• JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    I don't care if you AFK. I just don't want to be the idiot that talks to someone who isn't even there. Lots of people don't.
  • TrikalTrikal Member Posts: 160 ✭✭✭
    Elyni said:

    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.

    I support this, if you're in your haven you're doing fuckall to interact with the majority of the population. If you're open to random RP encounter you're not hiding somewhere that makes that impossible. If you want to RP in your haven with someone else that's one thing, but you're not really available to RP with general population so not seeing you as available seems good to me.
  • ZsadistZsadist Member Posts: 815 ✭✭✭✭
    Jules said:

    Bashing and movement? What? Some people chatter away while bashing anyway (which would keep you non-gray), but most of those people have some kind of decent basher - because otherwise it is hard to do both!. So, if you don't count bashing as "active" a manual basher like me is probably going to gray out fairly often, and I am okay with that. In effect, it would mark manual bashers (or just very quiet ones) as "a bit task-saturated". This doesn't have to be JUST an AFK flag is what I am getting at. of course, that would not relieve people of the responsibility to not AFK bash, but I am just saying, a truly manual basher is probably not the best person to start an extended conversation with, so letting us "gray out" by not counting bashing as an "active" action might be best for everyone. I rarely bash though, and I am already Azudim, so I won't fight too hard if this part is horribly misunderstood (which it might be) or if people just hate it...

    Um... What? Are you unicorns serious? You want to mark someone's who bashing with the gray marker because they are actively doing something else OTHER than RP?? I don't know what kind of basher you are, but I can manually bash AND talk at the same time, its not hard. This idea right here sounds like more of a punishment to others who are actually DOING something and is a terrible unicorns idea.

    Speaking as one of the primary bashers in the game (we all know it), I will sit and bash all day and rarely ever do any of the inventory checks, org checks, or anything because I don't feel the need to. However, I still have people reach out to me for conversation, questions, and general chit chat because most people know I'm there actively. Now if I'm marked with a gray marker because I'm bashing, then people will think I'm afk or "task-saturated" and they aren't going to contact me for anything. That's self destructive to the game and overall communication between players.

    You've taken this idea from a general AFK gray flag to the point of punishment because someone isn't throwing emotes every 3 minutes at someone.
    (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
    Zsadist, I am the world's worst RP-er, heh. In fact, if I am honest about it, I HATE RP (or certainly, I hate a lot of "serious" MUD RP) and have a pretty serious complex about it. If there is one thing that is definitely NOT happening, at least from my end, it is the intent to create some kind of RP snobbery thing. Just ask poor Xenia about my Carnifex novice interview... But yeah, the bashing thing -definitely- got misunderstood, at least between us... Just forget that part if it doesn't work for you.

    I mean, I am being completely honest and forthright when I am stating my reasons for wanting this - I just want the ability to figure out relatively quickly if half the people around me are WAY more into something on Netflix or w/e than the game and yeah, if that is happening, I am probably going to unicorns leave unless I am up for doing the whole single player thing (sometimes I am)... not sorry.

    EDIT: for me, as a manual basher, it is just pure spam and entering commands. I CAN talk to people, but I have to completely stop to do so, so extended conversations would mean I would totally stop bashing for the duration of the conversation, which is fine... but I have to admit, I actually don't totally get it when people say they are "manual" but can carry on a full conversation at the same time. I am missing something there. I mean, I guess I would need to be typing out my responses before I recover balance (or die). And I am just not fast enough :/ Or, manual has a broader definition. Like, all I have is an alias that makes sure I have my weapon wielded and executes my bashing attack. So I brought up the idea of letting people like me passively gray out VERY tentatively as part of a "this is what things might look like", just because it seemed like a unique case where graying might be more convenient for everyone.
    Post edited by Jules on
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight SchoolMember Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Erzsebet 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.
    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.
    I kind of get that... But I have to ask. How often are you randomly approached while idling versus you actively seeking people out? It seems to me that if you're that worried about missed RP opportunities that you would be an active seeker which this function would not apply to as opposed to "I'll just wait for people to come to me."

    I guess crafting could be a concern now that I think about it. But then again ultimately if someone wants RP then they should be seeking it one way or another. If you're the type of person who would rather it come to them... I dunno. That comes off as more that you wouldn't -mind- rp if it happens but aren't particularly interested in engaging or seeking. If that is the case then this flag wouldn't affect you much if at all. It's target is again the other players actively seeking something out. It is a useful tool to gauge expectation.

    We might have to agree to disagree though. Nonetheless, I don't see the idea happening anyway (or even the Haven one) if only because admin have other things to do.

    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
  • TragerTrager Raiding your underwear drawer.Member Posts: 574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think grey'd out markings, an afk flag, etc (call it whatever you wish) would be completely fine. Saves me the time having to find out I missed a tell or three overnight, and for when I MAY not get a response back.

    People are looking at the situation in too many layers of absolutes. You're grey'd out. Does this mean I'm not going to TRY and contact you? No. This means I'm not holding my breath for a response. I would rather see a small portion of the game with something that shows how active/inactive they may be at the time, than see none of those people at all.

    Barring that, this is what you might call something of a gateway event (drug?). I'm unsure what that whole pointless rundown on bashing was, but no. Just no, leave it be.
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's go-... Oh.

  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    The bashing thing should definitely be ignored, yes. There is something I am missing about what the average player means by "manual".

    EDIT: I love your long edit windows, I was able to remove the bashing stuff from that post, which should help prevent further derailing
  • ZailaZaila Pacific TimeMember Posts: 547 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think I've ever seen so much agreement on something Ingram's ever said.
  • DraimanDraiman Dr. Drai Member Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I disagreed in an attempt to bring balance back to this world.
    "You ever been divided by zero?" Nia asks you with a squint.

  • ElyniElyni New ZealandMember Posts: 147 ✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Ingram said:

    If someone's marked afk, and you need or want them, send a tell or leave a message. They respond when they get back or ignore you. If some newbie goes up to them, they know they're afk and probably won't get a response and it won't be a mystery why if they poke at them. Same for anyone who's not familiar with said person marked afk.

    Colour me confused or what have you, but I don't see why an indicator is necessary for this; the game is pretty much already like this, except without an indicator explicitly saying that. How would you even reasonably mark someone as AFK in a game like this?
    -They haven't said a word in (x) minutes? - I know plenty of people who rarely speak unless spoken to.
    -They haven't moved in (x) minutes? - I don't move/speak for long periods of time, even when I'm staring straight at my screen, not alt tabbed. Maybe I'm reading an IC book, help file or something.
    -------Heck, maybe I'm not AFK and just don't feel like talking.
    -They haven't sent a command? - I don't think anyone using source will ever get marked AFK, if this was the case.

    Reading this thread, I can't say I've really seen any good arguments in favour of adding this. I've yet to hear a real newbie actually voice negative concerns about people no answering them, most just put it off as them being busy, and they'd try again later. If you really need someone and they're AFK, wouldn't the logical thing be to send a message regardless?
    Post edited by Elyni on
  • CorynCoryn Spokane, WaMember Posts: 69 ✭✭✭
    How about, say, we have a command that marks us AFK? I mean, some of us usually set a pose, but if you wanna be flagged I guess something like that would work better than being automatically flagged.
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Because not nearly enough people are that conscientious (and some are even pretty honest about that). A player activated flag has already come up several times in this thread (and other threads I dug through) and it's just not something that is going to work. The people who get how awkward and frustrating it can be to talk to someone who may or may not even be there, seem to already go out of their way to not look like they might be at their keyboard when they aren't, going by several posts in here.

    I did cover what the passive flag system might look like on the last page, including some of the things that could keep you "active". I do think it's important to at least start to think about how it might actually work and look in practice.

    The reason the current situation is unacceptable, is because it has a lot of ambiguity built in unintentionally. With a passive flag, if I talk to you when you are NOT gray, all it really means is that if you don't answer, and I give you another shot a bit later, I can and should take it as you not wanting to talk to me - instead of wondering if it is that, or if you are AFK, and having to give you more chances later, and making sure I wait long enough to do so... and wondering if I'm being super bothersome the entire time, or if you are just seriously AFK.

    To be clear, this could be something as simple as "Hey Coryn, what's up"? If I do that when I log in, and sometimes you are there, and sometimes you are seriously AFK, even if you and I are friends, I am going to start to think "meh". It's also sort of crappy if you know I am pretty reliably NOT AFK. Because when you try to interact with me, you know I am going to be there when you say "Hey Jules, have you seen my new bug collection?", and I will probably reply almost immediately. See how shitty that is? That is why I call the guys who are pretty reliably not hard core idling "suckers". It is. It's the sucker position. It gets worse though. If I DO ignore someone, I have to actually deal with it. They probably KNOW I am ignoring them. There is no ambiguity because my prior behavior always makes my intentions pretty clear. It actually creates a situation where the smart thing to do (habitually AFK, at least sometimes, but no one can really know when you are or aren't) is pure poison for the game community.
    Post edited by Jules on
  • ErzsebetErzsebet Altaholic Member Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Technically, that system tracks number of commands entered, not whether you're actually active or not. So RPing (by yourself, or otherwise) doesn't really help it much. Having spammy defs and doing command-heavy things like bashing, pk, and shop-stocking are what helps. So it'd need to be tweaked substantially to not grey people out who -are- actively engaging the world, just in a non-command-heavy way.
  • TrikalTrikal Member Posts: 160 ✭✭✭
    Member Score

    Contrary to what you may initially think, the member score is not how
    many members are in the guild or how many members were on today. It's
    simply a number calculated from a formula that analyzes the level of
    guild activity the previous day. Generally, the higher the score, the
    more members and more active members a guild had the previous day, but
    there is not a one to one correspondence with any single factor
    . Guilds
    should strive to have a high score on topguilds, as a high score is a
    pretty good indicator of overall strength and success.

    Where are you getting your information that it's simply number of command entered?
  • ErzsebetErzsebet Altaholic Member Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2016
    Member score is not the same as Tophouses. Tophouses was set up for the purge, so its mechanics work on a different measure.

    Someone (who was up at the time), forget who, said that it works that way.

    And frankly, as HL, since my activities are weighted much higher than anyone else in the house, I can see the difference when I do command-heavy things versus when I sit down and RP for 12 hours. When someone joined 'kahi and dragged us negative because they were on the wrong tether, that's how I fixed it. I went and bashed for a bit 'til it was positive instead of RPing.

    ETA: WISH they'd set it up on the same basis member score works on. It's not so completely gameable that way. And not so skewed against people who RP but who don't enjoy the other combat/bashing aspects of the game.
    Post edited by Erzsebet on
  • TrikalTrikal Member Posts: 160 ✭✭✭
    Well member score is how topguilds works, so maybe just use that system as @Jensen suggested, I assume he just didn't realize topguilds and tophouses used different systems.
  • JulesJules Member Posts: 55 ✭✭
    On the one hand, this seems like it has the possibility to be amazingly better than a simple timer that just clocks last not defense/not healing related action. On the other hand, I am super afraid it might be really, really hard to implement well.

    I understand all of these ranking systems as beancounting thingies that look at relatively large chunks of time and try to give some read on how active/healthy those orgs are. Some just seem to have slightly different input criteria. That's really, really different than "is someone -probably- at their keyboard (and actually paying attention) right now"?

    It is tempting, because if it were done extremely well, it's much, much harder for certain stubborn souls to try to mess with. But I have a sinking feeling it could be extraordinarily hard and labor intensive to do well. I will be honest and say I don't truly know though. It would be amazing if it could be done without breaking admin's back, and worked pretty well. Some tweaks, almost for sure - and you would be sort of working against the clock there, because if you don't get it working decently in fairly short order, I do think people will want to toss it out the top floor window.

    On another note, I wonder if boosting org numbers is part of the problem, or not really... I do get the feeling that some people power idle in large part to boost these numbers maybe, but it may be a very small number who truly do it for THAT reason. I am just not sure. An actual admin would probably have to do some digging and try to find out if there are strong indications that that is a key motivation, I guess. If it was, I'd be sorely tempted to just ditch those "activity" ranking systems :/
Sign In or Register to comment.