Forums » General
*** Vendetta 1.8.377
- Serco border defense turrets have been added to the Geira Rutilus O-4
wormhole, on the Serco-Deneb border.
- The giant Latos M-7 station has been replaced with something more
reasonably sized, to let capship owners get from place to place more
quickly.
- Faction standing display and radar-color for ships with multiple docked
players now shows the highest standing of any given player onboard the
vessel.
- Sporadic rendering glitch, related to shadows and threaded rendering,
has been fixed on OSX and Linux.
- Guild member limit increased to 1,000 members.
Let's see if more people get back to Deneb now... :)
wormhole, on the Serco-Deneb border.
- The giant Latos M-7 station has been replaced with something more
reasonably sized, to let capship owners get from place to place more
quickly.
- Faction standing display and radar-color for ships with multiple docked
players now shows the highest standing of any given player onboard the
vessel.
- Sporadic rendering glitch, related to shadows and threaded rendering,
has been fixed on OSX and Linux.
- Guild member limit increased to 1,000 members.
Let's see if more people get back to Deneb now... :)
A useful update, thanks devs.
- Guild member limit increased to 1,000 members
Should read, - Guild member limit increased to 1,000 dead alts
Should read, - Guild member limit increased to 1,000 dead alts
Hahahahha
- Guild member limit increased to 1,000 members
Should read, - Guild member limit increased to 1,000 dead alts
No kidding. Increasing the guild size limit for players that are long gone seems like the opposite of useful, and negatively reflects on guilds that actually prune inactive players to keep their roster relevant.
Should read, - Guild member limit increased to 1,000 dead alts
No kidding. Increasing the guild size limit for players that are long gone seems like the opposite of useful, and negatively reflects on guilds that actually prune inactive players to keep their roster relevant.
No kidding. Increasing the guild size limit for players that are long gone seems like the opposite of useful, and negatively reflects on guilds that actually prune inactive players to keep their roster relevant.
If a guild wants to try and work on retaining players, through their own recruitment and engagement means (mailing lists, forums, etc), that's good for the game as a whole. Even if 98% of their newbie recruits never return, and they get 2% to come back through their efforts, that's helpful?
I don't agree that bumping the guild limit negatively impacts anyone else. The only justification is a vague perceptual benefit for recruiting, and that's not a very strong argument. Not one that outweighs a guild actively trying to improve new-player retention.
In the longer run, we could just auto-drop players from the web-visible guild rosters if they don't login for X time period (6 months? a year?), much as we do with inactive guilds, to keep the roster-lists and counts more "current". But any culled players will automatically return to full listed status if they log back in.
In any case, that's more work to fix a problem that isn't really a problem..
If a guild wants to try and work on retaining players, through their own recruitment and engagement means (mailing lists, forums, etc), that's good for the game as a whole. Even if 98% of their newbie recruits never return, and they get 2% to come back through their efforts, that's helpful?
I don't agree that bumping the guild limit negatively impacts anyone else. The only justification is a vague perceptual benefit for recruiting, and that's not a very strong argument. Not one that outweighs a guild actively trying to improve new-player retention.
In the longer run, we could just auto-drop players from the web-visible guild rosters if they don't login for X time period (6 months? a year?), much as we do with inactive guilds, to keep the roster-lists and counts more "current". But any culled players will automatically return to full listed status if they log back in.
In any case, that's more work to fix a problem that isn't really a problem..
Inc, the negative effect here is that it creates a perceived disparity between guilds full of inactive players and guilds which prune their roosters. Someone looking in for the first time is going to see only one guild with any "real" size, and it's going to give a negative impression that the game is dead. That impression will be confirmed when they try to log in and find that guild of 500+ members.
A better solution would be to only show players active within the last year. Guild size displays should represent actual activity. It looks a lot better for the game to have a lot of similar-sizes active guilds. It also sets a more realistic expectation for new players entering the game.
A better solution would be to only show players active within the last year. Guild size displays should represent actual activity. It looks a lot better for the game to have a lot of similar-sizes active guilds. It also sets a more realistic expectation for new players entering the game.
As a new player soon to be looking for a guild, I agree with Savet in principle. If the guild populations do not accurately reflect the actual activity present within those guilds, I wont know the difference between a guild of 5 active players and 200 dead alts and a guild of 15 active players and 20 dead alts. I'd much rather have current information on activity to help me make choices.
Its a common issue in any MMO, but in a game as long standing as VO those dead characters really can bulk up guild membership counts over time. I like Incarnate's idea of not showing inactive characters on the web listings of guilds, but it certainly is more work for something that isnt a true problem. It would be a nice change though.
Its a common issue in any MMO, but in a game as long standing as VO those dead characters really can bulk up guild membership counts over time. I like Incarnate's idea of not showing inactive characters on the web listings of guilds, but it certainly is more work for something that isnt a true problem. It would be a nice change though.
Someone looking in for the first time is going to see only one guild with any "real" size, and it's going to give a negative impression that the game is dead. That impression will be confirmed when they try to log in and find that guild of 500+ members.
That's kind of a strangely worded argument, that having only one guild of any "real" size is bad, and makes the game look dead, so we should definitely make that one guild as small as possible.
Anyway, I understand that an unrealistic disparity of size is unhelpful to new people making their selection of a new guild, and that it presents challenges to the recruitment process of other guilds.
I'm obviously fine with my suggestion of only showing people active in the last year. But this would still not drop the user from the actual guild, allowing them to easily return to activity; so the guild membership limits would still need to be increased in the way that they have been.
I think the addition of this active-players feature would be beneficial, but I don't view it as crushingly important. And, I also don't view the raising of the guild membership limit as a negative. I'm not even quite sure why we have a guild limit at all.
That's kind of a strangely worded argument, that having only one guild of any "real" size is bad, and makes the game look dead, so we should definitely make that one guild as small as possible.
Anyway, I understand that an unrealistic disparity of size is unhelpful to new people making their selection of a new guild, and that it presents challenges to the recruitment process of other guilds.
I'm obviously fine with my suggestion of only showing people active in the last year. But this would still not drop the user from the actual guild, allowing them to easily return to activity; so the guild membership limits would still need to be increased in the way that they have been.
I think the addition of this active-players feature would be beneficial, but I don't view it as crushingly important. And, I also don't view the raising of the guild membership limit as a negative. I'm not even quite sure why we have a guild limit at all.
I typed the response on my phone, so wording is going to be "odder". I'll type a more eloquent statement when I'm back at my computer. You're either misunderstanding my concern or I didn't explain it well. Probably the latter.
I agree with savet, ore, and stinkpalm. But, I also think it should show past 30 days of active members who logged in, not a year. A years worth of dead alts would still add up.
Okay....
Computer: Check!
Vodka: Check!
Cigar: Check!
Here's what I was trying to say earlier. As I look at the guild list, I'm going to pull a few guilds as examples.
ONE: 41 members
ITAN: 148 members
INV: 166 members
8==B: 8 members
TGFT: 481 members
As a new player looking at these numbers, I would conclude that the average guild was somewhere between 50-100 members, with a few joke guilds, and a very few wildly successful guilds who have a ton of players. As I jump into the game, the disparity of actual members playing the game vs the number of members in the guild is so huge that it creates the impression that all of these members are just junk accounts. This would then make me wonder whether this is a game worth investing in since so many people seem to not be playing it.
My criticism is that as guilds who don't prune their membership and just collect junk accounts rounds up towards the new limit of 1,000, this observation is going to be even more pronounced. Instead of people getting an accurate idea of what to expect in-game, they are likely to form the wrong expectation and then become disenchanted when the visible population of the game doesn't match their initial expectation.
The above has nothing to do with aiding recruitment, or how one guild looks vs. another. It is solely targeted at representing an inaccurate representation of player activity that is allowed to grow more inaccurate by increasing the upper limit of guild membership.
If we're going to increase the total number of things in things, let's increase something useful. Let's increase the number of people that can be in a group or finally create metagroups (or raid groups as referenced in other games). I think a lot of my frustration with this change is that we already keep junk accounts onhand way too long, resulting in not being able to create specific pilot names of popular culture characters because somebody somewhere at sometime created one and it still exists on a temp, trial, or alt slot that hasn't been played since the dawn of time. And now we're increasing the ability to logically group these dead accounts in larger quantities because some guilds don't ever prune their dead members.
I don't really expect you to revert the change, but it creates a lot more honest impression of the universe, guild, and player activity, if the guild roster is in some way in-sync with the number of people actually playing the game that are in said guild. Now...what would be a good addition that would help new players form a realistic expectation of population and player interaction would be to publish a percentage of activity that have been active within the last 30 days, or 60 days, or whatever. Instead of just showing 161 members, show 20% active / 161 members. As a side benefit, this would also help people identify guilds they might want to join, and encourage guilds to prune their dead members.
Computer: Check!
Vodka: Check!
Cigar: Check!
Here's what I was trying to say earlier. As I look at the guild list, I'm going to pull a few guilds as examples.
ONE: 41 members
ITAN: 148 members
INV: 166 members
8==B: 8 members
TGFT: 481 members
As a new player looking at these numbers, I would conclude that the average guild was somewhere between 50-100 members, with a few joke guilds, and a very few wildly successful guilds who have a ton of players. As I jump into the game, the disparity of actual members playing the game vs the number of members in the guild is so huge that it creates the impression that all of these members are just junk accounts. This would then make me wonder whether this is a game worth investing in since so many people seem to not be playing it.
My criticism is that as guilds who don't prune their membership and just collect junk accounts rounds up towards the new limit of 1,000, this observation is going to be even more pronounced. Instead of people getting an accurate idea of what to expect in-game, they are likely to form the wrong expectation and then become disenchanted when the visible population of the game doesn't match their initial expectation.
The above has nothing to do with aiding recruitment, or how one guild looks vs. another. It is solely targeted at representing an inaccurate representation of player activity that is allowed to grow more inaccurate by increasing the upper limit of guild membership.
If we're going to increase the total number of things in things, let's increase something useful. Let's increase the number of people that can be in a group or finally create metagroups (or raid groups as referenced in other games). I think a lot of my frustration with this change is that we already keep junk accounts onhand way too long, resulting in not being able to create specific pilot names of popular culture characters because somebody somewhere at sometime created one and it still exists on a temp, trial, or alt slot that hasn't been played since the dawn of time. And now we're increasing the ability to logically group these dead accounts in larger quantities because some guilds don't ever prune their dead members.
I don't really expect you to revert the change, but it creates a lot more honest impression of the universe, guild, and player activity, if the guild roster is in some way in-sync with the number of people actually playing the game that are in said guild. Now...what would be a good addition that would help new players form a realistic expectation of population and player interaction would be to publish a percentage of activity that have been active within the last 30 days, or 60 days, or whatever. Instead of just showing 161 members, show 20% active / 161 members. As a side benefit, this would also help people identify guilds they might want to join, and encourage guilds to prune their dead members.
uhmm, how many new players actually look at the guild chart anyways? It seems most players ask for guild invites in-game, without any prior research, and the older players looking for invites need not a guild chart because they would have already figured which guild(s) are right for them.
Compromise. Maybe something like this near the top of each guild list, a small table...
Total members: 98
Active past 60 days: 19
Active past 6 months: 31
Change the periods of time to whatever.
Leave the list of members as is, it's handy sometimes.
Development effort: One additional SQL statement (I think)
Total members: 98
Active past 60 days: 19
Active past 6 months: 31
Change the periods of time to whatever.
Leave the list of members as is, it's handy sometimes.
Development effort: One additional SQL statement (I think)
uhmm, how many new players actually look at the guild chart anyways?
As a new player, I did. I looked at the guilds and visited their websites to get a better feel for who they were and what they offered. This has probably changed since most of our new players are now mobile, but I would argue that inaccurate data is still not a good recipe for monetary conversion. This will all be a moot issue once we have a viable F2P model, but until then, subscription conversions are the things that keep the lights on and impression matters.
As a new player, I did. I looked at the guilds and visited their websites to get a better feel for who they were and what they offered. This has probably changed since most of our new players are now mobile, but I would argue that inaccurate data is still not a good recipe for monetary conversion. This will all be a moot issue once we have a viable F2P model, but until then, subscription conversions are the things that keep the lights on and impression matters.
As I jump into the game, the disparity of actual members playing the game vs the number of members in the guild is so huge that it creates the impression that all of these members are just junk accounts. This would then make me wonder whether this is a game worth investing in since so many people seem to not be playing it.
I'm not sure how you form this idea that newbies will get a specific impression of how many guild members are on, from any given guild, at any given time. We definitely have an issue with people not thinking there are very many people on (across the entire game), even when there our numbers are pretty high. But this isn't exclusive to newbies, it's common to vets too, who regularly estimate our numbers to be a fraction of what they actually are.
I really don't see the terrifying disappointment of newbies being sourced from this guild disparity. Or from anything related to guilds at all, which most of them are barely aware of.
This also has nothing to do with increasing the sizes of groups, something that hinges on many areas of code (PC user interface, mobile user interface, VR interface, voice chat, group mission assumptions, etc) versus guild limits that were literally a single arbitrary number that we could increase in 2 seconds with zero other ramification.
So, it's not like we increased guild limits at the expense of other "devtime" or whatever else. It's like asking "instead of washing the car, why didn't you re-paint it?!".. they're pretty different investments of time.
I have no problem with suggestions and ideas of how we might better represent the active status of guilds, their more accurate representative population, and so on. I'm fine with all of that. But, that's really a set of topics for Suggestions for further tweaks, which relatively low priority as they will be noticed by a small fraction of the game population, newbie or otherwise.
I also don't have a problem with a Suggestion thread about purging older accounts. It is something that comes with risk.. people do come back. Sometimes 10 years later. We know, because they submit support tickets or email us, or post on facebook or elsewhere. They're often overjoyed at how their "old" character still exists, it seems to be something that anchors their interest. I don't see a huge reason to lose this potential return customer because someone wants a "popular culture" name that, strictly speaking, should probably not be allowed in the game anyway under legal copyrights. Plus, we do "free up" character names that people want on Support Ticket request, we've been doing that for years. But, I'm open to further feedback on that issue on the appropriate forum, which isn't this one.
In closing: no, I am not going to revert the guild limit change, and I find this to be a bit of a storm in a teacup that I don't really have time for right now. This entire issue is not very relevant, and the way to approach future changes to help this issue.. is on Suggestions, not complaining on a General Forum release thread.
I'm not sure how you form this idea that newbies will get a specific impression of how many guild members are on, from any given guild, at any given time. We definitely have an issue with people not thinking there are very many people on (across the entire game), even when there our numbers are pretty high. But this isn't exclusive to newbies, it's common to vets too, who regularly estimate our numbers to be a fraction of what they actually are.
I really don't see the terrifying disappointment of newbies being sourced from this guild disparity. Or from anything related to guilds at all, which most of them are barely aware of.
This also has nothing to do with increasing the sizes of groups, something that hinges on many areas of code (PC user interface, mobile user interface, VR interface, voice chat, group mission assumptions, etc) versus guild limits that were literally a single arbitrary number that we could increase in 2 seconds with zero other ramification.
So, it's not like we increased guild limits at the expense of other "devtime" or whatever else. It's like asking "instead of washing the car, why didn't you re-paint it?!".. they're pretty different investments of time.
I have no problem with suggestions and ideas of how we might better represent the active status of guilds, their more accurate representative population, and so on. I'm fine with all of that. But, that's really a set of topics for Suggestions for further tweaks, which relatively low priority as they will be noticed by a small fraction of the game population, newbie or otherwise.
I also don't have a problem with a Suggestion thread about purging older accounts. It is something that comes with risk.. people do come back. Sometimes 10 years later. We know, because they submit support tickets or email us, or post on facebook or elsewhere. They're often overjoyed at how their "old" character still exists, it seems to be something that anchors their interest. I don't see a huge reason to lose this potential return customer because someone wants a "popular culture" name that, strictly speaking, should probably not be allowed in the game anyway under legal copyrights. Plus, we do "free up" character names that people want on Support Ticket request, we've been doing that for years. But, I'm open to further feedback on that issue on the appropriate forum, which isn't this one.
In closing: no, I am not going to revert the guild limit change, and I find this to be a bit of a storm in a teacup that I don't really have time for right now. This entire issue is not very relevant, and the way to approach future changes to help this issue.. is on Suggestions, not complaining on a General Forum release thread.
I'm not sure how you form this idea that newbies will get a specific impression of how many guild members are on, from any given guild, at any given time.
I get this impression because I play the game and I watch the chatter on 100. I see players asking about guilds and I see the disappointment when they have trouble finding a guild to invite them.
I really don't see the terrifying disappointment of newbies being sourced from this guild disparity. Or from anything related to guilds at all, which most of them are barely aware of.
Honest question: How often do you actually sit and watch 1 or 100 chat? Maybe I notice it more when it happens because I see it as a problem, so it resonates more with me.
This also has nothing to do with increasing the sizes of groups, something that hinges on many areas of code (PC user interface, mobile user interface, VR interface, voice chat, group mission assumptions, etc) versus guild limits that were literally a single arbitrary number that we could increase in 2 seconds with zero other ramification.
So, it's not like we increased guild limits at the expense of other "devtime" or whatever else. It's like asking "instead of washing the car, why didn't you re-paint it?!".. they're pretty different investments of time.
You're correct. My suggestion here was out of scope of the current discussion, and was more targeted at my frustration towards the inability to get things we have been asking for a lot longer vs. a change that seems to benefit a single guild for a purpose that I see as creating a negative perception.
I have no problem with suggestions and ideas of how we might better represent the active status of guilds, their more accurate representative population, and so on. I'm fine with all of that. But, that's really a set of topics for Suggestions for further tweaks, which relatively low priority as they will be noticed by a small fraction of the game population, newbie or otherwise.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/31397
I also don't have a problem with a Suggestion thread about purging older accounts. It is something that comes with risk.. people do come back. Sometimes 10 years later. We know, because they submit support tickets or email us, or post on facebook or elsewhere. They're often overjoyed at how their "old" character still exists, it seems to be something that anchors their interest. I don't see a huge reason to lose this potential return customer because someone wants a "popular culture" name that, strictly speaking, should probably not be allowed in the game anyway under legal copyrights. Plus, we do "free up" character names that people want on Support Ticket request, we've been doing that for years. But, I'm open to further feedback on that issue on the appropriate forum, which isn't this one.
I would argue that a player now is worth 10x the value of a player who may or may not return. But this line of discussion was also out of scope for the topic at hand, so I'll defer to a future suggestion thread on how to handle vintage accounts tying up popular and interesting names.
In closing: no, I am not going to revert the guild limit change, and I find this to be a bit of a storm in a teacup that I don't really have time for right now. This entire issue is not very relevant, and the way to approach future changes to help this issue.. is on Suggestions, not complaining on a General Forum release thread.
I didn't really expect you to revert the change. My criticism was largely targeted at what I perceive to be the negative effect of doing so and my general distaste for changes that are primarily beneficial to a very limited group, and the promotion of practices that allow people or groups to use game functionality in a way that is at best not beneficial to the player base as a whole. I've voiced my concern, so I'll respect your decision to implement this change, and retain the right to point back at this at some future point that validates my observations and projections, if said day ever comes.
I get this impression because I play the game and I watch the chatter on 100. I see players asking about guilds and I see the disappointment when they have trouble finding a guild to invite them.
I really don't see the terrifying disappointment of newbies being sourced from this guild disparity. Or from anything related to guilds at all, which most of them are barely aware of.
Honest question: How often do you actually sit and watch 1 or 100 chat? Maybe I notice it more when it happens because I see it as a problem, so it resonates more with me.
This also has nothing to do with increasing the sizes of groups, something that hinges on many areas of code (PC user interface, mobile user interface, VR interface, voice chat, group mission assumptions, etc) versus guild limits that were literally a single arbitrary number that we could increase in 2 seconds with zero other ramification.
So, it's not like we increased guild limits at the expense of other "devtime" or whatever else. It's like asking "instead of washing the car, why didn't you re-paint it?!".. they're pretty different investments of time.
You're correct. My suggestion here was out of scope of the current discussion, and was more targeted at my frustration towards the inability to get things we have been asking for a lot longer vs. a change that seems to benefit a single guild for a purpose that I see as creating a negative perception.
I have no problem with suggestions and ideas of how we might better represent the active status of guilds, their more accurate representative population, and so on. I'm fine with all of that. But, that's really a set of topics for Suggestions for further tweaks, which relatively low priority as they will be noticed by a small fraction of the game population, newbie or otherwise.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/31397
I also don't have a problem with a Suggestion thread about purging older accounts. It is something that comes with risk.. people do come back. Sometimes 10 years later. We know, because they submit support tickets or email us, or post on facebook or elsewhere. They're often overjoyed at how their "old" character still exists, it seems to be something that anchors their interest. I don't see a huge reason to lose this potential return customer because someone wants a "popular culture" name that, strictly speaking, should probably not be allowed in the game anyway under legal copyrights. Plus, we do "free up" character names that people want on Support Ticket request, we've been doing that for years. But, I'm open to further feedback on that issue on the appropriate forum, which isn't this one.
I would argue that a player now is worth 10x the value of a player who may or may not return. But this line of discussion was also out of scope for the topic at hand, so I'll defer to a future suggestion thread on how to handle vintage accounts tying up popular and interesting names.
In closing: no, I am not going to revert the guild limit change, and I find this to be a bit of a storm in a teacup that I don't really have time for right now. This entire issue is not very relevant, and the way to approach future changes to help this issue.. is on Suggestions, not complaining on a General Forum release thread.
I didn't really expect you to revert the change. My criticism was largely targeted at what I perceive to be the negative effect of doing so and my general distaste for changes that are primarily beneficial to a very limited group, and the promotion of practices that allow people or groups to use game functionality in a way that is at best not beneficial to the player base as a whole. I've voiced my concern, so I'll respect your decision to implement this change, and retain the right to point back at this at some future point that validates my observations and projections, if said day ever comes.
The important question here really is for Savet:
What kind of scotch? What kind of cigar?
Glenlivet 18 year. Montecristo #2 White
What kind of scotch? What kind of cigar?
Glenlivet 18 year. Montecristo #2 White
If the answer isn't Ardbeg Corryvreckan or Laphroaig 10, and a 6x60 Rocky Patel 1990...it's wrong :P