Live Feedback: Issue 13 : Bases -- Rent & Editing

[ QUOTE ]
My feedback on bases is all subjective.

First, although it's water under the bridge and I know we're not going back now...the removal of base salvage makes no sense whatsoever, and was not well implemented. In an attempt for, as we were told, "simplicity", a new form of salvage was created (brainstorms), hundreds of convert recipes were created, storage was greatly reduced meaning that event salvage overflows in many bases, all base crafting and empowerment station recipes have been tripled, and the providing of salvage for bases has gone from something the whole group contributes to, to something the base architect has to provide from his own pocket. (Yes, theoretically everyone could contribute...but how many is that happening.) With all the issues facing bases, THIS is what they spend their time on? And apparently no one thought of the side issues of event salvage, or the way people used the conversion of invention salvage to base salvage for the crafter badges. It's a done deal, we're stuck with it, but it was a bad idea, and very poorly handled. If you'd talked to us about it before it was a fait accomplis, maybe we'd understand, and could have helped deal with the side effects and craft a better solution. This change, and even more so the way it was handled, has cost NCNC a lot of goodwill with me.

Next, there's rent. On a purely personal level, POWER being my main group, the reduction of rent is nice. However, I also run some groups of rarely-used players with a small base that owed no rent. They now will be charged rent. And because they are rarely used, they'll likely find bases shut off, and with the bugs where bases get into a 'you can't get in because you owe rent' but the SG registrar says 'you don't owe rent' requiring a petition...the time it takes to get it fixed will mean that the bases are now useless (because when those rarely played characters are played, it's for a short time).

Furthermore...what is the purpose of rent, from a game design standpoint? It used to be both a limit on excessive growth (you can't put every bit of prestige into the base without looking at the rent costs) and an incentive to keep active and have everyone contribute to keep the SG going. It was overly burdensome, particularly for large groups, but at least there was an identifiable reason for it. The reduction to being based on plot size greatly reduced the burden, and made it easier for small groups to get going. The I13 rent is so trivial that, at least if you have a few 50s in your group willing to run in SG mode, it might as well not exist. Now, it's only an annoyance for large groups, sending someone to atlas park or port oakes periodically to click on a man to keep it going. And for small SGs where the rent went up, again it's not the amount that's the issue, but that people have to periodically pay the rent--and if people don't play in that SG that often, the base may find itself shut down.

Goals and motivations are good, it's why we play games, to do stuff in the game. Annoyances aren't, they are interruptions in the game. Rent is too small to be a goal or motivation, and the process of paying rent is an annoyance. Either rent should be increased...or eliminated. If you increase the rent, it shouldn't be based on things like storage...and the very small groups shouldn't be hit by it. If you don't think you can eliminate, at least reduce the annoyance...give us an option to have the rent paid automatically when it is due (presuming there is sufficient prestige).

Pricing changes...appreciated and particularly the refund. Though I think there was one area missed...the second step towards growing a base. The one where you go from an oversight center to separate energy and control rooms, with the basic purchasable power unit and control units. Having taken a few groups over that step (and having had other groups stall out at it), lowering that step would be great.

One last thing, and in many ways, it's all of those. It's what an ex-president would call "the vision thing". Does NCNC have a vision about what bases should be, and if so, can you express it? From the cheap seats, it looks like you started with a vision of "bases are for PVP in raiding" and when that didn't work you, you've sort of been muddling along, tweaking things based on feedback and what you saw as problems. If you do have a vision, it doesn't show. Clearly, you want PVP to be part of what bases are, and while it has promise, it's not going to be the whole, or even the majority, of what the players want from bases. So...what does a big SG do with its base, what should be the experience with it. How about a small SG, say 8 people who team together once a week (or so). From the vision, flows questions of price, rent, security and permissions (much of the base design is based on big SGs...except the storage permission system really only fits the small SG). Bases are a fun and useful addition to the game, it deserves some direction and coherence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Subjective

This was a very thoughtful and well-written analysis and I agree completely.

My only other comment is the communications on the whole topic of bases needs to be more of two way street. You have heard from us (the player community) ad nauseam. When do we get to hear more from you (the developers)... especially about "the vision thing"?