Because of the derailments in the other community core topic, this post is intended to foster discussion on aspects of a community core.
First, this core is NOT intended to be the 'One True Allegiance Core'. Squad games will still be able to be played on other cores. Pickup games will be able to be played on other cores. Development of other cores will not be impeded at all.
Stats are a separate matter, and shouldn't be discussed in this thread. This thread will assume that stats will count on all cores as they currently do.
The only thing that would cause the majority of pickup games to be played on the community core as oppose to DN (or some other core) is purely its 'Darwinian fitness' as an excellent core that people would like to play on.
Now, the first questions I'm sure you're asking are 'what's the point? How is this different from any other core?'
First off, ownership. This core will be 'owned' by the community. Any technology or developments in this core will be available to the community and other cores as desired. Any individual will be able to take the core and spin it off into their own creation as they please.
Second off, maintenance. This core will be maintained by either a democratically elected person, a person nominated by a zone lead, a small committee, or all changes are to be democratically decided. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy should be discussed in this thread.
Third, update cycles. Currently, update cycles on many cores are on a 'it'll be updated when its done' cycle, and will be on a relatively short update cycle. Should a maintainer of the community core go missing or otherwise unable to stay as an active member of the community, that maintainer will be replaced.
Currently, each core is considered something of a work of art by their creators, and the community generally acknowledges that people should ask for permission before using the work on cores created by other people. This community core will not follow such a structure. On the maintenance aspect, the community as a whole would not tolerate the forceful remover of the maintainer of a core. This community core will not follow such a structure, and should the community desire a new maintainer(s), then out with the old and in with the new.
This thread is intended as a discussion on whether such a core would be helpful to the community. If it is, then please provide input on what you think the structure of the maintainers should be, the 'vision' of the core, and anything else you feel relevant.
Community Core Take 2
-
blackeagle0001
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:30 am
- Location: South Australia
I believe a core made by the community would be excellent.
The problem we have with cores we have now is that 1 person cant make perfect balance, because everyone has preferences in what they like to do. (Look at DN where Interceptors rule all).
With a multitude of people working on it we can make a core that will benefit everyone!
The problem we have with cores we have now is that 1 person cant make perfect balance, because everyone has preferences in what they like to do. (Look at DN where Interceptors rule all).
With a multitude of people working on it we can make a core that will benefit everyone!
-
CronoDroid
- Posts: 4606
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Contact:
QUOTE Second off, maintenance. This core will be maintained by either a democratically elected person, a person nominated by a zone lead, a small committee, or all changes are to be democratically decided. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy should be discussed in this thread.[/quote]
Democratically elected committee that represents all sorts of players and commanders alike.
Other than that, I support it. Base it off DN if you want, since it's the most popular and the core most people are familiar with, and then balance from there.
For example, use the DN icons, and leave the nine factions but balance them, if Noir, Veggy and Orion give permission, of course. Also include the upcoming factions like Omnicron, Z and maybe Effix if everyone associated gives their permission as well.
And then balance the whole thing. As the members of the CC Dev Team are already democratically elected, they should theoretically already represent how players like balance. Concerns can still be voiced in the Community Core forum.
As this is just starting up, might as well make the forum public with the latest revision/idea/etc open for community discussion with community input via forum and possibly ASGS poll and committee policy making up the first release of the core.
--------------
This is my preferred method of doing it.
Democratically elected committee that represents all sorts of players and commanders alike.
Other than that, I support it. Base it off DN if you want, since it's the most popular and the core most people are familiar with, and then balance from there.
For example, use the DN icons, and leave the nine factions but balance them, if Noir, Veggy and Orion give permission, of course. Also include the upcoming factions like Omnicron, Z and maybe Effix if everyone associated gives their permission as well.
And then balance the whole thing. As the members of the CC Dev Team are already democratically elected, they should theoretically already represent how players like balance. Concerns can still be voiced in the Community Core forum.
As this is just starting up, might as well make the forum public with the latest revision/idea/etc open for community discussion with community input via forum and possibly ASGS poll and committee policy making up the first release of the core.
--------------
This is my preferred method of doing it.
Last edited by CronoDroid on Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
blackeagle0001
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:30 am
- Location: South Australia
Possible include Loriannas Fungi Faction or whatever its called, that shows promise...
If all these factions get through, that will bring us up to 13 factions!
If all these factions get through, that will bring us up to 13 factions!
Last edited by blackeagle0001 on Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My thoughts on group size are committee of three, where all core changes must be decided unanimously. It would necessitate electing people who are overall more interested in balanced gameplay, than electing a 'fig pilot, sf pilot, int pilot' type strategy. The last thing we really need from a balance perspective is the development of 'faction parties' based on techpath or in game faction preferences.
As far as what core to base it off of, we would need permission of that core's author, making DN an unlikely starting point. Someone I believe has a core with all factions (minus Phoenix) currently in it, which would make a good starting point. Like I did for the GoD core, making a difference-log between that core and DN and then balancing from there would make a good starting point.
As far as a vision for the the core, nobody has really take a stab at it so far, so here's my shot: Balanced gameplay for all faction-techpath combinations, where balance changes focus more on balancing away from the 'norm' rather than toward it. Overpowered factions will be given new handicaps, underpowered factions given new perks, rather than removing perks or removing handicaps. New gameplay altering technology will be added, but at a slow pace, to test for balance and allow players to get used to it small bites at a time. The core will be updated on a One-month cycle, to provide enough time for obvious weaknesses/strengths to be displayed. The number of changes, however, will be lower than for a core which is updated on a much slower cycle.
Rationale:
QUOTE Balanced gameplay for all faction-techpath combinations[/quote]
If IC has a 50% win percentage, but nobody commands IC sup, it doesn't mean that IC is balanced, it means that IC sup is underpowered relative to its other techpaths. Since the other techpaths are fine (with a win% of 50%) it doesn't mean that other IC techpaths need to be weakened, but rather that IC sup needs to be buffed. Such a change would be, say, decreasing the size of IC figs.
QUOTE balance changes focus more on balancing away from the 'norm' rather than toward it. Overpowered factions will be given new handicaps, underpowered factions given new perks, rather than removing perks or removing handicaps.[/quote]
Nobody likes to play a game where every choice is the same shade of Gray. Think of how much fun Starcraft is compared to the Warcraft series. In one game, each faction is drastically different, whereas in the other, only minor differences distinguish each faction. There should be differences with each faction in how a commander manages econ, how pilots fly their ships (where possible), and how the end-game is played.
QUOTE New gameplay altering technology will be added, but at a slow pace, to test for balance and allow players to get used to it small bites at a time.[/quote]
Everyone likes new features, myself included. It keeps gameplay changing over time, and keeps renewed interest in the game. Gameplay altering technology would be along the lines of Quickfire missiles or XRM ABs, not Sig Cloak 4/5 as seen on some other cores. The rate of addition is to be kept slow to give the community time to adapt to new changes.
As far as what core to base it off of, we would need permission of that core's author, making DN an unlikely starting point. Someone I believe has a core with all factions (minus Phoenix) currently in it, which would make a good starting point. Like I did for the GoD core, making a difference-log between that core and DN and then balancing from there would make a good starting point.
As far as a vision for the the core, nobody has really take a stab at it so far, so here's my shot: Balanced gameplay for all faction-techpath combinations, where balance changes focus more on balancing away from the 'norm' rather than toward it. Overpowered factions will be given new handicaps, underpowered factions given new perks, rather than removing perks or removing handicaps. New gameplay altering technology will be added, but at a slow pace, to test for balance and allow players to get used to it small bites at a time. The core will be updated on a One-month cycle, to provide enough time for obvious weaknesses/strengths to be displayed. The number of changes, however, will be lower than for a core which is updated on a much slower cycle.
Rationale:
QUOTE Balanced gameplay for all faction-techpath combinations[/quote]
If IC has a 50% win percentage, but nobody commands IC sup, it doesn't mean that IC is balanced, it means that IC sup is underpowered relative to its other techpaths. Since the other techpaths are fine (with a win% of 50%) it doesn't mean that other IC techpaths need to be weakened, but rather that IC sup needs to be buffed. Such a change would be, say, decreasing the size of IC figs.
QUOTE balance changes focus more on balancing away from the 'norm' rather than toward it. Overpowered factions will be given new handicaps, underpowered factions given new perks, rather than removing perks or removing handicaps.[/quote]
Nobody likes to play a game where every choice is the same shade of Gray. Think of how much fun Starcraft is compared to the Warcraft series. In one game, each faction is drastically different, whereas in the other, only minor differences distinguish each faction. There should be differences with each faction in how a commander manages econ, how pilots fly their ships (where possible), and how the end-game is played.
QUOTE New gameplay altering technology will be added, but at a slow pace, to test for balance and allow players to get used to it small bites at a time.[/quote]
Everyone likes new features, myself included. It keeps gameplay changing over time, and keeps renewed interest in the game. Gameplay altering technology would be along the lines of Quickfire missiles or XRM ABs, not Sig Cloak 4/5 as seen on some other cores. The rate of addition is to be kept slow to give the community time to adapt to new changes.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
I'll volunteer all of my work towards it. I can model decently (Mostly rough work, can't texture though), I can work with cores (I've figured out most of the stuff already. Just have to figure out balance more), and (As my 'title' says) I can be pretty creative and offer up ideas.
And why would we need to base it off of a core? why not take elements from each core that the committee wants, and put them in? Like factions, weapons, etc. Sure, it may be a little more work, but I think it would be worth it for the final outcome
And why would we need to base it off of a core? why not take elements from each core that the committee wants, and put them in? Like factions, weapons, etc. Sure, it may be a little more work, but I think it would be worth it for the final outcome
