what u guys add mmo marriage system to CoT i like marriage system in RIFT, and Final Fantasy XIV Meanwhile RIFT two players (of either gender) can head to a Marriage Conductor located in their capital city where they can purchase a Marriage Contract for 1 platinum, and optionally, a Wedding Planner for 10 gold which contains details of ingame matrimony. On top of this, it’s also possible to purchase the wedding ceremony instance for 5 platinum, though with the Marriage Contract, players can choose to get married wherever they choose, including their own player housing or guild housing, giving the player’s an opportunity for creativity. There are decorations available to invoke the matrimonial atmosphere, and of course dimensioneers can get creative here. There are also wardrobe items available for players to dress for the occasion. Attendees, including the bride and groom, receive an achievement for being a part of the ceremony, and an artifact towards a wedding collection. The happy couple both receive Gold Wedding Bands, though these pose no discernible benefits. Still, it is a great opportunity for a little fun as Trion proved in 2012 when they broke the Guinness World Record for the most ingame marriages in a 24 hour period with 21,879 weddings recorded ingame in the allocated time period. Whew! And hey, if in future a couple decides that they aren’t meant to be after all, you can also purchase divorce papers for 20 gold. and Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn is one of the more recent examples of an MMORPG marriage system, and perhaps one of my personal favorites with its Eternal Bond Ceremony as there are no limits on who you can marry or “bond to”. That is so long as they are a player character, so no marrying Thancred *disappointed sigh*. There are three tiers to the Eternal Bond. You can choose the free Standard Plan which gives a few nice things, including Wedding Rings which, as in Age of Wushu, allow you to teleport to your partner in the open world, there’s also a wedding hairstyle and an embrace emote. Alternatively, you can spend $10 per person for the Gold tier which unlocks a bunch of extra options and a Ceremony Chocobo, plus a minion for guests, or $20 per person for the Plantinum tier which unlocks even more options for personalization of the ceremony. Whatever players choose, they get to partake in a ceremony within the Ivory Chapel in The Sanctum of the Twelve. All guests, including the couple, must have their Blank Invitation with them in order to attend the ceremony. Upon entrance of the chapel, the couple go to their separate dressing rooms to get themselves dressed up and finalize things and then the ceremony begins. So not only is FFXIV’s marriage system inclusive, it gives players plenty of benefits to enjoy both during and after the ceremony which might make even the Scroogiest of players want to join together in a Ceremony of Eternal Bonding.
These are, of course, just a few examples of marriages in MMOs. You can also find systems for ingame marriage in place in the likes of MapleStory, Star Wars the Old Republic – though this is marriage to an NPC, not another player, ArcheAge – which also has a vacation system in place for a honeymoon, Ragnarok Online – which even lets you adopt another player to be your child! The options range from lovely to the downright silly and right over into ‘what’s the point
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
Honestly, I think this is not sufficiently associated with comic book heroism to be worth the hue and cry that it could create on a socio-political front. We will already have a supergroup system which will enable creation of sharing mechanisms; any reasonable mechanical effect of a "MMO marriage" could be wrapped up in the options for supergroups. This is not, ultimately, Second Life or the like.
If you want your PC to marry for RP purposes, then RP the relationship. The game needs neither to condone nor condemn your choices of how you structure your relationship.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Even if MWM had $100 million to work with and was going to manage to launch CoT tomorrow I would still rather they hold off on throwing any kind of "marriage mechanics" into the game for a very long time.
I have absolutely no problem with anybody RPing that kind of thing as much as they want in any game. I just think there are about 50,000 other things I'd rather have developed for this game BEFORE they waste any effort giving us cash store "wedding packages" or "honeymoon housing" or the like. Sure if they eventually want to throw in wedding dress and tux clothing items in the costume creator that'd be one thing, but even that could wait months or even years -after- launch.
Priorities are key here - creating a full-blown wedding mini-game is easily one of the very LAST things we'd need for CoT.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Gotta say, I agree with Lothic 110%. This shouldn't be in any kind of priority list for AT LEAST several years, and even then... meh.
Regards,
D. A. Cross
CEO of Phoenix Rising
CoX: @Mystic Cross ; @Pareidolia // CO: @Deadman-X ; @Citymystic // CoT: @Cross ; @D.A.Cross
Best "marriage" system I've heard of is the one detailed in the Sword Art Online novels, which explains the different relationships possible between characters.
Friend
Guild
Party
Marriage
Lin has the book and could transcribe the part explaining this (or Lin could give me the book back and have me transcribe it) ... but the short version is that in Sword Art Online, a Marriage between Players effectively pooled the inventories of two characters together, such that "ownership" of their stuff was shared. That was about the extent of the game mechanical support for being married in that (fictional) VRMMORPG. Sounds like a decent model to follow if you ask me.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
As a hypothetical discussion about "What would make for a good implementation of marriage in a MMO" I'd say your idea is reasonable and has merit. My argument is that the priority for this in a superhero game trying to be the grassroots spiritual successor of another superhero game which itself had no formalized marriage mini-game system is just about as low as it could possibly be.
Sure it may be nice to talk about things like this in general terms as a "nice to have" feature. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking this kind of thing is more important to focus on in CoT than almost anything else before it.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I think that character relationships are best managed in a purely RP way. When I say RP I mean it in the CoX way. Not everyone playing the game wants to roleplay and it is probably best to leave the somewhat complex mechanics of inter-character relationships of any type up to the characters to do as the players of those characters wish. We love RP. It is definitely a part of the game (...it is an MMORPG after all), but it is best for those who don't like it to not even have to interact with it. Kinda like those who don't PvP don't have to.
The creativity of our community coupled with some of the tools we will have (base building for "homes", supergroups for "families", multiple costume slots etc) can allow such RP to happen in a more natural state, IMHO. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[color=#ff0000]Sound Lead, Bullpen Writer[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
*Insert Steve Carell gif of "no"*
Crowd Control Enthusiast
[IMG]http://i555.photobucket.com/albums/jj477/fuzzygnome01/Marriage_zpsv9cn5oyn.jpg[/IMG]
"Well, that's a load off my shoulders then."
/em rimshot
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
roflmao @this thread
I would like to see wedding dress costume set and a full tuxedo set, because they have value far beyond the basic use for a wedding party. Beyond that, no. I'd rather the development team completely avoid stepping into the quagmire of modern marriage. Shucks, if the players need a wedding chapel (or temple, or mosque, or tent, or whatever) let them use the UGC tools and create one of their own design!
But a formal wedding system written into the game mechanics? No, thank-you. Too many problems surrounding this issue out here in the real world. No need to import all that drama into the game.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32
Yeah, as fancy as the SAO system was, practically speaking it's the same as a two-person SG. But to use the SG mechanism to support this, you need a couple things:
[list=1][*]The ability to create an SG with just two people (as opposed to CoX's minimum 5). Expecting people to start off in an SG and immediately quit when it's created just because of high minimums is silly.
[*]The ability to belong to multiple SGs.
[/list]
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Credit where credit is due. It's not MY idea. It's an idea that the writer for the [url=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=sword+art+online]Sword Art Online[/url] novels came up with for a Virtual Reality MMORPG in a fictional story. So credit belongs to Reki Kawahara ... I'm just mentioning his idea.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
my not say important to focus on in CoT i mean wait year add mmo marriage system
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
[img]http://33.media.tumblr.com/a5e0ebf0eaada722f6b70005a137ef89/tumblr_mguz6by50d1r4gei2o1_400.gif[/img]
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
While I don't care if they add one, I don't see it as something that is really that important to the setting of the game. Especially in a superhero setting where marriages get retconned or ended in some fashion rather easily. :p
This continues to sound like a player's way of maybe getting extra bonuses when teamed if not some dumb act for some dumb reason that could have easily been done with a simple RP without making it a feature.
And that's even before getting into the "I married the wrong person!" nonsense that Players will inevitably get up to.
In Elder Scrolls Online, there was an object called the Pledge of Mara. You could only use it at a Shrine of Mara to "marry" another PC. This was a permanent action, and game policy was to NOT reverse it through GM action via Customer Service. The text for the item explicitly laid out that it was a One Use Item and you needed to be really sure about who you were Pledging yourself to (because, duh).
Within a week, I was already fielding tickets from Players upset that their Pledge partner wasn't living up to the bargain that had been struck as part of my Customer Service duties. And we got to tell people, essentially, "it sucks to be you" and that it was their fault for picking who they did.
[youtube]Ubw5N8iVDHI[/youtube]
So yeah ... any sort of game mechanically recognized "marriage" system is something best left to writing in Bio Text and "performed" as a matter of Roleplay. It just solves [i]too many problems[/i] to do it that way.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Well, this IS superheroes. We can just sell out marriages to the devil and be done with it.
Superhero marriages tend to be a bad idea in general. I mean first there's the wedding, which will inevitably be crashed by your worst enemy, forcing you to choose between stopping the bad guy or continuing the ceremony. Or if you've been smart and have some heroes on hand for that, then it at least put a damper on the festivities.
Should you manage to make it through the wedding, your spouse, be he or she powered on non powered is now a prime candidate to be kidnapped or murdered to add some gritty realism to your story, the "Women in Refrigerators" for more on that cute little trope.
And of course, as mentioned, if you end up happily married, some cosmic forces from the realm of Ed-dii-tore will conspire to make that go away, from having you actually married a clone, to making you sell your marriage to the devil, or just have the universe itself end so it can be restarted and you find yourself single all over again.
In short... superheroes and marriage don't mix all that well.
For the sake of adding a tiny bit more to this topic I'm willing to accept the idea that a "marriage system in a MMO" might (just might) make a little more sense in a typical fantasy-based game because I can imagine scenarios where people might use it as an RP method to "join two great houses (guilds) in matrimony" like the great feudal houses did in real life history.
On the other hand if the Silver Age of comic books is any indication of how "romantic relationships" are supposed to work then any superhero based game would do well to stay as far away from "formalizing" anything like marriage as possible.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Well writers and editors don't mix well with marriage anyways :p
Before the whole one more day fiasco, I thought Peter was doing great (no marriage will ever be perfect for a hero) and I never would have thought they would retcon that away. :/
And now I'm reminded of the time Adam West Batman was almost blackmailed into marrying Catwoman...and Dick's Aunt claimed to be Batman's spouse at the last minute. Because blackmailing masked superheroes into marriage to other masked individuals is okay, but bigamy was [i]right out[/i]. (Catwoman even stormed out, incensed that Batman was "leading her on.")
I love the old Adam West series. It was just so much [i]fun[/i] in its nonsense.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Heck the only reason they introduced characters like the original [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batwoman#Kathy_Kane_.281956.E2.80.931979.2C_2013.E2.80.93present.29]Batwoman[/url] and had Batman even consider the question of marriage was to counter the accusations from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham]Wertham[/url] that Batman and Robin were living the "ideal homosexual lifestyle" with each other.
That being said the whole Adam West TV show version of Batman was great fun regardless (or perhaps because of) how silly it got. :)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
And then there's the two-fer, where the villain EATS your spouse during the ceremony ...
[youtube]bKK-KLDlm20[/youtube]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Why do I hear Oye Como Va playing in the background? Must be my schizophrenia acting up again...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32
Funny how Batgirl stuck around in popularized canon, but Batwoman is a character few have heard of. Especially since, really, Batgirl was more a female [i]Robin[/i] than a female Batman. (Of course, her backstory is that she got into it on her own and presented herself to Batman and Robin as a fiat accompli, rather than joining up as a sidekick, so she picked her monicker, herself.)
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
So, a character that was originally introduced, in 1956, to combat allegations that Batman was homosexual, was reintroduced, in 2006, as homosexual herself?
Progress may be slow, but it does happen. ^_^
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
I think some of that had to do with how serious Batgirl was about crimefighting. She had her own equipment that closely paralleled what the Dynamic Duo used, she legitmately knew martial arts and her motivation was solid to the core. Apparently things like that made her popular with the readers.
On the other hand the original Batwoman was designed first and foremost to simply be a love interest for Batman. She was a crimefighter to some degree, but was always the type of "typical silver age female character" who would have easily given it all up to become Mrs. Bruce Wayne. Her purpose was basically to hang around long enough to drive home the point that Bruce wasn't gay.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Yes it's funny how the metaphorical wheel turned on that one. I almost suspect they decided to make the current Batwoman a lesbian simply out of ironic spite against Wertham. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I would definitely call it irony. I would hesitate to call it "progress."
Progress is not shown nor achieved with "take that's," which is the most obvious way to read that. They can certainly be satisfying, but they're not signs of progress. Just of a desire for petty revenge.
Besides, Batwoman's worst sin isn't that she is or was a lesbian or a beard or a symbollic refutation of any insinuation that Batman is gay; it's that she was a costumed superheroine who didn't need the costume to serve her role (at least, from this thread's context) and thus was gimmicky without being useful as a character to the story. Seriously, Catwoman served the same purpose much more powerfully precisely because she wasn't trying to make a point; it was just part of the character dynamic between her and Batman.
(And, to demonstrate how this could be anti-progress, in a way, there is also this immature interpretation of Batwoman-as-lesbian: "So you mean she won't object to Bruce also dating Talia and Selena?" Because to the immature fantasy, "lesbian" doesn't mean she doesn't want a man.)
And wow, we've moved off topic a bit. c_c; I may analyze things a bit too much.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Well the history of superheroes in comics brings with it a huge amount of "baggage" where things like marriage and/or romantic relationships are concerned. I would think that the debate about having any kind formalized marriage system in a superhero based game would have to account for that kind craziness if it were to accurately reflect the genre. One more reason to keep this kind of thing abstract and RP-based in CoT...
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
And like what Red said, costumer complaints would just be a pain.
HOWEVER
I did think of something! A two person TF, no badges, not a lot of XP, but it shows the heroes getting married before being jumped by every major NPC in the game! Could have some major NPC heroes there as guests!
A free for all!
The progress is that in 1956, the people making the comic felt pressure to add a love interest to combat the perceived implication that a heroic character was gay, and in 2006 their successors were able to make it explicitly clear that a heroic character was gay.
While there may have been an element of petty revenge in the decision by the makers of the comic to make this particular character gay, that does not change the fact that the decision was now more wholly in the makers' hands.
/end derailment ^_^
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
Counter-proposal!
/em [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965WdZDZ2ME]rimshot[/url]
It's a PvP scenario.
Team of 2-4 matrimonials (so as to allow for Best Man and Bridesmaid for additional backup) vs an equal number of Wedding Crashers. Event is TIMED such that if the Wedding Crashers can't stop the wedding before "I do." and /em Kiss then the Wedding Crashers lose.
Broadly ([i]very[/i] broadly) speaking, the scenario would be similar to a PvP Bank Robbery, with one side wanting to rob the bank and the other side wanting to stop the robbers from getting away. What I mean by that is that if one side does absolutely nothing during the scenario, a victory will happen by default.
Additional wrinkles could be added to the Wedding PvP scenario by including Mayhem Mission elements such as property damage, taking hostages (ie. all the witnesses to the Event) and so on, such that even if the "I do." happens, there's been enough mayhem and carnage wrought as to yield a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory]pyrrhic victory[/url] in which the Wedding Crashers "win on points" even if they didn't manage to halt the ceremony.
Would require a UI interface allowing Players to choose the "role" of their PC in the Wedding Team, with the unfilled roles going to NPCs (and the PCs then acting as "under cover" security for the Event).
2v2
3v3
4v4
With enough effort and creativity, you could even get things up to being an 8v8 if you really went all out on the design of such a PvP Event.
I just want to know who played the Cybug that ate Calhoun's not-yet-husband at the ceremony ...
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Would still need to have no real benefit to it. No badges, no achievements, no real XP, no good gear, nothing. Or else people will feel forced to have their characters become married.
Depends on the "roles" that PCs play in the scenario. So long as you've got a 2-4 PCs requirement for each side, the PCs on the Wedding Team could be people OTHER THAN the bride and groom (or spouses, if you prefer gender neutral terms). In other words, the PCs on the Wedding Team could be attending the wedding of two NPCs, rather than participating in a wedding between PCs. All you would need is the ability to pick your "role" on the Wedding Team ... which could be Spouse (getting married), or Best Friend (supporting the ceremony), or even Witness (sit with the audience and watch).
It would get even better if the PCs on the Wedding Team were given Temp Powers to blend in with the NPCs at the ceremony by harmonizing costumes, thereby increasing the challenge to the Wedding Crashers to figure out who their opponents are among the throng of NPCs in attendance. Just a wee little bit o' camouflage, ye ken. ^_~
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
No, the Lesson Learned, like in many other things, is [i]don't do it the ESO way.[/i]
IMHO, so far there are three things you might want to allow players to implement "marriage." Two-person SGs, multiple SG membership, and some kind of "bonding" mechanism for sharing XP gain (so the characters level evenly, which is usually the main draw). CoX had the latter, implemented quite late in the game, and it could be started any level before 20 and broken at any time. Problem solved.
This would make a fun scenario all by itself, marriage notwithstanding. The PCs wouldn't need to be getting married; they could just be part of the party, with NPCs getting married. Or they could be the raiders.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
These seem like features that ought to be in the game anyway! Leveling Pacts. Small, even single-person SGs. Multiple-SG membership and/or SGs joining larger SGs - Coalitions were good, in CoX, but tended to get very complicated.
-- I remember the craziness involved in the Legion of Catgirls, where some of the sub-SGs where not counted as allied with each other, so they couldn't use each other's resources. One practically had to hunt down the leaders of each sub-SG and register a separate coalition with them. It was a mess. There must be a better solution.
This would allow the 'Bat Cave' SG to run their local content and still get called in for 'Watchtower' SG events. Leave 'marriage' as a social-contract role-playing thing that (can) utilizes game-mechanics, rather than a game-mechanic of its own.
Be Well!
Fireheart
The standard argument against single-person SGs is that they relax too much control over inventory limits. IMHO, this shouldn't be a problem since CoT (like CoX except for bases and inventions) shouldn't be gear-driven and people creating "mule" SGs shouldn't be unbalancing.
As for sub-SGs, the main reason those existed was because there was an SG membership limit. I'm not convinced there should be a SG membership limit beyond whatever the players impose on themselves.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
The larger the membership the higher the "cost" to the SG to maintain itself?
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/JkLXXvp.png?1[/img]
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
Theoretically there is no software reason why SGs need a membership limit. Technically speaking the game's code could be written in such a way that at the absolute extreme literally every player in the game could belong to the same SG (assuming there were no other arbitrary restrictions like alignments or some such).
But practically speaking there really does need to be an upper limit defined if for no other reason than to simplify SG organizational and maintenance tasks. Sure it might be fun to have a SG have say 10,000+ members but that would in reality be a logistical/GUI nightmare and more than likely there would really only be say a few hundred "active" members in that group with the rest being dead weight.
I would be in favor of a reasonably huge limit - let’s say 1,000 members. That number should serve the needs of almost any truly "active" big SG while still providing a fixed max size for organizational and software efficiency purposes. In practice there would probably only be a very tiny handful of SGs that'd ever reach that many active members - the rest that ever get to that limit would likely have hundreds of inactive alts that could be better organized in other ways (or simply booted at that point).
We all know the original 75 member limit imposed in CoH was based on their pipe dream of SG PvP raiding. They raised the limit to 150 after they more or less gave up on getting the raids to work. If CoT actually tries to get SG PvP raids to work they could always impose a smaller raid limit (if needed) that would have nothing to do with the overall SG membership limit. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me between the needs for PvP and PvE.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
What if Supergroups had "membership fees" that functioned like a tax on the IGC earnings of each PC. Set the membership fee to be the square root of the number of PCs (not accounts) enrolled in the Supergroup. Thus, for groups of 100 or less members, the tax rate would be 10% or less.
Such a system would have neither an upper nor a lower limit on membership, game mechanically speaking, although I think we can all agree/foresee that a Supergroup with a membership roster of 1,000,000 characters would have a membership fee tax rate of 100% of IGC earnings. As a practical matter, I would expect most Supergroups to be reluctant to maintain open enrollment of new members after passing 400 (20% tax) or even 900 (30% tax) members. Thus, the "cap" on membership would be more of a matter of social pressure to the "pain point" of the membership fee, creating a dynamic equilibrium, rather than a static one via a hardcap. Indeed, I'd fully expect Supergroups to institute "purge" rules for inactive members, to be determined (and enforced) by the Supergroup leadership.
Conversely, it would be possible to create "personal" Supergroups containing only a single character ... membership fee, 1% of IGC earnings.
And when I say "IGC earnings" I mean things like defeating opposition, completing missions, rewards for task forces and so on (ie. NPC to PC). Player to Player trading would be exempt.
Set things up that way and you don't have to bother with "rent" or anything similarly silly.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
The only good "tax fee" on a SG is one that can be set by the SG (or individuals could set it themselves) as a way to pay for base upkeep. 10% (or whatever you set it as) of what you get goes to the SG bank, which can then be stocked up and used for base upkeep and whatever else.
I see your point but don't agree. If your SG is full of dead weight and hard to manage, well first of all shame on you for not dealing with it earlier, and second you should just bite the bullet and kick the dead weight out.
Given that, there's no reason to impose an arbitrary limit on top of whatever limit the SG runner wants to have. Remember, this game will be full of altaholics, so 1000 characters might be only 80 players or so.
That said, something that would be awesome to have later in the game would be SG teams, where you can create "subgroups" in the SG, transfer players into there, and maybe even give the subgroup players subgroup-only leadership commands (recruitment, kicking, promotion/demotion, edit permissions on subsections of the base, private chat channel, etc.). Characters then would have a rank in the subgroup independent of their main SG rank.
As for PvP raiding limits and balance, that can be had with a first-come-first-served system. If you want a limit of 75 raiders, only the first 75 who show can get in. (IMHO this limit should be set by the size and contents of the raided base.)
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
we've moved off topic a bit o will i call topic random thoughts
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
Wait, how am I supposed to know what the subject is, if you go and change the subject?
Be Well!
Fireheart
I like your ideas about having "subgroups" inside a large SG and first-come-first-served SG raid limits. But I'll have to stick to my notion that having a reasonably huge arbitrary max size (again say 1,000) would actually solve more problems (for both the Devs and players) than it causes. Your hypothetical of having "80 players being able to have more than 1,000 alts between them" might certainly be possible, but I suspect in reality that would be an extremely rare/unlikely case.
To begin with a SG max membership of 1,000 would likely not be reached by a majority of active SGs. I'd be willing to bet most SGs never even maxed out at CoH's 150 limit. But for the small minority of SGs that might actually bump up against a 1,000 member limit I would predict it would passively encourage those rare SGs to reassess their cumbersome organizations. For practical reasons I believe that 1,000 is a more than big enough number based on my experience with CoH. In CoH there were only a handful of SG organizations I recall that hit the 150 max, and of those they only had maybe 4 or 5 "spillover SGs" to handle the excess. With quick math that's still well under my suggested 1,000 max.
While I agreed the software could be designed to allow for open ended SG memberships the simple reality of the situation is that having a fixed arbitrary limit would make the Devs' job of creating the game a lot easier. All the data structures and GUI formatting would be easier to implement knowing there was a set limit to design for. Given that consideration having a max of 1,000 seems completely reasonable and roomy enough for CoT. Heck I might even be willing to agree to a semi-silly 2,000 member limit, but seriously at that point that should be able to satisfy 99.99999% of the cases with lots of room to spare for everyone.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
... and almost all of them were on the Virtue server.
Lin and I were members of Hero Dawn, which had a membership so large that it had to spawn a subgroup, the Hero Dawn Reserves for characters that had reached Level 50. You'd have to ask Lord Goat if there was an extra spillover SG beyond that (I think there was) to handle the numbers.
I believe that the Justice Girls on Virtue faced essentially the same issue ... [i]not enough closet space[/i] ... for all their members plus all the people who wanted to join. I think they had to make spillover SGs as well.
Suffice it to say, 150 maximum characters on the roster was just too small for some groups. If you want to put a hard cap on things, I'd say that for arbitrary reasons you might want to consider either 900 or 2500 (squares of 30 or 50) as being "adequate" to the task for a good long time.
The alternative is to take things in a different direction as far as memberships to supergroups are concerned. Instead of having CHARACTERS as members, you've got PLAYERS as members. So instead of indexing membership to specific characters, it's instead indexed to specific accounts. That way, rather than relying on PC to PC relationships to define the socialization, you're instead relying on Player to Player relationships that define supergroup socializations.
Of course, the account method of attribution runs into trouble as soon as you start introducing Factions into the mix (some heroes just can't stand sharing a base with villains) ... but that sort of detail could be covered by Lin's suggestion of sub-group organizations. That way, a Player Account is a member of the "parent" (or "umbrella" if you prefer) group, and then assign their specific PCs to specific sub-groups within that overarching supergroup. That way, you could have a "dawn" group for Heroes and a "dusk" group for Villains all be organized under a single overarching SG heading that the Player joins at the account level.
In other words, it ought to be possible to create a somewhat distributed model for supergroups that facilitates Player to Player relationships without requiring jumping through hoops to fix up the character to character relationships.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Side note: I know one of the RP guilds in Guild Wars 2 has hit its cap, and that there is an "unofficial" overflow Guild linked to that as well. And that is with an Account cap of 500 players. It hit that cap within 4 weeks of starting up. And it has a waiting list of *several weeks* to join in. And they kick accounts from the SG when people don't log in after 2 or 3 months (I forget how long, I am not a member of it. I never was a member of the guild)[1]
Not characters... accounts. If we are counting "characters" then it is just a few thousand characters that could be counted.
And this is just on the EU server.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were more Guilds like that.
But as always, there is the management side with this... keeping track of 500 characters/accounts/players is hard work. Even just organising an event takes a lot of time...
Hell, in Eve Online they have "skills" that you can train that increase the size of the corporation that you can run. They don't take all that long, but if you are wanting to *run* a corp, they are needed. If anything because of the OOC organisational skills that are needed...
Corp Management (+10 characters per level)
Megacorp Management (+50 character per level)
Empire Control (+200 characters per level)
Sovereignty (+1000 characters per level).
So in theory that is a *maximum* of 6300 members in a single Corporation. Only because of the skills required have I yet to see any single corporation hitting this size (Alliances are another matter, and a whole different range of skills needed to form "in game")... but also because of the huge overhead in just *Managing* them it becomes a huge ball ache. Even if most of them are alts of your "main players" (happens more often than you think).
So a lot of the time, you tend to find people drift off into their own smaller groups... this can be done via chat channels or just forming their own "dedicated" corp, one that specialises in one certain thing... hell, even just being friends and wanting to play with them is enough of a reason.
It is also worth noting that this is just all for the *forming* of a group... and not even discussing any other systems that they might touch/need fixing. Some people might want single person SG's because of the storage bonus that they could potentially give. IF that is the case, when why don't the developers just increase the storage limit on the player themselves so that a single character SG is *not* desirable for that reason alone?
[1] It should be noted that this guild was formed more as a "chat channel" guild rather than a *proper* guild initially... although it has morphed slowly over time to being more of a proper guild. But that is what happens when you don't have custom chat channels in the game...
HMMM... As an SG Leader, I want to set my own limits on how many ALT's can join my SG, especially if there's a MAX limit on SG PC's.
I dont think there will be a way for a PC to join an SG, based on their Global account, so ALTs aren't counted.
I think it was before the 150 increase, but I was in one SG on Victory before going to Virtue, that had so many people, there was ALWAYS someone on with invite privledges, and they'd just kick the person who was gone the longest out of the SG and invite the other members back in via Global Chat channel.
topic was name marriage system but peoples talk SG so i change it
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
SG is a form of belonging, like marriage. SG-of-two would have housing, shared storage and shared amenities, like a marriage might have.
Granted, the current discussion is about the maximum size of your menage, How big is your family? You might marry into the SG and be forced to show respect for Gramma Moses.
I don't conclude that the 'subject' has not really changed, except it has moved away from a 'marriage mechanic'.
Be Well!
Fireheart
The important thing about SG size isn't just the actual number of characters, but the number of them that are playing at a given time. A lot of us use SGs as a big shared friends list, and if an SG is fragmented into separate SGs it's hard to find folks from the SG to team with. Hence my opposition to even seemingly "large" limits like 1000. Unless there's a programming or game balance reason for a cap, don't have a cap.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
If you have over a 1,000 "friends" in a MMO then you're pretty lucky. ;)
But seriously once again I don't think open ended no-cap SGs would be a problem to implement software-wise. Technically speaking from a pure engineering point of view it could be done. But in the realms of "meta" things like GUI organizations, SG management logistics and/or overall "player interface" with the game I still believe having -some- kind of cap would be better than not.
Yes I concede that in the most extreme, hyperbolic example there may be that one hyper-popular SG that for some uniquely astonishing reason could justify needing to have multiple thousands of members. Let's say that one tip-top case routinely manages to maintain 2,500 members. At that point would you really need the system to be able to handle 5,000 members? 10,000? How about 953,621? My ultimate point is that the system doesn't need to be capable of handling ANY random number of members; it just needs to be able to handle a reasonably large number of members which (for all sorts of reasons) should be fixed and arbitrary in a way that provides for more pros than cons.
I think we can all easily agree that the CoH SG limit of 150 was too small for a significant number of SGs. But by the same token I think it's safe to say that we could come up with a number that everyone could agree on that literally no SG would ever need. Is that number 1,000, 2,500, 10,000 or something else? I'm honestly not sure exactly, but as long as the Devs make a reasonable stab at satisfying 99% of the cases it will be sufficient. As for that other 1% the cap would encourage better SG leadership by forcing them to deal with dead weight appropriately in the same way Twitter forces you to be clear in your tweets by imposing a max character limit.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Something about "no member limit" SGs makes me flash back to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFiDoOgRTpk]this scene[/url].
I mean, do we want a game where all SGs are the same one big SG? It seems like this was the sort of thing that anti-trust laws were invented for, to some extent.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
That was a good movie in a campy/cheesy sort of way. Actually if you think about it the "look and feel" of that movie sort of shares a lot with the environments of CoH (and probably with CoT).
There is an argument to be made that if you actually let something called a "supergroup" have more than say 20 or 30 members then what you really have is some kind of "superarmy" or some such. At the very least you're stretching the relative "spirit" of what most supergroups embody in the comic book tradition.
Now obviously for the purposes of this MMO game I'm more than willing to see supergroups become huge collections of characters active or otherwise. I just think that once you're into the range of thousands of members that there''s a loss of focus somewhere in that.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Hence why I suggested that the "cap" on SG membership ought to be a [b]social reaction[/b] to a price/pain point, rather than a technical limitation set by a hardcap. Put it on a sliding scale of cost to be a member dependent upon the size of the group and you can just sit back and let people decide for themselves when Too Much Is Too Much. Hence why I suggested a "tax on earnings" scheme to implement and a square root function of PCs enrolled as members to determine the percentage of earnings to be taxed.
Want low taxes on membership? Make sure that only active members can stay in and that deadweight gets jettisoned (early and often?).
Want to set a "cap" on the maximum number of members? Simply kick the longest inactive member when accepting a new recruit (as cited above). Don't want to get kicked? Don't stay inactive longer than anyone else.
In other words, SGs would have flexibility in determining their own "rules" for who gets in, who stays in, and when purges happen and "why" inactives get purged. Instead of having a One Size Fits All "cap" imposed by the Developers, the "limits" would be set by the Players themselves in dynamic response to their own expectations and acceptance.
Think algebra instead of arithmetic solutions. Why solve just ONE problem when you can solve ALL problems with a single formula?
Heck, if you think the square root of enrolled members is too punitive, I can even offer an alternative:
Tax rate (in %) is the higher value of either:
[list][*]square root of total SG members currently online
[*]cube root of total PCs with membership in the SG, both online and offline[/list]
So let's say that your SG has 64 members, but only 9 of them are online right now. That would mean that the tax rate is the higher of:
cube root (64) = 4
square root (9) = 3
Tax rate = 4%
So if you had a SG with 125 members, your tax rate would never go below 5% ... but if more than 25 members of your SG were online at the same time, your tax rate would go above 5% while you had 26+ members online.
Perhaps even more of a "chump change" enforcement method, but it could still bring pressure to bear on SGs growing uncontrollably large.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Once upon a time, I had over 180 characters, a full roster on every server, plus extras. On every server, Some of my characters were in the Legion of Catgirls SG. On Guardian (the SG's 'home server', I was in the Legion as well as three 'sub-SGs'.
Why? Because, when the call went out for back-up on the Global Chat channel, I could say, "Sure, I have somebody there, let me switch."
Now, we're talking about having only one server, so I doubt I'll feel compelled to make 180 characters, but I do expect to want to try lots of different combinations of powers and specifications. I could easily see having 20 characters in the Legion and a few others in smaller, more private SGs. If I 'have to', I'd likely invest in more than one account, in order to have room for my characters.
And there were a Lot of Legionnaires. So I don't find high numbers of SG members to be unreasonable. That said, I think a 'Flat-tax for SG maintenance is more reasonable.
Be Well!
Fireheart
I understand what you're saying here and if nothing else it would provide another "money sink" for the game. But I'm not altogether sure large SGs should be taxed (a.k.a. penalized) just for being large.
Even if the Devs were to accept your ideas here there's still no logical reason why there couldn't also be a relatively astronomical hard cap to serve as the ultimate deterrent to hyperly-overlarge SGs. I mean even in your wildest dreams could you see any rational benefit or scenario where having 5,000+ characters being linked together under a single in-game guild would serve any reasonable purpose? The line between a "subset player grouping" and "every player currently logged into the game" starts to blur at that point.
I'm all for flexiblity here and clearly we all agree that CoH's 150 limit was too small. I'm simply maintaining the notion that if there's such a thing as "too small" a size for a SG then in practical terms there's such a thing as "too big" as well.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
/snerk
Yeah, I can.
WE tell Nemesis to "take a number and get in line" and WE go and invade the Rikti Homeworld. And we win.
WE tell Tyrant to "step aside, squishy wimp" and WE go and take back Praetoria from Hamidon. And we win.
WE march on Atlas Park ... and NC$oft ignores us and shuts off the servers anyway because they're [b]{REDACTED}[/b]. But we get screenshots and youtube videos.
Need I continue?
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Seeing as I have played Eve Online and been in some pretty large (but not the largest) and long running (but not the longest) offense/defensive movements over there, you would be surprised as to how many people get involved.
And not everyone who plays the game was in one of the two sides... infact, the vast majority of the player base are NOT involved in those fights...
The fights just so happen to normally involve two of the *LARGEST* singular organisations there...
And then there is the small form PvP, where corps of less than 100 players are some of the best combat pilots out there....
And also some of the best drinkers and community hosts that I have ever met.
The only thing your apocalyptic scenarios would need is a global chat channel and an hour's worth of time. Since you are literally describing "everyone in the game" events there'd seriously be no need to have SG distinctions of any kind at that point. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
With all due respect to how great we all hope CoT will be I'm fairly sure Eve Online will always have a much. much larger playerbase than CoT will ever have. And while it's always possible PvP might become super popular in CoT I simply don't think there will ever be a case where we'll see 5,000+ heroes and 5,000+ villains all online at the same time in the same place battling each other in an extra-planetary area as big as you might see in Eve Online. Even if by some miracle that happened in CoT you wouldn't need all those people organized under single SGs for what would amount to a temporary once-in-a-lifetime warfare situation.
Apples and Oranges my friend. While discussing things like this for CoT let's keep in mind the specific realities of this game and the reasonable expectations involved.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I was just listing a possible situation where it *could* possibly be handy...
For me, I don't really see a reason to have *super large* SG's in the slightest, a limit of 500 characters/accounts should be able to satisfy all but the *most* dedicated SG (or the ones that just don't kick people out *ever*
I ran Eurocore on Victory and post the 150 char cap, we had something like 4 SGs and 3 VGs. We had a private global channel that members of any tended to communicate in rather than using the SG channel. Many people had characters in all of them with invite privileges and we'd periodically purge inactive, but send them an email saying that they should ask for a reinvite if they returned.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
So based on the various anecdotes that have been expressed in this thread having a SG memebership hard cap of 1,000 continues to appear to be far more than sufficent for effectively anyone's purposes.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
At the moment, we have it so super groups are covered by global account with as many characters under that global account as wanted. Global accounts can be in multiple super groups, characters can only be in 1 group. There is a limit to the number of total active characters that can be part of an SG, for multiple reasons, but including functional accomodations for operating within the maximum alloted size of a base-map (design not withstanding).
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
The idea of making SG membership based on global accounts versus individual characters sounds like the kind of improvement that was long suggested for CoH.
But when you say that there will be "a limit to the number of total active characters that can be part of an SG" that part seems a little vague. Does this mean there will be a limit to the total number of SG member characters that can be logged in at any given time or that there will just be a limit to how many SG member characters can exist in the SG base at any given time? So for example let's say supergroup XYZ has 500 characters associated with it. Could all 500 be logged in at the same time with perhaps a limit (let's just say of 100) in the base at any given moment or are you saying that out of 500 only 100 could be logged on ANYWHERE in the game at any given time?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I will leave it at, there is a limit on the total number of possible global accounts of active members in an sg, which means there is a limit on the total ount of active characters at a given time. That limit is in part, being influenced by accomodating the maximum possible size of a base for functional purposes.
Can this mean there is a huge base with few members? Yes.
Can this mean there is a small base with a full roster? Yes.
Part of the point is that we don't inherently hamstring base and super group functions because we made the roster too large and maps too restrictive. Players will habe to sort out what works for them within thise limits, but the design supports the upper limits.
And keep in mind, this is all subject to change but our goals are set for getting to launch and our design is modular to suport change over time if needed.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
For my two cents the most important aspect is to enable communication between players. If players can become "affiliate" members of a SG, which could be as simple as giving them access to the SG channel, then SG limits become that much less important. It could also allow people who don't want to join a SG, for whatever reason, to have access to a larger pool of people with whom to play.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
Private Global chat channels should be able to resolve that problem easily enough without needing anything special with SG memberships themselves
So unlike CoH (which had a strict limit of 150 characters per SG) you're saying that CoT will have (again as hypothetical for the sake of argument) a limit of 500 global accounts. The difference of course is that each of those global accounts might flag say 20 characters each as "members" of the SG meaning that technically the SG has 10,000 members of which only 500 could be logged on at any given moment (based on the global accounts). Does that cover the situation we'll have in CoT?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
If my global account is a member of several different SGs, does that, by definition, mean that I must have at least one toon in each of those SGs as the one and only SG that that specific toon is in?
Also, and for the record, I'm fine with this, just asking, I take this to mean that no toon can be a member of two or more different SGs, but a given account might have one or more different toons in each of them. So no "Beast is a member of the X-Men AND the Avengers" type stuff. Is that right?
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Oh, also, this is a chat channel question: If I log in and I'm globally connected to say, three different SGs, would it be possible for me to see logged chat from before I was listening on the channel? Like could I "scroll up" and look at the last 3 hours of chat on all of my channels if I want to? I would like that.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Yeah this is the way I understood it too. It might be nice if a single character could be a member of multiple SGs, but as long as my character A can still easily be in one SG and my character B can be in another I'll probably be fine with it.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
It might be pretty hard for the game to be able to retroactively download logged chat from a channel from the server to your client, especially if you're talking about wanting to see the last three hours of a channel from before you logged into the game. Not saying it'd be impossible, just saying I wouldn't hold my breath for that.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Here's an idea: Let's say I just logged on and I want to check out the various chat channels for recent SG activity in my SGs, could I ask the game software to look at logged chat data that exists in the chat logs of people who logged on before I did and who are still logged in?
So like, if my one SG mate logged in 2 hours before I did, could I "copy off of him" assume he'll allow it? Or could I just ask the software to copy off of any and all logged-in SG members to build the largest possible backlog of chat data that it can?
Because really, if I'm the first person logged in from my SG for the last 3 hours or so, there wouldn't be any relevant chat to read in the first place anyway, but if those people are still logged in and are in mid-conversation talking about what TF to do, I would benefit from seeing the backlog of who is in favor of what TF, etc without people needing to catch me up by rehashing the same conversation again.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
scrap all of what I typed: Guild Wars 2 apparently does this already for the last hour or so of chat
I'd rather good story and gameplay, and solid content for a long time before any in-game marriage comes up. Also super groups and whatnot to me would be far more important.
I realized something today(5/8/2014) that many MMORPG players, are not like us who enjoyed CoX. They enjoy repetitiveness and predictability, rather then unpredictability. We on the other hand enjoy unpredictability and variety.
Erm, I play GW2 and the 'chat history' that I see is basically only the last few minutes, although it Does 'remember' chat-history on an 'account' basis, even as you switch characters. And the same goes for party membership, so you don't lose your spot, if you log out to character-select and come back.
Be Well!
Fireheart
I wasn't sure on how long the chat log was which is why I said that it did it already. The only person I can refer to is the leader of a 500 account guild, so that "few minutes" is *often* a couple of hundred lines of text.
Assuming the technology exists to allow some form of chat history access, I assume the problem is available memory, right? If that's the case, might we allow those people who are willing to pay real money for a subscription to have such chat logging as they're willing to pay for, assuming that it wouldn't cost-prohibitive?
So what I'm thinking is the SG leadership would be able to set things like how long the SG chat messages persists before each is deleted, etc. Then you could set it to purge old messages as soon as they become more than, say, 2 hours old or something like that.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
It isn't really a memory problem. Infact text compresses *VERY VERY* well. I have a few xml files that uncompressed are 4MB in size and yet compressed are just over 170KB in size. That is just 3% of its original size.
I think that it would possibly be better to do this on the users side, so that the person themselves dictates how much (if any) previous logs they would be synced up with up to a maximum limit (set by MWM and not the SG). And let it happen on a channel by channel basis as well. I might not want my SG chat synced, but I could well want the Taskforce channel synced up... or vice versa.
I cannot see *why* letting the SG setting their own defined limit or not would be of any real use or not. This in my eyes is akin to an SG telling players that they *cannot* save their own chat logs if they "disabled" the "catch up logging " feature.
If its there, expect people to use/request to use it. And I can see why some people might not want it, and others would want it.
If anything, it might cut down on talking behind peoples backs in the global channels....
The whole point is that I want to see chat that got typed like 2 hours or so BEFORE I was even logged in though. If you're saying it's possible to do that, then great, I don't care how you do it.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Yep the part about getting chat logs downloaded to you from a period of time you're NOT logged on is the tricky bit. Again it's probably not impossible, but also not likely something that would be high on the Devs' "to do" list either.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
The advantage of a marriage system would be that i provides a real reason for PVP fights. But I personally do not support the marriage in game idea.
Nijanus
"Divorce Court - PvP!"
Be Well!
Fireheart