One thing I've noticed is that OOC could use a target option such that players can send private OOC messages to others. There are a lot of scenarios where OOC advice can be helpful but need not be echoed to all parties in a room, for example in groups containing new and seasoned players.
e.g.
ooc <message>
ooc <target> <message>
ooc amos Type help for a list of help files.
The talking auroch sends you an OOC message: "Type Help for a list of help files."
I'd dig this. Lots.
/me would really dig this.
+1
This would rock and be so less disruptive! It has mama boog's stamp of approval.
I don't know if all OOC messages are automagically passed on to staff (probably with an on/off flag like a global channel), but these two additions together would be pretty sweet.
But, yes, targeted OOC would be cool. My only worry is that it would be more abuseable than the current system. The way the messages are visible in the room goes a long way to prevent possible abuse.
I dig this.
I agree.
The only thing is that this may increase use of it, especially if you can echo privately to someone. I mean, there's obviously the abuse potential there.
You can usually go contact x, psi OOC: <message> if you want it to be private and not echoed to the huge crowd at the gaj.
As long as it's being logged like the 'quit ooc' command then I think it's a good idea too :)
OOC FME Yo gurr, can I get ur skype so we cn sybr?
I give this a +1 because I think bcw's amusing post is exceptionally rare in this very respectful community of very mature players.
Quote from: Harmless on April 29, 2013, 02:42:06 PM
I give this a +1 because I think bcw's amusing post is exceptionally rare in this very respectful community of very mature players.
Not sure if.. Or if....
Or even if...
.jpg
Quote from: Bogre on April 29, 2013, 02:10:24 PM
The only thing is that this may increase use of it, especially if you can echo privately to someone. I mean, there's obviously the abuse potential there.
You can usually go contact x, psi OOC: <message> if you want it to be private and not echoed to the huge crowd at the gaj.
I do that but....
Quote from: Malken on April 29, 2013, 02:11:15 PM
As long as it's being logged like the 'quit ooc' command then I think it's a good idea too :)
That added to the idea will prevent abuse.
Quote from: Barsook on April 29, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Quote from: Bogre on April 29, 2013, 02:10:24 PM
The only thing is that this may increase use of it, especially if you can echo privately to someone. I mean, there's obviously the abuse potential there.
You can usually go contact x, psi OOC: <message> if you want it to be private and not echoed to the huge crowd at the gaj.
I do that but....
Quote from: Malken on April 29, 2013, 02:11:15 PM
As long as it's being logged like the 'quit ooc' command then I think it's a good idea too :)
That added to the idea will prevent abuse.
I'm sure the ooc command is logged, this would be too. I have faith in the staff. I've never had a bitchslap email telling me I've used ooc too often and I've never really come across someone who abuses it as it is now.
Quote from: Bogre on April 29, 2013, 02:10:24 PM
You can usually go contact x, psi OOC: <message> if you want it to be private and not echoed to the huge crowd at the gaj.
I use the above every once in a while, I believe staff has said they don't like that somewhere, too lazy to look for it. Maybe we can have an ooc psi command that doesn't take away stun in addition to this?
Considering the rush of new players we're getting, I think this would be invaluable. In the last month I've seen OOC used (for explanation of code) at least three times as much as I usually do, and being able to have a targeted discussion to explain commands would be a lot less disruptive.
Quote from: Quell on April 29, 2013, 03:21:50 PM
Considering the rush of new players we're getting, I think this would be invaluable. In the last month I've seen OOC used (for explanation of code) at least three times as much as I usually do, and being able to have a targeted discussion to explain commands would be a lot less disruptive.
This is one of my primary motivations as well.
It does provide a new avenue for abuse, but comparing OOC as it exists today with the suggested addition, I don't see any big risk factor. It does hide info-sharing, though, but not from the omnipotent eyes of log files, as others suggest.
My take is that overall, the good would outweigh the potential for abuse by breaking immersion less when OOC is needed for specific people, and not all in attendance. From what I've seen, on those occasions it would be a welcome relief.
It would need some way of monitoring I think. But I dig. A way for a noob to ask an ooc question to someone without disturbing the rp around them would be great.
Quote from: gfair on April 29, 2013, 03:32:56 PM
My take is that overall, the good would outweigh the potential for abuse by breaking immersion less when OOC is needed for specific people, and not all in attendance. From what I've seen, on those occasions it would be a welcome relief.
As it now stands, I invite the newb into a public, but less-traveled room, before launching into an OOC-Storm to introduce them to:
- Helpers
- GDB
- Talk vs. say
- Why magickers, people from the other city state, fullnecks, halfnecks, and no-necks (stumps) are not their friends
- Basic code thingies they're having trouble with
Then, generally, I shove them at the Byn, or explain why, when they're not playing a half-elf burglar, that would be a good option.
OOC <target> <message> would make this conversation more seamless.
Meh. If someone doesn't like seeing me OOC to help a noobie or to clarify something they can use ....
Oh wait, staff never did implement that idea I had to make brief OOC not show you any ooc at all. Nevermind.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 29, 2013, 07:41:12 PM
Meh. If someone doesn't like seeing me OOC to help a noobie or to clarify something they can use ....
Oh wait, staff never did implement that idea I had to make brief OOC not show you any ooc at all. Nevermind.
OOC is a key tool in certain scenes. I'd rather not "OOC Can I cut off your balls and torture you to death, or would you rather me just kill you outright?" only to have the person never see that.
Yep, that was the big hurdle that came up last time too. :D
I'll add my agreement of the targetted OOC idea. Usually I'll either ooc in the same room - if it's not too busy or if it's just a one-shot ooc with no further need. If it's a lengthy discussion, or if there are other PCs in the room, I'll try to get them out of that room.
But this isn't always a good idea. If you're all gathered to do something as a clan and one of you is new, it's *not* a good idea to seperate yourself from the group just to ooc a few practical tips (use TITLE to name your mount. YOu have to be MOUNTed first. Remember to HITCH the mount as well. Yes, you can QUIT out in the wilderness if you're a ranger, or you can use QUIT OOC if you can't, and we're later than you are available.)
All of that is pretty short and sweet, but not when it's peppered between the sergeant barking out orders, and people checking their cure tablet stash, and Halfy the Half-Giant saying something stupid, and Breedy the Breed whining about how it's not fair that he never gets to guard Bupkes Fale.
So for that reason alone, I think being able to target your OOCs to specific players is an awesome idea. Appropriately monitored or p-file logged, of course.
+1.
While there are work arounds, a monitored way to privately OOC someone would be less disruptive.
I think this is a great idea. Sometimes you have to help a newbie with something in the very middle of a stressful and wonderful scene and it's a speedbump for everyone in the room when you're trying to explain something OOC.
Yeah, this would be a very nice. Especially when you're inside a tavern and a newbie needs help. I'd rather target them and not disrupt anyone else from RPing to help them.
I like target OOC.
If only because, So often when I am trying to help a newbie, there is more then one in the room, and even worse, I am trying to help the big tall man, but also in the room is the tall big man. Neither of which do I know the names of.
Currently OOC is somewhat awkward to use when only 1 person needs it.
THOUGH, that being said, I do not agree that it should be hidden to people who are not the target.
It is amazing how often you will OOC to somebody and 3 other PCs in the rooms will be like "Really, Thanks, I did not know that." OR "No, wait, don't do that, that will get you dead/jailed...do it this way instead"
OOC should be open, but targetting would be nice.
A nice compromise would be a brief OOC option that hid only OOCs targeted to others. So you wouldn't have to see them if you didn't want to, but you can if you want.
On the GDB people tend to talk about abuse like it's a very black and white thing, and always happens flagrantly and intentionally in the "LOL WHATS UR SKYPE" fashion. I don't think that's what we should really be concerned about. Much more worrisome are those subtle grey areas where a player can easily plead ignorance (and might legitimately not have considered the abuse potential). This kind of situation happens all the time.
For example, Amos and Talia have a plan to knock out and kidnap Malik. The three have met up, and Amos thinks it's about time to put the plan into action. He does 'ooc talia remember, mercy on :)' How helpful, right? Just a little OOC reminder about a code setting, much like often we see people OOC before sparring. Well in doing so, he's also communicated to poTalia that he's probably about to jump Malik now, getting her primed for coded combat, without any legitimate IC communication. "But I'd trust poTalia not to use that information!" Sorry, trust has zip to do with it. It's the "Don't think of an elephant" problem. The player has received the information and can't un-receive it. It's neurology. She's been primed for what will happen, and it is forever impossible to prove how (not 'if' ) it affected her actions.
Malik doesn't know what happened, so he doesn't file a player complaint. The text of the OOC itself is very unlikely to grab staff attention amid the logs of other OOCs. It has to be contextualized to even be able to debate whether it was abusive or not, or else staff need to be monitoring the event in real time. Even in the unlikely event that any kind of reprimand happens as a result, Amos can reasonably, and maybe honestly, say he had no idea that it was potentially abusive. He certainly won't lose karma. The outcome of the event IC definitely can't be changed; it's forever chiseled in stone. As for Amos, it's extremely likely that he'll continue to tread in the same grey area, because he'll still fail to notice the "big deal" with other subtle abuses in that grey area.
There is no good reason why players in this kind of game need private OOC. If your OOCs aren't abusive, than all players present should have the option to read them (trust goes both ways, after all). It's just good manners. It's reasonable to have targeted OOCs that other players can choose not to receive, but I'd go as far as to say that abuse is really the only substantial reason to have totally secret OOCs.
Quote from: X-D on April 30, 2013, 04:39:14 PM
I like target OOC.
If only because, So often when I am trying to help a newbie, there is more then one in the room, and even worse, I am trying to help the big tall man, but also in the room is the tall big man. Neither of which do I know the names of.
Currently OOC is somewhat awkward to use when only 1 person needs it.
THOUGH, that being said, I do not agree that it should be hidden to people who are not the target.
It is amazing how often you will OOC to somebody and 3 other PCs in the rooms will be like "Really, Thanks, I did not know that." OR "No, wait, don't do that, that will get you dead/jailed...do it this way instead"
OOC should be open, but targetting would be nice.
IAWX-D.
Quote from: catchall on April 30, 2013, 05:40:02 PM
On the GDB people tend to talk about abuse like it's a very black and white thing, and always happens flagrantly and intentionally in the "LOL WHATS UR SKYPE" fashion. I don't think that's what we should really be concerned about. Much more worrisome are those subtle grey areas where a player can easily plead ignorance (and might legitimately not have considered the abuse potential). This kind of situation happens all the time.
This is a very eloquent way of stating something that's been nagging me a lot during many of the ages-old discussions of what constitutes abuse in this game.
I like the idea of being able to target OOCs like says or tells, but I don't like the idea of it being private. I DO like the idea of being able to brief OOCs that are targeted to someone else. That way, bcw's example of missing someone asking for consent won't occur, because obviously the templar would ask the entire room if he's being a good templar.
To be completely honest, while I appreciate the spirit of people who don't want to interrupt others' RP, if I see people using OOC to help newbies, my brain just kind of automatically filters it out. I don't find OOC usage immersion-breaking at all because I just ignore it. That said, I understand it's possible other people don't feel that way.
Quote from: Fathi on May 01, 2013, 07:12:15 AM
Quote from: X-D on April 30, 2013, 04:39:14 PM
I like target OOC.
If only because, So often when I am trying to help a newbie, there is more then one in the room, and even worse, I am trying to help the big tall man, but also in the room is the tall big man. Neither of which do I know the names of.
Currently OOC is somewhat awkward to use when only 1 person needs it.
THOUGH, that being said, I do not agree that it should be hidden to people who are not the target.
It is amazing how often you will OOC to somebody and 3 other PCs in the rooms will be like "Really, Thanks, I did not know that." OR "No, wait, don't do that, that will get you dead/jailed...do it this way instead"
OOC should be open, but targetting would be nice.
IAWX-D.
Quote from: catchall on April 30, 2013, 05:40:02 PM
On the GDB people tend to talk about abuse like it's a very black and white thing, and always happens flagrantly and intentionally in the "LOL WHATS UR SKYPE" fashion. I don't think that's what we should really be concerned about. Much more worrisome are those subtle grey areas where a player can easily plead ignorance (and might legitimately not have considered the abuse potential). This kind of situation happens all the time.
This is a very eloquent way of stating something that's been nagging me a lot during many of the ages-old discussions of what constitutes abuse in this game.
I like the idea of being able to target OOCs like says or tells, but I don't like the idea of it being private. I DO like the idea of being able to brief OOCs that are targeted to someone else. That way, bcw's example of missing someone asking for consent won't occur, because obviously the templar would ask the entire room if he's being a good templar.
To be completely honest, while I appreciate the spirit of people who don't want to interrupt others' RP, if I see people using OOC to help newbies, my brain just kind of automatically filters it out. I don't find OOC usage immersion-breaking at all because I just ignore it. That said, I understand it's possible other people don't feel that way.
Agreed. And generally I'm one of the ones that chimes in. I love helping noobs. Dunno why. But I always have, probably because I love the game so much, and I remember 4 years ago starting, and even with MUD experience, being confused.