Free Allegiance Forums

I think you should dedicate your skills to contributing to an existing core. This game doesn't have the player base to allow for more than 1 popularized core. There's only ever one main core that people play, and your limited amount of skill, experience and game knowledge is up against someone who has played this game for a great many years and is probably one of the the top 10 best players in the game. What do you really hope to accomplish? You're going to make this core, nobody is going to play it except noobs who don't know any better, and you're going to feel bad for wasting your effort. how about you coordinate with the people running XC (Night) or even CC (RT and friends) and make a practical time investment.

If i weren't too lazy, I would quote NightRychune's plea for radical changes in gameplay, and 'real progress' as opposed to incremental changes done in CC, because it is someone who's opinion you, Mastametz, seem to respect. This is exactly that.

This promises to be something small-scale and fun; maybe even so much fun that it will become large-scale. Is there any way to tell that it won't?

If nothing else, plus the community gains someone with developed coring skills. also, in all likelyhood something will come out of this that bigger, more popular cores can use. As in the way progress in the world works (which isn't by doing what everybody else is already doing).

I don't see how Jersy's project will turn out to be anything other than pure win.

added:
Texan (i understand) proverb: 'If all you ever do is all you ever done, all you're gonna get is all you ever got'

Bunnywabbit wrote:QUOTE (Bunnywabbit @ Mar 13 2011, 12:59 PM) Question: Do you have an average-game-duration in mind for this core?

I ask because being somewhat pressed for time, I would personally like to see a core where i can expect a game to last between 15-30 mins. You might be shooting for something completely different, though, which would be fine too.

Anyway, I like where you're taking this, it promises to be a fun project. Keep it up!

Well the ideal goal would be to both prevent turtling and allow comebacks while avoiding "win by losing less vets due to boredom" by making the games shorter... However, chances that I will accomplish that on the first try are million to one, and only time will show if it's the proverbial one that works every time, or the real one, that works only every millionth time, in which case, I'll just try to rebalance it to that goal...

Mastametz wrote:QUOTE (Mastametz @ Mar 13 2011, 01:05 PM) I think you should dedicate your skills to contributing to an existing core. This game doesn't have the player base to allow for more than 1 popularized core. There's only ever one main core that people play, and your limited amount of skill, experience and game knowledge is up against someone who has played this game for a great many years and is probably one of the the top 10 best players in the game. What do you really hope to accomplish? You're going to make this core, nobody is going to play it except noobs who don't know any better, and you're going to feel bad for wasting your effort. how about you coordinate with the people running XC (Night) or even CC (RT and friends) and make a practical time investment.

Slight overstatement: Existing cores are way too traditional and for historical reasons refuse to abandon the original concept of the game and the likelyhood of their devteams ever agreeing to experiment with some more radical ideas is very low. Also, they all have their own direction in which they are going, and especially CC has gained so much momentum over the time, that even the attempts to change the course somewhat (XC) are still standing on the same foundations and only deal with different ideas of balance. The only way I could ever get my ideas to appear there would be to infiltrate them as low-level working bee, doing mundane tasks as changing the values according to the wishes of the higher-ups, and trying to both work my way up and spread my influence around and make a gradual change into a state where implementing the actual ideas would seem like a logical conclusion of things. The only problem with that would be that by the time this sinister plot would reach it's goal, I'll be probably watching my grandchildren raising their own offspring.

In short: I am starting a new project, because with my own core, I can do whatever I friggin' want.

Maybe it won't become core-of-the-year, but I would definitely be able to get some people to test it a bit, and give them a taste of something really different. And once I do that, those test-subjects would become the carriers of my super-awesome ideas, gradually spreading them, and soon, the revolution would be upon us, in which the Allegiance will be reborn just as it would be, if my core simply became the most popular one.

Either way, I win, and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop me, MuhaHAHaHaHAhAaHa!!!

Well, except for no-one willing to test it. And no-one willing to upload it on a server... But in those emergencies, I can just start my own server and make specially trained rodents play it... With the reputation current PUGs have, you won't even be able to tell the difference, if you happened to drop in accidentally...

So there ;-)

Nice, it's different enough to be interesting but not SO different that it's really hard to get to grips with.

The GA's in garr thing for example. That's something that one or two people have suggested on the CC forum, but will almost certainly never get into CC as it's such a radical change - which doesn't mean that it won't work as a concept.

Jersy wrote:QUOTE (Jersy @ Mar 13 2011, 12:05 AM) - some custom GA icons for easier orientation (moving from symbols to larger text)

Check.

And while I was messing with GAs, I also increased their prices since now you don't need techbase/advtechbase for them. Most of them will be increased to 3000$, except for He3 speed, which will be 4000$ and He3 yield which will be 5000$.

Talking about He3:

In a sudden strike of inspiration, I thought of pretty much completely different process of gaining money.

Remember all those threads about pilotable miners? Well, this is it.

- Except they will not be actual miners, but rather "cashbox transporters"
- And special cashboxes will be spawning as a treasure.
- Those cashboxes will need to be carried back to base.
- They will be heavy, so that if a non-cashtransport ships picks them up, it pretty much kills it's dogfighting potential.
- This way, their advanced versions will be able to have turrets.
- Of course, they will be hard to kill (classic miner hull of utility class)
- If they are killed while carrying cash, they drop it, allowing either the defending team to reclaim it, or the offending team to steal it.

Of course, now I have a serious dillema, because I intended the factions to have different ripcord capabilites, and those with better ripcording would suddenly have an economical advantage, as their dogfighting ships could just pick it up and rip home with it... And even if I made factions the same, it would still collide with techpaths, since SUP does have rip advantage over the other techs... It wouldn't necessarily be bad, but would have to be compensated for... Maybe by making stuff more expensive?

Oh man, I would really like to implement it, but it seems that to do so, I would have to do exactly what I didn't want to: compensating the lack of apples with a surplus of pears...

...

...

...

I think I'll probably try it, but only in the end, when everything is working the way it should be - then I'll make an alternative core with this version of gaining money... Yeah, that sounds good to me.

Pilotable miners has been brought up in the dev zone a couple of times, it's generally agreed to be a bad idea because mining isn't much fun. I personally don't like turning around and picking up cash, even if I'm already close to it.

Also He speed is a low value GA. Very few people buy it as is.

TurkeyXIII wrote:QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ Mar 14 2011, 10:55 AM) Pilotable miners has been brought up in the dev zone a couple of times, it's generally agreed to be a bad idea because mining isn't much fun. I personally don't like turning around and picking up cash, even if I'm already close to it.

Yeah, I know of that (I remember some statements such as "Never make a boring task essential for winning" and "It won't be fun just sitting there and staring at the rock")...

However, if I consider the implications (money stealing, etc.) then it might prove to be fun in the end, if done right.

Strategy-wise, it would be a lot better if I managed to do it with ship-exclusivity in mind. It would put a greater importance on sector control and presence of launchdockable bases. If those treasures were rather scarce, then it might be possible for two "miners" to meet in a race of "get the money", with nans pushing and stuff. Miner offense might carry a one miner of it's own, so it can load the cash the destroyed miner would drop.

I too realise that there would be many problems with actually implementing this thing and making it fun - that's why I'm putting any experiments in this area on hold, until I have a fully working and proper version of 3FC ready.

QUOTE Also He speed is a low value GA. Very few people buy it as is.[/quote]

Hmm... Noted. I'll either make it cheaper or more effective then. Or, in the more extreme case, absent. If I think about it a bit more, it pretty much only affects the time a miner spents at He3 rock... So it would probably only have a meaning if that time was quite significant... Hmm...

Jersy wrote:QUOTE (Jersy @ Mar 13 2011, 12:05 AM) - some faction/tech specific bases (fighter drone control station, scanner station, ...)

Check.

At least true for the following:

Scanner Station (RIX TAC)
- Scan Range 6000
- Relays Lead Indicator

Adv Scanner Station (RIX TAC)
- Scan Range 9001
- Relays Lead Indicator

Drone Wing Alpha Control (IC SUP)
- Prerequisite for building Drone Fighter Alphas

Drone Wing Beta Control (IC SUP)
- Prerequisite for building Drone Fighter Betas

Drone Wing Omega Control (IC SUP)
- Prerequisite for building Drone Bombers

More faction/tech specific stations might pop up later.

I'd like to bring up one of my earlier artwork-related ideas:

I was thinking about getting rid of one of the more intangible balance issues: The shapes of the the ships.

The basic idea would be to make ships and stations use models, that would only differ in faction-specific textures.

I was thinking about using either IC or Giga models (but more likely Giga, as I think they are kinda prettier (- as a template, and giving each faction it's distinctive theme.

From subtle things like distinctive symbols, through coloured markings (stripes, etc.), to complete paintjobs (think Dune game series and Blue for Atreides, Red for Harkonnen, Green for Ordos).

I'd like to ask about two things:

1. What do you think about the idea itself?

2. Would you be able and willing to do the retexturing? This I am asking because I myself lack the necessary skills and stuff to do it myself, so it would only get implemented in 3FC if someone of you volunteered to provide me with modified models.

Also, one more artwork related issue, although low priority, is that since I'm going to have more medium-class ships, I would need some distinctve texture alterations for them too, so that people would be able to tell them apart visually. Like before, it's not something that would stop the core dead in it's tracks and it can easily do without it, simply using bomber model for all of those medium ships.

If youd'l like to show some support for my core, this would be a great way to do so ;-)

Here's another thing I thougt of implementing:

Move the majority of offensive medium-class ships cost from the cost of the ships themselves to the equipment they use.

So, for example, let's say that standard bomber loadout would be 6 AB missiles in total, then:

Instead of having bomber for 500$ and those 6 ABs for free, you would either:

A) Have ABs for 50$ each and bomber for 200$ only.

Have ABs for 83$ each and bomber for free.

Advantages:

- Bombers with sub-standard loadout would be cheaper, those with above standard loadout are more expensive

- Promoted use of decoy bombers (since they would be cheaper)

- In Fighter-Bombing, some fighter-bombers might be there as the actual ABCarriers, while the others without ABs would only be there to draw fire from those that actually carry them, enabling figbee runs at reduced cost while risking that, by coincidence, the enemy will destroy the real ones before the decoys.

- Blowing up one small base would be cheaper than blowing up a Starbase with full Shield/Hull GAs, which kind of makes sense.

Disadvantages:

- In "Pay-For-The-Ship" model, you can recycle used ships you paid for (sell them, use for next run, fully loaded with free ABs), but in "Pay-For-The-Missiles" model, missiles once used are lost forever, and only those you keep in your cargo can be recycled. Therefore, the more you blow stuff up, the more expensive it is, even if you don't lose any ships.

Other features:

- Succesful defense brings a little cash for the defenders, who can collect and sell unused missiles dropped by the bombers. Provided, of course, they want to bother themselves with that.

------------

What would your thougts be on that?