|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 27, 2014 17:04:16 GMT
This is actually a really appealing idea. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, and all. I'll think on it today. I think, if nothing else, it would resolve a lot of confusion about the 'why' of the rule, or, in the alternative, prevent some of the behavior in the first place. [Edit]At work, so I don't have time to address the people posting after yojimbo, yet. Funky Will potentially get people showing up to servers where -HC- characters are on a run unless it's possible to differentiate when the autoshout happens? I am thinking the auto-shout would be something like "Portal to __________ has been entered on server ___" it could easily read the HC status of the player(s) and say "HC Portal to __________ has been entered on server ___" I would think this auto shout could probably be set to a player entrance threshold and auto-shouting entrance to Fey, Elemental Planes, and Onios would be unnecessary as well entrance to Paz since it wouldn't say what Abyss part is being done. If a run was called say Pyramid as a 4 man run the auto-shout wouldn't mean they must accept a 5th or more players assuming that exclusions such as that are allowed and a run such as that would be inclined to as small man group to keep odds of acquiring the artifact high.
|
|
|
Post by tank on Mar 27, 2014 17:55:50 GMT
]Why is it the new players we should be protecting? Opinions without facts to support them aren't of much use. Did you see why it was we added that in the first place? but ... Current formulation of the rule: Blacklisting blocks new inexperienced players from progressing through areas and gaining tags. This can lead to players deciding to leave the server when they find they can no longer progress because a key player that begins or participates in a lot of runs will not allow them to join. This is detrimental to the server as a whole, as the rest of the server loses party members, and other runs cannot start due to lack of players - players who could have otherwise been our future veteran players.
|
|
|
Post by wollstonecraft on Mar 27, 2014 17:57:58 GMT
My concern about an interserver auto-runshout is for those areas that can be farmed for items, but don't have to be completed. Examples include: Toyshop for PH, Desert for runes, DB for Workshop, Thids for sos/bios, Styg for demi store, Nessus for PW, and most areas that contain unique crafting secrets.
-WSCraft
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 27, 2014 18:24:34 GMT
My concern about an interserver auto-runshout is for those areas that can be farmed for items, but don't have to be completed. Examples include: Toyshop for PH, Desert for runes, DB for Workshop, Thids for sos/bios, Styg for demi store, Nessus for PW, and most areas that contain unique crafting secrets. -WSCraft My only reason for not making the auto-shout have a threshold where it triggers only under the same circumstance as the anon change is I worry about the issues coding for that threshold as well server resources used in those checks. I also like it for the reason of making it very easy to know that a run you might want to call began, was opened, or done on a server and you need to look for a different server. When a person or group is farming they are often under the number for the anon limit so if they do it in anon it is easy to "see" that the person/people are doing a farm run as well usually people ask and even if they don't the farm can simply tell the person who asked or used a !lfg "I'm sorry I/We are just farming this run".
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 27, 2014 19:45:02 GMT
]Why is it the new players we should be protecting? Opinions without facts to support them aren't of much use. Did you see why it was we added that in the first place? but ... Current formulation of the rule: Blacklisting blocks new inexperienced players from progressing through areas and gaining tags. This can lead to players deciding to leave the server when they find they can no longer progress because a key player that begins or participates in a lot of runs will not allow them to join. This is detrimental to the server as a whole, as the rest of the server loses party members, and other runs cannot start due to lack of players - players who could have otherwise been our future veteran players. That's a fair point, once I untangled your quoting. I didn't do up the first draft of that statement (time constraints again). I should say that, while that's a major concern for blacklisting, from a practical perspective, it hasn't been the most problematic concern of late - the recent bout of blacklisting has focused on guilded members being denied from the runs of other guilds (for non-guild-related reasons, mostly). That's what motivated Torin's suggestion, which is what I was asking if he'd seen. I tend to assume that posters, like me, have actually read the entire thread, though I understand that's not always the case. I also don't have the time to re-explain it, which is why I often resort to telling people to read xyz. In this case, I was pointing him to Torin's guilded suggestion, and my response to it. I'd link you, but I'm in a short break from a CLE class at the moment - I think it was around page 4. Funky
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Mar 27, 2014 19:48:42 GMT
OK, it seems pretty obvious to just about everyone reading this thread that this is a pretty unpopular course if action.
So, here is some facts:
Funky admitted several times including the OP that he doesn't like or want to do this, he simply sees no alternative.
Funky and the Dev/DM team would much rather be spending their time on other more enjoyable tasks like new areas, etc.
The main offending players that brought this change on have left in a sulk.
It will be an extremely annoying and difficult task to police properly.
It goes against the grain of how the server has always been run.
Everyone is now aware of the issue and the DM Teams concerns about its effect on server population.
So here is my thought.
Instead of actually applying this rule, leave things be with the simple removal of !anon status.
Instead of enforcing the rule, leave this discussion open for people to discuss how to properly implement it in case it becomes needed in the future.
In effect leave it as a threat for future use if this unwanted behaviour continues.
We are a predominately adult community, and I'm not using the word community lightly here, we are, like it or not a close not community built on friendships and mutual regard and respect for the most part and we have done a good job of policing ourselves in the past.
Now that this issue has been brought into the light for all to see I see no reason why we can't at least be given the opportunity to do so with regards to this issue.
This way the dev teams time and especially Funky's time isn't taken up adding new code for this stuff and the DM's don't have to start using up their game time policing it either. Just keep an eye on the situation and if it continues and nothing gets better then follow through on the threat and bring the rule into force.
At the very least no one can say they weren't warned.
Just my personal opinion, as worthless as it may well be.
Cata
|
|
|
Post by kusin111 on Mar 27, 2014 19:50:28 GMT
What should players who never read chat do to oblige by this rule. For instance, if I were to play with friends, a lot of the time we would be on Skype and I would completely shut the left sided chat window down to give myself more space for gameplay. In this case, I would not be able to see other players trying to join whatever run we would be on. Am I now forced to play with the chat window open?
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Mar 28, 2014 1:39:59 GMT
What should players who never read chat do to oblige by this rule. For instance, if I were to play with friends, a lot of the time we would be on Skype and I would completely shut the left sided chat window down to give myself more space for gameplay. In this case, I would not be able to see other players trying to join whatever run we would be on. Am I now forced to play with the chat window open? The problem with that is what is the time frame for "taking a break" from said player. It is one thing to want to take a break from a player because of a recent problem but what happens if a year later that players behavior is improved and they are really a different player entirely ..... and you're still talking about how they don't communicated based on your relationship with the person a year ago. If it is a recent issue I can see why you wouldn't want to party with the person, but you need to be reasonable as well on SOME level. We can't have players not wanting to party with a person because of problems they had with them 3 years ago. OMG he ran out and wiped our Nessus run 3 years ago, we can't party with him..... We need to be at least making an attempt to resolve conflicts in reasonable fashion. The rule shouldn't mean a total violation of your personal freedom of association (that will never be how it is enforced) but it does mean you need to make some minor concessions to be fair to the players on this serve.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 1:50:30 GMT
What should players who never read chat do to oblige by this rule. For instance, if I were to play with friends, a lot of the time we would be on Skype and I would completely shut the left sided chat window down to give myself more space for gameplay. In this case, I would not be able to see other players trying to join whatever run we would be on. Am I now forced to play with the chat window open? I'm not at all fussed by requiring players to play with a chat window a little open. All sorts of messages go to it, like interserver DM messages. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 1:54:41 GMT
OK, it seems pretty obvious to just about everyone reading this thread that this is a pretty unpopular course if action. So, here is some facts: *snip* Just my personal opinion, as worthless as it may well be. Cata I'm actually giving this serious consideration, in combination with the current modification to !anon, and run shouts. Assuming we do auto-runshouts, though, which runs should get them? Thoughts from anyone welcome, but I'm not looking for answers like 'all x runs'. I'm looking for very specific runs, with reasons. I'm thinking thids, for example, should be excluded, as people like to farm it. Funky
|
|
|
Post by kusin111 on Mar 28, 2014 2:26:56 GMT
Fair enough Tyran, but my point wasn't really about blacklisting people. It was more a thought about people (including me once in a while) who play with people next to them in real life. Take for instance, the once in a while where I play next to my dad and only want to play with him. In this case, the chat window would be closed to allow more gameplay and I would simply talk to my dad.
I understand that point Funky, but when was the last time there was an important interserver message from a DM? I feel as if you are almost suggesting the extreme just to find an excuse to justify the rule.
Really just looking for more clarification.
Kus
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 2:41:02 GMT
I understand that point Funky, but when was the last time there was an important interserver message from a DM? I feel as if you are almost suggesting the extreme just to find an excuse to justify the rule. Your feelings aside, if you read what I wrote, it had nothing whatsoever to do with justifying any rule. If anything, you objecting to having a chat window open smacks of SERIOUSLY straining to find issue with said rule. A lot of code on the server is premised on the assumption that players have a chat window open. DM commands are just one of hundreds of examples. Command feedback? Chat window. Bazaar channel (and all other chat channels)? Guess where. Secret messages? Etc. Let's not wax absurd, hm?b This is a social server. Expecting people to have open a conduit for exchange of information with the other players on it is not exactly an onerous requirement, by any stretch of the imagination. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 28, 2014 3:54:36 GMT
Ban warning to leezard: if you continue to ignore moderation, you will be banned from the forums. As I have said repeatedly, I'm only interested in constructive input. I don't have time to deal with moronic twaddle. Foist it on someone else.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Mar 28, 2014 4:12:59 GMT
I've done some thinking and here is what I have come up with. We completely ignore this rule, pretend this whole fiasco was all a bad dream, and take any blacklisting complaints and issues as they come, on a case by case basis with the understanding that banning is a possible outcome for bad behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Mar 28, 2014 4:54:34 GMT
I've done some thinking and here is what I have come up with. We completely ignore this rule, pretend this whole fiasco was all a bad dream, and take any blacklisting complaints and issues as they come, on a case by case basis with the understanding that banning is a possible outcome for bad behavior. Aside from the silly parts, that's more or less in line with what Cata suggested, just slightly less formal, when you really break it down (and it was a great suggestion to begin with so no worries there).
|
|