Empire State Heroes Mush


  • Pitcrew

    No account will ever be fair to everyone, but: a player apping Cole Cash asked on-channel why he was being asked to genericize references to Halo Corporation in his background, when, e.g., Batman's background does not genericize Wayne Enterprises. Staff replied that this was because he was not the founder and owner of said corporation. The player in turn replied that Bruce Wayne was not the founder of Wayne Enterprises either, and that it seemed like unfair favorites-playing (their words) to allow one and not the other. Staff noted their objection.

    I have two thoughts about this specific case and one related thought about ESH generally.

    S1) This is a no-win situation for staff. If they let Cole's player establish stuff about the Halo Corporation and then someone decides to apply for the actual founder (unlikely as this may seem), that player is going to be upset. (And still other players will take it as license to argue for narrative control of things that are part of, but not necessarily a key element of, their background.) If they don't, the person wanting to play Cole will be upset.

    S2) Staff was a little short with the player. I don't know whether this may or may not have been justified by behavior not visible to me, but I thought the policy explanation could have been handled better.

    G1) ESH feels to me like a game where staff has a really strong idea of what they want and don't want on it, and if what you the player want isn't what they want then you can pound sand. There is nothing wrong with this attitude, and in all honesty I wish more games would adopt it, but it's an attitude that benefits from a very, very clear explication of what staff wants and doesn't want.


  • Admin

    @Autumn said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    and in all honesty I wish more games would adopt it, but it's an attitude that benefits from a very, very clear explication of what staff wants and doesn't want.

    I've no horses whatsoever in this race but it sounds like staff was pretty clear about what they wanted. It's just the player in question didn't like the answer.



  • Seriously contemplating coming on board now.


  • Pitcrew

    @Arkandel I'd say they were very clear about what they wanted in this specific instance, but I can see how a third party might have questions about how to generalize from it.

    Which is not to minimize the good in being clear what one wants from a specific person. There's a fairly longish list of games that have lost me completely when the only feedback is "this isn't a good fit" or "this is too high/too low". "Remove or rename this specific element", by contrast, is a breath of fresh air.



  • @Autumn said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    S1) This is a no-win situation for staff. If they let Cole's player establish stuff about the Halo Corporation and then someone decides to apply for the actual founder (unlikely as this may seem), that player is going to be upset. (And still other players will take it as license to argue for narrative control of things that are part of, but not necessarily a key element of, their background.) If they don't, the person wanting to play Cole will be upset.
    S2) Staff was a little short with the player. I don't know whether this may or may not have been justified by behavior not visible to me, but I thought the policy explanation could have been handled better.
    G1) ESH feels to me like a game where staff has a really strong idea of what they want and don't want on it, and if what you the player want isn't what they want then you can pound sand. There is nothing wrong with this attitude, and in all honesty I wish more games would adopt it, but it's an attitude that benefits from a very, very clear explication of what staff wants and doesn't want.

    As the player in question, I've never had any sort of negative experience or interactions with anyone on the game. There is one player who I have set to gag because I feel that they're aggressively misandric and a bit creepy OOCly towards ladies, but that person is neither staff, nor have I ever outwardly had a confrontation or even directly negative interaction with them. The reason for the cattiness is a mystery, and a large part of the issue. It was unwarranted and out of left field. Prior to that, I had nothing but positive opinions of all the staff, and with my other alts was open and receptive to all feedback and suggestions for adjustments to character applications.

    With regard to the clear expectation of what staff wants, this is the entire crux of the issue. Character A can have this thing in their background as a resource that is a direct reference to an outside comic source. But Character B is denied that same privilege. Again, it comes down to consistency. If Ted Kord can use and reference Kord Omniversal, which is a direct DC related link, why shouldn't Cole Cash be allowed to say that he has access to Halo Corp? If Batman can have a vehicle named The Batmobile, why can Grifter not have M.I.R.V.? I'll also note that these were not the ONLY things that I was asked to rewrite or edit. The other ones I take no issue with at all. It's specifically these things that one character/player can do, but another cannot.



  • @ShelBeast As someone not connected to this - I've never set foot on the game - you may think staff owes you a detailed explanation as to why they might turn down something you want in your background or want to have access to, but the truth is they don't. It would be nice to clearly know what is expected or what the reasoning is, though, and it seems to me they made an attempt to answer that based on what @Autumn reported.

    The answer was given that Cole was not the founder and owner of Halo, and while Bruce Wayne did not found Wayne Enterprises, that is a direct family connection that simply transferred to Bruce. That's a small but important detail that would be different with Cole and Halo, because presumably the Cole app is trying to justify him having control of Halo and all its assets. If staff says no, he doesn't, then he doesn't.

    That is not unfair or unequal, even when you add Ted Kord and Kord Omniversal, which would be along the same lines of the Wayne example above. When it's a matter of a corporation that was not founded by the character (or character's family), or the character is simply connected to it through an association, even if comics canon leads to him eventually coming into control of it, that doesn't mean the same thing is going to happen on a game. Staff has other things to factor in there when it comes to handling multiple players and characters, and more importantly, potential players and characters.

    All that said, starting this part of the thread off with a somewhat vague criticism that accuses staff of playing favorites and acting like the issue in question is trivial and an attack on you (while not giving details or even saying it was about you until more details emerged) makes it look like you're out to create drama. You are unhappy that you didn't get to have your way, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean staff is out to get you. I'm sure they're trying to keep a balance in mind when it comes to in-game corporations that go through family ownership vs. outside ownership changes.

    If you stick with the character and eventually settle in, perhaps you will have the opportunity to run a plot that winds up with Cole owning Halo.



  • Also, Batman is cool and popular and going to get more stuff.

    I have no idea who Cole Cash is.

    Stop apping f-tier nobodies.


  • Pitcrew

    @Wolfs Except I think Cole IS one of the owners of Halo corp, and was at one point, the only acting owner of it. He may not have Founded it, but neither did Bruce Wayne, etc etc. So I mean, if someone bought into a corporation enough to be one of the owners, shouldn't they at least be able to claim access to it? I don't think ShelBeast was saying it was all his to play with, just have access to some of the toys that Cole uses in Canon? (I could be wrong).

    It seems a little skewed, if this is the case.



  • @Macha I checked on who Cole is, because I didn't know, so I saw where things happened in the comics that led to him being an owner or sole owner, whichever the case. But, the point remains that he did not create the company, nor does he have a direct family tie to the founder, so if there IS a concern about that stepping on the toes of a potential Marlowe, that could be part of the denial. That would be up to staff to further clarify, however, along with whether or not he would have access to any of the company's money or "toys."

    The point also remains that someone playing Bruce Wayne or Ted Kord does not have that possible conflict to worry about, making their situations notably different.



  • @Wolfs I think you have a few misconceptions about what I was app'ing for, and what my issue is. My issue is less that I "didn't get what I wanted". My issue is that policy only applies to certain people but not others. My issue was very clearly with how I was responded to with needless aggression. I was not saying a single thing about Cole having control of Halo. That was not reflected in my application at any point. I have no interest in Cole owning Halo. I don't want him to have control of it in the future. I'm not trying to even state a single thing about Halo, what it does or who runs it or anything. My app just says "Cole has money because he worked for these guys, and this company made this cool gun for him."

    It still comes down to that Bruce Wayne and Ted Kord get to keep, specifically, "Wayne Enterprises" and "Kord Omniversal", which are both direct references to DC, which is what is being cited to deny the Cole app for "Halo Corporation". If the direct reference by name is the issue, why didn't Batman or Blue Beetle have to change "Wayne Enterprises" or "Kord Omniversal" to something else? Anything else?

    I guess I'm going to have to scream it over and over. My issue isn't the details. It is about the lack of consistency. It is that some people are allowed to do things that others are not. My issue is that when questioned on that, staff decided that, rather than being reasonable, or forthright, they decided to be snide and catty. I don't feel that my first post was vague. It was exactly what my issue is. The details of the issue are irrelevant. It's also not to cause drama. This is constructive criticism. Be consistent. Don't be a dick when people ask you about why you're not being consistent.



  • @ShelBeast Well, it probably would have helped if you were also clearer about what you wanted to use Halo for. If you only wanted to have access to them for some tech and vehicles and money or whatever, I personally don't see the issue if he's been tied to them in canon, but again - that's on staff to determine.

    The consistency thing, that's not an argument I'm getting. I see no reason Wayne or Kord should not be able to mention corporations they own, that their families have run in the past. There is no reason they should need to keep that generic when it's a core part of what lets them do what they do. So you're saying staff told you you can't name Halo because it's a reference to something in DC Comics? That makes no sense to me without further explanation of some kind.

    Anyway, some people are always going to be allowed to do things others aren't. I can't touch on the snide or catty side because I wasn't there and I didn't see the exchanges or whatever led to the response you got. But, it remains that your initial post about this was low on detail led to others having to ask for more information about what you were talking about. You didn't even say it was about you.


  • Pitcrew

    @Wolfs said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    But, it remains that your initial post about this was low on detail led to others having to ask for more information about what you were talking about. You didn't even say it was about you.

    Can you explain to me why this is relevant to the issue that @ShelBeast is discussing?



  • @Sunny Because it makes it a personal matter, rather than speaking on behalf of someone else. There is an inherent bias in that, whether recognized or not.


  • Pitcrew

    @Wolfs said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    @Sunny Because it makes it a personal matter, rather than speaking on behalf of someone else. There is an inherent bias in that, whether recognized or not.

    It being personal has no bearing whatsoever on the actual issue being discussed. I asked why it was relevant, not why you said it.



  • @Wolfs said in Empire State Heroes Mush:

    So you're saying staff told you you can't name Halo because it's a reference to something in DC Comics? That makes no sense to me without further explanation of some kind.

    Yes. This. THIS IS MY POINT! I was asking literally that.The entire thing is that I'm not allowed to have Halo Corporation listed by name. That's it. They demand that I change the name. And for no reason given, other than it is a direct reference to DC properties. If this is the case, that's fine and all well and good. It's a Marvel game. I don't see how "Halo Corp" being named that detracts, dilutes, or harms the Marvel theme in any way, but sure. Whatevs. I just want that to be consistent to everyone.

    As for the post. I didn't present it as a personal issue with details because I didn't want to make it about being a personal issue. The complaint is straight forward and valid. The details of what actually happened are absolutely irrelevant, whether or not they happened to me or anyone else. I was giving my genuine constructive criticism in a manner that was detached and as free from bias as I could give it. I don't want a Hog Pit thread on this. As I've stated, up until now, my experience on this game has been great. But this? It's something that should be looked at, rather than callously dismissed with all but open derision when asked about.



  • @ShelBeast Okay, when it's presented that way, I get why there's confusion. I didn't feel that was clear to me from the start. I was reading it more like you wanted Cole to have control of the corporation and there was an issue with Wayne or Kord's examples based on that, but I better understand the issue now.

    Based on this, no - I can't say I see why actual ownership/founding/whatever, through family or otherwise, matters when it comes to simply naming them if they're saying they don't want DC corporations named for some reason, especially when Wayne Enterprises is so vital to everything Bruce/Batman does.



  • @Wolfs Right. Same can be said for Cole, too. Halo is integral to him as a character. I don't mind having to rename it, though I feel it's unnecessary busywork that serves no purpose other than making me jump through additional hoops. In some cases, I definitely see why they'd want the change. For example, if I were to try to name Kherans as an alien race. I'll ignore, for the moment, that Starfire is a thing as a Tamaranean, and say "Yeah, okay. Let's use a Marvel equivalent, instead to keep with theme". In my application for Cole, there is a great example of this. They asked me to remove mentions of the Coda. Alright. No problem. I should have thought of that, and maybe did some research into an equivalent group in Marvel. I take no issue there. That's like a whole non-Marvel faction that my app just kind of adds into the tapestry, along with a whole other list of things to worry about. But Halo corp being named Halo Corp isn't going to actually change a thing at all in my app. It doesn't rewrite the world. It affects nothing.



  • @ShelBeast So I went back through the thread and see where they're trying to be a Marvel setting but allowing characters from other media if people can make things fit in, and they'd try to help if people needed it.

    I guess this is part of the problem of trying to run a publisher-specific world while allowing DC (and other) characters to exist within it, but I can't say I see the big deal about naming a corporation that isn't a Marvel one, especially if they're already allowing it in other cases. The situation is not really what I interpreted it as originally, at all.

    Maybe there's more to this than I'm understanding at this point.



  • What's more important, that this Cole is somehow affiliated with some corporation that is/does tech research including some tech he uses as part of this schtick (resources, gadgets, etc.) or that he's associated with something named 'Halo Corp'?

    I can honestly say I know nothing of Cole and Halo Corp, nor do I know much about the Halo video games other than Marvel did do a Halo series, and I know nothing about Halo the DC character.

    I imagine, and its just me, they don't want the confusion of Halo from the comics and Halo Corps nor the reformatting of bringing in an third part (not Marvel, or the secondary DC) enterprise that is the third largest in its comic-verse with a value of $3 trillion (Wayne enterprises is guestimated at like $20-$30 billion networth and not even top 100 in the world). If Halo Corps is some big conglomerate/enterprise/corporation, I can see them not wanting to include it because it does require some shift in theme (well, Cole gets in an argument with Bruce, so buys out Wayne Enterprises, or most other FC character's enterprises from Marvel or DC). Its not just adding a business with a name, the big enterprises can change some dynamics.

    I think both are just headaches staff wants to avoid?



  • @Lotherio Cole Cash is Grifter, and Halo Corp has nothing to do with the video game.


Log in to reply