Dacy

We're well aware of the problem; that is why Easter Bunny was adamant over maintaining control over the input. Everything is compared to the master sheet, which only we can access, and any unauthorized changes are reverted to whatever we had originally intended. This is why, AboveTheChemist, I am not sure you need to look for differences between the wiki and the document? The document would be accurate, whereas the wiki could have been altered; I am not speaking with confidence here, not knowing all that is involved, but it seems to me that it might be better to just wholesale input the document as it is each time it's updated; the net result should be that just the new things show up, as it's inputting things that were, for the most part, already there. Unless that's more of a pain? Again, I know nothing except for the things I stated: the sheet info is well controlled, the wiki is not. So therefore, I would think that updates should just be wholesale to sweep up any malicious edits that have occurred. I hope my logic there is clear, even if what I suggest is not feasible. Also, we're looking for the least labor intensive option, of course. -Dacy

Yes, they could use a lot of love. Slowly working on it (my "to do" list atm is rather extensive!). Would it be presumptuous to ask for a link on the main page? I mean, just looking over the topics, there's quite a lot listed there; it seems to me that "bases", both information about building and the lists of the bases, are of at least of equal importance to things such as "battle terminals" and "titles', etc. For many people, bases ARE the game for them. For others, it is a huge enhancement they do not wish to play without. See, right now they are just under "supergroup", but I will tell you that there are a good number of bases that are created, not as part of a supergroup, but as a part of the game and the community. For many players, bases are truly a thing only connected to supergroups by the fact that you have to create a sg in order to make a base. Many bases are named something other than the name of the sg that ownns them. So I believe that that separation needs to be recognized. But yes, the base pages need to be updated asap, perhaps organized in such a way as to easily link to in a way that makes sense as a whole topic. Which means I need to do some research on editing. -Dacy

AboveTheChemist, we appreciate SO MUCH your willingness to put in the time and effort on these scripts!! I just wanted to say that, and also, I note the other bases were formatted into different tables based on the type of base it was. That format would be fine, if that's not a lot of work (although I'd probably recommend that they be sorted according to "purpose", which is similar in many cases); if that's a headache at all, then just one table is fine, and we'll call attention to the sorting feature at the top of each column. 🙂 But assuming a similar format would make the least obvious changes for people to deal with. As I said, either way is fine, whatever works. We certainly are not going to be demanding of your time and talents when you've so generously volunteered them. ❤️ Say, I was noticing that it's a bit of a several page hunt or having to search to actually find the base list, do you think the link could be either on the "Supergroup" page, or have its own link on the table of contents? I was a bit surprised that it wasn't there already. And I have *no* idea how to program that; Thunderforce had to go edit a link I put in already, because I'd got it wrong. 😞 I thought I followed what they had done, but clearly I had not. (thank you for that, thunderforce!). Besides, I always feel like nav boxes aren't things I should casually change. Thank you again! -Dacy

I propose to do a bit of scripting (not really necessary for Reunion's half-dozen bases) to compare it with the wiki list and see which bases are missing, then (if any) to check if they are defunct. If there are any non-defunct bases not in the spreadsheet (and I propose to create one for that test case) I think they might, if the spreadsheet upload process otherwise works, be at the bottom of the table on the wiki so they don't constantly get stomped by spreadsheet uploads. AtChemist, nice transfer, really surprising that all the descriptors fit! Now, either you got to it before we'd cleaned up the duplicate entry for Olympus, or, it picked up some info somehow. The info has been correctly displayed now, could you perhaps reload that table from the current document and see if it's picking up extra info somehow, or if it corrects the duplicate? That would also show us how well it deals with different data. I should think it wouldn't be a bother, as it should just overwrite it with the correct, current version. Otherwise....looks great! We think the mistake was on our end as in, the table wasn't cleared of the extra information yet when you ran the script. And obviously, we're hoping to get more base owners to update. It's a process! thunderforce, there should be no bases on the wiki that are not on our docs. Easter Bunny already collected and added all the bases we could find. We don't yet have all the updating done, as we are hoping the owners will do that, but the codes and bases and owners, if listed anywhere, should be listed in our document. And all of the codes have been checked. As to information getting "stomped"; there really should be minimal changes for each update, but of course that depends on how many bases were made, and how many are entered. Reunion being the smallest shard, of course means that it is the least likely to see significant changes. Existing data will only change if the base's status changes, and we get updated as to that change. Thanks! -Dacy

Thanks, and that is what I figured. Do I report that in game, or..I thought there was a place on the forums? I actually thought this was it. -Dacy

I was duoing Posi I with a friend. They were playing a Radiation/Psi blade tank, I was playing a Fire/Kin corruptor.. When we got to the Dopplegangers at the end of the final mission, there were six of them, and I was very surprised to see one of my "doubles" using Accelarated Metabolism! You can see in this photo that some of the characters glow with the AM glow, and you can also see that some of the characters are being hit with a kinetic power even as I snapped the shot. Some of my partner's "doubles" had ranged Psi powers. So essentially, we saw a mashup of power types and ATs. The tank's character (again, rad/psi blade) appeared as a ranged psi powerset. (Presumably a corruptor with psi ranged powers, although I cannot guarantee that it was a corruptor and not a sentinel; I saw no fx to indicate the secondary set on that character, but everything is black but the AM glow and the kin buffs, so, not sure.) In the heat of battle with 2 of us vs 6 of them (and the combo of rad and kin is especially potent), we did not have time to fully sort through the power combinations that were present. At least one of the Dopplegangers seemed to represent our power sets as they are on our characters. At least one doppleganger that looked like the tank, instead had the tank secondary as their primary, only in ranged form, and at least one (I actually think 2) of the dopplegangers that looked like my fire/kin corruptor, actually had the secondary power set that was the support version of the tank primary. Is this mix and match powerset mashup the way this is supposed to work? -Dacy

Perhaps we have not been transparent about how we are doing this. We are getting people to update their entries. They enter the information as they want it to appear, we preserve that and keep it from being tampered with. We have checked all of the base codes we have access to, from all listings published anywhere, to see if they work, or if the base is still there, etc. So any bases that are not updated by the owner or builder is at least accurate to the best of our knowledge, and listed as it has been previously published. No, it does not fix the issue going forward, we still need to rely on players updating, but this is an effort TO GET PLAYERS TO UPDATE and to correct existing inaccuracies. This is not us unilaterally deciding how to list a base and whether or not a code should be public. This is us attempting to increase base visibility and accessibility for those that want to find bases for whatever reason. We want to de-clutter while providing accurate and reliable information. Also, the wiki will have an external link or two to the spreadsheet, but the information will be transferred to the wiki, not simply linked. -Dacy

Yeah, didn't follow that link at that time, forgot about it, was more focused on my frustration with being told that "bases are irrelevant". Are you aware that you can log out of your google account and access the sheet anonymously? All I see when others are in it are "anonymous (some silly animal avatar)". And they aren't even logged out. Okay, let's back up a moment. We have discussed updating the wiki with the updated, accurate, checked, and calibrated information. Yes, this will be a different format, because we are adding information. We will link the doc, yes, and we will encourage people to submit entries to the doc, but, and this part we haven't said yet, we think offering a table for submission of new information in the wiki will give those such as yourself who want nothing to do with Google, a place to make entries. So currently what we'd like to do is reformat the information, clean up the inaccuracies (which we have done on our end), and let people know that this information is sourced from a protected document, and we'd appreciate it if they would submit changes to us, and if that is not something they wish to do, they may enter their information into the "new submissions" chart on the wiki. There is absolutely no point in maintaining two base listings. Especially not when one is demonstrably inaccurate, your own bases notwithstanding. Yes, there are indeed other bases as well that have accurate information. There are also bases that have inaccurate information. We've checked all of our information. Surely you would also wish to have the wiki be accurate in what information it offers. -Dacy

We have since had quite a bit of discussion with the wiki moderators. People from HC (that's anyone, not the City Council necessarily) DO contribute to the wiki, and they'd like it if more did so. However, anyone can be an editor, there is no "limiting" the editing permissions. The original info was taken from a Google sheet, which was open to player editing. Some malicious edits happened, and I'm sure there were also mistakes, as it was easy to mess up a page and not know how to fix it. Not so with wiki, it allows you to preview changes and you must choose to enact them; nothing happens unless you choose to make it happen. So, the wiki itself may or may not have been corrupted by players, or the information may have been corrupted before it got there, we don't know. There is no real way for the moderators/editors to know if an edit is an honest and helpful edit, or someone changing something they should not. What we do know is, at this point, it's very obvious that there is a good deal of error. What EB has done is meticulously comb through ALL of the available bases. He took the Google doc, he took the wiki information, he took the small directories that I had on my discord, he took the listings on the forums that were never entered into the directory, he tried to find as many sources of base listings as possible. He's gone through EVERY code to see if it's valid. Found some that were invalid, found some bases that had vanished. What we want to do is change the wiki to reflect the new format and more accurate information. Much of what is on the wiki regarding base listings is inaccurate. We'd like to do new listings, from the new directory, which we manage and maintain and update. People enter the information for their bases, but we are the ones entering it into the directory, so that the information can't be corrupted by anyone maliciously or accidentally. We cannot provide the same protection to the wiki, but, we will monitor it and correct it if we determine someone has changed something that should not have been changed. We will also link to the document in the wiki, and people are encouraged to make update requests and new entries on the google doc, which will be linked to numerous places. We need people to update their bases to reflect what the base is, the most accurately. I invite you to go and LOOK at the document in question. We think it's quite nice, and hope others like it as much as we do. -Dacy

Right! So...how to mark them historical and unlink, please? Is there an established way to do that? So...returning for an edit...on second thoughts...in the interest of memory, storage, neatness, and relevance...why would we make certain inapplicable pages historical when there's an entire wiki that shows the game as it was? I mean, perhaps such a page is insignificant in memory and storage costs by itself, but, surely, such pages add up over time to become a drag on resources? As they are redundant, I am not sure I see the point? I am not trying to be combative, I understand you have a certain way you prefer to have things done, but is this even a consideration? -Dacy

Thank you! So, I've found so many pages and so many interrelated pages that simply completely do not apply and there is nothing to salvage from them, and I use that word intentionally, as it relates to the salvage aspect of bases. There is all kinds of info on what items needed salvage, what kinds, how much, and what the prestige costs were, among other long dead things. How to get rid of the entire page and weed the network of superfluous items? I assume I follow the links, delete the pages linked until I'm back at the root, and then follow another link branch. -Dacy

Cool look for the base, tho, well done! -Dacy

Looks to me very much as though you are a pure hero? You can't see destinations to villain side when you're pure hero. But they're there, they're attached, and if a villain or rogue or even a vigilante came it, I bet they could see and use the portals. I'd be happy to come confirm! -Dacy

I was editing some tables last night, and noticed that they also typically have a space modifier at the top; the ones I worked on had been set to 80% of width; I resized them to 40% (because I eliminated information that was no longer applicable). I would also like to apologize for my outburst last night; that is the most heated response I have ever sent, and usually I take a bit of time to think it through. But I also had to see if there was a path forward, because it truly felt like there was no way forward at that point. That is not to excuse myself, though; I am sorry for expressing my frustration the way I did. Above the Chemist, I really appreciate all your input and help! Thank you! I have a question. As noted, I've been trying to update some of the base information, which is terribly outdated. I'm looking at entire sections that no longer apply, and they need to be modified not only in the applicable sections, but in the table of contents. Here is what I mean: Item origin: that entire section no longer applies. Base Rooms: the only difference in base rooms is between the entry and the others, in terms of function, and then there are various sizes. So none of the categories listed after base rooms apply. Could we move these items to "Legacy Concepts" and redo the table of contents? Do I need to have a discussion for approval before doing something that major? (Or "attempting" as I'm not yet confident in my ability). -Dacy

Also, how do I replace a picture file with an accurate one? (separate question) Never mind, I figured that out. -Dacy

Very well; I understand you can get updates on wiki changes sent to a discord, that would be helpful. What about how information is entered to a table? Can multiple columns get information at once, are there commands to separate the information that goes into each column, or do you have to manually enter each cell's information? What's the format to create a table? Or, where can I locate such information? -Dacy

So. Yeah, we're wiki idiots who know next to nothing about anything except what we can see of what we know that's not accurate, and we want to change that. I understand and respect the fact that a Google doc link is not a wiki format, and not what people expect to find in a wiki entry about base listings. Having said that, I also know that EB isn't keen on being responsible for updating a wiki and entering all of those bases in the new format, and we have no idea at this point how we'd DO a format for wiki. (And responding to your last: EB is super frustrated at this point. I am too, but you came back more reasonable than I expected, so I'm still here.) If I can find someone to make some sort of script to input the values...hmm, but. Our page is much much wider than your format allows. I think we'd have to lose some information to put it into the Wiki...but anyway. Can you show me the format for entering information into a format such as you have here, a table? And EB is concerned about veracity. We don't want to have to monitor two different base codexes, with two different input points; can we make changing or adding to Wiki bases very limited? Btw, I am an editor on the wiki. I've been updating base information, because most of it is from Live and has changed significantly. So, two points here: we want to be able to control access so we can make sure things are correct and stay that way, and we need to know the format for inputting information into a table; are there scripts that can fill in a line of a table from a line of information that goes in the different columns? Or is it always entered information piece by piece? -Dacy

Okay. My misunderstanding. They put up a link, correct? And took out the inaccurate information? So, you say on the one hand, and other than that, you say people should make an account and edit. Um? Confusion here. Because nowhere does it say "Edit if the wiki editors agree" and HOW do we get the "wiki editors" to agree?? Nothing is very clear here. I have no idea who these editors are, how to contact them, or what information they need beyond "this is incorrect and we want to fix it with carefully researched data with controlled input access for veracity". Can we edit, or not? If not, it would be helpful to have something of this process for submission for approval listed somewhere. -Dacy

I wonder that you do not seem to realize that the source of the base information in the wiki is from a Google document that is open to player editing? Now, I do not know who is transferring that information to wiki, I have been trying to find out, but most base owners did not even know there WAS a wiki for bases; I only discovered it myself recently. Which, it's possible that the wiki, because the players did not know of it, is more accurate in reflecting bases as they were listed if they were immediately transferred; what we do know is, that after Easter Bunny meticulously combed through all information on bases that were listed, there were quite a few discrepancies. I know of people whose bases have been deleted or altered from the google doc. If people did know of the wiki, it could have been altered; does anyone go out and check to verify if the base listed matches the information given? The wiki, however, has no way of knowing which of these bases have changed codes, been abandoned, or are now physically there but inactive. The categories were never adequate to the bases that are out there; we have tried to give better and more inclusive descriptive tags, which are able to be used for sorting to find particular bases of a particular design or style. See, the format of the Wiki is based on the format of the original Google doc. Here are three examples from the Google doc, and their corresponding entries on the Wiki: Google: Vel's Folly Transit Hub Storm Palace @Vel Mori A quick travel hub project The STATION Transit Hub Pocket Dimension STATION-18074 @Garbage Wizard Official Transit hub of the Justice Division. A subway station themed base with all amenities and several pop culture references. /macro_image "Temporary_Warburg_MegaBuff" "Teleport: THE STATION" "em trainwhistle$$enterbasefrompasscode STATION-18074" The entries in the Wiki: Note that the categories, the order of information, and the text of the descriptions all match. Note also that there are missing pieces of information: whomever transferred the information for the Station (it was not Garbage WIzard) did not choose to include the macro for it. And the code for Vel's Folly is missing; one of the compromised posts on the document. So, we are sure that the format and the very information that is input into the Wiki is coming from the Google doc. Which, as mentioned, is corrupted and out of date. We have no idea who has been inputting information, because we can find no one who says they have, and most did not know that the wiki was even there, as I said. Now, we have expanded the information about each base that doesn't rely on the description, for better searchability. The new format will not transfer into the old format very well. They are different. The current wiki entries are out of date and in many cases, inaccurate. Will you help us figure out how to get the wiki to be up to date and aligned with the Google sheet we're using to organize the information? I mean, yeah, we hate that it's Google, but it was difficult to find anything else that was accessible and met the needs. Like with Wiki, we are careful with this information. Only editors may enter a base onto the master sheet. The copies that people see check themselves against the master so that nothing can be changed without our so say. Anyone who has an inaccurate listing can come to us to get it fixed (and we will investigate). We've tested base codes to see which are still valid. Here's an example of a listing, and the differences. Current wiki: Here's what those listings look like in our directory: (has slider, this is second half) Powergirls: Second part: We are listing both the owner and the builder. As you can see here, sometimes it's different. (I had to use bases I knew of and that were inputted into both directories, but there are other situations where this applies). Many more tags for people who want to find a particular type of base. And a guest book for commentary. We will lose a lot of that information if the current format is kept. Wow, You are coming off as someone who has no interest in information accuracy or truthfulness. When told something isn't right, your proposed solution is "just get rid of it"? Why moderate a wiki at all, if you have no interest in accuracy or truth? Why say in your signature that people should edit and you "need help", and then proceed to be just as nasty and unhelpful as I've seen anyone BE in this game? SMH so dang hard. WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'VE TRIED TO DO. EB made an account. Put up a page fixing multiple errors. Got chewed out for not "discussing it" with some committee that is listed NOWHERE, we've been TRYING to find who's running this and it's really not easy to even find that information out...until you "break the rules", apparently. And THEN, are you helpful? No. Snarky, dismissive, condescending, rude, and very unhelpful. You are anything BUT encouraging. You've pretty well convinced me that it's pointless to talk to a snarky brick wall that has no interest in correcting a problem; we'll get nowhere here. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong on that. But that's the view from here. Last chance to show a different side of this little "club" you have going here. Because honestly, despite my annoyance with your attitude, I'd -still- rather have a listing that was accurate, than to leave feeling like the whole system is a farce by committee, and likely untrustworthy. I'd -like- to be able to continue to recommend it. But that's up to you now. -Dacy

Well, Easter Bunny may be able to elaborate more, as he spearheaded this project, but here's why we got involved. We found that: 1) there were many discrepancies between the wiki and the forum google docs. As evidenced by the sign asking that people not delete other's entries, the entries could be changed, and some were. Our system does not allow for that. Changes have to go through one of the directory caretakers. 2) The docs that were in place were hard to navigate, because things were in the order they were input and not alphabetical order, and Google docs are not easily searchable without someone who knows what they are doing at the helm. (THANK YOU @Matsiyan!) The person who made the original doc is not here anymore. 3) The docs' descriptive categories leave a lot to be desired. 4) We wanted something searchable, especially, searchable by category. We wanted something where people could add guestbook comments. We wanted features that would appeal to people, and we have hopes of getting this version accessible in game, because too many people just ignore the docs as they are now. Most people don't even know that the Wiki versions exist. 5) We have/are collating all of the entries from various places and hope that the owners and/or builders will submit how they'd like the entry to be. See, some bases aren't there anymore. Some bases have inactive codes. There was a directory in my Discord of some, some had entered/listed their base in a topic such as Show Off but then there was nothing for that base in the docs, even some contest entries had never been listed, so we're just trying to do what we can to get things all in one place in a usable format. 🙂 Also, we want to help all of those who want to find a particular kind of base; we get requests like, "Do you know where I can find *a particular kind of base*? Some people want to see particular things, whether for builds of their own, RP, or just curiosity, and there's no real way to find those bases right now without spending a lot of time in the current docs. It would be best to link the new docs to the wiki; any idea who to talk to about that? -Dacy

New video! Everything you need to know to get going on base building, including a guide to set up a basic base with all the services!

Okay, well, key info: no cel shading. If you want to help debug it, I would suggest playing with a few of the settings, one a time, and see if you can replicate the bug. @Etched, you've had this same issue, are any of his settings the same as yours? In game, not system wise, although if you also share any components, that would be of note. -Dacy

I think I was talking about that with someone who has high rez monitors and it wasn't an issue for them, so it may depend on perhaps the graphics card? I know, for instance, Discord doesn't play well with systems that run certain types of system components. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the engine for COH isn't so compatible with some of the newer components, either. That's what I remember, anyway, tho I don't have more details than that, perhaps someone out there can confirm if they are running a high rez monitor and are able to use their whole screen in edit mode. -Dacy

Also, couldn't help but notice, you were placing dock platforms both times! See if that is the item that is somehow triggering this. Please note which dock platform if so. -Dacy

You tried re-enabling clipping, to make sure it didn't get hit by mistake, I assume. Also, please report your graphics settings at the time, and whether or not you have any experimental graphics (cel shading) enabled. Hmm. Really strange, I will pass it along. Thanks! -Dacy