Free Allegiance Forums

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Apr 1 2011, 05:23 PM) I just figure every time something gets done that Adept likes it is Adept Core?

It is always surprising to me that he doesn't like this core

This is the most retarded argument you could have possibly used for your point. Just using RP's for example pkk has been on about them for longer than adept has EVEN PLAYED THE GAME.

Next time save us all some time and post some quotes about how you decided gauss cannon needed changes

Sunshine, Lollypops and Rainbows.

Are you a paparazzi now Viru? I was chatting with a fellow player on IRC, with a few ppl idling on the channel. If I knew you were so sensitive I would have PMed

If you want to have a real discussion about why I do feel somewhat like that, I'll be happy to.

Then, please go ahead and have it already, instead of talking to your friends in front of many to see what you say, i think this is what ppl calls passive/agressiveness or some such, at the end of the day, who cares, i have fun playing the game, and i have had a lot of fun playing on XC.

you've had sand in your vagina over xc ever since i first started working on it and i don't think i've ever heard exactly why! if you want to spout melodramatic nonsense over it feel free, but you should do it where everyone can see it

present your grievances or just shut the $#@! up already

I hoped to rather chat with Virulence at some point about this, but here goes.

You used to be super conservative about Allegiance Virulence, to a point that you felt that any change in hitboxes is too much, as you enjoy the game as it is, and hate it being changed. Jump forward a few months, and the situation looks almost totally reversed.

Not only are you using ideas you have called stupid before, with no reasons given for what made you change your mind. You said you want a more balanced core, where every tech path is viable, and one of the first thing you do is nerf sup with light boosters only, and give a huge perk to expansion (better boosters without needing a sup, also losing the exp + sup multiteching synergy), TTs that are bomber sig HTTs for capping at enh tech level and as a little cherry more counters for heavy ints. This was one of the first things, so.... for a "more SG level balance" you figure the weakest path was expansion, and it really could do with a perk?

People accused the cc team from "taking away from the uniqueness of the factions" but looking at XC4 with ICE that charge should be levelled at you. Belter have a tiny mass nerf one doesn't really feel since they still have an accel perk as well (24 mass belter int to the 20 default). TF has normal mass as well, so belters is no longer heavy, and TF is no longer light.

***

As for the game dying. Here's the thing. XC is rapidly moving away from Allegiance we know it. People who have played for years and years can play most cores and know what to expect, but now in XC you really have to read the change list, and probably try stuff out quite a bit before you again know what works and what is @#(!e. Our playerbase is hovering around 400 now, so I honestly think an old style core scuffle will sink us.

There we go. That's what I was thinking about when chatting with Kramari.

years ago back in the days of DN I was a pretty behind the scenes guy as far as the core was concerned, so most people are probably not aware of little details like how I was an advocate from making sup not suck so much and generally more enjoyable to fly, alternative tactics like XRMs (i still recall the very first game i deployed XRM heavy bombers, in fact!), bringing in other stuff like heavy booster, tac perks (adding hunter2 to the floating treasures list, reducing tac tech prices which ultimately proved to be a bit much) and even shipyard (massdriver? yep, my suggestion to add that particular brand of weapon to allegiance)

so, i think you are twisting many of the remarks i have made. i don't recall that i ever distinctly said hitboxes shouldn't be changed, new models shouldn't be added, etc - I always said that these things should be done carefully such that certain factions don't gain unwarranted advantages as a result of model/hitbox changes, as is what happened with dreg, and if they're done they should be done well (awkward tf mounts, off-center models) or not at all

as for faction diversity, i've tried to look at factions in essentially two different, distinct camps: your powerful, hard-hitting early game factions:

IC, which is still IC and has received pretty minimal changes - great early, great mid-game, decent enough economy to keep them well-off late-game
Rix, which has been pushed further into this area than it was in DN or CC, where it's incredibly strong with all three tech paths early game, but it has no economic advantages, where it stagnates
Dreg, which has a weaker early game than the other two, but with spec mines has great staying power into longer games

on the other extreme, you have factions that are stronger as they outlast their opponent, but aren't as strong early: bios and giga, which are pretty much self-explanatory. bios has a ridiculous economy given everything is so cheap for them and their stealth makes them amazing at ending a game, and giga just gets a ton of money if they're permitted to survive

everything else falls somewhere in between those two categories, and making slight adjustments to global attributes or overall ship schemes doesn't change what really defines those factions

as to your other claim that "omg everything is too different," not really. sup, exp, and tac don't really play any differently than they have for the past 10 years - you use the same tactics for flying figs, ints, and sfs as you always have. shipyard is obviously a massive undertaking and is going to take quite some time to balance and learn to play - not even I can predict all the potential available strategies, multi-tech deployment possibilities, and how to play it in general. i think it's somewhat undertuned atm and will need some slight number increases - but i'm pretty sure the game is going to be better off for it in the long run. tac is also under scrutiny - yes i broke sbs i know, you all will survive for a short while, i'd prefer to wait a week or two to get more data and make some adjustments to SY and implement a few other small things under construction.

killing allegiance, though? the week after 03 was released, there were consistent games every weeknight with 40-50 people on every night, and i hadn't seen that for a very, very long time. coincidence? maybe, but the feedback i've received for the core so far has been quite valuable and, for the most part, very positive, so i have to thank the community for that

DN was far from a finished product, and it's unfortunate that Noir's vision and all his wacky ideas will likely never see complete fruition (lol hyperion pinball mines), but it's about time to get gameplay moving forward again in a better direction. we can't be sitting around arguing over the same gameplay problems and making tiny adjustments back and forth for another 10 years, after all

No problemo Virulence. Let's have a live chat about this at some point. I'm off to get some sleep for now

I would say that XC is stimulating the player base. People get bored with the same thing all the time which is why we have steadily gone through core after core. XC is the new wave. CC had its time and that time is now over.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Apr 2 2011, 08:37 AM) Next time save us all some time and post some quotes about how you decided gauss cannon needed changes