Allegiance has too many players

Duckwarrior · Post by **Duckwarrior** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:58 am

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Feb 5 2009, 12:50 AM) Also the "grand old age of allegiance" had a MUCH lower average skill level than we have now (despite what some people would have you believe), cap wars abounded...

The skill level was no different than it is now. You're talking cock.

I have little knowledge of the FZ, but I can assure you that caps were no more prevelant in the AZ than they are now. I can't imagine that the Poverty Zone was any different to us.

Pico, Kummy and Snack and the rest of the old farts brigade currently play, I would guess, less than three hours per week each on average. When they were banging in the sort of hours that Sheff & grav are now, they were just as awesome as those dudes. There were also more average players like yourself, as well as poorer pilots like some others. The skill mix hasn't changed, the size of the games has.

Although the skill range is the same as it ever was, most people have never played Allegiance. We currently play some bastardised version of it. You can't sneak an HTT anywhere when there are 80 people trying to find something useful to do on a server. TP2 had a built in failure risk for a reason, to stop twenty bombers being guaranteed to rip into a sector. While I applaud apoch & the cc team for trying to balance in XRM & Fighter Bombers and other win button techs. I miss playing Allegiance where you didn't have the luxury of choosing what you were going to do every game, but HAD to be doing the right thing because there wasn't enough manpower to do everything.

Evincar · Post by **Evincar** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:19 am

i was more thinking the other way around, of being able to create games where only certain people could join, especially to for example allow only squadded players to make sure you have at least skilled players in the team, but i guess you could also use it to not allow other people to join. hey, isn't this all about deciding who and who doesn't join your game without breaking the RoC?

Duckwarrior · Post by **Duckwarrior** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:26 am

Dividing up along rank lines would be a start.

Then all the vets can play together and have a place where everything gets done perfectly every time.

And the inters could have a place where some of the things get done reasonably well some of the time.

And the novices could have a place where nobody gives a $#@! if anything gets done or not.

And nobody has to put up with yelling/being yelled at (by) people playing the game at a different level.

Correct · Post by **Correct** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:47 am

Spinoza wrote:QUOTE (Spinoza @ Jan 31 2009, 03:04 PM) Hilo42 and Obsidian are fun

You just lost all credibility.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:04 pm

Duckwarrior wrote:QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Feb 2 2009, 11:28 AM) I posted last year about smaller games

Welcome to the club

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:09 pm

Badp wrote:QUOTE (Badp @ Feb 5 2009, 07:04 AM) Welcome to the club

Great minds think alike OR your the voice in my head Badp you bastard

Upon my return within about a month I said:

1. Dump most of the cores that are useless keep 2 or 3. Main, alternate, up and comer
2. Limit game size to about 15
3. Get a real ranking system
4. Enforce game balance

Only one of the four has been done. I actually helped with that one. Last year I PMed the Server Gods lobbying them to limit game size swearing allegiance to them if they would limit the size of game play. Onl one group did respond and they were rather nice about it but there was some reason it couldn't be done IIRC.

The solution is amazing simple gentlemen. Command a game and don't accept more then 15 people. If you get a "fair" comm they won't take the extra player and if they do *shrug* deal with it. No coding needed, hell you don't even need to form a group of like minded people.

MrChaos

Sushi · Post by **Sushi** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:45 pm

I still think the best solution is to make the maximum team size a setting adjustable by the GC.

Maybe a large-game version of the core(s) as well.

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:22 pm

MrChaos wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos @ Feb 5 2009, 02:09 PM) The solution is amazing simple gentlemen. Command a game and don't accept more then 15 people. If you get a "fair" comm they won't take the extra player and if they do *shrug* deal with it. No coding needed, hell you don't even need to form a group of like minded people.

Won't you quickly have people bitching at you for not accepting anybody and hostaging the server? Just my two cents.

Post by **FreeBeer** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:44 pm

If a game limit was selectable, and that limit was reached, then, no, it couldn't be interpreted as hostaging. However, since that option (selectable limits) is not currently available, all the GC has to do is inform an @Alleg (and preferably NOAT) that the game is being deliberately limited. I, for one, would have no issue with that since NOATs are now free to launch another server at any time.

I've seen this done (somewhat) before. Two comms launched a game with the agreement that they wouldn't allow anyone else to join until after the 10 minute mark. This was done to promote joining games pre-launch and to cut down on the post-launch stacking. I thought it worked quite well and I had no issue with the approach. (NOAT was informed)

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:13 pm

Badp wrote:QUOTE (Badp @ Feb 5 2009, 12:22 PM) Won't you quickly have people bitching at you for not accepting anybody and hostaging the server? Just my two cents.

No official heart ache and really meh if they don't like it, let them start another server