We are once again asking about Mastermind pet customization

[Greycat]

17 minutes ago, megaericzero said:

Playing devil's advocate, er, again:

I see the distinction you're drawing between choice and option. Using your own example, though, your stance is that no one else can have wine either. Am I incorrect?

 

... not sure where you get that from what they said. They're defining a difference between a price or an option. They never touched on what anyone else can or can't do.

 

Massive leap of (or completely by) logic to say anything else about it.

[megaericzero]

20 minutes ago, Greycat said:

 

... not sure where you get that from what they said. They're defining a difference between a price or an option. They never touched on what anyone else can or can't do.

 

Massive leap of (or completely by) logic to say anything else about it.

My response was also in context of the posts upstream before the thread was necro'd where Rudra said

On 4/11/2024 at 2:20 PM, Rudra said:

So I'm not in favor of giving up costume slots for our pets,

[Triumphant]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

If I have to lose a costume slot I use for my actual character to have a different look for one of my henchmen, then it is a price. Yes, people have the choice of paying to get something or simply not getting it, but that does not change that it is a price to get that something.

 

(Edit: Example: I want a good wine. The wine I want costs $30. I can choose to pay that $30 and get the wine or I can choose to not get the wine. That does not change the fact that the wine costs $30.)

 

(Edit again: Example: I want to go the the nearby park. It's right there, no driving, no fee to enter, nothing. I can choose to go to the park or I can choose to stay home. Neither choice requires I pay something material. So going to the park is an option.)

 

I'm not arguing there's a price, per say.  Merely that the fact that something has a price does not, perforce, mean it isn't an option.  If I go to the same liquor store that you went to shop for a bottle of wine, if I see your bottle of $30 wine, another for $15, and yet another for $57 (and probably dozens of other kinds of wine at varying prices), those are all different options for buying a bottle of wine.  🤷‍♂️

 

 

[Rudra]

15 minutes ago, Triumphant said:

I'm not arguing there's a price, per say.  Merely that the fact that something has a price does not, perforce, mean it isn't an option.  If I go to the same liquor store that you went to shop for a bottle of wine, if I see your bottle of $30 wine, another for $15, and yet another for $57 (and probably dozens of other kinds of wine at varying prices), those are all different options for buying a bottle of wine.  🤷‍♂️

 

 

Except in our case, we can either buy that $30 bottle of wine or not. The proposal is that we give up our own costume slots to get pet costume slots instead of seeing if our devs can create a way to customize our pets without having to do so. If they choose to go the give up a costume slot for each pet customization? Then I and some other MM players will simply not get to have custom pets.

[Triumphant]

6 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Except in our case, we can either buy that $30 bottle of wine or not. The proposal is that we give up our own costume slots to get pet costume slots instead of seeing if our devs can create a way to customize our pets without having to do so. If they choose to go the give up a costume slot for each pet customization? Then I and some other MM players will simply not get to have custom pets.

You don't get to have custom pets now.  What's the difference?  🤔

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, megaericzero said:

3 hours ago, Rudra said:

If I have to lose a costume slot I use for my actual character to have a different look for one of my henchmen, then it is a price. Yes, people have the choice of paying to get something or simply not getting it, but that does not change that it is a price to get that something.

 

(Edit: Example: I want a good wine. The wine I want costs $30. I can choose to pay that $30 and get the wine or I can choose to not get the wine. That does not change the fact that the wine costs $30.)

 

(Edit again: Example: I want to go the the nearby park. It's right there, no driving, no fee to enter, nothing. I can choose to go to the park or I can choose to stay home. Neither choice requires I pay something material. So going to the park is an option.)

 

Expand  

Playing devil's advocate, er, again:

I see the distinction you're drawing between choice and option. Using your own example, though, your stance is that no one else can have wine either. Am I incorrect?

My stance is that given the option, I want to see what the devs for Homecoming are doing with Mastermind pet customization rather than just simply implementing what another server did. Maybe they will implement what that other server did. Maybe they are making a means of customizing henchmen class pets that doesn't require us to give up our own costume slots. Maybe they are giving us the ability to have keyed pet appearances that change depending on which of our own costumes is active. Instead of just implementing what someone else did, let's see what our devs have in mind. My argument here is that the other server's implementation imposes a cost that reduces our own characters' variability in appearance. While that may be fine for those that use less costume slots, it feels unfair to those of us that have more appearances for our characters.

 

(This post added to replace hidden post for having quoted wrong post I am replying to.)

[Rudra]

Just now, Triumphant said:

You don't get to have custom pets now.  What's the difference?  🤔

We can't get custom pets now. And as far as being able to under the other server's mechanic? That's the point. I feel it is unfair that players that have multiple looks for their characters are being unfairly cut out from getting customizable pets simply for having multiple looks our characters use depending on time of year, content currently being played, and other situational factors. For us to get those pet customizations, we have to give up upwards of 6 of our costume slots to get what other players are getting to enjoy without constraint because they don't make as many looks for their characters.

[Triumphant]

@Rudra  Okay, so maybe I'm really not understanding you.  For clarity's sake, though, let me just say that I am of like mind with you in feeling that pet customizability that DOES NOT use our personal costume slots would be a better option than one that DOES use our personal costume slots.  👍

 

I'm also possibly not clear on one other thing, besides:  The costume slots that are used- are they automatically taken for MM pets, whether or not you actually play a Mastermind?  What I mean is, would players that DON'T run Masterminds still be shorted a costume slot?  If the answer is yes, I actually agree with you that this would NOT be a good change.  I also don't want to give up a costume slot for a class that I don't play.

 

If that is not the case though, and it turns out that this method is the only way to implement such an option (and I'm also in agreement with you that other methods should be explored before making the change), would you have any objection to implementing the change for Mastermind players that DO want customization of their pets and DON'T mind sacrificing the costume slot?

[Rudra]

13 minutes ago, Triumphant said:

I'm also possibly not clear on one other thing, besides:  The costume slots that are used- are they automatically taken for MM pets, whether or not you actually play a Mastermind?  What I mean is, would players that DON'T run Masterminds still be shorted a costume slot?  If the answer is yes, I actually agree with you that this would NOT be a good change.  I also don't want to give up a costume slot for a class that I don't play.

I can't speak for the other server. I only play on Homecoming. However, the YouTube video I last saw about it required the player to select the pet and then choose to customize it from the popup menu. So I'm pretty sure it does not normally take up character costume slots unless you choose to sacrifice one to customize the selected pet. So to the best of my knowledge, no, it would not affect any ATs that lacked pets.

 

13 minutes ago, Triumphant said:

If that is not the case though, and it turns out that this method is the only way to implement such an option (and I'm also in agreement with you that other methods should be explored before making the change), would you have any objection to implementing the change for Mastermind players that DO want customization of their pets and DON'T mind sacrificing the costume slot?

If other means of implementation are explored and found to not be valid, that the only way to customize pets is by giving up our characters' own costume slots, then no, I will not stand in the way. I will lament not being able to make use of it without sacrificing my established characters predetermined appearances, but I will not stand in the way of others getting to make use of it. However, I will stand in the way until such time as other possibilities of implementation are explored and determined to not be possible simply because I know I am not the only player that has a wide assortment of appearances that get used for various situations and so would have to contend with losing those aspects of our characters in order to enjoy the same thing.

 

Edit: If I am still being clear as mud, let me know and I will try to rephrase.

 

Edited July 27 by Rudra

[megaericzero]

26 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Edit: If I am still being clear as mud, let me know and I will try to rephrase.

That does help clarify things, for me at least. Thank you.

I was under the impression that you were wholly opposed - even in the scenario where no viable alternatives were found - but I see you just want to exhaust the other possibilities first. Sad thing is, we'll probably never know because it's unlikely we get a dev explicitly posting "we tried x, y, and z and couldn't get it to function."

[Triumphant]

43 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I can't speak for the other server. I only play on Homecoming. However, the YouTube video I last saw about it required the player to select the pet and then choose to customize it from the popup menu. So I'm pretty sure it does not normally take up character costume slots unless you choose to sacrifice one to customize the selected pet. So to the best of my knowledge, no, it would not affect any ATs that lacked pets.

 

If other means of implementation are explored and found to not be valid, that the only way to customize pets is by giving up our characters' own costume slots, then no, I will not stand in the way. I will lament not being able to make use of it without sacrificing my established characters predetermined appearances, but I will not stand in the way of others getting to make use of it. However, I will stand in the way until such time as other possibilities of implementation are explored and determined to not be possible simply because I know I am not the only player that has a wide assortment of appearances that get used for various situations and so would have to contend with losing those aspects of our characters in order to enjoy the same thing.

 

Edit: If I am still being clear as mud, let me know and I will try to rephrase.

 

Okay, I hear what you're saying.  That seems reasonable to me.  Thanks for the clarification.  👍

[Rudra]

11 minutes ago, megaericzero said:

That does help clarify things, for me at least. Thank you.

I was under the impression that you were wholly opposed - even in the scenario where no viable alternatives were found - but I see you just want to exhaust the other possibilities first. Sad thing is, we'll probably never know because it's unlikely we get a dev explicitly posting "we tried x, y, and z and couldn't get it to function."

If the devs implement pet customization that requires we give up character costume slots given that they have already stated they will not use the method the other server uses and were at least looking at the possibility of customization, then the best approach is to just accept that (hopefully) they exhausted other options first.

 

Edited July 27 by Rudra
Edited to remove "9" from middle of "customization".

[srmalloy]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

My stance is that given the option, I want to see what the devs for Homecoming are doing with Mastermind pet customization rather than just simply implementing what another server did.

And without access to the other server's code base, there's no way to tell how it was implemented on that server. I've watched features, updates, and bugfixes being made to Homecoming since I joined, and I appreciate the way that the HC staff takes the time to try and establish that changes they make are going to be stable and not cause problems with the existing characters and gameplay before they get rolled out; I would rather wait for them to take the time to do it right in the context of Homecoming, rather than just have it riveted onto the side without a proper integration with the rest of the game code.

[kelika2]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:41 AM, Videra said:

Can I be real, as a long-time Mastermind player?

Can we please fix the archetype first and focus on fluff like this second? Like, MMs have MUCH bigger problems than lacking pet customization and HC only has so much manpower available to it. In-fact, one of the people who does stuff related to customization just left the dev team, I believe.

This game is balanced around SOs still.  And not speeding everything.  Masterminds are pretty fucking strong when everyone has SOs and are top performers.

 

Anything you are about to come back at me with is probably tainted with an IO mindset.

[ThatGuyCDude]

I think the answer lies in the Mission Architect.  More explicitly, in the ability of Mission Architect to create 'enemy groups'.

The enemy group editor lets players assign custom entities to various ranks (Minion/Lieutenant/Boss/Elite Boss/ArchVillain).  These entities can have player-created costumes, and more than one entity can be assigned to each rank.  The custom enemy groups take up a certain amount of space when incorporated into architect missions and that eats into the data limit each player is allowed for missions they create and share.

MasterMind Henchmen could work with that same kind of interface and setup.  Give the players an enemy group window that lets them assign any number of costume files they may have (NOT their costume slots!  Files from their saved costumes, just like in AE creation) to each of the three henchman tiers (and separately each of their upgrade states).  They can then select however many henchmen group files they want to load into the game at large... provided their total space does not exceed the amount allotted to their account.  Then, character by character, allow the player to dictate which of these henchmen groups they will use (or if said character would use the default).  Doing so would immediately dismiss all henchmen and cause new henchmen summoned to draw their costumes from the henchmen group selected.

This interface would need to be accessed in a fixed safe location, probably City Hall/Marconeville Arachnos Headquarters/Pocket D.  I'm also not sure if it would conflict with Beast Mastery or Robots either... I don't see why it would but there might be some animation incompatibility.  Still, it's at least a different place to consider than using the costume slots.

Edited July 28 by ThatGuyCDude

[Rudra]

7 minutes ago, ThatGuyCDude said:

I'm also not sure if it would conflict with Beast Mastery or Robots either...

Beasts would have the problem that we can't make animal characters using the AE editor and the animals use different animations than our human(oid) character models. (Edit: And the Assault Bot would probably need to be limited to a Huge model.)

 

Edited July 28 by Rudra

[ThatGuyCDude]

10 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Beasts would have the problem that we can't make animal characters using the AE editor and the animals use different animations than our human(oid) character models.

Right.  It comes down to whether they can still animate at all when using 'animal' powers with human models, or vice-versa.  As a working example, Kheldian Nova-form and Dwarf-form attacks have animations that are viable both with their unique models and when the player is in human form.

I imagine the player would be able to mix-and-match existing assets and their own created assets into each category, so they might drag wolves into their Tier 2 (Upgraded) category to coexist with--say--a custom werewolf costume using the <Huge> body model... or even a model from a hologram they've unlocked with Prismatics.  Of course, if it's impossible for a wolf model to animate properly with say thug henchmen powers (or a thug to animate properly with wolf henchmen powers), then the system would have to exclude Beast Mastery (and possibly the bots) and stick to henchmen that are interchangeably 'human enough'.

Edited July 28 by ThatGuyCDude
Typo

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, ThatGuyCDude said:

As a working example, Kheldian Nova-form and Dwarf-form attacks have animations that are viable both with their unique models and when the player is in human form.

Are those different animations for the same power or the same animation across the forms? I'm inclined to think different animations. So for beasts, since we only have human form models to work with as players, new animations would need to be made, Beast Mastery would be left out, or animal form models for the beasts would need to be added specifically for that set. (Edit: Or beasts would just use the various other animal models already in the game with some extras made for more variety?)

 

Edited July 28 by Rudra

[Greycat]

6 hours ago, Rudra said:

Are those different animations for the same power or the same animation across the forms? I'm inclined to think different animations.

 

 

 Nova would, by default, have to have different animations - it's an entirely nonhumanoid model.

 

Dwarf shares quite a few humanform animations  - you can even have it dance, attempt to eat, etc. I *want* to say it's copying the humanform animations (or human animations from elsewhere,) as it's no great effort to do so. (Edit: double checking, yes they do share them.)

Edited July 28 by Greycat

[Oubliette_Red]

It'd be nice to have Praetorian bots as an option for MMs, it would make sense on my Praetorian MM.

It'd also be nice if colourization on Demons actually coloured the demons flames, if not tinting the demons themselves.

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, Greycat said:

 

 Nova would, by default, have to have different animations - it's an entirely nonhumanoid model.

 

Dwarf shares quite a few humanform animations  - you can even have it dance, attempt to eat, etc. I *want* to say it's copying the humanform animations (or human animations from elsewhere,) as it's no great effort to do so. (Edit: double checking, yes they do share them.)

I was only thinking of Human Form vs. Nova From. Thanks for checking.

[golstat2003]

On 7/27/2024 at 5:49 PM, megaericzero said:

That does help clarify things, for me at least. Thank you.

I was under the impression that you were wholly opposed - even in the scenario where no viable alternatives were found - but I see you just want to exhaust the other possibilities first. Sad thing is, we'll probably never know because it's unlikely we get a dev explicitly posting "we tried x, y, and z and couldn't get it to function."

 

Actually there is an experimentation time within closed beta where they devs specifically say we tried x, y, z and have player try those things. Knowing HC devs, anyone in closed beta would be able to see and test what they tried. The only things that make it to Open are what is probably going to live, but that does not mean multiple things aren't tried in closed testing.

[BrandX]

I just want to turn a Thugs MM into a Catgirl MM.  Gangwar into RELEASE THE CATGIRLS!

 

Is that to much?

[Videra]

On 7/28/2024 at 2:02 AM, kelika2 said:

This game is balanced around SOs still.  And not speeding everything.  Masterminds are pretty fucking strong when everyone has SOs and are top performers.

 

Anything you are about to come back at me with is probably tainted with an IO mindset.

 

I know this is literally bait, but I haven't posted here in ages, so why not:

You are simply wrong. The game has evolved far beyond SOs, simply turn your eyes toward new content and incarnate content.

[Rudra]

22 minutes ago, Videra said:

 

I know this is literally bait, but I haven't posted here in ages, so why not:

You are simply wrong. The game has evolved far beyond SOs, simply turn your eyes toward new content and incarnate content.

If you are talking about Hard Mode/Advanced Mode content, that was added specifically because content like that was asked for. And incarnate content isn't exactly normal game content, just like Hard Mode/Advanced Mode. The bulk of the game has gone unchanged for difficulty since the game was first launched, and when the game was launched, it was balanced around TOs at low levels, DOs at low to mid levels, and SOs for the rest.