Dacy

Works in Progress (WIP) are welcome! You can still benefit from comments, even when it's not finished. 🙂

And yet, later in the post, you pounce on the fact that I "admitted the editor was poorly written". In the same post as this quote, where there is an "unspoken rule" to not be critical of anything. Uh oh, looks like that logic's blown, bc there I am, being critical!! You ask why I am "allowed" to be critical, and yet you are criticized ("not allowed") for it. I will set out some examples of why I think you are getting this reaction. First of all, of course you are allowed to be critical. Discussions of opposing opinions do not mean one is allowed and one is not. I already told you, you do you, and I told you why I prefer a positive approach. But see, when I say "it's poorly written", that was agreeing with your point of criticisms about its ease of use. Yes, you're right, it's not written in such a way that you can do complex builds easily as in, plop, poof, done. But neither is it horribly buggy. It works as it is programmed to work, and when you understand how it's working, as these very experienced base builders testify, it IS easy for us to use. That is a perspective. That is subjective. You have been trying to "drive stick" without taking into account that you need to learn to how to drive stick and practice before you can be any good at it. Telling future builders that "the editor is buggy and horrible to use" might be true for you from your perspective, but it does not help them learn how to use it. If I say something critical, like, "it IS poorly written" I then will go on to tell you why you're having the problems you are, and what to do about them, whereas you are only weighing in on how miserable your experience was. What in that helps someone with their problems? When more experienced editors say, hey, this is how you address that, and it's easy, again, that IS their perspective, and I believe it's meant to give hope to the builder. It gets easier as you learn how. Saying that the editor is to blame might help someone feel better short term (it's not me, it's that horrible program!), and of course, if you prefer to blame bad programming instead of learning how it can be used, that's really the only approach that will make you feel better about yourself (not saying that's how you are thinking, that's a nonspecific "you"), but if you want to improve as a builder, it's a dead end. What people have said here is that improvement will take time and patience. That's not misrepresenting anything, that's perfectly true. It's also true that many do not want to put in time and patience, and that, as I see time and time again, is where the dividing line lies. Would people do more in the editor if it was something like the Sims, where you can just click and 'poof', a wall appears, complete with decoration? Yes, I know they would. Could we create as much as we do in an editor that's programmed to do such specific things? No, we could not. So it's a trade off, and guess what, we don't get a choice about it. This is the editor we have. So my perspective is, it's better to help people learn its ins and outs, than to point out flaws without solutions. I get that you feel your feedback was constructive. I think you have the approach that likes to point out problems with things, so others are aware of them; I'm aware this is a mindset for some. However (paraphrasing) "tried it, didn't work like I wanted it to, didn't like it, so I quit" to me, just doesn't encourage someone who's having problems. Now, if this had been a topic about "what's wrong with the editor, and why aren't more people using it", then yes, your feedback would have been pointing out what is wrong, in your experience. But really, this topic went off the rails when people reacted to Etched using the word "easy". To those who have tried to just jump in and edit and found that the editor is not very intuitive or self-explanatory, and who quickly got frustrated because they did not understand why things were behaving as they were, I can understand why "easy" is not a term they would apply. But for those who take the time to learn how to use the editor, which really isn't very long, and then keep at it, it will become easier and easier. It really is rather like stick shift driving. Beginners in stick often make the car lurch and stall, and people who don't know how to drive stick can wind up going nowhere because, for instance, they don't know they have to engage the clutch before they shift. However, this is the kind of engine race car drivers use. To get to be a race car driver, you need to get really good at using a stick shift, and I'm sure there is much you also need to learn. Not everyone wants to be a race car driver, and that's fine, but they can still use stick in a regular car, smoothly without undue effort, once they know how, and they're happy with that. Some people don't want to mess with a stick shift car and so won't drive one, and that's also fine. But just because it's more complicated to operate doesn't make it a horrible car. It just has a learning curve. And I'm not trying to "disallow criticism" and, how did you put it? Obey the "unspoken rule of not criticizing anything in this game", I'm trying to give you perspective from someone who's very very familiar with the editor. I rather think this imagined "rule" you think exists is more along the lines of "people don't like to hear others talking smack about something dear to them". This game is famous for how much people love it. We love it so much we brought it back from the dead. No one is getting paid to do anything here, so it's all just personal choice to participate at whatever level. The base editor may have its flaws, but it also has been given even better new life, and those of us who love to create, adore what we can do and love spending our time there. You are getting an emotional reaction because your criticism comes across as an attack on something dear, and that's about as much as I can explain things. There is no "rule"; people just aren't going to let it go by without comment when someone say things that, in their experience, is incorrect. Disagreement is not censure. I'd really have to see these items you say are moving. I have a base I've been working with, literally for years, with HUGE shift issues, and I know of a few other bases like this, and none of these bases have had shift since they fixed it. People who edit a lot have all agreed, it's been fixed. I tend to trust it when a lot of experienced people say the same thing, but I'm always watching for problems and exceptions. And as for bugs, I would say that the vast majority of the time, the problem lies with the user's understanding of the situation. It is very difficult to find an error that is not actually a user error, but I have found a very small number of them. Since that number IS very small, I do not agree that the program is "buggy". I don't think we are actually even disagreeing here, just focused on different things. You want the program to be easy and intuitive and fast, and it's not. That's an obvious fact. And it's not one I hide. I will agree that it's not intuitive or beginner friendly, that's WHY I make the videos. I will agree that manipulating hundreds and even thousands of items can be tedious. I will also point out, there, that we manipulate far fewer items than a RL building would take. However, I will say that, even with things like this being true. there is nothing all that difficult about what you need to learn to use the editor, and the trade off is, you can let your imagination run wild as to what you might create. I will say also that it becomes easier until it is actually easy to use, and this just takes time and patience, with a bit of determination thrown in. Will everyone want to do that? No, but everyone CAN if they WANT to, and THAT is my point. And I understand that you understand that it's a mater of perspective, and you don't want to, and that's fine. I just disagree with "there still are many issues with how the editor works." For people willing to learn, there are no big issues with the editor. There are issues with some items we really should have for basic building blocks that are not there. The disagreement, then, is simply on the preference and the focus. You prefer an easier editor. There would be trade offs in flexibility and creative use, if we got that (but we're not going to get it). You think the current editor is buggy and difficult to use. On this, we disagree. Experienced editors all seem to agree, with time, it's actually easy, and having answered many calls for people with problems, I've found that it's rarely the program, but more often a misunderstanding, that is causing the error. If you learn how to use the editor, and give it some time and practice, you can be editing easily, too. I do believe this, and that is why I keep trying to teach people.

@Snarky, I really really HOPE you are using the surface tiles (col), that is, the surface tiles with collision. The surface tiles without collision will not be visible for anyone out of editing mode! However, I must point out that surface tiles (even the ones WITH collision) were intended as building TOOLS, not as building ITEMS. There are stars on the surface of the surface tile with collision that are only invisible on the blackest black setting (both colors must be black). The dev did not want these items used as building materials, and they have not been programmed to react to light. This has been used to advantage by some such as Vexxillion, who used a white surface tile with collision to imitate window lighting in outside buildings, but as part of a building, it may look odd. I'm not trying to discourage you from using them, but I am trying to make you aware of their properties so you can choose what you want to do. Ledges (in the structures tab) have been used by many in building buildings. They have two sides, but I will tell you, they do not function as floors in the editor. (They are also quite dark.) Yes, your character can walk on them outside of the editor, but you can't place items on them and have the items sit on top of them. To make them into a floor surface while in the editor, place a surface tile at the level of the floor, and then you can place items as if the ledge was a floor. This goes for any item not seen as a "floor" by the editor. You are attempting a complex build, and I understand you want easy shortcuts, but to do what you are wanting to do, there is no built-in plop in place item. I can show you a few things that may work, but understand that you'll get the best result if you take a little time to learn what works for what you want to create the best, and few if any of these options will likely do an entire floor in one go the way you want it done; several may do it well, but in more than one piece. A complex build is simply going to take some time and patience, and typically, a bit of time spent figuring out the best approach. Again, I am happy to come to your base and help you if you'd like, to the best of my ability.

Also, just had to directly respond to this. If you don't see that 1) being able to undo things 2) being able to lift things with key commands and your mouse instead of by stacking floor items, and 3) shift not being an issue anymore as "still (not) solv(ing) any of the other myriad of issues" with the editor, I doubt there is anything anyone here can say that is going to change your attitude of negativity. The editor is not well written. No one here is claiming otherwise. However, when you realize HOW it was programmed, why it is acting the way it is (which is entirely a matter of how it was programmed to act, not "buggy" behavior), you learn how to work with it. It's like getting into a stick shift and calling it buggy because it's not a standard and doesn't behave like a standard. No, the stick isn't buggy, it's a stick shift. You learn to drive it as a stick shift, not as a standard shift. A beginner will get a lot of stall outs and gear grinds from a stick, but that doesn't make the car a bad car. Race cars have stick shifts that professionals get more out of than if they were standard shifts. It's a matter of learning to drive the car you have. We don't have the easiest or most intuitive editor, but we do have one of the most flexible ones (and therein lies its programming difficulties.). And we can get great things from it, but yes, that takes effort, and I don't think anyone is minimizing that. No one is out there advertising that the editor is quick and effortless, or in here saying that, for that matter. But it's also not the impossible PITA that you seem to be saying it is, at least not from our experiences. I'm sorry that was your experience, and I'd be happy to show you why things were jumping all over, and how to keep them from doing that. Grabbing items you don't want to grab...I know that's a pain, it comes from the fact that the item boxes have to be square or rectangular and accommodate the widest point of the item...and so you can be under, say, a tree, and although you don't THINK you're intersecting that item box...you are, and so the computer grabs it for you. Annoying, yes. To me, knowing that some things are going to get grabbed more easily just means I put those things in last. Not a bug. Not optimal, but as programmed, it's what we have to work with, and just knowing how it works, I can deal with it. Some people can't. And I wish I could make that better for them, and I wish the editor WAS easier to use, but all I can do is what I do: show people how to use it, encourage them to try, and let them decide for themselves if they want to do more with it or not. I feel this is much more likely to get people to at least try, than to go around talking about how much of a pain it is, especially when, at this point, that is not my feeling about it at all. Now, yes, the editor does sometimes have weird errors, but truly, these are not common. I know, I get called about these all the time. Typically, when I go into the base, the error is in something the user was doing or not doing, not a true "bug" where the code is doing something the code should not be doing. (But a computer will always do what you tell it to, so that's a matter of figuring out what we programmed that we didn't mean to program.) But every so often, I do find something that is legitimately not something the user did or did not do. But mostly I find that it's a matter of someone thinking that the editor should work in a way it's not programmed to work, and it's a matter of educating them on how it's actually working so they understand what it is they need to do. There is nothing I can do about how the editor is programmed, but there is a lot I can do about teaching people how to get the most out of it.

Well, didn't feel I was "glossing over" or "trying to sell" anything, tbh. WHERE in what I said did you get that impression?? I DO, however, have a personal belief that carping about things solves nothing. Focusing on the negatives only ever makes them more dominant. You can block out the moon with your thumb by focusing on it instead of the larger moon; doesn't make your thumb actually larger, it just makes it seem larger. This perspective comes from a personal trek through hardship, and learning to focus on the bigger picture, not the bumps in the road, not any effort on my part to "build community" or any sense of 'towing the line". No one from "up high" tells me anything, much less dictates a policy on how we should talk about things, nor do I feel like dissing the editor is casting shadow on the current dev team. Yes, the editor could use some reprogramming. It won't get it. We have too few devs, and part of the part about "just how many base builders are there" defense WAS because we get glossed over and dismissed, imo, all too frequently as being not substantive and therefore, easy to ignore. I may not feel the need to "build community" (it's built itself, imo, I'm just a focal point), but I DO want to shout out that WE ARE HERE, and WE MATTER, because that is possibly the only way we MIGHT get a better editor some day. But I also understand the limitations. Not only is the code old, spaghettified, and intractable, but any modifications have to allow current bases to be able to still be edited. That has to be a TALL order, especially when the code itself was so complex and horrible that the Live devs wouldn't even touch it. They had no idea how to even approach it. So, yeah. The editor can be a pain. However, I think what you see as "glossing over" are simply people who have learned to use it, which becomes automatic after a time, and so it IS easy to use...for them. And some of us enjoy the challenges of creating what we do out of what we have to work with! It's no big deal to say, "I made a bakery" when you have things that lend themselves easily to making such a thing. It is quite another level to say so when there is not much in the editor that is actually meant to be something you'd find in or for a bakery, and you've made something that looks just like it. My Chapel is a bunch of soaring thin arches, in an editor which has no thin curved pieces. I made a dragon in my Witch's House. Vexxillion made trains out of alphabet letters in his most recent base (it's gorgeous). I do not know of many other games where this level of creativity and out of the box creation is available. So yes, I put up with what we DON'T have because of what we DO have, and I encourage others to learn how to use it, and teach them how, when they are willing to learn. Some are not. Some do, and are justifiably proud of whatever it is they create. I do not think it is all that difficult to learn how to use the editor for basic construction. Even intermediate efforts, having learned some of the finer points, is not difficult. Learning all the ins and outs, though, takes a while. Actually putting more complex things together DOES take time, persistence, and some level of determination. And yes, not everyone has this. But some hear "the editor is a PITA" and decide it must not be worth even trying to edit, and I think that's a disservice to them. Because I truly do not think it's that much of a pain to learn the basics. I did a video on the basics of how to use the editing commands that's only a few minutes long. Seven keys and the mouse are all you use; three of those keys you use in combination for two of the commands, for a total of just 4 commands and 4 setting keys. That is not complex. Now, what those few commands allow you to do....that CAN get to be complex! And that is the beauty that I see in the editor. No one is claiming this is state of the art and effortless. What you are hearing, from the people who have been using it for a good while is, there's a learning curve, yes, but not nearly an impossible one. What you apparently see as "glossing over" "selling an Edsel as a Lamborghini" and us "having to tow the line on the topic of the base editor" is just us being honest with our experience. With willingness to learn the finer points, this is not particularly difficult. For me, using the editor is muscle memory, just like operating my character. I don't have to think about how to move my character or fire off the powers I need. I sure did when I started this game, never having played anything like this before. I did not enter the editor and immediately start creating the builds I can do now, but now I don't think about how to do it, I merely have to figure out WHAT I am doing. And this is what we're telling Snarky et. al. There is nothing in the editor that prohibits anyone from doing amazing things; however, I do know that there are things inside of people that will prevent them from even trying. Personal preference on my part, I'd rather encourage people to try, than be negative and feed disillusionment and discouragement. Because of how that affects the PERSON, not the GAME. You do you, but this is me. I've seen people blossom and do things they never thought they could do, and the sense of accomplishment that comes with that; personally, I'm not going to rob anyone of the chance of feeling that for themselves, if I can help it.

Just place a surface tile (no collision) on the surface of the ledge where you want things to be. If things are sitting above or below this level when you try to place them, adjust the grid. I usually have my grid set to 1/4 most of the time, unless I turn it off altogether. Remove the editing tool when you are done. This way, things sit where you want, and you don’t have to change attachment for each item. See, ledges aren’t “floors”, officially, to the editor, so you have to place something that is, for the editor to place things as it does on a floor. This was the whole reason these were created, to make building above level, easier.

I will say a couple of things here. First, I will agree to some extent that the editor is not super beginner friendly. It’s not difficult to do basic things, but the more complicated things that you want to do, the more complex the editing actions. However, the flexibility we enjoy is very good. The items that have one side are generally from items available when the game was Live. The newer items mostly have all sides. Realize that the missing sides are saving processing and memory, that’s why they were designed that way. Yes, you can double them up. There are also some items that aren’t so thin that could be used. Tech balconies, ledges, and even thicker things. Chalet roof pieces can be angled to become floors. What you use is up to you, and we have asked for things like what you want, to make building easier. I have no idea when those things will come.. The things in the editing tab are mostly just meant to help with editing, which is why they disappear. The dev decided to make the surfaces with collision stay visible so they don’t trap people, but all but the blackest black in both colors will show stars. The editor can let you build basic things easily, as I said. But it is not yet built to be easy to create complex builds. For that, willingness to learn and patience are your best tools. How many builders do we have? Well, there are more than 500 on just my discord, and I’m very very sure not all builders are on that discord. I’d say many players try their hand at at least basic building. Complex builders are much more rare.

That WOULD be possible, not likely atm, given that we do not have a base developer right now. But let me explain that effect. Some items in the editor strip fx. Some items in the editor REGISTER as fx, even if they are not, strictly speaking, what you or I would consider an effect. Glass items, for instance, usually disappear. Most of Mot wings disappear. Most of the picnic table disappears...and so forth. So, any item that is made or covered by fx will disappear. Items that are behind something that disappears, will be "revealed". Items that strip effects include any calm water, bath water, the slow field, and some fx will disappear from the medium glass window in dividers, and some, but far fewer, from behind the large glass window in dividers (it used to make all of them disappear, but that was worked on by the dev because it affected costume parts in missions and there were complaints). As to making part of your base invisible to others, some things you can do: bury the entrance with things that have no collision. Sadly, there are not many items that can be used here, and all of the ones that would actually hide anything are plants. So, plants with no collision include: Hanging Vines, Large Bush 1 and 2, Agapanthus (all), and tintable reeds. So, covering an entry to a place with some of those is an option. Or making very hard to find entrances that you can just get through, much like the devs did in the Faultline easter egg. A tremendous example of doing this in a base would be Frankie's Bar and Grill on Everlasting (must DM owner for tour, tho; see directory). Another option would be creating an invisible teleporter that only can be found if you know where it is. See my video on hiding services for more on this.

Did that help? Do you understand what I meant, and do you have an understanding of what to do? I am happy to come help however I can; I can screen share, I can step you through things, and more. Just let me know. 🙂

First Showcase will be held April 14-28. See below for more! A Base Showcase is a chance for people to show off their bases in a non-competitive environment. We (the CRs) will be choosing themes for a total of 5 showcases. Themes will be: Tech/Sci-Fi, Arcane/Fantasy, Life-like, Nature/Natural, and Other. People will be encouraged to visit the bases listed during the two week long Base Appreciation period, and to send comments to the builder, and even put a comment in the base directory. We will have the codes listed in a base, along with a base hopping macro for those that don’t have one yet, for those who’d like to base hop without referencing sources outside of the game. This is a great chance to see what's out there, and find bases you might want to visit more, later. All bases that wish to participate need to be open for the duration of the 2 weeks of Base Appreciation, and should be listed on the directory, even if their status is usually more restricted than “open”. Since this is non-competitive, any base, even award winners and CR created bases, may exhibit in the showcase. CRs and participating judges (winners from last year) will tour the participating bases, and will offer critique or positives if desired. Although there is no physical reward for participation, hearing positives from visitors (and comments are typically positive) can be very rewarding. Also, the categories for the showcases will be the same categories we will have for the next big base contest. So, builders can see what others in their categories have done, learn from the comments if they want critique, and see what they can improve if they decide they want to enter the contest that will be early next year; but even if they don’t enter the contest, they still get to show their base and get some positives. (Bases that have already won awards, and CR bases, may not enter contest.) What’s the goal here if there are no prizes? We’d like to make a special effort to get more bases seen and appreciated! We have all done a lot of hard work, and we want people to appreciate it. As a community, we’d like everyone to join in; touring is something everyone can do, and is appreciated by all who are opening up their bases. The theme of this first Base Showcase is: Tech/Sci Fi. Showcase Base Appreciation dates will be April 14-28. Let’s see your bases! You may enter any base or bases that fit the category, including WIPs (works in progress). This is not a contest. Please enter your base name, code, and server/shard in this topic to enter. Bases should be open and available for touring/visitation during the weeks of April 14th-28th. It would be good to have a sign up at the entry, or a character with an afk message, telling people where they can send comments. And please be sure to tour other bases, and comment to the builder!

Ooof, sorry. I was assuming that we were talking about the editor, so it would be the first tab of the base editor when you're in editing mode! Sorry for the confusion.

I believe I have addressed how to rotate 90 degrees in my video on editing commands , but quickly, you just right click. The editing surfaces in the first tab will help you get things where you want them. The surface tower (I'd use the one without (col) collision) acts like a floor, so you can run things up the central tower to the desired height, and you can use the flat flaps as floor surfaces. It is not typical to lift things using the mouse scroll; I'm thinking you have programmed your mouse to work a little differently! On aligning things: things will align easily if they are set on a grid, it's a matter of getting a good camera angle (item placement is determined by where camera angle, mouse pointer, and item's attachment orientation all meet; so if you are looking across the base instead of angled down, items want to go across the base instead of right in front of you) and just getting close enough to see that you're lined up. I usually check from a couple of angles if I'm not sure. Using the grid on surface tiles is very helpful. If you have lifted something up and want to align after you lift it, hold control as you move it (Start holding control BEFORE you move it) and it will maintain its height. If you do not have the grid set to anything (i.e. Disabled), you will have to get VERY close and be very precise to align it, and even then...it's really difficult to get it exactly. But is possible. I'd be happy to come in and help you figure things out, but I do recommend watching the video first, I tried to make it comprehensive and helpful.

If you use Motiva medium pipes, you won't have the stars...

Yes, please make sure your bases are in the directory! (They can be listed as private without the code, if you desire, but at least we'll know it's there!) But show it off! 🙂 A few of mine: (this was a buff up of someone's base on Torchbearer; transportation hub TBTP-7677) video clip https://gyazo.com/d0279e87da74a8c658251ff1884f0ae4 ONES-5030 Excelsior (Open for use by anyone) https://gyazo.com/7576007c040adf223d83ae53ca5c32b5 https://gyazo.com/1575cca65ce632eac27787f913c9aa47 GAMERS-20972 Excelsior https://gyazo.com/98b9da03e99eb9dc619a6ea4e967eea1 https://gyazo.com/1d397bb1dd9673e038fbc5ea75152566 OVERKILL-2729 Everlasting (All services close to entrance, open for use) https://gyazo.com/4f39d294db1a31072395f3adcd651735 CROSSROADS-18062 Everlasting (teleporters are invisible) https://gyazo.com/c452ddb6588dd7ddd6f9df67c9b9d95f I love teleporters, they can be anything!

You're right. Let's call them "undesirable edits". I did not experience any myself, but have spoken with people whose listings were changed in ways that would prevent someone from being able to visit their base, or had other things done to express disregard. I mean, I can't really speak to the motives of such edits, but as they were not done by the owner and caused some upset, so they seemed malicious. But yes, they could have been mistakes. In some cases, apparently repeated mistakes... And I have asserted numerous times that I don't know that these edits took place on the wiki. Some may have; I have not gone into the depth of research that apparently you have, as it's really a lot of work to assess what was changed when and where. See, I'm not sure how you're looking this information up and determining that there were no malicious edits; to know whether or not a base was changed incorrectly and by someone other than the owner, you'd have to know what the correct information was, and compare that information to any correct changes that had occurred, and know who entered those changes. I personally find this impossible to do, as the original base directory document has been deleted, probably by the owner. The Wiki has a history, yes, but in order to know whether or not a change originated here or was copied from the original directory, you'd have to be able to compare the information. I mean, I suppose you could rule out the editors you know as very unlikely to have done any such edits, but I'm really baffled as to how you'd know what edits should be there, and which ones created or copied the inaccurate listings we found. So, I'm going by the balance of the listings as we found them, plus complaints from some people about listings that changed on their bases, plus the sign that was placed on both the wiki and the directory to ask people to not change other people's listings. And you're undoubtedly correct in assessing that anyone with malicious intent would ignore such a message; my point was rather that it was evidence that this had been a problem. As we have not brought up specific listings as "proof", sure, you can say you haven't "disputed specific things" we've seen, I suppose, except, from the very beginning, you argued that the wiki base listings were not taken from the original directory, even after Easter Bunny pointed to a history showing that GM Kal had made the original download and tables. You've pretty much argued with *some*thing every step of the way, whether it's how we do things, WHY we do them, evidence of malicious edits, how something is worded, or other details. We asserted there were malicious/undesirable edits done, and while we have not given specific examples, we did give general evidence, but things have moved from a general assertion on our part and disagreement on your part to a demand that we produce specific examples in order to "prove" to you they happened and to justify our method of keeping the directory. I have already detailed the work that that would entail, and I do not believe that, now that the original document has been destroyed, it would even be possible, and I see no reason we need do this. It simply does not matter whether there were malicious entries made, or whether simple human mistakes were made: mistakes were made. Inaccuracies in the directories discouraged people from using them. Regardless of the source of undesirable edits, we're sidestepping that with our system. It's just that simple. You are also right that "it would be extraordinary if there weren't such differences"! Well put. And exactly why we want to have the centralized system with controlled access. Of course, we have no control over people who change their codes and do not update them, or remake their bases and don't change the description, but we'll do our best with the information we get. Other than bringing up how you can't understand our rationale for maintaining our system the way we have it set up...repeatedly...you are right, this is the last/latest of the points of disagreement. And I have not responded. Mostly because, I have changed things every time you opened your mouth. And then you come back with one more thing. Even if it's only a very small change in wording, like this last time. It's like you're not happy until everything on the page is exactly how you want it and you have had the last say on it all. Do you go over wording to this extent anywhere else? I doubt it. I have not responded because, afaik, the wiki is still unable to be edited, so it's a moot point, and if I do respond and it's not "fine, we use your wording", I feel you're just going to come back at it again and again until you get what you want. Frankly, I'm tired of feeling like your pov is the only one that matters here. Perhaps your wording IS fine, but is there a requirement here somewhere that I must get all my wiki edits approved through you? Or is the fact that you suggested what you felt was an improvement enough, and now it's up to me as to whether or not I incorporate it the next time I edit that page? If all edits must go through you, that needs to be posted somewhere. But given the fact that you have told me that that is not how the wiki is set up, I don't think that's the case, in which case, since the wiki is free to be edited by anyone who signs up, and I am such an editor, I can make choices that do not have to be run through you, as long as they follow wiki rules. At this point, I'm waiting for the wiki to be accessible for editing again. Michiyo said she'd take a look at the situation then. She's said that perhaps a better place for the listings to be would be the FSBA wiki, but she was unwilling to "push for that". She made no mention of whether or not she disliked the fact that we were maintaining the directory outside of the wiki. So, I'm waiting to see what she says, if the directory is fine as is, or if we should take it down from this wiki. Either works for me; I assume that if she rules that it's fine sourced as it is, then that's the last I will hear from you on the topic, and if she says we can take it down, I assume that you won't have a problem with getting rid of the directory. Generally it's best that you discuss the contents of pages, not the character of other editors. That wasn't a shot at you. You complained you couldn't understand our rationale. If, after my explanation, you still can't understand it, then it's simply a fact that you'll have to live without comprehension in this situation, as I've done my best to explain things. In my world, that's not a shot, that's just a fact. (And I'm sad and a little baffled that you saw it as a shot. ) It's certainly not impugning anyone's character. And the only reason I said it was in response to something you brought up. Here you imply that I was deliberately taking a shot, which makes your statement quite ironic.

There have actually been 3 articles on bases, written by Bree of Massively OP. Here is the list so far (and yes, I think there will be at least one more): You can find the articles at: Working As Intended: 10 more City of Heroes Homecoming base builds you need to see Working As Intended: 10 City of Heroes Homecoming base builds you need to see Working As Intended: A guide to City of Heroes Homecoming’s best player-crafted portal bases

It might take some creative editing, but I think it would be, yes. There are even very large spheres in the editor that might work on that size scale, given the relative size of the trees and building.

Check again. 🙂 Easter Bunny went thru and updated some of the bases that had been neglected by their owners, all the bases we know of are there, completely tagged, and if the owners don't agree with how they're listed, well, they need to update the directory themselves.

Absolutely, or you wouldn't be able to see things that look like that. 🙂 First, get comfortable with the ways to manipulate items: And then, realize you can build outside the bounds of the base, or like, in the case of my space ship, build in, around, and on top of the rooms. Items MUST be "in" a room (point you grab the item can't go outside the walls of a room unless it's into a doorway), but "in" goes completely up and down from the boundaries of a room. So, once you know how to get things to where you want them, you can let your imagination and creativity take over. 🙂 Oh, and, players can go anywhere in a base, if the ceiling/sky is open, well past the base bounds.

"Zero evidence" ignores the fact that there were differences between some of the directory entries and the wiki entries. "Zero evidence" ignores the plea on the wiki to not change other people's base listings. I suppose the person who decided to put that into the wiki just did so on a whim? I have said that I don't know for sure that there were malicious entry changes in the wiki; I do know for sure that there were malicious entries, perhaps they were all on the directory, but if that's so, how did information on the wiki get to be incorrect? Because some of the information *was* incorrect. I am not going to dig through all of the history to figure it out, I just look at the end result and know 1.) of the entries of bases that were mine on the wiki, I entered exactly zero of them (altho I made two small changes in '21 to existing listings), and I know other builders did not enter THEIR bases, and the reason I made the changes is because the information that was there was wrong. Malicious? Not likely in that case, but still wrong information. But since neither I (nor the others) were the ones to enter the information, clearly there was opportunity for anyone to have entered anything. No one checks to be sure the information is CORRECT, just that it's been ENTERED correctly. It could even have been that information was messed with on the document that the listing was taken from, entered into the wiki in good faith, and then corrected on the directory again. But 2) the fact that different lists had different information, and some lists were accurate and some were not, and 3) the fact that anyone could edit the original directory, and the fact that 4) several people I know of had their base's information messed with and 5) people felt the need to post signs asking that people not do that, all should tell a reasonable person that it was a problem. And thus, we are controlling the ability to edit the master list on the document that supplies the wiki with the listings, thus ensuring that the wiki entries are also accurate. We already chased down several different sources of base listings to consolidate it, we'd like to not have to do that again, but in deference to wiki rules(?) or at least tradition, we will add in entries made to the wiki to the document before renewing the listings when they need renewal. But we've been over all of this with you, and you just refuse to accept any of it. You refuse to accept that we've seen what we've seen. But we have, and so we've chosen our response, and I guess you'll just have to live without comprehension, because that's just how it is, and endlessly explaining is clearly going nowhere.

I appreciate your input, AtC, thanks. 🙂

I'm not sure that option is available. You can't unilaterally remove them. I said it was your choice. I would be doing nothing, but I am giving assent. Nobody else is weighing in. Regardless, I'm asking on Michiyo's discord for permission.

I hope you've put it into the Base Directory! 🙂

I did mean, the previous version to ours. As in, we did not put it there, it was there already. And you're right, the official Wiki does not include base lists. And I will say, if you'd prefer to remove base lists altogether, we can certainly do that. We were updating to correct. The wiki does not tend to be the go-to place for base information anyway, and our efforts to maintain integrity are only complicated by maintaining the files here as well. Er... a comment in the source doesn't appear to an ordinary user viewing the page. It's only visible to people editing it. That's an appropriate place to have editing instructions. Right, and it appears I was not clear enough. This was in response to your suggestion to viewers of the page as to how and where they should edit. Apparently, when you make a comment and leave it on the source page, that's okay, but if we did it, it's not. We would prefer to just leave off instructions about editing on the wiki at all; anyone who is there and inclined to edit can figure out how, just as on any other page. Obviously I appreciate you have a lot of information about bases, yes, but that is not the same as saying that you should declare that all changes to a page should go through you. That is not at all the point I was making. I was pointing to the evidence of malicious edits. We found the differences. I can't say, as I stated, exactly where and when all the edits occurred, but we know THAT they occurred, either on the old directory or in the wiki because we've seen the differences in the directories as they existed. We know there was inaccurate information on the wiki. We know there was inaccurate information on the old directory. We know there are petty people that want to sabotage others, and some that are jealous of others. THIS is the information you do not recognize, you refuse to entertain, despite repeated assurances from us. We've seen it. It's why we are keeping such control over entries: we are safeguarding the information. The actual information is largely coming from the builders themselves; we just keep it from being changed to something it should not be. Here's an example of an edit that BlackSpectre fixed: 19:36, 25 December 2022‎ BlackSpectre talk contribs‎ m 4,096 bytes +527‎ Fixed a bunch of other broken links, passcodes, and text. Someone had copied the Costmic Transport passcode onto every copy link. That is just one example on the first history I checked. And we've asserted this numerous times as the biggest part of the reason we redid this and want to maintain protections over editing, and you simply refuse to accept any of it, asserting time and time again, against any evidence, that there were no malicious edits on the wiki. Oh, and note the date. I think that the reason you do not generally have a problem with people abusing editing privileges on the wiki is that most of the rest of your information is not like this. If you had issues with every area the way we've had issues with this one, I believe editing in the wiki would be much different, and perhaps there WOULD be safeguards similar to what we have in place. Most builders are wonderful and trustworthy, but as in any game, there are always a few bad actors, and if you were into bases at all, you might quickly realize that bases are as much a source of pride, ego, and stature as admired costumes, badge status, and powerful character builds, so for some, just seeing another base listed that's perhaps getting recognition and is owned by someone hated, is enough to motivate those people to put in something malicious, or, as in the Cosmic Transport correction, try and promote their own base over others that might be similar. But I do not need to know or understand why to know we need to safeguard against it. We have not said so, and in fact, if anyone wants to help make sure the content is accurate and up to date, we're happy to include them. But conversely, it should be obvious that every facet of our contribution to the wiki should not have to go through you. That is very much the appearance here. So, that was all pretty much just to clear up apparent misunderstandings of what I had meant. Regarding the base list, here is my understanding: I will monitor changes and handle them as they require. We will download the directory to the wiki when it needs to be updated with new information. No references to editing the wiki should be on the source page, but visitors will be informed of the existence of the directory and that they can enter information there, for ease and consistency, and if not there, then they may contact us. Wiki editors know how to edit the wiki if desired. As to it can be added, but we'd prefer this version, which would replace: To update the directory source please contact CRs @Dacy or @Easter Bunny or submit a ‘Base Directory Update Request’. We would appreciate it if base owners who have not yet updated the information for their bases would do so. Note this table will be overwritten periodically by the CRs with a fresh copy from the directory. With this: Bases are most easily updated in the base directory [link], to keep the identifying tags consistent and easily searchable. To update in this way, follow the link or contact CR @Dacy or CR @Easter Bunny to submit a base to the directory, or to update a base that has missing information. This will avoid mentioning editing the wiki on the source page, which you said was inappropriate. Those that do edit the wiki will know what to do if that is what they prefer, just like for all the other pages in the wiki, but it provides information they need if they want to keep their base entry consistent with how other bases are displayed and searched for. It does not threaten that their input will be erased, and it does not duplicate what has been said already. So, options: we're done here, having worked out concerns and compromises, or the other option could be no lists on the wiki; and, I leave that up to you. That's your choice, but either way, I want to be DONE.

New tour!