The Future Potential of F2P In-game Comms

[Kincaide]

In case you guys haven't seen it posted elsewhere, Blizzard posted in this thread about changes to how add-ons can communicate with each other. [MENTION=7838]Yasueh[/MENTION] said in his addon thread:

This is a big enough change that making use of it in F2PAddon will warrant a complete rewrite and a 2.0.0 version.

In preliminary testing I could even send messages through the addon channel from a F2P to a P2P who didn't have me on their friends list. Will need to check with P2Ps who haven't recently sent whispers to the F2P, but if this works, the whole of F2PAddon's code will become a lot simpler, making it more reliable, and easier to add new features to.

The takeaway message from this is that, potentially, the F2P addon will not need to mess with your friends list or your ability/inability to whisper to certain people, instead automatically connecting via a custom chat channel with all other people using the addon (which is also communicating via the same custom chat channel).

The future potential for this is huge, and could change the way we think of our F2P communities.

As it stands now, we think of an F2P community unit as being measured on a per-server basis. While there has been recent work done to make multiple chat channels possible, the fundamental default operation is for everyone on a server to essentially be in the same server-wide "guild".

However, the new technology, not depending on your friends list to know who to "whisper" to, could change the dynamic completely. I'd like to invite each of you to ponder for a minute the implications of thinking of F2P communication more in terms of a true quasi-guild chat. What if we were to imagine a future where the norm is to have multiple F2P "guilds" on a server, each one with its own secure guild channel?

The potential here is strong because it would mean a person could only have to communicate with the people they share a demeanor or philosophy with. Superservers like Aerie Peak could potentially have multiple "guilds", each with their own leadership, channel control, and personality, yet unlike the per-server model, they would have lots of other "guilds" on the same server against which they could do wargames.

There would be real consequences in this model for being an unpleasant personality, just as in paid WoW, wherein you could find yourself unwelcome in any guild. But then you could start your own guild full of unpleasant people and be surrounded by the kinds of people you identify with!

The drawback to this model would be that servers as a whole would lose their identity. However I'd like for everyone to consider how common it is nowadays for people to play on their own "boutique" servers with relatively small (dare I say guild-sized) populations, because of how difficult it has been to escape the unsavory elements that always come with being on a megaserver where membership only requires rolling a character.

I'm very interested in hearing what people think about this. I for one would be tempted to move back to Aerie Peak if I felt like I would be able to still identify myself with just a particular group of people on the server, and not have to deal with every bad seed. I imagine that there could always still be a server-wide channel, so total newbs to the server aren't left alone, but... I say if a person has already done enough research that they know to download the addon, then they probably are familiar enough with the forum that they can introduce themselves here and look for like minded people here. This drives more traffic to the forums... that's a good thing, right? And then there could be multiple F2P "guild" recruitment threads rather than server recruitment threads... but what do you guys think? Do you lean more towards seeing this as a way of rescuing bloated megaservers and giving you more tools to more precisely identify yourself with your sub-group of friends on your server, or do you worry more about the effects of splintering the server identity as a whole? Would "server identity" be an outdated concept now that we are due to let go of? What do you think?

Please respect all politely-worded opinions expressed here!

 

[Activate]

To be clear I think we can all agree AP is the only megaserver on US. I don't think AP's server identity is really at stake any longer. The "damage" is done, we're still here. Organization (not dictatorship) will strengthen the server and resolve the issues veterans have.

The pieces and players are all here.

 

[Kincaide]

To be clear I think we can all agree AP is the only megaserver on US. I don't think AP's server identity is really at stake any longer. The "damage" is done, we're still here. Organization (not dictatorship) will strengthen the server and resolve the issues veterans have.

The pieces and players are all here.

Right, I should point out, I'm certainly not trying to paint AP in any particular bad light, and this isn't meant to be reduced to a discussion of how to fix AP specifically. As you rightly point out, my free-wheeling thoughts on the matter may really only apply to AP, and, having not played there consistently in a couple of years, I'm in no position, nor do I claim to be, to discuss what's best for that server in particular.

But on topic, I am still interested in your thoughts, either in general or from an AP-specific perspective, on how you foresee the potential for things to change if people are essentially able to replicate a "guild" model, and easily have multiple sub-groups on one server. Indeed if we were to consider a possible future where sub-groups are the norm, and server-wide communication is not the norm. Would you be in favor of that, or would you feel like something critical would be lost in that transition?

 

[Neon]

Great idea, I like the idea of F2P guilds.

 

[Neon]

I was actually thinking of like an Aerie Peak F2P app where you have like different chat windows.

One could be like the main hub where everyone chats at, and then like different cult community chat windows?

 

[Neon]

I was actually thinking of like an Aerie Peak F2P app where you have like different chat windows.

One could be like the main hub where everyone chats at, and then like different cult community chat windows?

But there would be like a passcode for each cult community tab.

 

[Activate]

But on topic, I am still interested in your thoughts, either in general or from an AP-specific perspective, on how you foresee the potential for things to change if people are essentially able to replicate a "guild" model, and easily have multiple sub-groups on one server. Indeed if we were to consider a possible future where sub-groups are the norm, and server-wide communication is not the norm. Would you be in favor of that, or would you feel like something critical would be lost in that transition?

This is all from an AP perspective.


I don't think removing the server-wide ability to communicate is something to be sought after. I think the ability to counter "diluting agents" in a manner the majority finds agreeable is. Information that is of high value to a new player will often be seen as spam to an informed player. The same comparison can be made with PvE vs PvP; BG vs Arena; Rares, WPvP, instances, etc.

I believe my past proposal for an alternate channel on AP failed because it was a separation. The F2P Addon was not designed to support more than one channel. If I recall correctly, Yasueh would have had to rewrite the code from scratch.

If we had to choose between subgroups or one group I would say a guild model is the clear winner. I would prefer each individual retain the ability to be apart of the whole. However, I am strongly against the notion of anyone being entitled to join us. The negatives to an "open guild" have been clearly demonstrated. I would go so far as to describe one channel to Trade Chat rather than a guild. The possibilities here are all advantages.

 

[Bop]

This is all from an AP perspective.


I don't think removing the server-wide ability to communicate is something to be sought after. I think the ability to counter "diluting agents" in a manner the majority finds agreeable is. Information that is of high value to a new player will often be seen as spam to an informed player. The same comparison can be made with PvE vs PvP; BG vs Arena; Rares, WPvP, instances, etc.

I believe my past proposal for an alternate channel on AP failed because it was a separation. The F2P Addon was not designed to support more than one channel. If I recall correctly, Yasueh would have had to rewrite the code from scratch.

If we had to choose between subgroups or one group I would say a guild model is the clear winner. I would prefer each individual retain the ability to be apart of the whole. However, I am strongly against the notion of anyone being entitled to join us. The negatives to an "open guild" have been clearly demonstrated. I would go so far as to describe one channel to Trade Chat rather than a guild. The possibilities here are all advantages.

It seems that the ideal solution would be the keep one channel as the baseline all-access F2P channel while also allowing the existence of sub-channel "guilds".

 

[Neon]

It seems that the ideal solution would be the keep one channel as the baseline all-access F2P channel while also allowing the existence of sub-channel "guilds".

Yeah like a f2p app where you have a trade chat and all the guilds tabs but to enter them you need a passcode.

 

[Rollop]

That's pretty cool, although I think this would only effect AP Horde. Not sure how big AP Ally is these days, although I don't think It's ever been as big as It's counterpart. I like the idea of setting up your own channels, but whats to stop an unfamiliar mod from fucking with your sub channels?

 

[Brov]

That's pretty cool, although I think this would only effect AP Horde. Not sure how big AP Ally is these days, although I don't think It's ever been as big as It's counterpart. I like the idea of setting up your own channels, but whats to stop an unfamiliar mod from fucking with your sub channels?

once upon a time....

 

[Activate]

That's pretty cool, although I think this would only effect AP Horde. Not sure how big AP Ally is these days, although I don't think It's ever been as big as It's counterpart. I like the idea of setting up your own channels, but whats to stop an unfamiliar mod from fucking with your sub channels?

Any changes to the addon would be available to all servers not just AP H. Even if the owner mechanic stays as it is, use the manual remedy. Make a new channel until ownership of the original is reobtained. People who are locked out can ask what's up by whispering people who are still on their friend's list or seeing them ingame/bg/TI/voice chat.

 

[Neon]

Maybe Yasueh can tweak his add-on to like make it more like a p2p guild is with like a GM and ranks.

 

[Kincaide]

The F2P Addon was not designed to support more than one channel. If I recall correctly, Yasueh would have had to rewrite the code from scratch.

This is true... his quote above and elsewhere gave me the impression that, in order to take advantage of the new code, he would be rewriting the addon anyway. So I thought this might be an opportunity for us to brainstorm as a community to talk about what features might improve our F2P quality of life.

 

[Purse]

Now accepting applications for <TEAM SWAG>.

 

[Pooh]

Now accepting applications for <TEAM SWAG>.

Name: Pooh

Race: Panda

Ocupation: nothing,let people carry me

Interest: sleep, hunny, bamboo, fap fap

Accomplishments: burping my abc's

 

[Atsuro]

It wont make much difference being able to make f2p guilds on servers, the servers are already cliquey to the point where you can't talk to anybody you didn't knew prior to joining the server so why not just formalize it and accept it. The only difference is that you wont be able to see what the other cliques write in chat. So now everybody can circlejerk with their ''guild''. Have fun!

 

[Rollop]

It wont make much difference being able to make f2p guilds on servers, the servers are already cliquey to the point where you can't talk to anybody you didn't knew prior to joining the server so why not just formalize it and accept it. The only difference is that you wont be able to see what the other cliques write in chat. So now everybody can circlejerk with their ''guild''. Have fun!

I think your own personal experience with rejection is your issue, and not the majorities.

 

[Vail]

Strongly disagree there. Being polite is good and all... but if you're the sort to routinely stand in fire, you're most certainly getting axed.

I don't think the idea of f2p guilds is very healthy for the community. AP ally is already small enough as it is; there are times I've logged in to find no one else online. We don't need stuff dividing people further.

 

[Rollop]

Strongly disagree there. Being polite is good and all... but if you're the sort to routinely stand in fire, you're most certainly getting axed.

I don't think the idea of f2p guilds is very healthy for the community. AP ally is already small enough as it is; there are times I've logged in to find no one else online. We don't need stuff dividing people further.

I think if those players wanted to do that, they really didn't want to play with "you" in the first place. Having them hang around in chat, and not doing anything isnt any different than giving them their own channel. Is there alot of drama AP Ally side? If so, trying to hold those players hostage in the same chat as everyone else isn't going to fix anything. Apart from the guild aspect, i personally think It'd be great to set up a channel every now and then for yourself and a few friends who you enjoy playing with. A change like this brings on lots of possibilities, especially for a large server like AP. It also loosens up the restrictions already in place for trial players and channels.

Edit: And i'm not saying "you" as in you specifically, just saying not everybody gets along, and thats normal. But its good to let players have a place of their own if they want it.