Talk:Allegiance (video game)

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

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)[reply]

Odd Section

"Commanders are chosen from whoever feels up to the challenge and teamwork is often mediocre due to players being unfamiliar with each other."

Can we get a source for that? --70.109.67.15 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd say that would be alright. Perhaps extending a bit on the smaller cores though. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is ... very true. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On the see also

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

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)[reply]

Is that not what the disambiguation link is for? MrHen 16:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Listing the individual squads serves little purpose. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I agree with. Jgbaxter 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Animosity implies I hate the squad, which I don't. It just wasnt a squad :shock: - TheBored

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... did you read the edit summary? WP:CIVIL --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Microsoft appears to have removed the page where one can download the source. Is there a new link? -- SpareSimian (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more investigation reveals that the Allegiance wiki has information on how to get the current source and build it. See the "Development and Mods" box at lower right on the wiki's main page. -- SpareSimian (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite, July 08

Raveen complained about this page being complete garbage so I wrote a new one pretty much from scratch. --Juckto (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Dec 08

Check General. I added a bunch of things to this article like a screenie and such.CronoDroid (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still me. There are numerous Developer Diaries floating around, like on the Academy, the wiki and probably through a Google search. These would be very helpful in the development section. I would add it but I'm flying out tomorrow. So if someone would help edit it in, it would be muchly appreciated.

Links: http://www.freeallegiance.org/FAW/index.php/Development http://www.allegacademy.org/historical/devs/devs.shtml CronoDroid (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance and Vista

Allegiance works on Vista, only stupid 3rd party firewalls (like Norton) block it. Another problem is the ACL/UAC, a new installer would easiely fix the RunAs Admin problem: AllegWiki: How do I run Allegiance without administrator rights pkk (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried again, can't connect to game. :'( [UAC on, no 3rd party firewall, admin account, SP1] --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember the forum account details and since the forum isn't viewable to guests I'll ask here, I assume mine is just a minority situation and adding Vista wouldn't be a problem? Although it already says Windows so it may be redundant. Anyways, I'll defer the decision to you. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old References Removed

Went through the references section and deleted those that no longer existed. Perhaps we should just erase all this and point a link to our own wiki? -Thalgor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalgor (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline revisions

I reapplied the storyline revisions I made earlier in the day. The previous storyline was a simple listing of facts and dates without any overall narrative. While the new storyline is still lacking an overall narrative (and needs further revision), I tried to tie together related facts (and delete unnecessary information), so at least some portions of the story flowed together. 71.72.0.105 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Clay_Pigeon[reply]

Revised release date of source

I revised the source code release date. The page previously used for reference was on archive.org. The entire Allegiance community knows the source (not the binaries) was released in 2004 and the current page (not on archive.org) reflects that as accurate. - SaiSoma —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaiSoma (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add an Actual link to Website with game

There wasn't a direct link to the website with the game (which is at www.alleg.net). Someone should add this into the article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Allegiance (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allegiance (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231003245/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_146/4815-Allegiance to http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_146/4815-Allegiance

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allegiance (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325063151/http://au.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/bestof_2000/p2_15.html to http://au.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/bestof_2000/p2_15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free and open-source

I keep thinking that Allegiance is now free and open-source, but here and on this article I see that license specifically refers to the game's source code. Additionally, I notice that the screenshots are still tagged as copyrighted (I could not tell you whether a commercial video game cover becomes free when the entire game itself also becomes free and open-source, but that is another story). Nevertheless, looking at its GitHub page, one can clearly make out that the repository contains data for the game's assets. The text of the license makes no explicit mention of the source code, instead referring to "this software and associated documentation files", and it has been distributed freely on Steam since 2017. I need to figure out whether my FOSS claim is correct, because then I may upload some Allegiance media to Commons. Free Media Kid$ 02:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]