Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Arturo Sanchez on March 22, 2016, 04:07:44 pm
-
Since time immemorial (3 or so years ago) this game has not had a system of automatically dissolving inactive clans. In fact I don't even think there is a function to disband one either.
Most common of these are new players who bought the 4 pack and just created a clan amongst there friends. Play for awhile and then eventually quit the game. Some return. Majority find other games. Most often returnees aren't clan leaders or officers.
Let's just go with the assumption here, that if a player has made it to x lvl. They are far more likely to stick around long term. As such they are able ro create a clan that might actually last more than a week.
There are 4 characters in a clan tag. And many combinations are taken by dead clans. We will never see [NaCl] on active players ever again because of this fundamental problem.
-
Doing this will only chase off more new players that want to play with friends.
There are literally thousands of possible tags with only four potential characters (331,776 combinations, not including numbers or special characters, just using four letters alone). Running out of tags is completely a non-issue.
If there is a particular tag you want that is held by a dead clan, perhaps putting in a support ticket is a better option?
-
Should we not do a big cleaning of the clans and remove the records of all the clans (I meant disband the clans sorry too much programming today.) where no one connected in a year.
-
I think perhaps a change to the rules might be in order. Change the rules to:
"A clan name/tag hold will expire after three months if the clan contains less than four active members. This means your clan will remain in effect until someone else applies for that name/tag. After that, your clan will retain it's members, but will no longer have a name and will be unsearchable and unlisted on the leader boards."
That would solve a lot of problems.
-
I suggest level requirement for playing matches. You have to earn lvl3 in tutorial and practice mode to play ;]
-
I can get behind clans that have been completely inactive for a long period of time being dissolved, but level requirement for creating a clan? Seriously? What's next, not allowing new people to have a friends list? Automatically muting new players in lobbies? Clans are not exclusive for veterans or serious players or even people who plan to stick around a long time. There's no reason to restrict who can create them.
-
Add level requirements to chat pls
-
Ceresbane, I actually hoped you quit all of your bullshit. Apparently you did not.
Oh and it's not like the community has recently much more SERIOUS problems than playing with your elitist, fucking stupid ideas.
All we need in this case is regular clearing of the bloody register to auto disband clans after prolonged periods of inactivity of all members...
-
I can get behind clans that have been completely inactive for a long period of time being dissolved, but level requirement for creating a clan? Seriously? What's next, not allowing new people to have a friends list? Automatically muting new players in lobbies? Clans are not exclusive for veterans or serious players or even people who plan to stick around a long time. There's no reason to restrict who can create them.
The majority of these dead clans stems from new players that create these clans and then leave the game.
Besides, if people are actually forced to INTERACT by joining established clans as opposed to creating these tiny noob cliques that often go off into obscurity. Wouldn't you think the community would have a higher retention?
A noob will rarely listen to a vet. But a recruit is very likely to listen to a senpai (or so the theory goes). That being said, nano tried to do the teacher clan thing and the guy got depressed and went crazy. Which does reflect why major clans don't exactly pull a grox.
also @ swal
dumb as ever I see.
-
Should we not do a big cleaning of the clans and remove the records of all the clans (I meant disband the clans sorry too much programming today.) where no one connected in a year.
Clearing the register of really old, inactive, clans wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea if done right.
Prohibiting new players from playing with their friends absolutely is terrible.
I've brought back about a dozen people from my own clan within the last few weeks, a clan which was inactive for a good year and a half. We formed the group when we were novices because our clan exists outside of GoI. None of us would have bothered joining at all if we didn't have a reliable way to play together. Period. The end.
There is no logical reason to prohibit new players from making clans. Even removing inactive clans is sketchy at best, since it may very well kill off the potential for returning players. There are other problems to look at, this is absolutely not one of them.
-
A noob will rarely listen to a vet.
That depends on the vet. Not only WHAT they say, but HOW they say it and how WELL they explain it.
People do not react well to negative criticism. People do not react well to insults. From what I have seen of your demeanor on the forums, it does not surprise me at all that some new players do not want to listen to what you have to say. To the other person it doesn't matter what you say. What matters is how you say it.
Will you get people that won't listen no matter what? Of course. Some people are genuinely contrary and will always beat to their own drum, others might genuinely be unable to understand you (language barriers, or voice turned off). However most reasonable people can and will listen if approached in a manner that is professional and respectful, even people that you might not think would do so. (Spammers, meme shouters, voice-box users etc)
It's fine if you are tired of explaining how and why and just want to play with your friends, but saying things like that is outright disingenuous.
-
I think this is a pretty terrible idea, but some features to clean up clans wouldn't hurt. A merge tool to combine clans, the ability to make clans direct subclans of other clans (I suspect this one would help the Skyborn and their novice training efforts). If less than 4 members have been online in say 3 months a clan gets deleted doesn't seem too harsh. If folks aren't on board with that a longer timeframe / smaller number of necessary online members works for me too. Something to clear the cruft would help make it clear to players what clans are actually available to join at a given time.
As far as my attempts to train novices driving me nuts, I can assure you I was crazy well before any attempts to teach novices. And plenty of novices listened to my advice, especially when I engaged in a bit of lobby hopping. The problem was that most who did listen didn't want or need my novice clan for various reasons, and there were far too many who didn't listen for it not to suck the fun out of the game for me (you only need 10% of new players to be asshats, and 60% of games to have one or more of those asshats in them for it start feeling like a grind).
In short, as is often the case with Ceres feature requests, I support doing something to fix the problem he has identified, so long as it isn't the thing he suggests ;).
-
Honorable mention of the child clan of The Skyborne, The Fledglings, requires an honorable mention of Dr. King and Veeus. Congratulations on participating in last week's SCS and becomming proud members of [SkBo].
For all those who navigate the lands of the Skyborne Mumble, I invite you to our celebration (playing GOIO): happening this friday at 2100 UTC. More information available on the forum.
Also, a shout out to The Lightning Theifs for partnering up with SkBo thus allowing the former Fledglings to participate. Finally, thank you to the Grims, Ryders, Highwinds, casters, refs, and organizers for making last week's SCS happen.
Oh, on topic: The idea of a level requirement is too restrictive. It takes no consideration of those clans coming from other games. I will agree with the inactive clan name / tag being an issue, however, how crummy would it be if this game blows up and an old clan signs on only to see their clan has been deleted?
-
That is why I would not delete their clan, or even take their name/tag away until someone else claimed it. That way their clan list would still be there when they got back, even if it did not have a name anymore.
Maybe there could be some consideration added for large clans that go inactive.
-
A noob will rarely listen to a vet.
That depends on the vet. Not only WHAT they say, but HOW they say it and how WELL they explain it.
People do not react well to negative criticism. People do not react well to insults. From what I have seen of your demeanor on the forums, it does not surprise me at all that some new players do not want to listen to what you have to say. To the other person it doesn't matter what you say. What matters is how you say it.
Will you get people that won't listen no matter what? Of course. Some people are genuinely contrary and will always beat to their own drum, others might genuinely be unable to understand you (language barriers, or voice turned off). However most reasonable people can and will listen if approached in a manner that is professional and respectful, even people that you might not think would do so. (Spammers, meme shouters, voice-box users etc)
It's fine if you are tired of explaining how and why and just want to play with your friends, but saying things like that is outright disingenuous.
Funny how you suggest to treat others in a certain way and yet say people react in different ways. Its really shooting down your own point of you being more genuine than me when you yourself suggests that it pretty much makes little difference.
And are you actually fuff-talking me? You are actually suggesting your conduct on a match is superior to me? Are you suggesting that if you and I pubbed at any given time your results would be better than mine? Because if it is, consider me amused.
And your point about communication falls apart when signals are introduced. None of your points about miscommunication and mannerisms matter. A signal has a clear icon and a voice cue which cannot be blocked out, no barrier matters here. It can however be voluntarily ignored. If a crew can't do the basic functions required within a signal command. Thats not even playing the game is it.
Thats a person standing around waiting for the ship to die.
Here's a amusing clip for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yzPKBjcvOY&feature=youtu.be&t=5m47s
That being said. A person in your clan is usually a person who has demonstrated to your clan officer or leader that they can actually function amongst you as a crew member. Hence why most clans don't grox up their own numbers with dead weight.
You can't act like the elitism is there because vets are being meanies when you, ALL OF YOU, are part of the problem that you imply to be against. Otherwise you'd have your ranks full of every kind of player.
-
The only fluff-talker here is you, Ceresbane.
Get some help dude, because there's something really wrong. I know what I'm talking about, I'm dealing with all that psychiatric gubbins since ever. Because nobody gives a banana about your efficiency, when most of what you are doing is berating everyone, everywhere.
You are acting so religiously about your fluffy elitism, I want to waft you in the face with equal desire I wish I could waft every ubercatholic sod, treating people like fluff because they don't agree with them. Restrict this, restrict that, heck, let's put the bleeding game out of the Steam Shop, so no noob can buy and play the game until it gets out of novice.
Seriously, Ceresbane?
banana off.
-
Um...
Maybe little late to say something here, but I feel that we're all avoiding the elephant in the room, not just for this idea, but a large swath of ideas regarding both vets and novices. There's a real double standard here nd no matter how much we insist upon it not existing, that won't change the facts of the matter.
When a vet is salty at a novice, they're being elitist, but when a novice is salty at a vet, they just don't understand the game so its ok
When a vet vents for a bit, they're damaging the community, but when a novice throws a hissy fit, they're just struggling to get the game
When a vet is at their limit and trying to find a way to fix the game, they're being impatient, but when novices make idiotic comments and such, they're providing a fresh insight.
Honestly, how long are we going to kid ourselves? The sooner we address this issue, the happier we'll be, and the sooner too.
Personally, i think a level requirement to make a clan is not a very good idea, but it does touch on the underlying issue in the community.
-
Ceres there are other criteria beyond skill at the game that impact recruitment. You can be a super mlg sniper no scope megapro lumberjack from 8km magic gunner, if you are an ass and I'm the Bard you are doing your test flying with you aint joining. In fact the Bards are pretty explicit, skill is not a factor in our recruitment, just if you are a good fit for the clan or not (of course that doesn't mean a rejection from the Bards means you are an ass, not a good fit can mean lots of things). As far as I'm aware the Romans have a similar policy, as well as many other clans.
And I would hardly call competitive teams having entry requirements elitism, at least in the pejorative problem causing sense. The kind of elitism that I have a problem with is when the moral value of a person is determined by their talent, intellect, or other minimally-malleable mental quality. With a few notable exceptions I do not see many vets or clans contributing to that, even among those who have experienced considerable frustration with novice players.
-
Hey guys,
Let's tone down some rhetoric here, we can definitely disagree, but lets try to take a step back overall.
On topic though.
I think Luharis is right.
There is definitely a double standard, but I think it's easily explained. When a novice starts venting, getting salty and making stupid comments, they leave.
I mean I know I can't name the "bad" novices (though I've definitely seen many)
but I can tell you the names of the "bad" vets.
So it's easier to be frustrated with you can know basically X vet is a trouble maker and always has, whereas yeah there are frustrating novices, but the ones I saw are already gone.
I mean even we all still roll our eyes a bit in the streams we do or when we get the question "so when will you add boarding." We definitely don't think "what fresh insight"
I'm personally against a level requirement to make clan because I think a group of friends should be able to start making their mark and name as a clan whenever they're ready. I can't say I know the backstory of every clan, but I doubt all of them were "and now we are experts and will spread that message."
As far as 4 packs, their clan would dissolve after a week, you need 5 people to keep the clan going. We chose that number because we wanted it above a four pack. So the 4-pack guys actually have to make friends or recruit at least one other guy.
For names and tags being used up by inactive clans, if this is a huge issue now we can look at ways to solve this (clans with no active members) have their tag up for grabs until a person from the clan signs back on.
-
I strongly disagree with the 5 number in a game centered around 4 people. That is literally encouraging a 'fifth wheel' atmosphere. NOW add the new rematch vote. You make a 5 person clan. 4 people are generally going to be on one ship, leaving the other person alone. If the lobby does not go for a rematch, the clan will have to make a new crewform, creating a longer wait in the queue. If the lobby DOES rematch, one clan member will be on the other team. This is not how new players want to play.
You should drop the clan member count to 4, make the clan name/tag claimable if the number of active members drops below 4 for 3 months, and change the way clan tags are displayed to differentiate between new clans and long established clans.
-
I'd second what Richard said, I'd rather we did something to deal with the long term cruft but made it easier for four packs to start their own small clans and keep them if they keep playing.
-
I have taken to one of the posts on this page because of its completely over-the-line vitriol and aggressiveness. Our community standards do still apply on the forums and we do respond to moderation calls.
Please, let's keep everything in the high brow spirit that we wish to see the whole of the community adopt. This is a feedback thread and we don't want to have to wade through venom to squeeze good ideas out. Please play nice.
Thanks,
Josie
-
I quite like the term "Banana off". I think I'll be using that
-
Ceres there are other criteria beyond skill at the game that impact recruitment. You can be a super mlg sniper no scope megapro lumberjack from 8km magic gunner, if you are an ass and I'm the Bard you are doing your test flying with you aint joining. In fact the Bards are pretty explicit, skill is not a factor in our recruitment, just if you are a good fit for the clan or not (of course that doesn't mean a rejection from the Bards means you are an ass, not a good fit can mean lots of things). As far as I'm aware the Romans have a similar policy, as well as many other clans.
And I would hardly call competitive teams having entry requirements elitism, at least in the pejorative problem causing sense. The kind of elitism that I have a problem with is when the moral value of a person is determined by their talent, intellect, or other minimally-malleable mental quality. With a few notable exceptions I do not see many vets or clans contributing to that, even among those who have experienced considerable frustration with novice players.
That being said. A person in your clan is usually a person who has demonstrated to your clan officer or leader that they can actually function amongst you as a crew member. Hence why most clans don't grox up their own numbers with dead weight.
"function amongst you as a crew member"
I fully acknowledge not everyone is a rydr. But still doesn't change the fact that everyone has criteria for entry.
@swal
bandwagon hypeman life is hype.
Unlike richard here... the comment on the 5 member system is definitely something to explore on alternatives. If I'm following your point correctly... 8 members would be the solution. A middle ground of what muse intends. While reducing it it 4 might pose a dead clan problem.
Not that thats the single biggest creator of dead clans. Frankly I put in the suggestion for level requirement because a new player and hence new leader doesn't have the experience to be effective and decisive. Much less run a group. With levels comes experience in this field that the game teaches. And seeing as that person has stayed in the game.
It demonstrates they're going in for the long haul. And hence the clan created will be.
As for the baby clans-with groups so small I don't really see the point if friendlists and parties are designed specifically for that. Baby clans are just may flies that exist and then die, leaving behind corpses that other new clan leaders have to walk egg shells on.
But if I were to simply say what end game objective I'm after. I frankly just wanna see [NaCl] functioning within the pub scene once more. Simply because the tag is amusing and beautiful and its sad that because of the system, I will never see it again. Not that the salty seamen were worth of any note as players mind.
-
Did you try emailing the developers about getting that clan tag available?
-
Oh Ceres...
"You can't act like the elitism is there because vets are being meanies when you, ALL OF YOU, are part of the problem that you imply to be against. Otherwise you'd have your ranks full of every kind of player."
Are you suggesting we don't have a wide variety of players in the Bards? Keep in mind I know what problems I'm against, so I know what sort of players I'd want to see make up the Bards... Worth emailing to see if the NaCl tag can be freed up if it is no longer in use though.
-
Oh Ceres...
"You can't act like the elitism is there because vets are being meanies when you, ALL OF YOU, are part of the problem that you imply to be against. Otherwise you'd have your ranks full of every kind of player."
Are you suggesting we don't have a wide variety of players in the Bards? Keep in mind I know what problems I'm against, so I know what sort of players I'd want to see make up the Bards... Worth emailing to see if the NaCl tag can be freed up if it is no longer in use though.
Just to make it clear. I don't want the tag personally.
I will always be the leader of [AI]
-
I think a lot of people here, devs included, are under the false impression that clans are actually worth anything. They simply are not to most people. People join games to have fun, not join a clan. If it is not hard to form a clan with a few friends you want to play with, its a bonus. If you make it hard, it is an irritation.
'Clans' in this game are not special enough to limit forming one. They offer nothing tangible.
-
'Clans' in this game are not special enough to limit forming one. They offer nothing tangible.
They offer gold plated repair tools. I am not trying to be mean / a dick. But, that is tangible.
Obviously Muse implemented clan levels for a reason beyond trying to fit in with any other MMO.
Clans keep players in the game. Real bonds are formed within clans.
Furthermore, Muse takes clans seriously. They will devote many man hours ensuring that clans stay intact (:P).
As far as limiting the formation: of course Muse does not want to limit the formation beyond: "4 pack purchase clans" again - clans are good for player retention.
I disagree with limiting the formation of clans.
WoW had a petition thing for Guilds (clans) Member that? People going around Iron Forge / Orgrimmer paying gold to make a clan? Shitty.
-
Cosmetics are not tangible to gameplay. That is what I meant. Other games with clans/guilds/factions/etc generally offer something extra that people get for being in the clan that actually effects how the game plays to some extent. I have never been in a clan, yet have everything anybody in a clan has other than a gold hammer (yay?). You could have an external clan with no ingame name/tag and still have all the benefits aside from the gold hammer.
Moving on to your next point while keeping with your first point, clans are simply and organizational tool in Guns, and not a very good one. And no, I don't think they did make clan levels for any other reason than to fit in with what other games are doing. Take my hypothetical example of a clan that forms outside the game, never gets an ingame name, competes in and wins all competitions. Levels mean nothing, and are only a gimmick to try to give people a shallow reason to grow their clan.
I'll combine the next three points. Clans also make people leave the game en-masse. How many active large clans are there now? The hours have been wasted, due to all the points above. They are simply not worth it as they are. Not being able to form a clan with a few friends makes more people leave earlier than it keeps long term. I can't count the number of people that just got the game with a few friends and asked why they need five members for a four-pack game with a four person crew. What answer do you give them?
"Muse wants you to make more friends."
That is a dumb answer. That does not help. The issue is that it IS the answer. It is a cosmetic effort to give something value above the intrinsic value it has by limiting availability. It promotes invite spams to get that one more random person you don't know, don't care about, and will likely never talk to again. Adding someone to your friends list means more.
So, again, creating a clan IN the game offers nothing TO the game, so such high value should not be placed on it.
-
Ahh, gotcha. Yea that makes sense.
On that note, do you think the friend list is kind of the same thing?
-
Ahh, gotcha. Yea that makes sense.
On that note, do you think the friend list is kind of the same thing?
New players don't tend to have a big list. The friend list suffices and for a chat, creating a party chat works.
That being said clan chat is seldom used really seeing as skype and teamchat and mumble exist.
Clans are generally more of a friends among friends list. Albeit barely (since steam friends list is a thing). But what I do know is. High level players that run them, have them actually function. As opposed to the baby clans that just die within a few days of being born because their leader isn't really competent enough to manage people.
They form these little noob cliques, get crushed by vets and then leave. While if its encouraged for new players to join clans via this hi lvl system. People that join a clan are guaranteed a teacher.
Thus creating a system far better than this "novice partnership" nonsense.
Its good to have options for everyone. But I'm not gonna nod my head and agree that all given options are equal in merit. Noob clans rarely prosper, and are as much dead weight as its memberships. It doesn't encourage growth and development and community.
-
baby clans
leader isn't really competent
little noob cliques
People that join a clan are guaranteed a teacher.
Noob clans rarely prosper
dead weight
This pretty much sums up why you should have no say in how clans are formed, ever.
-
Was the nice spirit of the community patched out in the last update?
Why is it that instead of discussing an idea on solely its merits and flaws, we are instead at each other's throats?
I would like to try to steer us back on path with the original topic
Level Requirement to Create Clans:
Pro:
-Prevents cluttering of Clan Registry, and frees up a lot of otherwise unused clan tags
-Encourages novices to mingle more and as a result, meet more experienced players
-Potentially increase skill of new players faster, as instead of fighting with other new players, they'll likely see some more actual air combat
-Help players stay. It is annoying when everyone else in a new clan stops playing, and can discourage you from playing, by joining clans that are already established, there will likely always be someone familiar to play with
Con:
-May be seen as unfair by people who wish to unite together under their own clan
-As a clan has no actual gameplay effects, is there even a need to regulate them?
-Can reduce game "stickiness," that is, novices may leave because they cannot unite under their own banner
These are the point that I see in this idea. Looking at it objectively, I feel as though a clan level requirement would be beneficial overall.
-
You are wrong about the pros.
Point one: Frees up clan tags for what? The clans no one is making because they are only joining the very few established clans? The clutter of the clan registry is the fault of the devs, not people making clans. Add in some basic 'sort by' boxes to fix it.
Point two: No. This is the opposite of what you want to do when introducing a group of friends to the game. This game has a high social curve to start. Making it higher will do nothing for player retention.
Point three: For the players that stay, sure. For the ones you already chased off with seemingly clan elitism, no.
Point four: This is even more the case when an 'established' clan quits, so is not a valid argument. More people have quit this game because a large clan dissolved than because small clans dissolved. Most new people quit for other reasons.
-
To rephrase the basics:
Problem: Large amount of small clans which are often abandoned and take-up the names and clantags.
Proposed solutions:
a) change the required members for clan (from original 5)
b) introduce lvl requirement for creating clans
c) propose some way to regain names and clantags from inactive clans
I think we may need 2 or even 3 of those, actually. Firstly:
a) 5 members is awkward as hell, but then again I think 8 is too many. Either back it down to 4 and embrace the clan swarm (about that in a moment) or I say raise it up to 6 because it's less awkward than 5, it's two ships with almost-full crew or one full ship and captain+one crewmember. Both of those options are equally valid for me.
b) Level requirement is scary as hell for some people, but it can be as low as, I dunno, 5. I think some symbolic compromise would be that non-novice players can join clans, but they can't create them. For novice time (like, what, 10 hours of gameplay?) they'd have to manage with friendlist and party capabilities.
Edit: What if we did a cruel joke and only let people make clans after they have finished tutorial? Mwahahaha (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFg7esxnrXs)
// Personal note - I think there is something in keeping the clanlist clean, because I know I joined a mostly inactive clan once and felt weird. Literally for a week I was the only guy online.
c) As someone suggested, just [If clan has less than {minimum required} members for 3 (or 6 perhaps?) months - disband that clan] thing. But what if clan has members but all of them are inactive? Huh, I guess some percentage of activity requirement? Like if for X amount of time less than Y% of people logged in then disband clan? More humane would be to just put a warning first. Throw in your ideas, but I think this is the best thing we can do.
Also, clan has some capabilities that have effect on gameplay. This is like friendlist-PRO, becuase you can set some kind of rules and restrictions for joining your clan and form for instance a band of 1000+ matches vets who crewform together, which is op in pubs. But unlike friendlist you don't have to know all those people, every clan member once in a while adds someone and that person serves as a friend-PRO for all the clan.
-
You are wrong about the pros.
Point one: Frees up clan tags for what? The clans no one is making because they are only joining the very few established clans? The clutter of the clan registry is the fault of the devs, not people making clans. Add in some basic 'sort by' boxes to fix it.
Point two: No. This is the opposite of what you want to do when introducing a group of friends to the game. This game has a high social curve to start. Making it higher will do nothing for player retention.
Point three: For the players that stay, sure. For the ones you already chased off with seemingly clan elitism, no.
Point four: This is even more the case when an 'established' clan quits, so is not a valid argument. More people have quit this game because a large clan dissolved than because small clans dissolved. Most new people quit for other reasons.
Time to play devil's advocate here.
Point 1 is implying the extreme opposite. So... if people join a big clan like say that angry joe army one or grox. What's the issue here? What is the issue of a big clan? Plus should people feel like a clan is too big. Often times senior members of said clan leave and reform their own, many vets who have their current clans are usually branches of the 5 major old guard clans. So what is the issue here? Plus its blatantly ignoring the inherent problem of dead clans filling up the registry. And the big problem is the sheer size of these compared to ACTIVE CLANS. If active clans out number the dead ones. Its kind of a step forward you genius.
Point 2. Going by your friend introduction thing. Wouldn't that friend be invited into the clan or join crew forms (to then eventually join) in the first place? What scenario are you playing in your head where a friend that's introduced isn't introduced to the regulars the inviter flies with?
But let's look at a different scenario. New player joins. Plays the game and finds people they like and friends them, after playing awhile they level up and form a clan. But before that they organise via the friendlist and use the party system. Or starts playing with x clan and gets a good thing going with the members, guy joins the clan.
Point 3. People that leave were always going to leave. They saw a game on steam costing them pennies, logged in and played for a bit but didn't like it. It happens. Because teamwork is hard. The game is very niche in a medium thats mostly fascinated with the solo hero power fantasy since 1985. Welcome to reality. COOP isn't for everyone.
-
There are not enough facepalms. My suggestion was to automatically release dead clan names after a certain time. That solves all problems of 'clan clutter'.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I wrote 'introduced', not 'invited'. When you and friends join a game for the first time, you are being introduced to the game BY the game, not by some in-crowd. That is one of the reasons GOIO bleeds new players. It is bad at introducing. Getting all elite-y about clans would only make that worse.
Your counter to point three is pure BS. Everything influences whether a person leaves or stays in a place or community. A single interaction can make a difference. You have a very simple-minded and shallow caricature of the reasons people do what they do. For example, if I had met you on the first day, my chances of hanging around would have been severely diminished. I would have thought, "Great, another community full of morons."
-
facepalm a little harder, and several times.
You need a few slaps.
Your suggestion does solve it from a systematic point but from a community point, it still doesn't create that bridge between vets and noobs. Noobs clans will be born and noob clans will die like third world child mortality rates.
And introduced or invited... splitting hairs much? Same goddamn thing, you tell someone to try something, both can be said to be introduced and invited. And don't even put all the blame on vets by your wording. I personally hate interacting with noobs simply because of a large number of them simply being unresponsive.
Just the other day I was explaining in huge detail why a person's galleon has no killing power. I challenged the logic in the build and I explained the flaws in that logic. And when the "I'm just having fun" card came up as it all too often does. I simply stated that its not fun to crush someone with little to no effort. Because when the match started my ship didn't even get a single hull break on it as I hovered in place and ripped each ship a new one. And I was using the barebones metamidion that has been heavily nerfed. Where a much better built galleon could crush the piece of crap I flew.
Madzela was around to vouch this. Despite a vet's best efforts to BE inviting some people just reject it.
Everything influences whether a person leaves or stays in a place or community. A single interaction can make a difference.
Which is it? the former or the latter. Calling my point BS. And then immediately coming up with this golden nugget.
-
People rarely agree with you. People have left the game because of you and the hostile atmosphere you create. Almost every player I know has you on their block list. Your clan is never around that I can see. You hate playing with new people, insisting that they are somehow less than you. You may hate playing with 'noobs', but most of the people I know hate playing with you, and would rather have the noobs. I really don't understand where you think you are in a position to judge why anybody does anything, or how they should be managed.
You have severe reading comprehension problems if you think the line you quoted contradicts itself. You also have severe context issues with definitions since you are still not able to understand the differences in the usage of 'introduce' and 'invite'.
1. bring (something, especially a product, measure, or concept) into use or operation for the first time.
This is the definition for 'introduce' that you can't seem to grasp. Let me give you two sentences that may help you figure it out.
"I was first introduced to the ships of GOIO when I downloaded it and played a match. I then invited three of my friends to play."
"I was first invited to the ships of GOIO when I downloaded it and played a match. I then introduced three of my friends to play."
Same thing, right?
How about another one, since you are hung up on the definition of a human 'introducer'.
"I would like to introduce you to my clan."
'I would like to invite you to my clan."
Still the same thing, am I right?
-
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/popcorn_danny_devito.gif)
-
People rarely agree with you. People have left the game because of you and the hostile atmosphere you create. Almost every player I know has you on their block list. Your clan is never around that I can see. You hate playing with new people, insisting that they are somehow less than you. You may hate playing with 'noobs', but most of the people I know hate playing with you, and would rather have the noobs. I really don't understand where you think you are in a position to judge why anybody does anything, or how they should be managed.
You have severe reading comprehension problems if you think the line you quoted contradicts itself. You also have severe context issues with definitions since you are still not able to understand the differences in the usage of 'introduce' and 'invite'.
Do tell, what the hell does this have to do with the issue at hand?
Or can you not comprehend what this topic is about?
I'll remind you.
A level requirement to create a clan.
Maybe I'm just really stupid, but for some reason, what you said is absolutely irrelevant. Why can't we as a community just create a productive discussion? It's quixotic of me to hope for the best all the time, but really now, why can't we be civil?
That aside, I still think it is important to at least reserve clan creation to people who have a better chance of staying. That is, someone who has played for 5-10 hours is more likely to play than someone who ragequits the first match. So why is it absurd to have a small benefit for sticking around, even just for a little bit?!
-
The amount of rage between veterans is something that could be taken in a bottle, blended up, put on ice, swallowed and then puked out while the content simultaneously dissolves your insides.
It's that bad.
I've lost all sense of what the main topic is, and I'm sitting here reading a spit fest between two players with some bad history between them that I could NOT CARE ABOUT.
And quite frankly I'm getting this upsetting vibe that all veterans are dicks in general for the sake of teaching a new player to "learn" and when you put two vets up against each other, the fricken world falls out beneath them.
But that's not really important.
From what I understand, there's a lot of small clans out there taking up "space" and taking up name tags while simultaneously being inactive.
And this is a problem because ACTIVE people want the tags names that the INACTIVES have.
Max's suggestion, was that we have a player reach a certain level threshold before they are able to actually make a clan, much like how you need to have a certain level before escaping novice and joining vet games.
Because his argument is that new players make a clan prematurely with their buddies and get bored of the game and abandon it leaving behind a hollowed husk of a clan name and tag when they leave.
Therefore, these new players should have this level restriction to make them play the game more in the hopes of keeping them in the game for that clan tag on the assumption that they will play more because they worked for that tag and clan.
At least, that's what I'm getting. Yet somewhere down the line, everything devolved into the angry scream fest right now, with "elitism" and "noobs refusing to listen"
It's understandable in a way.
But I honestly think it doesn't solve the problem that Max is getting at.
There are too many small clans taking up space and names that are inactive and need to be dissolved.
And there isn't a system in place to automatically dissolve them.
That needs to be looked at.
Have a system in which a minimum of three players have checked into the clan between a week or two. And if the clan doesn't have any of the players in its clan check in, then the clan is dissolved.
Surely a leader and a pair of officers is enough to show its activity.
Attempting to restrict the new players with friends getting together and forming a clan, I feel, is not the solution to this problem.
It MIGHT prevent more clans from being formed if they have a level restriction and making clan making a bit more important, but it WONT FIX the issue of there being too many small clans ALREADY THERE.
it might be something similar to an elitism mindset for suggesting restrictions on new players but that's something not worth mentioning on this problem.
Nor is the underlying issue of vets and noobs getting different treatments when they "vent" on the forum or in general.
Adding a level cap in clan making won't bridge the gap between newbies and veterans, That's a brand spanking new topic all together, one that isn't going to be solved by making it harder to make a clan, so let's drop that idea that it will alright?
Actually, how bout we drop the whole wrist slashing thing you guys got going on, cause honestly it's working on people just showing up to NOT GIVE A FLYING PICKLE?
-
Basically, this is trying to solve a problem that does not exist, which is what has been talked about. All established players that want clans have clans. No reason to free up names there. Add in a level limit for clans so.... what, more people join other clans before they create their own so they don't need new names?
The solution to this 'problem' is still the same. Let four member crews form as many clans as they wish. Give them the default warning of "You must have 4 members in your clan or it will be deleted in 5 days AND you must have 4 members that log in once a month or its name will expire."
Simple, straight-forward, and it bothers no one. I have actually seen larger clans talk to and absorb entire smaller clans after seeing them do well. It actually helps larger clans see who is together and may be good for recruiting.
There is a history here, but it is not between him and I. I have had very small contact with him don't deal with him until he jumps on the forum and starts telling people how stupid their ideas are because of two dimensional thoughts, or harassing women in the game. The history is actually to do with his clan before AI had their own skin and levels showed up on characters. He created the clan to troll people, especially new players, with the philosophy of "Well if they are too stupid to figure it out, they deserve it."
So, most 'vets' are fine. That guy, however, seems to delight in making new players suffer as a way of 'teaching' them the game. If they leave? Oh well. They were not suited for this game anyways. This is just another facet of his hate for 'noobs'. It is not a suggestion made out of good intent, nor is it a suggestion to solve any valid 'problem'.
-
>or harassing women in the game
I agree with nearly every point you have to give about Ceresbane, but dude, women do not equate to minors.
-
There is no problem to address, this thread from the opening post is an elitest circlejerk. Ceresbane has been doing this for years, Richard is giving it the response it deserves (but maybe feeding the troll a bit too much :p )
-
>or harassing women in the game
I agree with nearly every point you have to give about Ceresbane, but dude, women do not equate to minors.
Errrrm. Pardon me, but where did Richard stated so? ^^
He just listed two of Ceresbane's activities.
-
>or harassing women in the game
I agree with nearly every point you have to give about Ceresbane, but dude, women do not equate to minors.
Errrrm. Pardon me, but where did Richard stated so? ^^
He just listed two of Ceresbane's activities.
Maybe I am tired, but from what I read, I see him stating that he only dealt with Ceresbane where he felt needed, and this was included in the list. I don't really see the need to distinguish "harassing women" from any other antisocial behaviour towards other player unless you see this as some kind of special case which requires outside interference more than harassment of any other player.
-
I dont want to be the guy that jumps on the bandwagon but even the attempt to legitimize this topic by a "proper" discussion on level requirements for clans is a waste. You dont help the community by limiting who can do what. You dont make people stick around by creating hoops so small they break their necks trying to get through. If people want clans they create them.
I have no idea why people even entertain this elitist thinking from the start. Jazzhand rips noobs apart from the safety of spectator slot or blocking anyone that opposes him in game. This person is a bigger problem to deal with than this topic.
-
I dont want to be the guy that jumps on the bandwagon but even the attempt to legitimize this topic by a "proper" discussion on level requirements for clans is a waste. You dont help the community by limiting who can do what. You dont make people stick around by creating hoops so small they break their necks trying to get through. If people want clans they create them.
I have no idea why people even entertain this elitist thinking from the start. Jazzhand rips noobs apart from the safety of spectator slot or blocking anyone that opposes him in game. This person is a bigger problem to deal with than this topic.
I wholeheartedly agree with all you said. I even mailed about him to bloody Muse, but they don't seem to give a shit that much.
-
Time to delete the thread and pretend it never happened.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8pvucvUSO1ry10fwo1_500.gif)