Forums » Suggestions
The work load is put on the player affected.... just because you dont like politics or whatever doesnt mean I dont.... You being unable to take 30 seconds to ignore a player does not make 100 broken.
At this point you seem more interested in muting and censoring the other players then anything else.
WE do have the right to speak as we please just as you have the right to ignore us...
At this point you seem more interested in muting and censoring the other players then anything else.
WE do have the right to speak as we please just as you have the right to ignore us...
PaKettle, is that really the right place to be talking politics in an agressive manner, though?
Luxen well said, but I'm afraid in vain... PaKettle has fundamentally misunderstood what all the people are here complaining about, despite it being put pretty simply (many times). Don't worry too much about him, his -1 is noted and if at some point he comes up a relevant argument I would be very glad to hear it out
I understand exactly what you want - and yes 100 is suited to almost any discussion - it is in fact for the playerbase to decide and If you dont agree feel free to tune out... no one is forcing you to listen.
What you dont get is the fact that 100 has been way worse....
What you dont get is the fact that 100 has been way worse....
Where the hell did you get that photo of me? I demand you take it down or there will be repercussions!!!
But damn! I forgot just how sexy I am.
But damn! I forgot just how sexy I am.
You being unable to take 30 seconds to ignore a player does not make 100 broken.
Ding ding ding.
Ding ding ding.
I didn't read through all the posts, but instead of 100 being limited to system chat, why not limit it to nation chat depending on whether you are in grey, uit, itani, or serco? I agree with fluffy that limited chat would improve immersion.
We already have channels for those, Kenneth Bireta....
@PaKettle: /ignore is useful in some cases, but other times it can be an overly broad solution. Its all-or-nothing nature is not helpful when the person in question is both discussing politics and discussing in-game things that you're actually interested in. All I'm asking for is sorting, not censorship. Put help-related chat in 1, general VO-related chat in 100, and off-topic chat in 42. Everybody wins.
When the playerbase is large enough I am sure that type of segregation will occur on its own...
I realize there is a lot of traffic by a rather vocal few but 100 is no where near being overwhelmed.
Eventually perhaps we will need the ability to ignore a player on a single channel instead of the total ignore we currently have.
I realize there is a lot of traffic by a rather vocal few but 100 is no where near being overwhelmed.
Eventually perhaps we will need the ability to ignore a player on a single channel instead of the total ignore we currently have.
Don't worry too much about him, his -1 is noted and if at some point he comes up a relevant argument I would be very glad to hear it out
As if you have any say over whether if the devs implement anything from this thread. You know very well that you don't, so don't pretend that you do. Neither does Inc care about the number of -1s or +1s. All he's looking for is high quality arguments, and only if he is on the fence or unsure about something.
He already said he's aware of the problems of 100 and he's put it on the list to eventually address whenever hes done with all of the other higher priority stuff. Which translates to roughly 1 or 2 years from now. This thread is nothing more than beating a deaf, mute, and dead horse, no offense.
As if you have any say over whether if the devs implement anything from this thread. You know very well that you don't, so don't pretend that you do. Neither does Inc care about the number of -1s or +1s. All he's looking for is high quality arguments, and only if he is on the fence or unsure about something.
He already said he's aware of the problems of 100 and he's put it on the list to eventually address whenever hes done with all of the other higher priority stuff. Which translates to roughly 1 or 2 years from now. This thread is nothing more than beating a deaf, mute, and dead horse, no offense.
If the horse doesn't like it, it should just use /ignore ;P
I haven't responded because I've been busy. And because this straight-up isn't as important as what I've been doing (it is still important, but less-so).
Also, the other week I realized I spent so much time responding on the forums that I hardly got anything useful done, which is a problem. Like sometimes I spend more time "talking" about things on here than it would take to actually "do" some of them. Ugh. Anyway..
- I'm not getting rid of 100. We've been down that road before, it's a bad idea.
- We also have the option of rate-limiting input on specific channels, like requiring "once per minute" on 100. But that's also not something I want to do unless we have a big influx of users. We could also rate-limit by max character level too (not currently implemented), by monetization type (Lite/Sub/F2P) or other means.
- I have been working on better in-game reporting and administration options for some months, at least in terms of design, but I haven't had the developer cycles to implement them yet. They will utilize players to report things, our own server logs, and an increasing length of "mute" response for affected individuals who keep recurring as a problem.
- I've been planning to change vote-mute for some time as well, and tie it into the above auto-reporting system. It would make it much easier to vote mute someone, but also be much more apparent it was done for reasons other than actual chat-issues (such as just disliking someone). People who abuse the vote-mute system will be stripped of their ability to vote, and may also be muted for an extended period.
- As I mentioned elsewhere, I've also been looking at ideas based on Riot's research. I'm not sure we'd go the machine-learning route right away, but they were also successful with player-voting on "historic" abuse issues. If anonymized (stripped of player-name) and shown to people at login (who have volunteered to vote), it might be a useful way of reducing administrative load on player issues.
- Despite several different threads I've read tonight where people keep claiming we have no players, we're still rolling around 50,000 android sessions per month. I have no problem giving F2P people some bonus if they vote on bad behaviour. That's pretty easily segmented from existing dramatic populations, and a large enough aggregate to make meaningful decisions.
Before blasting anything I've said as stupid or pointless or silly, feel free to read the actual research from Riot and others. There's a lot of data on this. It does help them to have 90 million users or whatever, but much of it is applicable to communities of any scale.
Also, this is an 80/20 problem. I don't care of it's perfect. I do not expect 100% success. If we can improve things in 80% of cases, that's fantastic. That's not such a high bar..
Also, the other week I realized I spent so much time responding on the forums that I hardly got anything useful done, which is a problem. Like sometimes I spend more time "talking" about things on here than it would take to actually "do" some of them. Ugh. Anyway..
- I'm not getting rid of 100. We've been down that road before, it's a bad idea.
- We also have the option of rate-limiting input on specific channels, like requiring "once per minute" on 100. But that's also not something I want to do unless we have a big influx of users. We could also rate-limit by max character level too (not currently implemented), by monetization type (Lite/Sub/F2P) or other means.
- I have been working on better in-game reporting and administration options for some months, at least in terms of design, but I haven't had the developer cycles to implement them yet. They will utilize players to report things, our own server logs, and an increasing length of "mute" response for affected individuals who keep recurring as a problem.
- I've been planning to change vote-mute for some time as well, and tie it into the above auto-reporting system. It would make it much easier to vote mute someone, but also be much more apparent it was done for reasons other than actual chat-issues (such as just disliking someone). People who abuse the vote-mute system will be stripped of their ability to vote, and may also be muted for an extended period.
- As I mentioned elsewhere, I've also been looking at ideas based on Riot's research. I'm not sure we'd go the machine-learning route right away, but they were also successful with player-voting on "historic" abuse issues. If anonymized (stripped of player-name) and shown to people at login (who have volunteered to vote), it might be a useful way of reducing administrative load on player issues.
- Despite several different threads I've read tonight where people keep claiming we have no players, we're still rolling around 50,000 android sessions per month. I have no problem giving F2P people some bonus if they vote on bad behaviour. That's pretty easily segmented from existing dramatic populations, and a large enough aggregate to make meaningful decisions.
Before blasting anything I've said as stupid or pointless or silly, feel free to read the actual research from Riot and others. There's a lot of data on this. It does help them to have 90 million users or whatever, but much of it is applicable to communities of any scale.
Also, this is an 80/20 problem. I don't care of it's perfect. I do not expect 100% success. If we can improve things in 80% of cases, that's fantastic. That's not such a high bar..
we're still rolling around 50,000 android sessions per month
And what does that translate to in actual users?
And what does that translate to in actual users?
And what does that translate to in actual users?
I don't understand the question. Those are user play sessions. There's still about 10,000 new people per month, from that platform.
Also, what does this have to do with the topic? Let's keep it back on the 100 thing..
I don't understand the question. Those are user play sessions. There's still about 10,000 new people per month, from that platform.
Also, what does this have to do with the topic? Let's keep it back on the 100 thing..
My question is are those users or is that a count of how many times an android session is initiated i.e. billy jo bob logs on and off 25 times in a day so that = 25 sessions?
It's based on exiting the client and re-running. So yes, if someone runs their client a thousand times a day or something, that's a thousand "sessions" of a single person. But we have stats on sessions per device and other factors, we know that isn't the case..
We're also still seeing ~10,000 new unique devices per month, which is much more specifically new individual humans.
Anyway, let's keep commentary on the topic..
We're also still seeing ~10,000 new unique devices per month, which is much more specifically new individual humans.
Anyway, let's keep commentary on the topic..
OK the point of my question is if there are 10,000 new "devices" per month and 50k sessions then there def needs to be a better system for keeping 100 from going haywire. How many of those 10k do you think would retain if they didn't see all the BS that goes on in 100 going on?
I don't see 10k new users a month, unless they just aren't making it passed the tutorial stage.
I don't see 10k new users a month, unless they just aren't making it passed the tutorial stage.
OK the point of my question is if there are 10,000 new "devices" per month and 50k sessions then there def needs to be a better system for keeping 100 from going haywire.
We already have emergency systems in place, in the event of an iPhone or Android feature that drives upwards of a million people in a week. Like I just wrote above about rate-limit options, etc.
How many of those 10k do you think would retain if they didn't see all the BS that goes on in 100 going on?
Yes. No kidding. That's why I've been sinking a lot of time into it.
As I've written elsewhere, I'm hyper-aware of the impact, because I actually see it statistically, and in the review data.
I don't see 10k new users a month, unless they just aren't making it passed the tutorial stage.
To be clear, there is definitely a big newbie dropff, and only a small percentage recur for longer periods. But we've also been rolling at 10-15k per month for.. years, and we've absorbed a fairly strong Android userbase over that time (hence the 50k sessions thing).
The visibility thing has always been a conundrum for PC players, but as I've written before.. Android players 1) Don't talk much, 2) Don't play the same way as PC vets.
I'm not claiming that our online user count is some giant thing in the thousands. But I will say that player estimates are off by.. several times. Like what people seem to think is our "peak" is actually our "minimum", at like 4AM on a weeknight, heh.
Anyway, we could probably be over 500-concurrent and not see a significant impact from text-chatting users on mobile phones (with the exception of maybe more trolls/spammers). Because typing on a mobile phone sucks.
We already have emergency systems in place, in the event of an iPhone or Android feature that drives upwards of a million people in a week. Like I just wrote above about rate-limit options, etc.
How many of those 10k do you think would retain if they didn't see all the BS that goes on in 100 going on?
Yes. No kidding. That's why I've been sinking a lot of time into it.
As I've written elsewhere, I'm hyper-aware of the impact, because I actually see it statistically, and in the review data.
I don't see 10k new users a month, unless they just aren't making it passed the tutorial stage.
To be clear, there is definitely a big newbie dropff, and only a small percentage recur for longer periods. But we've also been rolling at 10-15k per month for.. years, and we've absorbed a fairly strong Android userbase over that time (hence the 50k sessions thing).
The visibility thing has always been a conundrum for PC players, but as I've written before.. Android players 1) Don't talk much, 2) Don't play the same way as PC vets.
I'm not claiming that our online user count is some giant thing in the thousands. But I will say that player estimates are off by.. several times. Like what people seem to think is our "peak" is actually our "minimum", at like 4AM on a weeknight, heh.
Anyway, we could probably be over 500-concurrent and not see a significant impact from text-chatting users on mobile phones (with the exception of maybe more trolls/spammers). Because typing on a mobile phone sucks.
I hope you can get the toxicity under control Inc. Good luck! 100 sucks.