Dacy

Yay! Reunion! The smaller shards get at least one to represent! 🙂 One of the things about a showcase is, you can see what others have done, and I LOVE that you are visiting and commenting!! You can learn from what you see, and you can make an informed decision as to whether or not you'd like to try to enter the contest next year (and you have time, now, to work on improving if you care to). Now is the time to ask questions and soak it all in. 🙂 I will describe my method of making a sign, hopefully this translates: First of all, as with any fine detail, get close. The editor places things according to where the mouse is in relation to your camera angle, and the type of surface your item is oriented to. Watch your item window to make sure you're not grabbing other things across the base by mistake, if that happens to you frequently. Now to place letters: (here, I'm using tiny letters and the back of a shower floor) Hit F1 and disable grid. Get out a shower floor and hold control and alt at the same time, and rotate it until it's standing upright on its side. If the side without the drain is not facing the direction you want it to, hold shift and alt and rotate it around until it's facing the correct direction. Get out a surface tile, no collision, 32x32. The shower floor is seen as a floor by the editor, so the surface tile, which wants to attach to a floor, will place and stay level if you position it using your mouse pointer on the surface of the shower floor. Click to place. Now go to whichever set of tiny letters you want to use, PCity or Motiva. Motiva has a lower case as well as an upper case, and if you use lower case mostly, you can fit more on your sign. Select a letter. Hit F5 twice. This will set the letter attachment to "surface". Place the letter so it's facing up on the surface tile. Now, for this first letter, you can set the color you want, and all the following letters will be that same color, so choose the color. I choose black, using the small black/grey/white three square color choice, not the gradient scale (that's the darkest black). Now, HOLD CONTROL and slide the letter over to the floor tile (I would recommend placing the letter close to the floor tile) until the letter pops upright on the floor tile. Release the mouse hold before you release control. This allows you to align the letter precisely to the surface level of the surface tile, without having to adjust the height more. Repeat until all the letters are on the shower floor that you want on that line. IMPORTANT: if the letters do not attach in the upright position, if they want to stand up upside down or sideways, that is because the surface is upside down or sideways; items on surface attachment will attach using the orientation of the surface they are attaching to. So, if the letters want to attach sideways or upside down, instead of having to click each letter to reorient it, put that first letter back on the surface tile (if it's crooked on the surface tile, that does not matter, only final placement matters) and select the shower floor again (check to be sure you have it selected by looking to the item window, it should appear there if that's what you have selected). Right click to make the surface upright; if the letters were upside down, you'll need to right click twice. Click rotation is always 90 degrees and always counter-clockwise, so if you're using the square shower floor and your letters were sideways, I can't tell you how many clicks will make it be upright, you'll have to experiment if knowing the direction it rotates doesn't help you figure out how many clicks to make). I know that all sounds very complicated, but it's a long explanation for a pretty short process once you understand how to do it. Call for help (pref on my Discord so I can answer faster) if you have problems with this. Now, if the letters aren't arranged and spaced the way you want them, again HOLD CONTROL and make sure you are clicking ON the letter itself, and move the letter to where you want it. The Control key will keep it on that same height line, and you can move the letter by mousing over the shower floor anywhere. If you grab another item instead of the letter (watch the item box or window) quickly hit escape, and the editor will let go of what you accidentally grabbed. If you accidentally clicked and the editor completed the action you didn't mean to complete, hit control/z to undo it. Again, especially for this part, being close is a good idea. I hope this helps. Again, call for help if you're confused. I can quickly demonstrate.

No, you can't do much with the NPCs. This would be a character of yours that you can leave in the base; maybe a separate account, if you have another account. Otherwise, I would make a sign.

Just a note, be sure to send comments also to builder, and if you want others to know, put it in the directory please! (See link either above or pinned to base building). 😄

Since the last page, I have had several people who've experienced this problem, and called for help. The problem is, they attach teleporter beacons to a teleporter, and then when they go to use it, the teleporter says that there are no beacons attached, even though the person is the right alignment to be able to see the beacons, and they could SEE that the beacons were attached when they were in the editor. Going back into the editor confirms this. I do not yet know what is triggering this error. However, the fix is simple: leave your base for at least 6 minutes without anyone else in the base, either. This "resets" the base, and it clears system errors like this that are usually related to the memory cache, I believe. So if you go to a teleporter that you know should be showing you destinations and it's not, leave, wait 6 minutes, and come back in, and see if that fixes it.

I should have included a link, my bad. It's pinned in the topics here, in the Builder's Discord, in the HC Discord in the base topic, also. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14DqavAx6ov60d92rhvwy2sNEW_909MCHp421GM4q-Yk/edit#gid=0 Just follow the directions. If you do not yet have a base passcode, then get out the character who's got editing permission for the base you want to get the code for, and type in game: /sgpasscode [word or code I want]. For instance, I'm making touring hubs for each of the shards so people can go base to base and have the codes right there. When I made the code for Excelsior's base, I typed: /sgpasscode TOUR . In the global tab, the system sent back: Your supergroup passcode is now TOUR-30788. If I want to change that, I'll re-enter the word I want, but the number it sends back is always the same. For a sign: Use the alphabet letters on the surface of something. (It is usually easiest to use f5 to change the attachment to surface, and use an editing surface to keep them on the same level) I like to use the back of shower floors as my sign. A small sign might be on a Modern Picture Frame (wall details tab), but note you will need to change the color of the (usually white) letters if the background is white. You only have to change the color the first time, after that, they are all set to the same color until you either get out of the editor, or change it. So when you finish, you'll have a sign. Here is an example. The sign should be set up somewhere where people see it near the entry. Or you could choose to have a character with an afk message (against a dark background is best). That would look like this: What you choose to say here is very limited, so best to put something like what I have. To do that, type /afk my message here . The /afk part won't show up. These are only if you want to hear comments back from people, it's not a requirement. However, definitely we want the base listed in the directory, so that people not using the hubs can find it. NOTE HERE: I have changed the original post to reflect that you can enter more than one base if you would like. And naturally, feel free to enter bases in whatever category best suits them.

Tbh, I don’t go many places on the forums but here. I can’t speak to what others do; but I’m saying I don’t see a suppression of negative reactions here, and I know I’m not leading a charge against it. I just don’t like being told that I’m lying because of a difference of opinion. I am sorry you both felt like you were being called a liar because it was harder for you than others. That’s exactly what I was just protesting, from the other side. I guess when having these disagreements, it’s wise to keep in mind the validity of perspective. It’s difficult for you, you regard the necessity of flipping a piece upside down so it looks like it has a bottom as unnecessarily onerous, and yeah, it would be nice to not have to do that. But for others, it’s just something to take in stride. I agree, commiserating is a good vent, problems need to be pointed out to be solved, and I’m definitely pondering why at least two people got the impression from my videos that building wouldn’t take the time it takes. However, the hot keys are such a huge improvement over what it used to be, those of us who remember, I think, are going to proclaim how great they are, because they are. But they don’t make this an effortless editor that takes little time to do complex things. It DOES get better. But it’s not to everyone’s taste.

I said (elsewhere) there are very few. This one just showed up since last patch.

THIS. Believe me, it’s on the list we have asked for.

I've put up announcements in my Discord (where you are a member, Snarky) and on HC in base building, there is a known issue where beacons are not showing up for some reason. The editor will show them as attached, alignment is correct to be able to see them, but when you go to use the teleporter, it says there are no beacons. The fix is, actually, to leave the base without someone in it for at least 6 minutes (with no one in it). So, that's the fix, and you wound up doing exactly that. I guess I should make a post here on the forums, too, maybe more will see that.

From the start of this...discussion, you have been making this more about what I and others are doing and saying while pretending you are "just giving feedback", despite "not having a dog in this fight". I've tried to keep this focused on issues and ignore the personal attacks, but addressing the issues and even agreeing with you did not stop them, you just keep coming back. Examples: Insulting and condescending. Essentially saying, "you're lying and trying to make it look good because you have to". Just made me smh and go, huh?? Of course, then I remembered, you left HC because you were all hot and bothered about supposedly seeing people being shut down if they expressed negative opinions. To me this is a pretty good indication that your prior perceptions are coloring your take on things now. And earlier, you made it clear this applied to "everyone". Again, we're lying because supposedly, there's a "rule" about not being critical. Couldn't be that a tool you found unusable is actually quite effective and easy to use in the hands of others, no that can't be it. So here, you say we "all know" that the editor isn't easy, but later, after I talked about how it WAS easy, for us, the experienced editors: So one might think that you now understand that "easy" is subjective, and I've explained that I'm trying to be encouraging and let people know that there's light at the end of the tunnel, that it will get better, but, no, you still keep insisting that we're being disingenuous with people, that somehow the videos I make make it look like it's easy and quick, and I'm doing people a disservice and lying to people. Nowhere in any video do I say, "This is so easy and quick to do!" I do hope I'm making this easier for people, I do. However, I do not want to put down how long something took me, because THAT would be discouraging...but not the way you think it would be. I'm an experienced builder who functions in the builder without thinking. I know darn well that I do things much much faster than a new person or even an intermediate builder can. I HATE giving the times for my builds, because it could give an inexperienced builder the idea that it will take them that long...and it will take them longer, I guarantee it (and I tell them this). Also, I can't know how long it will take a given person to build anything. Honestly, it never occurred to me that someone would look at my footage that does not show every minute, and the sped up sequences and conclude, "Wow, this is obviously SO EASY and QUICK!" There's no way someone is sitting through a video that is actually as long as what the build is. The goal is to show people how to do something, not document my every step and the time things took. If you want to show people that, be my guest. But I believe people will and do understand, when they are shown all of the things I do while building, that this is something that will take some time. I certainly understand, and I know the people who need my videos understand, that the people who are watching are watching generally because this ISN'T easy for them. And I think YOU are underestimating people and their ability to understand how much work went into what they see. I've had comments that show that they do understand. I do not think I need to spell it out, nor do I think I am misleading people or lying to them. I tell them how to do things. I cannot know who comprehends what, and believe me, I've tried to anticipate what people need to know as well as want to know, but this is definitely a new one, that I'm somehow responsible for making sure that people know that base building will take time and effort, and that if I don't spell that out for people, THAT is somehow underestimating them and misleading them. So, after numerous exchanges, we get to this: So. I inserted my first comment here without directly calling anyone out. I did not tell anyone they were "being negative". I offered some explanations for some of the problems discussed, answered some questions that were posed, and that was all. Then, of all of the people who had been posting, only you responded, and you responded by taking the discussion into...well, a good number of the quotes above are from that first response. We're lying. We're towing the line for some imagined rule. We're "trying to sell an Edsel as a Lamborghini". It was THIS line of commentary that got you noticed for negativity; no one else here and now. However, ostensibly the response was about the problems with the editor. You even sprinkled in apparent positives, but despite what you might think, those do not negate the disparaging attitude felt throughout your posts. And why aren't I the focus of "animus" for "negativity"? As I explained before, acknowledging difficulties while responding with ways to work with it and through it is not received the same as leading with negatives with no helpful solutions, and adding to that, you lace your posts with insults and imply or outright say that those who are saying things that don't match with your views are lying and being deceitful; when called out or disagreed with, you play a victim card as you have before and see it as, well, apparently, a conspiracy of sorts. The truth is, when you come at people with negatives and insults, they tend to respond by feeling like you're being negative. The "unwritten rule", "towing the line", including others in this "we" that is being "told that we're being negative" ...look around. There's no one else in this discussion now. There is no "we". No unwritten rules. No line to tow. Neither am I leading a charge against any who'd dare speak against the editor, as you imply in your last bit up there. I'll answer to problems people have, I'll give explanations, I'll challenge assertions that are untrue, but I'm certainly not here to shut down those expressing negatives when they express their opinions. I do not have the time or the inclination! I will, however, try and show my own experience, which may be different, rather than let those with little to no experience only hear the negatives of someone who does not know the things I do that can help. And I am done with this circular 'discussion' with you, @Excraft. My response was intended to answer questions and give information, and to support the truth spoken by those being decried as lying and deceitful because they had the nerve to call the editor "easy". It IS easy for some. And it's okay to vent about the problems and annoyances we get. In no way am I saying that isn't okay. But that is not all that was said. Now I've called it out. Moving on.

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.