Forums » Suggestions
There is a certain inherent encouragement in the game design itself for people to be asshats to each other, so in some ways I find it very mysterious why you (incarnate) are so perturbed when it boils over in chat.
Greenwall, you've been around long enough to know that it wasn't always like this. It's not like I made the game suddenly more toxicity-oriented in the last couple of years. People were happily shooting each other (on average) for well over a decade. The overall level of toxicity was far less.
Instead of just criticizing the game name (which, frankly, I didn't actually come up with; but I am obviously terrible at naming stuff), why don't we focus on things that can actually be improved?
This all sounds good in theory but what does this actually solve? It seems to me this would do little more then silence the people who experience negative gameplay or exploitive gameplay and take to 100 to voice complaints
Well, I completely agree. But I have to ask: Why would we ever want people to "take to 100 to voice complaints"?
That kind of bitter and pointless raging-out is one of the issues I called out at the beginning. I mean, who are they "voicing complaints" to, exactly? They aren't voicing the issues to the developers or administrators. In most cases, the issues aren't something that other players can change. So.. what's the point? To let all the other players know how unhappy you are, and make the game more unpleasant, while likely bringing about no positive change at all?
We created several different mediums for people to use to positively affect change:
Bug Reports - If the game is not behaving as-intended, then it's probably a bug. In general, we're very attentive to bug reports.
Suggestions Forum - If the game is behaving as intended, but that behaviour isn't working well for some reason, or there's some way we could improve it, this is where we discuss potential changes. I read this forum about 6 days a week. Some weeks I may burn 20 hours on here. Obviously, that's a huge chunk of time for a really small team (frankly, it's part of why progress can be really slow).
Support Tickets - If a user is not behaving as intended, then this is how to report that problem.
It's popular to claim that these systems are all "pointless", but there's a ton of evidence to the contrary. Some people (and this is NOT directed at you, Ebonstar) seem to choose to ignore evidence that isn't aligned with their irritable self-righteous indignation.
I dont understand how you cant see how we take stacks of ignored tickets concerning the same handful of players as bias on your part
Which.. "stacks" of "ignored" tickets would these be, exactly? Can you point to specific ticket numbers, please? Or did someone just tell you that they wrote a ticket and it was ignored?
I just went through the last 3 months of tickets, and I found.. 1 ticket, out of hundreds, that didn't appear to get a proper response. There were a few where there were logically no responses, like where the player let us know they resolved the issue themselves, before anyone had a chance to even read the ticket. But otherwise..?
There are also some people who open tickets, and I do respond and ask a question, and then I never hear from them again. Maybe they never check the ticket, or they forget, or the response notice goes into their spam folder, I have no idea.
If someone is still pissed because they wrote a ticket in 2016 that Curt forgot-about, or whatever, I don't have much to say on that, it was an unfortunate situation. But, I thought I've been pretty diligent since I started doing it myself? I'm sure I haven't been perfect, but I thought I'd been pretty responsive.
However, here's a more blunt response to your question: Why are you sure that what you're claiming is true?
Please understand, the question is not meant to imply that you're dishonest in your assertion, but rather to get you to revisit the sources of information that brought you to your conclusion.
I've banned a lot of people in the last year, I've muted people for weeks on end, I've spent large quantities of time talking to problematic players and asking them to change their behaviour.
Soo.. why is it your assumption is that nothing is happening? Players tend to do this a lot.. assuming the worst, based on limited evidence.
For example, there was a really intense in-game discussion back in.. December, I think, where I came online and people berated me for ignoring the terrible issues they were facing. And I asked "So, who reported this on Bugs, Suggestions or Tickets".. and they (the group of 6-10 or so?) had to sheepishly acknowledge that they all kind of "assumed" that "someone else" had done that.
And that's the standard behaviour. "Someone" must have posted about this problem! The devs are ignoring it!
People "Assuming" that I am biased towards.. players with multiple accounts, or players in X guild, or players on X nation, or players who prefer to (shoot | mine | trade).. that's been going on since the beginning of the game. And basically it's because players are unwilling to confront their own bad assumptions; it's simply easier to Blame It On Dev Bias.
So, bringing this back around.. why do you want people to "Take their issues to 100", exactly? How does that make the game better? How does that resolve the problem the person is experiencing? Or does it just fill chat with more futile, cancerous toxicity?
Maybe we should, perhaps, have some kind of reporting system to make it easier for people to submit issues when they have them, along with evidence that easily backs up their complaint, so that perhaps the time-strapped developers can react more quickly?
I mean, even if tickets aren't being handled properly, wouldn't the creation of a Report system make that far less likely, and potentially resolve your primary complaint?
That's the actual reason why we have this thread, to talk about ways of making things better. Hey, if you don't think my ideas are good, that's fine, I'm open to hearing alternatives?
plz dont flame me like you did peytros
I hope you don't take the above as a "flame" at all, it certainly isn't intended that way, although it obviously is an issue of some controversy.
I got upset at Peytros, because I went pretty far out of my way to explain to him, 1-on-1, how what he wanted was technically infeasible, and that there was a better way of resolving the problem through gameplay adjustment. I did that because he's a long-time player, and I thought that spending some real time responding to his issue would give him some comfort that I was aware of the problem, and working towards a solution (even if it wasn't the solution he asked for).
Then, a month or two later, he comes on here and regurgitates the issue in a completely inaccurate way, while trying to frame his personal pet peeve as a "issue" that the "many people" may have. But, those issues, and those resentful perspectives that he's "raising as points" were basically advanced by Peytros. He was, by far, one of the loudest voices convincing people:
<peytros> although im sure if wash gives inc another 50 bucks a month he could get his way with some suggestions
<peytros> 50 bucks a month and you court the devs favor
<peytros> i guess inc enjoys an extra 10 dollars a month then having any integreity as a game dev
<peytros> and pay off inc to look the other way
<peytros> yes inc gladly takes your 10 bucks a month in exhange for not banning people who have bennefited from multiple exploits and things that could be class
<peytros> nah the super cool vo clique of traders with a brazillion accounts always bitches the loudest about what they want
It was his agenda. Even after I had clearly explained to him that it just isn't possible to prevent people from running turret-bots, so it's more useful to tweak the usage of the weapons themselves.
Then he comes on here and says:
"I want to be clear that I am not directly accusing you of doing this Inc but there is often times an appearance of favoritism towards players who spend extra money on multiple accounts which leads to resentment amongst some players."
Really? Because that toxic dumpster-fire he lit, with the burning letters that say "INC IS A FRAUDULENT DOUCHE" seems to indicate that he was the one stoking the flames of that exact resentment.
And I already knew that when he posted to this thread, so yes, it definitely irritated me.
It's kind of like someone robbing banks in a particular town, and then running for office on a platform of reducing bank robberies. I do not react well to hypocrisy, or people using it as a means to attack my character.
I personally make mistakes all the time, but I am not disingenuous. I have never had an intent to deceive the userbase. I may be a bit of a softie bleeding-heart when it comes to banning people, I always try to talk users into changing, but that doesn't make me "biased" (maybe universally biased towards "trying to talk to people"). My choices are always debatable, but I am not lacking in integrity.
The value in bringing this all up is to illustrate a super common case for this kind of toxicity: Someone doesn't get what they want. Then they "take to 100" to complain about it as much as possible. Maybe add on some more bizarre implications of bias, like "<peytros> yeah thats kinda BS since CD is one of the devs wives" (Conflict Diamond would find that super hilarious). Just, spread as much angst and perception-of-bias and toxicity as possible to convince others of their personal issue.
I'm all for inventing new ways to let people speak, to let people report issues, let people help raise problems in the game and make things better for everyone (and, critically, to let us respond to those issues more quickly and more effectively).
But I just can't see that "taking to 100" is really something we ever want to promote.
Greenwall, you've been around long enough to know that it wasn't always like this. It's not like I made the game suddenly more toxicity-oriented in the last couple of years. People were happily shooting each other (on average) for well over a decade. The overall level of toxicity was far less.
Instead of just criticizing the game name (which, frankly, I didn't actually come up with; but I am obviously terrible at naming stuff), why don't we focus on things that can actually be improved?
This all sounds good in theory but what does this actually solve? It seems to me this would do little more then silence the people who experience negative gameplay or exploitive gameplay and take to 100 to voice complaints
Well, I completely agree. But I have to ask: Why would we ever want people to "take to 100 to voice complaints"?
That kind of bitter and pointless raging-out is one of the issues I called out at the beginning. I mean, who are they "voicing complaints" to, exactly? They aren't voicing the issues to the developers or administrators. In most cases, the issues aren't something that other players can change. So.. what's the point? To let all the other players know how unhappy you are, and make the game more unpleasant, while likely bringing about no positive change at all?
We created several different mediums for people to use to positively affect change:
Bug Reports - If the game is not behaving as-intended, then it's probably a bug. In general, we're very attentive to bug reports.
Suggestions Forum - If the game is behaving as intended, but that behaviour isn't working well for some reason, or there's some way we could improve it, this is where we discuss potential changes. I read this forum about 6 days a week. Some weeks I may burn 20 hours on here. Obviously, that's a huge chunk of time for a really small team (frankly, it's part of why progress can be really slow).
Support Tickets - If a user is not behaving as intended, then this is how to report that problem.
It's popular to claim that these systems are all "pointless", but there's a ton of evidence to the contrary. Some people (and this is NOT directed at you, Ebonstar) seem to choose to ignore evidence that isn't aligned with their irritable self-righteous indignation.
I dont understand how you cant see how we take stacks of ignored tickets concerning the same handful of players as bias on your part
Which.. "stacks" of "ignored" tickets would these be, exactly? Can you point to specific ticket numbers, please? Or did someone just tell you that they wrote a ticket and it was ignored?
I just went through the last 3 months of tickets, and I found.. 1 ticket, out of hundreds, that didn't appear to get a proper response. There were a few where there were logically no responses, like where the player let us know they resolved the issue themselves, before anyone had a chance to even read the ticket. But otherwise..?
There are also some people who open tickets, and I do respond and ask a question, and then I never hear from them again. Maybe they never check the ticket, or they forget, or the response notice goes into their spam folder, I have no idea.
If someone is still pissed because they wrote a ticket in 2016 that Curt forgot-about, or whatever, I don't have much to say on that, it was an unfortunate situation. But, I thought I've been pretty diligent since I started doing it myself? I'm sure I haven't been perfect, but I thought I'd been pretty responsive.
However, here's a more blunt response to your question: Why are you sure that what you're claiming is true?
Please understand, the question is not meant to imply that you're dishonest in your assertion, but rather to get you to revisit the sources of information that brought you to your conclusion.
I've banned a lot of people in the last year, I've muted people for weeks on end, I've spent large quantities of time talking to problematic players and asking them to change their behaviour.
Soo.. why is it your assumption is that nothing is happening? Players tend to do this a lot.. assuming the worst, based on limited evidence.
For example, there was a really intense in-game discussion back in.. December, I think, where I came online and people berated me for ignoring the terrible issues they were facing. And I asked "So, who reported this on Bugs, Suggestions or Tickets".. and they (the group of 6-10 or so?) had to sheepishly acknowledge that they all kind of "assumed" that "someone else" had done that.
And that's the standard behaviour. "Someone" must have posted about this problem! The devs are ignoring it!
People "Assuming" that I am biased towards.. players with multiple accounts, or players in X guild, or players on X nation, or players who prefer to (shoot | mine | trade).. that's been going on since the beginning of the game. And basically it's because players are unwilling to confront their own bad assumptions; it's simply easier to Blame It On Dev Bias.
So, bringing this back around.. why do you want people to "Take their issues to 100", exactly? How does that make the game better? How does that resolve the problem the person is experiencing? Or does it just fill chat with more futile, cancerous toxicity?
Maybe we should, perhaps, have some kind of reporting system to make it easier for people to submit issues when they have them, along with evidence that easily backs up their complaint, so that perhaps the time-strapped developers can react more quickly?
I mean, even if tickets aren't being handled properly, wouldn't the creation of a Report system make that far less likely, and potentially resolve your primary complaint?
That's the actual reason why we have this thread, to talk about ways of making things better. Hey, if you don't think my ideas are good, that's fine, I'm open to hearing alternatives?
plz dont flame me like you did peytros
I hope you don't take the above as a "flame" at all, it certainly isn't intended that way, although it obviously is an issue of some controversy.
I got upset at Peytros, because I went pretty far out of my way to explain to him, 1-on-1, how what he wanted was technically infeasible, and that there was a better way of resolving the problem through gameplay adjustment. I did that because he's a long-time player, and I thought that spending some real time responding to his issue would give him some comfort that I was aware of the problem, and working towards a solution (even if it wasn't the solution he asked for).
Then, a month or two later, he comes on here and regurgitates the issue in a completely inaccurate way, while trying to frame his personal pet peeve as a "issue" that the "many people" may have. But, those issues, and those resentful perspectives that he's "raising as points" were basically advanced by Peytros. He was, by far, one of the loudest voices convincing people:
<peytros> although im sure if wash gives inc another 50 bucks a month he could get his way with some suggestions
<peytros> 50 bucks a month and you court the devs favor
<peytros> i guess inc enjoys an extra 10 dollars a month then having any integreity as a game dev
<peytros> and pay off inc to look the other way
<peytros> yes inc gladly takes your 10 bucks a month in exhange for not banning people who have bennefited from multiple exploits and things that could be class
<peytros> nah the super cool vo clique of traders with a brazillion accounts always bitches the loudest about what they want
It was his agenda. Even after I had clearly explained to him that it just isn't possible to prevent people from running turret-bots, so it's more useful to tweak the usage of the weapons themselves.
Then he comes on here and says:
"I want to be clear that I am not directly accusing you of doing this Inc but there is often times an appearance of favoritism towards players who spend extra money on multiple accounts which leads to resentment amongst some players."
Really? Because that toxic dumpster-fire he lit, with the burning letters that say "INC IS A FRAUDULENT DOUCHE" seems to indicate that he was the one stoking the flames of that exact resentment.
And I already knew that when he posted to this thread, so yes, it definitely irritated me.
It's kind of like someone robbing banks in a particular town, and then running for office on a platform of reducing bank robberies. I do not react well to hypocrisy, or people using it as a means to attack my character.
I personally make mistakes all the time, but I am not disingenuous. I have never had an intent to deceive the userbase. I may be a bit of a softie bleeding-heart when it comes to banning people, I always try to talk users into changing, but that doesn't make me "biased" (maybe universally biased towards "trying to talk to people"). My choices are always debatable, but I am not lacking in integrity.
The value in bringing this all up is to illustrate a super common case for this kind of toxicity: Someone doesn't get what they want. Then they "take to 100" to complain about it as much as possible. Maybe add on some more bizarre implications of bias, like "<peytros> yeah thats kinda BS since CD is one of the devs wives" (Conflict Diamond would find that super hilarious). Just, spread as much angst and perception-of-bias and toxicity as possible to convince others of their personal issue.
I'm all for inventing new ways to let people speak, to let people report issues, let people help raise problems in the game and make things better for everyone (and, critically, to let us respond to those issues more quickly and more effectively).
But I just can't see that "taking to 100" is really something we ever want to promote.
I feel more people would send tickets if that ability was directly integrated into the client? PC has the ability to send bug reports, maybe something like that could exist for mobiles that also covers exploits and other stuff too.
It's not hard to login to the website and make a ticket, but that throws off the mobile playerbase as it requires them to quit the game first. Being able to directly send tickets through the game would probably improve feedback.
It's not hard to login to the website and make a ticket, but that throws off the mobile playerbase as it requires them to quit the game first. Being able to directly send tickets through the game would probably improve feedback.
I totally agree, and that's basically a huge part of the point of the "Report" system in the OP, to fully integrate the whole thing into the client.
"Maybe we should, perhaps, have some kind of reporting system to make it easier for people to submit issues when they have them, along with evidence that easily backs up their complaint, so that perhaps the time-strapped developers can react more quickly?"
I agree completly, and would likley use this feature, sometimes.
perhaps something like /bug command
I know that the current capacity of the chat box might be insufficient to describe the bug in. I do not think making it 2 or 10 times longer would be an optimal solution.
I think a better solution would be to have it work as follows:
/bug [brief description] IE: wormhole apparently broken; can't dock; can't load
And/or
/bug long
This would bring up a box allowing the user to type out a more detailed description of what is going on should a several word description be insufficient.
My hope is that such a system will increase the number of bug reports you get, and help with nailing down exactly when and where the bug occurred. I think that might actually make your job easier in way, as you will have to waste less time on searching for exactly when this occurred. For reference see https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/35637#411622 (how do I make this a link again) where I was unable to remember even which character I was on at the time.
I often forget to report bugs after playing the game for a few hours. Often by the time I'm done the bottle is empty and I've forgotten about the issue entirely. Other times the issue is on my end and I've since corrected it. Which makes me wonder, should I bother reporting THOSE instances as well, or would that be a waste of your time?
I agree completly, and would likley use this feature, sometimes.
perhaps something like /bug command
I know that the current capacity of the chat box might be insufficient to describe the bug in. I do not think making it 2 or 10 times longer would be an optimal solution.
I think a better solution would be to have it work as follows:
/bug [brief description] IE: wormhole apparently broken; can't dock; can't load
And/or
/bug long
This would bring up a box allowing the user to type out a more detailed description of what is going on should a several word description be insufficient.
My hope is that such a system will increase the number of bug reports you get, and help with nailing down exactly when and where the bug occurred. I think that might actually make your job easier in way, as you will have to waste less time on searching for exactly when this occurred. For reference see https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/35637#411622 (how do I make this a link again) where I was unable to remember even which character I was on at the time.
I often forget to report bugs after playing the game for a few hours. Often by the time I'm done the bottle is empty and I've forgotten about the issue entirely. Other times the issue is on my end and I've since corrected it. Which makes me wonder, should I bother reporting THOSE instances as well, or would that be a waste of your time?
Professor Jordan B. Peterson: “You can’t say something important about anything ever, without offending. Important speech about important issues, especially contentious issues, is instantly offensive.”
Rode Slane: "To be offended, at something you can optionally cease to hear, is more offensive, than the thing you are offended by."
A minimum of liberty, is to escape the thing(s) that you do not wish to endure.
Offensiveness, and offendedness, are extremes. To properly address one, you should properly address both.
If you are offended be me, you should escape me. If I offend you, I should escape you.
/ignore "Roda Slane"
or don't.
We could have more versatile commands, but this command will get the job done.
If I ignore antibody, and then someone responds to antibody with [100] @antibody: bla, it would be nice to have that line ignored also.
If people are typing [100] @racism: bla, it would be nice if I could type /ignore @racism, and not hear anything on the topic.
channel 1 should be for help
channel 100 should be game related
channel 10,000 can be rl.
channel 666 can be all things evil.
I am offended at people being offended. Use the /ignore command, before I /ignore you.
@incarnate: Even if you give players all the proper tools to protect themselves from harm, some prefer to be harmed, so that they can complain about it. Let them rant, pat them on the head, act like you care, act like you are trying to fix the "other guy", and... wait.... oh... smooth...
/ignore incarnate, @incarnate
Rode Slane: "To be offended, at something you can optionally cease to hear, is more offensive, than the thing you are offended by."
A minimum of liberty, is to escape the thing(s) that you do not wish to endure.
Offensiveness, and offendedness, are extremes. To properly address one, you should properly address both.
If you are offended be me, you should escape me. If I offend you, I should escape you.
/ignore "Roda Slane"
or don't.
We could have more versatile commands, but this command will get the job done.
If I ignore antibody, and then someone responds to antibody with [100] @antibody: bla, it would be nice to have that line ignored also.
If people are typing [100] @racism: bla, it would be nice if I could type /ignore @racism, and not hear anything on the topic.
channel 1 should be for help
channel 100 should be game related
channel 10,000 can be rl.
channel 666 can be all things evil.
I am offended at people being offended. Use the /ignore command, before I /ignore you.
@incarnate: Even if you give players all the proper tools to protect themselves from harm, some prefer to be harmed, so that they can complain about it. Let them rant, pat them on the head, act like you care, act like you are trying to fix the "other guy", and... wait.... oh... smooth...
/ignore incarnate, @incarnate
Fair enough.
I dont think you intend ill will towards your own player base or anything like that or that 50 bucks in subs would buy your favor or that you lack integrity or anything even remotely in that spectrum. I do think however that its possible you show favor to some over others perhaps subconciously. All humans do that, its what makes us human. I also feel I get lumped into the angsty bitter vo haters club unfairly sometimes. I apologize if my words come across that way ever. I have a hard time conveying tone via text.
+10000 to tickets coming from the game not the forum. /report or whatever should include a screenshot and time stamp and a ticket imo. The current ticket system is clunky being on the website.
I dont think you intend ill will towards your own player base or anything like that or that 50 bucks in subs would buy your favor or that you lack integrity or anything even remotely in that spectrum. I do think however that its possible you show favor to some over others perhaps subconciously. All humans do that, its what makes us human. I also feel I get lumped into the angsty bitter vo haters club unfairly sometimes. I apologize if my words come across that way ever. I have a hard time conveying tone via text.
+10000 to tickets coming from the game not the forum. /report or whatever should include a screenshot and time stamp and a ticket imo. The current ticket system is clunky being on the website.
People were happily shooting each other (on average) for well over a decade. The overall level of toxicity was far less.
Well, I've only played since 2008, and I would definitely say from my perspective that the overall level of toxicity in in game chat has remained pretty goddamn steady. In recent history there have been, shall we say, some more prolific chatters that have gotten into a battle of wills with their adversaries (resulting in an epic rise in support tickets), but it's really just more of the same that has always been there.
And the angst thing is vets... the more time goes by, the more vets will be produced. Since the time I've been playing, I've noticed a steady decline in the speed of meaningful game development. All for understandable reasons, I'm sure. But to many long time vets I think this slow down has added to the angst, particularly those who are combat-minded. Why don't those vets just fuck off and play something else? Because you've made something special that they can't seem to stop playing.
And I'm not criticizing the name, I'm just saying it's ironic.
+1 to in game reporting, but be prepared for a 100%-200% increase in reports. A lot of stuff goes unreported because of the awkwardness of having to report via browser.
Well, I've only played since 2008, and I would definitely say from my perspective that the overall level of toxicity in in game chat has remained pretty goddamn steady. In recent history there have been, shall we say, some more prolific chatters that have gotten into a battle of wills with their adversaries (resulting in an epic rise in support tickets), but it's really just more of the same that has always been there.
And the angst thing is vets... the more time goes by, the more vets will be produced. Since the time I've been playing, I've noticed a steady decline in the speed of meaningful game development. All for understandable reasons, I'm sure. But to many long time vets I think this slow down has added to the angst, particularly those who are combat-minded. Why don't those vets just fuck off and play something else? Because you've made something special that they can't seem to stop playing.
And I'm not criticizing the name, I'm just saying it's ironic.
+1 to in game reporting, but be prepared for a 100%-200% increase in reports. A lot of stuff goes unreported because of the awkwardness of having to report via browser.
@Look no hands regarding /bug
While implementing commands to bring up windows is fine, it really should be somewhere else too. for instance, on mobile, if you press options, it has a window containing both Options and Payment [and something else too, I think?]; port that window to the other clients and have a "report" button there. drop-down menu to contain the typical technical and user reporting features we're getting.
Otherwise, yeah, sounds good.
Reason I bring this up is due to how few commands are actually presented to new pilots, who usually ask why the game doesn't tell them every command when I mentioned one or two to them. a reporting command isn't something I could imagine being squeezed into the tutorial despite how useful it would be to know, simply because it doesn't really mesh well with what is already there.
While implementing commands to bring up windows is fine, it really should be somewhere else too. for instance, on mobile, if you press options, it has a window containing both Options and Payment [and something else too, I think?]; port that window to the other clients and have a "report" button there. drop-down menu to contain the typical technical and user reporting features we're getting.
Otherwise, yeah, sounds good.
Reason I bring this up is due to how few commands are actually presented to new pilots, who usually ask why the game doesn't tell them every command when I mentioned one or two to them. a reporting command isn't something I could imagine being squeezed into the tutorial despite how useful it would be to know, simply because it doesn't really mesh well with what is already there.
*sigh*
I guess my fears were a self fulfilling prophecy.
I log in tonight and immediately get attacked for posting:
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> yeah, ok, you're right. I was just hoping Remen would jump in t defend his terrible suggestions posting
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> In the chat bullshit RFC, he posted a long boring and incoherent ramble that, among other things, suggested that guild leaders should be tasked with moderating
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> the chat
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> it was really hard to tell what his point might have been
I've removed names to keep -w happy.
I've edited out the preceding and continuing dialog, it's pretty worthless and isn't helpful in the least.
Ok. My post was terrible, long, rambling, and incoherent. At least I'm trying to contribute ideas and have a discussion. Rather than using the exact mechanism (100) that the thread is debating to spew vitriol and insults.
If this person had chosen to contribute here with a simple, "I don't think your idea has merit because..." perhaps we could have had a nice discussion, maybe this person could have changed my OPINION that Guild leaders should take some responsibility for guiding their members. This person did, however, reinforce my opinion that guild leaders should be held to a higher standard.
Instead, let's get on 100 and bait Remen with negativity.
Kudos, troll.
On the bright side, I found out that the game is truly relaxing if you /leave 1, /leave 11, /leave 100! Maybe public channels should go away entirely!
I guess my fears were a self fulfilling prophecy.
I log in tonight and immediately get attacked for posting:
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> yeah, ok, you're right. I was just hoping Remen would jump in t defend his terrible suggestions posting
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> In the chat bullshit RFC, he posted a long boring and incoherent ramble that, among other things, suggested that guild leaders should be tasked with moderating
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> the chat
[100] [WANG] <REDACTED> it was really hard to tell what his point might have been
I've removed names to keep -w happy.
I've edited out the preceding and continuing dialog, it's pretty worthless and isn't helpful in the least.
Ok. My post was terrible, long, rambling, and incoherent. At least I'm trying to contribute ideas and have a discussion. Rather than using the exact mechanism (100) that the thread is debating to spew vitriol and insults.
If this person had chosen to contribute here with a simple, "I don't think your idea has merit because..." perhaps we could have had a nice discussion, maybe this person could have changed my OPINION that Guild leaders should take some responsibility for guiding their members. This person did, however, reinforce my opinion that guild leaders should be held to a higher standard.
Instead, let's get on 100 and bait Remen with negativity.
Kudos, troll.
On the bright side, I found out that the game is truly relaxing if you /leave 1, /leave 11, /leave 100! Maybe public channels should go away entirely!
Try playing later in the night if you can. People seem to be more relaxed then. I'm on now and have been on for hours with no concerns whatsoever. Right now Sgt. Joe Hartsock is putting together a "starting kit" for a new player. Gaming099 is also helping the new player out with advice.
Yes, you could have done with a little editing to get to your points more succinctly, but I appreciated that you were working toward solutions. Thank you.
Yes, you could have done with a little editing to get to your points more succinctly, but I appreciated that you were working toward solutions. Thank you.
I also feel I get lumped into the angsty bitter vo haters club unfairly sometimes. I apologize if my words come across that way ever.
No, I didn't take what you wrote in that way. Understand, the things I write can't be entirely to one person, I have to respond not just to you, but to everyone else who also expressed variants of what you're saying, or what I'm tangentially addressing through an issue you raised.
This leads to my making points that may seem to be unrelated to what you asked, or stated, because I have to try to condense everything together, to hopefully do the most good in reaching the most readers. I often have to "speak to the issue", rather than the individual.
/ignore "Roda Slane" or don't. We could have more versatile commands, but this command will get the job done.
I wish that were the case, and I used to be the one saying "just use /ignore" but it has proven to be insufficient. Basically, even when people individually ignore those they find annoying, there tends to be a chaotic engagement of 100 overall that's still chatting with (or about) the toxic individual. So, instead of seeing the irritating person, you just see all the blowback from their toxicity.
This then leads to people choosing to permanently leave 100. And people permenently leaving 100 is Bad For The Game. It's bad for the overall community. It just is bad.
Ignore also doesn't solve the issue with large influxes of newbies, gaining a bad impression of the game because of a few toxic individuals. Seeing other people chatting (politely) is one of the biggest things that keeps newbies sticking around, and gives them the sense of a greater universe and community. The only real way to address it is to try and improve 1/100 as a whole.
perhaps something like /bug command ... @Look no hands regarding /bug
Just an FYI guys, I was talking about the "/report" command when I was referencing everything in that paragraph. All of the intended report functionality would flow through such a mechanism.
Yes, we would definitely need to enable it from a UI-standpoint on mobile as well, I'm thinking something like long-pressing on a username in the "chat" PDA tab. It is something that could definitely be included in a tutorial at some point. Short-term though, we might just implement the command, to see how it works.
Well, I've only played since 2008, and I would definitely say from my perspective that the overall level of toxicity in in game chat has remained pretty goddamn steady.
Honestly, I think you've become a bit jaded. I mean, I know I certainly suffer from that too, but if you just independently look back at the 2017 threads I referenced in the OP, there are a lot of veteran players talking about things being different in years past. I don't think that's all "rose colored memories". I've definitely had a lot of 1-on-1 tickets to this effect as well.
So, I don't think it's just my memory implying that 100 used to be a happier, friendlier place, at least 2002-2012. There were always Lecters and Tumblemonsters, but I think the "standard" was a good bit higher in general.
+1 to in game reporting, but be prepared for a 100%-200% increase in reports. A lot of stuff goes unreported because of the awkwardness of having to report via browser.
That's fine, because it would be like 10,000% easier to process these reports. I wouldn't even have to "decide" on punishments or anything, it would all just be automated. I could process reports in like 30 seconds each, instead of.. god knows how long.. sometimes hours.
If lots more reports were being made, but lots more reports were being quickly acted-on, I think that alone could result in a much improved average player experience, and reduced toxicity.
Ok. My post was terrible, long, rambling, and incoherent. At least I'm trying to contribute ideas and have a discussion.
Don't sweat it. I mean, this is currently a community with a default-to-angst, which is why we're here, talking about this. Yes, your stuff was a little rambly, but I took it all positively and thought it was productive. That's definitely net-positive.
No, I didn't take what you wrote in that way. Understand, the things I write can't be entirely to one person, I have to respond not just to you, but to everyone else who also expressed variants of what you're saying, or what I'm tangentially addressing through an issue you raised.
This leads to my making points that may seem to be unrelated to what you asked, or stated, because I have to try to condense everything together, to hopefully do the most good in reaching the most readers. I often have to "speak to the issue", rather than the individual.
/ignore "Roda Slane" or don't. We could have more versatile commands, but this command will get the job done.
I wish that were the case, and I used to be the one saying "just use /ignore" but it has proven to be insufficient. Basically, even when people individually ignore those they find annoying, there tends to be a chaotic engagement of 100 overall that's still chatting with (or about) the toxic individual. So, instead of seeing the irritating person, you just see all the blowback from their toxicity.
This then leads to people choosing to permanently leave 100. And people permenently leaving 100 is Bad For The Game. It's bad for the overall community. It just is bad.
Ignore also doesn't solve the issue with large influxes of newbies, gaining a bad impression of the game because of a few toxic individuals. Seeing other people chatting (politely) is one of the biggest things that keeps newbies sticking around, and gives them the sense of a greater universe and community. The only real way to address it is to try and improve 1/100 as a whole.
perhaps something like /bug command ... @Look no hands regarding /bug
Just an FYI guys, I was talking about the "/report" command when I was referencing everything in that paragraph. All of the intended report functionality would flow through such a mechanism.
Yes, we would definitely need to enable it from a UI-standpoint on mobile as well, I'm thinking something like long-pressing on a username in the "chat" PDA tab. It is something that could definitely be included in a tutorial at some point. Short-term though, we might just implement the command, to see how it works.
Well, I've only played since 2008, and I would definitely say from my perspective that the overall level of toxicity in in game chat has remained pretty goddamn steady.
Honestly, I think you've become a bit jaded. I mean, I know I certainly suffer from that too, but if you just independently look back at the 2017 threads I referenced in the OP, there are a lot of veteran players talking about things being different in years past. I don't think that's all "rose colored memories". I've definitely had a lot of 1-on-1 tickets to this effect as well.
So, I don't think it's just my memory implying that 100 used to be a happier, friendlier place, at least 2002-2012. There were always Lecters and Tumblemonsters, but I think the "standard" was a good bit higher in general.
+1 to in game reporting, but be prepared for a 100%-200% increase in reports. A lot of stuff goes unreported because of the awkwardness of having to report via browser.
That's fine, because it would be like 10,000% easier to process these reports. I wouldn't even have to "decide" on punishments or anything, it would all just be automated. I could process reports in like 30 seconds each, instead of.. god knows how long.. sometimes hours.
If lots more reports were being made, but lots more reports were being quickly acted-on, I think that alone could result in a much improved average player experience, and reduced toxicity.
Ok. My post was terrible, long, rambling, and incoherent. At least I'm trying to contribute ideas and have a discussion.
Don't sweat it. I mean, this is currently a community with a default-to-angst, which is why we're here, talking about this. Yes, your stuff was a little rambly, but I took it all positively and thought it was productive. That's definitely net-positive.
Why don't those vets just fuck off and play something else?
Sad thing is, there isn't anything else. Game devs seemed to stop making decent spacey twitch style games around the time EnB died.
Sad thing is, there isn't anything else. Game devs seemed to stop making decent spacey twitch style games around the time EnB died.
/leave 100 is not really a good option for everyone.
I think that the chat should just be deconstructed into simple chats. Remove chat numbers, and introduce various chats such as "Help", "Trade", "PvP", "PvE, "RP", "Guild recruitment", respective nation chats etc. as public chats. Normal group, sector, guild and system chats stay the same.
New players are automatically added to the help and nation chats. People can opt in and out out of chats at their convenience.
It allows people with similar interests to group up easily, and avoid people whom they don't want to interact with, without having to completely give up on chat. So if a person wants to trash talk someone about killing him, it doesn't affect people who just want to find a partner to PvE or trade with.
People are less likely to go on rants or spew toxic stuff on a chat that is clearly indicated as a "help" or "trade" chat. If they do, it'd be easy for people to direct the devs as to where the stuff was said.
It also allows chat to not get messy and congested with people talking about completely different stuff.
I think that the chat should just be deconstructed into simple chats. Remove chat numbers, and introduce various chats such as "Help", "Trade", "PvP", "PvE, "RP", "Guild recruitment", respective nation chats etc. as public chats. Normal group, sector, guild and system chats stay the same.
New players are automatically added to the help and nation chats. People can opt in and out out of chats at their convenience.
It allows people with similar interests to group up easily, and avoid people whom they don't want to interact with, without having to completely give up on chat. So if a person wants to trash talk someone about killing him, it doesn't affect people who just want to find a partner to PvE or trade with.
People are less likely to go on rants or spew toxic stuff on a chat that is clearly indicated as a "help" or "trade" chat. If they do, it'd be easy for people to direct the devs as to where the stuff was said.
It also allows chat to not get messy and congested with people talking about completely different stuff.
Hello there, Remen!
[WANG] member "boundry condition" here. I am sorry I attacked your posting in 100 yesterday, I saw you were on and was sort of hoping you would respond and I could go on a long rant about why guild leaders are (in my opinion) the least likely people to positively influence the chat. Unfortunately, you weren't around, so I missed my opportunity to sway your opinion.
The reason I didn't respond in this thread was because I didn't think any of what I had to say about guilds, guild leaders or your posting style was that relevant to the actual topic at hand.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I didn't want to see your posting. In fact, in my view, the self-censoring that is happening is one of the reasons that chat has gotten worse. People (me) see things like quotes from alt-right grifter Jordan Peterson*, or self-congratulatory ramblings from people that can't even post in this thread for themselves, and they (I) go "eh, what's the point." Meanwhile, the Mi5s and the Heinies of the game see their positions as strengthening, since no-one bothers responding to them any more. General chat volume dies down, while "toxic" chat volume stays the same, driving the average towards the "neo-nazi recruitment forums" we see today.
Except, of course, there is a point in posting, even if your (my) posting gets made fun of, or edited into oblivion. That point is to, at the very least, show other potential posters that there is a diversity of opinions, and maybe encourage them to post their own.
I guess my general point is: if you see yourself as a paragon of virtuous posting faced with a horde of bad posters, you should post more not less.
* I am somewhat baffled why someone would try to use an anti-PC troll's words to advocate for creating your own safe space through liberal use of /ignore.
PS:
Real quick responses:
Still love the /report plan, sharpen those guillotines.
/ignore is a bad way to control your own level of outrage, you end up bubbling yourself into your own little reality. Try deep breaths whenever you feel threatened by a feminist instead.
Greenwall is clearly wrong about the chat trend. [Genka, your linking people's names to discussions of "being assholes" are basically personal attacks. If you intend some greater discussion of self-perspective, maybe don't personally link someone else's name to the video -I]
I like Aryko's idea of naming chat channels, but in addition to the numbers not instead of numbers. "/join Guild recruitment" is a UX nightmare compared to "/join 34". Also, I'm not sure it would actually change the tone in those channels any.
[WANG] member "boundry condition" here. I am sorry I attacked your posting in 100 yesterday, I saw you were on and was sort of hoping you would respond and I could go on a long rant about why guild leaders are (in my opinion) the least likely people to positively influence the chat. Unfortunately, you weren't around, so I missed my opportunity to sway your opinion.
The reason I didn't respond in this thread was because I didn't think any of what I had to say about guilds, guild leaders or your posting style was that relevant to the actual topic at hand.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I didn't want to see your posting. In fact, in my view, the self-censoring that is happening is one of the reasons that chat has gotten worse. People (me) see things like quotes from alt-right grifter Jordan Peterson*, or self-congratulatory ramblings from people that can't even post in this thread for themselves, and they (I) go "eh, what's the point." Meanwhile, the Mi5s and the Heinies of the game see their positions as strengthening, since no-one bothers responding to them any more. General chat volume dies down, while "toxic" chat volume stays the same, driving the average towards the "neo-nazi recruitment forums" we see today.
Except, of course, there is a point in posting, even if your (my) posting gets made fun of, or edited into oblivion. That point is to, at the very least, show other potential posters that there is a diversity of opinions, and maybe encourage them to post their own.
I guess my general point is: if you see yourself as a paragon of virtuous posting faced with a horde of bad posters, you should post more not less.
* I am somewhat baffled why someone would try to use an anti-PC troll's words to advocate for creating your own safe space through liberal use of /ignore.
PS:
Real quick responses:
Still love the /report plan, sharpen those guillotines.
/ignore is a bad way to control your own level of outrage, you end up bubbling yourself into your own little reality. Try deep breaths whenever you feel threatened by a feminist instead.
Greenwall is clearly wrong about the chat trend. [Genka, your linking people's names to discussions of "being assholes" are basically personal attacks. If you intend some greater discussion of self-perspective, maybe don't personally link someone else's name to the video -I]
I like Aryko's idea of naming chat channels, but in addition to the numbers not instead of numbers. "/join Guild recruitment" is a UX nightmare compared to "/join 34". Also, I'm not sure it would actually change the tone in those channels any.
There were always Lecters and Tumblemonsters
Yes there were. And there were other people of epic toxic output capacity who I'd also love to name but am prohibited from doing so according to your forum rules.
Of course I'm jaded. That doesn't mean I can't remember things accurately. I think I speak for a significant amount of long term players who have either been banned or lost concern with the game when I say that you don't find things to be a problem until they bubble their drama into your sphere of operation - which is to say a lot of stuff goes on without you knowing -- chat wise, at least. This proposed in game reporting will help with that vastly.
*waits patiently to see how long it takes moderators to remove the ironic subtle trolling against me that *unnamed person* just leveled in this thread*
Yes there were. And there were other people of epic toxic output capacity who I'd also love to name but am prohibited from doing so according to your forum rules.
Of course I'm jaded. That doesn't mean I can't remember things accurately. I think I speak for a significant amount of long term players who have either been banned or lost concern with the game when I say that you don't find things to be a problem until they bubble their drama into your sphere of operation - which is to say a lot of stuff goes on without you knowing -- chat wise, at least. This proposed in game reporting will help with that vastly.
*waits patiently to see how long it takes moderators to remove the ironic subtle trolling against me that *unnamed person* just leveled in this thread*
Ah yes, the good old "pretend to misread the post above to get some self-righteous indignation going" move. Classic.
Just so there's no confusion, and to save anyone else the effort of clicking the "greenwall" link in my previous post, let me spell out my "subtle" trolling for you:
The reason you, Greenwall, haven't seen the chat drift over the last decade is that for you, it really hasn't, since every conversation you are part of already includes you in it.
Also, I think I'm coming around on the idea of using guild leaders as a lever to moderate chat. Having one person in your guild muted is apparently disruptive already, but I imagine the pressure to behave would only grow if repeat offenders risked having the guild leaders, or their entire guild muted.
Just so there's no confusion, and to save anyone else the effort of clicking the "greenwall" link in my previous post, let me spell out my "subtle" trolling for you:
The reason you, Greenwall, haven't seen the chat drift over the last decade is that for you, it really hasn't, since every conversation you are part of already includes you in it.
Also, I think I'm coming around on the idea of using guild leaders as a lever to moderate chat. Having one person in your guild muted is apparently disruptive already, but I imagine the pressure to behave would only grow if repeat offenders risked having the guild leaders, or their entire guild muted.
It’s like you know when to post when moderators aren’t around
Genka, you can't seem to drop the personal thing, so you've been thread-muted, as it's unproductive to the overall discussion thread.
Greenwall, all I said was that you (and I) both are a bit jaded, but that a lot of other people have independently commented that chat has become more toxic in recent years. I was not trying to personally attack you. Community feedback is why the thread that started this was created, back in 2017. I've probably heard from 3-dozen long-term vets, over the last couple of years, claiming that chat on 100 is considerably worse than it used to be. I'm inclined to believe them.
But, really, it doesn't matter, because we're just going to forge ahead and try to make things better. Maybe it was just as bad in 2005? Who cares? It's terrible, let's improve it.
It was also not my intention to create some appearance of rule-hypocrisy by mentioning Lecter and Tumblemonster by name.. they've both been removed from our community, so I thought they were reasonable examples of the past, but I'll avoid that in the future.
But, seriously Greenwall, your own passive-aggressive, sarcastic "EPIC MMORPG" stuff on 100 is also not helpful.
To Recap What we're Actually Supposed to Be Discussing:
1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only.
2) Replace "vote mute" functionality, with "/report" functionality. This is also basically an in-game ticket and bug report submission system. "Vote Muting" for reasons like "Spam" can still happen, but are much less likely to be abused by the userbase, due to the design of the system. See the first post on this thread for details.
3) New permanent muting status for Public Channels, for people who can't seem to be nice on 100 and 1, but haven't been banned entirely.
4) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Public Game Channels, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
A few points that people have raised:
- Perhaps some kind of system that eventually says that your "report" led to administrative action, a-la Phaserlight's comment about CounterStrike. I think that's interesting, I've always been concerned it would lead to more "baiting and mocking" behaviour, as the "report-er" would then go after the "report-ed" in-game to make fun of them for having action taken against them. But, I guess if that is, itself, reportable behaviour, then they might just be reported themselves.
Umm, perhaps some other points that I have to go back and re-read the thread to condense here.
From now on, please just discuss the specific points of the topic. I'm not really interested in further personal banter, or axes to grind. We're just trying to make things better, through the implementation of the system above.
If the proposed system is bad, or should be tweaked, then how should we improve it? Please be specific, in your feedback?
Greenwall, all I said was that you (and I) both are a bit jaded, but that a lot of other people have independently commented that chat has become more toxic in recent years. I was not trying to personally attack you. Community feedback is why the thread that started this was created, back in 2017. I've probably heard from 3-dozen long-term vets, over the last couple of years, claiming that chat on 100 is considerably worse than it used to be. I'm inclined to believe them.
But, really, it doesn't matter, because we're just going to forge ahead and try to make things better. Maybe it was just as bad in 2005? Who cares? It's terrible, let's improve it.
It was also not my intention to create some appearance of rule-hypocrisy by mentioning Lecter and Tumblemonster by name.. they've both been removed from our community, so I thought they were reasonable examples of the past, but I'll avoid that in the future.
But, seriously Greenwall, your own passive-aggressive, sarcastic "EPIC MMORPG" stuff on 100 is also not helpful.
To Recap What we're Actually Supposed to Be Discussing:
1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only.
2) Replace "vote mute" functionality, with "/report" functionality. This is also basically an in-game ticket and bug report submission system. "Vote Muting" for reasons like "Spam" can still happen, but are much less likely to be abused by the userbase, due to the design of the system. See the first post on this thread for details.
3) New permanent muting status for Public Channels, for people who can't seem to be nice on 100 and 1, but haven't been banned entirely.
4) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Public Game Channels, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
A few points that people have raised:
- Perhaps some kind of system that eventually says that your "report" led to administrative action, a-la Phaserlight's comment about CounterStrike. I think that's interesting, I've always been concerned it would lead to more "baiting and mocking" behaviour, as the "report-er" would then go after the "report-ed" in-game to make fun of them for having action taken against them. But, I guess if that is, itself, reportable behaviour, then they might just be reported themselves.
Umm, perhaps some other points that I have to go back and re-read the thread to condense here.
From now on, please just discuss the specific points of the topic. I'm not really interested in further personal banter, or axes to grind. We're just trying to make things better, through the implementation of the system above.
If the proposed system is bad, or should be tweaked, then how should we improve it? Please be specific, in your feedback?
1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only.
This is too heavy handed. Perhaps this is just my personal taste, but I like being able to talk about whatever in a public/general chat. If this were to be implemented, I imagine a new version of 100 would be created and everyone else would just talk there. Feels like over-organizing.
2) Replace "vote mute" functionality, with "/report" functionality. This is also basically an in-game ticket and bug report submission system. "Vote Muting" for reasons like "Spam" can still happen, but are much less likely to be abused by the userbase, due to the design of the system. See the first post on this thread for details.
In game reporting is a great idea, but via command line is not. Build a UI tab.
3) New permanent muting status for Public Channels, for people who can't seem to be nice on 100 and 1, but haven't been banned entirely.
Ban them from the game. None of this half-ass "you can play just not talk" crap. This kind of thing is just an open invite to find ways to circumvent it.
4) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Public Game Channels, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
I disagree with this, but I also recognize that I'm part of a likely smaller demographic that cares about/enjoys/doesn't mind RL political (or any RL matter) banter. If it truly benefits the majority of the playerbase to have this kind of stuff tamped down then... so be it.
- Perhaps some kind of system that eventually says that your "report" led to administrative action
Why is it so difficult to understand that if no change is perceived by the reporter, particularly if the reported incident persists, frustration ensues? This is a no brainer. Wouldn't you rather get a follow up report saying "it seems like whatever action you took wasn't effective because it's still happening" rather than some angry curse-laden rage report about being ignored? If people feel heard they are less likely to rage.
Making it easier to facilitate and respond to reporting in the client itself will be VERY helpful. I would also suggest putting some brief disclaimer about response times (shorter than is on the web version), highlighting that you make your best effort to look into things as quickly as time allows you.
This is too heavy handed. Perhaps this is just my personal taste, but I like being able to talk about whatever in a public/general chat. If this were to be implemented, I imagine a new version of 100 would be created and everyone else would just talk there. Feels like over-organizing.
2) Replace "vote mute" functionality, with "/report" functionality. This is also basically an in-game ticket and bug report submission system. "Vote Muting" for reasons like "Spam" can still happen, but are much less likely to be abused by the userbase, due to the design of the system. See the first post on this thread for details.
In game reporting is a great idea, but via command line is not. Build a UI tab.
3) New permanent muting status for Public Channels, for people who can't seem to be nice on 100 and 1, but haven't been banned entirely.
Ban them from the game. None of this half-ass "you can play just not talk" crap. This kind of thing is just an open invite to find ways to circumvent it.
4) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Public Game Channels, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
I disagree with this, but I also recognize that I'm part of a likely smaller demographic that cares about/enjoys/doesn't mind RL political (or any RL matter) banter. If it truly benefits the majority of the playerbase to have this kind of stuff tamped down then... so be it.
- Perhaps some kind of system that eventually says that your "report" led to administrative action
Why is it so difficult to understand that if no change is perceived by the reporter, particularly if the reported incident persists, frustration ensues? This is a no brainer. Wouldn't you rather get a follow up report saying "it seems like whatever action you took wasn't effective because it's still happening" rather than some angry curse-laden rage report about being ignored? If people feel heard they are less likely to rage.
Making it easier to facilitate and respond to reporting in the client itself will be VERY helpful. I would also suggest putting some brief disclaimer about response times (shorter than is on the web version), highlighting that you make your best effort to look into things as quickly as time allows you.
"1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only.
This is too heavy handed. Perhaps this is just my personal taste, but I like being able to talk about whatever in a public/general chat. If this were to be implemented, I imagine a new version of 100 would be created and everyone else would just talk there. Feels like over-organizing."
I have to agree with greenwall on this for the time being at least. If/when the activity level of the game increases, it may THEN be necessary to limit 100 to game related chat.
As it currently stands I do not see 100 being overrun with multiple concurrent conversations on multiple discrete topics to a degree that it becomes hard to follow. There are at times plenty of off topic, but interesting conversations on 100 on topics as wide ranging as cars, physics, food, etc. The current activity level on 100 seems low enough for the time being that there appears no need to segregate it into separate channels.
This is too heavy handed. Perhaps this is just my personal taste, but I like being able to talk about whatever in a public/general chat. If this were to be implemented, I imagine a new version of 100 would be created and everyone else would just talk there. Feels like over-organizing."
I have to agree with greenwall on this for the time being at least. If/when the activity level of the game increases, it may THEN be necessary to limit 100 to game related chat.
As it currently stands I do not see 100 being overrun with multiple concurrent conversations on multiple discrete topics to a degree that it becomes hard to follow. There are at times plenty of off topic, but interesting conversations on 100 on topics as wide ranging as cars, physics, food, etc. The current activity level on 100 seems low enough for the time being that there appears no need to segregate it into separate channels.