Fire_Away

I happen to agree with you but, as you can read, "I took more than a couple on the chin" from those who felt either (1) Suck it up, or (2) Play the market to make up for it or (3) Other things should be fixed way before this.

Rather than let this morph more away from OP's point or get more ugly I backed off... but it's nice to know some people still agree with me.

Not worth quibbling over but... I may agree with you on the alpha slot in I19 perhaps but you knew stuff like Judgment granted new upgradable AoE powers when?

All I can tell you is the BAF [encounter] is not soloable (confirmed by Positron verbatim). What's doable or not doable solo/duo under the entire Incarnate system is another question.

Umm... I know you must be jesting but..before I dig myself into too much of a hole before you see the video... The term "ladder" is mine (not a devs) and is just meant to imply that incarnates are introduced in I19 and the concept continues in I20. I am clueless on the mechanics as to how doing whatever it is you are supposed to do at the BAF relates to incarnates (i.e. if you get a "shard" or anything else or if that advances you in "divinity").

Careful. My heart soars like a hawk at the renewed interest in the functional aspects of bases. But "the devil" truly is "in the details". My ears are still ringing from past insults, not from the devs... they say nothing, but from my fellow players at the mere suggestion that something might be easily doable:

["You want personal apartments? - Go build your own base. You want tailor, arena, auction house, AE? - You know where they are at. You want better storage? - Create more characters and gmail stuff. You want to travel? - Use base alternates.

Look, here's what you don't get: Dev time and resources are more precious than gold. The devs should not waste their time trying to recreate this stuff in bases (which is not trivial to do like you think) just because you want it (nao!!1!) . Bases are broken. Stop braying about it. Now, OTOH, here's my idea to... yada, yada, yada"].

You would be amazed at how quickly we players "all wanting the same thing" disintegrates. I know I was.

I'm really not trying to put a damper on things. That gets done too often as it is. But I only thought it fair to warn you that we do not suffer from a lack of ideas. Let's just say there is a lot of "momentum" to overcome that includes both an "sg unfriendly" development track record (which is actually worse than being "ignored") and player resistance to back devoting scare resources to this vice something else (like say decorate).

If you can remain optimistic through all that you are my kind of person. Let's keep pushing for it.

I don't want to dominate your thread so I'll bow out after this. But I do like what your saying here a lot and I agree it could change the "small community" dynamic overnight. It also fits in perfectly with the idea of making bases more fun for everyone. The counter auguments have been it's a bad idea to drastically export a poor kludge of a base building system (or that people should just abandon what they have done/enjoy with their SG and go solo on their own). I've never bought into that... most of the people saying that are in the same group that enjoy base building privledges with the existing editor based largely on the prestige earned by others.

I have no problem with the rest of your example as a way to improve base utility but I would not be so quick to dismiss NPC battles as another (optional) way if it could be accommodated. I'd love to have my base defenses be good for something for a change.

Regardless of what the B-man does or doesn't do, in this game I've marched into many a Longbow, Arachnos, Paragon Protector ("I don't know their faces but I know where their base is")., Council, Sky Raider, and many others base and taken on all comers. I'd welcome the opportunity for these guys to try something in my base. I get that you wouldn't and you should not be forced to...but it's certainly not out of the question or unrealistic in the context of this game.

Nope. Not me. I've always wished anybody who talks to the devs the best of luck and I always meant it. Still do. But I always thought we players were equals. Looks like that dynamic is changing right under our noses. I'm supposed to pipe down while it's set in concrete that a player Committee will officially determine priorities "for the benefit of us all" because the devs can't/won't? And I am supposed to just sit back and let this happen and then complain after it's a done deal? Pfft.

Honestly? You bet. Like you kind of implied in a snarky way, I've spent years publicly and privately promoting a base agenda based on improved functionality without success. Now it's time to throw my blind trust behind one of our premier elite decorators (the opposite of functionality) in hopes a backdoor deal is worked out that may favor something I want? Looks like there is no choice in the matter is there (they have the ear etc.)? But is it the right way to go? Should we sanction these guys as our official spokespeople? Based on their promises alone?

Seriously, dictators can get the trains to run on time. That's getting something done. But...no thanks. I know of no other Committee in any other aspect of the game that "filters" (puts their priority spin) in an official capacity on player input (through backroom secret talks no less). Talk about your "slippery slope" even under the best of intentions. And that was the reason for my anger.

Despite the rocky start (pipe down indeed!), there's still an opportunity to salvage a lot of good from this both in terms of "results" and in terms of player/dev communications "structure". I really am still pulling for it to work out in a good way.

Now I think you are on to something. Without a "business" case we become a "charity" case... and charity is doled out with resourses left over after "real" needs have been met. And we see the result... good intentions but... nada. Right now the only thing we have going for us is a sense among the devs that bases were designed poorly and they have an obligation to "one day" do something about it. That hasn't been enough.

The mindset is: On one side, there is a need for a back end fix to the base editor (think about how much that energizes a Code Team... my guess is it doesn't... and that sentiment is most probably passed along) before anything can be done to benefit a minority of players who are fortunate enough to be basebuilders. On the other side is the need to design and code the latest sexy universal game feature that will knock the socks off the entire player community. Guess who "wins" that contest every time?

It gets worse (if your are looking at it from the perspective of the need for new development). The decorative basebuilders continue to "shock and awe" the devs with their ablity to turn "lemons" into "lemonade". Today's palace looks even better than yesterday's (so let's forget that the roof leaks, it's centuries behind the times in modern conveniences, and that the needs of the many are ignored for the sake of "creativity" of the few). Why new development? The solution is... committee sponored and dev sanctioned contests? Oh brother.

So what is the business case for bases? I don't have all the answers. One possibly (good or bad) is microtransactions. Make the elite basebuilder pay real money for more tools to build bases. There is, however, another way. That is to "sell" the univeral potential of bases as having real value to the entire player community. Do that and you have a chance of competing for scare development resources. Otherwise, we should prepare to accept whatever "endowment for the arts" we receive whenever it comes along.