Well since our discussions have been mostly on topic...

fuzzylunkin1 · Post by **fuzzylunkin1** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:55 pm

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 17 2012, 03:35 PM) chess does not have highly random elements that significantly impact the course of a game

Randomness is part of what makes the game (Allegiance) great... in fact this was one thing we were discussing with Quantus -- a land-based environment has more possibility of randomness for which you have to adapt.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:48 pm

QUOTE My vote is to keep different miner capacities, as it adds an element of depth to this game. You say "stack the settings", I say "another way a good commander can differentiate himself from a poor commander".[/quote]

Then is your definition of good commanding the possession of knowledge and will to impose settings that favor your own faction? I call the former weakening the game by emphasizing knowledge over skill and the latter unsportsmanlike behavior.

And I don't know how different capacities add any depth to the gameplay. I don't know any commanders who wait for their miners to finish so they can route them manually (maybe fwiffo

), and there are no other gameplay elements involved there.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:30 am

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Feb 17 2012, 12:35 PM) chess does not have highly random elements that significantly impact the course of a game

Right, and Allegiance doesn't have the little horsie pieces either, but I don't see how either of this has to do with my point, which is that balancing for PUGs need not come at the expense of making the game worse for more competative players.

QUOTE Then is your definition of good commanding the possession of knowledge and will to impose settings that favor your own faction? I call the former weakening the game by emphasizing knowledge over skill and the latter unsportsmanlike behavior.[/quote]

Knowledge ... is skill. I don't see the distinction. Again back to the chess analogy, the grandmaster is the person who spends years studying the game, not necessarily the person who has more raw intellectual horsepower.

I agree 110% that the ability to ram Jimmyfied settings down the throat of a bad comm is not skill, but poor sportsmanship. It's newbie whoring by other means.

Zero_Falcon · Post by **Zero_Falcon** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:47 am

RX: Money Setting Randomizer soon?

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:53 am

Randomly between low, med-low, and med

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:59 am

QUOTE Knowledge ... is skill. I don't see the distinction[/quote]

Well, if we use your chess analogy, knowledge is opening books. At the grandmaster level this is not why one is superior to another.

But chess isn't such a great analogy here. Let's take stealth bombing. Ability to piece together various inputs such as enemy movements & player reports, good sense of timing, ability to communicate with your team and maybe a light and quick hand to negotiate a mined alpeh is what lets you get through a trafficked aleph.

That's skill.

You also need to know about the scan range of every $#@!ing probe, base and craft you'll run into.

That's knowledge. (And hidden knowledge to boot since the game never tells you, at least in the case of bases)

Games that require a lot of the latter, like Alleg, suffer from a poor following or weak players for good reason. The ability to jack the settings in one's favor is also in this camp that is knowledge, not skill.

Spunkmeyer · Post by **Spunkmeyer** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:01 am

Zero_Falcon wrote:QUOTE (Zero_Falcon @ Feb 17 2012, 06:47 PM) RX: Money Setting Randomizer soon?

Doesn't solve anything, especially at the levels Masta wants them.

What solves it is Scarce settings as default but commanders seem to prefer 4-rock mining.

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:36 pm

Certain maps are better for certain factions. Isn't that hidden knowledge?

Also I like 4 rock mining because I can run an economy and know what I'm doing. Id lose my skillfully obtained advantage with 2 rocks a sector

SpkWill · Post by **SpkWill** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:18 pm

I hate how core balance is so one sided. I mean what the community wants is the dreg int fixed so that faction is viable again and what we get is a completely unwarranted thread about making econ adjustments easier for core developers by making miners have uniform capacity.

It's like instead of fixing the actual balance issues you just want to implement your own ideas and hope people will put up with it.

XC was well received for a while when it made some nice changes to the game that people had been asking for for $#@!ing forever then Night just up and started changing everything willy nilly and calling everyone who disagreed voobs. It was pretty much dropped overnight, bye bye XC!

CC has pretty much the same history if you remember when Spidey was lead you had payday on sy and he would comm stupid 4 hour sy fests which were only fun inside spideys demented mind.

I fear CC is pretty much heading the same way again just under a new leader. Maybe instead of proposing the changes you want you should let the community dictate to you which changes are important?

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:05 pm

I disagree with most of what shedding says except about econ adjystments. Spot on there.

Core rev is sadly not as black and white as you think it should be sheff. I found this out the hard way myself.