Don't worry about it. Non-native speakers of any language will make mistakes from time to time. I don't mind you using me as an example. It's why I brought it up to begin with.
How about if instead of them having to create a toggle that stops all emotes, even ones from friends, they changed /ignore to include forced emotes. Then any forced emote done by a player on your ignore list would have no effect on you?
That might work and it might be easier for the devs to do?
They'd have to increase the ignore list exponentially, plus it requires manual intervention after an event has already taken place. I could manually sort and file spam emails too, but I'm glad there's a filter option to do that grunt work for me. Same goes with this situation. Why should I have to do the bookkeeping to track players who annoy me with these idiot emotes; let the toggle 'just say no', regardless of how many make the attempt. That way the only ones I have to track are the ones who try and get militant about exercising my option to play the way I want to, not their way, and that number is a much smaller subset of those whose use emotes. After all, like you said, very few people use these to grief, and the griefers are the only ones who would be getting upset that they couldn't grief me. But, like I said before, the usage of these emotes does not have to rise to the level of griefing to be annoying enough to deserve a toggle. Just like trade chat doesn't have to degrade to the level of needing to be reported to make someone /leave it.
Last edited by UrsaMinor; Jun 22 2012 at 11:44 AM.
I know, I said I quit, so why am I posting? 'Cause there ain't no Blogorette patch.
I don't have all the answers. I wasn't there. I don't know the true circumstances. If you reported someone and you they didn't act on it how am I supposed to tell you why?
Not looking for all the answers, just 1, and that 1 is your opinion
I'll pose it again.
Do *you* think that someone deliberately showing up at a planned event and disrupting an event constitutes harassment? If not, why not? Are you prepared to present a logical and coherent defense of why such actions *aren't* harassment?
Add my name to the list of people who would like this to be addressed. As many have mentioned already, there's a particular griefer on Landroval server who is interrupting rp events on a daily basis, and repeated harassment reports by many people have done nothing to swerve his behavior.
Enabling a simple forced emote toggle will not only stop him from interrupting these events but prevent any future would be griefers from doing the same, all while preserving the right of those who enjoy using forced emotes to do so amongst themselves and minimizing development time needed to implement it. The best compromise possible imo.
The event organizer said the GM took care of it. Reporting worked according to Weatherstock organizer.
Reporting didn't work. The concert was disrupted. Don't you understand that this is what the problem is -- that the concert was disrupted? Reporting did not stop that from happening. It hasn't in the past and it won't do so in the future. It can't. Also, are you aware that the same player reappeared at the concert later with no apparent repercussions?
In my opinion, Turbine made a mistake when they decided to give every player in the game control (even if only briefly) over every other player in the game's characters. They greatly exacerbated this problem by encouraging players to spam their fellow players with these forced emotes. Not only has the use of them gotten out of hand, Turbine will have a tough time handling it through GMs since they have basically set up a system that encourages harrassment. It has not only become acceptable to harrass fellow players with these forced emotes, it is encouraged by deeds, titles, and permanent rewards. How can Turbine now say "Hey, don't spam people with these emotes," when that is specifically what they've previously told players to do?
The mistake (in my opinion) having already been made, Turbine is between a rock and a hard place. They have several options. They could admit that they made a mistake and remove forced emotes from the game altogether. That's probably a very bad idea. It would set the community of forced emote users howling (and rightfully so). Also, I doubt there is anything like a full concensus among the designers that it was a mistake in the first place.
Another option is to maintain the status quo. This appears to be the path Turbine is currently following. The continuous expansion in number and effects of these forced emotes with little in the way of mitigation of harrassment leads one to believe that Turbine doesn't view them as a problem. There is the problem of overwhelming the GMs with reports of harrassment, but it appears that is easily handled by dissuading players from reporting it in the first place by threatening them with disiplinary action for doing so.
If Turbine has decided that they want the game to have a more WOW-like atmosphere, then I suppose that's the way to go. There is no arguing that WOW hasn't been incredibly successful. But, I personally believe that's a mistake. First, I think it's foolish to try and compete head-on with WOW. They already have that market cornered. Why switch to a copycat when you can have the original? I also think the MMO gaming community is slowly expanding away from the typical adolescent male playerbase that WOW still caters to, and toward a less age and gender specific one -- the very things LOTRO has always been known for. I think Turbine would be wise to build on that, and maintaining the status quo concerning these forced emotes does not do that. It has the opposite effect.
MMOs are the game embodiment of the social internet. And, the social internet has progressed a long way from the days of MySpace. In my opinion, the future of MMO gaming does not lie in the past where WOW still resides with its adolescent male social norms. It's Facebook vs MySpace, and we know who eventually won that competition. Hopefully, Turbine will realize that's where the competition lies.
I think it's possible that Turbine may have already reached the break-even point as far as revenue generated by these forced emotes goes. If even one tenth of one percent of the playerbase withhold subscriptions, or refuses to purchase an expansion, or rage-quits altogether, the financial inpact could be substantial. Maintaining the status quo is a very poor option, in my opinion. It also gives the illusion (I hope it's an illusion) that Turbine couldn't care less about their customers' wishes since it's such a hot topic.
I won't even go into the issue of players having already given Turbine notice of physiological/psychological damage or pain produced by these forced emotes based on their particular existing conditions. Jurisdictions throughout the world have differing approaches on how this is handled and it's outside my personal area of expertise (any lawyers in the house?). But still, that has to be of concern for any company, even if the legal ramifications are minimal. I can't believe any legitimate business would want to knowingly hurt its customers if it could be avoided.
They could also try to figure out every way these forced emotes could be a problem and attempt to mitigate them individually. It appears Turbine may have already done a little of this (for example, it's been reported in these forums that they no longer effect you if you are moving -- I have no reason to doubt that's true though I haven't tested it yet). But, this is a complicated, expensive, and resource intensive solution. And there will always be new holes to plug. This is known as chasing your tail. I'd be ticked at this approach as a developer -- it's time consuming, tough to implement, and you frequently end up with disjointed code that is difficult to maintain (I'm not talking out of my rear-end here -- I've been developing software for over 32 years and published my first of several games in 1983.)
But, there is a way out. Allowing players to set a toggle to opt out solves every one of these problems, for Turbine and for the players. It's clean, relatively simple to implement, and the only players it would adversely effect are the griefers.
My own opinion is that adding force emotes to the /ignore function should be sufficient for most situations. There are people who I'd like to be able to play around with these gag items and emotes. I play with my kids at festivals for instance. Or sometimes a kin mate will bust out a jar of bugs under me and we both have a laugh. LMB whole song written about how a kin member chased around the ladies of our kin trying to get those "Kiss" tricks on them. Flower petals are showered on performers at Ales and Tales for a good tale. When it is consensual and appropriate it can be fun and add to the experience of the game.
The problem lies in the ability to disrupt that comes with the emotes. Kicking someone out of a dance, mass bowing a crowd, or setting a DRAGON on the band is bad behavior. While it would be nice to have a "no jerks" checklist on our UI options, I think it is more realistic to add these folks to your /ignore list. They will find that bad behavior has repercussions and they will have a harder and harder time finding victims. They will get more and more reports of harassment, and ideally will head to an early ban. But in the meantime, no one has to be victimized twice.
The other option being bandied is an "opt-out" option. In many ways, this is like the profanity filter in chat. It proactively filters out speech we'd rather not see. But the profanity filter is a little clumsy at times, and can filter out legitimate words. &&&&-a-leekee soup gets filtered, for instance. The same can happen with emotes and tricks. Put on a global flag and you'll never be showered with rose petals, or sync dance with your kinnies at the end of a meeting. It isn't a huge thing, but it does make the world just a little smaller.
Probably the best outcome is to provide both solutions. The /ignore option for those who would like to playfully use festival tricks and force emotes in appropriate situations. The opt-out options for those who just can't find any merit in the activity at all. This mirrors the current options in chat--/ignore and profanity filters. Emotes are really just another form of speech, but currently provide none of the same tools we have with text.
Reporting didn't work. The concert was disrupted. Don't you understand that this is what the problem is -- that the concert was disrupted? Reporting did not stop that from happening. It hasn't in the past and it won't do so in the future. It can't. Also, are you aware that the same player reappeared at the concert later with no apparent repercussions?
In the short time I've been active on the forums, I've noticed that ek tends to ignore statements like this, because he'd prefer to believe that the people describing them are exaggerating than think that something he enjoys (and for all I know even uses responsibly) can cause the kinds of problems that have been reported, especially after this year's Weatherstock.
Originally Posted by Mandli
They could also try to figure out every way these forced emotes could be a problem and attempt to mitigate them individually. It appears Turbine may have already done a little of this (for example, it's been reported in these forums that they no longer effect you if you are moving -- I have no reason to doubt that's true though I haven't tested it yet). But, this is a complicated, expensive, and resource intensive solution. And there will always be new holes to plug. This is known as chasing your tail. I'd be ticked at this approach as a developer -- it's time consuming, tough to implement, and you frequently end up with disjointed code that is difficult to maintain (I'm not talking out of my rear-end here -- I've been developing software for over 32 years and published my first of several games in 1983.)
I'm glad that an experienced programmer has finally spoken up to address this option. I thought that trying to individually "fix" each emote or festival item would be a problem, but I don't have the technical knowledge to explain why, it just seemed unnecessarily complicated to me.
Originally Posted by Mandli
But, there is a way out. Allowing players to set a toggle to opt out solves every one of these problems, for Turbine and for the players. It's clean, simple to implement, and the only players it would adversely effect are the griefers.
Well said, Mandli, and thank you for the detailed, well-reasoned discussion on the options currently available to the developers.
Originally Posted by Harperelle
The other option being bandied is an "opt-out" option. In many ways, this is like the profanity filter in chat. It proactively filters out speech we'd rather not see. But the profanity filter is a little clumsy at times, and can filter out legitimate words. &&&&-a-leekee soup gets filtered, for instance. The same can happen with emotes and tricks. Put on a global flag and you'll never be showered with rose petals, or sync dance with your kinnies at the end of a meeting. It isn't a huge thing, but it does make the world just a little smaller.
The other part of this, though, is that if you're in a place where you know the people, such as the mentioned kin meeting, you can disable the toggle for the duration of your time with those you know. If my kin wanted to have a coordinated dance at the end of a meeting, I'd happily turn my toggle off for that, but I'd still prefer a toggle over the ignore function. Partially because, in the case of this well-known griefer on Landroval, we'd need an option to ignore account as that player has alts, and could potentially just hop characters to keep harassing people. Either that, or our ignore lists would have to be made extensively larger to accommodate griefers with alts.
The event organizer said the GM took care of it. Reporting worked according to Weatherstock organizer.
You had better reread what you think was said. His alt logged in and was at the event within minutes and continued with a different tactic to try to grief us.
EDIT: a follow up post by Harp states what you claim. I never said it.
Last edited by morrowbreeze; Jun 22 2012 at 02:31 PM.
Tinki-Rixi-Dazzl-Nibli-Trikzi-Pipsi-Skinni
Proud member of the Lonely Mountain Militia C.A.R.P. division (Challenge-Adventure-RolePlay)
The other part of this, though, is that if you're in a place where you know the people, such as the mentioned kin meeting, you can disable the toggle for the duration of your time with those you know. If my kin wanted to have a coordinated dance at the end of a meeting, I'd happily turn my toggle off for that, but I'd still prefer a toggle over the ignore function. Partially because, in the case of this well-known griefer on Landroval, we'd need an option to ignore account as that player has alts, and could potentially just hop characters to keep harassing people. Either that, or our ignore lists would have to be made extensively larger to accommodate griefers with alts.
I don't think anyone is advocating a toggle to turn off all emotes, just the emotes that can let Player_01 control Player_02's character.
If I'm dancing and get showered with flower petals and it does not make me stop dancing, emote away.
However, the worst solution to this would be to make a toggle that not only stops others from casting on you, but also stops you from casting on yourself. If Turbine did something like that they'll havemade the situation worse and not solved anything.
Estellost, loving husband of the wonderful Shinarra
I will disagree regarding an /ignore for forced emotes. One reason is you ignore after the fact and the other is that some who cause forced emotes really are doing it in good fun and now they are no longer being seen by you in lff or any other chat channel where you might want to reply to them or participate with them.
A toggle is the only way to deal with this in my opinion. You dont want to be bothered while you learn to dance...set the toggle. Unset it if you want to have fun with others. Going to an event, set the toggle. Unset it when your party get together for some frolic.
Tinki-Rixi-Dazzl-Nibli-Trikzi-Pipsi-Skinni
Proud member of the Lonely Mountain Militia C.A.R.P. division (Challenge-Adventure-RolePlay)
Another option is to maintain the status quo. This appears to be the path Turbine is currently following. The continuous expansion in number and effects of these forced emotes with little in the way of mitigation of harrassment leads one to believe that Turbine doesn't view them as a problem.
In all fairness, they're not completely maintaining the status quo. They've made significant changes in how these items work, particularly with the changes in both the type and duration of cooldowns to make sure that nobody is spamming them one after another. This hasn't solved all the issues, but it has at least reduced them significantly.
An opt-out toggle would be significantly better, both for allowing the fun consensual use of these items and also for avoiding the unwanted use of them. I'm guessing the cooldown changes came ahead of the toggle because adjusting an existing feature is a lot simpler —and therefore quicker— than adding a new one.
Originally Posted by Mandli
They could also try to figure out every way these forced emotes could be a problem and attempt to mitigate them individually. It appears Turbine may have already done a little of this (for example, it's been reported in these forums that they no longer effect you if you are moving -- I have no reason to doubt that's true though I haven't tested it yet). But, this is a complicated, expensive, and resource intensive solution. And there will always be new holes to plug. This is known as chasing your tail. I'd be ticked at this approach as a developer -- it's time consuming, tough to implement, and you frequently end up with disjointed code that is difficult to maintain
While it is more complicated than a toggle, fixing the disruptive effects is necessary regardless of whether they also create the toggle or not. Even with a toggle, they would have to allow for the fact that not everyone will choose to keep the toggle on. (That's the point of it being a "toggle" after all - that some people will have it on and some won't.) So having a toggle wouldn't fix the disruptive problems because it wouldn't have any effect for those players who don't enable it. The emote effects need to be fixed so they don't interfere with the game for anybody - regardless of any toggle settings once one is available.
"Looks like we've got a problem. Feature 'A' breaks feature 'B'."
"Ah, but there's a workaround. If you set option 'C', then feature 'A' has no effect on feature 'B'."
"There's still a problem. For everyone who doesn't have option 'C' set, feature 'A' breaks feature 'B'."
"Oh, I guess we'd better fix feature 'A' to not break feature 'B' then."
No reduction in tail-chasing fixes there. Whether annoying to the developers or not, fixing bugs and issues from unintended consequences is going to remain necessary. It's part of working with any software complicated enough to have one feature interfere with another. There have, at least in the past, been issues with these emotes interfering with combat, stable mounts, movement, dances, and possibly more things I'm not aware of. Many of these appear to have already been fixed, as they should be. If any other such issues remain, then those also need to be fixed.
Fixing the unintended consequences where one feature interferes with another is a different type of issue than where some players simply don't like a feature. A toggle is an excellent solution for the later, but the former still needs its own fixes regardless.
I don't think anyone is advocating a toggle to turn off all emotes, just the emotes that can let Player_01 control Player_02's character.
If I'm dancing and get showered with flower petals and it does not make me stop dancing, emote away.
However, the worst solution to this would be to make a toggle that not only stops others from casting on you, but also stops you from casting on yourself. If Turbine did something like that they'll havemade the situation worse and not solved anything.
Well, like I said, I'm not a technically apt person, but the problem I can see with this is that, on Turbine's end, the only way they might be able to code in a toggle would be if it did disable all emotes that someone might try to use on another person's character. My guess is that disabling all emotes would be easier to code in than setting a toggle that only disables the forced ones.
And while I agree that it wouldn't be ideal, at this point, I'll take any opt-out that I can get.
Well, like I said, I'm not a technically apt person, but the problem I can see with this is that, on Turbine's end, the only way they might be able to code in a toggle would be if it did disable all emotes that someone might try to use on another person's character. My guess is that disabling all emotes would be easier to code in than setting a toggle that only disables the forced ones.
And while I agree that it wouldn't be ideal, at this point, I'll take any opt-out that I can get.
I understand, but disabling all emotes via a toggle (including such things as /dance_elf2, for instance) not only does not solve my issue, it makes it worse. Let me explain:
Suppose Eukwen and I want to dance, so we turn off the toggle to allow us to dance. Voila! we are instantly vulnerable to the very emotes we want to avoid, the ones that allow our dance to be interrupted. But even worse, here comes player_01 with an emote ready, and when he sees us dancing, he immediately knows we have the toggle off and are easy victims. Our dance is likely to be interrupted MORE after a toggle of that kind is introduced.
A toggle that turns off all emotes is NOT an an acceptable solution to the issues that concern me. Only by turning off the forced emotes but leaving the rest of the emotes available to use is acceptable.
Estellost, loving husband of the wonderful Shinarra
I understand, but disabling all emotes via a toggle (including such things as /dance_elf2, for instance) not only does not solve my issue, it makes it worse. Let me explain:
Suppose Eukwen and I want to dance, so we turn off the toggle to allow us to dance. Voila! we are instantly vulnerable to the very emotes we want to avoid, the ones that allow our dance to be interrupted. But even worse, here comes player_01 with an emote ready, and when he sees us dancing, he immediately knows we have the toggle off and are easy victims. Our dance is likely to be interrupted MORE after a toggle of that kind is introduced.
A toggle that turns off all emotes is NOT an an acceptable solution to the issues that concern me. Only by turning off the forced emotes but leaving the rest of the emotes available to use is acceptable.
I think what is being talked about here is that other people's emotes would have no effect on you. It would not keep you from emoting.
e.g. Someone doing /bow with you targeted would not keep the person from bowing, but you would not get credited for being bowed to.
I think what is being talked about here is that other people's emotes would have no effect on you. It would not keep you from emoting.
e.g. Someone doing /bow with you targeted would not keep the person from bowing, but you would not get credited for being bowed to.
This may be the easiest way to code it.
I understand, but I'm responding to the mention of needing to turn the toggle off to /dance. If a toggle does not affect /dance, then there is no issue.
Estellost, loving husband of the wonderful Shinarra
"Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart." - Marcus Aelius Aurelius
I'm posting this in the other thread too, Eukwen (okokdir that's funny...) I support you guys and I'm going to rain on your parade. Boycotts don't work. They just don't. The problem is the staggered nature of it. If you had said "on X day, at X time, 1000 people are going to cancel our VIPs with the reason of griefing", you MIGHT get their attention but the way you're doing it, they won't see the connection. You can't just Premium and assume it'll work. You have to get in their faces. You have to step it up. Write letters. Call them. Email them. Contact Time Warner. Contact the media. Contact everyone! You have to proactive in your practices if you really want this to work... and bring evidence for goodness' sake. Make more videos. Make pictures. Include links and printouts and all kinds of things. Hit them with so much pure, unadulterated evidence that they have NO CHOICE BUT to answer you.
I support you but, as someone who spent 20 years of his life having to bring things to authority's attention, you're doing it wrong.
For the record, I've written letters to Turbine and TW, written to video game sites (that didn't work out as well,) emailed, and called. I've done everything I can think of and I did it as soon as I thought of it. If they were going to ban me, they would have... and thank goodness (again) that they didn't because how would THAT look? Banning players who are angry and don't agree with your lax attitude towards griefers? PR nightmare!
The ball, as it were, is still in your guys' court. Step it up.
Good luck.
edit: an idea I had elsewhere and I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier.
This is not a hard problem to fix! You don't even need to put in a toggle! All you have to do is step up GM enforcement of rules. If someone's being a griefer, they should pay dearly for it. I guarantee you if GMs stepped it up (or they hired more of them), this problem would be dead and gone in a month, tops.
I support the opt out because that other idea won't happen. Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of expanding bureaucracy.
The other part of this, though, is that if you're in a place where you know the people, such as the mentioned kin meeting, you can disable the toggle for the duration of your time with those you know. If my kin wanted to have a coordinated dance at the end of a meeting, I'd happily turn my toggle off for that, but I'd still prefer a toggle over the ignore function. Partially because, in the case of this well-known griefer on Landroval, we'd need an option to ignore account as that player has alts, and could potentially just hop characters to keep harassing people. Either that, or our ignore lists would have to be made extensively larger to accommodate griefers with alts.
One point on that is I'd rather not have to remember to turn off the toggle and then back on. Better that the /ignore function ignores the forced emote. I do like that idea.
On your other point concerning alts. I'd like to see the /ignore function take a single options.
/ignore -- to just ignore that one character
/ignore acount -- to ingore all that players characters.
The ignore account option would then flag behind the scenes all the characters that person has. It would only show the original name ignored on the ignore list with a star appended (ignoredperson*) to denote account level. That way people couldn't use it to find out who all characters a given player has. This is not that much differrent than what NC Soft did with global account names in City of Heros.
Even if the forced emotes weren't included in the /ignore option (but I really hope they go get included), I'd like to see the change to the /ignore function anyway cause sometimes a player really really needs to be completly ingored.
One point on that is I'd rather not have to remember to turn off the toggle and then back on. Better that the /ignore function ignores the forced emote. I do like that idea.
On your other point concerning alts. I'd like to see the /ignore function take a single options.
/ignore -- to just ignore that one character
/ignore acount -- to ingore all that players characters.
The ignore account option would then flag behind the scenes all the characters that person has. It would only show the original name ignored on the ignore list with a star appended (ignoredperson*) to denote account level. That way people couldn't use it to find out who all characters a given player has. This is not that much differrent than what NC Soft did with global account names in City of Heros.
Even if the forced emotes weren't included in the /ignore option (but I really hope they go get included), I'd like to see the change to the /ignore function anyway cause sometimes a player really really needs to be completly ingored.
Unfortunetly this is no solution Ignore only works AFTER THE FACT......
The Toggle always works to block ALL Forced Emotes.
If you go to a kin event where the kin will plan on useing forced emotes it only takes one try to REMEMBER that you have them turned off... and it is an easy fix to turn them back on so not really an issue.
Unfortunetly this is no solution Ignore only works AFTER THE FACT......
The Toggle always works to block ALL Forced Emotes.
But the point was that not everybody wants to block all of them. People may want to block only the griefer and allow them from anybody else.
Originally Posted by NickStern
If you go to a kin event where the kin will plan on useing forced emotes it only takes one try to REMEMBER that you have them turned off... and it is an easy fix to turn them back on so not really an issue.
But these aren't the sort of things that tend to be planned out in advance. (In fact, that would destroy the point of them in most cases.) If you have the toggle set, you won't even know someone tried to target you unless it was one of the AOE ones, and in that case, by the time you know it, you're too late to change your toggle.
I think the suggestion to do both is the best solution. People who don't want to allow the emotes would use the toggle and not get them from anybody. People who generally do like the emotes could use /ignore to avoid them from the annoying griefer without blocking all the rest of them.
Oh, and the account level /ignore suggestion is a good idea regardless of whether it gets expanded to interactive emotes or not. Even with the regular chat /ignore we have now, it would be nice to avoid all of some obnoxious people's alts.
But the point was that not everybody wants to block all of them. People may want to block only the griefer and allow them from anybody else.
But these aren't the sort of things that tend to be planned out in advance. (In fact, that would destroy the point of them in most cases.) If you have the toggle set, you won't even know someone tried to target you unless it was one of the AOE ones, and in that case, by the time you know it, you're too late to change your toggle.
I think the suggestion to do both is the best solution. People who don't want to allow the emotes would use the toggle and not get them from anybody. People who generally do like the emotes could use /ignore to avoid them from the annoying griefer without blocking all the rest of them.
Oh, and the account level /ignore suggestion is a good idea regardless of whether it gets expanded to interactive emotes or not. Even with the regular chat /ignore we have now, it would be nice to avoid all of some obnoxious people's alts.
I can't see that it would be much more difficult to extend the emote blocking to those on the ignore list. Once the emote suppression mechanism is in place, extending it to the ignore list would be simply adding one more criteria to the logic that decides whether or not to suppress the emote: (if the target has the toggle set OR the emoter is on the ignore list) then suppress the emote*. The hard part will be coding the suppression, not deciding when it needs to be used.
*and then the emotes can complain, "Help! Help! I'm being suppressed! Come and see the suppression inherent in the system!"
Last edited by UrsaMinor; Jun 26 2012 at 01:50 PM.
I know, I said I quit, so why am I posting? 'Cause there ain't no Blogorette patch.
But the point was that not everybody wants to block all of them. People may want to block only the griefer and allow them from anybody else.
But these aren't the sort of things that tend to be planned out in advance. (In fact, that would destroy the point of them in most cases.) If you have the toggle set, you won't even know someone tried to target you unless it was one of the AOE ones, and in that case, by the time you know it, you're too late to change your toggle.
I think the suggestion to do both is the best solution. People who don't want to allow the emotes would use the toggle and not get them from anybody. People who generally do like the emotes could use /ignore to avoid them from the annoying griefer without blocking all the rest of them.
Oh, and the account level /ignore suggestion is a good idea regardless of whether it gets expanded to interactive emotes or not. Even with the regular chat /ignore we have now, it would be nice to avoid all of some obnoxious people's alts.
Well actually I think 99% want to block Most all forced emotes at least in these threads.
So what You miss seeing a few change the toggle no harm DONE unlike Being Used on those that do not want to see them orr be interupted by them or harmed by them.
Ignore I no solution at all as it is after the fact and not proactive.
But the point was that not everybody wants to block all of them. People may want to block only the griefer and allow them from anybody else.
This is by FAR the best arguement against implementation I have seen, and a rather reasonable one at that.
In my experience the only time I have ever been openly accepting of Emotes spammed or otherwise has been when someone in my group needs a potty break (during instances) and some of us are just hanging out and get bored and start fooling around. It is a private and controlled environment sheltered from the possible passerby who thinks OOHHH me too ME TOOO!!
For me the toggle would remain on ALL the time and I would actually turn it off in protected environments like that, because yes, sometimes it IS fun to goof off with FRIENDS.......
Please don't make an 'allow emote from' list. An 'ignore emote from' list wouldn't bother me, but I'd hate having to add everybody and their alt to an allow list.
It's bad enough managing housing permissions (decorating, chests ...) for friends and their alts (point of impossible since I can't add enough to the list).
Any list would likely be a 50-names max list seeing as every other list in lotro seems to be (unsure about ignore list as mine is and always has been empty. With a single exception that was due to a mistake when adding someone to friendlist. Quickly corrected though).
It's a lot easier to pick out the names of ppl that annoy you than to have to list the name of every friend. Even assuming a worst-case scenario with 2-3 grievers each with 17 alts you could still fit them into a list (has anyone ever had a problem with a full ignore list?). You can't fit 50 friends on all their alts into a list seeing as each of them can have 1-17 characters.
That said, the 'ignore emote from'-list is a great idea and would solve the problem in my opinion. Also this will solve the problem even if the griefer makes a name-change as names (at least in friendlist) update if someone does a namechange. I assume this would naturally work the same way for any list with names ingame.
EDIT: Just as a sidenote. I'd like more emotes like the Monster Fare one. It's self-target, funny and absolutely brilliant for long confusing raids. Such emotes would bother no-one and really help to lighten any raid. http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Monster_Fare for those unfamiliar with the emote.
Last edited by Dawnsinger; Jun 26 2012 at 08:15 PM.
Duskdancer, warg: If found please return to Gwairin, lvl 65 hunter in Evernight
Dawnsinger, warg: Currently working as police dog in Moors with the Angmar Inquisition
Please don't make an 'allow emote from' list. An 'ignore emote from' list wouldn't bother me, but I'd hate having to add everybody and their alt to an allow list.
Whereas I would far, far rather have a "white list" (those allowed to force emote me) than a "black list" (those not allowed to force emote me" because I would know who to "white list"...basically nobody...but since I don't know who everyone on the server is, I have no way to build an effective "black list".
Now if one wanted to have a somewhat more elaborate set of controls--which *could* include both a white list AND a black list--it could work like a selective version of the /tell control we have now.
1. Overall setting...controls everyone.
2. Exception controls at the levels of:
--kinship
--fellowship
--raid
The black/white lists would override any of the category controls at the individual level.
However...lets *first* get the basic control in place. Either you permit forced emotes being used on a character or you don't. The nuances can come later if they're still needed. I don't want to see fine tuning standing in the way of getting the fundamental control mechanism in place.
However...lets *first* get the basic control in place. Either you permit forced emotes being used on a character or you don't. The nuances can come later if they're still needed. I don't want to see fine tuning standing in the way of getting the fundamental control mechanism in place.
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
Absolutely!! Was just a what if kind of thought.....
I'm actually a bit surprised this old thread I started a while back is gaining traction again. I'm NOT surprised it is due to the actions of some messed up player(s) during Weatherstock. How many problems could have been avoided if someone had bothered to act on this a year ago? People warned it was happening last year (griefing the emotes), and of course there were the inevitable scoff scoff, bother what? responses. Then it happened at a player run event and really upset the player base involved.
It's been stated they've dealt with the player(s), but the root problem is still present I think. Until players can deflect the actions before they even start, they are always in the line of fire for this sort of unsocial and juvenile behavior, and really players should not have to police other players, it's not their job. Even if Turbine makes pointed statements about how not to do this, it won't stop some people, just like laws don't stop people from speeding or not wearing seat belts. Especially when they can just flip a new account up at the drop of a hat and return for more annoying adventures. I still think a toggle is the way to go, lists that require player involvement are too clunky really, the /ignore list is too small, and an allow list would be far too restrictive. On or off makes the most sense, since it could easily apply a buff to the player making them immune similar to the beer brawl area, and the code is ALREADY present in the game, it just needs to be added to the options UI granting players the control they seek.
There is no reason not to do this, unless Turbine is concerned with spoiling the fun of a few malcontents, who I would state, shouldn't even merit consideration. And hopefully this is not turned into a marketing idea with an attempt to profit from it. That would be such poor form.
I still think a toggle is the way to go, lists that require player involvement are too clunky really, the /ignore list is too small, and an allow list would be far too restrictive.
The solution of how to do a full and flexible implementation can looked at as similar to how to manage inbound e-mail. Good filtering systems have a lot of options. The core technique is: Do you accept inbound e-mails (or forced emotes) or not? That's the "opt out" toggle. *Within* that choice, "black lists" and "white lists" can be used. If you turn off accepting forced emotes, then you could add selected characters to a "white list", those that you will permit to forced emote you. If the white list shows signs of getting to big to handle, then you could switch the "out opt" to permit everyone to use them on you and create a "black list" of those you don't want to be forced emoted from. For subtler control, having options to white list or black list those you are fellowed with, those you are raiding with, or those in your kinship would give intermediate control. I.e. You could turn forced emotes off (globally), turn them on for your kin (white list), and then turn them off for selected individuals (black list), thus a black listed kin member would not be able to use a forced emote on you, but other kin members could and no one outside the kin would be able to (unless individually white listed).
However, I don't expect an implementation that fully fleshed out, at least as a first cut.
*IF* Turbine manages to put in the "opt out" control, I would expect it to be a simple toggle. While it is possible that refinements would be added with time, Turbine's tendency to put in a basic system (housing, anyone?) and then neglect to upgrade it is far too well known to expect forced emotes to get the full treatment.
All I can state, again, is that if there is a system in place that automatically prevents those emotes even from being used (that beer brawl area buff, that really is just a toggle in itself that each player assumes when entering the area, it's added onto the player when in the area, removed when leaving), then attempting to make a new one is just silly and a waste of resources.
It's so simple to just copy the code into the user UI options list, and give the players back their control that was usurped by these emotes (I like them too, just not all the time, and certainly not at the expense of someone else). Feet dragging on this would simply mean that it's open season on players, and I think that a YEAR is plenty of time to have at the least discussed this, and the example we've just had during Weatherstock is more than enough evidence to make the case for being proactive, instead of reactive. Once the damage is done, you can't undo it, and no amount of apologetic PR is going to suffice I think. People will be looking over their shoulders from now on, ruining their experience even when nothing happens at all, just from the anxiety of having to wonder 'gee, is that character running over here going to rain on our parade?'
What do people do when it happens again (I think it's safe to say that's a given, just a matter of time), when if nothing really happens now to give them back their control or really punish the guilty in a meaningful way that takes from them the same thing they took from others? The customers would then know official complaints are wasted when they are still willing to leave loaded guns lying around, and that not playing (and not spending money) would most likely be a better way, perhaps the only way, to respond.
This is really a bad time for this to happen, when Rohan is due shortly, and preorders can easily be cancelled, and I think that now would be a good time to force the issue assuming you really believe in it and want to make your voice heard. Money speaks their language in the strongest way possible. If people get account closure for being active on this issue, then you'd have your answer right there. I don't like to think that their first response is to silence critics, although at times it seems like that (mainly for the tone I think), but if people are being told they are going to be punished for regularly starting tickets about this even if each ticket is for separate occurrence and they have no other avenue to make their displeasure known, it does tend to paint a company a certain color.
***************************
Lifted this from another thread:
Originally Posted by Fortinobrand
/snip/
Seeking to force your will upon another, displacing their own free will, is an act of evil. /moresnip/
Forced emotes are still an issue after al this time?
Hard t belive a company that needs to appeal to the largest
player base possible would allow such blatant harassment and griefing.
Not only by introducing the Forced emotes in the first place but by
a continued turning of a blind eye to the clear continued issues of griefing.
it is a ashame that they are being allowed to continue unabated
when something as simple as a Toggle to Opt out would solve the issue.
Lets keep these topics alive so Turbine never forgets the Players want this.
<NOTTHATSERIOUS>
Ohh if you are the target of a forced emote there should be a little popup box (that you can move around and it remembers its place) where you get the options: <Play along> <Be to cool> <Smack that ?&!"?>
<\NOTTHATSERIOUS>
<NOTTHATSERIOUS>
Ohh if you are the target of a forced emote there should be a little popup box (that you can move around and it remembers its place) where you get the options: <Play along> <Be to cool> <Smack that ?&!"?>
<\NOTTHATSERIOUS>
Add one shot the offender sending hime to a rez circle surrounded by mobs that out level him and I am all for it.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
I'm the Rubik's Cube of the human Genome.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by enginekid
Poster of Note Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
