• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

World Chat? Is it possible please?

BoxWarrior

New Member
Is it just me, or does the World seem a bit lonely at times? Or possibly its the Fellowship... In any case, why cant we have a World Chat? A venue of live chat very much like the Fellowship chat, but for anybody logged into that World at the time. For some weird reason NOBODY in my Fellowship wants to chit chat. I'm not faulting anybody for it because the main reason our Fellowship exists is so that we can play as one, but go it alone most of the time. So its nobody's fault that the place is quiet.

But if there was a way to use a running chat accessible to anybody, on whichever server they are on at the time, I think it would make the World a more fun place! Forums could be argued as being this feature, but to use Forums you have to be on the Forums website and not inside the game. Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

Boxy
 

Gladiola

Well-Known Member
This idea has come up a number of times, I believe. Given the number of players in Elvenaran worlds (almost 9k cities on Arendyll have participated in the tournament this week, for example), my guess is that the amount of server space required to maintain a chat of that magnitude would be substantial. Chat might also be almost incomprehensible with that number of people attempting to participate. (Most would not do so, but even if 1 in 10 did, chat would likely move faster than people can read.)

I would love a chat feature larger than fellowships. Maybe a neighborhood chat with 200-500 closest neighbors would work.
 

Gladiola

Well-Known Member
@BoxWarrior I thought about that, but people in the same area have different scouting radii, and if you could only see some of the people chatting that other people could see, then chat wouldn't make sense. And people to the east would have a different set than people to your west. It wouldn't work. But I had to think it through a while to realize that.

Even with neighborhoods, people close to the demarcation line would be able to talk to people to their east but not to their west, for example. Which wouldn't be terrible, but people in the center of the chat zone would be the lucky ones in some ways.
 

Guurt The Destroyer

Well-Known Member
I have to admit, my number one complaint about Elvenar is the lack of some sort of global chat.

If the volume is the problem then there are ways to limit it. For instance you could allow Fellowships to form alliances with other Fellowships and then the "global chat" could be limited to the alliance members. You would then cap each alliance with a specific number of Fellowships to create zones of chat that had a controllable number of members. 20 Fellowships in each alliance, for instance, would then create a group of 500 people that could participate in a larger chat pool.

25 people in each chat group is just way too small.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
It's possible. Other games have 3-4k simultaneous active players on a single server. With Elvenar's "log in, set productions, log out" I doubt there are ever over 1k on at the same time very often, if ever.
 

Guurt The Destroyer

Well-Known Member
It's possible. Other games have 3-4k simultaneous active players on a single server. With Elvenar's "log in, set productions, log out" I doubt there are ever over 1k on at the same time very often, if ever.

If they had global chat there would be a portion of people that stay logged on for long periods simply to chat so the total number on-line would increase, but that is a positive thing for Elvenar as it would build community and thus interest in the game.

I suspect new player retention would increase quite a lot as new players could get actual advice from chat, and discussions about strategy would be taking place in real time.

I am actually quite surprised that there isn't global chat as community plays a massive part in these sorts of games.

Obviously there would be the downside. "Trump 2024" would pop up quite a lot, and there would be a place for trolls to practice their craft. They would have to deal with abuse and all the other downsides of human connection. But other games manage it.

Fellowships would also become much more fluid and active as like minded people would have an easier time recruiting and finding each other.

Personally, I think it would be a better experience.

With global chat they could also motivate spending through server success where players could work together to reach milestones for the server as a whole. Imagine how different the community would feel about people spending loads of money towards goals that helped everyone. It would encourage smart play as well as spending without all the resentment that can be associated with P2W. Players that did the most to help the server would go on chat and receive accolades for their efforts, which can be a pretty powerful motivator.
 

Aritra

Well-Known Member
I'm picturing pretty much any successful chat design that has been around over twenty years (aol, yahoo, facebook, etc) and just be a matter of incorporating it into the game.

I recognize citation of server concerns but is it really so difficult? Its not like we're really coming up with anything new and unknown--just incorporate into game so it has access to actual player user names. (Not requiring signing up in advance, or creating new profile specific to it--if not connected to actual user account, it would be vulnerable to identify theft, wreaking havoc by posing as someone else).

One can have multiple conversation threads. Anyone could opt out of being part of a thread they were invited to join and OP can kick someone out of thread/group as needed. User controls to opt out from receiving invites or invites out of world. Having it tabbed into FS-only and non-FS would allow FS to continue using it for FS specific conversations without getting lost in the everything.

Again, bottom line: [similar to] current messaging with 1) better real-time interface, and 2) list of potential thread participants open to beyond personal game world. Am I misunderstanding the request or the problem with it?
 

OIM20

Well-Known Member
Obviously there would be the downside. "Trump 2024" would pop up quite a lot, and there would be a place for trolls to practice their craft. They would have to deal with abuse and all the other downsides of human connection.
As long as they have someone to monitor the chat / process reports from chat / review transcripts of chats in every world at all times, this wouldn't happen for long because the trolls could be IP banned. Discussing politics in the game is verboten (forbidden). See the Terms and Conditions, article 12.3, item 5:
As User, you will refrain from any action that endangers or disrupts the operation and functionality of the Games and the successful collaboration with other users. In particular, you are prohibited from [...]
  • using, placing or publishing discriminatory content (e.g. hate speeches against groups of persons, in particular based on race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status or sexual orientation), or content that is political, immoral, pornographic, morally reprehensible, offensive, violent, glorifies violence, sexist, right-wing or left-wing or that violates laws, in particular child protection laws and the Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors; or linking to corresponding material on a third party website or advertising, offering for sale or otherwise promote offending products contravening the law, in particular child protection laws;
(emphasis added)

So, it might be a problem of logistics not just in server space and coding time and whatnot, but also in hiring live moderators for every language in which the game is available who are somewhat knowledgeable in the political arena of the country which they would be responsible for monitoring as well as the general global political atmosphere. After all, you wouldn't want someone banned for using the word "trump" when they were asking "Don't 2-star archers trump 1-star blossom mages usually? or did I just get a bad dice roll with the rng?"

The issue of VPNs might also be a reason that they haven't turned on a global chat option. Someone posts something in violation of 12.3.5; they get a warning, a temp ban, and a notice that the next time will result in an IP ban; they decide to turn on their VPN and create another account after clearing their cache and cookies. If you pay for your VPN, you can have a viable IP in multiple countries.
_______________________________________________________________​
I'm picturing pretty much any successful chat design that has been around over twenty years (aol, yahoo, facebook, etc) and just be a matter of incorporating it into the game.
In referencing turn-of-the-century Yahoo chat, do you mean the situation where you pre-selected a room based on the content of the discussion therein (by its label)? So, like, if I wanted battle advice for beginner players, I would go to Chat > Battle > General > Beginner ? ("General" because I imagine there would be options like "General: for discussions not specific to either the Spire or Tourney [but can include them]", "Spire", and "Tourney" since some players would want advice on world map battling and not just the skewering that comes with Spire/Tourney battling.)

I like that idea. But I'm not sure how it meshes with your idea of having multiple chats open, unless it's something you could pre-select so that you could toggle it.
One can have multiple conversation threads. Anyone could opt out of being part of a thread they were invited to join and OP can kick someone out of thread/group as needed. User controls to opt out from receiving invites or invites out of world.
If you could toggle, would it erase the content of the chat you were in when you toggled? For example, if I'm in FS chat and someone in my FS has a question suited to Battle for Beginners chat but they don't have an invite but I do so I type "brb", toggle to the BfB chat and ask the OP to extend an invite - or, more likely, post the question since if I'm considering sending them there, I don't know the answer - when I toggle back to give my fellow an answer, would the chat window in this scenario erase the prior conversations (the first as I move into BfB chat, the second as I move back into FS chat), or would it simply have a line in my chat window like
<< You have left [FS] chat >>
<< You have entered [BfB] chat >>
*convo*
<< You have left [BfB] chat >>
<< You have entered [FS] chat >>
so I could scroll back up and reference it to make sure there was no misunderstanding?

Also, would there be something added to the panel in the upper left of the player's city screen that would function to allow users to find chats the way you can search for fellowships? I mean, obviously some folks are going to leave theirs to just open join the way that some FS are done.

And in the case of open join, in the event that the room creator is inactive for any period, the reports of any activity in violation of the Terms and Conditions would be sent to the game moderators, yes? Some websites require the creators of an area to be responsible for its content and will not, under virtually any circumstances, step in to remove content that violates their own Terms of Service. To me, such policies invite abuse that can quickly spiral out of control. I wouldn't want Inno to institute a policy like that.
 

Aritra

Well-Known Member
@OIM20
I likely stated my point poorly and apologize for getting you worked up.
I'm referencing system closer to FB messenger now, which is not at all new. The chat room you describe is a generation (or two) before my experience at that time period. There's not leaving the room and joining the room, in and out. Or even compare it to your cellphone. Independent conversation threads speaking with one or more persons. Not chat rooms in the historical sense.
 

OIM20

Well-Known Member
@Aritra - likely as not, it's me misunderstanding something again, so no worries. :) I'm not a fan of Facebook, so I don't spend any time on it and I'm not at all familiar with how its chat works. But no worries - I'm sure most everyone else is. :D

I didn't mean to sound 'worked up' - I ask a lot of questions when I'm tying to clarify anything, especially if I think I've misunderstood something.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I do like the idea of a larger chat ability.

If I were doing it I'd have 2 chat windows. One the regular fellowship window. The other would be a "Fellowship + Friends" window and each member of the fellowship would be allowed to invite up to 25 people to that chat. That's 625 total people. So two tabs on the right of the screen. One opens the fellowship only chat, the other fellowship and friends.

The fellowship and friends is populated by the fellowship members. A person selecting on the world window, and "invite to chat" button. This would be only for "discovered" people and they would have to accept the invite. Once they did their own fellowship and friends window would include a list of fellowships with which they could chat (perhaps limited to 5 or so?), and they would open that chat and pick the one they wanted.

In any case, the dual chat mode is pretty standard stuff so the coding for that should be easy. The advantages of this suggestion would be that you would probably get mostly active people from your neighborhoods and that would make it more lively.

AJ
 

Dew Spinner

Well-Known Member
I do like the idea of a larger chat ability.

If I were doing it I'd have 2 chat windows. One the regular fellowship window. The other would be a "Fellowship + Friends" window and each member of the fellowship would be allowed to invite up to 25 people to that chat. That's 625 total people. So two tabs on the right of the screen. One opens the fellowship only chat, the other fellowship and friends.

The fellowship and friends is populated by the fellowship members. A person selecting on the world window, and "invite to chat" button. This would be only for "discovered" people and they would have to accept the invite. Once they did their own fellowship and friends window would include a list of fellowships with which they could chat (perhaps limited to 5 or so?), and they would open that chat and pick the one they wanted.

In any case, the dual chat mode is pretty standard stuff so the coding for that should be easy. The advantages of this suggestion would be that you would probably get mostly active people from your neighborhoods and that would make it more lively.

AJ
It took INNO years to let us see our Blueprint inventory, I highly doubt they will be adding this anytime soon. And doesn't the Forum already serve this purpose of allowing you to chat with more than just your FS?
 

NightshadeCS

Well-Known Member
This is a pure shot in the dark, but it may just be a money issue.

We do know that Inno uses a third party for chat. So it may just be more $$$ for a global chat platform. Or it may entail switching that third party for another third party, or having to invest the resources to build their own chat platform.

That's my guess, at least.
 

Gladiola

Well-Known Member
I remember in the first browser-based MMORTS I played you had to use an item (a bugle) to say something in the world chat. You could say as much as you liked in your league (fellowship) chat. Each player received 15 free bugles upon joining and one bugle a day. You could win additional bugles as prizes in events or purchase them with game currency. It was not onerous to get them, but it did cut down on spam and perhaps encourage people to be more thoughtful about what they said. I'm a very chatty person (you may have noticed), but I didn't find it burdensome. This idea could help keep costs in line if a chat system were implemented, and even perhaps turn it into a revenue generator.

Words would drip from our mouths (or keyboards) like diamonds ...
 

Dew Spinner

Well-Known Member
I remember in the first browser-based MMORTS I played you had to use an item (a bugle) to say something in the world chat. You could say as much as you liked in your league (fellowship) chat. Each player received 15 free bugles upon joining and one bugle a day. You could win additional bugles as prizes in events or purchase them with game currency. It was not onerous to get them, but it did cut down on spam and perhaps encourage people to be more thoughtful about what they said. I'm a very chatty person (you may have noticed), but I didn't find it burdensome. This idea could help keep costs in line if a chat system were implemented, and even perhaps turn it into a revenue generator.

Words would drip from our mouths (or keyboards) like diamonds ...
Yes, we have noticed, LOL!
 

Aritra

Well-Known Member
It took INNO years to let us see our Blueprint inventory, I highly doubt they will be adding this anytime soon. And doesn't the Forum already serve this purpose of allowing you to chat with more than just your FS?
Part of the goal is being able to do it without leaving the game to chat with non-FS.
 

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
@Chef Baker
There's a designated place in the forums for submission of serious ideas/suggestions to the developers here.
It's been a bit over a year since the rules for this were established by the developers. Prior to that, there was no formal path to the devs from this forum. You can find those rules in the guide for that sub-forum here. It can be time consuming to shepherd an idea through that process but it results in a formal submission they agree to consider.
It's a good idea to toss the idea around here in the discussion sub-forum (like in this thread) so it can be as fleshed out as much as possible before putting it into the required format there and having a more targeted discussion around exactly what is being proposed. Then, issues that arise from that discussion are addressed by editing the original post before asking a mod to start an official poll.
If the OP here isn't able to commit to working through that process, perhaps you could get their blessing to start a thread in that section to formalize their idea/suggestion.
 
Top