Why DN is the sole responsability of a unique person ?

Post by **BlackViper** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:41 pm

The 'novelty" cores would still exist as there are people who do like to play them on occasion. No matter what would happen some people would be upset. We have all seen the bashing of other cores by diehard DN fans. Just like some other cores will be defended by their fans. This would be a huge project and a ton of drama involved unfortunately.

Ironically GoD does see a lot of squad play. Why? My opinion is that a lot of squads do realize that on that core very little cheese exists and it does make it more of a test of a true team effort.

Clay_Pigeon · Post by **Clay_Pigeon** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:48 pm

If the Dev Zone started a community core project, we'd have to be very careful with how it was administered. As Gappy said, balance is complex, and many community projects suffer from the too-many-chefs syndrome. We'd need to put a single person into place with sole authority for approving/rejecting recommended balance changes to the core, and that person would be solely answerable to the Dev ZL. Any other mechanism would simply not work.

As far as DN goes, I don't see it as a tremendous hurdle. Many features you find in DN are also present in other cores, and the ones that are unique to DN tend to be the more controversial. We could pick a core like RPS, PC or GoD, and reform it to our liking (RPS would likely need a lot of reforming). In my mind, the real hurdles/dramapoints to making a community core would be

1) Deciding what user-created factions would go in
2) Solving the chicken-egg problem of getting a large number of worthwhile games going.

-T

PS. Maybe we should move this discussion to the general core-dev forum?

Post by **TheBored** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:01 pm

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Jul 2 2007, 09:41 AM) With that said, I have to agree Noir has done a lot of hard work on this core. Speaking only as BV, not an admin, etc. I do understand his feelings of protection of his work. I can not see us "taking over" his core as a community. I would hope if Noir's activity ever drops to the level of him no longer having an interest he would turn it over to the community.

I mostly like this, but I just hope he turns it over to *one* person who cares about the core. This community thing is a joke, the forum lawyers will 'accidentally' delete expansion within a week. Yeah, I know they wouldn't really do that, but we wouldnt see exp played for the next couple of months because they get beaten unconscious with the nerf bat.

People like to play DN, not what the forum lawyers want to make. If this were not the case, we wouldn't be playing DN today.

TB

Post by **Raveen** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:19 pm

I actually believe that most players want to play a decent sized game of Allegiance. DN is popular with enough people who care about core that all the others play there to get a good game. If the default core were something else I don't see the community at large having any issues, only the fanboys (minority).

Kopperhead · Post by **Kopperhead** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:37 pm

Sometimes people change their views about a matter with time, I guess it could be interesting for KGJV/BV for example to approach Noir and just explain him our concerns about the future of gamelay in Allegiance, I beleive that if Noir sees the good to Allegiance that can come from a change in his views in order to begin working on a community core, he will allow it gladly and even help in anything he can if he has the time.

I thank all the persons involved in making this game what it is now from the same second it began planning at MSR, Allegiance has something special to it, it is alive, it is software yes but it affects us more than just as gaming enjoyment, so it must be more than just a game.

OOOOkay, I only had a can of shandy this afternoon (beer with lemmon).

Psychosis · Post by **Psychosis** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:54 pm

This reminds me alot of when it was attempted to make A+ THE standard core, I fought in those core wars, and I will fight in the next core wars if I have to.

simply, you cant do it, If you push hard enough, we will find a way around it. Allegiance is open source, the community is a fragile thing, maintained on a balance that the admins do things for the greater good. If you alienate enough people, and especially enough people that know what they are doing. You will surely kill allegiance.

Assuming that you make a "community core" and host it. Cool! I would try it, if it was balanced properly, and the gameplay was good and complex, i would even suggest using it for squadgames and community events. having a community standard core would be cool. However, If you try to take away my DN, my GoD, my EoR and my RPS, I am going to start hurting people. (While I don't think they are all the 'best' core, I think that each one has a value to its unique style and pace of game).

Plus, you are going to have to enforce it upon the server admins that they HAVE to run the community core over other cores. that probably wont fly very well with alot of people.

Dogbones, While I agree with a community standardized core, I cannot agree with any of the following:
1) banning cores
2) taking away control of cores from their developers without permission
3) forcing developers to make changes to their cores because the dev team says so.

Note, on number 3, I know there were some issues with DN and drones, remember how poorly that still sits with alot of people?

and FYI, DN_00460 should not have been released already, it was pushed early by people other then noir, while it was still in beta testing

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:24 pm

Hasn't Noir been alienated before and withdrew his hosting for servers? I say no need to go through such again (if I am correct about the above)

And can someone explain a bit more what you mean about a "community core" I dont really follow.

In my eyes there is a forum for discussion about each core in which changes and balance is discussed and then whoever administers it has the final decision and implements the changes. Am I wrong about this and if so how?

Mordechaj · Post by **Mordechaj** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:27 pm

PsycHosis wrote:QUOTE (PsycHosis @ Jul 2 2007, 08:54 PM) Dogbones, While I agree with a community standardized core, I cannot agree with any of the following:
1) banning cores
2) taking away control of cores from their developers without permission
3) forcing developers to make changes to their cores because the dev team says so.

i haven't saw anyone talking about that. did i miss something crucial?

i tought people here discussed on how to maintain one core, that will with it's ballance and better game-play experience become mostly played core, not a thing about forcing it by dismissing all other cores by banning them.

Barrager · Post by **Barrager** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:38 pm

GoD has the potential to be he next decent core. infact it's pretty nice as is, but I would truly like to see the original factions left unchanged and the new factions adapted properly, if you get the new factions incorporated into GoD you can compete with DN

Evincar · Post by **Evincar** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:52 pm

why don't you start planning the burocratic estructure and propose a base core, asking the people you need permission to? who would lead this project, how would people design representatives?