Why DN is the sole responsability of a unique person ?

[BlackViper]

EDIT:

I want to make this very very clear so there is no misunderstandings by anyone. What KGJV refers to will never happen. Period. This is a very old topic about lawsuits, taking over cores, etc.

As long as I am here, Noir's core will never be "taken over" by force. With the one exception if he should go MIA for an extended period and we can confirm he no longer wishes to maintain it.

[BlackViper]

QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 3 2007, 09:09 AM) I think you're not the only one seeing the responses we got here.

Let's be clear then.

Community core = Official core of the community =

1. the one and only core for which games stats are collected and ranks computed from these stats.
2. the one and only core set on the permanent newbie server(s)
3. the one and only core inline documentation (F1) describes
4. the one and only core CDT & ACS teaching sessions will talk about
5. the one and only core official squad games will use
6. a ZoneLeader (ZL) will be appointed by the community to maintain it and have final word on changes. This ZL can appoint assitants or a full team if he wants.
7. At anytime the community can change this ZL without prior notice.
8. no copyright or IP of any kind will be placed on this core

Other cores can exist and be hosted and played but they'll be considered as 'mods'.
Free Allegiance = Allegiance code (currently R3) + "community core". Anything else is a 'mod'.

That's my definition of 'Community core' and what i'm talking about since the 1st post.

I see huge issues already with #1 So any of the other cores that do get played would be cut off? The community will not go for that.
ZL's are appointed by the Admins. The community may ask for a new one, but they do not appoint them.

Other than that, I agree with all of your other points.

[CronoDroid]

QUOTE And I'm sorry again but IF all this legal action story is true, we should all boycott DN from now on and perma ban Noir from ASGS and this site.

Then we can copy DN 4.60, rename it to "FAZ Core 1.0" and select a "core team" to maintain it. Noir can me send his lawyers, I got better ones (and MSR too).[/quote]

On KG's points, I have a real problem with 5. The rest are valid and fine, and I would be happy to support them, but please, his comments were somewhat reactionary.

[pkk]

QUOTE (BlackViper @ Jul 3 2007, 04:37 PM) I see huge issues already with #1 So any of the other cores that do get played would be cut off? The community will not go for that.

Collect stats by core.

[Mordechaj]

QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 3 2007, 04:09 PM) I think you're not the only one seeing the responses we got here.

Let's be clear then.

Community core = Official core of the community =

1. the one and only core for which games stats are collected and ranks computed from these stats.
2. the one and only core set on the permanent newbie server(s)
3. the one and only core inline documentation (F1) describes
4. the one and only core CDT & ACS teaching sessions will talk about
5. the one and only core official squad games will use
6. a ZoneLeader (ZL) will be appointed by the community to maintain it and have final word on changes. This ZL can appoint assitants or a full team if he wants.
7. At anytime the community can change this ZL without prior notice.
8. no copyright or IP of any kind will be placed on this core

Other cores can exist and be hosted and played but they'll be considered as 'mods'.
Free Allegiance = Allegiance code (currently R3) + "community core". Anything else is a 'mod'.

That's my definition of 'Community core' and what i'm talking about since the 1st post.

1. stats are and should be colected from any game of decent size.
2. is ok with me, 3. makes sense too, but only if it becomes the most played core too.
4. is ok under the same curcumstances (most played core)
5. will never happen. you can not ORDER squads to play on only one core. that part will thank God never pass.

how is that what you are proposing more democratic than this variety of choices that we have today?

your idea was really fine, untill you explained it better /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

[Raveen]

Certainly stats collected for say EoR are not valid with a player's skill on DN and vice versa. I would suggest that one stats system be used for the 1.25-like cores (PC, GoD, A+) and seperate systems used for each of the more extreme "mod" cores (DN, EoR, RPS, SW etc.).

If ever a commanding stat is used then this should be different for each core as most cores are more different from the com's perspective than from the player's.

[spideycw]

First off thanks Grimm.

Second - Kage I dont know what it is lately but I havent been able to follow your post clearly (though your latest bullet point rehash is easy to follow)

I personally have problems with #1/#5/#7

I personally have found Noir very good about making his core changes striking a balance of what he thinks is correct and what the community thinks and even using faction based win/loss percentages to see what is getting out of hand.

Is he sometimes slow updating things like the carrier uberness + bios gs? Yes - but RL comes first so I think we have to tolerate that. I personally see no problem with the way things are done now though perhaps Noir could authorize someone to make changes to core in his absence when he is busy with RL.

DN has become the primary core for public play due to Noir's hardwork and this community core idea sounds like it may diminish that.

Also Kagey I see what you are saying about the code devs/art people and the changes they make and how its done but I'm not sure that is the best approach here

[Mryddlin]

I would have to agree with KGJV but keep in mind this is coming from a person who LOVED A+ and I have never been a big DN fan.

From what I understand from the development of this game the code for the engine and the core work closely together. I would love to see an 'offical' core that everything is baselined against. It would help stabilize the community.

Most people play on DN because that is what they know but there should be an offical core that goes hand in hand with the game engine developyment. It just makes sense from a development stand point and for the future of the community, these things need to be stable.

Now that doesn't mean there can't be other cores but there should be an offical for the reasons KGJV stated.

[w0dk4]

QUOTE Now that doesn't mean there can't be other cores but there should be an offical for the reasons KGJV stated.[/quote]

+1

[BlackViper]

May I make a suggestion here? KGJV, start a topic in the main core dev forum (one click back). This post has sort of taken off and really should not be here anymore.

My suggestion. Repost why you think we should have a community core. Post your reasons. Then lets explore what existing core would be the easist to work with. Grimm has already stated about GoD. I believe one or two others have similiar cores available.

Let's work from there. First step see if there is enough interest to develope a community core. Second, get a group together to work on it. Third, put it out and let it get played. Let the community provide the real feedback for changes. If it gets played enough, then we can address your other points one by one in a logical orderly fashion.

In the mean time, until KGJV does can a chance to do is post and start the topic, I am going to lock this here. Simply I believe any further discussion does not belong here.

PLEASE everyone, take a bit to think over what you would like to offer up for comments, etc. once his post goes up. We can explore this the right way.

Thanks,

-BV

EDIT: I had asked in the Officers Club for a count of squad games played in the last 90 days on GoD/A+ and the number will shock you. I am waiting for a final tally.