Forums » Suggestions
Comm changes
I looked for a little bit to see if I could find any threads immediately pertaining to this topic, and I couldn't find any on a cursory inspection, so I decided to make my own. The chat system is going to need an overhaul. Even with just ~100 players on, it shows. There is too much going on in channel 100, too many people having too many conversations and things are getting lost in the mix. Most importantly, questions from new players are getting lost in the mix. So here is a suggested rudimentary change for the comm system (perhaps not for immediate implementation, because there are still too few players to make it work properly, but thinking about this issue and planning ahead is important!).
1. As the devs have been planning for awhile, do away with the global public comm. No more channel 100 the way we know it. Instead, system chat takes over. Unless you're in a group or a guild, the only way more experienced players can talk to each other across distances would be through private messages. There would be 2 exceptions to this:
a. Nation Chat. Channel 11 would remain a global chat channel, which would make sense because the various nations' militaries would have to have some way of communicating with each other, and this would be an expansion of that. The overexposure that is currently threatening channel 100 would take a lot longer to wreak its havoc on nation chat, as there are correspondingly fewer players. (I envision this as becoming the most used comm channel)
b. Help Channel. Channel 1 would also remain, but not quite as it is now. Instead of having everyone able to chime in, for good or ill, there would now be a set group of people who could help out on 1. Choosing this group would probably take a fairly long time, because you'd have to make sure everyone involved would give good advice and not lead the newbies astray. (this is the part of my plan that has the most problems, and all suggestions are welcome)
2. As part of these new changes, groups would suddenly become much more important for getting together with friends and being able to talk communally. As such, some group changes would be needed:
a. Groups should be able to be larger than 8 players. It's already possible for some missions, like HS and BS, so it would make sense to make it possible for everyone (and also help out NW immensely; there would have to be some thought put in for Voice Chat changes, but I think mostly it would work, at this point).
b. We should be able to take missions while in a group. Not group missions, but individual missions. Being able to talk someone through a mission while they're taking it would be a fantastic boon, and it would also be a great addition for everyone, being able to remain chatting with friends while running whatever mission they wanted. Obviously this would necessitate some changes to the mission structure, designations of which missions could be taken while in a group and which missions couldn't, etc, but I have some ideas on that as well. In general, this would make interaction between groups of people a lot easier, and, as a side effect, make it so if you create a group as a newbie you don't all of a sudden have a blank mission board.
I know this is a really long post, so thanks for any of you who read all the way through! As always, ideas, criticisms, and responses are greatly appreciated.
1. As the devs have been planning for awhile, do away with the global public comm. No more channel 100 the way we know it. Instead, system chat takes over. Unless you're in a group or a guild, the only way more experienced players can talk to each other across distances would be through private messages. There would be 2 exceptions to this:
a. Nation Chat. Channel 11 would remain a global chat channel, which would make sense because the various nations' militaries would have to have some way of communicating with each other, and this would be an expansion of that. The overexposure that is currently threatening channel 100 would take a lot longer to wreak its havoc on nation chat, as there are correspondingly fewer players. (I envision this as becoming the most used comm channel)
b. Help Channel. Channel 1 would also remain, but not quite as it is now. Instead of having everyone able to chime in, for good or ill, there would now be a set group of people who could help out on 1. Choosing this group would probably take a fairly long time, because you'd have to make sure everyone involved would give good advice and not lead the newbies astray. (this is the part of my plan that has the most problems, and all suggestions are welcome)
2. As part of these new changes, groups would suddenly become much more important for getting together with friends and being able to talk communally. As such, some group changes would be needed:
a. Groups should be able to be larger than 8 players. It's already possible for some missions, like HS and BS, so it would make sense to make it possible for everyone (and also help out NW immensely; there would have to be some thought put in for Voice Chat changes, but I think mostly it would work, at this point).
b. We should be able to take missions while in a group. Not group missions, but individual missions. Being able to talk someone through a mission while they're taking it would be a fantastic boon, and it would also be a great addition for everyone, being able to remain chatting with friends while running whatever mission they wanted. Obviously this would necessitate some changes to the mission structure, designations of which missions could be taken while in a group and which missions couldn't, etc, but I have some ideas on that as well. In general, this would make interaction between groups of people a lot easier, and, as a side effect, make it so if you create a group as a newbie you don't all of a sudden have a blank mission board.
I know this is a really long post, so thanks for any of you who read all the way through! As always, ideas, criticisms, and responses are greatly appreciated.
Sounds good, Denji. I'm sure I'll have some comments at some point, but it's a really tough problem. 100 is one of the reasons we love this game, yet it really has to go for the sake of immersion, but mostly because it's just getting way to crowded. That said, I'm not sure groups are the way to work out the chatting with friends problems, but maybe something in conjunction with the buddy list would be better...
Great thoughts. One that percolated in me while reading this is:
"Should players of poor standing with their home nation be able to see nation chat?"
And perhaps, if it can be arranged, only the top 10 highest mentor scores should be allowed to respond on the help channel.
100 should still be available in stations if players want it, because it is great for amassing a group. How else could we invite all players to NWs or things of the like?
"Should players of poor standing with their home nation be able to see nation chat?"
And perhaps, if it can be arranged, only the top 10 highest mentor scores should be allowed to respond on the help channel.
100 should still be available in stations if players want it, because it is great for amassing a group. How else could we invite all players to NWs or things of the like?
I have done some experiments in this area. I wrote a plugin to test that as well, it's the channel log thing. It puts each channel into it's own tab, you join a channel it creates a new tab, you leave a channel it removes the tab.
Stackman, just because you have a high mentor rating doesn't mean that you are actually any good at it or even that you want to. The mentor system has been abused to get UC batteries, it is unfortunately not a score for altruism or even helpfullness.
That aside I think Denji is very right. 11 should be your default channel. If that is the case, you can still call upon everyone to make nation war and the like. We still have a leader of each nation, neh? System chat would be very good instead. I do, however, believe that /msg texts should be allowed to work as it does now and thus allows for communication across systems and nations.
Hort, who has 0 (zero) mentor points.
That aside I think Denji is very right. 11 should be your default channel. If that is the case, you can still call upon everyone to make nation war and the like. We still have a leader of each nation, neh? System chat would be very good instead. I do, however, believe that /msg texts should be allowed to work as it does now and thus allows for communication across systems and nations.
Hort, who has 0 (zero) mentor points.
An interim solution to 100-spam is to actually use channel 1 for help questions if they are the current source of the congestion of 100. Kindly directing all questioners on 100 to the appropriate channel will help a great deal to make 100 spam-free.
While in favor of making 11 (nation) the default channel for RP reasons, I don't see it as feasible until the server population grows a bit more. Players have a hard enough time as it is finding other players; defaulting to a channel that has one-third of the people as 100 currently has won't help.
In any case, most MMOs have a "shout" channel which broadcasts to everyone. Even if 11 became a default channel I would be in favor of keeping 100 or something similar available. However, most MMOs also have some kind of policy, whether it is formal or informal, about not abusing the shout channel and something like that would have to be put in place and enforced. Actually, these changes could be done at any time on a voluntary basis should the community wish to do so.
While in favor of making 11 (nation) the default channel for RP reasons, I don't see it as feasible until the server population grows a bit more. Players have a hard enough time as it is finding other players; defaulting to a channel that has one-third of the people as 100 currently has won't help.
In any case, most MMOs have a "shout" channel which broadcasts to everyone. Even if 11 became a default channel I would be in favor of keeping 100 or something similar available. However, most MMOs also have some kind of policy, whether it is formal or informal, about not abusing the shout channel and something like that would have to be put in place and enforced. Actually, these changes could be done at any time on a voluntary basis should the community wish to do so.
Okay, first of all, lets consider the newb problem.
Newbies questions are getting lost in 100 because that is the default channel for new characters. And also, the tutorial missions fail to give proper information about communication and where questions should be located.
Solution: Change the default channel of new characters to 1.
Now, 100 being overcrowded...
I agree, however, we need not simply remove the channel, just encourage personal chat towards the /msg system...
Also a few problems, your changes.
1: No, I don't think this will work.. Instead, encourage veteran players to join a widely known channel (like 100), but it will be exclusive to people who have already subscribed to the game, hence moving all veteran conversations to another channel, so that newbies questions are all moved to 1.
b) Being a supporter of the help channel, and a veteran to the game, I can confidently say that, we all have enemies, and, those people would most likely rubbish your reputation of a good person, and a newbie helper. However, I ould support the system of a hand-picked group, not by devs or guides, but by the general community, maybe a vote system???
Further discussion on the help channel would be appreciated..
2: Absolutely, as they are already, groups do play an important role in assisting piloting & communication .
a) Yes. I think this has been discussed before, and in this matter, you have my full support, and at the present time, there shouldn't be any repercussions for this change.
b) Yes, however, implementation strikes me as, challenging?
While people are off taking their individual missions, and having a good chat, the group leader must be unable to start a group mission until all individual missions have ceased.
Also, I vote for a new mission board structure.
It could be a series of interactive boards and sub-boards, for example... Solo and group missions with a sorter indicating all available missions that are available to individuals and groups.
And yes, instead of blanking out missions that require you to be in a group, why not just grey them out, indicating that you have not met requirements in order to take the missions (eg. group availability). For those mission that require an accomplishment, however, you will need to completely blank them out.
Take these points into account,
--Estrian Prosis
Newbies questions are getting lost in 100 because that is the default channel for new characters. And also, the tutorial missions fail to give proper information about communication and where questions should be located.
Solution: Change the default channel of new characters to 1.
Now, 100 being overcrowded...
I agree, however, we need not simply remove the channel, just encourage personal chat towards the /msg system...
Also a few problems, your changes.
1: No, I don't think this will work.. Instead, encourage veteran players to join a widely known channel (like 100), but it will be exclusive to people who have already subscribed to the game, hence moving all veteran conversations to another channel, so that newbies questions are all moved to 1.
b) Being a supporter of the help channel, and a veteran to the game, I can confidently say that, we all have enemies, and, those people would most likely rubbish your reputation of a good person, and a newbie helper. However, I ould support the system of a hand-picked group, not by devs or guides, but by the general community, maybe a vote system???
Further discussion on the help channel would be appreciated..
2: Absolutely, as they are already, groups do play an important role in assisting piloting & communication .
a) Yes. I think this has been discussed before, and in this matter, you have my full support, and at the present time, there shouldn't be any repercussions for this change.
b) Yes, however, implementation strikes me as, challenging?
While people are off taking their individual missions, and having a good chat, the group leader must be unable to start a group mission until all individual missions have ceased.
Also, I vote for a new mission board structure.
It could be a series of interactive boards and sub-boards, for example... Solo and group missions with a sorter indicating all available missions that are available to individuals and groups.
And yes, instead of blanking out missions that require you to be in a group, why not just grey them out, indicating that you have not met requirements in order to take the missions (eg. group availability). For those mission that require an accomplishment, however, you will need to completely blank them out.
Take these points into account,
--Estrian Prosis
Thank you for your thoughts, everyone. I agree with much that has been said, and I'll address a few of the issues that have been brought up.
Regarding the immediate future, and volunteering to change channels, I agree. Before the devs take any action we have the power to implement this change. However, the populace must agree, and that is currently untested. Perhaps I will suggest it periodically and see how it goes over. I absolutely think that channel 11 can work fine, as there should be enough people online these days that nations can chat amongst themselves with no problems. And if anyone has questions that aren't answered on 11, they can ask on 1. Similarly, if newbies are asking questions on 100 or 11, they can be gently redirected to channel 1, and help clear the clutter. Changing the default channel I also agree with, though I'm currently not sure whether it should be to 11 or to 1, I'll have to think on it.
Estrian, at first I disagreed with you saying that 100 shouldn't be removed, but I thought about it for a bit and now I provisionally agree. It is extremely useful for announcements, for nation wars, etc., and I'm sure for other things as well. If the volunteer changes take good hold, and people move to 11 and 1, the problem is solved and we don't have to worry about it. If not, then we have a more complicated situation, but that's something to be handled if it arises.
Choosing people for the help channel: As I said earlier, this is possible the most difficult part of this plan. However, there are a few facts that help us out here. First, the pool of helpers would be limited to people who have been around for a decent amount of time, and thus should be fairly well known to others. Perhaps, as Estrian suggested, make it a popular vote, but with a time in game requirement. People can only be voted for if they've spent some amount of time, say, 24 hours, in game (that's a completely bogus number I made up, it should reflect a couple months playing the game), and people can only vote if they've spent some slightly shorter amount of time in game. Simply expand the /vote command to encompass this (/vote help "Denji Royhu" yes/no), and make it so that only people who've received enough yes votes in proportion to no votes can talk on 1.
To further combat people taking advantage of this system, 1 should still be viewable by everyone, though only newbies and the helpers can talk on it, and so abuses are visible. The same voting set can /vote people off of being helpers (maybe someone's vote count resets upon being voted in, and if they get a certain number of no votes in a set period of time after that they get kicked off) if they are abusing the responsibility. This way, people can also answer questions in nation chat, if they want. It's not a perfect system, but it's a start.
Finally, ideas for implementation of group missions. I actually posted about this in the PCC forum awhile back, and I know that it's not going to be coming about any time soon, because the devs are extremely busy and this is a major-ish change. Here is what I envisioned.
When you're in a group, if the group leader has not started a group mission, you can still take a wide variety of individual missions (possibly excluding things like escorts and hive skirmishes, though those should be takeable by the leader as group missions for all), and run those while still in the group, chatting away. Even the group leader can take individual missions without affecting any of the other group members. However, when the group leader takes a group mission, all the group members should get a notification in their mission log giving them the option of remaining on their current mission or joining the new group mission. This should default to no, and possibly have a time limit, just so people don't suddenly join in a mission unexpectedly after being afk for a good while.
This now brings up the interesting situation of some people in a group on a mission together and some on solo missions. What if someone in the group mission wants to leave and do a solo mission while still in the group? What if someone on a solo mission wants to join the group mission? In the first case, I think people should have the option of aborting out of a group mission while remaining in the group, and going on to take whatever solo mission they desire. For the latter, I think the group leader would need the ability to invite people in the group to the mission in progress, just like now if you have a BP group you can invite people in while the mission is up. This is obviously not perfect, as for things like escorts you would need things in place to stop people from joining at the last minute and getting lots of money.
The last aspect I'll address now is when people outside the group want in. If there's no group mission up, as I said before, they would join the group regularly and do whatever they wanted. If there was a group mission up, however, I think they should get the same choice in their Mission Log, whether to remain on their current mission (or remain without a mission) or join the group mission. This would save people from losing lots of hard work just by joining a group (and, in the case of trade missions, possibly some hard-earned faction points, too).
As I said, not a perfect solution, but a start. And I certainly don't expect the devs to do any work on this in the near future, you guys are already working very hard, and I appreciate all that you've done so far. Once again, comments and further suggestions are welcomed. :)
Regarding the immediate future, and volunteering to change channels, I agree. Before the devs take any action we have the power to implement this change. However, the populace must agree, and that is currently untested. Perhaps I will suggest it periodically and see how it goes over. I absolutely think that channel 11 can work fine, as there should be enough people online these days that nations can chat amongst themselves with no problems. And if anyone has questions that aren't answered on 11, they can ask on 1. Similarly, if newbies are asking questions on 100 or 11, they can be gently redirected to channel 1, and help clear the clutter. Changing the default channel I also agree with, though I'm currently not sure whether it should be to 11 or to 1, I'll have to think on it.
Estrian, at first I disagreed with you saying that 100 shouldn't be removed, but I thought about it for a bit and now I provisionally agree. It is extremely useful for announcements, for nation wars, etc., and I'm sure for other things as well. If the volunteer changes take good hold, and people move to 11 and 1, the problem is solved and we don't have to worry about it. If not, then we have a more complicated situation, but that's something to be handled if it arises.
Choosing people for the help channel: As I said earlier, this is possible the most difficult part of this plan. However, there are a few facts that help us out here. First, the pool of helpers would be limited to people who have been around for a decent amount of time, and thus should be fairly well known to others. Perhaps, as Estrian suggested, make it a popular vote, but with a time in game requirement. People can only be voted for if they've spent some amount of time, say, 24 hours, in game (that's a completely bogus number I made up, it should reflect a couple months playing the game), and people can only vote if they've spent some slightly shorter amount of time in game. Simply expand the /vote command to encompass this (/vote help "Denji Royhu" yes/no), and make it so that only people who've received enough yes votes in proportion to no votes can talk on 1.
To further combat people taking advantage of this system, 1 should still be viewable by everyone, though only newbies and the helpers can talk on it, and so abuses are visible. The same voting set can /vote people off of being helpers (maybe someone's vote count resets upon being voted in, and if they get a certain number of no votes in a set period of time after that they get kicked off) if they are abusing the responsibility. This way, people can also answer questions in nation chat, if they want. It's not a perfect system, but it's a start.
Finally, ideas for implementation of group missions. I actually posted about this in the PCC forum awhile back, and I know that it's not going to be coming about any time soon, because the devs are extremely busy and this is a major-ish change. Here is what I envisioned.
When you're in a group, if the group leader has not started a group mission, you can still take a wide variety of individual missions (possibly excluding things like escorts and hive skirmishes, though those should be takeable by the leader as group missions for all), and run those while still in the group, chatting away. Even the group leader can take individual missions without affecting any of the other group members. However, when the group leader takes a group mission, all the group members should get a notification in their mission log giving them the option of remaining on their current mission or joining the new group mission. This should default to no, and possibly have a time limit, just so people don't suddenly join in a mission unexpectedly after being afk for a good while.
This now brings up the interesting situation of some people in a group on a mission together and some on solo missions. What if someone in the group mission wants to leave and do a solo mission while still in the group? What if someone on a solo mission wants to join the group mission? In the first case, I think people should have the option of aborting out of a group mission while remaining in the group, and going on to take whatever solo mission they desire. For the latter, I think the group leader would need the ability to invite people in the group to the mission in progress, just like now if you have a BP group you can invite people in while the mission is up. This is obviously not perfect, as for things like escorts you would need things in place to stop people from joining at the last minute and getting lots of money.
The last aspect I'll address now is when people outside the group want in. If there's no group mission up, as I said before, they would join the group regularly and do whatever they wanted. If there was a group mission up, however, I think they should get the same choice in their Mission Log, whether to remain on their current mission (or remain without a mission) or join the group mission. This would save people from losing lots of hard work just by joining a group (and, in the case of trade missions, possibly some hard-earned faction points, too).
As I said, not a perfect solution, but a start. And I certainly don't expect the devs to do any work on this in the near future, you guys are already working very hard, and I appreciate all that you've done so far. Once again, comments and further suggestions are welcomed. :)
how about this.
/xxx currently gives channel access. however....
/help <message> can goto the help channel.
/rp <message> can goto the rp channel.
/nation <message> can goto the nation specific channel.
/pcc <message> can goto the pcc channel (btw most ppl are still not aware we have one ingame. hope some changes we can make to get them all there.
any other ideas for /commands to add?
/xxx currently gives channel access. however....
/help <message> can goto the help channel.
/rp <message> can goto the rp channel.
/nation <message> can goto the nation specific channel.
/pcc <message> can goto the pcc channel (btw most ppl are still not aware we have one ingame. hope some changes we can make to get them all there.
any other ideas for /commands to add?
By default the "?" key brings up the help channel. I don't know if it's documented anywhere but I noticed it while digging around the wgaf.cfg file.
Overall, I like the idea of named channels, makes using them much easier. I would add /ooc to go along with /rp.
Overall, I like the idea of named channels, makes using them much easier. I would add /ooc to go along with /rp.
A tabbed chat box would help a lot... 100 is simply too usefull to do away with but it does make it hard to follow other chats when the volume on 100 gets high. If the chats were sorted into separate channels then it becomes a lot easier.
and if 100 is interfering with your play there is the /leave 100 option which I sometimes use when it gets too annoying
Naming the normal channels would aid alot or if we could name the channels ourselves....
and if 100 is interfering with your play there is the /leave 100 option which I sometimes use when it gets too annoying
Naming the normal channels would aid alot or if we could name the channels ourselves....
I think VO also needs a market and recruitment channel. Just throwing that out there.
In all honesty 100 is *TO* useful.
{
"1 : Help channel";
"11 : Nation chat (Only members of the same nation can see this chat)";
"14 : [IA] Recruiting Channel. Itani Alliance";
"69 : Planetside players channel";
"70 : German chat";
"97 : Windows Users Channel";
"98 : Linux Users Channel";
"99 : Apple Macintosh Users Channel";
"100 : General Chat";
"101 : French Chat";
"102 : Russian Chat";
"103 : Spanish Chat";
"104 : Dutch Chat";
"105 : Norwegian Chat";
"106 : Finnish Chat";
"111 : Help Channel (alternate channel in case channel 1 is crowded)";
"201 : Itani Convoy Transmissions (not for chat)";
"202 : Serco Convoy Transmissions (not for chat)";
"205 : Public Capship info Channel";
"300 : In-character Role Playing Chat.";
"411 : EnB events chat.";
"444 : TGFT Recruitment Channel. The Guild of Free Traders";
"700 : Political (US) Discussion";
"701 : Platform discussions";
"911 : Emergency Channel";
"946 : Public IDF Channel Itani Defense Force";
"1313: Elite Guild Recruitment and info channel (public)";
"1337 : Off-topic chat channel";
"4357 : Viper channel to report pirate activity";
"123567: SCAR Recruitment Channel. Serco Cadre of Armed Renegades";
How many of these channels do you see used frequently?
{
"1 : Help channel";
"11 : Nation chat (Only members of the same nation can see this chat)";
"14 : [IA] Recruiting Channel. Itani Alliance";
"69 : Planetside players channel";
"70 : German chat";
"97 : Windows Users Channel";
"98 : Linux Users Channel";
"99 : Apple Macintosh Users Channel";
"100 : General Chat";
"101 : French Chat";
"102 : Russian Chat";
"103 : Spanish Chat";
"104 : Dutch Chat";
"105 : Norwegian Chat";
"106 : Finnish Chat";
"111 : Help Channel (alternate channel in case channel 1 is crowded)";
"201 : Itani Convoy Transmissions (not for chat)";
"202 : Serco Convoy Transmissions (not for chat)";
"205 : Public Capship info Channel";
"300 : In-character Role Playing Chat.";
"411 : EnB events chat.";
"444 : TGFT Recruitment Channel. The Guild of Free Traders";
"700 : Political (US) Discussion";
"701 : Platform discussions";
"911 : Emergency Channel";
"946 : Public IDF Channel Itani Defense Force";
"1313: Elite Guild Recruitment and info channel (public)";
"1337 : Off-topic chat channel";
"4357 : Viper channel to report pirate activity";
"123567: SCAR Recruitment Channel. Serco Cadre of Armed Renegades";
How many of these channels do you see used frequently?
Somewhere in all the comm changes suggestions a comment came up about having/keeping a channel for coordinating wars etc....
To borrow a concept from PoTBS that worked well was that higher level "fighters" in a certain profession gained access to transmit on what they called a "conquest" channel. Their nation chat was limited to the different sectors so no one was able to talk clear across the map. To coordinate fights/port attacks etc.... the high level Naval (profession based) Captains gained access to a channel that became a true Nation Global channel. That way they were able to send out the message to get players ready for large scale fights, set up the Vent channel whatever. Basically a 1 way channel unless you too were a high enough Naval Captain. For those of us that weren't we'd reply to any questions using the "tell"/PM system.
To borrow a concept from PoTBS that worked well was that higher level "fighters" in a certain profession gained access to transmit on what they called a "conquest" channel. Their nation chat was limited to the different sectors so no one was able to talk clear across the map. To coordinate fights/port attacks etc.... the high level Naval (profession based) Captains gained access to a channel that became a true Nation Global channel. That way they were able to send out the message to get players ready for large scale fights, set up the Vent channel whatever. Basically a 1 way channel unless you too were a high enough Naval Captain. For those of us that weren't we'd reply to any questions using the "tell"/PM system.
Just had an additional thought for this thread: instead of deciding for players, why not let players choose how 'far' away to receive chat from? Such as an option in the settings that could limit 100 chat to sector/system/within 1-20 systems/universe.
This would allow for people to broadcast to anyone listening, but choose distinctively how far to listen. Word could go out in a relay fashion such as: "NW in 10, pass it on." It would also allow for players to enlarge their listening area in times of fewer online players.
This would allow for people to broadcast to anyone listening, but choose distinctively how far to listen. Word could go out in a relay fashion such as: "NW in 10, pass it on." It would also allow for players to enlarge their listening area in times of fewer online players.
and in regard to 11 vs 100 as default channel, it's easy to do it transparently. Devs will just make the 100 the nation channel and something else the public one, to be joined only voluntarily.
Good idea Stackman. Then you would avoid the last second runner-in from Deneb that wants to participate in NW but makes everyone wait 20 minutes.