Emmert on Lessons Learned From City of Heroes
By
Aeoleon,
Posted on: 2006-11-01 14:55 in Base Construction
After reading this article and being one of the many solo base owners that has been incredibly frustrated with the base building aspect of the game since I nabbed Villains, my main and only questions is - so if Jack knows that there are a lot of folks that are still really ticked by the whole base building experience, what's he planning on doing about it and do we have to wait 3 or 4 more issues before the concerns are addressed?
Here is a idea i have been kicking around for some time now. How to get more people interested and involved in bases?
Personal apartments seem to be a heavily requested item but that could eat up a lot of programing time for the Dev team for somthing that is just fluff. What about a Base "Bank Room" that could be built with different size footprints. The Bank wouuld allow a safty deposit box for each character in the SG and would have a code lock (so you could use it for a alt). Say something like on a 2x2 Bank 5 item storage per box, 10 on a 3x3, 15 on a 3x4 ect.
This would give every SG member some involment and personal use in the Base system. Hey face it most of us like to share in the team goals but want to keep some loot personal 
. And while i'm making a wishlist maybe 99,999 influence/imfamy could count as 1 item in storage.
any intrest in this?
@Fishy
[ QUOTE ]
Personal apartments seem to be a heavily requested item but that could eat up a lot of programing time for the Dev team for somthing that is just fluff.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would almost dare say that bases are nothing but fluff too not to mention, a poor substitute for something a lot of people really do want - personal apartments. The dev's need to make the time for this. People want personalized space - end of story. Buying CoV and having to struggle as a soloist to have this space is ridiculous and incredibly frustrating. In hindsite, personal apartments should have come first, bases second.
I do however, do like your idea for a 'bank' area. Any place that players in an SG can do their 'own thing' is always a nice option.
I USED to allow the SG to modify the base until I entered one day to find my nice arcane base changed into a tech base and 6 telepads gone. Huge loss of salvage. Base changes became top tier that day and even now I'm reluctant to promote to the top level.
36 level 50's in various servers...haven't been here in a while. It's now over 50
I don't like the fact that base editing is so vital it denies people positions of leadership. It's amazing to see SGs giving out Kick permissions to Rank 4, but not Base persmissions until Rank 5.
again, to be constructive, the solution seems 2-fold. 1) Prevent deletion of crafted items when they are removed. 2) Keep a log so we know who trashes the base - after all, it tracks who PLACES every single item, why not track who removes it?
Im on a 3 div sg, one for mains, alts and level 50's, I would like it where you could just combine all 3 prestige amounts and have one huge base imo.
My Lego Models http://www.flickr.com/photos/30369639@N07/ lemur lad: God you can't be that stupid... I'm on at the same time as you for once, and not 20 minutes into it you give me something worth petitioning?Lady-Dee: Hey my fat keeps me warm in the winter and shady in the summer.
Well, there's another strategy. Five ranks allow you to do a lot. Some set up a temp/edit only rank.
Chief Hamster of the Fist of Justice / Shadows of Victory
Victory Server: Join Victory Forum for team forming and general game chat and IRC Chat: irc.hashmark.net #victory for offline chatting.
Rock, rock on Hamster.
[ QUOTE ]
I learned how to, for teleport rooms, raise our Tech Porters up 2 floor levels with 0 ceiling, and place the beacons BENEATH each Porter so there was no question which Porter the beacons applied to.
[/ QUOTE ]
*bonk* why didn't I think of that?!? Great idea, I'm stealing it!
Craft your inventions in AE!!
Play "Crafter's Cafe" - Arc #487283. A 1 mission, NON-COMBAT AE arc with workable invention tables!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I learned how to, for teleport rooms, raise our Tech Porters up 2 floor levels with 0 ceiling, and place the beacons BENEATH each Porter so there was no question which Porter the beacons applied to.
[/ QUOTE ]
*bonk* why didn't I think of that?!? Great idea, I'm stealing it!
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but we didn't like the way the stairs look with that (arcane / stone stairs - dunno how tech looks). So we dropped the ceiling and put the beacons above each teleporter. You can just stand at the entrance to the room, angle your camera up slightly and pass the mouse pointer over each beacon to read them.
Paragon City Search And Rescue
The Mentor Project
[ QUOTE ]
F.ex, my bases have zero decorative rooms; none. Another guy wants a big meeting hall with a huge conference table, though ... just to have it. Never mind it consumes footprint, serves no functional purpose, and we'd never meet in it. We have different priorities.
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm actually a bit shocked reading this on the same thread that complains about which dev cares what the people want and which dev doesn't. Being the leader of a SG/VG you should consider yourself a mini-dev. In our guild we ask people to play in SG mode "when ever fiesable". This basically means that if you aren't trying to buy enhancements, some new gear, or bank rolling a new toon or 2, we want to see you helping the cause. In exchange for this, I have never made a base that's an 18 million prestige homage to myself. If a rec room gives your group some positive morale and something that they can feel happy for contributing to, then by all means, spend some prestige on them! Why do you think the government spends tax dollars on parks? Personally, when I took over my group (a position I have since relinquished) I wanted to build a tech fortress in an attempt to massacre the few groups on our server that continuously grinded my nerves; but I knew that if I did this, I would lose the support of the men and women good enough to wear our tag above their noggin. If you work hard to create an atmosphere in which people feel that they are all working together they will find it hard not to want to contribute in what ever way possible to repay that debt. (Economics: the study of how motivation affects the choices people make when faced with limited resources)
Now floating around on this thread I've seen the idea of Global spots on the SG roster discussed. I love this idea, but I see the same potential problems that most others do. For starters, we're a large group, so I usually don't have a problem finding someone with invite permission online at most times that I play; but for smaller groups, this would be a great way to get in from the moment you reroll. Now in the past we've had to create as many as 5 groups to hold all of our alts. Freeing up these slots would cut down on a lot of paperwork and confussion. We already have a problem trying to figure out who's alt is who's, and this would surely clear it up. Tieing into that, prestige has a lot, but not everything, to do with promotions in our group (like it does with so many others), and has always been a point of bragging rights. Having a prestige total next to a Universal name would go a long way in understanding not only who is who, but who's contributing what. That being said, my concerns on this topic are two-fold.
First of all, as much as I would love to see players get tied down to my group alone, I can't say thats exactly fair. If a player has 3 main toons in 3 seperate SGs, how would it be decided what SG what toon plays in? Would they simply be able to change in and out of SG's on every toon as easily as they change costumes? And if so, does this not violate the integrity of base storage?
My second concern would be the use of global handles. Quite frankly, at no point in time would I want everybody that joins the SG to get my global id, and I think many others would like to see that privacy ensured as well. If this is done, I hope that the option of creating a SG ONLY chat handle will be included.
[ QUOTE ]
My second concern would be the use of global handles. Quite frankly, at no point in time would I want everybody that joins the SG to get my global id, and I think many others would like to see that privacy ensured as well. If this is done, I hope that the option of creating a SG ONLY chat handle will be included.
[/ QUOTE ]
There would be ways to group SG Membership by global without actually showing the global.
There would also be ways to communicate to someone globally without using the gobal chat. (For example, I think email should be received by the account, regardless of what character you're on.)
but I think the real solution would be to adjust a SG Permission. Ability to see a global would be given out as a permission. That way you don't have to let any new recruit see who you are.
Now, does a new recruit have to reveal their global? Maybe have a personal setting to hide it. Maybe a loss of a bit of anonymity is a requirement for joining a particular SG - just go find a different SG that doesn't ask for it to be shown.
my point is: you have valid concerns. I hope they are factored in to the improvements instead of letting them hold back SG improvements.
[ QUOTE ]
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
Gah! Redname post in the base construction forum?!
Oh <bleep!>, they actually HAVE been reading.
Hide the beer bottles QUICK! And get some pants on the dancing catgirl!
Oh man... if we'd known we could have like cleaned the place up or something...
@Mindshadow
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can see why they would think that from your replies on the matter as well. You seem to cast the problem not as "costs too high" but as "percieved value to low." In other words the design was fine, but players don't value their "community" enough to contribute to it.
Regardless I'm glad that progress continues on bases. I've started really getting into the design of my very small SG base for the first time recently and I know one feature I would really appreciate would be something along the lines of a base template. In costume creation it's sometimes helpful to use the random feature for inspiration. It would be a lot easier to personalize a standard design rather than having to start from scratch.
[ QUOTE ]
I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay!
[/ QUOTE ]
That never stopped you from stubbornly sticking to your design and forcing a gameplay change before.
Defense Decrease
Enhancement Diversification
Max Targets per attack
Archvillains
etc.
What I think was most amusing is that the Devs thought everyone would have a claim to bases because of personal items.
I would guess that at least 70% of players don't even realise they place items in the base without special permission. I know the leaders in my SG were stunned to find out they couldn't stop me. It is like Newspeak, it you tell people they can't do something enough they believe you. lol
All the base designers do is sell it all as soon as you place it, so it serves no real point anyway.
Other SGs stop it by not putting in any work tables. They just build them when the architech needs to build something then sell them immediately. Not that the tables are terribly decorative. 
----------------------------
You can't please everyone, so lets concentrate on me.
[ QUOTE ]
I can see why they would think that from your replies on the matter as well. You seem to cast the problem not as "costs too high" but as "percieved value to low." In other words the design was fine, but players don't value their "community" enough to contribute to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Boy, your interpretation would not have occurred to me. In classic economic theory, if my "perceived value" of that widget in the store is lower then the price tag on it, its not my fault as the consumer. It may or may not be the stores fault, but its certainly in their interest if they want me as a customer to lower their cost/price until I want to buy it (using "I" in the aggregate here, there are a lot of things in stores that I'm never going to buy regardless of the price ).
I read what he wrote as them wrongly projecting the relative values players would assign to things. Thats a tough thing to get right on something as complex as a base, especially when they were trying to set up a whole new "economy" around it (prestige) at the same time. So far changes have been in a direction that shows they see their mistake, i.e. higher prestige generation and cheaper small sg bases.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dunno if anyone else said it, but for me, the very idea that I had to purchase CoV after having been a CoH subscriber to get bases left a VERY bad taste in my mouth, and as such, bases, from the get go, were doomed for me.
The other issue for me is that they exist "outside" of the "regular" CoX world and cuts you off from contact with the virtual world. It's not integrated into the world, so why bother?
Just my 2 cents.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
How about making the base teleporters teleport you to where you want let you choose a set waypoint? thats a design problem
and yes you blame the players for not loving your "cool" ideas
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good in theory, not so much in reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can see why they would think that from your replies on the matter as well. You seem to cast the problem not as "costs too high" but as "perceived value to low." In other words the design was fine, but players don't value their "community" enough to contribute to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the use of the term "perceived value" indicates that there is a inherent practical value that is hard to discern or is being overlooked. With Bases, that continues to be debatable, even with the current changes.
The repetition of "perceived value" tends to convey the idea that the designers created something that players just don't 'get', but will eventually if it's explained better. I'd like to think that the design people who actually work on Bases 'get' that players understand all the explanations, moved past the explanations, and have offered detailed feedback on how to enhance the product (Bases) so that the practical and percieved value are more in sync with actual gameplay trends, rather than idealized gameplay trends.
There's no sin is missing the target a little. It is sinful to drag one's feet in adjusting to the situation on the ground.
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless I'm glad that progress continues on bases.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
So... bases aren't fun, but they made it into the game anyhow. But isn't that the reason why the big skills system never made it into the game, being cut before any players had a chance to see and test it --not fun?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay!
[/ QUOTE ]
That never stopped you from stubbornly sticking to your design and forcing a gameplay change before.
Defense Decrease
Enhancement Diversification
Max Targets per attack
Archvillains
etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually liked those changes.
"His Imperial Majesty's Minister of Restraints and Leather" -LHF
Two naughty acronym teams / Ascension / Convenient / Artic and the Chillz / Fap / Other teams I can't remember (sorry.. mind is goin')
[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That pretty much nails our design on bases. We're slowly but surely making additions and changes based on feedback & data. We'll get there...I think bases are a case study where a design didn't mesh well with actual gameplay! For some odd reason, some posters have thought my Serious Games speech blamed the players; heck no! Bases are 100% a DESIGN problem. Not a player problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, it wasn't just a design problem, it was a PROCESS problem. Not once did you ask the player base what they wanted to get out of a base, and instead made assumptions. Had you spent the time to actually ask, DESIGN wouldn't have been an issue.
[ QUOTE ]
So... bases aren't fun, but they made it into the game anyhow. But isn't that the reason why the big skills system never made it into the game, being cut before any players had a chance to see and test it --not fun?
[/ QUOTE ]
Bases were supposed to be fun, and in theory they are. The implication is that no version of the skill system they could come up with would be anywhere near as 'fun', even on paper.
Lots of implementations that should work on paper fail to work out in reality. Take original Martial Arts, for example. Likewise with Trick Arrows, Regen, Gravity Control's Fold Space, dominators at launch, mayhem objects that scale to your level, and level 54 heroes in the Recluse Strike Force. Thousands of determined min-maxers can produce abuses a handful of developers would never dream of, which breaks the system in all sorts of unforseen ways.
It's a little silly to damn the devs every time something doesn't quite work out in practice, since perfection is impossible.
The important part is that the devs fully recognize that bases kinda suck, and are trying to do something about it. In lieu of perfection, refinement will do.
Even if you have to sometimes prod them repeatedly to actually get around to said refinement *coughfiremanipulationcough*
Arc #41077 - The Men of State
Arc #48845 - Operation: Dirty Snowball
an alternate idea, without adding in all the globals, would be to have both active and innactive rosters.
Innactive members can't enter SG Mode, can't use the base, can't talk on Coalition chat. Pretty much can't do anything except reactivate themselves. (This gives you something to trade off if you're innactive.)
Tie the ability to activate/innactivate members to the ability to promote/demote. (Plus, obviously, you can deactivate yourself.)
Limit the active roster to 75 characters, still keeping the limts the Devs need, like for how many people fit on one map. The innactive roster could then be pretty much unlimited.
All this is simply a way to rotate characters in and out of the 75 character roster without having to worry about join-on dates and prestige totals, without having to track down someone online to re-invite you, without having to get re-promoted after a re-invite. etc. etc. Just gives an easy way to do the type of micro-managing some SGs already do with alt groups.