Community Core

Post by **pkk** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:27 am

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Jul 5 2007, 09:16 AM) You all do realize that there is a reason DN works. It is just one person working on it in balance issues.

And it takes 6+ months to get our a new release to fix major balance issuses? That's is IMO the main reason, why we should have a community core.

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Jul 5 2007, 09:16 AM) Why do most of the people play DN? Because they are happy with it. And if they aren't, they take their complaints to the forum Dev, and he decides if it's valid and then works on it. Thats how it's been forever.

They know nothing else, they think it's like playing on EoR/SW. Others follow a small elite, which don't want to play on another core than DN. Others don't care, and just want to play.

Post by **TheBored** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:37 am

Snack wrote:QUOTE (Snack @ Jul 5 2007, 02:05 AM) The CC is not here to kill off any particular core

QUOTE S4. choose 'one core to rule them all': the "community core" defined like this:

A. the one and only core for which games stats are collected and ranks computed from these stats.
B. the one and only core set on the permanent newbie server(s)
C. the one and only core inline documentation (F1) describes
D. the one and only core CDT & ACS teaching sessions will talk about
E. the one and only core official squad games will use[/quote]
O rly?

So if you play on another core, you obviously aren't playing Allegiance because that game shouldn't count for anything. Oh yeah, you can't play real squad games on the other cores, just because.

Let players choose the core they want to play, don't force them onto a core just because Kage doesn't like DN. Make a core, open it to the world. Balance it however you see fit. If the players decide to give that core more playtime, so be it. If they decide to stick with the system now (DN for PUs, GoD/PCII/DN for SGs) then so be it.

If you really think this isn't an attempt to get rid of DN, then I suppose I can get a good chuckle from this.

TB

Snack · Post by **Snack** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:48 am

You are right, I am having a good chuckle on how you are paranoid and afraid for DN core. Why are you so scared?

However, you are also right in that some of those points aren't really necessary and would not work really. I don't think there is a reason for people "not to teach" about any other core. People can more or less teach whatever they want. Even though the lessons might concentrate more on CC, you can't really prevent someone from talking about Paris Hilton if they want to in the middle of CDT. Besides, it's up to CDT staff to decide what will they teach in the end.

Squad games are as official as squads make them. So what is preventing you from playing the game on any "FZ core" and making it official is beyond me. Not to mention that certain squads do not count squad games as official if a certain rule set is not met in the first place. Rule set that can even vary between squads, as we had opportuinty to see.

You really sound like a conspiracy theorist nut here TheBored. KG is not the one who will have the final say on CC core and he has not implied so anyway. For what's it worth, I am the first one to give DN a vote and I doubt I am the only one. I however respect other people votes/wishes for GoD or any other core as well and if GoD is the way to go, then I won't be exstatic, but happy that we are moving on and resolving current issues. Why are you getting so upset about these technical issues is beyond me. Maybe you should try to join a development team or something to put you at ease? Maybe even CC development?

Finally, this is a somewhat obscure computer game with a small players base...there are plenty of interesting conspiracy theories you can play around with on the Internet instead.

w0dk4 · Post by **w0dk4** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:20 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 5 2007, 09:51 AM) Just as a side point the only reason why squad games aren't happening on other cores atm is because Ozzy decided that we weren't allowed to play on them for the tourney. I suspect you'd see an equal number of PC2 SGs as GoD2 SGs if we were allowed to play them.

LOL now THAT is funny!

I remember someone saying you cannot force the Squads to only play the community core.
Now what is up with that, denying Squads to play certain cores?

lol and rofl

FlingPu · Post by **FlingPu** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:32 pm

Things I'd like to see in a community core or by proxy...

The majority of player preference.

Frequent updates.

New and/or updated content (pick one or many):modelsskinsfactionstechtech pathsIntegration of FAZ dev improvements (any/all):Updated core format, editing tools, and tool documentationAdditional environment elementsAdditional ship component typesAdditional component capabilityIncreased granularity of component and environment settings----
For the following points, I see a benefit:

QUOTE C. the one and only core inline documentation (F1) describes
D. the one and only core CDT & ACS teaching sessions will talk about
F. a ZoneLeader (ZL) will be appointed by the community to maintain it and have final word on changes. This ZL can appoint assitants or a full team if he wants. This ZL will also co-decide with the Dev ZL (Dogbones) on code changes that affect balance.
G. no copyright or IP of any kind will be placed on this core[/quote]
C. & D. seem very natural assuming this effort is a success story. ie. after the fact.
F. Is more of an implementation point, but it does match our current community structure which appears to be working as of this posting.
G. Allegiance is open source. So yes.

-----
These seem unnecessary:

QUOTE A. the one and only core for which games stats are collected and ranks computed from these stats.
B. the one and only core set on the permanent newbie server(s)
E. the one and only core official squad games will use[/quote]
A. Breaks from our "count every game" model and may hinder the current ranking system.
B. Seems like a per server option. On a side note, a newbie core with less tech and only basic ships may be more beneficial.
E. If players maintain the ability to choose what they want to play, then squads, defined as collections of players, should be able to play what ever they want.

Clay_Pigeon · Post by **Clay_Pigeon** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:23 pm

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Jul 5 2007, 03:16 AM) You all do realize that there is a reason DN works. It is just one person working on it in balance issues. Theres a reason why GoD works. IT's a small number of people, very few. There is a reason a "community core" would not work. Everyone has their own idea about balance. Well we would spend YEARS sorting out what people want, and no one would be happy in totality with it. Why? Because it isn't what THEY want.

Clay_Pigeon wrote:QUOTE (Clay_Pigeon @ Jul 5 2007, 02:06 AM) the primary feature of a Community Core is tying it to a small (3-5) group of people, rather than a single dev. The goal is to get something that (assuming it gets playtime) can have a more rapid turn-around time than cores controlled by a single, busy person.

guitarism · Post by **guitarism** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:52 pm

And you all don't have real life issues that would require you to take time off? That what Noir has, a real life. This is a hobby, and we should be thankful that work at all gets in.

Wheres MadP, he would be able to explain in detail how much real life sucks when it comes to allegiance devolpment.

Kap · Post by **Kap** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:44 pm

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Jul 5 2007, 11:52 AM) And you all don't have real life issues that would require you to take time off? That what Noir has, a real life. This is a hobby, and we should be thankful that work at all gets in.

Wheres MadP, he would be able to explain in detail how much real life sucks when it comes to allegiance devolpment.

That's exactly the point, with a group of 3-5 people it would require that all of them had real life issues at the same time to stop working on the core. If 2 people are having problems, the other 3 (already knowing that the 2 other persons cannot cooperate right now) will continue enhancing the core without having to consult the other 2.

At least thats the way I see it.

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:44 pm

comments:

community core - a core made/updated by a group of people in the community instead of an individual.
Yes. if you want it, set up the group, produce a core, once you have the core on some servers and have had some tests done, get a forum, continue developing, see if its successful.
It's the way things work around here.
(respect noir's wishes plz)

other stuff - official core, stats and all the rest of it.
No. i disagree with official FAO backing of one core, let the players play what they want to play.

guitarism wrote:QUOTE (guitarism @ Jul 5 2007, 05:52 PM) Wheres MadP, he would be able to explain in detail how much real life sucks when it comes to allegiance devolpment.

don't get me started... (i'm tired and not even sure i have time to get started... must fill out job application form behind me...)

Post by **TheBored** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:11 pm

Snack wrote:QUOTE (Snack @ Jul 5 2007, 02:48 AM) You are right, I am having a good chuckle on how you are paranoid and afraid for DN core. Why are you so scared?

I'm not scared for DN, I'm scared of not being able to ever choose what core I play on. Granted, DN gets 99% of playtime now, but squad games are totally open to core preference. I don't want to play on an 'unsupported' core so the losing team can just give us the bird by saying that the game wasn't 'official' therefore the game didn't count. $#@! that. Should I disagree about a core, I post on the PK forums asking that we not play the core, and others may agree. If enough agree, we play on a different core. With this new way, I don't have a choice *ever*.

QUOTE Besides, it's up to CDT staff to decide what will they teach in the end.[/quote]Let cadet teach what core is most popular at the time. Don't force it to teach a different core for the sake of being 'official'. If the cadets will benefit from CC material better, that is the way to go. This should not be a forced decision though (Unlike the proposal states BTW).

QUOTE You really sound like a conspiracy theorist nut here TheBored. KG is not the one who will have the final say on CC core and he has not implied so anyway. For what's it worth, I am the first one to give DN a vote and I doubt I am the only one. I however respect other people votes/wishes for GoD or any other core as well and if GoD is the way to go, then I won't be exstatic, but happy that we are moving on and resolving current issues.[/quote]You make it sound like I hate GoD or something. Some of my favorite games in Allegiance have been on GoD, so I welcome games on it. DN and GoD are both awesome IMO and the fact that I have the *choice* is awesome.

QUOTE Why are you getting so upset about these technical issues is beyond me. Maybe you should try to join a development team or something to put you at ease? Maybe even CC development?[/quote]I'm on the cadet planning committee thing, FAZ Dev team, new training group, and I help maintain the KnowledgeBase. I may not do as much as some here, but I think I do my fair share. As for being on the CC dev, I wouldn't be caught dead supporting something I don't agree with. Maybe if some of these ludicrous requirements are taken off, I might reconsider my position. Till then, hell no.

QUOTE Finally, this is a somewhat obscure computer game with a small players base...there are plenty of interesting conspiracy theories you can play around with on the Internet instead.[/quote]Sorry, I don't subscribe to any of those theories. IMO, the US landed on the moon, JFK was shot by LHO, and terrorists really did blow up the WTC. So, yeah.

TB