Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Who" command

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Someone12345
    started a topic "Who" command

    "Who" command

    I have a slight problem... the Who command brings up a large list of who's awake up on my screen that is too big to fit, so I must scroll up and spend about five minutes searching through about 100 names to find one. What about "who" (person)? We wouldn't have to think to all of iridine: "Is _____ awake???" people, like me, get annoyed by that, but know, most people dont want to search through all those names - so, I suggest The who command stay the same, but an optional name can be put after it, so there wont be any more people asking who's awake over thoughts, and nobody will need to search through those names.

  • Atama
    replied
    "Who sexy female idjit constable"?

    Nah, labeling people would be sorta hard... And even I think that's too much knowledge about people than you should have regularly available OOC. I don't need to know that a person's a constable before I meet them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nomad
    replied
    I think this is one of those things where the object is to balence the OOC / IC features of the game and the focal point is what overloads the server and seriously detracts from the game.

    Having people constantly say "thots on" and "thots off" and constently hollering "Is Joe Blow awake yet" impedes the game to the point where an OOC measure (Who, colorized yet) is the only practical answer.

    As for the rest we might as well face it. We are noting more than a pack of grown up kids playing games. We are no different from the little kid with its arms stretched out, running thru the grocery store, lips pursed going "rrrrrRRRRrrrRRRrrrr" pretending to be an airplane.

    Perhaps it would put less strain on resources to have a "who Nomad ( or ) Jessa" command than having people constently go thru the whole list over and over again trying to find each other.

    or perhaps we could have seperate who's, like "who constable" or "who men" or "who sexy women" and of course a "who idjit " list so we know to come on only when our favorite idjit is present.



    Leave a comment:


  • Atama
    replied
    I'm not criticizing Cbecker. I'm just hoping to keep this thread going like it was... Talking about the merits of the Who command (and the Think command since they seem to go hand and hand judging by the posts). I'll try to stay more relevant myself in the future too.

    I was just concerned because this thread was becoming something else. I'm going to start a new thread in Administrivia with this topic (I think Administrivia is the most appropriate place for this) and see what people have to say.

    Leave a comment:


  • jkidd
    replied
    Atama i read your post, just its the second time i've seen you write about going off topic and telling someone where they should or should not post...I'm not getting into an arguement over this and i apologize for adding more clutter to the forums..

    Leave a comment:


  • Atama
    replied
    *catches Jkidd's hand*

    I go off topic a bit sometimes, sure. But not so much that I completely change the subject. I always keep some relevance. The lack of GM interaction had nothing to do with anything anyone previously posted had said, that's what I was objecting to.

    Of course, if you read the first 2 sentences of my post (maybe they didn't show up on your browser) you'd see that I was actually supporting what Cbecker said. It just belongs in not only a different thread, but a different forum. GM interaction has nothing to do with game mechanics. It's something that should be addressed if people feel it's lacking, and therefore I suggested that Cbecker start a new thread in another forum about it.

    Let me repeat what he said:

    As a personal opinion, I'd say EC has become less GM - player orientated, and more GM - mechanic - player orientated. (Not good!) Meaning, the GMs relate to the mechanics, as do the players, and less interaction between GM and player. Yes I do know GMs host events and such, but I don't think its very accountable. I'm not saying its anyone's fault, EC has become a massive game and it's near impossible to have the GMs relate directly to the player's gameplay, but this is why we have players who are more interested in the mechanics than the gameplay.

    I've never gone that off-topic before. Not in a serious discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • jkidd
    replied
    *helps slap Atama*

    Atama you've went off subject in almost every forum message i've read of yours. Correct yourself, before you correct others. Chad's points were all well thought and i personally back the dismantling of think and hope the cadae are used for its replacement, which at one time i thought was its purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leminarflow
    replied
    uhh..oh geez

    Uhhh....
    Ok,Chad..i advise you to stop reading this, it won't be good for your health..don't do it man! i can hardly read it anymore, i know it will kill you..

    *imagines a thinkless gameworld* ahh..how great...oh yeah, no i dont play any thieves or "bad" chars..at least..not at the moment

    Leminarflow

    Leave a comment:


  • Atama
    replied
    One more thing...

    As for unrealistic, so what? It's too late for that. There are already fantasy monsters and magic items in the game. This isn't a historical game, it's a fantasy game. So the unrealistic argument is useless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Atama
    replied
    Ens, you're right. Cbecker did make a good point about GM interaction. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with this thread (almost looks like Cbecker was wanting to change the subject). It is worthy of its own thread, though, probably in Administrivia. Let's just not get off the subject too much please.

    Jolee, I think you're right. We finally got down to the heart of it... Think is mostly opposed by thieves and other people who want to avoid consequences for their actions. If we abolish Think, then let's give Constables swords, and give them free reign to kill any thief on sight. Let the NPC constables to the same thing. Even the odds for us or the game will turn into a big PK with people trying to steal everyone else's stuff.

    Or maybe have the constables show up in groups... That, after all, is realistic. How many times have you heard the phrase "wait for backup"?

    Leave a comment:


  • jkidd
    replied
    Maybe legalize vigilanteeism, give us some means of defense against thieves
    Rindak the vigilantee. Hmmm, I like this sarcastic idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • ens
    replied
    Re: I dont know why I try...

    Originally posted by cbecker


    As a personal opinion, I'd say EC has become less GM - player orientated, and more GM - mechanic - player orientated. (Not good!) Meaning, the GMs relate to the mechanics, as do the players, and less interaction between GM and player. Yes I do know GMs host events and such, but I don't think its very accountable. I'm not saying its anyone's fault, EC has become a massive game and it's near impossible to have the GMs relate directly to the player's gameplay, but this is why we have players who are more interested in the mechanics than the gameplay.

    Enjoy!
    This is a very very good point! Not the removal of game mechanics (like who or think) is what strengthens gameplay but the involvment of the GMs into the Gameworld(designing, improving and _communication_). This is a measure I am supporting a 100%.
    The more communication between PCs and GM-Controlled NPCs happens the more gameworld details will flow into TEC and this is what achieves the kind of realism I desire.

    Regards Theo

    Leave a comment:


  • Jolee
    replied
    AHA!

    But its extremely unrealistic and it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to do thinks conterproductive to society. And every society needs counterproductivity (ie: thieving, hits, etc..) to be realistic.
    Someone finally admits it! Its what I've been saying all along. The only people that will benefit from the removal of Think and Who are the thieves and assassins. But hell. over 50%, no, make it 75% of the characters in TEC are the above mentioned (please, if there is a god in Midlight, limit the number of thieves that can be generated, or that can learn the skill slot at any one time), it really would benefit the majority of players.

    Oh, yeah. Force players into face to face situations. Make them be in the same square so they have to fight off thieves and assassins. Make us all go nuts with the screen scroll while we park out arses at the thief-infested Toga drinking the umpteenth ale watching morons we have no wish to be around while waiting on an original role-playing opportunity with those we truly DO wish to RP with.

    Maybe legalize vigilanteeism, give us some means of defense against thieves (TEC is too geared to the pickpocketing skillset) and you've got a deal.

    Yeah, I'm being sarcastic.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbecker
    replied
    I dont know why I try...

    This is my position: I present what will make EC a more realistic and Rome replica game, because that is what I believe will make EC a better game. The arguments you present are merely hypothesis; ideas which MAY occur if the given circumstances are put into effect. True, all of them COULD happen, but that's not to say that they will. Actually, it makes little difference given the position of my argument, which as I stated is to make it as realistic as possible. I merely give the simplist solutions (which I and many others happen to prefer..)

    About think being OOC. Technically, it isn't OOC, you're right. But its extremely unrealistic and it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to do thinks conterproductive to society. And every society needs counterproductivity (ie: thieving, hits, etc..) to be realistic. Now I know a lot of you play EC to "skill" and get away from life. However, a true RPG isn't centered around skilling, but rather around storyplaying. Skilling is just a minor detail which you can incorporate into your storyplaying to add a realistic effect. So the problem with power gamers isn't removing social aspects, its people who play EC for its mechanics, and not for the role-playing experience it began as.

    As a personal opinion, I'd say EC has become less GM - player orientated, and more GM - mechanic - player orientated. (Not good!) Meaning, the GMs relate to the mechanics, as do the players, and less interaction between GM and player. Yes I do know GMs host events and such, but I don't think its very accountable. I'm not saying its anyone's fault, EC has become a massive game and it's near impossible to have the GMs relate directly to the player's gameplay, but this is why we have players who are more interested in the mechanics than the gameplay.

    Enjoy!

    Leave a comment:


  • Atama
    replied
    By the way cbecker, I don't know if you pay attention but you're completely wrong about Think being OOC. It's 100% IC. People act on what is said in Think, and people can only speak ICly in Think. It exists IC. It's completely ridiculous to try to pretend otherwise.

    And what I was saying is that eliminating something because it's OOC is wrong. Enforce the fact that it can only be used OOC, and never IC. Don't get rid of it. Next you'll want to get rid of the WA, huh? After all, people talk OOC in there. That's wrong! This is an IC game! And if you say something in the WA, people can act on that in the game, and that is wrong! Please.

    Getting rid of Who is dumb and serves no purpose other than to make the game even more unplayable for newer players and more inconvenient for older players.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X