(pretty sure that c stood for clan, so i'ma be using that terminology)
For certain 'clans', this isn't a necessity. But for people in the militias, if you come across a situation where you absolutely need a higher ranked soldier or templar, and there could be anywhere from 4-6 of them who exist but only 1 of them is actually on, if your stun/contact isn't that great you'd have to get lucky to actually find the mind of someone who can help you out. Not to say this isn't useful for other 'clans', but if someone cuts a bloody swathe out of their jail cell and is making a break for one the citygates, and you don't have the ability to order those gates closed you'd have a better chance finding the mind of a templar or senior soldier and letting them know whats going on and what needs to be closed. Cycling through 6 possibilities drastically narrows the chances of getting through in time. Seeing as I consider PCs to turn into VPCs when then log off, I took 'who c' to be a list of people your char had seen out and about while in their virtual state before you assumed control again, mixed with communication (both active and passive, aka overhearing things) near vnpcs to discover people are around and available.
You could wish up and have an immortal jump into a soldier / templar.
Quote from: mansa on June 03, 2009, 09:01:03 PM
You could wish up and have an immortal jump into a soldier / templar.
IF one is available, has the time that might be needed, and willing.
I rather interact with a PC than an animated NPC, if the PC's are around. Who C was very helpful in order to involve certain people in things on an efficient basis whenever I have been in any clan.
I like things that increase interaction and work against isolation.
Every clan should have who c IMO, would help things move alot smoother. Some d-elf clans have who c while the others don't, makes me curious why certain clans are left in the dark and others get the benefit of the command. Think it should be an all or nothing sort of thing.
Just my thoughts.
Staffpeoples, I get that people do indeed log on, hit "who -c", and log off when they see no one. I'm not so sure that's as bad a thing as it's made out to be.
People may well be logging on when they have a strictly limited amount of time to spend and the following plan: "If there's somebody on, I can do a quick half-hour of interaction. If not, it'll likely take me half that time just to run into someone, especially if my clan's on a schedule." Here, "who -c" is allowing them to play in a focused way and make use of a time slot in which they otherwise would not have bothered to log on at all.
Likewise, it's possible that you're undercounting the people who engage in the same sort of behavior, but using a quick string of contacts or a tavern-sweep to determine if there's "anything worth doing."
Whosee can easily cut a good 10-15 minutes off the dreaded Time to First Interaction, and that's pretty significant for some of us. You can take this either way: if all clans got it, clan-joining would be my first stop with just about any PC.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 03, 2009, 09:22:06 PM
Can we just have the "notify clan" command that I remember from some other RPI back years ago when I first tried mudding?
You can't see who's online. Instead, it's like you "ping" everyone in the clan and then they know that you're somewhere in the world looking for interaction. Anyone who wants to play ball can just ping you back. Abusers are fed to halflings.
Easy.
I think this would be a wonderful idea to implement and can't really see a way that it can be abused, either.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 03, 2009, 09:44:28 PM
I think this would be a wonderful idea to implement and can't really see a way that it can be abused, either.
As long as you can disable it, it's fine.. On the other RPI mud that I play, you can't disable it, and it gets annoying to see the same people notifying your area of play every 20 minutes or so.
I also like the fact that it tells you how many players there are in the popular gathering areas of the city you are in when you type 'who'.
Something like:
In Tuluk, there are 7 players.
In the Sanctuary, there are 3 players.
I really loved Who C. It worked so well in the Militias. I think that is the only one it should be in.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 03, 2009, 09:41:21 PMPeople may well be logging on when they have a strictly limited amount of time to spend and the following plan: "If there's somebody on, I can do a quick half-hour of interaction. If not, it'll likely take me half that time just to run into someone, especially if my clan's on a schedule." Here, "who -c" is allowing them to play in a focused way and make use of a time slot in which they otherwise would not have bothered to log on at all.
This is exactly my situation.
I think every clan should get it. There are more than just militias that need to get ahold of others/help/bosses who have playtime constraints and need to get things RP'd in a timely fashion.
This is a terrible call by staff in my opinion. I wouldn't care to see it for -all- clans but definately for tight-knit tribes and the like.
If the whole 'who c... no one, log off' problem is why it's gone, I think it's an even more wretched decision. People will just spam-contact and log off anyway. Meh.
The only clan I was a part of that had 'Who clan' was the militia of the city states, and even with that, I didn't even know it existed.
I've never used this command. I never relied on it. It doesn't affect my playing of the game. It's an OOC tool to tell you when your friends are also playing the game. And now the select few clans that still have it don't, which makes it a very fair decision.
I'm sure the Immortals have noticed a correlation between clans that have 'who clan' and the frequency that the players log in and off. If you compare clans like the Jul Tavan or the Arabet to the Tan Muark, there will be a noticable difference between how often the characters interact with other characters based solely on the fuctions and frequency of the usage of the 'who clan' command. Halaster has stated this in the past, saying that more clans used to have this function, but had it stripped away when the players wouldn't play with the rest of the playerbase, but would only play with the members within their own clans, and only when they were visible in the 'who clan' command. Otherwise, they would log out.
to repost:
Quote from: Halaster on December 08, 2005, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: ArmaddictMeh...I feel we're fine without it.
Big problem you'd see is:
Login.
Who -c.
<no names besides your own>
Logout.
Believe that was occuring fairly often in clans that had access. While you may like it from an OOC standpoint since you don't 'waste your time' (if arm is ever a waste of time), it also makes a new OOC problem of people not sticking around to get stuff done because they think nothing's going on.
He's right. There have been clans who used to have the who c command, but because of this very thing, we removed it from those clans.
I think it tells of you the five hundred clan members who are virtually there, these are the three that you can expect two way interaction with.
Quote from: WarriorPoet on June 03, 2009, 10:20:17 PM
This is a terrible call by staff in my opinion.
Quote from: WarriorPoet on June 03, 2009, 10:20:17 PM
If the whole 'who c... no one, log off' problem is why it's gone, I think it's an even more wretched decision. People will just spam-contact and log off anyway.
Well, I'm not gonna go as far as bashing the Imms about it, but I would politely ask for it back. Because I see no reason why it shouldn't be used. That's my 2 cents.
Quote from: titansfan on June 03, 2009, 11:42:11 PM
Well, I'm not gonna go as far as bashing the Imms about it, but I would politely ask for it back. Because I see no reason why it shouldn't be used. That's my 2 cents.
No one is bashing the staff. Some of us just think it was a bad, bad decision. There's no harm in disagreeing.
Understood, wasn't meaning to blame you, just saying...:p
Can I?
Taking away what few tools exist to better facilitate roleplay reflects poorly on the 'administration'. When someone treats another like an idiot, they're usually the ones who come out looking stupid. 'Because I told you so' wasn't a viable excuse when I was four, and that hasn't changed.
From another thread:
Quote from: Dan on June 03, 2009, 08:37:02 PMMaybe if you are in a freaking iso tribe, you should stick closer to the safety of your tribe and travel around -together-.
The only clan I've played in with 'who c' is the Tan Muark, and I would go so far as to say that the removal of who c would make what you suggest as a solution harder, due to the huge amount of moving around that happens. But this change bums me out most because of this:
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 03, 2009, 09:41:21 PMPeople may well be logging on when they have a strictly limited amount of time to spend and the following plan: "If there's somebody on, I can do a quick half-hour of interaction. If not, it'll likely take me half that time just to run into someone, especially if my clan's on a schedule." Here, "who -c" is allowing them to play in a focused way and make use of a time slot in which they otherwise would not have bothered to log on at all.
This has been my situation also more times than I can count.
Quote from: aruna on June 03, 2009, 11:56:12 PM
From another thread:
Quote from: Dan on June 03, 2009, 08:37:02 PMMaybe if you are in a freaking iso tribe, you should stick closer to the safety of your tribe and travel around -together-.
The only clan I've played in with 'who c' is the Tan Muark, and I would go so far as to say that the removal of who c would make what you suggest as a solution harder, due to the huge amount of moving around that happens. But this change bums me out most because of this:
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 03, 2009, 09:41:21 PMPeople may well be logging on when they have a strictly limited amount of time to spend and the following plan: "If there's somebody on, I can do a quick half-hour of interaction. If not, it'll likely take me half that time just to run into someone, especially if my clan's on a schedule." Here, "who -c" is allowing them to play in a focused way and make use of a time slot in which they otherwise would not have bothered to log on at all.
This has been my situation also more times than I can count.
It will certainly hit the people who play infrequently the hardest of all.
For those who play all day it honestly shouldn't be much of an issue, they can afford to idle where they know people will show up, and those in their clan will know they can be reached with a contact.
I guess staff are the only ones who see how others are (ab)using it. It's their call and they have full view of what happens with it.
I won't lie, I'm a bit lost without it, it was an excellent way for me to interact with underlings, usually I'm too busy to doing other things to spam contact.
It's staff's choice though.. we'll see.
Question: How can you abuse it? It just narrows down the contact order for me and saves me time....seriously....
...it becomes an OOC crutch to facilitate gameplay?
There's probably a better way to implement the idea, with perhaps some new psionic skills.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:12:42 AM
...it becomes an OOC crutch to facilitate gameplay?
Damn you, glass-is-half-empty guy.
It's not a crutch, it's a useful tool. Then again, I don't expect you to paint who-c in a good light when you've been against it.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:12:42 AM
...it becomes an OOC crutch to facilitate gameplay?
What's wrong with facilitating gameplay?
I thought we were playing a game ...
Why don't we have a global who in this game?
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:18:32 AM
Why don't we have a global who in this game?
Because there's a difference in knowing who all is online (even people you don't know) as opposed to knowing when people in a tribe or clan are online.
Guy, it's to help promote roleplay. How can that be a
bad thing?
I see absolutely nothing bad to come of Who C at all. At all.
Why don't you just have the contact skill SUCCEED with a bonus of 50% to people considered "family members" within clans that can't recruit.
Problem solved?
Quote from: Eloran on June 04, 2009, 01:21:29 AM
Guy, it's to help promote roleplay. How can that be a bad thing?
Because I'd like to repeat what has been stated. People would log in, type 'who clan', see nobody, and log out.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:24:01 AM
Why don't you just have the contact skill SUCCEED with a bonus of 50% to people considered "family members" within clans that can't recruit.
Problem solved?
No.
Why don't you have a psionic skill that searches the known world for family members within your tribe, and lets you know if you can touch their mind with a full contact?
What's stopping people from just logging out anyways after doing a contact string?
Quote from: titansfan on June 04, 2009, 01:29:57 AM
What's stopping people from just logging out anyways after doing a contact string?
Nothing. But there's been stated by staff that there is a better correlation between people who type 'who clan' and quit right after, compared to those people who try and go through the action using in game skills. I think that people who use skills still believe there is a chance that you 'failed', and that the person may still be out there, compared to the magickal OOC reference of 'who clan'.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:36:00 AM
Quote from: titansfan on June 04, 2009, 01:29:57 AM
What's stopping people from just logging out anyways after doing a contact string?
Nothing. But there's been stated by staff that there is a better correlation between people who type 'who clan' and quit right after, compared to those people who try and go through the action using in game skills.
That's because it takes longer to try contacting ten different people as opposed to just typing "who c". ::)
Silly, I know.
Hmm, I can see that point, but that doesn't make much sense for Militia or anything else since you're often dealing with folks outside of your clan. I still vote on it being available to those certain clans if not all. The instance you're describing would often happen with d-elves or tribals.
Quote from: Eloran on June 04, 2009, 01:40:42 AM
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:36:00 AM
Quote from: titansfan on June 04, 2009, 01:29:57 AM
What's stopping people from just logging out anyways after doing a contact string?
Nothing. But there's been stated by staff that there is a better correlation between people who type 'who clan' and quit right after, compared to those people who try and go through the action using in game skills.
That's because it takes longer to try contacting ten different people as opposed to just typing "who c". ::)
Silly, I know.
To me, that seems like the whole argument as to why you should 'Keep it'. It's a time saver. It is 100% true, and never fails.
Do I think that people in families should have a better chance at succeeding at contacting each other? Yes.
The easiest change I can think of, is just including a bonus to contacting someone within your tribe / family. Isn't there usually less than 5 people in any ISO clan, anyways? If you knew your contact skill would succeed nearly 90% of the time, you can shoot through those 5 people within a minute.
I play this game to have fun. Who c is a means towards finding others to interact with. The harder you make it on individuals to find others to interact with, the more pressed they will be to find said interaction, leading them to more solo sessions.
Not everyone is a solo rp'er.
Let me break it down further in a linear fashion:
I play this game to have fun.
Playing with others is fun.
Who c can help me find others instantly in my clan/tribe to have fun with.
Hence, who c is a useful tool to aide players in this game.
But what about those not in ISO clans, who it's very handy to seeif someone important is around instead of running around like a chicken with your head cut off.....trust me I have been through it, who c is a lifesaver.
If you can't play ArmageddonMUD for longer than 10 minutes at a time, I don't think this is the game for you.
Quote from: titansfan on June 04, 2009, 01:54:23 AM
But what about those not in ISO clans, who it's very handy to seeif someone important is around instead of running around like a chicken with your head cut off.....trust me I have been through it, who c is a lifesaver.
Use contact like every other player in the game, besides Militia / Tan Muark / Halflings / select Elven Tribes. Statements like that show that it's an OOC Tool that gives IC advantages to characters in the game.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:55:34 AM
If you can't play ArmageddonMUD for longer than 10 minutes at a time, I don't think this is the game for you.
Slamdunk.
So, is does anyone but a very vocal Mansa (and the staff, I suppose) actually support this change?
Why?
Sure. I'll support it. I haven't played in a clan with Who C in ages.
A soldier who needs his templar is no different than a hunter who needs his agent. Or an assassin who needs his boss. Or a tribal who needs his tribal leader.
A clan with Who C allows you to see who is online, so that you can contact them. Other clans do not have Who C for various reasons pertaining to the functioning of that clan. I.E. a soldier failing contact knows he is just failing, and that other person does not know whether they're failing.
Taking away Who C forces you to use IC means to deliver messages in the case you can't tell whether someone is online, whether they're barriered, whether they're in a bad spot, so on and so forth.
Who C allows you to watch after an engagement and see who survived.
AAAAND! Who C allows actions and knowledge in game that are reminiscent of strong psionic skills. But it costs no stun. OVERPOWERED.
I support it. Who -c should definitely be an all or nothing affair - either every clan gets it, or none do. And personally, I'm on the side of 'none'.
In fact, if all my clannies knew auto-magickally whenever I was logged in, I'd never play in a clan again.
I do not support it. It's a helpful tool to interaction in my eyes.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:27:40 AM
Why don't you have a psionic skill that searches the known world for family members within your tribe, and lets you know if you can touch their mind with a full contact?
So who c with a different name?
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:26:07 AM
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:27:40 AM
Why don't you have a psionic skill that searches the known world for family members within your tribe, and lets you know if you can touch their mind with a full contact?
So who c with a different name?
Sure! One that actually uses psionic skills and causes stun loss.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 02:27:53 AM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:26:07 AM
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:27:40 AM
Why don't you have a psionic skill that searches the known world for family members within your tribe, and lets you know if you can touch their mind with a full contact?
So who c with a different name?
Sure! One that actually uses psionic skills and causes stun loss.
Oops... I get it now, and I like it.
Instead of "clans" maybe you could have a list of, for example, the ten people you are closest to that you can "ping."
It wouldn't make much sense for a new recruit to be able to automatically find every member of the clan psionically.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:32:52 AM
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 02:27:53 AM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:26:07 AM
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:27:40 AM
Why don't you have a psionic skill that searches the known world for family members within your tribe, and lets you know if you can touch their mind with a full contact?
So who c with a different name?
Sure! One that actually uses psionic skills and causes stun loss.
Oops... I get it now, and I like it.
Instead of "clans" maybe you could have a list of, for example, the ten people you are closest to that you can "ping."
It wouldn't make much sense for a new recruit to be able to automatically find every member of the clan psionically.
There is thousands of different things you can code to mimic the intention of the code - which is to allow players within clans to more easily play with each other.
I prefer an In-Character skill rather than an OOC tool, because that allows the other players of the game to interact with them, because they are acting in game.
I'd prefer that everybody has access to these skills (or bonuses) as soon as they join any clan.
AAAAhhhhhhh! I didn't get what you meant either. That's a dandy idea.
The flaw in your logic is that it is not IC that someone would be logged off.
Logging in and logging out is a necessary OOC construct in a game where characters are animated by people with real lives.
Therefore a tool to figure out whether or not they are online is an OOC tool.
I don't care if it's called who_c, ping, findmesomebodytofuckinginteractwith, or whatever. I just want to see a way for characters to be able to hook up with other characters that are, IC, always around your character, and are, for OOC reasons, occasionally not.
When you're in an ISO tribe of under 5 people and can't travel for whatever reason until you've got one other person on but don't have the time to sit around idling all goddamn day, who c is an incredible blessing, because you can log in and check. So that you can interact. It facilitated interaction and brought players together, and that to me far oughtweighs some crying about unrealistic use or abuse.
If it's being abused somehow, fix the flaw, don't scrap the whole thing because of one bad part. If others were crying that it was unfair, why not just let them have who_c too? What's it going to hurt? Somebody actually knows that somebody else in their clan can be found?
Oh, NO.
Quote from: a strange shadow on June 04, 2009, 02:52:52 AM
The flaw in your logic is that it is not IC that someone would be logged off.
Logging in and logging out is a necessary OOC construct in a game where characters are animated by people with real lives.
Therefore a tool to figure out whether or not they are online is an OOC tool.
I don't care if it's called who_c, ping, findmesomebodytofuckinginteractwith, or whatever. I just want to see a way for characters to be able to hook up with other characters that are, IC, always around your character, and are, for OOC reasons, occasionally not.
When you're in an ISO tribe of under 5 people and can't travel for whatever reason until you've got one other person on but don't have the time to sit around idling all goddamn day, who c is an incredible blessing, because you can log in and check. So that you can interact. It facilitated interaction and brought players together, and that to me far oughtweighs some crying about unrealistic use or abuse.
If it's being abused somehow, fix the flaw, don't scrap the whole thing because of one bad part. If others were crying that it was unfair, why not just let them have who_c too? What's it going to hurt? Somebody actually knows that somebody else in their clan can be found?
Oh, NO.
http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?contact
QuotePsi Contact (Communication)
The contact command will allow your character to attempt to establish a direct mental link with another person in the world. It is necessary to create this link in order to perform a majority of psi commands, and in order to cast some powerful spells. Contacting others is a skill that only increases with practice. The cease command is used to sever the psionic link.
Contacts can be blocked by psionic barriers, sleep, and areas of magickal suppression. As with all sustained psionic powers, the cease command will cut the mental link. The duration of a direct mental link is dependent upon your character's wisdom attribute and skill proficiency.
Syntax:
contact <keyword> [keyword+]
-or-
contact #.keyword
psi <message>
cease
Examples:
> contact plain brown human
> contact 3.stubby
> contact Boopsie
> psi How's it going, milord?
> cease
Note:
Getting the message that you cannot reach their mind is a normal
occurrence. You may lack sufficient skill with the Way to find their
mind, or that person may not be available. You do not need to know
someone's name in order to contact them -- one or more keywords can
be specified instead.
You can only specify a number argument as the first argument, and
if you do, any extra keywords you specified will be ignored.
Some players choose to portray images or their own feelings over
a psionic link and this is allowed. However, forcing emotions,
sensations, or thoughts onto the receiver is not acceptable.
See also:
cease, contact, Psionics
Cute helpfile, I believe I and others already explained why using 'contact' is not a fully suitable replacement.
Multiple times, even.
I'm out.
If who c was a skill, with delay, stun loss and advancement AND showed sdesc I'd be fine with it.
But the just removed incarnation revealed FAR too much information. Abused often I'm sure.
And as it stands, I only think ONE clan should even get a skill version of it.
Happy it is gone, hated it in every clan I've played that had it and it was actually the main factor keeping me from rejoining any of those clans.
Agreed, I support and IC based who-c-like thingy 100%.
What about something like this...
My PC 'Lou' meets 'Kate' and trades with her quite a bit, so wants to know when she gets online.
>addsense kate (she has to be in the room)
>You will now sense when the tall, dark-headed woman awakens.
<kate logs on>
You sense the tall, dark-headed woman becoming aware.
You could add a time delay so that everyone doesn't sense her at the same time or even at all based on skill-level and distance.
You could also log off with barrier up (barrier already stays on through log-out) if you didn't want people to know when you logged in.
Quote from: a strange shadow on June 04, 2009, 02:57:11 AM
Cute helpfile, I believe I and others already explained why using 'contact' is not a fully suitable replacement.
Multiple times, even.
I'm out.
The only reasons people have said why using CONTACT is not fully suitable is that CONTACT is not 100% fail resistant, and it takes -time- to contact people.
However, if you have more than 2 days playing time, you can contact anything within 2-3 tries.
If you tried to contact a group of 5 people, it would take you approximately 3 minutes of your time.
The only reason why one would want who c, then, is because one doesn't want to spend 3 minutes in game to see if anybody is around. One just want to log in, type who c, see nobody is around, and then log out.
Unless someone else has said something else about the contact skill being broken or not functioning as it's supposed to?
R.I.P. who c
We're gonna miss him. We are gonna miss him.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 02:39:30 AM
There is thousands of different things you can code to mimic the intention of the code - which is to allow players within clans to more easily play with each other.
I prefer an In-Character skill rather than an OOC tool, because that allows the other players of the game to interact with them, because they are acting in game.
I'd prefer that everybody has access to these skills (or bonuses) as soon as they join any clan.
Ok, I think that's dumb. Just because its a command not directly linked to an actual skill you have to train, I don't see what that has to do with anything. Why do the Admins have to walk you through the immersion? At first it may be jarring and remind you your playing a game (i mean c'mon, you are typing in everything you do, a typo makes me go 'Oh this is a game!' but its not like i didn't know that when I logged on, doesn't detract from the RP and how fun it is for me). I don't see why you can't take that, find some kind of IC explanation to it, and RP that. What is the skills list? An ooc tool, or your char stopping and going 'Hmm, what am I good at that applies to this situation?' Personally, I think you need to broaden your imagination some. Just because the Imms don't spell it out for you in plain letters, why not come up with your own solution and if its something you're not all that sure about, run it by them? Reaching out and detecting all the minds of everyone in your clan with psionics sounds like something a mindworm would be doing, not a fresh recruit who has trouble finding his sergeant's mind when they're two cords apart. Besides, who hasn't seen someone log on, run around their clan's 'headquarters' then check all the local hovels in one fell swoop and log right back off because they found no one. Instead of them wasting 10 minutes of their time as they would've logged off anyway, why not let them spend 10 seconds online to peek at who c and be like 'Ok, I'll just play when I get off work in an hour then.' I see nothing wrong with Who C. And if logging on then logging back off is considered abuse we need to redefine that word. I really don't see the need to make Who C 'ic'. There's no real IC way to explain someone logging off, you always have to make up some excuse or use the elusive 'They're not around' which technically doesn't magically make their mind unfindable.
That's how I feel, I don't expect anyone to go 'Oh yea, there's no real point to making who c IC.' Putting in another skill I have to train and get stun drain and delay over defeats the main purpose I would even want who c back in. Hell, I don't even understand why a 40 year old char, who is considered brand new via the code, sucks at psionics. What kid isn't using that all the time to keep in touch with parents and friends to the point they're pretty damn good at it? But i'm not gonna derail the thread to go there, just want to clarify my thinking a bit more.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AM
Ok, I think that's dumb. Just because its a command not directly linked to an actual skill you have to train, I don't see what that has to do with anything.
The ability to know exactly who is online is a skill in game. (contact)
It is something the immortals have 'limited', in that you can only contact one person at a time.
If the immortals didn't care if you knew who was online, the MUD would have a global who command, which shows -EVERYBODY- online. Obviously, they do care, and they have removed it / modified it to simply show a number.
Who Clan was very similar to the old Global Who, except that it only showed people in your clan. It looked like this, if I can recall:
>who c
Halflings of the Grey Forest
===============================================
Sasha the bright-eyed halfling
Memo the silver-haired halfling
Supra the halfling with hair
===============================================
3 players online.It showed who was online,
their TRUE name, and their short description.
With that information, you can abuse it. You now know that Supra has the sdesc, 'the halfling with hair'. You might have never interacted with Supra, but you now know who they are.
You know they are online at this moment.
1) You lose the roleplay moments of not knowing if someone is online or alive, if they previously contacted you and said, 'HELP ME OMG'. The player will constantly spam 'Who C' to see if they remain alive, as they try and run to the area to rescue them.
2) Players will get poisoned, and then type 'Who C', and then contact the people online and say, 'BRING ME CURES NOW'.
3) If you got recruited into the Arm of the Dragon as a spy, and the name you gave the templar was Joe, but when the templar's player typed 'Who C', he will not see Joe, but he'll see Bob.
This is IC information he has learned using an OOC Tool.
These are problems with the current code of Who C. Hopefully, they won't come up again.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMWhy do the Admins have to walk you through the immersion? At first it may be jarring and remind you your playing a game (i mean c'mon, you are typing in everything you do, a typo makes me go 'Oh this is a game!' but its not like i didn't know that when I logged on, doesn't detract from the RP and how fun it is for me). I don't see why you can't take that, find some kind of IC explanation to it, and RP that.
The Admins have crafted ArmageddonMUD to be a fully-immersive roleplaying game. They have removed names in short-descriptions. They have a limited who command. They have no global channels. See reasons listed as to why Who C was 'cheating'.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMWhat is the skills list? An ooc tool, or your char stopping and going 'Hmm, what am I good at that applies to this situation?'
The skill list -is- an OOC Tool, to tell you about your character. But it doesn't give you an advantage over other players of the game, and 'Who C' did, via the 3 examples I listed above.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMPersonally, I think you need to broaden your imagination some. Just because the Imms don't spell it out for you in plain letters, why not come up with your own solution and if its something you're not all that sure about, run it by them?
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here. Could you explain it to me? I'm a little slow sometimes
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMReaching out and detecting all the minds of everyone in your clan with psionics sounds like something a mindworm would be doing, not a fresh recruit who has trouble finding his sergeant's mind when they're two cords apart.
Sure. I was trying to be creative in a possible alternative to the 'who c' command, which has been removed. Can you think of any other ideas that might be created, to mimic the intent of the 'who c' code without being as broken as it was?
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMBesides, who hasn't seen someone log on, run around their clan's 'headquarters' then check all the local hovels in one fell swoop and log right back off because they found no one. Instead of them wasting 10 minutes of their time as they would've logged off anyway, why not let them spend 10 seconds online to peek at who c and be like 'Ok, I'll just play when I get off work in an hour then.'
If someone runs across the city, they have a chance of interacting with ANYBODY along the way.
If someone logs in and types 'who c', and then logs out, they have a 0 chance of interacting with anybody.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMI see nothing wrong with Who C.
See three examples above.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMAnd if logging on then logging back off is considered abuse we need to redefine that word.
ArmageddonMUD requires players to play characters with each other. You're not really playing the game, then. You're taking up a 'slot' in a clan that other players might want to play, and you're -not- playing that character.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMI really don't see the need to make Who C 'ic'. There's no real IC way to explain someone logging off, you always have to make up some excuse or use the elusive 'They're not around' which technically doesn't magically make their mind unfindable.
How does everybody else in all the other clans explain it? Everybody else has to make up reasons as to why their boss isn't around.
Quote from: Xio on June 04, 2009, 03:30:00 AMThat's how I feel, I don't expect anyone to go 'Oh yea, there's no real point to making who c IC.' Putting in another skill I have to train and get stun drain and delay over defeats the main purpose I would even want who c back in. Hell, I don't even understand why a 40 year old char, who is considered brand new via the code, sucks at psionics. What kid isn't using that all the time to keep in touch with parents and friends to the point they're pretty damn good at it? But i'm not gonna derail the thread to go there, just want to clarify my thinking a bit more.
I understand what you're saying, but to me, spending 3-5 minutes using the contact skill VASTLY outweighs the harms that the WHO C command brought into the game.
::edited to strike-out wrong information. Who C did not show true name::
I agree with those who have stated that Who C revealed a little too much information. However, I don't quite see that as a reason to entirely scrap the command.
Personally, I think a good compromise would be to retain the command, but to have it only show a tally of how many people in your clan(s) are online.
It wouldn't reveal any IC information, but it could still be used as a tool to facilitate interaction by people in isolated tribes and clans.
Like Mansa said, Armageddon is a fully-immersiive roleplaying game. But it's still a game, which means there are OOC aspects that have to be taken into account. PCs logging in and out is one of those things. I don't have anything against giving the players a few more OOC tools (like our current global who command) to facilitate RP.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 04:00:24 AM
1) You lose the roleplay moments of not knowing if someone is online or alive, if they previously contacted you and said, 'HELP ME OMG'. The player will constantly spam 'Who C' to see if they remain alive, as they try and run to the area to rescue them.
This is the only reason I'm a bit "meh" with the who c command.
The only possible solution I can think of is only updating the who c command every, say, 5-15 minutes. So in such a situation the best way to figure out if your buddy is still alive is by psionics (or stumbling upon their body), not spamming 'who c', as it currently is already. Also, who c shouldn't display real names, just short descriptions as previously mentioned.
who
There are 57 players other than yourself online.
There are 3 clan members other than yourself online.
Would that help?
Quote from: Fathi on June 04, 2009, 04:09:31 AM
Personally, I think a good compromise would be to retain the command, but to have it only show a tally of how many people in your clan(s) are online.
It wouldn't reveal any IC information, but it could still be used as a tool to facilitate interaction by people in isolated tribes and clans.
Quote from: Dan
who
There are 57 players other than yourself online.
There are 3 clan members other than yourself online.
Would that help?
If you absolutely gotta have a who -c, this would be the version I can live with.
Quote from: Grey Area on June 04, 2009, 06:20:24 AM
Quote from: Fathi on June 04, 2009, 04:09:31 AM
Personally, I think a good compromise would be to retain the command, but to have it only show a tally of how many people in your clan(s) are online.
It wouldn't reveal any IC information, but it could still be used as a tool to facilitate interaction by people in isolated tribes and clans.
Quote from: Dan
who
There are 57 players other than yourself online.
There are 3 clan members other than yourself online.
Would that help?
If you absolutely gotta have a who -c, this would be the version I can live with.
* Approve *
Yeah, nothing more than the number would be perfect.
There were other problems with 'who c' too, like being able to tell who put up a barrier when you see:
bob - the happy man
joe - the hairy man
sam - the sad man
There are three players other than yourself.
Then a few minutes later, sam puts up his barrier:
bob - the happy man
joe - the hairy man
There are three players other than yourself.
Yes, it would show who was online in total, although sam is invisible. Seems suspicious... I wonder what sam is doing?
In the absence of any sort of ability to tell who your clan members are, contact works fine. You fail sometimes at it - well, that's how it's supposed to be. Having some failproof way to get a list of clannies is no good, but mansa has gone over that already.
I am one of those awful staff members who was for who c being removed. Why? Because it is an ooc construct. Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? I find the ability to do such a thing jarring and unrealistic.
Quote from: Niamh on June 04, 2009, 07:12:00 AM
I am one of those awful staff members who was for who c being removed. Why? Because it is an ooc construct. Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? I find the ability to do such a thing jarring and unrealistic.
I'd only argue that, since online/offline status is a thoroughly OOC concept itself, an OOC construct doesn't make it any more jarring.
As far as I'm aware, having barrier up made you disappear from the "who c" list, right? I always played it off IC as the equivalent of the command mansa was suggesting, sort of sending out some psionic feelers to see whose mind is open before trying to make contact.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 01:55:34 AM
Quote from: titansfan on June 04, 2009, 01:54:23 AM
But what about those not in ISO clans, who it's very handy to seeif someone important is around instead of running around like a chicken with your head cut off.....trust me I have been through it, who c is a lifesaver.
Use contact like every other player in the game, besides Militia / Tan Muark / Halflings / select Elven Tribes. Statements like that show that it's an OOC Tool that gives IC advantages to characters in the game.
That's the thing, though. It's not an IC advantage. There are, in many cases, hundreds of 'virtual' clan members that you could talk to and see if someone is around. You can't, of course, because it's an OOC thing that NPC's rarely give two-way interaction beyond a static script. But with who c you can, say, ask the guy at the gates of your clan compound if they've seen <rank> name about lately. And know who is around. Damned near any command which leaves a gray area can be abused, but the possibilities for roleplaying that it provides far overshadow, IMO, the potential issues of abuse. I've only ever played one clan that had who c, and I didn't just up and log out, even though I never once saw more than one person there, and it was usually none. But I -did- know that if I looked for interaction with one of the literally only two pc's I could hope to interact with, I could find it.
Man, I'm usually riding shotgun on the realism bandwagon, but...
Quote from: Niamh on June 04, 2009, 07:12:00 AM
Because it is an ooc construct. Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? I find the ability to do such a thing jarring and unrealistic.
- It's an OOC construct that helps to mitigate the effect of another OOC construct: logging in and out. What's the in-character explanation for
contact amos failing 100 times in a row? Psionic storms? ;)
- It saves time. But apparently some folks don't need to save time.
- For you clannie-averse folks, it's defeated by barrier.
- To me, it would be a
major inducement to joining any non-tribal clan. Those folks who live in the same compound as I do, who bunk next to me, whom I'm virtually running into twelve times a day but practically never see because our schedules are slightly off? I'm okay with making it easier to find them.
For the record, here is a sample output of "who -c". It does not show true names. It does show sdescs - and if your PC never sets foot in his clan's compound, it's true that this will be new information to you. It does indicate how many people in your clan are logged in but have barrier up (and getting rid of that would be, to me, the most logical sanitization).
Players
-------
the spindly young lass [Arm of the Dragon]
the vibrant, jade-adorned brunette [Arm of the Dragon]
the slender, hack-haired man [Arm of the Dragon]
There are 4 visible players currently in the world.And yeah, who c is one of the unconsidered and unenumerated reasons that I'd kidded myself into thinking I could someday play a successful templar.
I had a char in the AoD once and never knew the command existed. It explains a lot now. I always wondered how the Templars managed to track me down, especially when you're somewhere you're not supposed to be. And had I known that the command existed, it would've ruined some future plans with that character. If a Bynner skips sparring and isn't where he's supposed to be, there's always the benefit of the doubt. If a Private skimps out one day, he'll have a Templar in his head and in his arse very soon.
So, I'd support this move. It has plenty of benefits, but the OOC disadvantages are worse, IMHO.
Heh, the "psionic IC version of who -c" sounds a lot like auto-spam contact. Barrier blocking it would be very nice, though.
Quote from: Delstro on June 03, 2009, 10:01:38 PM
I really loved Who C. It worked so well in the Militias. I think that is the only one it should be in.
Agreed. I'm pretty upset to see this go.
Quote from: SMuz on June 04, 2009, 09:32:53 AM
If a Bynner skips sparring and isn't where he's supposed to be, there's always the benefit of the doubt.
No. No, there really isn't. Your sergeant does not have so many runners that he'll miss one totally disappearing for a day. The doubt you're referring to is that you
might not be logged on.
It's far more realistic for your Bynner (or militia soldier) to make up an actual excuse for his whereabouts than to put up a barrier and let your fellow players assume that you're logged off.Even Tuluk is Land of the Disappeared, not Land of the Mysteriously Reappearing.
Quote from: SMuz on June 04, 2009, 09:32:53 AMHeh, the "psionic IC version of who -c" sounds a lot like auto-spam contact. Barrier blocking it would be very nice, though.
Barrier already blocked "who c", though. If you didn't want to show up on the list--say, for example, you were somewhere you shouldn't be, or needed, for IC reasons, to avoid clannies--then you could put up barrier, the same thing you'd do if you didn't want your clannies to contact you.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 04, 2009, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: SMuz on June 04, 2009, 09:32:53 AM
If a Bynner skips sparring and isn't where he's supposed to be, there's always the benefit of the doubt.
No. No, there really isn't. Your sergeant does not have so many runners that he'll miss one totally disappearing for a day. The doubt you're referring to is that you might not be logged on.
It's far more realistic for your Bynner (or militia soldier) to make up an actual excuse for his whereabouts than to put up a barrier and let your fellow players assume that you're logged off.
Even Tuluk is Land of the Disappeared, not Land of the Mysteriously Reappearing.
Also, this.
Because I'm hypomanic and on a roll:
- Barrier is a good way to disappear forever and pretend you're dead.
- Barrier is not a good way to convince sarge that you're mucking out the latrines.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 04, 2009, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: SMuz on June 04, 2009, 09:32:53 AM
If a Bynner skips sparring and isn't where he's supposed to be, there's always the benefit of the doubt.
No. No, there really isn't. Your sergeant does not have so many runners that he'll miss one totally disappearing for a day. The doubt you're referring to is that you might not be logged on.
It's far more realistic for your Bynner (or militia soldier) to make up an actual excuse for his whereabouts than to put up a barrier and let your fellow players assume that you're logged off.
Even Tuluk is Land of the Disappeared, not Land of the Mysteriously Reappearing.
Very true. But unfair that other clans always know when you're not where you're supposed to be. I'd rather that everyone have the OOC advantage of being logged off than being OOC detected all the time.
I retract my argument because of the barrier thing, though.
Quote from: Dan on June 04, 2009, 06:16:50 AM
who
There are 57 players other than yourself online.
There are 3 clan members other than yourself online.
Would that help?
That would be nice.
Quote from: SMuz on June 04, 2009, 10:34:09 AM
But unfair that other clans always know when you're not where you're supposed to be. I'd rather that everyone have the OOC advantage of being logged off than being OOC detected all the time.
I'd much rather see "being logged off" removed from our lexicon of Reasons We Can't Find Amos...and for that particular reason, I think universal access to who -c would more enhance realism than detract.
Again,
you should not be using barrier to pretend that you're logged off.
Quote from: Myhrrn on June 04, 2009, 06:44:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Area on June 04, 2009, 06:20:24 AM
Quote from: Fathi on June 04, 2009, 04:09:31 AM
Personally, I think a good compromise would be to retain the command, but to have it only show a tally of how many people in your clan(s) are online.
It wouldn't reveal any IC information, but it could still be used as a tool to facilitate interaction by people in isolated tribes and clans.
Quote from: Dan
who
There are 57 players other than yourself online.
There are 3 clan members other than yourself online.
Would that help?
If you absolutely gotta have a who -c, this would be the version I can live with.
* Approve *
*Stamp of Approval*
I won't support something that tells you how many clannies are logged in just like I won't support 'who c' because it does the same thing. Someone logs in, sees none of the clannies on, logs out. Who is to say that one of their clannies wouldn't log in 1 minute later?
The bitch that someone had about, "Oh, maybe they only have half an hour to play and wouldn't log in if they have noone to interact with," is crap. Who had 'who c' anyway? Militias, Tan Muark and Halflings. The militias can F-off about losing 'who c' because they have PLENTY of people to interact with besides themselves. In fact, they should be interacting with others. Tan Muark and Halflings? They know who each other all are and can contact each other, heck, there's never more than half a dozen (at the absolutely ridiculous most) of either clan, so that means it ain't that hard to try contacting them.
F 'who c' right in it's goat butt. I'm glad it's gone and I'm glad people are crying over it because it shows how reliant you were on OOC information to drive your IC actions.
I'm pretty much with everything brytta and shadow said on this issue. Code changes that make casual-er play are bad for the game as a whole. Bad, bad, bad. Not everyone in ARM's potential audience is single, childless, and/or career-free.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 11:12:01 AM
F 'who c' right in it's goat butt. I'm glad it's gone and I'm glad people are crying over it because it shows how reliant you were on OOC information to drive your IC actions.
Yep, players like me and shadow and brytta are just huge fucking OOC twinks. The truth is finally reveal-ed!
Ooooh. Sarcasm. That defeats my argument completely!
See, I can do that too.
It is OOC information that encourages people NOT to play. Whether you are logged in or not IS OOC information. If you can't see that, I'll actually have to stand by my statement of moments before even stronger, and actually agree with what you facetiously said.
The only thing I think is wrong with who c is that you could log in and see nobody there and log out, and 1 minute later a colleague could do it and see no-one and log out, where if you had both stayed on for a couple of minutes, you could have had 2 hours of super RP.
Settle Down.
Everybody take a nice, deep breath, step back, put down the axe, and chill out.
You are all intelligent people and are completely capable of civility.
This has been the warning.
Also, please don't report posts simply because the post is written with a tone of authority. The moderation features of this board aren't intended to help you win your side of the argument. They're intended to promote less flaming, trolling, and IC information. Please use them for just that.
-- X
Quote from: Simple on June 04, 2009, 11:19:08 AM
The only thing I think is wrong with who c is that you could log in and see nobody there and log out, and 1 minute later a colleague could do it and see no-one and log out, where if you had both stayed on for a couple of minutes, you could have had 2 hours of super RP.
But... that's their decision. I'd rather hang out solo rping and hitting who c occasionally to see if any clannies are doing the same thing back in the (village/barracks/temple).
But we can't
force people to remain logged into the game.
I still don't see how "who c" could possibly be abused.
Quote from: staggerlee on June 04, 2009, 11:25:36 AM
Quote from: Simple on June 04, 2009, 11:19:08 AM
The only thing I think is wrong with who c is that you could log in and see nobody there and log out, and 1 minute later a colleague could do it and see no-one and log out, where if you had both stayed on for a couple of minutes, you could have had 2 hours of super RP.
But... that's their decision. I'd rather hang out solo rping and hitting who c occasionally to see if any clannies are doing the same thing back in the (village/barracks/temple).
But we can't force people to remain logged into the game.
I still don't see how "who c" could possibly be abused.
I'm not on either side in this btw, I'm ambivalent.
I'll play the
game world whichever way it is.
This is one of those decisions where, honestly, from a business/professional perspective, it is irritating to me that ARM staff does not rely on data-driven experimentation to figure out what is actually good for the game, and what is not. Rather, it seems that the staff continues to make decisions based on personal feelings and prejudices and observation, instead of objective measures. It's all well and good to change titles and talk about being professional, but if the "business" is not actually run by practices in common use in the business world, then it's only so much pretty wrapping paper.
Of course, if there actually is data behind this decision, then I retract my statement. But if there was, I expect we'd be given that as a supporting reason.
How do you expect them to test for the data?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 11:36:17 AM
This is one of those decisions where, honestly, from a business/professional perspective, it is irritating to me that ARM staff does not rely on data-driven experimentation to figure out what is actually good for the game, and what is not. Rather, it seems that the staff continues to make decisions based on personal feelings and prejudices and observation, instead of objective measures. It's all well and good to change titles and talk about being professional, but if the "business" is not actually run by practices in common use in the business world, then it's only so much pretty wrapping paper.
Of course, if there actually is data behind this decision, then I retract my statement. But if there was, I expect we'd be given that as a supporting reason.
I have no real insights into their decision making process. I'm sure they try to weigh all the evidence. They could even be considering player feedback, but I don't think I really expect a transparent discussion about it. Sadly.
I don't see how the positives outweigh the negatives on this, it would certainly be nice to hear a staff perspective on how this is going to improve the game.
Anyway, I have work to do so that's it for now: I bitch about games
professionally now.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 11:40:24 AM
How do you expect them to test for the data?
A live test with feedback from the testers. :D
Or look at other people's research. There's rough twenty years worth of it out there: every other MUD ever run.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 11:40:24 AM
How do you expect them to test for the data?
There are any number of ways to test for any variable in the game, or even on the website. Number of logins, length of logins, numbers of PCs in clans, overall number of PCs, number of unique accounts in a given time period, use of the request system, visits to the website, particular use of the website, etc etc are all bits of data that are in the system. Setting up the conditions for testing any aspect of ARM administration--code changes, marketing, player communication, the helper system--is highly do-able. Changes do not have to be made in the dim unknowing space of "We're doing it because we think we should."
Actually, I will amend a little. There have been a change or two in the past year which HAVE been data-driven. The one I am specifically recalling at the moment was the change to special application parameters. Vanth sussed out the data and presented strong arguments for the change, and that was extremely satisfactory to the playerbase as a whole, as evidenced in the reactions to the announcement.
Compare to this change. We're a playerbase of highly intelligent, generally logical and mature folk; and we're not really content to continually get the "Because I don't like it, and said so" rationale for changes.
So, you're saying they haven't observed people that had 'who c' and their login habits?
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:05:23 PM
So, you're saying they haven't observed people that had 'who c' and their login habits?
As mentioned previously, observation is not the same thing as data-collection and analysis. Often, what is believed to be true (from observation) turns out not to be true when the data is analyzed. I have seen this happen over and over and over in business situations. The data should always be collected and analyzed, and tests should always be run, rather than relying solely on human intuition / speculation / observation for important decisions.
Quote from: Shalooonsh on June 04, 2009, 11:21:47 AM
You are all intelligent people and are completely capable of civility.
Whoa hoss, don't you dare go calling me intelligent and capable of civility. >.>
On topic: If we can at least have a stripped down version of who c, I'd like Dan's idea. Pretty please.
This decision wasn't made out of a specific desire to change login/logout behavior (though I'm hopeful we may see improvements, based on the volume of comments on threads like this one which seem to be of the format "I need 'who c' to work, because I don't have a lot of time to play, so I just login and type 'who c' and if no one is on, I log out!"). We made the decision we made because we feel it improves the game by leveling the playing-field for all clans and removing a very OOC-driven and OOC-driving feature from the game.
I'm of the opinion (and this is not necessarily authoritative; I'm not speaking for the staff) that we don't need empirical evidence for every move we make, nor do we need to make all of our decisions about the direction of the game in a transparent manner (though I think we err on the side of transparency more often then not, and certainly more often than any other mud I've played).
It is certainly possible that we may come to provide other means by which you can communicate with one another en masse, and it is also conceivable that you are all clever enough to come up with other means of ICly coordinating rendezvous and letting each other know you're alive or looking to meet up, without remaining logged in.
-- X
How is "who c" abused? This I am unclear on... It would seem even if you had a list of those in Your clan that where on, it doesn't tell you where they are or any other information. It does let you know they are possibly attainable, as they are awake, unless they have a barrier up, so if one wanted to "Hide" from their own clan then they could put up a barrier.
Hidding from your clan, why would you not want them to know you are around, if so then maybe you should not be in the clan, it would seem you heart is not with them.
On behalf of the D-elves... You have spent your entire life with this (newly spawned Pc of an age of 13-80) tribe mate, that even if they had gone for some reason a month or more and just returned the whipers and rumors alone through camp would tell you that (Jo-bob Amos) has returned ie.. Who C tells you a name that may be attached to the new PC in camp that otherwise you are so very unrealisticly looking at going um.. I know I grew up with you in this tribe of fifty, where surely 10 or so where kids together or around the same age... but Who The Drov are you again.... And then you have those Players that refuse to put thet needed background at least the name desc on the board so that you at least have a working familurarity with your Brother or Sister. From there the interactions are smoother... not to mention some people do not like to interact either way with their tribe mates, for what ever reason they have, and so instead of being " who is that stranger that won't talk to me no matter how many times I try to start a conversation." you can be like " oh thats Sister, brother Amos, they don't talk much but I remember them from when they hung out with my younger brother, married my cousin' sisters nephews aunt.. bla bla."
That whole we have to introduce yourselves like you just moved to town and started a new school awkwardness should not need to happen in small clans that are tightly nitt (in the Docs). Anyways if you have ever lived in a small town you will find that people tend to know you even if you do not know them (and I mean this as if you had just moved to their town).
So again can someone explain the abuse of WHO C?
And to clarify I am not refutting the change, I am meerly pointing out another aspec that made Who C effective and will be looking for an alternitive. Thank you staff
Only one clan I was ever a part of had "who c", and, while it seemed a nice tool, the lack of it certainly didn't stop me from playing the game and enjoying myself. It certainly is an OOC construct, and can have an impact on your character's decisions.
1. The character might not stay logged in for very long because the player didn't see anyone in their clan playing and logs.
2. The character may not travel to social-centers or choke points such as city gates, taverns, and shops to search for clan members if they can simply auto-detect their presence with "who c". What about the rest of the player base that wants to interact with your character, positively or negatively, and perhaps requires this IC travel time in order to achieve those goals.
3. The character may intend to commit a crime within their organization, steal something, or murder someone, and wants to be assured that either no PC's are logged on, or a particular PC (read leader, officer, templar) is not logged on. The "who c" command becomes all too tempting a tool.
4. The character may have learned that another 2 members of the clan intend to kill him/her, and use "who c" as a tool to know when it's safe to be logged in, and when they may want to "quit" to avoid an encounter.
5. The character may use "who c" as a meter for clan activity, or to obtain a roster of information as a spy without having ever personally met or seen any of the people listed. They may also feed this information, including real names and sdescs to non-clan members without having to ever interact with any of them.
All of that said, I do see the benefits of having some kind of ability to reference whether your clan mates are around, especially in a small or tight-knit community where it'd be easy to ICly ask someone. If an OOC construct like "who c" isn't viable, then perhaps there could be something created for Arm 1 or Arm 2 where you have an NPC in a social point, like a gate, gathering hut, or meeting hall, who will remember the passage of clan PC's in a similar way to message the hunt skill returns.
Open Clearing Amidst the Huts [NEWS]
A grizzled, gray-haired man is here, stoking the camp fire with a blackened stick.
A small camp fire is here, its flames crackling quietly.
A grizzled, gray-haired man looks at you.
>talk grizzled man Jahn
You ask a grizzled, gray-haired man about Jahn.
A grizzled, gray-haired man glances over toward you and scrunches his features together.
Nodding a few times, A grizzled, gray-haired man says, in sirihish:
"Yeah, Jahn was here probably a few hours ago."
>talk grizzled man Choros
You ask a grizzled, gray-haired man about Choros.
A grizzled, gray-haired man glances over toward you and scrunches his features together.
Shaking his head, a grizzled, gray-haired man says, in sirihish:
"Nah, ain't seen him all day."
It would capture some of the realism that people want regarding whether someone in their tight-knit community may have seen someone else ICly without it being auto-magickal knowledge and an OOC construct. It would also mean that you could code in the ability to avoid being seen by these type of resources if you so desired (i.e. sneaking, hiding, choosing alternate routes, etc...).
-LoD
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
"I need 'who c' to work, because I don't have a lot of time to play, so I just login and type 'who c' and if no one is on, I log out!").
Whoa, Xygax. I haven't read the entire thread since it blew up after I passed out, but I don't recall anyone saying this unless it was on the third or fourth page. Citation?
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
We made the decision we made because we feel it improves the game by leveling the playing-field for all clans.
Giving who c to all tribes/clans would have leveled the playing-field also. :P
Quote from: Potaje on June 04, 2009, 12:16:37 PMSo again can someone explain the abuse of WHO C?
The rest of your post lacked punctuation and other things I consider criteria for readability, so I'll just respond to this part. I never contended it was being abused.
-- X
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:09:16 PM
As mentioned previously, observation is not the same thing as data-collection and analysis. Often, what is believed to be true (from observation) turns out not to be true when the data is analyzed. I have seen this happen over and over and over in business situations. The data should always be collected and analyzed, and tests should always be run, rather than relying solely on human intuition / speculation / observation for important decisions.
Exactly how do you propose they do this?
All clans and tribes used to have Who C actually.
That was changed...hhhmm, 2001 I think?
As to Potaje question, Mansa explained the 3 main ways Who C was abused. And did so quite well.
Quote from: Eloran on June 04, 2009, 12:21:43 PMGiving who c to all tribes/clans would have leveled the playing-field also. :P
Actually, it wouldn't, since players in "independent clans" (ie., groups of PCs working together as a clan without coded support) would not have the feature. But I think even if that weren't the case, the feature is still a very OOC one.
-- X
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:09:16 PM
As mentioned previously, observation is not the same thing as data-collection and analysis. Often, what is believed to be true (from observation) turns out not to be true when the data is analyzed. I have seen this happen over and over and over in business situations. The data should always be collected and analyzed, and tests should always be run, rather than relying solely on human intuition / speculation / observation for important decisions.
Exactly how do you propose they do this?
I wrote a really long post on why they shouldn't be doing that, but that's just too much of a derail. Looong story short, games are too complex to be used with standard data collection models. Try getting data on how people play something simple like checkers. Then try the very first MUD. It's more easily done with instinct. I could give a 2 hour lecture on why instinct is better than data, but it's not important.
Uhm, SMuz, the collecting of data for studies in the game has already been done. It was a moderate to good success. See: Gimf, Vanth.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:09:16 PM
As mentioned previously, observation is not the same thing as data-collection and analysis. Often, what is believed to be true (from observation) turns out not to be true when the data is analyzed. I have seen this happen over and over and over in business situations. The data should always be collected and analyzed, and tests should always be run, rather than relying solely on human intuition / speculation / observation for important decisions.
Exactly how do you propose they do this?
... That IS how to do it, in a nutshell. Try reading my posts again, and/or developing a career as a data analyst, if you want more specifics. The ARM staff are smart and experienced enough in technical areas that they could figure out how to do it if they cared to.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
We made the decision we made because we feel
Emphasis mine.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:25:08 PM
the feature is still a very OOC one.
Clan forums are OOC. PMs are OOC. Email is OOC. The use of IM is entirely OOC, and runs rampant. A general feeling of prejudice against anything "OOC" is still a poor basis for decision-making.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
This decision wasn't made out of a specific desire to change login/logout behavior (though I'm hopeful we may see improvements, based on the volume of comments on threads like this one which seem to be of the format "I need 'who c' to work, because I don't have a lot of time to play, so I just login and type 'who c' and if no one is on, I log out!").
For one thing, you have totally mistaken and reduced the position of those of us advocating for "who c" to something that no one here supports.
For another thing, the opposite of the
log in - who c - log out behavior is not
staying logged in; it is
staying logged out, unless the player believes that s/he has 15 to 30 minutes to burn on simply finding roleplay.
Logging in and out at all is ooc.
It breaks my immersion, and I vote that it be disallowed.
Quote from: staggerlee on June 04, 2009, 12:38:54 PM
Logging in and out at all is ooc.
It breaks my immersion, and I vote that it be disallowed.
> who
------------------------
There are 250 sleep-deprived, unbathed, jobless, homeless, relationship-free players in the world.
C'mon, let's not be dicks and get this thing locked. Perhaps if we use logic and reason, we could sway the decision staff have made.
Gimf, you're in command.
Quote from: Eloran on June 04, 2009, 12:42:56 PM
C'mon, let's not be dicks and get this thing locked. Perhaps if we use logic and reason, we could sway the decision staff have made.
Gimf, you're in command.
It's just a little gallows humor, m'dear; and it was funnier than "There are 250 linkdead players in the world." I think I've stated my case plenty, anyways. If the staff wanted me to provide criteria, conditions, or analysis for an actual test of the who c command or really anything else, I'd be more than happy to help. But beyond that, I do not believe there is anything further I can do or say.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PMQuote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
We made the decision we made because we feel
Emphasis mine.
Emphasis, but no point?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PMQuote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:25:08 PMthe feature is still a very OOC one.
Clan forums are OOC. PMs are OOC. Email is OOC. The use of IM is entirely OOC, and runs rampant. A general feeling of prejudice against anything "OOC" is still a poor basis for decision-making.
And we try as much as possible to reduce and restrict your use of the ones we can't supervise. Thank you, though, for conceding that the feature is an OOC one, and also for equating it to the "rampant use of IM"; I'll consider those remarks to be points in my favor. Whether or not you personally feel that we are wrongly prejudiced against the use of OOC communication tools that we can't or don't have the resources to supervise, it has been my experience that they are almost always detrimental to the game.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PMQuote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
This decision wasn't made out of a specific desire to change login/logout behavior (though I'm hopeful we may see improvements, based on the volume of comments on threads like this one which seem to be of the format "I need 'who c' to work, because I don't have a lot of time to play, so I just login and type 'who c' and if no one is on, I log out!").
For one thing, you have totally mistaken and reduced the position of those of us advocating for "who c" to something that no one here supports.
Sorry if that looked like a strawman. As I said at the beginning of the remark: the decision wasn't made to improve login/logout times, or to stop any particular behavior, nor in response to any remarks made by any player. I personally don't care about login times and I don't think this feature will dramatically affect them in either direction.
Quote from: GimfalisetteFor another thing, the opposite of the log in - who c - log out behavior is not staying logged in; it is staying logged out, unless the player believes that s/he has 15 to 30 minutes to burn on simply finding roleplay.
I'm fine with that. If you don't have time to play, don't login.
-- X
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:09:16 PM
As mentioned previously, observation is not the same thing as data-collection and analysis. Often, what is believed to be true (from observation) turns out not to be true when the data is analyzed. I have seen this happen over and over and over in business situations. The data should always be collected and analyzed, and tests should always be run, rather than relying solely on human intuition / speculation / observation for important decisions.
Exactly how do you propose they do this?
... That IS how to do it, in a nutshell. Try reading my posts again, and/or developing a career as a data analyst, if you want more specifics. The ARM staff are smart and experienced enough in technical areas that they could figure out how to do it if they cared to.
No, it isn't. That's a statement of what they should do, not how. I'm not a data analyst. Are you? Are any of the staff? Are you suggesting that if none of them are, they hire someone to tell them how to do it? If you are one, say how instead of say what... again... and again.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
We made the decision we made because we feel
Emphasis mine.
Sometimes feelings are better than data. How many people here did data analysis on their feelings before dating someone? ...before deciding that the did/didn't like pizza? ...before deciding they like Armageddon? Go ahead and emphasize. Some people will only disagree with you more for saying that feelings have nothing to do with anything.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:25:08 PM
the feature is still a very OOC one.
Clan forums are OOC. PMs are OOC. Email is OOC. The use of IM is entirely OOC, and runs rampant. A general feeling of prejudice against anything "OOC" is still a poor basis for decision-making.
Clan forums shouldn't be used to tell people you are online. Neither should PMs. Neither should IMing. This is ALL abuse of OOC tools in my mind and any OOC tool that exists in game should be eliminated to minimize abusive behavior.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
This decision wasn't made out of a specific desire to change login/logout behavior (though I'm hopeful we may see improvements, based on the volume of comments on threads like this one which seem to be of the format "I need 'who c' to work, because I don't have a lot of time to play, so I just login and type 'who c' and if no one is on, I log out!").
For one thing, you have totally mistaken and reduced the position of those of us advocating for "who c" to something that no one here supports.
For another thing, the opposite of the log in - who c - log out behavior is not staying logged in; it is staying logged out, unless the player believes that s/he has 15 to 30 minutes to burn on simply finding roleplay.
He did not mistake or reduce anyone's position to anything incorrect. He said that people said they did it. People DID say they did it.
Also, if you have only 15 to 30 minutes to log in and you NEED someone else to make the game fun for you, don't log in. Problem solved. I'm happy.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:47:19 PM
Quote from: GimfalisetteFor another thing, the opposite of the log in - who c - log out behavior is not staying logged in; it is staying logged out, unless the player believes that s/he has 15 to 30 minutes to burn on simply finding roleplay.
I'm fine with that. If you don't have time to play, don't login.
k
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 04, 2009, 12:53:23 PM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:47:19 PM
Quote from: GimfalisetteFor another thing, the opposite of the log in - who c - log out behavior is not staying logged in; it is staying logged out, unless the player believes that s/he has 15 to 30 minutes to burn on simply finding roleplay.
I'm fine with that. If you don't have time to play, don't login.
k
Yeah really.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:25:08 PM
the feature is still a very OOC one.
Clan forums are OOC. PMs are OOC. Email is OOC. The use of IM is entirely OOC, and runs rampant. A general feeling of prejudice against anything "OOC" is still a poor basis for decision-making.
Yes, but there are some very real differences between an OOC construct usable directly from the command line of the MUD through game syntax and these designs that are completely removed from the live game itself. You even have to log completely out of the game in order to use the "mail" function from the menu. Clan Forums, GDB, Email, PM's are all "outside of the game", which places the "who c" feature in a completely different category.
I know your point was that a general prejudice against anything "OOC" is a poor basis for decision making, but the constructs you list here isn't exactly comparing OOC apples to OOC apples. They're two very different things, and so I don't think it's that simple.
All OOC constructs have
some inherent risk in affecting the game in a negative way, voluntarily or involuntarily. Those that are accessible as a direct part of the game contribute to gray lines and blurred boundaries on acceptable/unacceptable behavior. I think there are other alternatives to "who c" that wouldn't contribute as much to the problems while still providing some solutions.
-LoD
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Are you?
Yeah, she is.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Sometimes feelings are better than data.
That sure worked out well for JFK Jr. ::)
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Any OOC tool that exists in game should be eliminated to minimize abusive behavior.
I've never seen anyone abuse the command. Ever.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it's as prevalent as you seem to believe.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Also, if you have only 15 to 30 minutes to log in and you NEED someone else to make the game fun for you, don't log in. Problem solved. I'm happy.
No. Problem not solved. If people can only devote a half hour on certain days but -need- to speak to someone to keep a plot rolling, not being able to contact them stalls not only the interaction, but the plot as well. You might be happy, but that plot won't be.
Domino effect, meet a host of pissed players raging at the stalled plot you just borked.
The points that I and a few others are trying to make seem to keep getting lost in the "I can regurgitate more intelligent-sounding stuff than you can in this amount of time" noise.
A character is always in Zalanthas. Its player is not always inhabiting it for OOC reasons. Any command used to decipher whether or not a character is around for interaction (which is NOT THE SAME as being ICly unavailable) would naturally be OOC in nature. Forcing us to use IC means to decipher whether a character, who is part of an organization, is (for OOC reasons) available or unavailable, is flawed logic.
I'm resigned to this change because, like other changes I have strongly disagreed with (hi, stun/stam loss), bitching isn't gonna change a thing. I'm still registering my complaint, though, because I care about the game, and I highly disagree with any change that further fragments the playerbase and/or makes it harder for others to interact with each other. Anything can be abused; mitigate the ways something can be abused rather than scrapping the whole idea.
As someone else said, who-c could have been given to all clans, if "exclusivity" was somehow deemed a problem.
Also, Xygax, there's a difference between "strongly worded" posts and someone saying "fuck it in its goat ass".
Thanks for making us "we have a life, but we love the game" players feel totally welcome, man.
Every clans I've been in, in the last three years or so, all have a thread where you write in your sdesc, your playtime, your character's name, role and something about the character (and most do it with their main GDB name).. Is that now forbidden as well, or..?
I also agree that Armageddon has never been a game you can play if you have a spare 20 minutes here or there.. Even with 'who c', if you have only 30 minutes to play, you'll be lucky to find someone and exchange more than 10 emotes in between before you need to log out again..
You people are going nuts over nothing, seriously.
Quote from: Eloran on June 04, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Are you?
Yeah, she is.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Sometimes feelings are better than data.
That sure worked out well for JFK Jr. ::)
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Any OOC tool that exists in game should be eliminated to minimize abusive behavior.
I've never seen anyone abuse the command. Ever.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think it's as prevalent as you seem to believe.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:48:22 PM
Also, if you have only 15 to 30 minutes to log in and you NEED someone else to make the game fun for you, don't log in. Problem solved. I'm happy.
No. Problem not solved. If people can only devote a half hour on certain days but -need- to speak to someone to keep a plot rolling, not being able to contact them stalls not only the interaction, but the plot as well. You might be happy, but that plot won't be.
Domino effect, meet a host of pissed players raging at the stalled plot you just borked.
1 - Then she should stop saying what and start saying how. Like I said.
2 - So?
3 - I have. Anytime someone logs in, does 'who c', and then logs out, it's abuse of 'who c' and I WATCHED it happen (Little known thing, now that 'who c' is gone... barrier prevented 'who c' from finding you. I was hidden with a barrier on, watched someone log in and then almost immediately log out multiple times.)
4 - Yes, problem solved. If you don't have time to play, don't play. If you need someone to make your time fun and don't have the time to find them, don't play. Log in when you have the time and don't get involved in plots that require 'who c' for you to be involved in them.
shadow: You've got some good points, but for now I don't see them outweighing the value we perceive in removing the command. Your complaint is duly and respectfully noted, however. No doubt we will continue to tweak systems like this as we go forward.
-- X
Ok I have some remarks to these "Three" Reasons given as to why Who C was abussive.
1) You lose the roleplay moments of not knowing if someone is online or alive, if they previously contacted you and said, 'HELP ME OMG'. The player will constantly spam 'Who C' to see if they remain alive, as they try and run to the area to rescue them.
So you say "if they previously contacted you and said, 'HELP ME OMG'. The player will constantly spam 'Who C' to see if they remain alive, as they try and run to the area to rescue them. ", Now how is that differnet than finding someones mind and maintaining contact with them to see if they are alive (aside from maybe the drain). Which I can understand (personally I never thought of using it in such away.)
2) Players will get poisoned, and then type 'Who C', and then contact the people online and say, 'BRING ME CURES NOW'.
This seems like just another part of the first reason which I will consider 1 and 2 to be as one reason. But ok so when your life is in danger do not contact someone and say Help, but find them in person?
3) If you got recruited into the Arm of the Dragon as a spy, and the name you gave the templar was Joe, but when the templar's player typed 'Who C', he will not see Joe, but he'll see Bob.
It would seem to me that The templar in such a trusted role would and should know how to use Who C properly, and in games play if they do not they should not be in that role.
Oh and I have never seen short desc, only names on Who C.
In the world know for its strong use of psionics, as everyone is born with some level of it, Clans are closer to the borgish collective, I guess, but i would think simply through breeding the Tribals, keeping their gentics so closely watched would have a higher bond of the mind and so feel the "presence" of their mates.
Feel the force Luke... reach out and find the other Jedi...
There are 3 Jedi in the Universe
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:58:59 PM
1 - Then she should stop saying what and start saying how. Like I said.
It's essentially the use of the scientific method. The specifics will vary based on the hypothesis, collectable data, desired outcome, and so forth. Without access to all that information, it's not possible to say exactly, precisely how it would be done, but that's the basics. Desired outcome -> hypothesis -> evaluation of testable data -> test methods and conditions -> run test -> analyze data -> re-run as necessary. If you want to know more, feel free to PM with questions, rather than further derailing the thread into an esoteric discussion that no one else cares about.
Geez, calm down guys. Who -c is a tool that has both advantages and disadvantages.
They're not going to change it back just because some complain. Instead of arguing about why someone else is wrong, why not find another solution that'll please everyone? I think someone on the 2nd page of this thread tried to do that and I like LoD's suggestion as well.
@ Potaje -
1 - The difference is that YOUR CHARACTER is using the Way, losing stun and etc, instead of you using an OOC construct.
2 - Use the Way.
3 - Completely borked. I have absolutely and completely avoided certain towns with certain characters because of what I perceived as abusive play on the part of the player of a templar. Just because they can be trusted 95% of the time doesn't mean that they will that last 5%... especially when the power they wield IC begins to corrupt them.
@ Gimf -
I never said I was interested. I'm happy with the decision. You're the one contesting it and saying they should have done something... so tell them what they should have done. Suggest how to go about it. Seek the information you need to give them better information in return. Stop saying their decision was a bad one because they didn't visibly live up to your standards. If we all had to visibly live up to everyone's standards for this game, there'd be a lot of people currently playing this game that wouldn't be allowed to any longer.
Quote from: a strange shadow on June 04, 2009, 12:55:45 PM
As someone else said, who-c could have been given to all clans, if "exclusivity" was somehow deemed a problem.
Agreed with your points, but if you don't properly learn my name and how to cite me, a physical confrontation is likely. Don't make me bow up.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:58:59 PM
So?
So? So like, JFK Jr. died and stuff. Looks like choosing to rely on his gut as opposed to his instruments really worked out is all I'm saying. ::)
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:58:59 PM
Little known thing, now that 'who c' is gone... barrier prevented 'who c' from finding you.
I am very aware of this. Who c was never infallible to begin with.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:58:59 PM
I was hidden with a barrier on, watched someone log in and then almost immediately log out multiple times.
So you drew a possibly inaccurate conclusion as to why the character was logging off/on multiple times. Perhaps something came up RL that they immediately had to tend to? Perhaps their net connection was burping and they needed to log.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 12:58:59 PM
If you need someone to make your time fun and don't have the time to find them, don't play.
I don't mind playing alone, personally. I've solo rp'ed extensively, but I do love player-to-player interaction more on any given day. I think the majority of players are with me on this. Anything that helps you locate and contact players to interact with them, as I've stated, is a great thing. Some people need said interaction to prevent them from getting bored.
In disagreeing with Xygax, I do think the positives outweigh the -potential- for negatives on this issue.
Edit before I press post -again-: Jesus this thread has blown up - I can't keep up with this!
I can totally agree that Who C -can- be, and -should- be removed. However, I think it would be useful to just have the "there are x number of clan members besides yourself online" and here is my justification.
If you are in a clan where you know that, during Such and Such a time, SteveO and Bamfer are online. However, there are some nights where they just aren't around. Rather than typing who c to find them, you could know that "Hey, there's 2 other people online, it must be SteveO and Bamfer!". Now who knows, maybe your clan has a new recruit, or got a new special apped leader position. This way you wouldn't -know- and could ask around, but you would know there -are- people in your clan around. I've often used Who C as a "sense that this person is about" anyways, would this be a terribly OOC construct?
Expressing disagreement and discontent over changes is natural, but it may be more practical to propose solutions based on the assumption that these changes were not born of an arbitrary whim, but after consideration and debate over what must have been a list of criteria for how it's hurting the game.
I would suggest focusing on IC solutions that may or may not have yet been explored.
1. Having an NPC represented in a commonly traveled area that actively "looks" for PC's and NPC's that move through the area and retains some amount of memory on how long they "saw" them move through the area.
2. Having an NPC that could be "contacted" and sent psi messages that would either be repeated immediately, or perhaps held -- although the latter solution feels more like a human answering machine and isn't quite as interesting as the first.
A Dark, Quartz-Lined Chamber [S]
A willowy, gaunt faced man is here, hands folded in meditation.
The burly, broad-shouldered mercenary is here.
A willowy, gaunt-faced man's eyes widen slightly, his features taut with concentration.
In a slow whisper, a willowy, gaunt-faced man says, in sirihish:
"Someone reaches me."
His eyelids fluttering slightly, a willowy, gaunt-faced man says, in sirihish:
"Sir, we are assembled at the western gate if you wish to inspect the men."
The burly, broad-shouldered mercenary nods, then turns about and walks toward the western doorway.
The burly, broad-shouldered mercenary leaves west.
A willowy, gaunt-faced man's features suddenly draw slack as he sighs deeply.
3. You could have NPC's that accept a "report" command so that if you want others to know you are available, the NPC will retain that command for the next few hours. That's a bit of a adaptation from the first example, where it requires the PC clan members to be a bit more pro-active rather than the environment simply reacting to their presence.
I'm sure there are solutions that would help address the issues some you feel were being helped by the "who c" command which don't inherit the OOC nature or disadvantages that the Staff obviously felt were enough to warrant its removal.
-LoD
I like the "report" ideas.
-- X
How would this work for PCs who do not (in some cases, cannot) convene in one physical location? For example, a guild_merchant PC in the Tan Muark who relies on the presence of tribemates for travel, and frequently is required to be away from home where this kind of NPC might logically be centralized.
We use many different criterion when discussing changes:
1. Explanations of how the code works
2. Observed behavior/pattern
3. Personal views on how something should work (this relates more to, how folks envision a system, or implementation)
4. Staff input as to the pros and cons (some opinion, some fact) (benefits vs consequences, which always takes some guesswork)
5. Player input (either directly acquired, or indirectly through emails, posts, discussions we observe)
6. Data
7. Feelings
8. Requirements if there were any
9. End Goal if there was any
10. Balance
12. Documentation, or guidelines
13. Others...
Some decisions involve many of these, some involve few. Some are more transparent, some are very touchy. We aren't a business and I doubt we ever will be. Player perception, and even specific Staff perception varies widely from person to person on many issues where it's perfectly aligned on others.
I have yet to see a data collection that hasn't been sliced, diced, and spun. Data is useful, but not an end all. Data rarely makes you happy unless you already feel happy with the solution it's spun to support. It may make you grudgingly accept it, but it won't make you happy or even necessarily agree with the solution. Data is highly suspect because it's based on the criterion one uses to extract it, which is often not deep enough, or has gaps. Data is highly suspect because once you have your elements, it's completely up to the criterion the reporter used to prove their point. I work with data all the time, and I see how it's twisted. Data shouldn't be ignored, it shows trends and adds value, but it is merely one piece of the puzzle if you even have it, and it should always be taken with a grain of salt.
So... the merchant isn't allow to travel without tribemates... but travels frequently, and isn't able to get their tribemates to convene in one location?
-- X
Quote from: LoD on June 04, 2009, 01:13:23 PM
1. Having an NPC represented in a commonly traveled area that actively "looks" fo PC's and NPC's that move through the area and retains some amount of memory on how long they "saw" them move through the area.
2. Having an NPC that could be "contacted" and sent psi messages that would either be repeated immediately, or perhaps held -- although the latter solution feels more like a human answering machine and isn't quite as interesting as the first.
3. You could have NPC's that accept a "report" command so that if you want others to know you are available, the NPC will retain that command for the next few hours. That's a bit of a adaptation from the first example, where it requires the PC clan members to be a bit more pro-active rather than the environment simply reacting to their presence.
What about a consolidated version of all three? An NPC that automatically remembers the PCs that have traveled through in x amount of time, but with the ability to psi in a "report" for those characters that aren't in the area but want their whereabouts in the world to be known.
Players use ooc tools in order to facilitate play all the time. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we all had no idea who each other were, had no interaction with one another, and only met in game, chances are a hell of a lot less roleplaying would get done. Preserving the 'purity' of anonymous roleplay at the expense of actually getting to roleplay with someone is bass ackwards. We need more things like who c, not less. The moment I log on, I should be able to interact with people as quickly as possible. This is especially important for people who play off peak.
This is all part of the general bent of the game which is to reward people who play incessantly, and punish those who play irregularly or off-peak. I can guarantee we'd have a larger playerbase if people who could only spare a few hours now and again were given some tools with which to find roleplay more easily. Those who oppose this are the imms and a few very prolific, long-term players. These aren't the people who need it.
OOC tools which are -part of the game- that facilitate players meeting and roleplay are good things! They make the game BETTER. There are -countless- ooc things related to code or circumstance which affect the game that we can roll with, but somehow tools like who c (which we need more of, not less) ruin everything? I don't buy it. I'd much rather be given tools to find and interact with people in game than be expected to add my entire clan to my AIM list and coordinate with them - which is more or less what I interpret Xygax as having recommended between snarkily telling players to just stop playing if they can't keep up.
To draw an analogy, oocly coordinating playtimes is like prostitution. It exists, there is nothing we can do about it, so now it's a question of how we handle it.
Armag right now outlaws all forms of ooc coordination, considers it an amoral crime and the refuge of horrible twinks, shit roleplayers, code abusers and baby stompers. Much like all forms of prostitution are outlawed for moral reasons. The argument goes that since it's contrary to the moral fabric of society, it should not be legalized.
The problem of course is that, like prostitution, pushing it underground makes things worse. I don't want to add my entire clan to AIM, but somehow I'm starting to think this is what I'm being encouraged to do. If the game took the steps to ensure I could easily locate and roleplay with my clan mates, there's no need to know half the game ooc and deal with the baggage that comes with that. Carrying on with the analogy - we get marginalized street walkers.
In-clan OOC coordination should be a regulated part of the game experience for a myriad of great reasons discussed in this thread. Obviously, we're not seeing that. Instead what I'm getting is that casual players can just fuck off and die, and if we want to coordinate do so out of the game. Just lovely.
EDIT: I also think that "X number of players on in your clan." is a good compromise.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 01:25:17 PM
So... the merchant isn't allow to travel without tribemates... but travels frequently, and isn't able to get their tribemates to convene in one location?
That'd be the gist of it, yes. Having a single centralized NPC who responds to in-person commands would be a potentially good solution for clans which operate from a single area (like the militia, assuming the NPC is accessible to anyone who can enter the recruits' barracks), but it is not necessarily a good solution for a traveling iso clan like the TM.
Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 04, 2009, 01:28:12 PM
This is all part of the general bent of the game which is to reward people who play incessantly, and punish those who play irregularly or off-peak. I can guarantee we'd have a larger playerbase if people who could only spare a few hours now and again were given some tools with which to find roleplay more easily. Those who oppose this are the imms and a few very prolific, long-term players. These aren't the people who need it.
Exactly. And hell yes to everything else you said.
Quote from: Comrade Canadia on June 04, 2009, 01:28:12 PMbe expected to add my entire clan to my AIM list and coordinate with them - which is more or less what I interpret Xygax as having recommended between snarkily telling players to just stop playing if they can't keep up.
To be clear, I do not suggest that you coordinate on AIM, and this is (imho) a rather egregious misinterpretation. Also, I'm terribly sorry if any of my remarks have seemed snarky, they aren't meant to be.
-- X
EDIT: Also, as someone else noted, there are other, sanctioned ways, to coordinate playtimes (such as via the GDB). "who c" is, in fact, by comparison a poor tool for it, at best.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 01:32:22 PM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 01:25:17 PM
So... the merchant isn't allow to travel without tribemates... but travels frequently, and isn't able to get their tribemates to convene in one location?
That'd be the gist of it, yes. Having a single centralized NPC who responds to in-person commands would be a potentially good solution for clans which operate from a single area (like the militia, assuming the NPC is accessible to anyone who can enter the recruits' barracks), but it is not necessarily a good solution for a traveling iso clan like the TM.
Well, isolated clans might actually be a whole other subject, and if you don't want to be isolated, perhaps you shouldn't play in one. That said, I still think your example contradicts itself. If you are a merchant who cannot travel without your clannies, then you shouldn't be travelling without your clannies. Contacting them shouldn't be an issue, since if you aren't in your "central location", then your clannies must be with you. Then again, many clans have "central locations" that travel with them, at which such an NPC could be stationed.
-- X
I have some other Arm players on IM. I've never used who c. And I have a lot of fun RPing with those people I have on IM without asking them whether they're online. I play off peak a lot. I'm a casual player. If anything, 'who c' makes things worse, because you're only interacting with people in the same clan, instead of going out there and looking out for people to RP with.
God Damn! Does it really fucking matter? They got rid of
the command because there is already an UNSPECIFIC
who c in the game, it is the WHO command. If you can deal
with not having who c in some clans, you can deal with it in
others.
I know I do not agree with the Imms on some decisions they
make and I may argue with them, but I know, they are doing
what is best for the game, and in the end we have to trust
their decisions.
Regardless if it was abused or was not, the command is gone,
get used to it. They dont need to give reasons as to why. Be
happy that they at least informed you.
Krath: Of course it matters. And it's good that there are players who care enough about the game to fight for features they think improve it.
-- X
Quote from: Krath on June 04, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
God Damn! Does it really fucking matter?
To some of us, yes. Otherwise we would not be advocating for a change to bring who c back.
Quote from: Krath on June 04, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Regardless if it was abused or was not, the command is gone,
get used to it.
We could get used to it,
or, we could attempt to persuade to the staff members to view the situation from a player's perspective that quite a few of us hold.
And to be quite frank, we're allowed to have a fucking opinion if we want to, and we are certainly allowed to voice it. Thanks.
Quote from: Krath on June 04, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
They dont need to give reasons as to why. Be happy that they at least informed you.
They don't have to, but they should, and they have. Being up front with players and open with the community helps spur kinship between staff and players, something that I think helps foster better play and communication.
EDIT: Thank you Xygax. That's appreciated.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 01:47:14 PM
Krath: Of course it matters. And it's good that there are players who care enough about the game to fight for features they think improve it.
-- X
Thanks, X, for acknowledging that there is a purpose to our passion. When it all comes down to it, I do not care about what method is chosen to enhance, improve, and increase interaction within the MUD; I simply care that a method IS chosen. And I do care that one method was removed and not replaced, seemingly without consideration to the impact of this decision on a certain segment of the playerbase (casual players). I feel fairly certain that brytta, staggerlee, Comrade Canadia et al have the same concern, because of repeated posts on their part and/or PM discussions where we have mutually lamented not having enough time to play.
"If you don't have time to play, don't log in" and "don't play in an iso clan" are not solutions which will increase the size of the ARM playerbase or the quantity and quality of interactions within the game. What we're looking for is tools.
@Comrade Canadia
We shouldn't be using OOC tools to coordinate that are unfair for other players. It encourages people to communicate OOCly about other things, first. Second, it encourages OOC cliques to become IC cliques. I think this is a fundamental that you (and others) and I (and others) seem to be disagreeing on.
Let me respond to a few things you said quickly, though, point by point.
QuoteThe moment I log on, I should be able to interact with people as quickly as possible.
I disagree. Having 'who c' to do this rewards people that play in clans in yet another fashion.
QuoteThis is all part of the general bent of the game which is to reward people who play incessantly, and punish those who play irregularly or off-peak. I can guarantee we'd have a larger playerbase if people who could only spare a few hours now and again were given some tools with which to find roleplay more easily.
First, roleplaying is NOT interacting with people. Interacting with people is roleplaying, yes, but you can roleplay without someone else to play with. Taking away 'who c' does NOT reward people with lots of time, it just removes an advantage others have. (Remember, someone else having something is not a punishment for the person who does not, and nor is someone else not having something a reward for someone that does.)
QuoteOOC tools which are -part of the game- that facilitate players meeting and roleplay are good things! They make the game BETTER. There are -countless- ooc things related to code or circumstance which affect the game that we can roll with, but somehow tools like who c (which we need more of, not less) ruin everything?
What OOC tools? PMs and IMs? Those are bad uses of OOC tools. Public (or semi-public) announcements of RPTs for areas or clans? Good uses. You still have those.
QuoteArmag right now outlaws all forms of ooc coordination, considers it an amoral crime and the refuge of horrible twinks, shit roleplayers, code abusers and baby stompers.
It does not. See what I said about announcing on the GDB, either publicly or in clan forums, as I said above.
QuoteThe problem of course is that, like prostitution, pushing it underground makes things worse. I don't want to add my entire clan to AIM, but somehow I'm starting to think this is what I'm being encouraged to do.
No, you're being encouraged to NOT coordinate in manners that are unfair to the rest of the players. You're the one thinking of taking it to ways that are unfair by not seeing that the approved ways are fair for everyone.
QuoteIn-clan OOC coordination should be a regulated part of the game experience for a myriad of great reasons discussed in this thread. Obviously, we're not seeing that. Instead what I'm getting is that casual players can just fuck off and die, and if we want to coordinate do so out of the game. Just lovely.
Noone's saying that coordination is bad, but the ways that people use oftentimes are bad, as already stated countless times. Don't strawman.
Quote from: aruna on June 04, 2009, 01:26:25 PM
Quote from: LoD on June 04, 2009, 01:13:23 PM
1. Having an NPC represented in a commonly traveled area that actively "looks" fo PC's and NPC's that move through the area and retains some amount of memory on how long they "saw" them move through the area.
2. Having an NPC that could be "contacted" and sent psi messages that would either be repeated immediately, or perhaps held -- although the latter solution feels more like a human answering machine and isn't quite as interesting as the first.
3. You could have NPC's that accept a "report" command so that if you want others to know you are available, the NPC will retain that command for the next few hours. That's a bit of a adaptation from the first example, where it requires the PC clan members to be a bit more pro-active rather than the environment simply reacting to their presence.
What about a consolidated version of all three? An NPC that automatically remembers the PCs that have traveled through in x amount of time, but with the ability to psi in a "report" for those characters that aren't in the area but want their whereabouts in the world to be known.
My guess would be that having an NPC keeping track of every clan member moving through the area, and resetting their memory to the certain number of hours, whether they were sneaking/hiding, etc...would be a lot more work than simply creating a script that takes a "report" command and holds a message for "x" game hours. The idea of having someone "report" in through a Way message might provide more of an advantage to clans and remove some of the purposeful difficulty imposed on IG communication over distances. I wouldn't ever want clear, instant, and unwavering channels of communication to be available for anyone. This is handled naturally, in part, by the ebb and flow of players into and out of the game.
NPC's have no such limitations, and so they can bring with them unexpected benefits or disadvantages when they're involved.
I always understood the spirit of "who c" to be a tool for iso-tribes and clans with an extremely small or tight-knit community to help its players find one another when they were available to play. This generally assumed that the players would be keeping to a specific area, or wouldn't be in a location where interaction is easily found, such as a city-state or high-traffic outpost.
The idea of the "report" function would make the most sense to me in keeping with the spirit of "who c" -- allowing those isolated tribe mates or clan members a vehicle to find one another
while in their isolated, tight-knit environment. Once they depart that environment, I don't see a lot of good reasons for extending the functionality. If you're outside of your isolated or tight-knit environment, then you probably have other sources of interaction available to you, and that's really what we're trying to facilitate.
Barracks [E]
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier is here, sitting behind a desk.
>report soldier Corporal Reyn is heading out to Luir's with Private Jahn and Private Samos.
You make a report to a gruff, hazel-eyed soldier.
<time passes>
The towering, bronze skinned man has arrived from the east.
The towering, bronze skinned man asks a gruff, hazel-eyed soldier for reports.
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier says, in sirihish:
"An hour ago, I got a report that Captain Mengs will be at the Storm's Eye Tavern."
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier says, in sirihish:
"A few hours ago, I got a report that Corporal Reyn is heading out to Luir's with Private Jahn and Private Samos."
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier says, in sirihish:
"Many hours ago, I got a report that Landyn won't be able to make the contract next week."This would actually add a little more functionality, allowing PC's an IC avenue for arbitrarily reporting their plans, actions, and locations without cluttering up an IC clan board or wasting a lot of time attempting to Way people that wouldn't immediately be accompanying them. It also gives others an idea of whats' going on, and who they might want to try and contact.
-LoD
I must say this is going to make things rather difficult as an off peak player like myself, I know some people seem to frown upon it, but I really found it useful to know if clan mates I could interact with were online, so I could log off if they wern't, as my play time has been rather limited lately, i'd like to make the most of the occasions at which I can log on, and to me, being a european, generally when I log on with hope of meeting other PC's, its relatively late here, and i'm not desparate to sit around solo RPing on the off chance someone might turn up, in essence i'm trying to say I believe its worth logging on a little later to interact with PC's, but to solo RP and idle waiting around... its really not.
I don't know about you sometimes Krath.
Snickers.
Anyway, I'd be alright with a who C that just said how many people were logged in from your clan. As long as it did not say which clan (For the many people in more then 1 clan).
Eloran, Not worth my breath.
Second, Gimf I can see where you are coming from,
But what is wrong with using contact? If you cant
reach them, assume they are off. Why isnt that
sufficient?
Troll fail. :'(
LoD and Xygax, let me explain a little more about my experience in the TM so that perhaps you can see what I mean. The TM are different, operationally, than the militia/Legions, or another tribe, or a GMH...but if a tool is added back into the game to facilitate interaction, then their case should be considered. And, there is nothing to say that a clan which structurally functions in a way similar to the TM might not be created/evolved in the current game version or in 2.ARM, so it again is a case which needs to be considered.
At any given time there are no more than a few gypsy PCs--say, up to four. Of those four, it's very frequent that one will be in the gypsy homeland (where a central NPC would logically be located), one will be in Allanak, one will be in Tuluk, one will be who-knows-where. Some PCs have restrictions on travel, and some do not; some are allowed to travel alone, and some are not; there are conditions and restrictions on travel of various types. So there is a scattering effect which happens. It might be possible to put an NPC in a non-central location accessible to gypsy PCs, but I guarantee that it will be rare for all PCs to be at that point, wherever it is. If there's any concern about the solution being equitable, then consideration must be given to scattered-yet-iso clans.
Further complicating the issue is that players choose to play gypsies, or any other role, because they want to experience that particular role; and a vital part of doing so is interacting with others playing that role. It's not that gypsies, or Circle bards, or militia members, or Tuluki nobles want to
avoid interacting with the rest of the playerbase; rather, it's that there are portions of their role which they cannot experience unless they are doing it with others playing the same role. So, there is nothing wrong and plenty right with players wanting to specifically (not exclusively, but specifically) spend time with clanmates and cronies.
When I played my Circle bards I would have loved to have something, anything, that would help me find and connect with the other bard PCs. Even when there were some others, it was rare to get to do things like RP practicing music, or a shared lesson, because it was so difficult to find anyone; and thus I ended up spending the majority of my time hanging out with non-bard buddies, not really Playing A Bard.
Quote from: Krath on June 04, 2009, 02:12:02 PM
Gimf I can see where you are coming from,
But what is wrong with using contact? If you cant
reach them, assume they are off. Why isnt that
sufficient?
Refer back to the discussion on needs of casual players. What we are looking for is tools to facilitate quickly entering roleplay with others, versus the current situation of logging in -> spamming contact for 15 minutes until satisfied that really, no one's there -> logging out disappointed -> not really feeling like playing at all, eventually.
Gimf, your argument seems counter productive.... if there are only three or four TM at a time, they need who C much less that Kurac with 22 PCs who they are going to have to try and contact. Three or four people you can try to contact three times each in less than a minute and know who's online. In a very active GMH, you could spend a whole IC day going through your rosters, while laying down to minimalyze stun loss, and still not try everyone.
Quote from: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35474.0.html
We discussed this for some time on staff side, and determined that to make things consistent across all clans, we should remove this from all clans.
Player-to-player (or rather, character-to-character) contact is something that we encourage rather than reliance on a who-list.
Quote from: Niamh on June 04, 2009, 07:12:00 AM
I am one of those awful staff members who was for who c being removed. Why? Because it is an ooc construct. Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? I find the ability to do such a thing jarring and unrealistic.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 12:11:12 PM
We made the decision we made because we feel it improves the game by leveling the playing-field for all clans and removing a very OOC-driven and OOC-driving feature from the game.
(emphasis added)Trying to get back to staff's reasons for removing the command (vs. the various reasons that some players dislike it, which may or may not be the same). I think I'm hearing precisely two expressed:
(1) As players, they have experienced it as breaking immersion.
(2) It has created (or might create) accusations of favoritism between clans.
Am I fairly correct, guys? Am I missing or mangling something?
For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to flame staff or start the thread out in an angry tone... Sorry if it seemed that way.
I just think that removing one of the legitimate, in-game ways we have of facilitating roleplay and fostering interaction within our clans is more harmful than helpful. I personally never even knew that AoD and the like got the command. But I loved it for the tiny little fringe tribes and the like, seeing it more as a mental bond built up through tribal ties and total dependance on one another, rather than some OOC construct.
If it's a problem if it being a purely OOC mechanism, then instead of ripping it entirely, change the syntax slightly and give a stun penalty.
>WHOCLAN or PSICLAN or whatever...
>You concentrate super hard and put out your mental-feeler thingies to your clanmates.
-50stun
>You psionically bump into WP's psionic psi-ness.
Or some such shit. Anything that helps IG interaction is a good thing, for my money, and things that hurt the social aspect of the game are bad.
Sounds cool, WP. Two thumbs up!
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:32:42 PM
Gimf, your argument seems counter productive.... if there are only three or four TM at a time, they need who C much less that Kurac with 22 PCs who they are going to have to try and contact. Three or four people you can try to contact three times each in less than a minute and know who's online. In a very active GMH, you could spend a whole IC day going through your rosters, while laying down to minimalyze stun loss, and still not try everyone.
Contact is an ic fix for an ooc problem: connecting online pcs.
Contact may also not be a viable option for people that are traveling, sparring, using contact for other purposes, sleeping, or drinking, among other things.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:32:42 PM
Gimf, your argument seems counter productive.... if there are only three or four TM at a time, they need who C much less that Kurac with 22 PCs who they are going to have to try and contact. Three or four people you can try to contact three times each in less than a minute and know who's online. In a very active GMH, you could spend a whole IC day going through your rosters, while laying down to minimalyze stun loss, and still not try everyone.
I recommend you re-read. I am saying that if/when a new solution to facilitate intra-clan interaction is implemented, the case of a scattered-iso clan like the TM needs to be considered for the solution, rather than designing the solution
solely for the use of a GMH- or militia-type clan. I played a Sergeant in the AoD, so I am well-aware of the prior usefulness of who c for managing a roster; in an iso clan like the TM, the use is slightly different--it was more about solo-RPing crafting or hunting, while simultaneously attempting to psionically contact every Amos you ever even smiled at in the city-states, while also keeping a vigilant eye on who c so you don't miss any shred or scrap of potential interaction.
I'm pretty sure the players wanting a who-c-like thingy DO want it for everyone. I can't seem to find any contradiction to that?
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:45:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the players wanting a who-c-like thingy DO want it for everyone. I can't seem to find any contradiction to that?
What I was responding to was LoD's specific suggestion about how an NPC could be used. If not implemented correctly, the solution could be a non-solution for a clan like the TM. I think it would potentially work really well for the militia/Legions (IF the NPC is located in a place accessible to recruits, and the recruits codedly can use it), also very well for the GMHs (IF there is one at each GMH estate), really well for Circle bards (IF it can be placed in a public location but coded only for the use of clan members). There are lots of different clan situations and structures, and I'd recommend if the imms are going to work on a solution, then they solicit a lot of player feedback about how it would actually be used.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 03:05:07 AM
Quote from: a strange shadow on June 04, 2009, 02:57:11 AM
Cute helpfile, I believe I and others already explained why using 'contact' is not a fully suitable replacement.
Multiple times, even.
I'm out.
The only reasons people have said why using CONTACT is not fully suitable is that CONTACT is not 100% fail resistant, and it takes -time- to contact people.
As a perhaps untouched issue with contact as the only replacement for who c...
It can often be the case, especially within a tight-knit family clan like the TM, that there are complexities and conflicts between characters that can make casual "Hey uh... how's it going?" psionic contact awkward, and in rarer cases, unfeasible. I've been in a situation like this myself, but just because there's conflict between characters doesn't mean they can't/don't want to interact. Who c made it easier for said characters to "run into" each other in game, because you're aware when other players are on and can make your character more accessible, if he/she isn't already.
::edit::
What I wrote was a little bit more snarky than that I wanted to say.
What would be better is to repost this:
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 02:39:30 AM
There is thousands of different things you can code to mimic the intention of the code - which is to allow players within clans to more easily play with each other.
I prefer an In-Character skill rather than an OOC tool, because that allows the other players of the game to interact with them, because they are acting in game.
I'd prefer that everybody has access to these skills (or bonuses) as soon as they join any clan.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Just because you want to hide from mindbenders doesn't mean that you should have a special command to do so.
You want to remove barrier??
The complexities and conflicts I was referring to have nothing to do with mindbenders, nor hiding, for that matter.
Quote from: mansa on June 04, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Just because you want to hide from mindbenders doesn't mean that you should have a special command to do so.
This is completely messed-up and uncalled-for. What aruna was describing is conflict between family members, not a desire to avoid mindbenders; which I, playing a 100% mundane PC amongst other mundane PCs in the Tan Muark AND in the AoD, also experienced. Your assumptions about other players in this thread and elsewhere are just wrong on so many levels, and I suggest you work on dropping your years-old grudge against any and all who ever may even dare to contemplate playing a Tan Muark PC.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on June 04, 2009, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on June 04, 2009, 02:45:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the players wanting a who-c-like thingy DO want it for everyone. I can't seem to find any contradiction to that?
What I was responding to was LoD's specific suggestion about how an NPC could be used. If not implemented correctly, the solution could be a non-solution for a clan like the TM. I think it would potentially work really well for the militia/Legions (IF the NPC is located in a place accessible to recruits, and the recruits codedly can use it), also very well for the GMHs (IF there is one at each GMH estate), really well for Circle bards (IF it can be placed in a public location but coded only for the use of clan members). There are lots of different clan situations and structures, and I'd recommend if the imms are going to work on a solution, then they solicit a lot of player feedback about how it would actually be used.
Ah, apologies, I understand now.
So you simply want a replacement for 'who c' or you want 'who c' back... which plenty of people are violently opposed to. Some people will only be happy with a way that does not drip of OOC-ness, like 'who c' does.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 03:15:23 PM
So you simply want a replacement for 'who c' or you want 'who c' back... which plenty of people are violently opposed to. Some people will only be happy with a way that does not drip of OOC-ness, like 'who c' does.
I think it's fair to say we're close to evenly torn on this. I'm all for devising a medium to bring both sides together.
WP's idea, or even LoD's, or the simple yet effect expansion of who that at least alerts you people in your clan -are on- without giving you their true name.
I think WP has come up with the best alternative so far.
Quote from: WarriorPoet on June 04, 2009, 02:37:22 PM
If it's a problem if it being a purely OOC mechanism, then instead of ripping it entirely, change the syntax slightly and give a stun penalty.
>WHOCLAN or PSICLAN or whatever...
>You concentrate super hard and put out your mental-feeler thingies to your clanmates.
-50stun
>You psionically bump into WP's psionic psi-ness.
Or some such shit. Anything that helps IG interaction is a good thing, for my money, and things that hurt the social aspect of the game are bad.
PS: I like LOD's as well.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 04, 2009, 03:15:23 PM
So you simply want a replacement for 'who c' or you want 'who c' back... which plenty of people are violently opposed to. Some people will only be happy with a way that does not drip of OOC-ness, like 'who c' does.
No, I really don't care what form the solution takes, just that there IS a solution, and that it is equally useful to all clans. I think an NPC-type solution has other potentially interesting code bits that could be added to it, such as "if in clanned area, allow unclanned but in clan garb to access information," which would facilitate some spy work. My point continues to be that the individual needs of ALL the clans should be taken into account, so that the solution is useful to ALL.
I know that this upsets some people, and players have raised a lot of different reasons and outcomes both for and against it's reimplementation, however, who c will not be reinstated.
What we may consider are other IC alternatives to assist all clans with communication. I'd suggest that people focus on brainstorming some alternatives as staff will take these into consideration when looking at the issue.
Hindsight and all, don't you think a transition would have worked a bit more smoothly if you'd had a plan in place before giving who c the axe?
It could be months before players are given an alternative.
No. We may consider this, based on player reaction. I'm also perfectly happy to leave this as is and having nothing put in place.
Get your thinking caps on boys and girls.
Someone start a separate thread, quick.
Moved.
I was genuinely surprised by this thread. I've never had the opportunity to use who c, and I never realized how valued it was. I always thought it sounded a little out of place, but maybe I'd have a different opinion if I were in a clan that had it.
Quote from: flurry on June 04, 2009, 09:33:44 PM
I was genuinely surprised by this thread. I've never had the opportunity to use who c, and I never realized how valued it was. I always thought it sounded a little out of place, but maybe I'd have a different opinion if I were in a clan that had it.
My anecdotal experience: I've seen a leader, who had access to this command, make sure that everyone was involved in something and that the moment we had sufficient RP/fire-power online for something, we were doing it. I'm sure this leader could have pulled it off without Who C, but damn, things came to together quick and if that leader was around, they were immediately getting anyone who logged in involved.
Templars, who should have soldiers at their side with a snap of the fingers, shouldn't have to sit around spamming contact. Likewise, it's bizarre that the norm for mere grunts is to waltz into a Templar's minds just to say, "Uh. Hi. Private Pissbuckets here. Just, you know, seeing if you were, you know, around." But, looks like we have to do some OOC things in order to facilitate game play. Hey ... wait a minute!!! ;D
Yeah it's not socially viable for commoners to contact noble's minds just 'checking in'. I'm fairly sure I've seen documentation that discourage that kind of behaviour but you have to do it anyway to get anything done.
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
I like the "report" ideas.
-- X
Yar. Report FTW.
Edit: wait wouldn't this be just like posting on the IC board?
Thunnkin's anectotal post might explain why some clans who are intended to work together, fumble around and falter miserably, while others mesh quickly and get things done with lightning efficiency. I'd say that -definitely- proves that the way things *were* was a bad thing, because it favored anyone with the who .c ability when it came to "grouping up" for RPTs that involved other clans. The one with the who .c always had the better chance of organizing its group, except of course when who .c showed no one else was around. But even then, it gave the person typing who .c the advantage of saying "Hey let's try this later, eh?" or running away, because he'd know OOCly, that he had no support at the moment.
I wouldn't mind a who that was slightly more specific than the current version of it, but worked the same way.
who
Other than yourself, there are 52 adventurers in Zalanthas.
Other than yourself, 8 adventurers in your clan are currently available for communication.
That's it. That's all I'd want to know. I'd want to know IF there were other PCs in my clan available. I don't care who they are. I just want to know if they are there.
Quote from: Lizzie on June 12, 2009, 07:09:34 AM
Thunnkin's anectotal post might explain why some clans who are intended to work together, fumble around and falter miserably, while others mesh quickly and get things done with lightning efficiency. I'd say that -definitely- proves that the way things *were* was a bad thing, because it favored anyone with the who .c ability when it came to "grouping up" for RPTs that involved other clans.
I'm not sure that getting
all clans to fumble around and falter miserably is the best way to improve the situation. But this battle is lost. ;)
I was codedly clanned in *three* clans that had this who.c with one of my PCs...and for the better part of the couple of weeks I had that character, I was the only PC logged in, in all three clans combined. So - I don't miss having the who.c AT ALL. There wasn't anything to miss. It was a non-issue when I had it, it's a non-issue now.
But I totally get that it should've been an all or nothing situation. Either everyone in a clan should have it, or no one in a clan should have it. If you do it any other way, you automatically give one clan an ooc/ic advantage over another clan, assuming there's more than one person in that clan logged in and visible.
Also totally get that having *some* method of assisting attempts at interaction with clannies is important. Which is why I like my idea of having a separate line on the normal "who" list indicating how many visible people in your clan are "adventuring" in the game. Without listing who or where those people are. Just the numbers.
Quote from: Lizzie on June 12, 2009, 10:54:59 AM
Without listing who or where those people are. Just the numbers.
Yeah, that would be a good help.
With the recent changes to contact, it's definitely
easier to find out if your clan members are on or not.
Quote from: Morgenes on June 10, 2009, 07:06:47 PM
Thanks for your input on this folks. Next reboot we will have the new starting values, any existing characters below the new values will be raised to the new starting levels.
In addition, we are adding a few bonuses to contact. Using a character's true-name to contact them will increase your chance of contacting them. Also, using multiple keywords will provide a smaller, limited benefit, showing that you are forming a more complete picture of who you are contacting. Neither of these bonuses affect PVP psionic contests (such as with barrier).
Quote from: Niamh on June 04, 2009, 07:12:00 AM
I am one of those awful staff members who was for who c being removed. Why? Because it is an ooc construct. Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? I find the ability to do such a thing jarring and unrealistic.
In the spirit of futility, I'm going to post to this thread even though it's starting to age.
To me, "who c" seems
especially appropriate for the militias. After all, the NPC soldiers are all apparently mentally jacked into TekNet and
instantly know that nondescript person <x> is a criminal across the
entire city. I've always explained to myself that this was some psionic ability provided to templars in a general sense (in the same way they are provided with spells) and in fact, I wouldn't have been surprised to learn that templars receive notices as soon as a criminal act is committed.
Instead, removing "who c" for the militia just further widens the gulf between players and all the pseudomagickal abilities that NPCs enjoy (e.g. seeing you in heavy sandstorms at night, being inexhaustible in a chase, and so on).
And in fact, "who c" has been a useful construct for templars who are forced to temporarily admit characters to the AoD as a workaround to the limitations of the criminal code. It's a reminder to them of characters who need to be removed again, when the players of those characters might not themselves remember or understand the need.
To those who argue it's no big difference to try to poll the membership using psi; if it
is no big difference, I have to wonder why you're arguing the pro-removal side so vehemently.
But then, I've been thinking a little and I can't remember a single instance in which player feedback has caused a staff decision to be reversed over all the years I've played here. Someone feel free to correct me with an example if I'm wrong, but otherwise, with that, I conclude this thread.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on June 16, 2009, 06:37:50 AM
Quote from: Niamh on June 04, 2009, 07:12:00 AM
I am one of those awful staff members who was for who c being removed. Why? Because it is an ooc construct. Why should anyone automagickally know who in their clan is online at any given time, when they can just as easily take IC measures to find them? I find the ability to do such a thing jarring and unrealistic.
In the spirit of futility, I'm going to post to this thread even though it's starting to age.
To me, "who c" seems especially appropriate for the militias. After all, the NPC soldiers are all apparently mentally jacked into TekNet and instantly know that nondescript person <x> is a criminal across the entire city. I've always explained to myself that this was some psionic ability provided to templars in a general sense (in the same way they are provided with spells) and in fact, I wouldn't have been surprised to learn that templars receive notices as soon as a criminal act is committed.
Instead, removing "who c" for the militia just further widens the gulf between players and all the pseudomagickal abilities that NPCs enjoy (e.g. seeing you in heavy sandstorms at night, being inexhaustible in a chase, and so on).
And in fact, "who c" has been a useful construct for templars who are forced to temporarily admit characters to the AoD as a workaround to the limitations of the criminal code. It's a reminder to them of characters who need to be removed again, when the players of those characters might not themselves remember or understand the need.
To those who argue it's no big difference to try to poll the membership using psi; if it is no big difference, I have to wonder why you're arguing the pro-removal side so vehemently.
But then, I've been thinking a little and I can't remember a single instance in which player feedback has caused a staff decision to be reversed over all the years I've played here. Someone feel free to correct me with an example if I'm wrong, but otherwise, with that, I conclude this thread.
I'm pretty sure the npc militia functions the way it does right now because it's easier to code.
Not full reverse, but I do like the adjustments to the poop code after player input.
I do like the full-reversal of the blood loss code.
This would appear to indicate that we don't let the players make the decisions.
It also seems to indicate that we do hear their feedback and do adjust sometimes.
Additionally, evidence exists that leads one to believe that we do read players ideas, and sometimes implement them when staff decides to, and in a way staff feels appropriate.
Not sure why folks would think it's any different.
Quote from: Dakurus on June 16, 2009, 01:00:04 PM
Not sure why folks would think it's any different.
Has staff presented an alternative to who-c, or have you guys recently discussed the implementation of an idea similar to one LoD offered, or more stripped down version of who-c other players have advocated?
EDIT: No, I am not counting the % bumb to contact.
Quote from: Eloran on June 16, 2009, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: Dakurus on June 16, 2009, 01:00:04 PM
Not sure why folks would think it's any different.
Has staff presented an alternative to who-c, or have you guys recently discussed the implementation of an idea similar to one LoD offered, or more stripped down version of who-c other players have advocated?
EDIT: No, I am not counting the % bumb to contact.
We did do the contact change to help facilitate communication in part in response to this issue.
However, we are considering IC alternatives like those posed by LoD, and we will implement one as we have the resources available to do so.
Super excellent. Thanks.
Quote from: Eloran on June 16, 2009, 01:47:42 PM
Quote from: Dakurus on June 16, 2009, 01:00:04 PM
Not sure why folks would think it's any different.
Has staff presented an alternative to who-c, or have you guys recently discussed the implementation of an idea similar to one LoD offered, or more stripped down version of who-c other players have advocated?
Just because players suggest one thing that has not been implemented does not mean that all players suggestions/feedback is not listened to. Your comment is a backhanded way of suggesting that the staff do not.
Quote from: spawnloser on June 16, 2009, 03:24:36 PM
Just because players suggest one thing that has not been implemented does not mean that all players suggestions/feedback is not listened to. Your comment is a backhanded way of suggesting that the staff do not.
My post was a question, not a comment. Learn to read.
Comments can come in the form of a question. Stop trolling.
Well, I can assure you there was no comment hidden in that question. Oops, your bad.
Stop
Honestly, I'd like to see ALL clan NPC door gaurds be able to report to ANY clan mate who passed in the last X hours.
Before A Black Fortress
A heavy-lidded guard stands here.
>ask guard who 10
You ask a heavy-lidded guard about who's been by in the last ten hours.
Scowling, a heavy-lidded guard says, in sirishish;
"Ten hours?!? Try five, or ... six. Or fewer.
>ask guard who 4
You ask a heavy-lidded guard about who's been by in the last four hours.
A heavy-lidded guard says, in sirishish;
"In the four hours, I've seen Lord Makile, Mercenary Thomas, Mercenary Willie, and Aide Shanis."
I also like LoD's idea of the NPC who instantly relays way messages. This would be great.
I actually think, though, that a variety of IC ways would be best. Mix the NPC guards who remember those who pass by, the Way Operator, and maybe some other clever ideas and you have a neat network with many IC realistic forms of communication and gathering.
Quote from: jmordetsky on June 12, 2009, 12:51:46 AM
Quote from: Xygax on June 04, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
I like the "report" ideas.
-- X
Yar. Report FTW.
Edit: wait wouldn't this be just like posting on the IC board?
Also, I love this report idea, because while it would be similar to the IC board, it's not identical, and it wouldn't be permanent. Also, it wouldn't be on a board ... it would be an IC message, which I love.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 16, 2009, 06:58:37 PM
Honestly, I'd like to see ALL clan NPC door gaurds be able to report to ANY clan mate who passed in the last X hours.
Before A Black Fortress
A heavy-lidded guard stands here.
>ask guard who 10
You ask a heavy-lidded guard about who's been by in the last ten hours.
Scowling, a heavy-lidded guard says, in sirishish;
"Ten hours?!? Try five, or ... six. Or fewer.
>ask guard who 4
You ask a heavy-lidded guard about who's been by in the last four hours.
A heavy-lidded guard says, in sirishish;
"In the four hours, I've seen Lord Makile, Mercenary Thomas, Mercenary Willie, and Aide Shanis."
I also like LoD's idea of the NPC who instantly relays way messages. This would be great.
I actually think, though, that a variety of IC ways would be best. Mix the NPC guards who remember those who pass by, the Way Operator, and maybe some other clever ideas and you have a neat network with many IC realistic forms of communication and gathering.
I would like to see this, plus clan NPCs that move in and out of the clan's compound so that the doorman's description can be somewhat varied.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 16, 2009, 06:58:37 PM
Honestly, I'd like to see ALL clan NPC door gaurds be able to report to ANY clan mate who passed in the last X hours.
I pine for this.