Free Allegiance Forums

Ask baxter for AllegNationalsCore.

it will save you a lot of time.

I actually like this idea, with a couple of qualms.

First of, I've never really like rankings, period, and I haven't seen them positively affect gameplay. So I have no problems with taking the rankings away from the DN pugs.

I do like the idea of having the "main core" being updated more actively and with more community input involved.

That said, even a small committee designing a core might be a very bad idea. You've noticed that there are a lot of very different core design philosophies around here. How many of the core devs are going to be people with an eternal devotion to ints? Will they be people, conversely, who get most of their fun from bombing?

Lastly, part of the reason DN is so popular is that there has just been so much loving work put into it, (models, and balancing, and ideas..) and I don't know much of that would get transferred to a new community core.

Bv, Maybe if KGJV hadn't, you know, tried to propose a whole radical retooling of the system in his first post here IE no hiders anymore with this core - then you wouldnt have it going off topic.

If we want a core run by the "community" then we have to start somewhere. Will it be from Noir's work? Will it be from A+? Will it use models that were contributed to the community, or ones that were given to specific cores? The questions are endless. In addition to the fact the Balancing said core will take a lifetime, because everyone has their own ideas.

If we want to do this, what will stay and what will go from these cores? will our core be 3 levels of tech? 5? Will carriers be included? Will Patties loose LT Booster? Will ints loose damage output, tac gain in missile tracking? Who will decide all of this?

I think were happy better of this way... KGJV you still here? Give me your thoughts since you started this and walked away. Are we trying to be constructive, or are you just stiring the pot because you don't like certain things in DN.

Yeesh...

I get busy for a few weeks and mahem ensues! /blush.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="blush.gif" />

I have not read everything (this seemed to stem from a closed topic in the DN forum) … but I'll at least address a few things:

* DN has been a continuous project for years now. It has been both a financial and time consuming labor of love. I have no intentions of abandoning it.
* I am sorry if my recent absence (only a few weeks guys) has alarmed anyone, but even when I am as busy as I have been, I do get around to answering urgent PMs as soon as possible.
* DN 4.60a was really only meant to be a manual download alpha test. I wanted to test it for at least another weekend before I made the final changes (i.e. Gat projectile revert, slight TF perk, etc). Unfortunately *cough* it was released on Auto-Update without my consent. Since it was out in the ‘wild” and did not seem to have any “major” bugs I decided to just let it run. As long as most of the factions are within 40-60% w/l ratio, I try to wait a few months, but hopefully no more than six months before making another release. Why? Even when small changes are made, it can take a while for the whole community to get used to them. It can be frustrating for players if changes are made too often. It also allows enough games to be played to see if any “new” tactics/strengths or counter tactics/strengths evolve and see how they can affect balance. Some may feel this is too long, but I can’t please everyone it seems. Work on the next version started well over a month ago. As usual, it will include nerfs and perks in order to tighten up faction w/l ratios and possibly include a new faction. When is the next release? Stats seem fairly consistent now so I hope it will be soon.
* Stats should be collected and published for all cores.
* Players should be allowed to choose which core they want to play.

Problem: Lack of quality in cores, and too many cores.

Solution: make new core

Huh?

Well well well.

[quote=""BlackViper""]And yes, KGJV shot himself in the foot with his other stuff in the first post[/quote]

Yes my foot hurts bad now /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

But I did post these other stuff because I see all of this a global solution to enhance quality of PU games which are my main concern. Squad games are fine IMHO except the fact they're played on different cores which is a bit strange too me for a competition. But well we can put them aside for now.

So yep I agree let's focus on CC for now and forget the other stuff.

[quote=""guitarism""]If we want to do this, what will stay and what will go from these cores? will our core be 3 levels of tech? 5? Will carriers be included? Will Patties loose LT Booster? Will ints loose damage output, tac gain in missile tracking? Who will decide all of this?

I think were happy better of this way... KGJV you still here? Give me your thoughts since you started this and walked away. Are we trying to be constructive, or are you just stiring the pot because you don't like certain things in DN.[/quote]

Well 1st I never said I was 'against' DN nor that DN couldnt be the CC. I expressed some balance concern about DN, i think i'm not only one to agree on this.

My thoughts remain the same: I think the 'de facto' standard core (aka the core on which 98% of games are played) shouldnt be left in the hands of a unique person whatever his quality. There should at least some assistants allowed to publish minor changes. 6 months between updates is too long.

[quote=""Noir""]* DN 4.60a was really only meant to be a manual download alpha test. I wanted to test it for at least another weekend before I made the final changes (i.e. Gat projectile revert, slight TF perk, etc). Unfortunately *cough* it was released on Auto-Update without my consent. Since it was out in the ‘wild” and did not seem to have any “major” bugs I decided to just let it run. As long as most of the factions are within 40-60% w/l ratio, I try to wait a few months, but hopefully no more than six months before making another release. Why? Even when small changes are made, it can take a while for the whole community to get used to them. It can be frustrating for players if changes are made too often. It also allows enough games to be played to see if any “new” tactics/strengths or counter tactics/strengths evolve and see how they can affect balance. Some may feel this is too long, but I can’t please everyone it seems. Work on the next version started well over a month ago. As usual, it will include nerfs and perks in order to tighten up faction w/l ratios and possibly include a new faction. When is the next release? Stats seem fairly consistent now so I hope it will be soon.[/quote]

If the factions w/l ratio is your main indicator to tweak the balance this is scaring me and explains a lot.

At least tech paths used and teams HELOs should be taken into account for w/l ratio to have some meaning, otherwise I dont see how you can balance fairly.
What's the point taking into account a completly stacked game ? What to balance if you dont know wich tech path is causing unbalance ?

Noir wrote:Stats should be collected and published for all cores.

yeah if they are separated (different ranks for each core) otherwise this make no sens at all.

Noir wrote:Players should be allowed to choose which core they want to play.

Yes that is theory but Allegiance is a multiplayer game, so people play where the other are. It's extremely difficult to move everyone in a game to another core. So no, players are not allowed to really choose which core that want to play on, they either follow the others or they just play 1vs1 on the core they want.

This is fine for a multiplayer game, everyone can not just do what they want or it becomes unplayable so at least let's us acknowledge this.
The more choice, the more it spread people or the more you have unhappy people.
This is what a CC is about: giving a common playground which suffer no debate and generate no "controversy" between players.

Other cores can still exist of course and be played on but mainly as experimental playgrounds to test out new ideas.

This might seems a bit 'hard' for some ppl, but this how 'human nature' is. You need rules and common "references" for a community to exist.

Really, like I said already, accepting this is like accepting the fact that we have only 1 common code (allegiance.exe) for everyone. You woulnd want to choose which executable to launch to play alleg, no ?

May be, there is a way to "reconcile" everyone:

let's work with the dev team and core developpers to move the 'choice' offered by having different cores into the 'game settings' screen.

By extending game parameters and other ingame options i'm pretty sure we can achieve some thing here. For instance, a game setting option to turn on/off carriers in garissons or the use of XRM AB or the max level of techs (lvl3,lvl4,lvl5,...) (they're are just examples, the idea is to be fully generic).

For short: globally we merge all good ideas of all cores into a single core, the CC, and then we expose more options in game settings.

I've not fully thought about this yet (notably the consequences for stats for instance) but it might be an idea worth debating since so far I cannot see how we can come up with something to please everyone.

QUOTE Yes that is theory but Allegiance is a multiplayer game, so people play where the other are. It's extremely difficult to move everyone in a game to another core. So no, players are not allowed to really choose which core that want to play on, they either follow the others or they just play 1vs1 on the core they want.

This is fine for a multiplayer game, everyone can not just do what they want or it becomes unplayable so at least let's us acknowledge this.
The more choice, the more it spread people or the more you have unhappy people.

This is what a CC is about: giving a common playground which suffer no debate and generate no "controversy" between players.

Other cores can still exist of course and be played on but mainly as experimental playgrounds to test out new ideas.

This might seems a bit 'hard' for some ppl, but this how 'human nature' is. You need rules and common "references" for a community to exist.

Really, like I said already, accepting this is like accepting the fact that we have only 1 common code (allegiance.exe) for everyone. You woulnd want to choose which executable to launch to play alleg, no ?

...

For short: globally we merge all good ideas of all cores into a single core, the CC, and then we expose more options in game settings.[/quote]

What the hell does this mean, exactly?

Please clarify, I have absolutely no idea what you're proposing other than making the other cores developer only for special test games, or having a gratuitous 'select tech' list where you SELECT the features you want to play with every single game?

QUOTE By extending game parameters and other ingame options i'm pretty sure we can achieve some thing here. For instance, a game setting option to turn on/off carriers in garissons or the use of XRM AB or the max level of techs (lvl3,lvl4,lvl5,...) (they're are just examples, the idea is to be fully generic).[/quote]

No. Hell no!

I don't wanna have to turn on carriers just because some idiot turned it off last game. Or re-enable Adv tech after some crappy latenight game. What is this nonsense? Game setup will take even longer because of all the options.

"Hmm, don't like Enh Miners. Get rid of that! No, can't have TP2, that's cheese, that's out..."

No way.

And your "Five different versions of ASGS/Whatever because we have five different cores" analogy makes no sense. I don't understand what you're proposing.

The only proposal I'm tempted to agree with here is BV's. But the admins are contradicting each other!

'BV' wrote:1. No ONE will be forced to play this core.
2. ALL OTHER cores will still exist and be available to play.
3. We are NOT looking to kill DN or Noir's work. (Or any other core!)
4. We have no plans at all of implementing any other changes to stats, course content, etc. REPEAT, none of KGJV's items would be implemented. Those are another topic for another discussion down the road if people have any interest.

The bold text is contradictory.

'TE' wrote:The only differences will be stats are collected/"count" only for games played on the community core. (Games on novelty cores will not affect your rank)

Things that will stay the same are Cadet/ACS/academy. Right now they teach DN because it's the most popular. With a community core they will teach DN because it is the community core. No changes but a name.

What will NOT happen is the admins/community turning their backs on all other "non-official" cores. No restrictions will be placed on other cores just because one core is voted the "community" one.

Last point contradicts KG's proposal.

What the hell is this bull@#(!?

CLARIFY PEOPLE.

Come back when you've all made up your goddamn minds.

PUT THE PROPOSAL IN PLAIN, SIMPLE ENGLISH. NO METAPHORS. NO ALLEGORIES. NO ANALOGIES.

In fact, just continue this in the other thread.

KGJV wrote:QUOTE (KGJV @ Jul 6 2007, 06:33 AM) let's work with the dev team and core developpers to move the 'choice' offered by having different cores into the 'game settings' screen.

By extending game parameters and other ingame options i'm pretty sure we can achieve some thing here. For instance, a game setting option to turn on/off carriers in garissons or the use of XRM AB or the max level of techs (lvl3,lvl4,lvl5,...) (they're are just examples, the idea is to be fully generic).

For short: globally we merge all good ideas of all cores into a single core, the CC, and then we expose more options in game settings.

I've not fully thought about this yet (notably the consequences for stats for instance) but it might be an idea worth debating since so far I cannot see how we can come up with something to please everyone.

Some suggestions...

I don't think the game settings menu should be used to exclude or override core features.

Cores are built as a whole and not as individual modules. In your example, carriers and XRM AB may not apply to a given core or faction which adds unnecessary complication to something that isn't complicated. It would also make core design more difficult since more game settings would have to be considered.

The design shift seems backwards from the current architecture because it would place more dependency on upgrading the game settings menu than simply adjusting a core to meet popular demand.

Who says that these core dev's should cater to popular demand? They made the core for their image of allegiance. Whatever that is. If I want to make a core, that is entirely carriers, with fighters ripping to them and thats it, that's my core. Why would I want to change it to something you want? You go make one.

Kage, as for your idea to make all these tech toggle-able. It's crap. Already with r4 you've implemented the ability to disable a tech path if you dont like it. Why? KGJV, your just taking this one step further. It's silly. The Core is a whole, it's meant to be. To take all the cores idea and throw them into one jumbled group is another thing that won't work. You can't pick and choose what you want, there is a reason the cores are one whole package. Each tech path has it's own unique qualities, and usages. You allow the ability to turn it off, it just ruins gameplay. I hate to play against tac. Why? I think its horrible. Will I ever disable it? No. It's a great counter to Exp if I play it.

Just because you don't like some KGJV doesn't mean you should try and stamp it out. Sometimes I feel like thats what your trying to do with these, get rid of things you don't like on a personal level, rather then whats good for the community. But then, thats just me.

We could have a supremacy only tournament though. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Let's see who is the best sup team in Alleg. The same with exp or tac. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />