Community Core

[KGJV]

Follow-up of http://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index...showtopic=32903 + a more global view.

The need for a community core.

Facts & History:

98% (if not more) of games are played on the same core. Currently this is DN. See http://asgs.alleg.net/asgsnet/factionstats.aspx for last 30 days.

Alleg has a steep learning curve that draw off many newbies. Add to this the way they're treated by some vets. Then add the confusion generated by having many different cores.

Most of these cores as all based on the original MSR core (zone_core): they're not , like in other games, what we could call 'mods'. Only one core so far can be viewed as a mod: the SW core.

So the only reason for all these cores is that, historically, some individuals couldnt work together as a TEAM.
This lead to what we called the 'Cores War'. The peak of this war was the absurd A+/DN fight.

Eventually one side gave up and today DN is the 'de facto' standard core.
But he has numerous balance issues, it's maintened by only person (Noir) who , like everybody else, have other priorities in real live.
On top of that Noir claims some IP/Copyright on DN. This doesnt fit well with the game which fall under a pseudo open source restrictive license (MSR Shared
Source license agreement).
I acknowledge all the work Noir did for this game. Was this all benefit for the game ? Some would say definitly yes, some would say definitly no. I'll say: let's move on and not repeat history.

Status of game

So where are we today? The community is still holding thanks to the "housekeepers" (Thal, Pook and many others involved in running the community).
The players base isnt really getting bigger nor it is getting smaller.
Why ? mainly because most newbies dont stay and the few who stay compensate the few vets who leave or stop playing for a while.
So the player base is some how 'turning in circle'. In fact, it's the whole community that is "turning in circle" for many years now.
Some people are happy with this. Some dont.

Why is this happening ?
There are many reasons of course.

1st, like said earlier, the steep learning curve is the "big wall at the entry where many newbies crash on".

Then there is the quality of the games. Mainly "pickup games" suffer from this. Some vets even only play squad games because of this.

The quality is linked to 2 main factors which are:

1. the fairness of game
This is about skill and game knowledge. This is about 'stacking' and playing with "newbies". This is about 'matching commanders'.

To help solve this, ranks has been introduced.

Ranks movitate a lot of players because it's permanent datas linked to their account. Ranks should give an indication of a player skill and game knowledge but given the game complexity ranks fail to achieve this. So basically ranks only give an information about how long a player has been playing this game, nothing more. So it's only the human knowledge of "who is worth what" that really give players valid information about the fairness of a game.

So it is the IDENTITY of the players which define their potential value not their ranks. But this again is distorted because of the existence of HIDERS.

On top of that, whatever the fairness of the game, the scores will count if it has enough players both side.

Once again this is "turing in circle", the changes made to help with fairness just add more to unfairness because it becomes visible.

2. the balance of the core

Game quality is also greatly affected by balance.
The rare times a "fair game" is setup, it often degenerate to unfair because of choosen factions/tech paths.
This is completly related to the balance of the core and can be solved by wise changes to the core.
This requires extremly good game knowledge from the core developper(s) as well as great availability and response time.
Some would say that only the best commanders and pilots should be involved in the balance.
This is certainly not a 'one man job' but it requires at some point a 'one man decision'.

Other thing that either keep people away or draw off people is the age of the game, that is "it looks old".
This mainly a technical issue that will eventually be solved in time (not 2 weeks ™ for sure /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> )

Solutions

Given all we've just discussed. Here are some proposal to help improve the game:

S1. Remove all hiders. 1 account = 1 callsign = 1 rank. Change the behavior of the 'boot' and 'ban' commands to avoid be 'locked out' of a game after a ban.
Only admins and '@alleg' should be able to definitly ban someone from a game.
S2. Enforce AutoBalance (AB) to be on for game scores to count. Disallow to turn off AB once the game has started.
S3. Review and change the way stats and ranks are computed. Some people already proposed alternative. There are plenty room here for optimization and accuracy. For instance, a rank 20 player getting 50 kills on (0) and (1) shouldnt get any point at all for these kills.
S4. choose 'one core to rule them all': the "community core" defined like this:

A. the one and only core for which games stats are collected and ranks computed from these stats.
B. the one and only core set on the permanent newbie server(s)
C. the one and only core inline documentation (F1) describes
D. the one and only core CDT & ACS teaching sessions will talk about
E. the one and only core official squad games will use
F. 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. This ZL will also co-decide with the Dev ZL (Dogbones) on code changes that affect balance.
G. no copyright or IP of any kind will be placed on this core

Of course, other cores can still exist and be played on but they should be viewed as 'mods' and treated so.
I mean let's get real here: When you're playing on DN/A+/RPS/God/PC, you're playing the same game.
It's just different balance and a few fatures just because of 'egos/clans/lobby' conflicts.
90% of the players dont care about the core: They want quality not quantity or choice.
Would you like to have 5 versions of ASGS, 5 versions of Allegiance.exe because the dev team couldnt come up with a single solution ?

This madness must end now. It's hurting the game.

[Barrager]

you'll have riots if you get rid of hiders. people need their anonymity and allegiance is one game where people know you so you can't be a dick and get away with it. Internet etiquette is pretty submissive in allegiance compared to most communities.

[TheBored]

QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 3 2007, 11:55 AM) The players base isnt really getting bigger nor it is getting smaller.
Why ? mainly because most newbies dont stay and the few who stay compensate the few vets who leave or stop playing for a while.
So the player base is some how 'turning in circle'. In fact, it's the whole community that is "turning in circle" for many years now.
Some people are happy with this. Some dont.

*doubletake* WHAT!?!?! When I joined 3 years ago, I remember forgetting to call someone because there were 20!!!! OMG 20!!! people online during primetime. Now, there are 90 on regularly, with over 200 on squad game Sunday. The community is growing in every aspect, whether you like that or not.

QUOTE But this again is distorted because of the existence of HIDERS.[/quote]Yawn. Title should be "Kage's arguments about the community, not "Community Core".
QUOTE Other thing that either keep people away or draw off people is the age of the game, that is "it looks old".
This mainly a technical issue that will eventually be solved in time (not 2 weeks ™ for sure /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> )[/quote]And lock out all of the people with PIII 500 comps? I'll pass.

QUOTE S1. Remove all hiders. 1 account = 1 callsign = 1 rank. Change the behavior of the 'boot' and 'ban' commands to avoid be 'locked out' of a game after a ban.[/quote]Goes back to the "This has nothing to do with the topic" thing. As someone who had access to hiders for a couple years, I feel that they are doing little to the gameplay. In many instances, they help (I won't reveal names, but there are some *very* good players in my mind that antistack with hiders somewhat frequently).

QUOTE Only admins and '@alleg' should be able to definitly ban someone from a game.[/quote]This is already the case.

QUOTE S2. Enforce AutoBalance (AB) to be on for game scores to count. Disallow to turn off AB once the game has started.[/quote]Even MORE broken games FTW!

QUOTE S4. choose 'one core to rule them all': the "community core" defined like this:
~stuff~[/quote]Couldn't disagree any more.

QUOTE Of course, other cores can still exist and be played on but they should be viewed as 'mods' and treated so.
I mean let's get real here: When you're playing on DN/A+/RPS/God/PC, you're playing the same game.
It's just different balance and a few fatures just because of 'egos/clans/lobby' conflicts.[/quote]Oooor, its because different people see different ways to balance a core. Just because you don't agree with Noir's attempt at balance doesn't mean he isn't trying.

QUOTE 90% of the players dont care about the core: They want quality not quantity or choice.[/quote]But what if I think that DN is a better quality core for PU games, while GoD is a great SG core? Also, pulling stats out of thin air == bad.

QUOTE This madness must end now. It's hurting the game.[/quote]So much so that we are forced to have 90+ players logged in every night and over 150 on weekends. Gawsh, life is tough these days.

TB

[Kltplzyxm]

Might I suggest that you guys focus on the key issue here: *****A Community Core*****. Forget the other stuff as we don't have as much control over it. A core is something that is alot easier to deal with, the rest leads to alot of arguments and dead ends real fast.

KG, I know how you feel about the community as a whole, but IIWY, I'd just reduce your initial post to limit the amount of tangents. The discussion should be just about the core and your thread will be alot more productive that way instead of invoking a flame war.

[Snack]

I agree with just about every KGJV's point.

However, KGJV, your take on history is quite wrong. The community has grown considerably and it's great. We have @Cadet and ACS programs to help new people along and a fairly good @Alleg team to "police" the servers. All in all, there are plenty of improvements to the general community which obviously resulted in a significant increase in number of players. Community is getting better and better in general and everyone who has played Alleg for last couple of years can see it quite clearly. Things aren't so catastrophic or mad, quite contrary.
However, that doesn't in any way mean we shouldn't strive hard to evolve the game even further as you pointed out in your post, even if that process might include some difficult choices. I don't think anyone would want a stagnant game(play) or community.

I don't see what is the problem of making some community core development team which would be headed or at least managed by the creator of currently most popular core, Noir in particular. If he is not around for some real life issues, the other team member can continue the development along the established guideines etc. What is the problem here really? I don't get it. It's about team effort to advance the quality of gameplay, not one person anyway, just like in Alleg itself. Heck, Noir did not develop DN core by himself. If it wasn't for the effort of many members of this community, there wouldn't be D from DN core in the first place.
Again, someone please explain what is the problem here?

[Psychosis]

actually I like the idea of a stats only core, and no stats on other cores.

I support stats and autobalance only on a community core!

[Adam4]

Well, the idea of a community core sounds good. It would, In my view, provide pretty good balance. Sure it might take a while, but as long as balance is achieved, and the core is maintained by the community, I think it's a good idea. Plenty of opportunity for those of us versed with ICE to knuckle down /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> .

[Clay_Pigeon]

I have no problem with a core as a community project, simply because it would probably expedite the release cycle.

Now don't misunderstand me....I don't support this project because I want something other than DN. For all of my gripes about DN, gameplay on it doesn't suck. I wouldn't be absolutely crushed if (drama aside) DN was used as a starting point for a community core.

I support the community core idea because it makes us less vulnerable to single individuals. If a single core dev goes AFK for months at a time (see EoR and Hawkwood), the core is dead in the water. Because we try to respect core ownership (regardless of any legal standing), no one is around to pick up the work and continue development. If core development was passed on to a small group of people (like 3) answerable to the Dev Zone lead, one person going AFK wouldn't stall the core.

Now, I obviously wouldn't support a community core to kill off work on other cores. I believe in the marketplace of ideas. However, I'm also confident that a if core designed by a competent and respected group of developers who can put out new releases every couple of months, that core would gain traction.

[BlackViper]

First, I was hoping this would be a discussion of the possiblity of pursuing development of a community core.

KGJV, The following items do not belong in this discussion. I understand and respect you expressing your viewpoint. But each one of the following need to be seperate topics for discussion. Otherwise this will kill any hope or chances of a community core getting off the ground:

S1. Remove all hiders. 1 account = 1 callsign = 1 rank. Change the behavior of the 'boot' and 'ban' commands to avoid be 'locked out' of a game after a ban.
Only admins and '@alleg' should be able to definitly ban someone from a game.
S2. Enforce AutoBalance (AB) to be on for game scores to count. Disallow to turn off AB once the game has started.
S3. Review and change the way stats and ranks are computed. Some people already proposed alternative. There are plenty room here for optimization and accuracy. For instance, a rank 20 player getting 50 kills on (0) and (1) shouldnt get any point at all for these kills.

With that said. I would like to see more feedback if people would be interested in pursuing the possibility of a community core. I asked in the OC for squads to give me a quick rough count of squad games played on PC/A+/GoD over the last 90 days (basically the squad tournament). I have suspected a trend and wanted to see it. I will let the results speak.

Squads who have responded so far:

GB 60% of their games
PK 12 games (not sure on percentage, but I would bet high)
RT 50%
ACE @45% (though it was supposed to be higher, two GoD games got switched at the last second due to server issues)

Waiting on the other squads to get me somewhat accurate counts.

Finally, again I do not wish to see the other cores die at all. Just to see if we can get an "official core". Clay has some good and valid points I agree with too.

[Mryddlin]

I like the idea of the 'official' core working hand in hand with the development of the game engine and everything being under the same roof.

Keep in mind this is from the supporter of A+, I never really liked DN because I found it was too different from the original allegiance. That's not to say DN is not a good product, it is really well done and I like it NOW vs when it first came out alot better but it did confuse the crap out of me when I first came back (I think it was right in the middle of the core wars when I first came back).

Dreg, Techno, GT, Phoniex are cool and hopefully everything can be moved/transfered to a community core without lots of drama /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Basically what I get from KGJV post is the need/desire to standardize everything in the development process and I agree with him on that.