Hey Devs, can you please some or all of this to HC?! :)

[TemporalVileTerror]

I think it would be pretty clear that the Devs paying people $10,000,000 per character per month would not be a good idea, since I expect most people could follow the relatively simple logic of the impossibility of that proposal.
 
In terms of giving Status Effect Protection to more Archetypes, it's a muddier and more nuanced situation.
There's a question that needs to asked to examine the design intentions of the game. 
- What's the goal of the existing design?

In terms of Status Effect Protection, we're seen plenty of players provide their speculative answers.  Some of which seem well-reasoned.  Others which are tantamount to "because I say so."  Although few ever really hit the underlying principles which inform the design:  The core philosophy.
 
This is also the meta-question that I think would benefit the entire community to have the Devs answer.
The most I've seen is nebulous answer from Jimmy agreeing with a user who said that they wanted to "feel powerful."  Which was shortly before Jimmy admitted to not understanding how an as-of-yet unquantified number of community members could possibly even enjoy the game if not for the reasons which (presumably) Jimmy assumed all players were here.
(I don't mean to pick on Jimmy; Jimmy's just been one of the more vocal members of the Homecoming Team in the past, and one of the only sources of insight in to their beliefs, philosophies, and intention.)
For the players who just don't care, or whose beliefs align with the practical demonstrations of design changes, there's obviously not much of an incentive to overcome that communication barrier.   Given the historic example set through all of humanity on the merits and benefits of cooperation, particularly with leadership which operates in the of role facilitators rather than autocrats, I admittedly assumed others would hold comparable values.  I can't say I'm terribly familiar with such systems' rate of failure.  Where I have personally observed the most significant failures is when leadership operates without oversight.  The most successful projects I've been a part of were where oversight came from "below," rather than "above" (within the traditional paradigm of office hierarchies).

I want the Homecoming Team to be successful.
 
And to pre-emptively clarify from the question above, we've seen years of those intentions being subverted or outright changed in places by the Legacy/Retail Devs.  There is an existing precedence.  And after that, there are still more questions, of course.  Including (but not limited to):
- Does the current design meet the express goals?
- Is there a more efficient way to meet those goals?
- What's the feasibility of any proposed changes?

 

I know the Homecoming Team are volunteers.

Lighthouse said they have an internal roadmap.  Awesome.

Does the team have internal project plans too?  Policies?  Scope documentation?

If so:  Cool.  

In either event of they do or they don't, however . . . there's a clear advantage in sharing it for peer review with the community.

 

 

 

And in an entirely subjective opinion; nah.  I think that other Archetypes don't need inherent Status Protection.  I do think the entire Status Effect aspect of the game could use some serious work, of course . . . but I acknowledge the feasibility of overhauling it would be excessive even for a fully-funded team.  Not to mention the ol' "cottage rule" arguments. 

But it's still worthwhile to hear from players who feel otherwise without shouting them down and (I loathe to use this term, but) "white knighting" for the Devs.  The players' feedback is valuable.  If not for doing precisely what they proposes, than to use as a foundation to establish what the underlying problems are, and how else we might address them.  And the more diverse voices we have in the process, the more likely we are to reveal an otherwise obscure solution.

[Hyperstrike]

1 hour ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

I think it would be pretty clear that the Devs paying people $10,000,000 per character per month would not be a good idea, since I expect most people could follow the relatively simple logic of the impossibility of that proposal.

But *I* think it's a good idea!
And because nobody actually has access to numbers, I can automatically broaden my opinion to "most people" (like you just did) without anyone being able to prove me wrong!  And you disagreeing with me just makes you "an outlier".

See where I'm going with this?

The point is not REALLY that I want that money (though, if offered, I wouldn't say no!), it's basically shining a light on the whole "assumption of support" by putting it in big, bold, ridiculous terms.

 

 

[TemporalVileTerror]

I'm suggesting that there's a scale of reasonable examples for this discourse.  The pay-out suggestion is so far outside of reasonable that it undermines any point such an exaggeration is meant to illustrate.  

[Hyperstrike]

1 minute ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

I'm suggesting that there's a scale of reasonable examples for this discourse.  The pay-out suggestion is so far outside of reasonable that it undermines any point such an exaggeration is meant to illustrate.  

To each his own.

[Galaxy Brain]

While the popular idea may not hold water on it's own merits, the fact that a lot of players recognize something is "off" enough to rally en masse for a solution is something to keep note of.

 

@Hyperstrike, to @TemporalVileTerror's point there is a nuance here when it comes to examples vs just popular ideas. If somebody just said "hey X thing sucks, and all my friends think so too!" it's one thing. If tons of unaffiliated people at different times come up with "hey X sucks", then there is something likely up with X. If lots of people come up with separate examples of why X sucks with actual thought and effort, then well they may be onto something.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[srmalloy]

1 hour ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

In either event of they do or they don't, however . . . there's a clear advantage in sharing it for peer review with the community.

As long as you don't care about the inevitable shitstorm from people who see their pet feature not getting the priority they feel that it deserves, regardless of how much work it entails or how many other things break in the process, etc.

[TemporalVileTerror]

That's a point which comes up a lot, @srmalloy.

I think (and admittedly this one's pretty hard to quantify with examples) that if the community puts more onus on self-reflection and informative discussion, rather than finger-pointing and nonsensical exaggerations to try and perpetuate arguments, then we could see some serious progress in that front.

More time discussing facts (which could be provided by informed sources, ie:  The Devs), and less time trying to undermine a point that possibly wasn't even the intended message in a post.

 

To that end, I encourage all members of the community to spend more time communicating.  Ask questions and seek clarification.  Own one's own words, and recognize that effective communication and understanding takes mutual compromise.  Avoid efforts to overload something that another person would prefer to take seriously with intentionally irreverent comedy.

I'm not innocent, of course.  I've occasionally reviewed my own posts here and said "ugh, that was dumb of me" in regard to how I've phrased things or how I've handled a discussion.

 

City of Heroes is a game which demonstrates the incredible power of teamwork!  (Arguably, of course, given the current concerns revolving around balance and Set Bonuses/Incarnate content, et cetera.)

I think that the community can achieve greater things if we focus on collective collaboration, rather than assuming there's some resource to be fought over called "Dev Time."   We have the capacity to support the Devs by doing heavy lifting for them!  

But, again, it's a two-way street.  It doesn't help anyone if the boulders the community are moving are in a totally different neighbourhood than the ones the Devs are focusing on in secret.

[golstat2003]

The dev time issue is still an issue.

 

We're still dealing with a volunteer team.

 

They can't possibly do everything that everyone in the suggestions forums posts.

 

I'd say a week there are at least 5 good ideas there with 15 which really aren't.

 

Even to get those 5 (posted this week) done in any reasonable amount of time would be a challenge even if thing weren't the way they currently are. (i'm referring to covid here and the affect it has on folks real personal and work lives).

Edited February 22, 2021 by golstat2003

[Naomi]

21 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

what the Devs here consider "good ideas" and "bad ideas," -divorced- from the feasibility

I think if you asked everyone on the team this question, you would get as many different answers. I find it difficult to answer personally, without it being married or grounded in actual context.

 

'Feasibility' with respect to time constraints plays a huge role in whether something is even considered from the get go, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. After that, there are all sorts of variables and consequences to consider (which can be completely different depending on your role), which are absent when trying to answer the question in a general sense.

 

14 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

what they actually even think City of Heroes is, exactly.

 

Personally, I think City of Heroes is a lot of different things, to a lot of different people. For the original developers, it was their livelihood, part of their professional legacy and for some, their passion. For the players, it's everything from a comic book game, a story telling medium, an escape from day to day reality.. it's so many things.

 

Regardless of what it means to anyone individually, I think the importance of preserving its original intent can't be overstated. What worries me the most is the thought that any of its original magic could be taken away by radical design and story changes. I think I can say with confidence (and it's been said before) that most of the team holds the original developers in high regard. The last thing any of us want to do is to take a sledgehammer to their work (some of the internals being an exception..).

 

That said, it's also not lost on me that Homecoming is just one interpretation of where City of Heroes is going post-shutdown. The game itself is also in the unique position, for better or worse, that the state in which it had last been is out there for anyone to continue with their own interpretation, (which is happening), and in a way a rightfully fitting "ending" of the 'choose your own adventure' aspect of the game's story telling design as a whole.

 

 

The nature of this being an unpaid, volunteer effort which isn't unique to Homecoming, is that there will always be occasional periods where members of the team are just busy with life. Some of us rely on each other's skill set to accomplish or finish certain tasks, and it can be a balancing act to find the right time to work on or discuss something.

 

Unlike live, it's not very realistic to expect team members to adhere to strict deadlines and other things you might find in a development studio, so while there is a roadmap of where we hope to be going, it's one small step at a time. Occasionally there's a flurry of activity, which can be fun, but also exhausting. What should take a day, or hours or minutes, can occasionally be a week long project.

 

If anyone ever feels left in the dark, the only reason it's done intentionally that I've ever seen is to avoid disappointing anyone if things take a different turn and we can't deliver. To think it's because we don't want to hear anyone's feedback is a mistake, as we are genuinely interested in constructive criticism. The community itself is a major part of the game's legacy, and your trust and patience means a lot to everyone on board.

 

I don't have anything to do with powers, but what I find the most interesting as a player, is being able to make a clear choice with playing a tanker, a blaster, or a jack of all trades. Feeling powerful is certainly key if you're a superhero, but what also makes them just as interesting to me are their weaknesses. Inherent mez protection for every AT isn't something I would be comfortable supporting for that reason, as it takes away an interesting choice for the player.

[TemporalVileTerror]

Thank you very much for taking the time to compose that thoughtful message, @Naomi.  It's hits upon a lot of what I've been striving to see expressed by members of the Homecoming Team.  Hopefully it's a message we can use to address concerns as they come up by other community members.  Also, hopefully, it's the sort of thing which other Devs can find a little time to expand upon with their own personal points of view. 
 
I do have to question the part which says:  "... avoid disappointing anyone if things take a different turn and we can't deliver."
It's a sentiment I've seen expressed a number of times, but I just don't get it.  My perspective may be narrow here, but it seems a little misguided to me to think that a lack of information prevents disappointment.  The disappointment exists whether something was expressly considered and unobtained, or if it is quietly unobtained the whole time.  At most, the disappointment is merely not expressed if there isn't the prompt.  
In fact, for me, knowing that something is on the Devs' radar gives me hope, even when its not implemented.  It gives perspective and context; important clues as to what the future has in store.  More information allows for better decision-making.

For example, a Dev had once spoken about allowing for RGB Hex code to be used for costume colourization.  Even if that never comes to pass, it's heartening to know that someone on the team cares about an improvement like that.  To know that it's not considered undesirable.
 
I do want to emphasize that I'm not asking for things on deadlines, as there seems to be regular misinterpretation in that regard by several community members.  I am more than happy to have the team take their time.  

I'm asking for foundational work in communication.  And I appreciate the efforts you have made here today.

Thank you.

[Hyperstrike]

2 hours ago, Naomi said:

The last thing any of us want to do is to take a sledgehammer to their work (some of the internals being an exception..).

Sledgehammer?  No.

Nukes?  Matter-Animatter bombs?  Portable Black Hole generators? 

Devs - WE ARE OPEN TO ALL OPTIONS!

[Draeth Darkstar]

There are a lot of changes on Thunderspy that I don't like, but the Mastermind updates they did are awesome. I would really like to see Homecoming take their own swing at MM love. It's by far the most unique thing about CoH, mechanically.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Draeth Darkstar

[Galaxy Brain]

3 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

I do have to question the part which says:  "... avoid disappointing anyone if things take a different turn and we can't deliver."
It's a sentiment I've seen expressed a number of times, but I just don't get it.  My perspective may be narrow here, but it seems a little misguided to me to think that a lack of information prevents disappointment.  The disappointment exists whether something was expressly considered and unobtained, or if it is quietly unobtained the whole time.  At most, the disappointment is merely not expressed if there isn't the prompt.  
In fact, for me, knowing that something is on the Devs' radar gives me hope, even when its not implemented.  It gives perspective and context; important clues as to what the future has in store.  More information allows for better decision-making.

For example, a Dev had once spoken about allowing for RGB Hex code to be used for costume colourization.  Even if that never comes to pass, it's heartening to know that someone on the team cares about an improvement like that.  To know that it's not considered undesirable.

So, without going into detail there is a certain, vocal population that takes things far too literally / set in stone even in the planning phases. In last year's suite of changes there were a number of things on the plate that eventually got pushed off before even finishing the rounds in the Alpha Stages behind closed doors... but those who saw those changes held onto them with all they could and were downright mad that they did not make it past the blueprints for this phase. 

 

Often times showing something too early, or to the wrong audience, can alter expectations radically.

[TemporalVileTerror]

In the context of a for-profit venture, I could see someone in management making that argument (and have, numerous times).  Operating in that paradigm, there's this belief that "angry gamers won't buy our product, so don't do anything to make them angry."

 

But given that we're operating in a situation where there isn't anyone's continued employment hinging on a certain subscriber base value and other Servers with divergent development branches exist, can you elaborate on any specific impact in your example which wouldn't be addressed by broadening the pool of available testers and input, and providing clear design goals in that scenario?

If some unreasonable people are hindering testing and feedback efforts due to their personal beliefs and expectations, having a larger pool of potential testers would help overcome that issue by default.  Additionally, even before that, having clearly defined philosophies and goals provide leadership something to point to and say "this is what we're looking for here."  

 

I'm unsure of what this nebulous scenario you're describing is exactly @Galaxy Brain, so I can't provide you with a more meaningful potential solution . . . which just circles back to exactly what the problem I've been describing is.  Keeping things "in the dark" just hinders the overall development cycle.  Educating everyone creates a massive resource to tap in to for better results.

[Naomi]

Commercial or not, what Galaxy is saying is we'll never hear the end of it, which I would say is probably true from past observation and of other gaming communities, despite how many reasonable people there might be who would be understanding. The disappointment can end up feeding negative sentiments over time of broken promises. (There is a very particular studio out there that has absolutely no problem over promising and under delivering because they can afford to, and last I checked, their forums were deleted because it turned into a uselessly toxic cesspool of those who felt betrayed and lied to, vs the white knighting. Granted, they are the epitome of this phenomenon and a bit of a far fetched example, but it does start somewhere and game developers in general I think have wised up.) 

 

For me personally, I've been on the receiving and giving end, and I feel guilty more so than annoyed when people bring something up from the past that wasn't even a promise so much as a casual, "Here's what I'm working on" only for it to have been shelved indefinitely. There would also be the need to constantly explain why one thing or another didn't happen.

 

I'm also assuming you're talking about unreleased features or things in the early stages.

 

6 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

I do have to question the part which says:  "... avoid disappointing anyone if things take a different turn and we can't deliver."
It's a sentiment I've seen expressed a number of times, but I just don't get it.  My perspective may be narrow here, but it seems a little misguided to me to think that a lack of information prevents disappointment.  The disappointment exists whether something was expressly considered and unobtained

I feel like its better to confine it to ones self rather than the whole community at large. I actually hit all kinds of walls unexpectedly (currently facing one, actually) and sometimes need to put it on the back burner to clear my head.. if I were to instead give people what they want ahead of time, then I face a heavy burden of the stress of failure if I cant get it done in a reasonable amount of time or get the quality I'm looking for within that time frame. Holiday content is a good example of this. They are things I enjoy tremendously and would love to work on, but last year I knew I had too little time to do Halloween or Winter stuff on schedule so, bases didn't get presents and trees, and all the other things I know people ask for every year.

 

6 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

For example, a Dev had once spoken about allowing for RGB Hex code to be used for costume colourization.  Even if that never comes to pass, it's heartening to know that someone on the team cares about an improvement like that.  To know that it's not considered undesirable.

 

I'm not going to disagree here because I would want to know, too, and while you might feel that way, there's probably someone out there who absolutely has to have that feature above anything else and might consistently bring it up repeatedly, demanding it be given a second look, even if the reasoning was something monumentally unexpected. This person might also be completely non-entitled and just politely passionate (which I've seen), which makes it all the more worse.

 

If you multiply that by everything on everyone's pet project list, we'd probably get completely toasted.

 

These are just my personal views though, but I don't think anyone enjoys keeping people in the dark intentionally, unless it's to genuinely surprise them.

 

For a lot of the original poster's suggestions, like the mastermind pet customization and things, there are legal and technical issues at play that may not seem immediately obvious, but they're there. 

 

 

[TemporalVileTerror]

Thank you again for your insight, @Naomi.

 

I suppose my point is:  Do you -ever- hear the end of it, even now?

I've personally never worked on a project quite like this.  No commercial obligations, but also not entirely an original, personal hobby project.  There's a LOT about Homecoming which is uncharted territory, and I have personally hoped from the beginning that it would afford this community the opportunity to move away from old, harmful development models.  The hope that not only would Homecoming be a second chance for City of Heroes, but a chance to explore methods of de-industrialization of game development.

 

If the sentiment is that the gamer metaculture is still much too toxic to permit for a safe space to fail, I can't fault that.  There have definitely been years upon years of that attitude being intentionally cultivated as part of marketing ploys.  I suppose part of me wants to believe that this game's community would step up and try to combat that.   It's one of those things that I wanted to see from Homecoming's development back when we were asked about it in 2019.  My hope has been for the Devs to extend the initial olive branches, and then reinforce them through community efforts.

 

I don't want to assume anyone's lived experiences.  I hope that no one on the Homecoming Dev Team has had to suffer in their professional career, but with how far reaching things have been and continue to be, I suspect that you each at least know someone who has suffered or had their passion exploited.  Abuse thrives in hidden places.  And I'm not saying the Homecoming Team are being abusive by keeping things hidden.  But it is something we've been groomed to do by abusers.  The culture of "keep it secret, keep it safe" is one which has allowed for so many problems to take such deep roots, especially in the games industry.

 

So . . . magical imaginary theoretical situation:  If the community could self-reflect enough to maintain an emotionally safe space for the Devs to share their failures without the passionate players being bent out of shape, do you (or anyone) have any additional insights on how to move toward that?  

What would you like to see from the community to improve communication on our end?

 

(and not to totally subvert my own efforts here, but I would like to circle back to clarifying the core philosophies some day too.  But I figure we should focus on this other stuff for now.)

[CFIndustries]

23 minutes ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

If the community could self-reflect enough to maintain an emotionally safe space for the Devs to share their failures without the passionate players being bent out of shape

If this happened in this community, or IRL, I think I'd wonder what planet I was on. Or throw a party. Or move to wherever these people live.

 

Been reading your posts @TemporalVileTerror, and I find them refreshing. Though I really wish a tickle at the back of my brain didn't also say "naïve." But maybe that sense of unjaded hope is a good thing the world needs a bit more of. Lots more.

 

Having done my small share of volunteer work—including work in supporting state legislation and lesser things like being on an HOA board—I can say that in my experience most people aren't wired this way (this open-minded, rational, self-reflective way you expect) anymore, at least not in the USA. And for that reason, I don't blame the devs at all for not doing anything remotely like giving roadmaps or hints or even a smidge of a promise for something that is part-time and volunteer-based. At least not outside of some small core group.

 

I've all but stopped volunteering because I find it toxic, by-and-large. I give it a go every so often when my hope returns and…am rarely disappointed by the bad taste it leaves. I give kudos to people who do it, and who can get past or gloss over all the bad parts. Or find like minds to make it happen coherently.

 

I enjoy playing here on HC, and just treat it like a game made by Etsy…it happens when it happens, it gets here when it gets here, and if they nerf/boost I can take it or leave it, play or walk away. World has enough drama; USA has more than enough drama. Kudos to the devs for even bothering, and in my limited experience with them, for taking the time and caring. Expecting anything more is being presumptuous on my part and…I just shouldn't. Let the devs have their peace if they choose.

 

In the end I agree with you @TemporalVileTerror about wishing the Devs felt comfortable giving more insight at risk of disappointing us every so often. But I have observed that the internet in almost any form, including forums like this, is sadly not the place to do it.

[Darmian]

Lot of thoughtful posts here.  A lot of thoughtful posts.

 

Oh well, There's lots of things I'd like to see happen, but, and here's the rub, unlike some I do not feel I am owed something. I can't even say it is owed to me and others that the game not be screwed up, because that's subjective.

 

And just because I enjoy @TemporalVileTerror's posts and thoughts, here you go: Lughebu!

Edited February 23, 2021 by Darmian

[Apparition]

8 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

But given that we're operating in a situation where there isn't anyone's continued employment hinging on a certain subscriber base value and other Servers with divergent development branches exist, can you elaborate on any specific impact in your example which wouldn't be addressed by broadening the pool of available testers and input, and providing clear design goals in that scenario?

If some unreasonable people are hindering testing and feedback efforts due to their personal beliefs and expectations, having a larger pool of potential testers would help overcome that issue by default.  Additionally, even before that, having clearly defined philosophies and goals provide leadership something to point to and say "this is what we're looking for here."  

 

I'm unsure of what this nebulous scenario you're describing is exactly @Galaxy Brain, so I can't provide you with a more meaningful potential solution . . . which just circles back to exactly what the problem I've been describing is.  Keeping things "in the dark" just hinders the overall development cycle.  Educating everyone creates a massive resource to tap in to for better results.

 

It has been pointed out by Jimmy before that the pool of closed beta testers has been expanding.  Those who provided valuable testing and feedback of the various Issue 26 pages were invited to closed beta test Issue 27, Page One.  Those who provided valuable testing and feedback of the Issue 27, Page One open beta were invited to closed beta test Page Two.  I imagine it will only get bigger over time.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

I suppose my point is:  Do you -ever- hear the end of it, even now?

Its a far different thing when you take into account there is a reason we put up a curtain for the man to be behind.

 

For a close to home example, lets look at City of Titans. This was a game that was announced near immediately after the closing of CoH back in the day as a spiritual successor, starting 100% from Scratch by a volunteer team. They set up a kickstarter, were very vocal and transparent about nearly everything they do.... and that got them mountains of hate as people came to realize that you cannot make an MMO from scratch in the matter of 3 months. Its more like 8 years or so, with the first announcement/footage being available when you are already like 85% done with the game, not at day 1!!! By letting the (public) know about the ins and outs, being transparent about facets that end up being shelved or axed, you play with people's expectations in an ultimately negative light, especially with folks who have good intentions but have no idea what actually goes into the process.

 

Another example is Cyberpunk 2077. That game had alllllll the hype in the world and was shown to us in a super-alpha state a few years back. They caved into fan demand to release it ASAP.... and well look at how that turned out.

 

Again, without going into details the nature of the beast is hard to grasp for many. There was a specific interaction change on Alpha here that went through I want to say 5 major iterations, and by that I mean 5 radically different forms that all attacked the interaction from a different angle, and each time there was a large subset of people who could not comprehend the environment was the place where these radical changes and redesigns were meant to be and spat hellfire whenever they could. 

 

In an ideal world we could all behave much better, sure. But unfortunately that is not where we are 😞

[GM Tock]

21 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

Lighthouse said they have an internal roadmap.  Awesome.

 

Hold up, pump the brakes.

 

Lighthouse is back?  Awesome!  I miss that guy!

(I'm kidding.  Ignore me. 😁 )

[Naomi]

1 hour ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

If the community could self-reflect enough to maintain an emotionally safe space for the Devs to share their failures without the passionate players being bent out of shape, do you (or anyone) have any additional insights on how to move toward that?  

 

Well just to be absolutely clear, the implication of what I meant was that it's about not wanting to hurt other people by way of disappointing them down the road rather than guilt. I don't require a safe space and I'm pretty thick skinned enough to handle criticism harsher than you'd probably find here, it's just that if I can avoid it all together, it's easier not to say anything (if its something that is allowed to be talked about).

 

There's also a distinction there between each dev vs the whole team, which Galaxy has some solid points on. My guess is that marketing and money play a huge role in those kinds of failures. Most artists or developers I read about in those scenarios all seem to have one thing in common, and that is the wish that they had more time to polish.

 

Again I really only speak for myself when possible, because if I were working on powers, which are probably the most hyper critical changes you can make, there are things I would feel completely differently about.

 

I'm a little tired at the moment to address stuff I missed, but you have interesting and valid questions.

 

 

[Draeth Darkstar]

5 hours ago, Naomi said:

For a lot of the original poster's suggestions, like the mastermind pet customization and things, there are legal and technical issues at play that may not seem immediately obvious, but they're there.

Could you elaborate, please? This is exactly the kind of thing that I'd really want to hear from the dev team. If it's not going to happen, I want to know why, especially considering that we've now seen it's technically possible.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Draeth Darkstar

[Naomi]

2 hours ago, Draeth Darkstar said:

Could you elaborate, please? This is exactly the kind of thing that I'd really want to hear from the dev team. If it's not going to happen, I want to know why, especially considering that we've now seen it's technically possible.

 

The way it's implemented elsewhere isn't the way Homecoming might do it, for reasons of security, maintainability, performance, or design reasons. I'm being intentionally vague here because I'm not out to publicly criticize what other people are doing, or how they did it, however constructive and well meaning it might be.

 

Sometimes doing it the preferred way just takes longer. I don't think mastermind pet customization is a closed book at all.

[Jimmy]

15 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

In the context of a for-profit venture, I could see someone in management making that argument (and have, numerous times).  Operating in that paradigm, there's this belief that "angry gamers won't buy our product, so don't do anything to make them angry."

Nearly there. "Angry gamers", as you put it, make for an environment which isn't conducive to happy volunteers. The project lives and dies on the time, dedication and talent of all the volunteers involved, and as such it's incredibly important to me that we keep everyone happy. If something (ie: "angry gamers") causes anyone to become unhappy, they'll leave, and if that keeps happening then the project will slowly die.

 

It's key to keep in mind that not all the devs are like Naomi, Piecemeal and myself - some will want to keep to themselves. And we need to give them that space to be comfortable and work in the way that they want to work.