Recent decisions that affect SG membership.
By
Ad Astra,
Posted on: 2011-06-23 17:23 in Base Construction
Quote:
SG membership is based on toons, not on accounts/globals.|
Originally Posted by Finrir
Going Free to Play – ... it says right in the Side-by-Side Comparison that free accounts cannot join SGs/VGs. ...
Why not let them join SGs and give them limited access?
Feel free to add to the list or correct me where I am wrong, but please keep it constructive. |
SG ranks (permissions) are given to toons, not to accounts/globals.
In order to accomplish the restrictions you are suggesting, this structure would have to change.
I can think of a few security reasons why these things really should not be based on accounts or globals.
Consider if Player A joined SG A and obtained a rank with all permissions. IF that rank were attached to the player's global, what's to stop Player A from joining SG B with all permissions and cleaning them out?
There are other reasons, I'm sure, that's just the first thing to pop into my head.
Furthermore, this is no different than how free trial accounts are currently handled.
Premium players will be able to join SGs, but not create new ones. Also, VIP players who lapse to Premium will retain their SG membership.
I see no compelling reason to change this.
.
Quote:
|
Don�t say things. What you are stands over you the while, and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary. - R.W. Emerson |
YUMMY Low-Hanging Fruit for BASE LUV
You make several good points Impish Kat...
That would add some risks if they had to do it by the global but I was assuming that there must a flag in the system for VIP/Premium/F2P per character otherwise there would be those same sort of issues for use of the Market, Crafting Tables and Incarnate TF/SFs.
I do realize the F2P accounts are essentially extended trial accounts, but my point was that if they do start to pay what will compel them to join a Super Group when they have already played for X months with out one.
Quote:
I try not to make assumptions when it comes to coding, no matter how simple it might seem at first... especially when it comes to coding for SGs & Bases. |
Originally Posted by Finrir
... I was assuming ...
|
.
Quote:
|
Don�t say things. What you are stands over you the while, and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary. - R.W. Emerson |
YUMMY Low-Hanging Fruit for BASE LUV
Lol fair point again IK
1. Topic input
2. Suggestions
Quote:
I'm both an avid base-builder and a super group leader. While I do not have coalitions, I still chat with other super group leaders who have echoed the same sentiment as this topic in respect to several of your points. Some things I agree with and others I don't, but I am interested in the development of more functional additions and/or fun rewards for SG bases.|
Originally Posted by Finrir
I am just curious if it has occurred to anyone else that a lot of the changes since i13 seem geared towards the extinction of Bases and Super groups?
|
Quote:
|
Pathing - While I love the easier stacking introduced by removing pathing, I do also miss being able to schedule base raids. I noticed a huge drop in SG Membership in all the groups I lead or I am just a member of with that change alone. Along with that I also see much less interaction between coalitions since that change also… It seems to me that they should change it so that Secured Bases have pathing enabled so that SG/VGs that want to do base raids can. |
I do agree that it is a shame they removed base raids for those who enjoyed it. Some folks prefer the controlled environment that Arena provides (duels & agreed upon restriction settings), some prefer the unpredictable challenge of PvP zones... since not all supergroups engage in PvP and not every member of a SG would necessarily volunteer to participate, I wonder if (and I realize this is somewhat a differen topic) there would a greater benefit to boosting tools for PvP 'leagues' and rewards. I have seen efforts for sign-up leagues springboard off forums but not everyone visits forums. Now that we have an in-game "league/q" system, perhaps e-mail the developers and ask about more robust group on group tools for PvP zones. It'd be great to see more epic battles wage in Recluse's Victory or Sirens (centered around capture the flag games there) because enough people were "on call" to zone in together (and not just relying on a "more heroes to RV" call in Arena chat which they may or may not notice while playing). Imagine a league window that split the teams against each other..3 teams v 3 teams for example (but not limited to or exclusive of Arena)...
If it really was the base raid itself, I wonder if they could provide a toggle of sorts. In the same way, we have different builds on characters. My only concern about it being the existing Secure plots is that some groups have chosen to use them and would lose hours to years of work. What if base raiding made decorative item intangible for the duration of the raid. No getting caught in a 10, 000 item maze. Then again, some groups might argue that mazes are part of the fun and defense.
Quote:
| Then they can return Items of Power. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Items of Power -In my opinion this was a step towards increasing SG Memberships. I mean who would not want to be in a SG that buffs all it’s members. But because they could not get the Cathedral of Pain trial working they scrapped that Idea. Well now that the Cathedral of Pain is back why haven’t they tried to bring back IOP’s? |
I'd love to see things added to SG bases that are functional but.. more "fun" than numbers affecting... so as to not affect or provide a disparity (even a perceived one) in player's abilities.
This could be anything from earning tailor NPC's in the base to improving storage to earning weekends in the Ski Lodge or allowing Sg's to set up scheduled tf's using in-base at-the-moment kiosks as sign up sheets instead of toggling to SG calenders or keeping track of who said what in a scrolling chat channel. Even AE extension desks where your SG can quickly find SG-mate created missions instead of sifting through 877664657687 arcs and trying to remember who made what. PvP training rings - how badass would it be to have a preassembled cage or ring to put in your base where folks could practice or blow off steam.. not the same as Arena but just as fun.
Quote:
|
No SG/VG access in Praetoria -Why? To me this seems like an open declaration of the end of SG/VG support by the Dev’s. I say this because many new players start playing just for the new areas. The fact that they cannot join SGs until level 20 when they leave Praetoria gets them use to traveling and finding teams with no SG support. I have had several ask me in tell “Why would I want to join a SG when it will cost me xp without gaining me anything?”
|
Strange, again, considering we use a global channel to keep in touch. But I wasn't the only SG leader I knew who felt this way. The devs did add a nice signing bonus for Praetorians at level 20 but I don't think it's about the prestige for most SG's. It's about the comradery (even for those who do earn, it's usually about the comradery while earning). [Edit] Not sure more types of groups is the answer.
----Now that our Primals are able to enter Praetoria, I wish the devs would consider allowing SG's/VG's to invite their members there as sleeper cell agents. Folks who infiltrate Cole's domain or folks who have the potential and are being lured to help Primals in retaliation.
Quote:
|
Merged Transportation – In my opinion another nail in the coffin for SGs aka “why go to the base when I can get there just as fast by train?”
|
If devs provided QoL to non SG transportation, why not even the playing field and give QoL -to- Sg transportatio? Instead of 2 beacons on a pad, maybe give us 4-6 beacons to a pad (even if the factionside you can visit remains the same) just like ferries and tramlines and copters. Less possibility of confusion when staring down 11 pads. Less cost to small, private, start up SG's.
Quote:
|
Going Free to Play – While I do agree that going F2P will bring in lots of new players, it says right in the Side-by-Side Comparison that free accounts cannot join SGs/VGs. So just like was mentioned in the Praetoria section this means a whole other segment of the population that will not experience the benefits of group membership. So when (or IF) they start paying they like the Praetorian contingent will question the value of giving up XP for Prestige sake. Why not let them join SGs and give them limited access?
|
Off topic solution yet on topic.. SG registrar would benefit from updates in the same way the team search window did. If they improved the columns and added a better search option, I'd be overjoyed. Add a column to list the global of whoever has the red star or add an option in the SG options to list a global as the "go to recruiter". Icons or added space to list type of SG: PvP, RP, PvE, Raid, etc. Sure, leaders can type that all in but I think not everyone remembers to do so and it would be great to have an AE-like filter. Sort by Group Type >>> "RP" brings up 18 pages of RP SG's. Last activity date of any member. Maybe not number of members since someone might have a SG of his 36 alts but perhaps a flag for "not inviting" versus "inviting (with 45 day flag renewal). Right now, you can search by prestige and alphabetical order. There's a wealth of SG and VG's that would benefit from returning members finding them even if officers have changed and don't post in forums.
Quote:
|
If I had more time I am sure I could find more examples of the recent detriments and ways to fix them… Feel free to add to the list or correct me where I am wrong, but please keep it constructive. |
----
Back! Can't sleep so here we go..
- Many groups I know have SG & VG sistergroups. Wasn't the old concern that folks could dip into the other populations goodies? That's changed. We're allowed to trade between factionsides now. Besides, we can't drop or take from an allied base anyway. It would provide a greater sense of comradery for groups that would have co-faction coalition chat on co-faction tf's and trials. Another concern was the RP aspect but not everyone roleplayes and there's entities we discover are evil only much later, no? I'd still want the rosters to remain "hero SG" and "villain SG" but just able to alliance. Sometimes you do work on the same assignments for the greater good. I'd call a truce with ex-patriot soldiers.
- This wasn't mentioned in your orginal post but one thing that was a "nail" for SG's was base editing in itself. The larger the member count, usually the smaller the pool of folks provided permission to edit. I know many many many many folks who choose to make their own SG and add each and every one if not most of their alts to have the perks of base editing without permission from anyone. I wish there was a way to tie in some sort of personal player housing to SG bases - best of both worlds. And I know.. a private SG of one "is" a SG but I'm more concerned about multiple player social network SG's.
XP is not affected by SG mode only inf is affected and only to 50%.
Protector Server
Woeful Knight (BS/Regen/Body Scrapper)
Kevin Christian (MC/FF/Primal Controller)
SilverCybernaut (Eng/Dev/Munitions Blaster)
Apixie OhNo (Fire/Fire/Pyre Tanker)
Y'ru Glowen (Rad/Rad/Psy Defender)
Quote:
I think that one issue is that SGs have been abandoned as the "social network" in favor of the Global Channels. SGs aren't needed for forming teams, etc., because the globals have potentially larger membership numbers, and therefore more teaming opportunities.|
Originally Posted by Angry_Angel
<Lots of very pretty colors that were hard to read on the Villains dull red background> |
Pathing was removed as a part of revamping PvP (which appears to be an abandoned developer task). I don't like OP's idea that the pathing restrictions come back in "Secure" plots. One piece of Angry_Angel's post that I agree with is
Quote:
| Extension of comment a few paragraphs above >> Correct me if I'm remembering this wrong.. I thought Secret and Secured plots have different permissions for the number of functional and auxilliary items that can be placed. While I'm more interested in function than form, again, I do know some base builders who might scream if their 10, 000 count base was rendered useless because pathing was once again reversed for the type of plot they chose to use. |
I have come to grips with the lack of "base love" and I doubt that anything will be changed from the current system. That's unfortunate, because I've seen some fansastic bases built by this community - but all of our suggestions have fallen on deaf ears for years now. But time will tell....
(BTW, OP, your thread title is a bit misleading - most of the decisions you discuss were made years ago, not recently.)
Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!
Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon
"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."
It's clear to me that CoH has been on an "SG unfriendly" track now for quite a long time. This pretty much started with the removal of SG specific activities and rewards (raids and redside SF) and continues with no real steps to accomodate SGs in the latest CoH gameplay advances (Praetoria, side switching and incarnates). I got a real chuckle when Paragon Studios went as far as to advertise "you don't have to belong to an elite guild" as a selling point for the queue feature. If that doesn't say something about how the devs want you feel about SGs nothing will.
None of the above shortcomings is an "oversight". Believe me when I say the OP's issues (and more) were raised during the closed beta process (when changes could have been made). However, when it comes down to the hard development resource choices, SGs (bases too for that matter) haven't made the cut for quite some time. In fact, the latest trend in development is an attempt to point people away from SGs (bases) by offering a host of alternatives for the individual player (for SGs it's things like global channels, leagues, and the queue).
I really cannot see the value of debating specific "solutions" suggested by the OP and others until or unless this entire development mindset changes. I'm with Ad Astra; I've pretty much come to grips with the situation as it is instead.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom (or freem?) fighter; just as one man's exploit is another man's feature.
Just a quick update as I am in meetings at work.
First thanks for contributing
You all make good points that deserve more time than I have today to carry the conversion I will reply and likely will make a couple edits to my OP accordingly this weekend.
Thanks again,
Fin
before all these changes and thing. The one thing that I found that has effected my SG the most was that when we started our SG (Troll and I) that people were only interested in a fully functional base with lots of members. Many people where not interested in helping to create a community. I love my SG and I recently just got two new ones because friends have left the game, I honestly think that yes they are trying to kill off bases and no one is interested in helping to do the work to build a good SG anymore.
Hey all just letting you all know I have not abandoned my post. I am on temporary hiatus as my elderly dad just got hospitalized. Real life agro takes president
For a more completely fair view, I suggest we also consider issues that SGs created for the game when they were more popular. If we can figure out suggestions that counter these issues it may go a way to getting the Devs to show some love for the SGs again.
Global channels also solved, in my view, one of the problems that SGs created. Many folks seemed to feel that the best way to get every member on the same page was to create conflict against another group. Now friendly consensual rivalries are one thing, but an unwarned new member getting shoddy treatment on a PUG from and "enemy" group member is quite another.
Broadcast recruitment wars would break out in starting areas and nobody won those.
In my experience with global channels, there is a greater tendency toward civility.
It's not how many times you get knocked down that count. It's how many times you get up.
Quote:
A decline in SG activity has a direct impact on coalition activity. The two are both symptoms of the same issue.|
Originally Posted by Finrir
I noticed a huge drop in SG Membership in all the groups I lead or I am just a member of with that change alone. Along with that I also see much less interaction between coalitions since that change also…
|
Quote:
| It seems to me that they should change it so that Secured Bases have pathing enabled so that SG/VGs that want to do base raids can. Then they can return Items of Power. |
Quote:
| They could match the plot sizes in Secret (unsecured) Bases to those of Secured bases so the Base Builders and Stackers among us can have their fun too. |
Quote:
| IOPs - In my opinion this was a step towards increasing SG Memberships. I mean who would not want to be in a SG that buffs all it’s members. But because they could not get the Cathedral of Pain trial working they scrapped that Idea. Well now that the Cathedral of Pain is back why haven’t they tried to bring back IOPs? |
Quote:
| Give all (group) types the ability to get Porters to all the Zones, Blue, Red, Yellow and any other they dream up in the future. This would be a boon to membership, instead of looking for a smugglers sub, going to Pocket D or RWZ only to have to then hop on another form of transportation players could again have “One stop shopping” in their respective bases. |
Quote:
| Why not let them (Freems) join SGs and give them limited access? |
All of the above aside, Ad Astra, Fire Away and I pretty much share the same boat. Paragon isn't going to do anything to fix or improve bases (SGs) when there's no real incentive to do so. I leave the hope (aka wishful thinking) to the people who haven't already become exhausted while fighting this particular battle.
Where to find me after the end:
The Secret World - Arcadia - Shinzo
Rift - Faeblight - Bloodspeaker
LotRO - Gladden - Aranelion
STO - Holodeck - @Captain_Thiraas
Obviously, I don't care about NCSoft's forum rules, now.
Quote:
Could this be GOOD news? If SG/VG are going to be part of the content you need a paid account to experience doesn't it make it more likely that the SG bases MAY become less of a red-headed stepchild and get a little attention at some point in the future?|
Originally Posted by Finrir
Going Free to Play While I do agree that going F2P will bring in lots of new players, it says right in the Side-by-Side Comparison that free accounts cannot join SGs/VGs.
|
I can see why they would keep for SGs paid players only - to try and ensure that current players don't switch to free accounts. Same reason the incarnate trials and Going Rogue content are not for free players. But it still gives me hope? Am I grasping at straws?
Founder of The Obsidian Oath as Briarthorne
Quote:
*shakes magic 8 ball*|
Originally Posted by pixelforge
Am I grasping at straws?
|
A: yes
.
Quote:
|
Don�t say things. What you are stands over you the while, and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary. - R.W. Emerson |
YUMMY Low-Hanging Fruit for BASE LUV
First of all I did not post this from the point of view of asking for more items to stack or for suggesting ways to improve decorating the bases. That horse has been beat to death in other threads. I freely admit I am a stacker, but this is to address SG/VG membership issues with recent changes.
I am just curious if it has occurred to anyone else that a lot of the changes since i13 seem geared towards the extinction of Bases and Super groups? It seems to me that the following changes drastically reduced the need/desire for new players to join Super Groups listed here in no particular order:
Pathing - While I love the easier stacking introduced by removing pathing, I do also miss being able to schedule base raids. I noticed a huge drop in SG Membership in all the groups I lead or I am just a member of with that change alone. Along with that I also see much less interaction between coalitions since that change also…
- They could match the plot sizes in Secret (unsecured) Bases to those of Secured bases so the Base Builders and Stackers among us can have their fun too.
Items of Power – In my opinion this was a step towards increasing SG Memberships. I mean who would not want to be in a SG that buffs all it’s members. But because they could not get the Cathedral of Pain trial working they scrapped that Idea. Well now that the Cathedral of Pain is back why haven’t they tried to bring back IOP’s?- See the Pathing solutions for the fix to this.
No SG/VG access in Praetoria, Why? To me this seems like an open declaration of the end of SG/VG support by the Dev’s. I say this because many new players start playing just for the new areas. The fact that they cannot join SGs until level 20 when they leave Praetoria gets them use to traveling and finding teams with no SG support. I have had several ask me in tell “Why would I want to join a SG when it will cost me xp without gaining me anything?”- Why not have four classes of Super Groups; Hero (SG), Villain (VG), Loyalist (LG) and Resistance (RG)
- See Merged Transportation.
Merged Transportation – In my opinion another nail in the coffin for SGs aka “why go to the base when I can get there just as fast by train?”Going Free to Play – While I do agree that going F2P will bring in lots of new players, it says right in the Side-by-Side Comparison that free accounts cannot join SGs/VGs. So just like was mentioned in the Praetoria section this means a whole other segment of the population that will not experience the benefits of group membership. So when (or IF) they start paying they like the Praetorian contingent will question the value of giving up XP for Prestige sake.
Why not let them join SGs and give them limited access?
- They can use the porters but can not use the salvage and enhancement bins. (thus negating potential theft issues)
- Let them have more freedom on base crafting tables and vault access.
If I had more time I am sure I could find more examples of the recent detriments and ways to fix them…Feel free to add to the list or correct me where I am wrong, but please keep it constructive.