Red Beacons in a Blue base? (& vice versa)

What constitutes a gamebreaker?

Its an optional feature why would it break the game, all I am reading is a lot of fear and BS...why not try it in test and see how it works instead of going all apes*** about how it might break the system.

Not that I'm taking sides here, but not being able to get around an area where you're working counter to the established order sort of makes sense. I mean, if you're a vigilante, dishing out vigilante justice in the Rogue Isles, do you really think the villains are going to make it easy for you?

Still, I'd like to see both sides have equal access, if only for meta reasons.

Snow, you don't present your opinions as opinions, you present them as arguments and factual statements. I've told you this before.

Nobody got on your case until YOU started getting argumentative. YOU came in with an argumentative attitude.

When you present your opinions in such an argumentative and defensive manner, how else do you think people are going to react? So I took your own format, your own style, and tossed it right back atcha... and I see you didn't care much for it. That should be a clue.

As to my "agenda" for personal apartments, it is merely a counter-suggestion to YOUR "agenda" for new lounge zones... which you have repeatedly put forward in several other threads.

.

My point of view is that if enough players make enough of a stink for a long enough time then the development side of the house will have to eventually do more than pay lip service to this aspect (bases and SGs) of the game. For some time now I've been proven wrong on that point but hope springs eternal.

We are reaching the point where the devs need to decide if they want bases to primarily be (a) decorative relics of the past (raids, two games, two markets, etc.) or (b) a viable functional part of the present and future (side switching, Praetoria, incarnates, etc.). And yes, I'm talking about bases here not more "workarounds" and easy fixes such as going elsewhere or shutting people out (i.e. out of Praetoria, out of travelling, out of associating with their mates... out of the picture).

If they choose option (a), then the devs need to tell us so (rather than a line of bull). If they choose option (b), then they need to devote the resources necessary to make it happen. I, for one, was very surprised and disappointed that, on the one hand, Paragon Studios would go to such great lengths to promote "walking the line", "going rogue", "shades of gray", Praetoria, etc. and then give bases a grand total of "limbo" if you switch sides to go with GR. That was a cop out. Now, are they going to change that or not?

I abhor the "wishy washy" nature of this whole thing. I take the latest word from Positron on this to be equivalent to [*use girly man voice here*] "Well, since you bugged us so much we are going to 'dip our toes into the water again' and see what we can come up with... but you know...if something breaks...".

After years now, my sympathy level on how screwed up the base code is as a reason for not doing anything (or doing the absolute least) is running low. Let's once and for all fish or cut bait.

I agree. I have a sinking feeling that it isn't just one system they have to deal with though. What I'd really like to see is a near complete re-write of bases and group code.

On one side I don't think players have a consensus as to what they want bases for. On the other players don't have a consensus about what they don't want either.

As far as groups, that code is likely even more mired than bases. The group system in general works for the majority of players. A lot of players are now upset because a few more freedoms were given out with Going Rogue, the freedoms they wanted were not given out at the same time. Those player's expectations did not match what was given. This isn't the problem with the system, but rather the player expectations.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

Simplest possible solution to this entire mess:

• Allow characters to be a member of 1 red side SG ... and 1 blue side SG ... simultaneously.
• Auto-kick/demote due to (lack of) log in/attendance will only accrue to a red or blue SG while that character's alignment is red or blue (and thus "in" the respective red/blue SG).

It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for ...

*le sigh*

Snow, you could write the most awesome code known to man, but I'd still be of the opinion that your design would be unappealing.

.

I'm personally all for expansion of player and SG choice, and see no particular issue with cross-beaconing, providing that you code the beacon control panels properly so that heroes/villains cannot go where they're not supposed to.

I see even less issue with allowing Vigs/Rogues into opposite-side bases by team invite, and no plausible issue whatsoever if these options are enabled or disabled at the behest of the holder of the Red Star.

I am very much of the opinion that if you don't like it, don't do it; I find it somewhat distasteful to watch someone argue to restrict the options of others who would wish to use those options in ways A) different from how someone else would apply them, and that B) are not in some way causing harm.

At this point, I'm even more convinced that Snow Globe wants to be RIGHT more than constructive. By that, I mean that Snow Globe simply wants to "win" the argument more than either be helpful, or foster new ideas.

Nice meeting you.

It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for ...

Personally I could care less what path is taken to fix this so long as it truly fixes the issues at hand.

If it means rewriting SG/Base access code from the ground up as Snow suggest might be needed, I'm not against that necessarily. It might be a short-term mess for a long-term fix in the new cross-factional world. We'll have to look at the impact of that if that path is taken (or at least considered) by the devs.

If it can be fixed by simply looking at ways to revert a previous change, then so be it. It might take time to isolate the actual code in question (and then make sure it doesn't turn the fog in Dark Astoria pink mysteriously) but if that's deemed the best fix, then so be it.

I'm not against waiting months for it to be done correctly in either case.

The key thing for me is that the solution actually fixes the issue in question without resorting to another band-aid workaround fix, like adding a Trident/Crucible equivalent for Rogues and Vigilantes, and instead allowing currently existing resources that each and every SG have available to them to be used by whoever they team with. Allow the resource of bases that people deem more and more trivial to have some use instead of providing yet another redundancy somewhere else.

As an aside, this additional Rogues/Vigilantes area would need to be more accessible than either Fort Trident or the Crucible as they currently exist (as in multiple zone access to the new area), and would need to have facilities that neither of them have, such as teleport to areas that are a bit father off the beaten path. If it doesn't, then there's no point to it. Heroes and Villains are then receiving less access and utility to their respective lounges than Rogues and Vigilantes.

The idea is to make it easier to traverse the vast distances of multi-zone travel required for mishes sometimes. Red side has mishes that take you to Oakes or Mercy, as an example, and neither of those is quickly accessed from Nerva, as an example. Bases can drop you there. Blue side TFs have mishes that take you to Boomtown, Perez Park, Dark Astoria, Faultline, or Crey's Folly. None of those are easily accessed from Kings Row, as another example. Bases can take you there.

So why not embrace that functionality? That's all I'm asking here.

This whole thing reminds me so much of the pre market merge days that it's not funny. In those not so long ago times gone by there was a very vocal minority opposing the merger that fell into one of three camps:

(1) The morality purist - Villains have no right to wares obtained through heroic deeds.

(2) The "Don't see the problem crowd" - Hey I haven't noticed this effecting me and my playstyle. I can still get what I want. What we have works (can be made to work), [edit add: it must have been put into place this way for good reasons], don't mess with it.

(3) The gamebreaker - A market merge was going to cause more (other) problems down the line (Positron was once quoted in this camp).

Fortunately the market merged, the sky did not fall and the benefits were realized. Maybe lightning will strike again.

I'm a simple kind of guy (I make no bones about it). But I think it is pretty clear what most players want are: options, consistentcy, and a fair application of the rules.

To me that means (and here's where we going to disagree I fully acknowledge):

Heroes can't go into villain territory and vice versa. Got it.

If you are in SG mode and get all the exploration badges in a zone you can make the beacon that allows the base teleport to that zone (if you qualify to enter that zone).

City of Heroes fully promotes the "social association" aspects of the greatest MMO on the planet. There are co-operative zones and co-operative super groups (coalitions) of all shapes, sizes, and make-up for your playing enjoyment. The choice (super power) is yours. Play it how you like.

Sounds like a plan. Let's go for it.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, a hero or villain / loyalist or resistance is a matter of perception isn't it? How the majority of the players in the VG/SG act towards others outside the group is the what the base alignment should be.

A good idea would be that a base alignment would change via it's membership and what the leader decides it is and thus lose and gain support from the city based factions.

A base could be viewed as:
Hero / Villain / Mercenary on Primal Earth
Power Division / Resistance Cell / Corporation on Praetorian Earth

(IE. base could be a Villainous Resistance Cell that gets support from Arachnos and the Resistance or a base could be a Mercenary Corporation which only gets support via the markets)

Much of the concepts in the GR story line is spying on the other factions and fits into unified bases well. I won't go into detail because that would be a spoiler.

If a base leader is a wants a base pure hero, then they could set alignment based restrictions directly against other alignments and thus the base will be reported as Hero. This base can earn full prestige as before by Blues, and restricted prestige by Grays, an no prestige by Reds.

If a base leader is a wants a base pure villain, then they could set alignment based restrictions directly against other alignments and thus the base will be reported as Villain.
This base can earn full prestige as before by Reds, and restricted prestige by Grays, an no prestige by Blues.

If a base leader is a wants a base pure Mercenary, then they could set NO alignment based restrictions and thus the base will be reported as Mercenary. This base can earn full prestige by Greys, and restricted prestige by Blue and Reds. Base rent would be double the cost and only paid for via a market contact. [something like Syndicate or Crey]

Base alignments can only be changed once per rent cycle. When rent is paid an email message could be sent to the base leader. This message could tell them of the bases suggested alignment thus if they should perhaps change alignments.

How could base alignments play deeper into the game? Here are some ideas!
A villain using a hero transporter would be recognized by the Medical transport system as a foe and would be broken from a team then pulled right to a jail in the Zig. That player would have to do a updated version of Break Out and beam back to base or go back to the isles.

A Hero base could have extra paragon city support like stronger rezzing in the base in hero zones, call longbow reinforcement temp power, and other goodies