Don't Make the New Friends' List Worthless

[Coldin]

Because that is exactly what it will be if the Anonymous function affects it.

The Friends' List lets you keep tabs on people you enjoy playing with, alts of friends, and sometimes of people to avoid. And with all the new additions, it will make knowing what your friends are up to even easier and much less hassle.

But not if anonymous affects it. If becoming anonymous, also makes you anonymous, there was no point to even put in this system. All the features are useless if you can't know if one of your friends is online, which is the whole point of a friends list.

For one reason or another, many people prefer to remain anonymous the majority of the time. For some, it is to avoid plat farmers/sellers. Being anonymous significantly reduces the amount of tells and spam mail one receives. Other people remain anonymous because they don't want to be harassed with tells to group for such and such quest 20 times while they log in. And others want to be anonymous because they just want to log on for 15 minutes and check an auction without getting spam invited.

One of those problems deals with those plat farmers. I understand there's not much Turbine can do against them, but they exist, and most people would rather go anonymous rather than have to ignore the tells and spam they get from them.

The others have to do with people desperate for group members they go outside of the LFGs and look at just the people online. That may be because the LFG/LFM system needs more work. Or perhaps people need some education in what LFG means.

The point is, for whatever reason, a vast amount of people are anonymous. If the Friends' List regards those people as off-line, there was no point for all the development time that was devoted to it.

I ask that the Developers please reconsider their decision. Or come up with some alternative method of adding friends, or triggering anonymous. Some people suggested two different anonymous statuses. One for the general public, and one for the Friends' List. I don't see how the implementation of it would be that difficult.

If anyone agrees with me that this is a bad decision, please post below. Let's not let such a great feature be rendered useless because anonymous affects it.

[Ziggy]

they gave us a way to let our oppinions be known and they are going by what the majority said they wanted.
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=97426

[Ghost_Aeon]

I understand what LFG means, but there's usually next to noone LFG at any given point in time, and more often than not, those who are are either the wrong class or the wrong level. I try and give people time to find the LFM first, then I check the LFG and ask off of that (unless I know and dislike the qualifier), then I go to those not grouped to see if they're interested. Sometimes they just logged on. Sometimes they just finished a group. Sometimes they're just poking around with solo-stuff, AH-trolling, or inventory management (be it in-house or mailing from alt-to-alt).

Sometimes they're interested. Sometimes they're not. Just like the few people you sometimes find on the LFG list. I thnk they need to fix the LFG listing, too. Until the Who list autoscrolls like it used to, it's too much of a chore, and with the latest, hard to read implimentation, I'd rather just check the not-grouped, not-LFG since there will be more qualifiers there than there ever will be actually LFG. IMO, they need to organize it LFM -> LFG -> not grouped -> grouped, instead of -> grouned -> not grouped.

On topic. The argument I've read in the above posted thread is that if you're on their friend list and they're on yours, you can see them, or, if you try to friend them, they get a notice and if they approve it you can see them.

[Coldin]

I know that. But if you look at that poll it was 146 to 120.

First off that is hardly even a decent approximation of DDO's populous. There has to be at least a few thousands people playing DDO. It's way more than 266 anyway. In fact, I don't believe many of the non-forum goes even saw this thread. It should have been a mandatory vote before people could log into the game.

Second, that poll is nearly 50/50. It may be a majority, but it's a really small majority. Should a small majority elicit change, especially when it's such a small portion of the DDO community that participated.

Third, many people in that thread offered other way they would like the thread. Most merely did not like the idea of being able to be on anyone's list and be see at all times. I believe that was mostly directed at the plat farmer problem more than anything else.

Fourth, as one person pointed out in that thread, the question and responses were not balanced. One response is referring to your own status, and the other is referring to other people's status. A more fair way to put it would be a simple "Yes." and "No." By adding the extra sentences, they're influencing the way the vote goes, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Since the decision is already made, I created a new thread to oppose that decision. I figure the opinion will be more openly heard if it's in a thread of it's own.

[cappuccino]

I know that. But if you look at that poll it was 146 to 120.

First off that is hardly even a decent approximation of DDO's populous. There has to be at least a few thousands people playing DDO. It's way more than 266 anyway. In fact, I don't believe many of the non-forum goes even saw this thread. It should have been a mandatory vote before people could log into the game.

Second, that poll is nearly 50/50. It may be a majority, but it's a really small majority. Should a small majority elicit change, especially when it's such a small portion of the DDO community that participated.

Third, many people in that thread offered other way they would like the thread. Most merely did not like the idea of being able to be on anyone's list and be see at all times. I believe that was mostly directed at the plat farmer problem more than anything else.

Fourth, as one person pointed out in that thread, the question and responses were not balanced. One response is referring to your own status, and the other is referring to other people's status. A more fair way to put it would be a simple "Yes." and "No." By adding the extra sentences, they're influencing the way the vote goes, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Since the decision is already made, I created a new thread to oppose that decision. I figure the opinion will be more openly heard if it's in a thread of it's own.

First of all as with all things democratic, look at ANY RL voting and you will find that less than 50 of the eligable voters do. but those that did vote good on you :)

Now take the poll as a sample of the population (as current polling is done worldwide to give approval raitings, ect.) and you can normally extract that percentage to the total population probably within the usual + or - 3% if you took as you suggested the poll to the login so everyone was asked.

So, take the worst of the above. 54% voted for change, factor in the -3% and you would still get 51%.

Now I know that is a slim majority, but still a majority.

And last time I checked in Democratic circles a majority = yes.

Now granted, a lot augmented their yes with suggestions and cavets, but they still voted for a change.

Add to it these improvements or developments for the game will be reviewed after implimentation and I'm sure will be modified as it goes along to make it better (think back to how the AH worked at the launch and how it is now and the new things they are adding still to it).

I think the Friends list will go through the same progression.

My 2cp's - flame away at it :)

[Solik]

I do not want people to be able to see me online when I don't want to be seen online simply because they added me to their list -- something I have no control over.

You want to hide from random invites as a cleric? Too bad -- if you ever PUG and cleric well, then people can just add you to their friend's list and PM you any time you're online to join them.

It's that simple. I'd rather have a "useless" friends list than one that lets people keep tabs on me when I don't want them to.

[Solstice]

why not do like a MSN: you need accept be added to friend list, if you don't wanna, don't accept and squelch the name ?

75% of my friends on this game play as anon. and I only know about then because the friend list show me him online.

if you're my friend, is good know that you're on. But if I wanna add you on my list, you need give permission for this.

isn't a TRUE better option?

[aegnor]

Totally agree, Solstice. And as for the previous post, ALL of the voting public knows it's voting day, and where to go to do so. The Forum hardly compares...

But, simple solution proposed by Sol, in order to be added to someone's list, they have to agree to it, and then you can see them online.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

The real problem with the vote was they didn't respond to the many many people who pointed out that the question was inadaquate and that the current anon function needed a modification before the question in the poll would be meaningful.

[narizue]

Coldin, Sol I totally agree. You guys know me as one of the worst offenders of anon 24/7. But you can still get in touch with me because I am on your friends list. I like that. Anybody who adds me to the friends list that I don't want to run with can receive a healthy dose of /squelch.

This functionality makes anon useless to me because of the number of friends of mine who are not inside my guild. I am given the choice between being anon and invisible to the world(guildies excluded) or being visible to the world. As far as I am concerned two terrible choices. Leave the list as it is for now with regard to anon, and tweak the functionality later to either approve friends list additions or to select your status as anon or not anon for folks on your friends list.

[Borror0]

Yeah, I have a couple of people in my friend list that are anon all the time, so I can't see when they log in starting from 4,1? If they really wanted someone to not add them in their friend list they just would /ignore them once they would have received a tell from that person once. When I first heard about the new list I was like : "Cool, now I'll be able to see what level anon people are and write side-notes beside their name!" But now... much less usefull...

(Is this a Tharashk reunion or what?:confused:)

[Coldin]

I think you put it best Narizue. It's a decision between two bad choices. Neither are really acceptable. Visible to everyone, and visible to no one. Moderation is always the best so somewhere in the middle is best.

Implement the lists so you can choose to be invisible to the who list, or the Friend's List, or both. If that will take extra time, then so be it, but then leave the lists as they are right now. That is where Friends can see you when anonymous.

As another thought to add to Solstice's idea, add a small window below the friend's list panel similar to the LFM "Outstanding Requests" window. Whenever someone adds you to their list, you get a message in your gen chat signaling so. Then you go to your friend panel, and you can click Accept, Decline, or Squelch. Squelch would make it so it auto-declines if that person adds you to their list again.

It would need to store any requests while off-line, so that may be problematic. That would be the best way to implement it though. You could still import/export lists, but everyone would have to accept that as well, so that would be a little bit of a hassle. But even still, it would be better than a flat universal anonymous.

[LOUDRampart]

why not do like a MSN: you need accept be added to friend list, if you don't wanna, don't accept and squelch the name ?

75% of my friends on this game play as anon. and I only know about then because the friend list show me him online.

if you're my friend, is good know that you're on. But if I wanna add you on my list, you need give permission for this.

isn't a TRUE better option?

I like this idea.

[Gol]

they gave us a way to let our oppinions be known and they are going by what the majority said they wanted.
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=97426
270 votes is almost statistically insignificant compared to the number of players. I'd hardly say that poll counts for anything.

[Tiblorian]

why not do like a MSN: you need accept be added to friend list, if you don't wanna, don't accept and squelch the name ?

75% of my friends on this game play as anon. and I only know about then because the friend list show me him online.

if you're my friend, is good know that you're on. But if I wanna add you on my list, you need give permission for this.

isn't a TRUE better option?

Qft.

Or even keep the old system, someone harrasses you, /squelch. Problem solved.

[GlassCannon]

Qft.

Or even keep the old system, someone harrasses you, /squelch. Problem solved.

Problem created. The squelched person gets back on their account that they let their 8 yr old brother play on. They run with you. They ask if they are squelched after asking you some q's and being unheard. You unsquelch but by that time some emo has gotten the wrong idea and wants to take out their angst on you. You apologize to the squelchee, they say it's ok. 2 weeks later an entire guild hates you for something an emo made up about you, when they decided to gossip and lie to the entire guild just to make them feel better about themselves being messed up in the head. You try to go about clearing your name but by then the lie has been spread all over the place. Nobody asked you, nobody told you. The truth is lost in facade.

This has happened.

[Geonis]

why not do like a MSN: you need accept be added to friend list, if you don't wanna, don't accept and squelch the name ?

75% of my friends on this game play as anon. and I only know about then because the friend list show me him online.

if you're my friend, is good know that you're on. But if I wanna add you on my list, you need give permission for this.

isn't a TRUE better option?



QFC


That's Quote For Caveman if you didn't know. :D

you no like new friend list?
I no like people watch me online!
Me more important you!
:D


Oh, I'm so going to get some infraction points for this one!:eek:

[Spectralist]

I do not want people to be able to see me online when I don't want to be seen online simply because they added me to their list -- something I have no control over.

I agree. Though i think anonymous status should be ignored if you are mutually on eachother's friends list.

[Geonis]

My whole problem with the "Make the friend's list add have to be approved" and such is you are talking way too much programming for something extremely simple. Either your "friends" like you and would be willing to stay non-anonymous or they are way too "uber" and need to be anonymous to keep all those non-"l337" folks from sending them tells right and left in the hopes their "uber"-ness will lower themselves to running with the lowly common player.

[Darkschneider]

Problem created. The squelched person.....<SINP>.....The truth is lost in facade.

This has happened.

And this is relevant to the new Friends interface? Seriously man, you're obviuously fired up here, but posting a dozen times with the same dejected posts isn't going to increase your popularity.

Post a good rant in off-topic chat, don't spread the GLOOOOOOMMMMM across the entire forum.

[Dragonhyde]

Eh sometimes you want to be anon from people who have you on their friends list as well....

[Idahe]

The problem with the survey was that the two responses were:

1) I want to be anonymous and 2) I want to keep track of my friends

These two options are all about what the respondee wants, and are not equivalent. The second response should have been: "I want my friends to know when I'm on". At least then both responses would pertain to the respondee having gone anonymous. The survey results are meaningless due to the insanely low responding population and by virtue of the fact that the responses are unequal in value. I think they knew that going in, the survey was just there to provide the appearance of customer participation. Or if there were overwhelming sentiment to keep tabs on other people who want to be left alone, they may have gone that way.

That being said, they made the right choice. You go anon when you don't want to be bothered, by anyone. If YOU want to contact a friend, go ahead, send them a tell. That will be the choice of the person who went anon. Sometimes I want to hide from my guild or my brother or buddies. Maybe I want to jump on quick to check the auctions and do not want to get dragged or guilted into going on a 3 hour run of quests, when I really wanted to sit down and watch Heroes later...

This type of implementation gives the individual player the freedom to choose with whom he wishes to interact as the result of a very minor change to the system. All those clamoring for the ability to keep tabs on thier friends and associates, or who want convoluted and complex changes to the friends screen appear to be selfish.

Player MeMeMe: "I want to know when my friend ClericX is online even when she wants to be alone because she's my friend and we love eachother so much that I can not imagine a situation when we shoudl ever be apart because I added her to my Friends list!! And I need heals."

ClericX: "Uh, no. Who are you again?"

Anonymous should be anonymous unless you choose to /tell someone you are there. This is fine, this is good, this is the correct choice.

[Mad_Bombardier]

2 check boxes.

/anonymous = name off the who list, but visible to friends/guild.
/invisible = shows you as offline.

[ChaosTheEternal]

2 check boxes.

/anonymous = name off the who list, but visible to friends/guild.
/invisible = shows you as offline.Perfect. Caters to both groups, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to implement as they already have one option of it done and likely have plans on how to change it to the other option (if it's not already done an in QA).

[Coldin]

The problem with the survey was that the two responses were:

1) I want to be anonymous and 2) I want to keep track of my friends

These two options are all about what the respondee wants, and are not equivalent. The second response should have been: "I want my friends to know when I'm on". At least then both responses would pertain to the respondee having gone anonymous. The survey results are meaningless due to the insanely low responding population and by virtue of the fact that the responses are unequal in value. I think they knew that going in, the survey was just there to provide the appearance of customer participation. Or if there were overwhelming sentiment to keep tabs on other people who want to be left alone, they may have gone that way.

That being said, they made the right choice. You go anon when you don't want to be bothered, by anyone. If YOU want to contact a friend, go ahead, send them a tell. That will be the choice of the person who went anon. Sometimes I want to hide from my guild or my brother or buddies. Maybe I want to jump on quick to check the auctions and do not want to get dragged or guilted into going on a 3 hour run of quests, when I really wanted to sit down and watch Heroes later...

This type of implementation gives the individual player the freedom to choose with whom he wishes to interact as the result of a very minor change to the system. All those clamoring for the ability to keep tabs on thier friends and associates, or who want convoluted and complex changes to the friends screen appear to be selfish.

Player MeMeMe: "I want to know when my friend ClericX is online even when she wants to be alone because she's my friend and we love eachother so much that I can not imagine a situation when we shoudl ever be apart because I added her to my Friends list!! And I need heals."

ClericX: "Uh, no. Who are you again?"

Anonymous should be anonymous unless you choose to /tell someone you are there. This is fine, this is good, this is the correct choice.

Saying it's selfish to want to know if people can be true. But so is wanting to be completely hidden from the world. They're both selfish.

You say that if you want someone to know you're there, you'll send a tell. Well that's all fine and good if you don't want people to know you're around playing the game. But other people would like some people to know they're playing, they just wouldn't want every Joe and plat farmer on the street to know they are there.

The thing is, if they implement the Friend's List with anonymous, everyone that doesn't want to be hassled by people outside their friends will have to /tell everyone they know that they're on. That defeats the whole purpose of the Friends' List. There might as well be no Friends' List, because a sheet of paper would do just the same thing.

This shouldn't be all black and white. We should have to decide between invisible to everyone, or visible to everyone. We at least need a third choice. Invisible to Who List but not to Friend's List. There's no reason that wouldn't be hard to implement either. That's what they already have in place, and they're already working to get the other system in place too. So just give us the option to do all three.

And one more thing to the people who are afraid that plat farmers and annoying people will go list every cleric in the server. There's a limit of 150 people that can be put in the Friend's List. That will stop the plat farmers from abusing it, and should stop most people from making a habit of listing all of one person's alts. And you can always squelch someone if they /tell you repeatedly when you log on.



2 check boxes.

/anonymous = name off the who list, but visible to friends/guild.
/invisible = shows you as offline.

Yes, that would be a good way to please both crowds.

[Idahe]

2 check boxes.

/anonymous = name off the who list, but visible to friends/guild.
/invisible = shows you as offline.

or, 1 checkbox
/anonymous = shows you as offline

You type in gulid chat: "Hi Everyone"
Guild member: "Oh I thought you were offline"
You "Nope just /anon"
Guildie "want to run some quests"
You "Sure, that is why I typed in gulid chat despite being /anon, I wanted to interact with those in my guild, but not others"

Or, you log on and check your friends list.
You "Hmm, FighterY is usually on now, wonder where he is"
/tell fightery You there bud?
System: FighterY is unavaliable
FighterY: Hey, I'm /anon, was sick of BardW's attitude last night, want to join my group?

Wait, thats exactly what they are doing. Its an easy, effective change. Its not too much effort to get in touch with people who want to talk to you. If you get no response, either they are offline or want to be left alone. Adding additional checkboxes to prevent maybe 10-15 sec of search time on the part of players to find thier friends would be wasteful and not a good use of development time.

[Ghost_Aeon]

I have an idea. How about a general anonymous button and a friend anonymous button. Maybe sometimes I want to be seen by only my friends. Maybe sometimes I want them to have to look for me on the who list. Maybe sometimes I don't want to be seen by anyone, which means we need a guild anonymous button. :)

Hmm... I'm confused. Am I being sarcastic or serious there? I meant to be serious, but I think it came out sracastic. :o

[Kisaragi]

Although the new features might not show your level, class, and such, it will show notes for each. So while I can see where your concern comes in, you can always type something like the following into your notes;

Lv/Class/Build/Rating for each person to help you keep track, and then send them a tell anyway.

Strictly speaking I don't tend to PUG much anymore, a single person can destroy a entire mission. I tend to only do missions with guildies, and people they trust. Often times we run parties as just the guild. I'm not too worried about my friend's list. It'll be nice to see what level/class everyone is, yet I'm not worried about people not wanting to be listed.

I believe it will list if your friends are online/offline, you just won't see them from the whois list. I could be wrong though.

[Ghost_Aeon]

I believe it will list if your friends are online/offline, you just won't see them from the whois list. I could be wrong though.

No, that's what it currently does now. The problem is plat farmers and other people you'd rather not group with are friending you to see when you're on any time all the time.

[Xalted_Vol]

This is a social game and if you do not want to be social you do not have to be. I put people on my friends list that I would not want to group with so I remember thier names it would suck to ask permission just to put a name on a list we are not the NSA-----or are we :)

[jaitee]

This is a social game and if you do not want to be social you do not have to be. I put people on my friends list that I would not want to group with so I remember thier names it would suck to ask permission just to put a name on a list we are not the NSA-----or are we :)

i also do this, i put people on my friend list for a not to group with kinda deal, and add a comment beside it, if you want to know if your friend is on, ask them to take anon off, i once had a friend who all of a sudden one day turned on anon, all i did was ask her, can you turn it off? so i can know when your on, and she stopped using it, but now i use it 24/7 :rolleyes:

anon means completely invisible, except for LFM/guild, so that bob doesnt bug you, because you owe him a good night kiss

[Coldin]

Ack, my thread was necroed. Are people just looking for months old threads to post to?

Btw, I still say there at least needs to be various levels anon. At the very least anon to everyone, and anon to who's list only.