New Code Block/Mechanism Suggestion: Launch Content Based on Team Leader Level Only

[TemporalVileTerror]

Sourced from:  https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/29123-beta-patch-notes-for-may-24th-2021/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-365010

 

So, no such mechanism exists presently, to the best of @Faultline's current awareness, that would allow a team to launch a Task/Strike Force with just the Team Leader's level mattering.

 

I wonder if the Badge/Souvenir Requirement system could not simply be subverted to that end, as I think there are instances of content which unlocks for the leader once they complete a particular mission, and does not extend that requirement to the rest of the team members.

 

But even if that workaround is not the ideal solution, I wonder how feasible implementing new code to make the distinction between team leader's level and that of the team members' to determine the entire team's eligibility to begin a Task/Strike Force.

 

Ideally, to ensure new players aren't dragged in to a no-win scenario, a dialogue box would pop up to reinforce the information of which level range a particular series of missions was designed to be completed in.  Extra focus placed on informing players who are below that original level range of the risks associated with beginning said content, and likewise a notice for the other members of the team of low level participants, so those other players may be more selective in their teaming.

 

And, of course, I am fully aware that there are members of this community who feel strongly in favour of gating player from enjoying content with their friends and peers at different level ranges.  I feel very strongly against it.  I don't think either that group or I will necessarily be able to see eye-to-eye on that any time soon, so I politely ask that if anyone feels inclined to debate the value of increasing content accessibility, that perhaps we should dedicate a General Discussion thread to that debate instead.  I would personally rather see this thread used to examine the merits of the proposed workaround using Badge/Souvenir Requirement code, or the technical limitations that may hinder the feasibility of new code developed to meet this need.

[golstat2003]

Even if this were to be the case, it is still the Team Leader's responsibility when advertising a TF what the level range would be. Actually I'd argue even more so, if this were ever implemented. I can't think of any reasons to be against this. 

[TemporalVileTerror]

Yes, true enough.
The teaming culture on Everlasting is quite pleasant for the most part from what I've seen, although I don't have much experience on the other Shards.  I see many LFG messages there where the team leaders will expressly state weather a team is "open to all levels" or "##+ only."  I will of course maintain that clear communication between community members will always remain the ideal solution to many issues related to team expectations  . . . but if the Devs can provide additional tools to facilitate or clarify player communication to pre-emptively mitigate those problems, then I am all-for those tools also being implemented.

But that's really a whole other topic.  I just wanted to acknowledge that the risk of unclear team expectations IS a potential problem with what I'm requesting here, so a mindfulness of that during development should be encouraged.

[Lykkio]

3 hours ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

And, of course, I am fully aware that there are members of this community who feel strongly in favour of gating player from enjoying content with their friends and peers at different level ranges.  I feel very strongly against it.  I don't think either that group or I will necessarily be able to see eye-to-eye on that any time soon, so I politely ask that if anyone feels inclined to debate the value of increasing content accessibility, that perhaps we should dedicate a General Discussion thread to that debate instead.  I would personally rather see this thread used to examine the merits of the proposed workaround using Badge/Souvenir Requirement code, or the technical limitations that may hinder the feasibility of new code developed to meet this need.

So you're asking that no one criticize your idea, and saying you only want comments from people who support your idea. In other words, gatekeeping your own thread! Furthermore calling this a need is a pretty strong word. No one is stopping you from playing with your friends. In my experience, friends are always willing to play with you at whatever level will work best for everyone. This change would cause more problems (communication complications, poor team composition resulting in dissolved teams and hard feelings or worse, alienation of new and returning players) than it would 'fix' (none).

[TemporalVileTerror]

It seems there has been a miscommunication.  I am welcome to receiving criticisms of my philosophy, though I suggest it takes place in a thread dedicated to discussing the design philosophy specifically.  As I view that as a broad-reaching topic of discussion, I think General is the appropriate board for such.

I want to maintain this thread as discussion to the specifics of the suggestion itself.

I am asking for people to organize their thoughts and criticisms appropriately per the structure of the forum boards.

Naturally some cross pollination will occur.  Hence why I requested it, and didn't make it a demand.

The "fix" here is that groups of friends will need to make fewer compromises in determining which content they can play together.  Additionally, all players may extend their pool of potential recruits, if they are willing to.  If someone really wants the Lady Grey Task Force, for specific example, then it will be easier to form a team, as the number of players available to create that team has been effectively increased.  

Improved player choice and self-determination.  Providing players with additional tools to determine the parameters of their own gameplay matches design philosophies evident throughout the development history of City of Heroes.  Frankly, I see this change as the natural progression of a series of intentional design choices stretching back to the original inception of Sidekicking.

[golstat2003]

7 minutes ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

It seems there has been a miscommunication.  I am welcome to receiving criticisms of my philosophy, though I suggest it takes place in a thread dedicated to discussing the design philosophy specifically.  As I view that as a broad-reaching topic of discussion, I think General is the appropriate board for such.

I want to maintain this thread as discussion to the specifics of the suggestion itself.

I am asking for people to organize their thoughts and criticisms appropriately per the structure of the forum boards.

Naturally some cross pollination will occur.  Hence why I requested it, and didn't make it a demand.

The "fix" here is that groups of friends will need to make fewer compromises in determining which content they can play together.  Additionally, all players may extend their pool of potential recruits, if they are willing to.  If someone really wants the Lady Grey Task Force, for specific example, then it will be easier to form a team, as the number of players available to create that team has been effectively increased.  

Improved player choice and self-determination.  Providing players with additional tools to determine the parameters of their own gameplay matches design philosophies evident throughout the development history of City of Heroes.  Frankly, I see this change as the natural progression of a series of intentional design choices stretching back to the original inception of Sidekicking.

 

I don't think it's realistic to think that the pros and cons of a suggestion won't be debated in the same thread. That's the point of the suggestion forum. Also opening a new thread would just be needless clutter imo.

 

Often those discussions about the props and cons, can improve a suggestion, as has happened numerous times on these forums and especially on live.

 

EDIT: Debating if a change is even needed goes right along with every suggestion. That's not "design philosophy" as any suggestion made is up to the devs how the actually implement it. (Or even if they do no matter how much debate their is for or against a suggestion). Not us.

Edited May 25, 2021 by golstat2003

[TemporalVileTerror]

Again, it seems I've done a poor job at delineating here.

 

I think discussing the pros and cons of the suggestion here is fine.

I think discussing the broader reaching elements of design philosophy in terms of "what even is a game, and what is gatekeeping" is important to have, but draws us away from the specific focus of this topic.

 

Focused Feedback versus Design Philosophy.  Both valuable, and both interrelated, but I felt it would be valuable to organize them accordingly.

 

Of course, at this point, this thread has certainly mutated in to a meta-discussion on the discussion itself, so my intended plan clearly backfired.

[golstat2003]

9 minutes ago, TemporalVileTerror said:

Again, it seems I've done a poor job at delineating here.

 

I think discussing the pros and cons of the suggestion here is fine.

I think discussing the broader reaching elements of design philosophy in terms of "what even is a game, and what is gatekeeping" is important to have, but draws us away from the specific focus of this topic.

 

Focused Feedback versus Design Philosophy.  Both valuable, and both interrelated, but I felt it would be valuable to organize them accordingly.

 

Of course, at this point, this thread has certainly mutated in to a meta-discussion on the discussion itself, so my intended plan clearly backfired.

 

The best suggestions are the ones you just post and say what you're trying to fix (why you think it's an issue, the REASON why you're making the suggestion) and then letting things flow, while debating with folks about it. Often other better suggestions (or player suggested workarounds) can come out of that.

 

That debate isn't design philosophy. We're not designing anything. It's up to the devs to decide the how of how they implement a change, IF they decide to. That debate can also help to inform the devs if it's a suggestion they want to even try to pursue. They read every suggestion, but just because it's posted here doesn't mean it's a shoe in to get implemented. That was impossible on live and is probably quadropoly so here with a volunteer dev team of the current size. And the folks who don't like the the suggestion are just as important in their opinion as those who make or like a suggestion.

 

In IT design philosophy is best left to the devs as they know the code best. I'd say that's true even with this game where the code is out in the wild.

 

With that said you've been polite all along this thread so kudos on that. 🙂 

 

EDIT: And to be clear I'm not picking on you. I'm stating the above cause I've seen many folks gets confused when the devs don't implement things exactly as they wish or even that a majority of players wish or suggest. (See the recent Sorcery shitstorm right before the last HC update).

Edited May 25, 2021 by golstat2003

[TemporalVileTerror]

I personally take more of a collectivistic view and less of a Hegelian dialectical one to this process,.  I think it would be more productive and structured to establish the parameters of grand design philosophy at scale with a stratified tier separate from the implementation and practical application discussions.*

I've made efforts throughout the past two years here to articulate my own views, and found it a constant struggle, as I can't quite engage in such a confrontational system as the one you describe, @golstat2003.  It doesn't "fit" my methods, my professional and hobbyist work experiences, or me as an individual.  That's not to say that I haven't sometimes found myself getting defensive or even feeling a desire to react with hostility in these forums, of course.  Sometimes buttons get pushed.

I just see so many users here who seem to thrive on intentionally demoralizing others.  Others who are trying to contribute toward either method, or just generally expressing their own opinions.  So, because of all those factors, I am trying to encourage an approach which I believe has the chance to yield a better end result.

Clearly I haven't yet figured out the best way to encourage others to attempt this method with me.

 

Teamwork as opposed to PvP, in terms that may help some of the players here to understand my attempted approach.

Granted, with so much of what goes on with the Homecoming Team obscured, it's kind of like trying to play a Task Force with the UI turned off, to belabour the metaphor further.  Not impossible, particularly for experienced individuals, but it sure doesn't make it any easier.

 

* Didn't know where to address this without disrupting the flow, but I do want to stress that I also understand that things do change over time.  The specific goals and intentions which even the Homecoming Team may have for City of Heroes will be subject to shifting personal views, better understanding of desires and expectations of the playerbase, skills and professional development, and (extremely frustrating to me on a personal level) legal obligations with NC.  And I do recognize that expressing the goals, intentions, and philosophy takes time and energy that are finite resources, and resources that are shared with actually committing to development of City of Heroes itself.  (Albeit, I think having a dedicated "mouthpiece" / P.R. rep for the Homecoming Team might seriously help cut through a lot of those problems, but that's yet another conversational tangent.)

So, I acknowledge that maybe I too need to lay some groundwork and actually dedicate a thread to discussing -my- goals and intentions, and the philosophy which informs them.  

 

Thusly, I suppose I'll put a pin in this thread for now and try to work up the energy to give some foundational parameters to help better reinforce this thread and future ones.