AFK

2

Comments

  • DraimanDraiman Dr. Drai Member Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Btw, I agree with @Kerryn to an extent. I don't see this fixing the issue, I'm mainly laughing/mad at the threats of quitting if your name turns gray for being afk. God damn that's so silly.
    "You ever been divided by zero?" Nia asks you with a squint.



  • TrikalTrikal Member Posts: 160 ✭✭✭
    Don't worry guys, I'll just start shouting about the folks who regularly afk, and let you know when they're snoozing based on not responding to tells. We just need a shoutsfull command so you can check the history of my shouts to know who's been afk recently. No need for grey names, and everyone can keep their peace of mind knowing that afking is fine, and also knowing that the whole world knows that they're just "resting their eyes." Us players can fix the situation!
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Draiman said:

    Btw, I agree with @Kerryn to an extent. I don't see this fixing the issue, I'm mainly laughing/mad at the threats of quitting if your name turns gray for being afk. God damn that's so silly.

    The only thing I want really is just "now I don't have to feel like an idiot talking to what might as well be an NPC right now". Or at least, LESS of that.

    EDIT: to be perfectly clear I am not even remotely trying to stop/punish people for AFK-ing. I just don't want to be the idiot who tries to talk to them and then twiddles my thumbs wondering if they are actually AFK or thinking "haha, Jules, screw her. She probably just wants to talk about her tinfoil hat collection" :(
    AtrapoemaXandren
  • IlyonIlyon Member Posts: 746 ✭✭✭
    I guess people are worried about the potential slippery slope? Today your name is gray, tomorrow it's something more?

    Anyway, I'd just turn that flag on permanently regardless on whether I'm actually there or not. Easier than dealing with the inevitable flood of complaints about how I didn't reply to someone despite not being idle-flagged.

  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    You don't "turn on" this flag. It just turns itself on when you are idle. It is different than you are thinking.

    Many of the things that people currently do to keep from being logged off could probably still serve to keep you from being logged off, but a lot of them wouldn't make you not "idle". That seems better than super generous timeouts, or indefinite ones, just because your char could end up in limbo uh, indefinitely if you do DC.

    Someone -could- still override the flag and make themselves look "active" all the time, and that is fine, whatever. Go for it. The flag still serves its purpose regardless of what you do. Because the flag has one purpose, and one purpose only, and that purpose is to convey "I am probably not actually here right now" or "I AM probably right here now, and if I don't answer, there's an awfully good chance I just don't want to talk to you".

    It is not an attempt to modify YOUR behavior in any way. It is purely to help the guy talking to you make a quicker assessment about whether that is actually worth his time - and actually, whether he might be truly bothering you. This kind of works both ways. At the more extreme end of the scale, it also makes it harder to play dumb if I am truly harassing you.
  • RasharRashar Member Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Except just because I'm gray doesn't mean I'm not 2 feet away watching tv or reading. But now I have people complaining that I'm always afk (gray) and noobs don't bother trying to talk to me because I don't have a complicated not-really-afk-system.

    I just don't think it's that bad. And like Ilyon said, it's a slippery slope. It's already been suggested that you lose comms, lose comms in Havens, or that afking be made against the rules. I can't stress enough that these are bad ideas.

    I don't think we're threatening to quit for being made gray, @draiman. That's not an accurate assessment.
    Erzsebet
  • AtrapoemaAtrapoema Member Posts: 248 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Why are they bad ideas? Someone feel free to elaborate.
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    It really is starting to feel like some people want the whole cake and eat it. If you want to watch TV or read, the WORST thing that is going to happen is that people are going to see you're maybe not fully there at the moment. It is not a punishment! It is a subtle indicator to make things easier for people.

    Some of the other comments are the more classic, "punitive" approach, yes. And that is why I like the gray thing.
  • RasharRashar Member Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Because if you take away the ability to semi-idle until something interesting pops up, people are going to have to make a decision. And for most, that decision is going to be 'go with this thing that is interesting right now' vs 'I have to sit here behind my computer and watch this screen'

    That means a smaller who list. It means less people around to respond to events. It means I'm less invested because when I log on and hear about this thing that's happening, it's not nearly as interesting as it would be if I were involved from the beginning. It means people are going to gradually have less and less reason to log on. Less and less interest.

    To clarify, I don't really feel that emphatic one way or the other on the gray thing. I don't personally feel like it's going to change all that much and so, is probably not worth having the paid staff code over other things.

    What I'm talking about are the more restrictive things I mentioned above, which inevitably get thrown out every time this discussion comes up.
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    You can still idle to your heart's content... I don't know how to make that clearer. YOU CAN STILL IDLE (it always works if you say it louder).

    The only difference is that the poor schmuck who just tried to talk to you (not necessarily YOU, but to someone) doesn't have to twiddle his thumbs wondering if you are AFK or just ignoring the hell out of him.

    EDIT: I think the slippery slope thing doesn't fly here. I mean, people can throw those more punitive things out there, but the reality is that a lot of IRE's players are in their prime working years (thank god, some of them were unicorns insufferable when they were teenagers with seemingly unlimited time) and I think people get that there needs to be some wiggle room for people to play as they are able. But the point of the gray thing is actually that it DOES make very little difference to the idler. It is purely to help the person who might interact with him. Although really, most idlers actually benefit too, for reasons I covered in other posts.
  • RasharRashar Member Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I feel like @jules is arguing with the first sentence typed by anyone in opposition, without actually reading the entirety of their post.
    Erzsebet
  • JensenJensen Corruption's Butcher Member Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I remember getting kicked from game and an admin warning for trying to idle overnight back when that wasn't allowed.  You were either at your computer or you weren't, it was that simple.  That seems more preferable to me than having a zombie who list
    image
    AtrapoemaEmelle
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Rashar said:

    I feel like @jules is arguing with the first sentence typed by anyone in opposition, without actually reading the entirety of their post.

    You didn't clarify that you were responding to older posts until your third paragraph. I did catch it though, and responded in kind (before you made this post).

    And I mean, I've had to repeat several times that the flag isn't player activated, for example.

    EDIT: we can talk about this all we want, but I feel like now would be a nice time for admin to give some kind of read on whether they'd ever consider doing it. Please?
  • EmelleEmelle Dreamshaper Tecpatl's CradleMember Posts: 712 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    I said this in the original thread, but I think it's worth restating here: I far prefer an apparently small playerbase that's consistently active when I log in over a falsely inflated list of lots of people who are idling. It helps me quickly judge whether my time investment is going to have any payoff.

    I'm not suggesting people be punished for idling or that we have a zero-tolerance policy for it -- stuff does happen. But, having played other games that have a similar mechanic, I feel it really helped the playerbase, as well as created a culture where it was generally expected that you were at your keyboard most of the time.

    Overall, this is a question of game culture. Instead of waiting around for something to happen, you either invest and find/create something or you log off. Simple.


    ETA: I think said culture is good for the game and for players, too, because you don't get people logging in and half-assing it out of a feeling of obligation or something. It can help head off burnout and make people really be selective about how they're going to spend their time IG (and OOG, too).
    Post edited by Emelle on
    DraimanHavenXandrenAtrapoema
  • ZsadistZsadist Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    While the 'gray out idler X' is a great idea... think about how many people this is going to affect. Newbie retention is already somewhat difficult because we're a niche game. Hell, we have hard enough times making Top 10 on TopMUDSites just to bring in more people from other games. If you made a newbie and then cityhopped 4 times because you're looking for a super active city, but can't because 1/2 to 3/4 of the city is 'afk gray' then the newbie just gonna go, "unicorns this game. Everyone idles." (Not that they don't exactly do that now.)

    The graying feature is nice, but unrealistic to player retention. Nobody new wants to play a game where pretty much every other person is idle/afk and if you can visibily SEE that, then it just makes it clearer how dead the game truly is. We get everyone hates being ignored, but that's what MESSAGES are for.... or patience.
    (Oasis): Benedicto says, "There was like 0.5 seconds between "Oh hey, they're in area. That was quick." and "OMFG THEY'RE IN THE AREA STAHP STAHP!""


  • AtrapoemaAtrapoema Member Posts: 248 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    How is that any worse than what we have now, where new players are being introduced to the game by being ignored? And are left to guess as to why, to boot.
  • ZsadistZsadist Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    Answer you're probably looking for: Its not.

    The graying of names does nothing more for the game now, than not graying names does. All it is, would be an 'ease of life' thing for people who are impatient and don't want to wait to talk to someone and want everything RIGHT NOW.
    (Oasis): Benedicto says, "There was like 0.5 seconds between "Oh hey, they're in area. That was quick." and "OMFG THEY'RE IN THE AREA STAHP STAHP!""


  • AtrapoemaAtrapoema Member Posts: 248 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    It's not about RIGHT NOW, it's about showing people that they aren't being ignored, that the player they're trying to reach is simply AFK and that it has nothing to do with them. What's so difficult to understand about that?

    Edit:

    That means a smaller who list. It means less people around to respond to events. It means I'm less invested because when I log on and hear about this thing that's happening, it's not nearly as interesting as it would be if I were involved from the beginning. It means people are going to gradually have less and less reason to log on. Less and less interest.

    I just want to make it clear that admin are already starting events thinking people are around when they're not, which is leading to all of two people responding to said event. Like it or not, admin aren't checking if everyone's actually present before starting an event and the false, inflated numbers are leading them to believe they'll get a response currently. If we had something to denote AFK or even more accurate lists of people logged on and engaged, this wouldn't happen and events would start when more people are present. I'm not entirely sure how coming into the middle of the event dampers the fun, when it can easily be found out later through RP.

    Frankly, as Emelle's hinted at, I think some of you need to better prioritize your time in the game and what defines fun for you.
  • ZsadistZsadist Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    I personally don't give two shits if there's a flag or not, considering I log off when I'm not going to be playing or think I'll be afk for awhile. I just don't see how this afk flag will be of any benefit to the game beyond just a measure of placing a number on how many idlers we have in the game at any point in time.

    Because in the end, that's all that it is.
    (Oasis): Benedicto says, "There was like 0.5 seconds between "Oh hey, they're in area. That was quick." and "OMFG THEY'RE IN THE AREA STAHP STAHP!""


  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Lin said:

    This is astounding. I literally cannot believe that a simple AFK flag is an item of such controversy.

    I can. I mean, once you are seriously making a suggestion (even a seemingly innocuous one, that someone else came up with, that quite a few people seemed to like), you'd better buckle in. I am more surprised some other people are as bemused as I always am, heh.

    And I mean, I don't bring something like this up unless it addresses something that really bothers me. If people want to AFK fine. People have various reasons for it. Some pretty valid, some pretty sketchy, but I actually don't want to be in charge of bothering with who has a "good" excuse, and who doesn't.

    I just want it to be not my problem. And right now, it so is. In so many ways. I can go into more depth if it comes to it, but being the guy who is pretty reliably NOT AFK in a game like this is basically the "sucker" position.

    So, I want to be able to realize relatively quickly if I am surrounded by zombies - and sometimes, I might leave if that is the case. And I realize that is a sort of scary thought at first glance (albeit a goddamn selfish one, too). But not as scary as how pissed off and totally done with things people will be if you repeatedly force them to come to the slow, sinking realization that they've been suckered into yet another round of zombie time.

    So Zsadist, you're the kind of guy who benefits from this, because it sounds like your tendency is to head out if you're not at least somewhat engaged with what's going on.
    Post edited by Jules on
    Atrapoema
  • ErzsebetErzsebet Member Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Appearing afk and being afk are two separate things. I'm usually at my keyboard (and if I'm not, I've no objection to a flag colouring me whatever colour) and I have a problem being coloured grey if I'm idly wandering the internet or watching netflix or whatever because I'm also still paying attention to Aet. I'm just being lazy and waiting for someone else I want to engage with to show up instead of actively seeking out new people. And they won't if I'm greyed out. I can see and quickly respond to tells/channels/etc, because I have my windows layered so as to make the aet stuff easily seen no matter what else I'm doing.

    Also, sort of barely related, but for those of us who use nightsight, everyone is already grey during the night part of any aetolian day.
    imageimage
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    Do you mean greyed out on the website? I don't think that would be the plan. That IS a bad idea.
  • TrikalTrikal Member Posts: 160 ✭✭✭
    @Erzsebet I think you mean the config daynight not nightsight, that's a standard defense for being able to see anything at all when it's dark.
    Erzsebet
  • SeirSeir Seein' All the Things Getting high off your emotionMember Posts: 992 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm kind of surprised that an AFK flag is such a contentious issue. I intentionally got hidden for my initial haven room and phase so that I'd be removed from every list out there so that, when I'm just lurking, no one inadvertently sends me a tell or anything and thinks I'm ignoring them because I'm playing elsewhere. I generally feel pretty awful when I come back and see that someone sent me something and I didn't respond.
    Jules
  • SaritaSarita Empress of Bahir'an The Pillars of the EarthMember Posts: 807 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I use entomb for the same reason. I can't see everything on clans, but deathsights, housetells, shouts, and some other things still go through. I think even if you're in a haven's hidden room, you might still show up on org who lists. I do feel bad if I used entomb and the movement got interrupted, and I didn't notice before leaving though, or if I do something dumb like sit on the floor to play with a cat and fall asleep.
    Irae
  • ErzsebetErzsebet Member Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Trikal said:

    @Erzsebet I think you mean the config daynight not nightsight, that's a standard defense for being able to see anything at all when it's dark.

    This, yes. Sorry, sleep deprivation. Did mean daynight.
    Haven said:

    Takes the guessing out of potential contacts and RP opportunities.

    This is why I object to being greyed out when I'm not completely afk. I am still a potential contact/RP opportunity. I can and do turn off netflix etc when Aet decides to be interesting. If someone sends me a tell or shows up and starts RPing with me, I'm at my keyboard and can and do reply to such things. It's just a matter of not being involved in something 100% of the time I'm online. Until someone engages me, or someone shows up that I want to engage, I'd be greyed out because I'm not doing anything but waiting for one of those two things to happen, which would take me off the list of people someone might decide to engage.

    And that right there is why I'm one of the people who would make a trigger and just toggle it on or off based on whether I'm actually afk or not.
    imageimage
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    I'd like to talk a little bit more about what this might look like in practice, even though it's a super simple idea at its core.

    Review of basic idea: the gray "idle" color shows up on CWHO, GWHO, OWHO, WHO, WEB MEMBERS and uh... any other lists I might not think of. Gray color does NOT show up on website who listing. Might need to consider how this color would interact with other in-game coloration options, but for now, we're saying gray.


    Okay, so if the system flags you as a zombie unless you are constantly chattering/RP-ing like a worker bee at the activity widget factory, that is bad. People will start opting out of the system for sure - even people who really like the idea will do that. So it probably needs to make you gray somewhere between 5-10 minutes of idling, but make it easy for a player who is pretty much "all there" to meet the "active" criteria.

    Tentative list of the sort of things that would reset you as "awake": aggressive actions, movement, emoting, reading help files, LOOKING, checking inventory, probing items, using a shop directory, shopping, checking who lists, farseeing people, NSTAT, reading news, talking in says, tells or on any channel, calling, dismissing, or ordering loyals, checking logs, checking channel histories

    Notice that several of those are things that nearly all of us do compulsively anyway (who doesn't do the old QL, NSTAT, cwho)

    Things that would reset your "don't log me out timer" only: putting up/taking down/changing defs, healing

    Also, it's super important that the flag be tied to NOTHING else. EVER. For example, it could be tempting to say "let's tie house rankings to this because it's a better gauge of activity". That is a very, very bad idea that could look like a good idea.

    Because the second you do something like that is the second you are going to see more people make a keep awake specifically to avoid the gray flag (and boost whatever number, get whatever perk).

    We'd see some automatic keep awakes anyway, going by some people's reactions, and "some" is okay. You can still look at those people and take their "I am here" at face value. All it really means is that if they don't answer, and you give them another shot a bit later, you can and should take it as them not wanting to talk to you - instead of wondering if it is that, or if they are AFK, and having to give them more chances later, and making sure you wait long enough to do so... and wondering if you're being super bothersome the entire time.

    It does become more problematic if a truly large chunk of players use a "no gray flag ever" thing, but are in fact zombified despite their lack of grayness. I am not super worried about it coming to that, though, because it feels like there is enough buy in, and then there would be a lot of people who just won't care either way.

    Finally, if this thing went in I would be gray sometimes. I mean, I think most of us would, unless we game it. And I actually like that idea, because I probably went to go make myself a cup of coffee or something. Or I am tinkering with something, and despite the gray silence you see, I am probably yelling at the computer (and also completely task-saturated).

    EDIT: removed "manual basher" stuff, which I only brought up very tentatively because I thought it might be more convenient for everyone
    Post edited by Jules on
  • ElyniElyni New ZealandMember Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
    I got an even better idea... Let's just make havens remove you from QWHO/CWHO/GWHO by default, like Lusternia manses do. (without needing to pay haven points to do it). For all else, just deal with the fact some people have to AFK/AFGame from time to time, like we have since the game's inception.
    Trikal
Sign In or Register to comment.