Really think players would best be served with being removed from who lists in manse rooms with privacy gems.
I completely agree. Sometimes I just don't want anyone knowing I'm online, for various reasons. In those times, I'm not available for combat, RP, etc, so there's no reason I need to be included in the total online count. I'm effectively out of play. I think that should be allowed, in a manse room with a privacy gem. Keep that separate from the gem of cloaking changes, please.
We have had a bit of discussion about Manse Privacy Gems and want to propose the following changes:
- Manse Privacy Gems will still show people on WHO but as (cloaked location) like I mentioned above. They will still stop people from being scried. Room names will not be visible via EWHO. - We will change the line for TELLSOFF to be something other than 'x is not accepting tells right now.' while in a manse. - We also want to turn your attention to CHANGELOG 1254 which has the DONOTDISTURB command. We can modify this so that tells will not bypass it, and have a generic message about being 'mindless' or possibility have the option for custom return messages (that may be a change later on down the track after the initial changes are all made) if you are in a manse with DONOTDISTURB. - Says and Emotes will not be blocked by DND in a manse.
The only problem I see with this is the fact that people still seeing you online and in 'donotdisturb' rumors will fly about who else might be there too. If I'm being somewhat blunt. Some reasons people want to be invisible in manses is -because- they don't want people to know what they are up to in those manses and who they might be up to it with. Rumors can be really hurtful both IC and OOC to a player and character reputation and I feel like this might lead to a lot of unnecissary gossip about who is in a manse with who and when and why they're all on DONOTDISTURB.
Besides that I understand the concept. I simply feel that the potential for rumors and gossip that could turn into IC and OOC bias just isn't necissary.
Edit: Maybe increasing the time that the gem's activation lasts while in a manse might help circumvent this? If you can activate it multiple times a day anyway at ten minutes then I don't see why there would be any PVP issues (Considering timequakes and domoths only take 15ish minutes on average.)
Edit 2: Maybe make the privacy and cloaking gems have a stackable effect that while in the same location you disappear from the WHOLIST completely. Seems like it's just a lot of work to rework the donotdisturb and tellsoff systems when having the two artifacts have a 'leveled' effect when used together might be easier?
Even now, it is impossible for some players to be truly hidden regardless. Guild leaders and city leaders, even if hidden completely from the WHO list as they are now, will still show up on the respective HELP file for the guild/city/commune under the [CURRENTLY IN THE REALM] section. I understand the concern about starting rumors, however, given the following (with changes):
- Nobody will ever see the room name [it will be (cloaked location)]. - Nobody will ever be able to scry you. - The two above points apply to everyone in the room with Manse Privacy, so there would be no way for them to know who is in what room with who.
You would have the same issue if we made people not show on the WHO list at all in a room with manse privacy. You would not be able to be scried and you would not show up on WHO, but if you were in a guild leadership position you'd still show up as being able to inguild and promote if you were in one of those positions, and people would still be able to send you tells.
No matter what precautions may be taken, there is no solution to gossip. No amount of preparation will curtail the human imagination, and if we wait for a solution to gossip then I'm afraid we'll never get anything done.
This is inaccurate. I am currently Hegumen of the sanctifiers and do not appear on the 'currently in the realm' portion that lists those able to inguild and promote when I am in my manse. I've just confirmed this with another guild member.
On re-reading, yes you are correct. I misread the portion of the code for that. My apologies.
I'll take all this feedback back up to the team and see what the verdict is from there.
We have had some more discussions and we will leave Manse Privacy rooms as they are for the time being.
However, we will continue to observe and monitor how these rooms are used, and if they are being used by a portion of the playerbase for untoward reasons (hiding raiding parties, etc) or not supporting the reason behind these changes, we will roll out some incremental updates and find a method that supports AFKing players to be hidden from the who list, while still supporting the changes.
We have had some more discussions and we will leave Manse Privacy rooms as they are for the time being.
However, we will continue to observe and monitor how these rooms are used, and if they are being used by a portion of the playerbase for untoward reasons (hiding raiding parties, etc) or not supporting the reason behind these changes, we will roll out some incremental updates and find a method that supports AFKing players to be hidden from the who list, while still supporting the changes.
Thank you. I can honestly say I've never seen either side use them to hide raiding parties. I think most people just use it for afking haha.
We have had some more discussions and we will leave Manse Privacy rooms as they are for the time being.
However, we will continue to observe and monitor how these rooms are used, and if they are being used by a portion of the playerbase for untoward reasons (hiding raiding parties, etc) or not supporting the reason behind these changes, we will roll out some incremental updates and find a method that supports AFKing players to be hidden from the who list, while still supporting the changes.
Thank you. I can honestly say I've never seen either side use them to hide raiding parties. I think most people just use it for afking haha.
This update has been a long time coming and I wish to offer my feedback, both as a player and as a combatant (back when I played anyway):
Finally! I have tried getting other people to try out Lusternia (from both outside and inside the IRE ecosystem). One of the biggest complaints was how empty everything felt, between gems and newbies not being able to sense off-plane.
People used manse rooms with privacy gems (even before the change) to hide groups of people from ewho mirrors when the element of surprise was deemed necessary. Will there be a good way to enforce this new behavior of "only allowing afk people" or will this just be another contentious way to issue? What happens if someone influential was afk in manse, came back, and then was able to turn the tides of conflict? This, imo, just opens up a can of worms.
I believe everyone under the effect of a gem (cloaking or privacy) should be treated the same: (cloaked room). The API (https://api.lusternia.com/characters.json) should also be updated to include this change.
We have had some more discussions and we will leave Manse Privacy rooms as they are for the time being.
However, we will continue to observe and monitor how these rooms are used, and if they are being used by a portion of the playerbase for untoward reasons (hiding raiding parties, etc) or not supporting the reason behind these changes, we will roll out some incremental updates and find a method that supports AFKing players to be hidden from the who list, while still supporting the changes.
Thank you. I can honestly say I've never seen either side use them to hide raiding parties. I think most people just use it for afking haha.
This update has been a long time coming and I wish to offer my feedback, both as a player and as a combatant (back when I played anyway):
Finally! I have tried getting other people to try out Lusternia (from both outside and inside the IRE ecosystem). One of the biggest complaints was how empty everything felt, between gems and newbies not being able to sense off-plane.
People used manse rooms with privacy gems (even before the change) to hide groups of people from ewho mirrors when the element of surprise was deemed necessary. Will there be a good way to enforce this new behavior of "only allowing afk people" or will this just be another contentious way to issue? What happens if someone influential was afk in manse, came back, and then was able to turn the tides of conflict? This, imo, just opens up a can of worms.
I believe everyone under the effect of a gem (cloaking or privacy) should be treated the same: (cloaked room). The API (https://api.lusternia.com/characters.json) should also be updated to include this change.
In the couple of years i've been here now i've not seen a single party group up in a manse to prepare for a 'raid' of any sort. Perhaps it happened once upon a time, but people have abused things in the past before. Maybe it has happened, but my point is that it isn't happening now. I like to think that lessons have been learned by exploiting a win.
EDIT: Also...why does that matter? I feel like using an artifact that you've paid for and that everyone has access to (Credits are very easy to come by.) isn't really an exploit anyway? It just feels to me like "Well we thought no one was around so we tried to take the Timequake but you all were hiding in a manse preparing and so it's not fair." is kindof a way of saying, 'Shame on you for making us think we got an easy win." I don't see why it matters who is in a hidden room and unseeable? Would you have any more likely won the fight if they'd been visible from the beginning? Not likely. The more likely outcome would've been that no one would've even tried to fight for the Timequake because they assumed they'd lose anyway.
I've seen it from both sides the overwhelming 'There's ten of them in there it's hopeless, might as well let them have it.' mentality. This just feels like an advocation for a defeatist outlook rather than "Oh snap they pulled a 'trojan horse' on us and we lost. But at least we tried."
In the couple of years i've been here now i've not seen a single party group up in a manse to prepare for a 'raid' of any sort. Perhaps it happened once upon a time, but people have abused things in the past before. Maybe it has happened, but my point is that it isn't happening now. I like to think that lessons have been learned by exploiting a win.
EDIT: Also...why does that matter? I feel like using an artifact that you've paid for and that everyone has access to (Credits are very easy to come by.) isn't really an exploit anyway? It just feels to me like "Well we thought no one was around so we tried to take the Timequake but you all were hiding in a manse preparing and so it's not fair." is kindof a way of saying, 'Shame on you for making us think we got an easy win." I don't see why it matters who is in a hidden room and unseeable? Would you have any more likely won the fight if they'd been visible from the beginning? Not likely. The more likely outcome would've been that no one would've even tried to fight for the Timequake because they assumed they'd lose anyway.
I've seen it from both sides the overwhelming 'There's ten of them in there it's hopeless, might as well let them have it.' mentality. This just feels like an advocation for a defeatist outlook rather than "Oh snap they pulled a 'trojan horse' on us and we lost. But at least we tried."
The flipside is just as true. You paid to hide your location.
In the couple of years i've been here now i've not seen a single party group up in a manse to prepare for a 'raid' of any sort. Perhaps it happened once upon a time, but people have abused things in the past before. Maybe it has happened, but my point is that it isn't happening now. I like to think that lessons have been learned by exploiting a win.
EDIT: Also...why does that matter? I feel like using an artifact that you've paid for and that everyone has access to (Credits are very easy to come by.) isn't really an exploit anyway? It just feels to me like "Well we thought no one was around so we tried to take the Timequake but you all were hiding in a manse preparing and so it's not fair." is kindof a way of saying, 'Shame on you for making us think we got an easy win." I don't see why it matters who is in a hidden room and unseeable? Would you have any more likely won the fight if they'd been visible from the beginning? Not likely. The more likely outcome would've been that no one would've even tried to fight for the Timequake because they assumed they'd lose anyway.
I've seen it from both sides the overwhelming 'There's ten of them in there it's hopeless, might as well let them have it.' mentality. This just feels like an advocation for a defeatist outlook rather than "Oh snap they pulled a 'trojan horse' on us and we lost. But at least we tried."
The flipside is just as true. You paid to hide your location.
I paid for the artifacts knowing they hid me from the wholist entirely. So yeah..I mean that's what i'd like it to continue to do. At least in manses with privacy gems. I completely understand the desire for more visibility among players for new players. But I don't agree with taking something away that people have worked/paid for to do so. At least the gems keep an activatable ability to hide from the wholist (Which makes hiding in a manse a moot point for 10 minutes) and no matter what you have no idea where we are.
Can we add an extra bit on the count at the bottom of who/ewho for privacy room gems? Something like '(*) Currently, there are 17 Lusternians, 10 of which are hidden from you. There are also 10 people completely hidden by privacy that do not show on this list.'
This was a problem with the old ewho - the reported number didn't reflect the true number of players signed on. Having ~33% of the game be in privacy rooms is a huge number to not be reported on who/ewho in some way, even if they are afk or whatever.
Comments
I'll take all this feedback back up to the team and see what the verdict is from there.
However, we will continue to observe and monitor how these rooms are used, and if they are being used by a portion of the playerbase for untoward reasons (hiding raiding parties, etc) or not supporting the reason behind these changes, we will roll out some incremental updates and find a method that supports AFKing players to be hidden from the who list, while still supporting the changes.
EDIT: Also...why does that matter? I feel like using an artifact that you've paid for and that everyone has access to (Credits are very easy to come by.) isn't really an exploit anyway? It just feels to me like "Well we thought no one was around so we tried to take the Timequake but you all were hiding in a manse preparing and so it's not fair." is kindof a way of saying, 'Shame on you for making us think we got an easy win." I don't see why it matters who is in a hidden room and unseeable? Would you have any more likely won the fight if they'd been visible from the beginning? Not likely. The more likely outcome would've been that no one would've even tried to fight for the Timequake because they assumed they'd lose anyway.
I've seen it from both sides the overwhelming 'There's ten of them in there it's hopeless, might as well let them have it.' mentality. This just feels like an advocation for a defeatist outlook rather than "Oh snap they pulled a 'trojan horse' on us and we lost. But at least we tried."