Dacy

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!

Really interesting, I don't know as I've heard of this problem before. Sorry you are experiencing it!

That is from the previous wiki. I don't oppose losing it, but it illustrates that this has been a problem, and I see no reason why it would not continue to be so. I will admit that I don't know if there were malicious wiki edits, or if all of the problems stemmed from having open editing on the original document, but either way, we'd like to avoid the issue entirely. I will admit to frustration here. Do you recognize at all that this is our area of expertise? That perhaps we have knowledge and experience you do not? It has never felt as though you do. Yes, you are a big wiki editor. No, this is not typical of wiki edits, to control things externally, but the reason that statement is there, the reason so many base entries weren't accurate or didn't match the directory is because there WERE malicious edits. Sad to say, there are malicious and petty people in this game. This is something that we've learned. This is why we feel that editing control is important. These are the reasons we wish to keep the system as we have set it up: The information is centralized, so we don't have to gather together base information from multiple locations again. We maintain presences on HC discord, our own discord, the in game base building channel, this wiki, the forums, and of course are available in game when we can be, and that's not even talking about what else we do. If we see a base not in the directory, we encourage the owner to enter it. By not encouraging people to enter bases on the wiki, we'd like to think that there's less of a chance that they will, so less of a chance that we'll have to enter the base ourselves. Yes, that's minimal work, but every little bit adds up. We'd definitely prefer the owner or builder to do the entering, as there are LOTS of bases. It's much easier to do a bulk copy paste than to individually edit the wiki, and we know it's correct. You probably couldn't do that with other sections of the wiki, but in this case, with a table such as this is, and this sort of information, it is much more efficient. It's our opinion that it's more efficient, but I think that there's an objective case to be made there as well. And, the information, when entered on the directory document, will have the drop-down tags to choose from, whereas the wiki does not have those. Therefore, any bases entered on the wiki without being able to reference the document itself may not conform to the other bases' information. It only makes sense to operate from the point of the greatest number of entries in a centralized system, and as you pointed out, that's not the wiki. So in short, we feel this method is efficient, accurate, and we see nothing wrong with how it's set up. The wiki is not just a link to a document, as it was in that first thing that EB tried, which we admitted was not what should have been, but this is information in wiki format in the wiki. It's accurate, it's up to date. and the system is efficient. No, it's not how things are done typically, but most information in the wiki is not changing as much as the base directory is from week to week, currently. The reason we do not want to have a statement telling people that if they are making an entry, where to do so, is because we do not want to encourage them to make entries on the wiki at all. (And what happened to "I also in general don't think it's appropriate to have editing instructions on the page"?) You have been the ONLY editor weighing in. And I will point out, EB and I are editors as well. As is anyone who registers and does it. So does not seem so much a "discussion" as it seem to be more "this is what I object to, and here are the changes I made that I want to implement". The few who have voiced opinions have been generally supportive of our efforts here. Look, your expertise is in editing the wiki, overall. It's a big wiki. There is a lot of information that needs to be edited and updated. Surely this need not take up so much of your attention? I do not know if this is your intent, but it's felt like you don't want us to be here, you don't want us editing the wiki, and you don't seem to care as much about the accuracy of the information as you do about how precisely it is entered and presented. Alone, you have made what should have been a relatively simple thing to accomplish into an unpleasant experience that in truth, has been very discouraging and time consuming. I don't want conflict, but this whole back and forth has gone on so long, and I feel it might be helpful for you to understand this side of the exchange, how things are coming across. I'm pretty sure our frustration has been clear, but I'm explaining why. So discouraging, in fact, that EB really does not want to work with the wiki at all, at this point, so I will be handling edits, with help from Mats when needed. We never "forbid" people from entering anything. We did ask that they contact us, but nowhere did we forbid the entry of information. We did not provide a place for them to do so, either, and that was entirely intentional. We also clearly warn that information they enter here but do not enter on the directory itself risks being overwritten. We do not want to tell them where to place something they're entering. There are no drop-down menus to help them with what terms we've used for the bases. The directory was designed to be simple to enter information into. Information entered on the document will be consistent with the information for the other bases. Information entered on the document can't be changed by someone seeking to make another's base inaccessible or invisible. Realize, the first tables were created from the old directory. Changes from that point on were made mostly by wiki edits. The wiki was out of date, the wiki had inaccuracies. We're just not going to return to that method, because it's demonstrated that it does not work. Was that the fault of entries to the wiki? Unlikely, imo, but still possible. However, we know that if we limit the entries to the source we download into the wiki, it will not happen again. I propose a compromise. As I said already, EB is out as far as editing the wiki goes, and I am willing to promise that I will monitor for changes/input to the wiki directory that is apart from entries to our directory. Is there a way to make that easier and get notifications from changes to a particular section of the wiki? That would certainly mean I could immediately take whatever action is needed. We will remove the warning about losing anything entered because of the downloads that will be done; however, we also will not encourage people to edit on the wiki by telling them where to place a new base entry. Instead, we will leave up the part encouraging people to contact either EB or myself if they do not wish to put an entry into the document itself, and of course, encourage people to please update their bases on the document. This way, you get what you wanted in that we have no warnings or other text that gives the impression that editing the wiki is forbidden. I will check for entries and changes to the document, and address them as needed. The document will be kept up to date as needed. Right now, changes are fairly frequent, but I anticipate that will die down. On the whole, this gives the wiki a much needed update in this particular area. It will be kept up to date, unlike the last table. It will be monitored to keep it accurate, unlike the last table. And it's being sourced from experts in the field, in the wiki tradition. Editing is allowed, but not encouraged. And perhaps both of us can move on to other pressing work and stop devoting quite so much time to discussion? I fervently hope this sounds acceptable, because I'm ready to be done with this.

Ultra Alt, I feel I must apologize for my confusion, and for not double checking what was posted. (And I deleted a bunch of stuff I'd misunderstood) However much of an idiot I have been here, I do feel it's unfair to paint the entire base building community with such a broad brush. It's a very good community, and I understand if you do not want to interact with ME, but I hope you do not avoid the community just because of my mistakes. There IS another CR, so if you need something, you don't have to talk to me at all, if you think I'm awful. Again, you have my sincere apology, fwiw. EDIT: and I messed it up again. I have been missing sleep, and just BLEAH. I AM an idiot. I did post that, but I should have omitted your name from the quote. *Shakes head* I am very sorry for not doing that. I thought I'd been directed to talk about it here.

And updated. Glad we did, because I had not realized that our "De-listed" bases had been appearing; those were not supposed to be there. RIP (bases that no longer exist) bases are also off of the list, and of course the few MRP friendly bases are gone. New bases were also added to the directory from the additions since the last download.

And WE are asking people to NOT add bases on the wiki, but direct additions to us. So that should not be added. We will try and catch any such additions through the changes to the wiki notifications, but we clearly state that they should contact us if they do not wish to add it to the directory directly, and that anything added to the wiki without going through us will not last, as it will be overwritten. However, Michiyo has ruled: any bases that promote/advertise MRP/ERP cannot be listed. Not even offsite. Now, I will say that bases that are simply " 18+" are 18+ for RP reasons; usually they are bars. An 18+ sign does not mean MRP/ERP, only those bases tagged as MRP (which is what we designate for ERP or MRP) should be removed. And that of course, we'll verify that it has been correctly tagged, because that's an area for malicious input, once it's discovered we're not listing MRP bases. We will take care of removal from the source, probably with an update tonight.

Love that! Very inventive, good work!

If you look at the post, I’m sure you saw that I did not say any particular name. In fact, your name was not even on my mind. I said that we had encountered resistance to our proposals, because there was more than one person. And the person who responded mentioned you by name, not me. This conversation happened on discord, so I was not trying to drag anyone into anything. I was merely checking with Michiyo to get clearance to delete the tables as I had been told I needed to do. Michiyo is the one who brought the conversation from discord to here. I’m sorry your name was brought up, but that wasn’t me. And the person who brought your name into it, literally said “no disrespect to Ultra Alt”, so your name was brought up, but it clearly was not meant to offend. -Dacy

Far from letting us down, you've been absolutely essential and very much appreciated. 🙂 And I will likely need that offer of further assistance on other matters!

AtC, your help was invaluable!! Because of your work, Matsiyan reports it was "Stupid easy" for him to do the rest. THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

Okay, I asked in Michiyo's discord for permission to remove the old base tables. Here is what I was told, after telling someone who responded (Draeth Darkstar) that I'd been told I needed Michiyo's specific approval to remove anything: I just took a look through the conversation. No disrespect meant to Ultra intended, but I personally wrote almost all of the historical sections that were originally sourced from ParagonWiki and most of what's been added or maintained since then has been either by me or editors who are working with the templates that I standardized. If you want to do the work of maintaining the base lists and don't feel there's a tangible value to keeping a historical record of deduct bases (which I do not), then I see no reason that you should feel the need to defer to Ultra on the matter. I would also not be worried about what they said regarding Michiyo, because it's simply not true. Michiyo does a ton of work for the CoH community, but micromanaging wiki edits is not typically one of those concerns. So, I did not hear from Michiyo, but out of respect for the amount of work a dev is already doing, and because this person is an apparent authority, we're proceeding with deleting the old and installing the new tables. 🙂 We will see if the table for Everlasting is going to be problematic, feedback welcome on usability.

Okay, question for ...well, anyone who cares to weigh in. We're wanting to update the base information wiki with the new, updated and corrected information, which is quite a bit larger in scope than the information currently listed. Now, the listing of bases is currently separated into tables of different categories of bases, as well as by shard. What we would like and need to know before we can progress to actually importing data, is answers to the following: Everlasting base directory alone currently is 400+bases in total. Would that many bases need separation by category? Or could they be all in one table and just sortable/searchable? Even if they could all be in one table, would that be the best way to present the information? If they need to be separated into categories, what's a good size of a pool of entries to aim for? We have many categories (to help people with specific searches), likely too many to make effective tables for each, but we could combine categories into more generally applicable, with searchable or sortable options to fine tune a search. Referencing the above snippet on columns, I don't know if that is applicable for something such as this information, where all of the information on a row relates back to the first column in that row, and sorting changes how the rows are organized? We'd like to get the information transferred, we just need help with what sort of formatting would be best. Thanks!

Just ask if you need more help. 🙂

Thanks, we had a blast! I hope you can make it by for the Halloween edition 🙂

Should work. You can also build around the base like I did for mine, not only kept drift down, but then you don't see a base anywhere because the ship IS the base. (ONES-5030 on Excelsior if you want to look)

Both kinds of jars were used (they propel). Fresh brains is the width of an entire path, actually wider than you need; Heart in a Jar can be used to make a very narrow path, like the swirl. Collision wall edge to go up, a v to go down. I think you might be combining two different parts; there was a shark part and then a circling swirl, but there were no sharks in the swirl. The shark part was easy, just lay down collision walls with spaces for drops. The circle swirl was very difficult, I tore it up several times before I got one that works most of the time (it has a sticky spot). The slide down to the swirl was extremely difficult, the only way at the time I made it to make a slide with a downward angle was using the invisible back plates of the only set of alphabet letters we had at that point. Upside down, slightly overlapping. You could only see the plate to see if it was lined up correctly from the back. You could only position it from the front. FORTUNATELY, they've given me more materials now, and next Halloween's slide will be different and far easier to do. I believe. But I will test it out first, before I rip out the old one. I do NOT want to rebuild that! Glad you could come by. 🙂

This weekend you have the opportunity to see a base that is normally only open in parts of October. I decided to bring it out for one weekend only for three reasons: 1) I wanted to use some of the leftover donations from Halloween for new players. See, every Halloween I hold Trick or Treating at this base. 2) I wanted to show new builders that there is a lot we can do now in the base editor. 3) This base also has some associated creatures that show some of what's possible in costuming. 4) For those that like RP, it's a good place to meet new people So if you like treats, bases, costumes, RP, or any and all of those, stop by! Base will be open only during listed hours.