Talk:Allegiance (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

The information here should be more "encyclopedic". I don't think subjective phrases like "exhilarating fast-paced" or "sharp (3d graphics)" should be used, and before talking about factions, core etc. the entry should explain what a faction or core is. Finally references should date the content clearly or not at all - "currently most popular" doesn't work, for instance. -- Spunky

Agreed, Also needed is a listing of the different cores, and possably differences between them. -Reboot

Who does this page? What are your user names in Alleg? You can probably tell who I am... User:CronoDroid

Gah. Someone just needs to sit down and rewrite this entire thing, for many of the reasons above and just because the grammar use, spelling, and descriptions are all piss poor. I read a little bit a second ago and after tasting the literary equivalent of vomit, rewrote it. Then read some of the rest and realized the entire article is like that. Someone claw out my eyes. -Reg

Do you complain everywhere you go? (although in this case it's justified) I'm assuming you're Regarius@XT  :P -CronoDroid

This seems more a manual then an encyclopedia page. Titles, nice big blocks of info on cores and factions. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] @ACS

Iirc allegiance command school is now closed... Or what? Surely I haven't seen anyone tagged since mid february(?). Perhaps we should remove that section? badpazzword 08:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Please don't misunderstand me. I didn't want to join @ACS (1. I would have aked in the forum; 2. I still need to graduate from @CDT (err -- seems like 90% of the games I join are wins for the other side); 3. If I wanted to get a command win, I should practically avoid anybody above (3) -- but I digress). I just thought the information about @ACS in the article was outdated. Thanks for your information. --badpazzword
 : This probably isn't the place to discuss community issues. --Jgbaxter 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cores

Isn't the listing getting... bloated? For example bacon core and race core are completely un-needed. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's possible. Maybe we should create a separate article for Allegiance cores, to keep them for the completeness? pkk 11:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that would be alright. Perhaps extending a bit on the smaller cores though. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you define a smaller core? DN is atm one of the most played cores, all other cores are debased (but they aren't)?!
Plus: In the last months nobody did realy play on it.
GoD: ATM very active.
PC: ATM inactive?
EoR: RT and a few others only.
Race: Fun core, inactive...
RPS: Another fun core, but little bit more activity.
AW3/4: inactive
ZoomCore: inactive, precursor of PC
BeaconCore: inactive, precursor of RPS
pkk 11:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By small I meant the amount of writing on it. Sorry, shouldn't have been so ambiguous :)
Personally I think only the active cores and ones with rich histories should be listed. Though... rich is subject. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MMO?

I tend to think that the basics of a "massive" multiplayer game is a persistent world. Does this game have one? I never played it, just went along, but from the text it seems more like "persistent lobby" from which you can create the individual games.... That's not a MMO. --Tartaros 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is ... very true. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It does support hundreds of players (up to 350 on the same server), it hasn't a offline mode (training missions only), you can't play against bots and you need at least 20+ players to have a "real" game. So it's a massively multiplayer online game, you can't compare it with games like Battlefield 2. pkk 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's cause it occurs over a much larger area with RTS elements. Also FPS games tend to need some players, more then a handful (subjective) to be entertaining. It can handle more players and needs more players then your conventional FPS but that is an aspect of it's design rather then it being an MMO. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I always thought Allegiance was much like Battlefield 2 besides the whole point about being unable to play it offline with bots. CronoDroid 07:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start-Class rating

"This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale." (from top of the page)

"The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

  • a particularly useful picture or graphic
  • multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article"

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment)

So all we need should be a screenshot I guess? badpazzword 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor/Major update

Before you revert in rage my latest edit, let me explain why I changed:

  • FAZ 1 was just MS's source compiling without errors. I agree "minor" is big of an overstatement, but from the end user point of view very little changed.
  • FAZ 2 most exciting feature was the lobby PM thing and the sound engine probably. Yes, I'm forgetting you're not allowed any more to give orders to enemy drones. Nothing great either.
  • FAZ 3 brings Allegiance to DX8 (which has a great impact on the (college) users point of view, fixes the sound engine and much more. Many little nuisances are to be fixed (Command wing, etc.) and handy feature will be implemented (pop up menus). I don't need to quote TE's entire post to let you see the changelog is pretty long. Moreover, a poll was created to see if everybody was satisfied and ASGS was spammed to verify people knew of the poll. This is a major update, IMHO.

This is not in any way to say that the Devs are worked far more on FAZ 3 than on (eg) FAZ 1 -- we know the reality is quite the contrary. But for the user, little changed.

Now that I said the reasons behind the edit, feel free to revert. badpazzword 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the see also

What purpose does the "See also" have in the beginning paragraph? MrHen 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For moving back and forth through different meanings of Allegiance, especially if they came through a search engine --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that not what the disambiguation link is for? MrHen 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh... that see also. You did say first paragraph :/ That should be in the see also section. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DooM

Sorry, jgBaxter, but DooM is not listed in http://asgs.alleg.net/asgsweb/squads.aspx, nor there is any reference to it in the Allegiance boards or blogs. You even OWN a blog there, so it was just a matter of posting. Therefore, it cannot, in my and probably in pkk's opinion, be considered an official squadron.

Please do not start an edit war (see WP:EW, WP:CON). Do it for the kittens :P --badpazzword 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you or pkk think. According to the Alleg Constitution it's a squad. Jgbaxter 11:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing the individual squads serves little purpose. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that I agree with. Jgbaxter 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
@Doom a squad, ever? XD ROFL... good call to remove all of the squads though ;) -TheBored
TB, try keeping your animosity to yourself. Jgbaxter 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Animosity implies I hate the squad, which I don't. It just wasnt a squad :shock: - TheBored

[edit] Article split

At the moment, the article is in a dismal state and speaks more on FreeAllegiance than Allegiance which is the subject of the article. Perhaps a split is needed? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not needed, most people would see them as one and the same, different periods in history. However the article needs some major work, I'll try doing some cleaning up over the next month. Jgbaxter 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you going to fuck up the whole article. TheSeer removed Effix, because it's not a original faction, but he left Dreg and GT, which were also none MS factions. If you wanna clean up this article, remove them all, better remove the whole article! pkk 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
... did you read the edit summary? WP:CIVIL --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I realize you're going for a tighter look, the thing of it is you're cutting too much. Jgbaxter 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code-Injection into Windows XP's "svchost.exe" - A Generic Issue itself

Apparently, since R4 (the fourth release in november 2007), "Allegiance.exe" is interrupting the Windows Generic file called "svchost.exe" with a permanent code-change to.

For what is that needed and explained? Anyone any idea?

At all, FreeAllegiance looks devoloping itself to a more unstable plattform; comparable to the time where computer-games - like shooters in the last millenium - had hundreds and thousends of games in their lists, a thread to the own computer - just unrecognizable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.41.69 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, just check out the sourcecode: http://svn.alleg.net:8080/svn/Allegiance/branch/FAZR4/src/
I don't get your babbling about shooters... pkk (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Source?

Correct me if I'm wrong but what I've gathered from the game's listing in the 'Open Source games by genre' article, and had trouble gathering from the article, is that the game is now open source... if that is in fact a branch, the article should be split... and if that is in fact the game itself, then I feel more emphasis, or more clarity should be put into the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeotronic (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can download the source code of Allegiance, it's released under Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement (MSR-SSLA) (like MechCommander/MechCommander 2). It's all about the definition of open source...
pkk (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)