View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 21 Apr 2018 11:51

Forum rules


- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.



Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Only include player speech in communication window? 

Remove Non-Player Characters' speech from the communication window
Yes, there is too much spam. 68%  68%  [ 30 ]
No, seeing NPC speech in chat box is useful. 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
There is a better solution. 16%  16%  [ 7 ]
Who cares? 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 44

Only include player speech in communication window? 
Author Message
Wanderer
User avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2014 07:40
Posts: 71
Look, you guys are insane if you think an acceptable fix is to put most of the work onto the player. The best solution in this case is the addition of information given through GMCP so that the webclient can accurately make the informed decisions that are being requested in this thread.

_________________
Args Explained - Adv. Trigger Manip - Adding Audio


10 Mar 2016 18:26
Profile WWW
Veteran

Joined: 29 Nov 2013 02:53
Posts: 237
Vlek wrote:
Look, you guys are insane if you think an acceptable fix is to put most of the work onto the player. The best solution in this case is the addition of information given through GMCP so that the webclient can accurately make the informed decisions that are being requested in this thread.


Yeah and I said this too. I will post what I said earlier below.

Quote:
It would be nice if as was mentioned we just have an option to check. When you want npc language it shows for quests. And when you dont, which is the other 95%? You never see it regardless of client.


I think it would be nice to have a option in the genesis option list to just avoid it like gag misses. If the player wants to see it they can and if not, they dont have to. Cause I dont want to code it all again. So I am with you vlek. I just knew there was a way in Cmud and so stated it, though painful, so the admin, probably Cotillion, could see others have this option in Cmud but maybe all could have it if we made it at the game level. And I dont think I was the first one to mention this but I was to lazy to look back to see who did.

Sorry for any confusion.


10 Mar 2016 18:29
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2010 01:14
Posts: 275
Unfortunately solving this requires violation of a rule put in place when the web client work started.
A client user may not receive information which is unavailable to a telnet user.

As it's not obvious over telnet who's a player and who's not this information should not be presented over GMCP either.
I could add an option to filter out messages from livings you have not been introduced to.


10 Mar 2016 18:41
Profile
Wanderer
User avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2014 07:40
Posts: 71
cotillion wrote:
As it's not obvious over telnet who's a player and who's not this information should not be presented over GMCP either.


Are you trying to seriously say that damn near everything in the GMCP isn't above and beyond what a telnet player has? I can close my eyes, scroll up and down in the GMCP api, and point to any random point in it and that part of the api would probably be well beyond what's possible with telnet either explicitly or implicitly through creative use.

I honestly think that GMCP.room should have something like .mobiles as a list of mobile objects, be it NPC or player, that has the information in it that would otherwise be available to the player along with whether the specified mobile is an NPC or player. Once the player has this list, they would be able to create a userscript, even through cmud, that'd able to check, based on their desired filter preferences, whether they want to see the communication.

cotillion wrote:
I could add an option to filter out messages from livings you have not been introduced to.


But this really wouldn't solve the problem considering it's being suggested that NPC chatter should be removed from the communication div and not necessarily from the main div.

_________________
Args Explained - Adv. Trigger Manip - Adding Audio


Last edited by Vlek on 11 Mar 2016 01:01, edited 1 time in total.



10 Mar 2016 20:03
Profile WWW
Adept
User avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2016 08:28
Posts: 133
Location: Bree
Could we maybe get the NPCs to chatter a LOT less then?


10 Mar 2016 21:10
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2010 20:51
Posts: 2120
Location: Some old coffin
Mayobe wrote:
Could we maybe get the NPCs to chatter a LOT less then?


I'll return to my original proposal to have a new protocol for combat chats, but not for regular npc chats.

G.

_________________
Mmmmmm ... pie ...


10 Mar 2016 21:55
Profile
Wanderer
User avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2014 07:40
Posts: 71
Mayobe wrote:
Could we maybe get the NPCs to chatter a LOT less then?


No, that's quite possibly the worst suggestion you've had, and none of yours have been good. Not to mention the ridiculous amounts of hours it would take combing through every NPC's script by hand to delete all of their messages, it'd also reduce the game's overall immersion by making the NPC's feel even flatter.


gorboth wrote:
I'll return to my original proposal to have a new protocol for combat chats, but not for regular npc chats.


It makes less than no sense to create a protocol solely to deal with one specific type of message being sent to the player. That's quite honestly a programmatic nightmare. Instead, the GMCP protocol ought to be expanded to deal with it since that's essentially what you're suggesting. It doesn't matter if you have Tool A and Tool B that amounts to a range of function X or if you have Tool C that covers that same range of function X. In the end, you're going to be able to do the same amount of stuff. It just happens that having GMCP only is a much more sane approach.

_________________
Args Explained - Adv. Trigger Manip - Adding Audio


11 Mar 2016 01:28
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 03 Mar 2010 20:51
Posts: 2120
Location: Some old coffin
Hi Vlek,

I'm not expert with any of the programming aspects of protocols or the client. I'm old school enough that all of my own playing still happens through a very basic telnet client (and I LIKE IT that way!)

And, upon reflection, I don't think my suggestion of tagging specific combat chat protocols (which actually would not be a nightmare) would take care of the problem. The spam example posted above showed the reactions many NPCs are programmed to do when attacked. In many npcs there is a little script that gets run when they get attacked, which I suspect is the source of much of the spam people see cluttering their chat windows. These scripts don't involve combat chats, but just straight up command-style actions directed to the npcs to do things like: "shout Over here! We're under attack!!" or "say You wretched pig! Taste my blade!!" or whatever.

The rule Cotillion stated does indeed make it difficult to discriminate player from non-player via protocols. Having it filter in only speech from those you've remembered would certainly cut down on the spam, but it would also make it fairly useless, as lots of the stuff you will not want to miss will come from players you might not have remembered.

Tricky. Anyone else have any creative solution ideas?

G.

_________________
Mmmmmm ... pie ...


11 Mar 2016 02:02
Profile
Wanderer
User avatar

Joined: 06 Apr 2014 07:40
Posts: 71
gorboth wrote:
And, upon reflection, I don't think my suggestion of tagging specific combat chat protocols (which actually would not be a nightmare) would take care of the problem. The spam example posted above showed the reactions many NPCs are programmed to do when attacked. In many npcs there is a little script that gets run when they get attacked, which I suspect is the source of much of the spam people see cluttering their chat windows. These scripts don't involve combat chats, but just straight up command-style actions directed to the npcs to do things like: "shout Over here! We're under attack!!" or "say You wretched pig! Taste my blade!!" or whatever.


If you admit to not knowing what you're talking about, then how could you possibly begin to think one way or another about whether it's going to take care of the issue? What I'm suggesting is an addition to the GMCP protocol that deals with messages to denote what type of character it's coming from. That's regardless of whether it's in reference to a question being asked to an NPC, whether it's an NPC saying that you fight like a girl, or any other action. Your example case of on-attack NPC messages would most definitely be correctly handled with what I'm suggesting.

I want to reiterate that there's absolutely no such thing as "combat chat" in the protocol, game, or anywhere else. That terminology doesn't exist, and absolutely nowhere is it differentiated from "normal" messages. Currently, no messages are differentiated from each other; A message is a message is a message.

gorboth wrote:
The rule Cotillion stated does indeed make it difficult to discriminate player from non-player via protocols. Having it filter in only speech from those you've remembered would certainly cut down on the spam, but it would also make it fairly useless, as lots of the stuff you will not want to miss will come from players you might not have remembered.


I think it's an absolutely horrendous idea to bring everyone else down simply because there's a group of people that want to play like it's the 90's. As I've pointed out before, we've already completely broken that rule a thousand times over. Literally everything in the GMCP makes a person capable of running circles around one that is using telnet. You expressed a desire to get new people to play, but that's entirely at odds with this policy of only allowing things based on the possibilities of telnet.

gorboth wrote:
Anyone else have any creative solution ideas?


Yeah, we can make a new MUD and not hold any ideals that would otherwise stop us from adding content that was considered standard fare in games that are a decade old or more.

_________________
Args Explained - Adv. Trigger Manip - Adding Audio


11 Mar 2016 03:03
Profile WWW
Adept
User avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2016 08:28
Posts: 133
Location: Bree
Vlek, do you think you could calm down a little?

Or a lot?


11 Mar 2016 06:53
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.