Free Allegiance Forums

Freeza wrote:QUOTE (Freeza @ Aug 18 2006, 11:17 AM) All tac costs have been put back to normal instead of the reduced price...

So Noir gave into the complaints?

QUOTE spunk just remember whose been playing here for the past 6 months. You sorta just show back up and think you can run the show. Dont work like that[/quote]I have no idea where that came from. "Run the show"? What am I exactly attempting to run besides my own core?

He can do whatever he wants, I couldn't care less. When he argues something, in this case that his stats show how balanced his core is, I can post a counter-argument if I have one. As soon as it's supported by my reasoning and I'm not flaming/trolling/spamming, what is the problem? This is a discussion forum. That's what we do. Discuss.

Heck, I'm not even arguing with Noir, if anything I'm arguing with Deng.

Which reminds me:

QUOTE If it's possible, on a given level of abstraction, to equate "belts = belts tac" (sure, there'll be non-tac belters games, but in general they'll be negligible, because people use the strongest strat there is available, in general), these "general" win/loss stats will tell you more.[/quote]

Right, but with the caveat that they then tell you nothing about the overall tech balance even in a faction-neutral sense - even if you are ok with favorite tech paths for factions, you would still desire an overall balance between tech paths. Or maybe you wouldn't - I don't know.

Orion wrote:So Noir gave into the complaints?

He gave in to the statistics.
Tac costs were increased, belter's tac craft hulls were weakened (back to normal instead of increased hitpoints), TF pls gens loadtime increased, carriers nerfed, bios perked, pheonix flight changed, etc. Do people other than me read his release posts?

It just so happens the complaints showed themselves in the statistics he used...coincidence?

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Aug 18 2006, 12:11 PM) spunk just remember whose been playing here for the past 6 months. You sorta just show back up and think you can run the show. Dont work like that

...wtf is wrong with you guitarism? You're an embarassment.

Folks, I am always totally amazed on how some people get so wound up over core discussions.

Each core is the Designers opinion of the game. He makes changes based upon constructive feedback and what info he has available to him.

It is HIS core to do with what he wants. "WE" do not own it. (The only exception would be something that directly effects our image as a community, i.e. nudity, language, terms, etc.)

And yes, each core developer is protective of his version just like it was his only little daughter.

Make suggestions.
Don't attack the guy making suggestions
Let the Dev do his thing.

In time, the Community by showing their play time will dictate the eventuall changes to some degree.

Plus, having different versions gives us choices. Play where YOU want to. Doesn't mean that everyone else must follow your choice.

Oh, I don't see anyone here trying to run the "show".

You do not have to "chose sides".

Now go play nicely /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Aug 18 2006, 07:47 PM) Folks, I am always totally amazed on how some people get so wound up over core discussions.

Actually, this was a stats discussion, rather a core discussion until recently.

Guitarism, please, read your own posts:

QUOTE You don't like it? Go make your own and balance it your way. Stop criticizing what Noir has done and continues to do, instead put forth your own effort.
I applaud the GoD team for doing just that, so everyone leave each other alone, play their core and have fun.[/quote]

Spunky is in control of Alleg + and that's exactly, what you wanted, he does his own thing. He does not run DN.
Spunky came back, because I asked him about GoD and A+ and some core stuff. That revived his interest. If you are really interested, who Spunky is, check out the ICE credits (Main Decoder: Spunkmeyer), the tool all core creators use. Spunky had a good part in enabling us to do the core adjustments. So, the next time you ask him to shut up, think again, noob.
Yes, the internet is a meritocracy, even in this community.


BTW, GoD is based on Alleg+ 7, a core Spunkmeyer created

Being, currently the only way I can track that is by spending several hours going through server logs, which I do almost every Sunday. It does not tell me everything, but I can at least see who built what tech base when and who killed what. At LEAST I am making an effort to determine which tech paths and combinations are winning more and you are faulting me for it? Sorry if I can ONLY go on what data is available. I sure as hell don’t see other core devs spending any where NEAR the time that I do going through logs and data or even PUBLISHING that data only to be chastised for it, $#@!ing sue me.

All the stuff you listed was posted in every release post except for original MS 1.25 core stuff like Rix fig fuel / Rix Teleport Probes. Those were NEVER changed from the original design.

I post EVERY change made to the core in the DN forum. It is also NOT my fault we lost all those posts in the old forum. I was told that all forum posts would be archived and accessible. I am trying to locate my old original notes and make a new changes per release list on the DN web site. I DID keep a full list README on the DN web site, but no one seemed to read it unless you want to count web crawlers (yes, I have always tracked web traffic on the DN web site). DN info was also updated in the new in game Help menu. Whenever people asked what the changes were... I told them to go read the README... the typical response... "just tell me", so I just started making forum post change lists. What I actually want to do was make all DN factions have an info lobby screen like Nix so at least most of the important information was always available for everyone to see as they select the faction, but some people have even complained about THAT!

Deng/Others, the only problem with your ENTIRE premise is that it suggests that the overall faction win percentages somehow “don’t” reflect balance, but they CLEARLY do. Look at that list and TELL me in all HONESTY that the higher win% factions did NOT need a nerf and that the lower win% factions did not need a perk? We have had this discussion before and you continue to ignore common sense. If a factions overall win % is consistently higher over time, then it OBVIOUSLY has more advantages than other factions, especially when you consider that the data covers over 7000 “validated” games and not just a week or month worth of games. Only TWO out of NINE factions have truly poor win % and those are being addressed. And LOOK at those percentages for a second. Over 7000 games and the highest ratio is ONLY ~54%? That means that given every faction it plays against on whatever settings and maps that are selected, that it STILL only achieves a 54% win ratio. I mean seriously, for the HIGHEST ranked faction that is pretty damn close to the perfect 50% and 3 other factions are almost dead on!

You keep harping that it is all meaningless unless every faction has a 50% ratio to every other faction. Not ONLY are you living in a dream world… I don’t think you understand one of the fundamental ideas behind the game since the very beginning of the Microsoft days: That some factions are DELIBERATELY designed to be counters vs. other factions, especially given various game settings. Here is a shock Deng… Belters and Bios do better on low money settings, Rix does better with high money settings, and even some maps favor some factions more than others. It is all PART of the tactics and strategies behind the game. This is primarily WHY factions have different economy designs and research times and in my opinion is what makes the replay factor of this game so high. Should we remove certain settings and maps as well because they don’t favor every faction?

Again, excuse the $#@! out of me for using the data that is available.

Freeza wrote:QUOTE (Freeza @ Aug 18 2006, 05:24 PM) Do people other than me read his release posts?

yes, i do.

Greator_SST wrote:QUOTE (Greator_SST @ Aug 18 2006, 06:47 PM) ...wtf is wrong with you guitarism? You're an embarassment.

he joined XT... /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

BlackViper wrote:QUOTE (BlackViper @ Aug 18 2006, 06:47 PM) <a whole load of stuff>

Now go play nicely /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

yeah, make love not war /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Aug 18 2006, 07:16 PM) check out the ICE credits (Main Decoder: Spunkmeyer)

0.o now thats something i didnt know (never really checked out those) thought it was mostly kgjv (as is the way with most of old tools - ok vencain made some important old apps too)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

anyway, everyone be nice. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

i am not even sure what the argument is here. i can understand the argument that the stats noir is using may not be the right type / not have right information. but i am not sure what the other argument is about.

i like noir and what he does
he has put alot of time into his core
he takes alot of flack
but he has made the core which gets palyed most, and has the most releases (i think, it should have by now)


hmm, i have forgotten what i was gonig to say next.. /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /> nvm /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> lol

I guess I was pissed off by real life when making that post, shouldn't have been that hostile, sorry about that.

I didn't know you actually go through logs.. I thought that would be too much work to be honest. Points to you. I was making assumptions on those faction win percentage posts you have made. If you had said before in some forum post that you actually do go through logs, I must have missed it.

I didn't say it is your fault the old forums are lost.

My request about the undocumented stuff was PRECISELY because the old forum stuff was lost.

As many people never played 1.25, only listing changes from 1.25 to current version might not be enough. But then again listing every value of every ship/part/whatever is way too much.. So just the more interesting parts. If all ships but one are equal in attributes, list the only one deviating and so on.

Could we perhaps get a sticky topic on DN forum where the factionwide attributes/anomalies are listed?
The speed/hull/shield/acceleration/etc.. and IC having more ammo, TF having less mass and such things?
Hmm.. now that I think of it I guess what I want is similar to the Allegiance Academy.. doesn't have to have any 'how-to-something' articles or anything, just listings of attributes/specials/abilities.
All other coredevs take note as well.


The Nixian lobby info background for all factions sounds good to me. And of course people whine about that, I don't think there's a single thing in this community that doesn't get whined at sooner or later.

"This recent change goes AGAINST keeping the tech paths balanced, but I guess people WANT Tac to a second rate tech." I can understand you have the right to balance your core as you see fit, but it still does seem strange to me when you do not follow guidelines you set yourself just to spite other people..

IT would be boring to have just one faction. It'd be balanced. Couldn't get more balanced than that. But balance does not need to be the same as equality, as I think you agree. Your core avoids that trap nicely. However, I _feel_ there are some factions that, when faced against another specific faction, have such abysmal chances of winning it's not fun. Yes, it's part of the game to choose the proper settings and factions before the countdown but it's also reducing options. If you have factions A,B and C that are quite balanced between themselves and factions D, E and F that are likewise balanced (meaning there's no pairing where one faction wins a lot more). If A,B and C do not mix well with D, E and F you could as well have two different cores.

I'd see it as acceptable when any faction has at least a 40% probability of winning against another faction. I'm not saying this is not the case with DN mind you. I'm saying that the data available to us (the data you have posted as basis for your core changes, namely the win percentages) does not reveal these faction vs faction winpercentages.
Of course settings stacking needs to be taken into account and games where settings are way out of whack shouldn't be counted at all..
This brings me to the question...
What size map/amount of players/kind of settings is a core (to be) balanced around?

money from 1.00 to 1.25 (both), 2 sectors between garrisons (though IO works as well since the middle sector has alephs further apart), 15-20 players.

I hope I wasn't too difficult to understand.. (If I was, blame it on 5.40 AM)



And yes, if you actually do have some data on how factions/techpaths fare against each other, why not post the data? Instead of just the general win/loss. You could show us facts that the changes you have made are actually necessary, thus clipping the wings off of any complaints about unfair nerfs/perks.