Thread: Code in an animation toggle switch to prevent player enacted animations, like faint

Originally Posted by Niwashi

I didn't miss that point at all. In fact, I directly referred to that point. I simply pointed out that there's a difference in priority between those two different parts of the problem. Between a situation where an emote can disrupt your game or a situation where you simply don't feel like doing one, Turbine needs to first fix the problems where the emotes can disrupt what people are doing, and an opt-out option simply does NOT fix those. It's completely impractical to expect everyone in the game to manually change around their game options every time a fight starts or ends just on the off-hand chance that a griefer may come along during that particular fight. That's the sort of thing that the game needs to automatically protect everyone from.

Once that's taken care of, then yes, I already said that Turbine should look into adding an opt-out option for those who just generally don't like emotes. But that feature only addresses the more minor of the two problems. They need a fix for the major problem as well.

While I agree that making characters "emote immune" during specified conditions, those conditions can proliferate without end. Being in combat is obvious. But what about when crafting, when interacting with an NPC, when running, when dancing, when chatting... Where does the list end?

Clearly, the simpler solution to putting in specific code for every possible situation where being emoted might be a problem would be to code in an "opt out" and leave it up to the players to decide when they do or do not wish to risk being emoted. After that, an education campaign can be carried out so that those not particularly aware of the problems will know that if they wish to avoid being emoted they can "opt out" at will by setting the flag.

The closest parallel I can draw is to the existing "no spar" flag. In order not to be bothered or interrupted by spar requests at inopportune moments, one can set the flag and avoid the problem. Some of us just set the flag to "no spar requests" at character creation and leave it there, which is what I would do with a forced emote "opt out". I'd go through every character I have and set it on (that is, no forced emotes) and leave it on.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

While I agree that making characters "emote immune" during specified conditions, those conditions can proliferate without end. Being in combat is obvious. But what about when crafting, when interacting with an NPC, when running, when dancing, when chatting... Where does the list end?

It would apply to combat because those emotes can interfere with combat, causing people to fail. It would apply during a dance quest because those emotes can interfere with a dance quest, causing people to fail. It would not apply when you're crafting or at the auction house or chatting because it doesn't interfere with any of those things. Your crafting attempt won't fail or have any lower of a crit chance just because of an emote. Your auction search isn't going to miss finding the items you wanted nor is your posting there going to bring any less money based on whether you did an emote or not.

That's not to say there aren't a few people who simply don't like the emotes there. But not liking them is a different issue from whether they're disruptive. An opt-out feature would work well for people who simply don't like the emotes. But everyone, regardless of whether they like the emotes or not, needs to be protected from griefers who would use an emote to disrupt what they're doing.

Originally Posted by whheydt

Clearly, the simpler solution to putting in specific code for every possible situation where being emoted might be a problem would be to code in an "opt out" and leave it up to the players to decide when they do or do not wish to risk being emoted.

It might be simpler but it doesn't address the main problem. People are NOT going to spend the first few moments of every single fight manually changing their options to protect themselves from emotes during the fight. While it's somewhat more realistic that someone could change their options when starting the dance quest, that works only if they happen to think of it at the right moment before the emote issue even comes up, and not everyone will.

Originally Posted by whheydt

Some of us just set the flag to "no spar requests" at character creation and leave it there, which is what I would do with a forced emote "opt out". I'd go through every character I have and set it on (that is, no forced emotes) and leave it on.

Which would make an opt out feature work for you and your particular interest in it. But you're deliberately ignoring the blatant fact that it wouldn't work for anyone else. People who like the emotes and want them enabled are still going to need the same protection against being greifed with them.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

An opt-out feature would work well for people who simply don't like the emotes. But everyone, regardless of whether they like the emotes or not, needs to be protected from griefers who would use an emote to disrupt what they're doing.

People are NOT going to spend the first few moments of every single fight manually changing their options to protect themselves from emotes during the fight.

People who like the emotes and want them enabled are still going to need the same protection against being greifed with them.

An opt-out feature would keep people from being annoyed by the emotes AND from having their actions disrupted by the emotes, both at the same time. If an emote cannot affect a toon, it cannot disrupt that toon's actions neiter can it annoy the toon's player.

An opt-out feature could be toggled on and be left on for any length of time. It wouldn't have to be toggled on at the beginning at every fight because it could be left on by the player for as long as he/she is in the wilderness and might engage in battle.

If people who like the emotes get griefed or for some other reason (e.g. disrupt-prevention) want to use the opt-out toggle, they can and they can simply disable the feature when they're ready for some more being emoted.

I don't see how coding in specific situations in which emotes would be generally disabled would achieve anything a toggle wouldn't. On the other hand, I can see a lot of situations where the toggle would help but your proposal wouldn't.

And I still don't see how an opt-out toggle would actually diminish your fun unless I assume that you enjoy bullying others when you know you can get away with it.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

Which would make an opt out feature work for you and your particular interest in it. But you're deliberately ignoring the blatant fact that it wouldn't work for anyone else. People who like the emotes and want them enabled are still going to need the same protection against being greifed with them.

Such people can turn the flag on or off as it suits them. If you you can't remember to set the flag correctly, then you really don't care very much either way.

I am trying not to make "best" the enemy of "good enough". Let's start with the flag. That will cover all situations if people remember to use it, and all situations for those that don't care or want it set one way or the other at all times. If people still have issues, then we can move on to situational changes.

The impression I get of resistance to the "opt out" flag is that there are entirely too many people that object to anyone being able to resist what some individuals consider "fun" even when their targets doesn't.

Short answer: Give us the "opt out" flag, or get rid of forced emotes altogether.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

Short answer: Give us the "opt out" flag, or get rid of forced emotes altogether.

This.

Folks with any other position should be made to dance whenever I walk by.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

An opt-out feature would keep people from being annoyed by the emotes AND from having their actions disrupted by the emotes, both at the same time. If an emote cannot affect a toon, it cannot disrupt that toon's actions neiter can it annoy the toon's player.

No, there are only a few players for whom the toggle by itself would prevent things like what happened to podgie_bear, getting knocked down during a fight and losing the fight as a result. It would work for those players who generally find emotes annoying and keep the opt-out option toggled.

However, most players enjoy the interactive emotes and will not keep them disabled all the time. Those players would be stuck between the ridiculous lengths I described of changing around their game options at the beginning and end of every fight, or else being susceptible to the sort of griefing podgie_bear described during the fight. Since the former is clearly not going to happen, that means emotes could be used when they're going to disrupt the battle.

Game settings such as an opt-out toggle are suitable for setting your general preferences, not to tracking and adapting to all your moment to moment activities.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

I don't see how coding in specific situations in which emotes would be generally disabled would achieve anything a toggle wouldn't. On the other hand, I can see a lot of situations where the toggle would help but your proposal wouldn't.

There are situations for each. Having interactive emotes disabled during activities that could be disrupted by those emotes protects people from usage that interferes with their game, but doesn't do anything for those players who simply don't like the emotes the rest of the time. Having an opt-out setting helps those who don't like the emotes, but doesn't provide any protection from cases where the emotes can interfere with the game. The ideal solution would be to have both (though I do think they should start with the more important of the two).

Originally Posted by Anyelir

And I still don't see how an opt-out toggle would actually diminish your fun unless I assume that you enjoy bullying others when you know you can get away with it.

Who has said it would diminish their fun? All I've pointed out is that it wouldn't solve the biggest problems.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

However, most players enjoy the interactive emotes and will not keep them disabled all the time. Those players would be stuck between the ridiculous lengths I described of changing around their game options at the beginning and end of every fight, or else being susceptible to the sort of griefing podgie_bear described during the fight.

Okay, I will spell it out for you...

If a person enjoys the emotes in most settings but does not want to be griefed in combat situations or others, they CAN use the opt-out toggle for that.

Fighting does not take place in the festival areas and non-griefing emote-use is unlikely to occur out in the wild where the big bad beasties are.
So, when a person leaves the safe town-areas, they turn ON the toggle and are safe from getting emoted. Their fights cannot be disrupted by emote-griefers. As emoting in good spirits is unlikely to occur in a hostile settings filled with blood-thirsty beasts, they would not reasonably miss out on many emotes.
Then, when they return to town, they turn the toggle OFF. They can participate in emotes again, but as there are no fights in "civilized" areas (sparring aside), they would not face the risk of having their fight dirupted by an ill-placed emote.

Problems may occur if people forget to switch between the two modes, but I would expect anyone capable of handling a game like LotRo to be able to set a switch whenever they enter or leave a settlement.

I would regard the opt-out option as the more important one, by the way, simply because it is optional for those who don't want it and because it covers all kinds of situations when it is toggled on.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

when a person leaves the safe town-areas, they turn ON the toggle and are safe from getting emoted. Their fights cannot be disrupted by emote-griefers. As emoting in good spirits is unlikely to occur in a hostile settings filled with blood-thirsty beasts, they would not reasonably miss out on many emotes.

Emoting in good spirits can certainly occur out in the wild so long as you're not actually in combat. Friends can joke around with each other as they wait for their buddy to show up, or wait for the mob they need to re-spawn, or to liven up a long journey, etc.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

Problems may occur if people forget to switch between the two modes, but I would expect anyone capable of handling a game like LotRo to be able to set a switch whenever they enter or leave a settlement.

For one thing, "entering" or "leaving" a settlement isn't always clear-cut. Someplace like Bree is a walled city and it's pretty clear when you enter or leave it. On the other hand, as you run across the Shire, you're continuously passing in and out of little towns with fields right next to them where mobs are roaming. Trying to keep switching a system setting back and forth every few steps as you travel around is as ridiculous as trying to toggle it on and off at the beginning and end of every fight.

You're advocating a system where continually setting a toggle switch back and forth for the stupid festival emotes has to take over the entire game and become the primary focal point of what every player spends most of their time doing. If anyone tried to actually do that, it would quickly become far more disruptive and annoying than the problem you and W. H. Heydt complain about in getting emotes you don't like. More realistically, nobody would actually do that. People would either opt-out or not, and that's where the setting would stay. And at that semi-permanent setting, it's only useful to people who never like the interactive emotes at all, no matter what they're doing at the time.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

I would regard the opt-out option as the more important one, by the way, simply because it is optional for those who don't want it and because it covers all kinds of situations when it is toggled on.

I'd give priority to first disabling the emotes during combat and other disruptable activities for three reasons:
1) It helps everyone, not just those few who don't like interactive emotes.
2) The problem it solves is game-effecting.
3) It doesn't have negative side-effects since it couldn't be abused to try to badly adjust for a problem it doesn't really apply to. Your arguments about how the opt-out feature could be turned on and off to block just disruptive emotes is evidence that it should NOT be the first part of the solution here. It's far too cumbersome to be used that way, which would lead to a lot of frustration until everyone just gives up and leaves it on one setting or the other, either leaving themselves open to griefing or losing out on their chance for interaction with other players.

Once the emotes are disabled where they disrupt things, then adding an opt-out toggle could be good. At that point, only those who don't like the emotes would try to use it, and since they're the only ones for whom it would actually work, they should be the only ones trying to use it.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

Emoting in good spirits can certainly occur out in the wild so long as you're not actually in combat. Friends can joke around with each other as they wait for their buddy to show up, or wait for the mob they need to re-spawn, or to liven up a long journey, etc.

There have also been reports of the use of forced emotes to gain an advantage in racing to a resource node. An automatic prevention for being in combat won't prevent that from happening, but an "opt out" flag (if set) would.

Really....you're reaching. You're coming up with situations where a settable "opt out" might be less than optimal while ignoring the significant areas where it would be extremely useful. Are you really that desperate to keep the entire world as your pranking playground?

How about we get the "opt out" flag, which will solve all the real problems you keep trying to throw up roadblocks around and then see if there are other issues and areas that need to be addressed, instead of going for a solution that will solve relatively few situations while doing nothing at all about the major ones. Or, of course...just get rid of ALL forced emotes altogether. That would solve ALL the issues.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by Niwashi

However, most players enjoy the interactive emotes and will not keep them disabled all the time.

That's your opinion. My guess is that most players do NOT enjoy having emotes forced on them by other people and, therefore, do not perform the emotes themselves.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

An opt-out feature would keep people from being annoyed by the emotes AND from having their actions disrupted by the emotes, both at the same time. If an emote cannot affect a toon, it cannot disrupt that toon's actions neiter can it annoy the toon's player.

An opt-out feature could be toggled on and be left on for any length of time. It wouldn't have to be toggled on at the beginning at every fight because it could be left on by the player for as long as he/she is in the wilderness and might engage in battle.

If people who like the emotes get griefed or for some other reason (e.g. disrupt-prevention) want to use the opt-out toggle, they can and they can simply disable the feature when they're ready for some more being emoted.

I don't see how coding in specific situations in which emotes would be generally disabled would achieve anything a toggle wouldn't. On the other hand, I can see a lot of situations where the toggle would help but your proposal wouldn't.

And I still don't see how an opt-out toggle would actually diminish your fun unless I assume that you enjoy bullying others when you know you can get away with it.

QFT. An opt-out feature would allow every player to choose exactly when/if emotes would affect them (note, just because it doesn't 'disrupt' gameplay doesn't mean it doesn't affect it - or at least my enjoyment of it). How could this possibly NOT be a good thing?

Originally Posted by whheydt

There have also been reports of the use of forced emotes to gain an advantage in racing to a resource node. An automatic prevention for being in combat won't prevent that from happening, but an "opt out" flag (if set) would.

Really....you're reaching. You're coming up with situations where a settable "opt out" might be less than optimal while ignoring the significant areas where it would be extremely useful. Are you really that desperate to keep the entire world as your pranking playground?

How about we get the "opt out" flag, which will solve all the real problems you keep trying to throw up roadblocks around and then see if there are other issues and areas that need to be addressed, instead of going for a solution that will solve relatively few situations while doing nothing at all about the major ones. Or, of course...just get rid of ALL forced emotes altogether. That would solve ALL the issues.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

+Rep.

The issue of emote disruptions to combat are so rare compared to the "harmless fun" pranking that goes on all the time that worrying about only fixing a minor problem while ignoring a major one is complete foolishness.

Yes, an opt out would solve the biggest problem.

No it wouldn't solve the combat one, but that's not only a smaller problem, but a completely different one.

Would it be a pain for people who like emotes but are scared that any fight could be interrupted to have to constantly switch the toggle? Sure, but so what? It's so rare that people who like emotes wouldn't bother with it anyway.

I'd be willing to bet that the only people who would use it are people who don't like forced emotes period, & maybe a very small number of paranoids who are afraid that every time they fight they're going to get messed up by a random emote.

I want to be able to opt out, just like I can opt out of other nonconsensual interactions with other players. I am new to this game, having left WoW because of the inanity, entering LOTRO before the fall festival. What drew me to LOTRO is the mix of PvE and RP. The latter in particular is a selling point highlighted by Turbine in promotional videos and splash screens. I get a lot of latitude to shape my character into someone as noble or knavish as I wish...except for the emotes. Anyone can make my character do something embarrassing, distracting, or out of character. Honestly, that makes no sense to me, and I am considering cancelling my VIP subscription, and taking my partner with me.

In the mean time, unless I am on festival grounds, when someone assaults me in game, I report them immediately for harassment and griefing. Enough reports and I would hope that Turbine would have to do something. I don't have time to click on everyone when I am in the craft hall at Esteldin before settling down to work, and I shouldn't have to, simply to avoid being harassed.

Turbine's deafening silence on this issue seems to clearly show they don't care a good number of people hate and are seriously aggravated by this feature (sic).

Originally Posted by Niwashi

You're advocating a system where continually setting a toggle switch back and forth for the stupid festival emotes has to take over the entire game and become the primary focal point of what every player spends most of their time doing.

This is exactly what I do NOT want to advocate. What I WANT is that people stop emoting others who are busy with something else and/or who don't like being emoted. What I WANT is for pranksters to stop being so spitefull and impolite to the folks they emote against their will. But I know that this is not going to happen.

So what I'll settle for instead is an option to stay away from this whole emote business by setting a toggle and keeping it on for as long as I see fit. If I'm in town crafting, I don't want to be emoted regardless of whether or not that disrupts my crafting. I'd feel much better if I knew that people won't be able to annoy me simply because I was stupid enough to dismount.

The thing is that an opt-out toggle gives people a CHOICE about when to be emoted (if at all). Your proposal does not give people that choice. And it being a choice is important to me. After all, the pranksters get the choice of emoting people or not; why shouldn't other people get the choice of being affected by emotes or not?

And if you want to emote your friends while waiting for a respawn, that's fine by me. But I think this kind of situation does not occur very often whereas lots of people find themselves annoyed by pranksters while crafting, checking mail, chatting with friends during the festival times. (By the way, the people chatting with their friends are socially interacting as well, but you claim the right for yourself to interfer with that and upset them with your emotes so they do not enjoy their conversation so much anymore? Somehow that doesn't square...)

I'm still waiting for you (or any other prankster out there) to give me a good, sound reason of why others should not be able to CHOOSE not to be emoted apart from an ill-veiled "I don't want them to escape MY idea of fun"...

Yeah. During festivals the 'fun' wears more than a little thin by the 154th time you've been force-emoted during a day. I do not exaggerate. The count has gone far higher than that. It's not fun. It's just plain annoying.

It happens two or three dozen times a week during non-festival periods, which is easier to deal with (I still don't understand why I should have to deal with it at all), but anyone who force-emotes me gets a one-way ticket to my ignore list. That doesn't solve the problem entirely, though, because while I never have to interact conversationally with them, I still have to put up with their force emotes. Asking nicely for someone to desist during the summer fishing contest netted me a stalker, several people who went out of their way to throw all their force-emotes at me, and usually nets me replies of how mean I am not wanting to have 'fun'.

Why do so many of the 'funsters' run away quickly as soon as they've thrown all the emotes they can at you? Is it possible they really don't want to be subjected to random force-emotes themselves?

Happy to be a professional killjoy. Give me a toggle, or take the things away altogether - I'm starting to lean towards the latter.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

The thing is that an opt-out toggle gives people a CHOICE about when to be emoted (if at all). Your proposal does not give people that choice. And it being a choice is important to me.

Some choices are good to have and some are not. For people who do want the interactive emotes, being forced to choose between being open to griefing or having to lose out on interaction from other players is NOT a choice that anyone should be forced to make. Take care of the griefing issues first, and then a toggle could be about the choice that you want to make, based on whether you like the emotes or not.

Although i've always thought this argument over 'forced' emotes to be dumb for various reasons, I still won't say nay against you having some little thing so you can prevent yourself gettin slapped down by bigby.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

For people who do want the interactive emotes, being forced to choose between being open to griefing or having to lose out on interaction from other players is NOT a choice that anyone should be forced to make.

Sorry, but you just failed your Turing test.

/sarcasm off

I will not discuss this with you any further. Not because I've decided that you're right and not because I've decided that the topic isn't important to me anymore, but simply because I have already explained the selfsame point to you like three times and you still do not seem (to want) to understand it. Neither do I want to waste my time on this anymore nor do I want to risk a warning from the mods like I'd be likely to get if I pursued this discussion with you any further.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

I have already explained the selfsame point to you like three times and you still do not seem (to want) to understand it.

Yes, I understand it perfectly well. You've explained repeatedly that we can turn the toggle on every time we are fighting and off every time we're not, so that the entire game ends up revolving around controlling the fool emote-toggle. Or if we don't want to devote the entire game to it, then we can just set it permanently and lose out on any chance to take part in interaction from other players. Well frankly, I don't like being forced into your choices.

I've been open all along to the idea of offering your toggle once it's actually about preferences on whether people want the emotes or not, but that isn't good enough for you. For all your talk about wanting "choice" you're absolutely determined that nobody should be allowed to make any other choice except yours. There's no other explanation for your vehement opposal of a feature to stop griefing other than that you want players who like the emotes and who want interaction from other players to be forced into disabling it.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

Yes, I understand it perfectly well. You've explained repeatedly that we can turn the toggle on every time we are fighting and off every time we're not, so that the entire game ends up revolving around controlling the fool emote-toggle. Or if we don't want to devote the entire game to it, then we can just set it permanently and lose out on any chance to take part in interaction from other players. Well frankly, I don't like being forced into your choices.

I've been open all along to the idea of offering your toggle once it's actually about preferences on whether people want the emotes or not, but that isn't good enough for you. For all your talk about wanting "choice" you're absolutely determined that nobody should be allowed to make any other choice except yours. There's no other explanation for your vehement opposal of a feature to stop griefing other than that you want players who like the emotes and who want interaction from other players to be forced into disabling it.

Are you claiming that "griefing" only consists of emotes interrupting things that you think shouldn't be interrupted, like fights, or quests, or that if you can't see the harm in something that it must be "harmless"?

"Griefing" means doing things to players that harm them in any way. Obvious harm would be interrupting fights/quests/etc.., but the harm isn't always obvious, since we can't read minds. Harm can & is often also found in interrupting people's focus, crafting, enjoyment of playing music, whatever,... You can't decide what I find to be harmful to my enjoyment of the game.

Instead of taking away the ability to do emotes, a toggle has been proposed which would simply allow people to decline to participate, and would be the the quickest, easiest solution to provide help for the greatest number of players.

As to the "constant fool emote toggle" micro management claim?

Not only do those more obviously harmful things happen far less often, the number of people that would be so paranoid of it happening that they'd want to try to play a "constant toggle game" are even rarer. As such, I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to assume that people who like emotes will be so paranoid that they'll want to constantly disable & enable emotes for fear of the rare problems in things like fight/quest interruptions.

I continue to vote for an emote toggle. People who don't like emotes will use it. People who like them won't, except for a tiny fraction of emote enthusiasts who are completely OCD.

Originally Posted by LotRO-Chris

Are you claiming that "griefing" only consists of emotes interrupting things that you think shouldn't be interrupted, like fights, or quests, or that if you can't see the harm in something that it must be "harmless"?

In addition to the toggle, Turbine needs to fix the issues that cause actions to be interrupted. This isn't an either-or situation, it needs to be both. For those who use the toggle, the emotes will never work, even if the target is standing AFK in the middle of nowhere. For those who do not use the toggle, or have it turned off, they should not have their combat interrupted for several seconds by an emote.

I'm not arguing that one form of griefing is worse than the other, because both need to be dealt with. But I really don't see why the devs should take care of one issue while completely ignoring the other.

Originally Posted by StavroMuellerBeta

In addition to the toggle, Turbine needs to fix the issues that cause actions to be interrupted. This isn't an either-or situation, it needs to be both. For those who use the toggle, the emotes will never work, even if the target is standing AFK in the middle of nowhere. For those who do not use the toggle, or have it turned off, they should not have their combat interrupted for several seconds by an emote.

I'm not arguing that one form of griefing is worse than the other, because both need to be dealt with. But I really don't see why the devs should take care of one issue while completely ignoring the other.

I agree entirely. They're two different problems, & both should be fixed.

The OP is based on the suggestion of an an emote toggle which will fix the problem that is far more common - overall griefing, regardless of whether the emotes result in interrupted actions, or interrupted enjoyment.

Bigger problems should & do have higher priority. The OP suggestion for an emote disable/enable toggle is geared towards correcting the bigger problem - no one's claiming that the smaller one should be ignored.

Originally Posted by LotRO-Chris

Are you claiming that "griefing" only consists of emotes interrupting things that you think shouldn't be interrupted, like fights, or quests

I'm saying that interrupting fights, quests, etc is a form of griefing that needs to be dealt with, and a toggle doesn't deal with it.

Originally Posted by LotRO-Chris

Harm can & is often also found in interrupting people's focus, crafting, enjoyment of playing music, whatever,... You can't decide what I find to be harmful to my enjoyment of the game.

And that's what a toggle should be for. (Well, minus the playing music one, simply because these emotes don't occur when you're playing music anyway. /music is an emote that overrides any interactive emotes. Make that part "listening to music", though, and it would make a good example.) The toggle is for setting your own personal preference about whether you like the emotes or not. Some people like to get interactive emotes when they're in peaceful pursuits like crafting, or deals at the auction house, or hanging out with friends and acquaintances listening to music. Other people don't.

A toggle allows control in situations like this where there actually are both people who want the emotes and people who don't. It's a very different situation than where the actual in-game activity can fail (e.g. getting killed in a fight or failing a quest). When you're crafting and someone targets you with an interactive emote, there's a personal preference involved between whether you'll find that to be an offensive intrusion on your character or a delightful relief of the boredom of a long crafting run. On the other hand, when you're in the middle of a battle and someone sets off an emote to give the mob a chance to kill you, that's not about whether you like the emotes or not. The disable toggle is suited to the former, not the later.

Originally Posted by LotRO-Chris

As to the "constant fool emote toggle" micro management claim?

Not only do those more obviously harmful things happen far less often, the number of people that would be so paranoid of it happening that they'd want to try to play a "constant toggle game" are even rarer. As such, I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to assume that people who like emotes will be so paranoid that they'll want to constantly disable & enable emotes for fear of the rare problems in things like fight/quest interruptions.

Yes, exactly. (Finally, somebody gets at least that part of what I've been saying.) Nobody's going to keep switching their emote toggle back and forth. That's why the toggle does nothing to protect against the sort of griefing that causes people to lose fights or fail the dance quest.

This whole side argument started when, after podgie_bear complained about having lost out on the Undying title due to a griefer's emote, I pointed out that the toggle we'd been discussing wouldn't really protect against that particular type of problem. Having these emotes disabled for everyone whenever they're in combat mode (or similarly disruptable activities) is what's needed to prevent a recurrence of that. (Then some other posters took offence at the idea that anyone should get protection against such griefing unless they're willing to disable emotes all the rest of the time.)

Originally Posted by Niwashi

...
This whole side argument started when, after podgie_bear complained about having lost out on the Undying title due to a griefer's emote, I pointed out that the toggle we'd been discussing wouldn't really protect against that particular type of problem...

Yes it would.
If one cannot be assaulted with a forced emote, one cannot be adversely affected by it.

The problem that you have with a toggle Niwashi, (it seems to me) is that it has other effects that you don't like. Namely, that many folks will immediately use the toggle to disable forced emotes, which you think will lessen the joy that comes from being forced to look like a goof or from forcing others to look like goofs.

Originally Posted by Boraxxe

Yes it would.
If one cannot be assaulted with a forced emote, one cannot be adversely affected by it.

So you're saying it should NOT be a choice? That EVERYBODY should be forced to disable the emotes? Why even make it a toggle in that case? The proponents of this toggle as the only solution have been pretending all along that they want people to have a choice about whether to do the emotes, but when it comes down to it, they don't want to permit anyone to have the choice to allow them.

I've been advocating the toggle as a solution to one of the problems all along, but if it comes down to a choice between EVERYBODY (even those who don't like them) being subject to the emotes or NOBODY (even those who do like them) being able to get the emotes, then I'd vote for everybody as better than nobody. The toggle is only a good solution IF it's a choice that people can freely make either way, and that includes the option to NOT set it.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

So you're saying it should NOT be a choice? That EVERYBODY should be forced to disable the emotes? Why even make it a toggle in that case?

*sigh* Against my better judgement...

The point is that the number of times a toggle will be helpfull to people were a disruption disabler wouldn't is a lot higher than the number of times that a disruption disabler would be helpfull but a toggle wouldn't. Thus a toggle would be more usefull to the overall player base.

There is a lot of players who do not want to be emoted when they're crafting, checking mail, whatever... Those are activities that many players perform on a pretty regular basis, I would even say quite likely several times per gaming session.

On the other hand the number of players who'd feel like they were missing out on lots of emote fun while running around in the wilderness, waiting for respawns etc. would very likely be smaller AND the number of times that a respawn-awaiting emote-farming session (your main example for why a toggle would not be good solution) takes place is -in my opinion- not very high. Maybe once in an average gaming session, but probably even less.

Plus, if you're out in the wilderness with your friends and you want to have some emote fun while waiting around for whatever event I still do not fully see the problem. Maybe if there is only two toons involved, but in any larger group all players but one could set the toggle to off and start emoting each other for fun. The remaining player would stand guard and when the boss respawns or some other fight catches the emote party at unawares, he/she can distract the monster until at least one of the others has set the toggle back to on to avoid disruption griefing. People could take turns at standing watch so that everyone could get a chance to emote their fellows,

But of course that would still mean that people who prefer to duo would be "disadvantaged", so I take it this is not a valid point either?

Originally Posted by Niwashi

... The toggle is only a good solution IF it's a choice that people can freely make either way, and that includes the option to NOT set it.

Huh?
That's what toggle means.

Noun

1.

toggle - any instruction that works first one way and then the other; it turns something on the first time it is used and then turns it off the next time

2.	toggle - a hinged switch that can assume either of two positions on-off switch.

It is actually impossible to use the emotes while in combat AND on people who are in combat.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

On the other hand the number of players who'd feel like they were missing out on lots of emote fun while running around in the wilderness, waiting for respawns etc. would very likely be smaller AND the number of times that a respawn-awaiting emote-farming session (your main example for why a toggle would not be good solution) takes place is -in my opinion- not very high. Maybe once in an average gaming session, but probably even less.

That wasn't my main example. It's a modified version of one of several examples of why your claim that friendly emotes don't occur in hostile settings isn't always true. For my main example, however, I allowed for exactly what you suggested — someone turning on the toggle whenever they're out in the wild and turning it off whenever they're in town. Going back and forth between town and the wild is something I and probably most people do dozens of times in nearly every play session (and often hundreds of times in a play session). In some regions it's something you do every few meters. When I pointed out how having to continuously keep changing this setting back and forth would take over the entire game, you responded "This is exactly what I do NOT want to advocate." And yet you persist in recommending that very pattern again. Face it, nobody is going to keep changing their emote toggle setting every single time they pass in or out of a town any more than they would every singe time they begin and end combat.

Originally Posted by Anyelir

Plus, if you're out in the wilderness with your friends and you want to have some emote fun while waiting around for whatever event I still do not fully see the problem. Maybe if there is only two toons involved, but in any larger group all players but one could set the toggle to off and start emoting each other for fun. The remaining player would stand guard and when the boss respawns or some other fight catches the emote party at unawares, he/she can distract the monster until at least one of the others has set the toggle back to on to avoid disruption griefing. People could take turns at standing watch so that everyone could get a chance to emote their fellows

Are you seriously going to try to claim that going through all that would be less disruptive to gameplay than seeing an emote you didn't choose to do?

Originally Posted by Boraxxe

Huh?
That's what toggle means.

I was responding to your claim that the toggle would prevent disruptive griefing because "If one cannot be assaulted with a forced emote, one cannot be adversely affected by it." Well, if the toggle can be off, then that isn't true. At that point, we can be hit by emotes. The only way it could provide protection would be if it's always on, in which case, it's not effectively a "toggle" at all.

I realize the OP was way a long time back, but I just read this thread. What I do when hit by an emote (I truly do not enjoy them) is simply hit my s key. The movement breaks any forced emote.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

For my main example, however, I allowed for exactly what you suggested — someone turning on the toggle whenever they're out in the wild and turning it off whenever they're in town. Going back and forth between town and the wild is something I and probably most people do dozens of times in nearly every play session (and often hundreds of times in a play session).

Are you seriously going to try to claim that going through all that would be less disruptive to gameplay than seeing an emote you didn't choose to do?

Sure that would be disruptive to gameplay.

Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone would do that given the existence of an ability to toggle emotes?

That's nonsense.

The vast majority of people would decide whether they want them off or on, and would decide for themselves. I'd be willing to bet that hardly anyone would bother to differentiate between whether they're in town or the woods, they'd simply set the toggle to whichever they prefer and leave it except when they feel like a change.

Originally Posted by LotRO-Chris

Originally Posted by Niwashi

For my main example, however, I allowed for exactly what you suggested — someone turning on the toggle whenever they're out in the wild and turning it off whenever they're in town. Going back and forth between town and the wild is something I and probably most people do dozens of times in nearly every play session (and often hundreds of times in a play session).

Are you seriously going to try to claim that going through all that would be less disruptive to gameplay than seeing an emote you didn't choose to do?

Sure that would be disruptive to gameplay.

Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone would do that given the existence of an ability to toggle emotes?

That's nonsense.

Of course it's nonsense. That's what I've been saying. Anyelir's the one who suggested continually switching the toggle on and off as a solution for everyone who likes the emotes. I keep trying to explain that it's not a solution at all because nobody would ever go to that much effort.

Originally Posted by LotRO-Chris

The vast majority of people would decide whether they want them off or on, and would decide for themselves. I'd be willing to bet that hardly anyone would bother to differentiate between whether they're in town or the woods, they'd simply set the toggle to whichever they prefer and leave it except when they feel like a change.

Exactly. A toggle would mean that each player gets to choose a setting for themself, but once they make that choice, it would end up being effectively permanent. It isn't something that anybody is going to keep changing based on their immediate activity at that particular moment. That means that concerns which are activity-specific, such as not wanting to have the dance quest or a battle be disrupted, can't be dealt with by adding a toggle. The toggle is only for general preferences when you're not in such activities.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

So you're saying it should NOT be a choice? That EVERYBODY should be forced to disable the emotes? Why even make it a toggle in that case? The proponents of this toggle as the only solution have been pretending all along that they want people to have a choice about whether to do the emotes, but when it comes down to it, they don't want to permit anyone to have the choice to allow them.

I've been advocating the toggle as a solution to one of the problems all along, but if it comes down to a choice between EVERYBODY (even those who don't like them) being subject to the emotes or NOBODY (even those who do like them) being able to get the emotes, then I'd vote for everybody as better than nobody. The toggle is only a good solution IF it's a choice that people can freely make either way, and that includes the option to NOT set it.

The only all or nothing suggestions I've seen in the thread relate solely to the situation that would exist if Turbine can not or will not implement an "opt out" flag.

If that becomes the case, then my opinion differs from yours and nobody should be able to do the emotes because the forced emotes should ripped out by the roots.

The better solution would be for Turbine to implement an opt out flag. That way, those who like emotes can exchange the emotes to their hearts content and anyone who doesn't want to be affected by forced emotes--for any reason--won't be...so long as each character has the flag set appropriately.

You keep saying that you support a flag, but you also keep positing roadblocks as to why it shouldn't be implemented. Why is that? What is your REAL agenda here?

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by Abiyah

I realize the OP was way a long time back, but I just read this thread. What I do when hit by an emote (I truly do not enjoy them) is simply hit my s key. The movement breaks any forced emote.

It will also break any crafting you're doing, so it a rather poor solution.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

You keep saying that you support a flag, but you also keep positing roadblocks as to why it shouldn't be implemented. Why is that? What is your REAL agenda here?

I support a toggle that would allow people who don't like the emotes to avoid them and people who do like them to get them. I don't support forcing people who want the emotes to turn on that toggle anyway by ensuring that there can be no other way to avoid griefing except to disable all emotes.

So long as we get the anti-griefing rules first, then the toggle can serve its stated purpose and would become a good thing. But without those anti-griefing rules, the toggle just becomes a way of pressuring people who want the emotes into disabling them.

If giving you the right to make decisions about your characters' actions has to come at the expense of taking away my right to make those same decisions about my characters, then no, that's not improving anything. If you want me to support your right to make those decisions, then get behind the solution that gives us both that right equally.

Rules?
All you have been agitating for is rules?
Rules that state activating game-created emotes that bother people are not OK to activate?

OK.
I can support that.

Rule: Bothering other players with a game-generated forced emote is grounds for discipline.

Ok.
Done.
/signed.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

I support a toggle that would allow people who don't like the emotes to avoid them and people who do like them to get them. I don't support forcing people who want the emotes to turn on that toggle anyway by ensuring that there can be no other way to avoid griefing except to disable all emotes.

So long as we get the anti-griefing rules first, then the toggle can serve its stated purpose and would become a good thing. But without those anti-griefing rules, the toggle just becomes a way of pressuring people who want the emotes into disabling them.

If giving you the right to make decisions about your characters' actions has to come at the expense of taking away my right to make those same decisions about my characters, then no, that's not improving anything. If you want me to support your right to make those decisions, then get behind the solution that gives us both that right equally.

You keep claiming that "griefing" only consists of certain unwanted emotes with certain undesirable results.

You obviously don't get it.

ALL UNWANTED EMOTES ARE GRIEFING - PERIOD.

Maybe some instances are more harmful than others, but it's not for you to decide what is an acceptable level for everyone else. You're entitled to your opinion, but not to have your opinion imposed on everyone else.

Maybe some people dislike them during fights. Maybe some people dislike them during crafting. Maybe some people dislike them all the time. Whatever the reason, if someone subjects others to unwanted emotes, it's a form of griefing.

It sounds like you're really just upset at the idea that you might not be able to force people to do stupid things they might not like. As if "thanks but no I don't do that" is some kind of personal affront. How different is that from the person who thinks their rights are being violated when they hurt themselves trying to unsuccessfully break into a house to rob or vandalize or "prank" it?

Sorry, but if you want the "right" to decide everyone should go along with your stink bomb emotes whenever you think it's OK, then others should have the right to be able to one shot you in return when you do it to them - rez circle, repairs, dread, the works.

By your "logic", objecting is nothing more than taking away their right to play the game the way they like.

An ability to enable or disable emotes is a far more gracious solution than allowing retaliation, and it will fix a far more common problem than the interruptions that occur once in awhile.

Originally Posted by Niwashi

I support a toggle that would allow people who don't like the emotes to avoid them and people who do like them to get them. I don't support forcing people who want the emotes to turn on that toggle anyway by ensuring that there can be no other way to avoid griefing except to disable all emotes.

In what way is having a user-controlled flag to "opt out" of being affected by forced emotes forcing anything on people who want have emotes affect them? Unless you mean that turning off the ability to affect my character somehow "forces" you to endure the indignity of seeing nothing happen to me when you use an emote...

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer