already two.

I'm not arguing that it can be made workable - I know it can be made workable because I've done it. I can't say anything about it being used, as I'm not the community. And if you think it'll be a waste of time, then I can do it myself. It takes two seconds to change the thrust numbers, another second to hit the save button and maybe another ten seconds to upload it. That's a whole fourteen seconds that it took. We're both spending more time arguing about it than it would take to do a good number of the changes that have been agreed upon.

EDIT: Also, realize that we're pretty much on the two extremes of the community opinion about it here. I'd like to see what the others have to say about this as well. This is the community core, not Andon vs Apoch core







Proposed CC 04, Updates and FTP
Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 12:04 PM
ftp://ftp.matc.....
username: deleted
Password: deleted
It'll put everything into http://ww...
All files needed for the below changes are uploaded at this point.

Community Core version 4 changelog

General:
• Small Shield 3 development now requires an Advanced Supremacy instead of a Starbase, with the development now appearing in the Advanced Supremacy tab. Small Shield 3 now requires an Advanced Supremacy as well.
• Seeker 3 development now requires an Advanced Supremacy instead of a Starbase, with the development now appearing in the Advanced Supremacy tab. Seeker 3 now requires an Advanced Supremacy instead of a Starbase
• Advanced Fighters that had 13.8 fuel now have 14 fuel
• Enh Fighters that had 11.5 fuel now have 12 fuel
• Sector Overload increased to -50 from -36
• Retro Booster 1 now has -1200 thrust from -600
• Retro Booster 2 now has -1440 thrust from -720
• Picking up Teleport Probe 2 will give Teleport Probe 1 research as well
• Updated Version development

Belters:
• Teleport Probe 2 is no longer retained when all Supremacy stations are lost
• Adv Stealth Fighter now has 600 ammo instead of 200
• Steath Fighter now has 500 ammo instead of 400

Bios:
• Added Heavy Cloak 1 to No Development games

Dreghklar:
• Fighter model Missile Launch point moved out more (file changed: dn_fadrshfig.cvh)

Ga'Taraan:
• LRM AB development and item images now match
• Mustang added to No Development games
• Nanite 1 added to No Development games

Iron Coalition:
• Fighter/Bomber cost reduced to 200 from 250
• Adv Stealth Fighter added to No Development games

Technoflux:
• Beacon price increased to 250 from 100


Posted by: Adam4 Apr 21 2009, 12:31 PM
There was no discussion on introducing Stangs to No dev. This would remarkably unbalance those types of games. Please at least stat a discussion before implementing such changes.

Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 12:32 PM
They were put in on Pkk's request because GT doesn't have GS to put into DM.

Posted by: Adam4 Apr 21 2009, 12:37 PM
"A" request. No offence, but this isn't pkk core, wheres the internal discussions?, wheres the community discussion?

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 12:45 PM
WTF is this. Andon who dropped trow and made you boss. Offense intended, I wouldnt trust you to tie your own shoe laces, when it comes to core development you are inept. Needless to say i am installing Allegiance on my laptop as we speak. I'll be damned if I let allegiance crash every two seconds due to sloppy core work.

Yours Lovingly Apochieeeee

Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 12:46 PM
I put it in because I concurred (I brought the issue of missing DM stuff up in the first place).
I can't say I've flown a mustang, but they were described to me as a "Light Gunship"

They're easy enough to remove.

Apoch: It's not sloppy core work that causes my stuff to mess up, it's ill-thought out ideas. This was not intended to be an infrignement on anyone's positions - I was simply asked to do some stuff, and I touched nothing else.


Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 12:52 PM
Oh, and this was not in any means supposed to be final.

The FTP was simply to provide a permanent FTP so that we don't have to rely on someone turning their computer on.

Posted by: pkk Apr 21 2009, 12:59 PM
QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 09:45 PM)
WTF is this. Andon who dropped trow and made you boss.

Nobody.

I'm just sick of banging around... So I asked Andon (who knows how to deal with PREs and DEVs) to do some changes, we already discussed.

The community (that's way this is called Community Core) is asking over and over what's going on.

All we did is "going the whole hog" within 3 hours.

Not one hour laterthe sleeping huggy bear awaked...

Posted by: pkk Apr 21 2009, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (Adam4 @ Apr 21 2009, 09:31 PM)
There was no discussion on introducing Stangs to No dev. This would remarkably unbalance those types of games. Please at least stat a discussion before implementing such changes.

Mustung without LtBooster sucks.

LtBooster is disabled with NoDev, but you can pick it up.

Posted by: Adam4 Apr 21 2009, 01:12 PM
As I've said in game, 10 v 10, an entire team of stangs vs an entire team of ints. Nothing will get close to the stangs.

Posted by: Andon Apr 21 2009, 01:13 PM
And apoch - Who put you in charge? Just because it's your idea doesn't mean that you can lord over it. Take a look at Noir and DN - He claimed "exclusive" rights to it from what I remember, and we went ahead with using it regardless, as it was still part of the community's work. And, AFAIK, Aarm's in charge and the rest of us have equal say on things, so who implements it isn't really an issue. If you want to double check my work - That's why it's uploaded and easily available.

I don't think Pkk and myself overstepped the bounds on most things. We did the updates that had been agreed on and a few bug fixes. There were plenty of things that we agreed that we would do something with (Int sigs, to name one) that were just too controversial for the community to do without a poll.

Yes, changing the price of the Beacon wasn't discussed, but I'm fairly certain we'd agree on that, which is why it was put in. Yes, putting in the Mustang wasn't discussed, but the way I saw it, it was simply replacing something that wasn't there.

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 02:07 PM
QUOTE (Andon @ Apr 21 2009, 09:13 PM)
Failed attempt at anything


Just a little FYI, I know Aarm is in charge. Im not saying anyone can do anything im saying your work is subpar at best and needs to be double, triple and quadruple checked. It's a community core, you discuss possible changes for CC_04 you dont release it without consulting anyone and with changes which are not befitting of the cc. Mustangs on Non Dev DM for instance.

If you need me to tell you why gunships and mustangs are completly different and balance differently perhaps you are in the wrong place. Furthermore if you feel that GT dont have a turretable ship in non development deathmatches and you want to say "BALANCE" it out, perhaps you should of suggested we add a gunship for gt in non dev DM's. It would be far more plausable to add that than to add a tech like Mustangs into it.

From what I've been hearing the CC has kinda stalled as of late and development needed to be done you need to, 1. consult everyone on the team. 2. put it forward for a vote. 3 implement it. You missed out the first two steps that was your undoing.

Im back on Allegiance now and I am more than willing to continue in the development of cc_04 an or discuss balance issues.

Posted by: pkk Apr 21 2009, 02:24 PM
QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
Just a little FYI, I know Aarm is in charge.

More or less...


QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
Im not saying anyone can do anything im saying your work is subpar at best and needs to be double, triple and quadruple checked. It's a community core, you discuss possible changes for CC_04 you dont release it without consulting anyone and with changes which are not befitting of the cc.

Nothing has been released...


QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
1. consult everyone on the team.

Just look around...


QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
2. put it forward for a vote.

• http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...st&p=345282
• http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...st&p=353963
• http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=49204



QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
3 implement it. You missed out the first two steps that was your undoing.

Doesn't work, if 1 and 2 don't even work.


QUOTE (apochboi @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
Im back on Allegiance now and I am more than willing to continue in the development of cc_04 an or discuss balance issues.

It's nice we're not alone.

Posted by: apochboi Apr 21 2009, 02:26 PM
I don't believe for a second you actually thought you were alone. If need be Im always on teamspeak and a text message away. Aarm is always around on teamspeak as well and can always be contacted. I do however see that development has stalled. Just need to push along and see what we come out with.


Posted by: Adam4 Apr 21 2009, 02:32 PM
Just because some people dont post much, doesnt mean they arent active. It may be that, I for example, have no views on it, or that views similar to mine have already been posted. So yes, you're not alone, you have an entire community with which to discuss issues. As well as a limited staff (remember some staff are exclusively modelers/texturers) this is a more than sufficient playerbase to put forward changes and receive feedback on.

Posted by: pkk Apr 21 2009, 02:45 PM
You ask a question, but it remains unanswered for weeks... Or always the same people (even an "arist") discuss.

I'm living in a different timezone, I don't use TS often, so what we all have in common is using this forum (more or less).

Alittlebird wrote:QUOTE (Alittlebird @ Apr 22 2009, 01:52 AM) I don't think Pkk and myself overstepped the bounds on most things. We did the updates that had been agreed on and a few bug fixes.

I see this and people flipping out over bugfixes... and Mustangs in DM?

Mustangs are far more overpowered then gunships, by no means at all is it a mini-gunship, it's faster and more agile then a gunship (not saying that much) but with the frount mounted mini-ac and turret mounted ac and hunter missiles and the fact it can turn makes it far more powerful then a gunship. A gunship is just a floating weapons platform and on DM's where they only have autocannons it's a pretty weak weapons platform at that, a mustang on the other hand is like a heavy fighter, agile enough to engage small ships and packing a lot of firepower.

The only way stangs might be fair in DM's is if gunships are given skycaps but then it just turns into a nan gunship DM which is boring, conclusion is NO STANGS PLEASE!

If you are going to wash your dirty laundry in public can you at least put it through the spin cycle and summarise wtf your problem is.

So this is how our core is made! I now see why nobody ever listens to intelligent suggestions!

Apoch overrules a new release even though he has been out of action for months, Andon actually had some of our ideas in that preliminary change file (which I ASSUME has not actually been implemented).

Also why the $#@! are you idiots talking about DM/No Dev @#(! when there are a fair few other issues in terms of balance that don't involve games that are played by noobs? I mean HELLO, SOME OF US ACTUALLY PLAY REAL GAMES.

Maybe you should address Rix for a change. Full serious here. Or Giga?

This looks like mismanagement and autocracy to me! I thought the idea behind CC was to make it a COMMUNITY core. While I admit that 90% of the posts in the CC forum are retarded, there are some of us who actually know how the game works and personally, I'd appreciate it if you guys actually discussed important issues instead of whether or not Apoch or Andon has the bigger balls when it comes to core dev. I mean for $#@!'s sake. When Apoch isn't here for god knows how long, it's only natural that someone is gonna start some @#(! up.

Now that CC is "ACTIVE" again, I'm expecting some progress. And maybe you should make the private forum read-only so we can see what REALLY goes on inside of there! Thanks to our whistleblower here we now see tha truth, and it doesn't look good.

I fail to see the relevance of this thread other than showing that im now back and noticing things arent going like they were meant to be. I dont know if you all saw the CC_03 polls i opened and discussions i created for every change which were opened on the public side of the CC discussion board. If you are trying to flame me i think you failed.

I think it's sad that when the last CC's were created it was created with community input and this latest one from what ive read on these forums has been completly devoid of any input. I think this thread does more harm than good.

Ive done more than Anyone for the community core. Granted i've not been active as of late. But to make decisions without even starting threads or polls about changes isnt whats meant to be happening.

The problems with the CC stem from it's leadership without an active zone leader the core will always have issues.

BTW Littlebird I know you are ramaglor the fact you needed to hide behind an Alt I find to be hillarious.

QUOTE noticing things arent going like they were meant to be.[/quote]

Things AREN'T going, full stop. Not that I care actually, I don't play much anyway.

QUOTE I dont know if you all saw the CC_03 polls i opened and discussions i created for every change which were opened on the public side of the CC discussion board.[/quote]

We have NO idea whether you guys ever listen to our ideas or thoughts aside from a quick post saying "WE WILL TAKE IT UNDER CONSIDERATION". So it's like a bunch of guys suggesting ideas, you guys going into your room to discuss it and coming out and saying "Change X, Y and Z" and we just shrug. We don't actually know what you guys talk about. Frankly core dev is suited to being open/transparent, it's not like you're spreading rumours about Member X's sex change. We're just talking balance and numbers.

QUOTE If you are trying to flame me i think you failed.[/quote]

No, I flamed you. Whether it had any effect or not may be in question, but I definitely flamed you!

QUOTE I think it's sad that when the last CC's were created it was created with community input and this latest one from what ive read on these forums has been completly devoid of any input.[/quote]

Alright this is unclear. The last CC was 03. If I recall (http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/in ... opic=45479), you PERSONALLY released it.

As for input, whose fault is that? We input. You output. If you don't output our input then it isn't lack of our input, it's your lack of output. I mean I know you just came back but did you not notice three pages of threads of COMMUNITY INPUT?

Simply saying "X idea is dumb, won't work, no" would do in regards to output. If you don't want an idea just say so like I've been saying.

QUOTE Ive done more than Anyone for the community core. Granted i've not been active as of late. But to make decisions without even starting threads or polls about changes isnt whats meant to be happening.

The problems with the CC stem from it's leadership without an active zone leader the core will always have issues.[/quote]

On a final note, when a leader goes missing it's time for a new one. What are we supposed to do, wait around for a year because the guy in charge of CC goes AWOL? No. As far as I can see CC_04 didn't actually get released. It was just there for discussion/modification as per Andon's comments. If you wanted to be the big boss or if you think you're entitled to CC, that's fine! But it's not called ApochCore at this moment. It's Community Core. If you want to be boss, then say so and that's it, end of discussion. Releases will come and go at your discretion. This is not a bad thing, DN was fine using that model.

However, if you want it to remain Community Core, then you gotta understand that the community will do something about its core if they want it to be refined regularly. And it's not like Andon just went ahead and released CC_04 without consulting anyone. I just logged in, no Autoupdate, nothing. IT'S NOT EVEN RELEASED. So I see no reason to come in and start bashing Andon like you did, ASIDE from any core development issues.

I wash my hands of this.

You forget who you are dealing with chrono. He will dismiss your points as invalid and just ignore you.

Either that or he'll make some whiny/bitchy glib remark or some form of pithy comeback.

oh, welcome back apoch!

/me starts a slow clap

At least SOMETHING is happening.