Genesis Forums

widdershins wrote: ↑

15 Jul 2021 16:06

Probably also worth rereading the last thread about this. Some good points made about the nonsensical omniscience of the who list regarding titles. Otherwise, seems like much the same points have been made and remade

I think my favorite incarnation of title-hiding is one where <who> only remembers the last introduced title, everyone gets to choose the their introduced titles from the ones available to them, but their associations also have a "tell" of some sort in their description when examined. The "scent of herbs" or whatever it is for gardeners, obvious magey-ness, air of military discipline, etc.

I personally think that remembering just the last title (when introed) would just cause more confusion than anything. Hiding titles would make remembering people pretty much pointless since you can see everyone who's online anyway - maybe we should remove unknown people from the who list again? Newbies still get "nlist" to view fellow newbies and helpers.

I guess kind of a middle ground would be removing the unmet from the who list and disabling the "full" option from the list, then it would only show the names. I can already imagine the befuddlement though.

I think that knowing people's titles is great, tracking people's progress and affiliations is one of my favorite things. It's also very useful for when you need to ask someone stuff about certain guild or when you seek someone from the council etc.

If you don't want to show your affiliations just join guilds that don't show them. Go Mercenary and Thief or something and make people wonder if you're FK, AA, Merc, Trickster etc.

I simply voted no because it's something Nils want, and then I automatically don't want it!

Just kidding...

I don't think it's a necessarily a bad idea, there's pros and cons to everything, and I can see the reasoning behind this one. I personally always enjoyed the way titles work in Genesis, though. I like that most players have long, often pretty cool, titles. I think it makes you inspired and interested to learn more about their guilds. I also think it's fun to see when someone advances in the guild, or switches guild, etc. I know some don't like this, and think it's "unrealistic" (which it is), but I personally always liked this. So, those are the main reasons why I like that almost all players do have titles. Yes, you could make it more optional to show it or not, but then we _could_ end up with a lot of "Name, Myth, male goblin", which I think looks boring on a who list and when introducing to someone. Options are often good, but in this case I think I would prefer NOT to give all players the option to show up like that - simply because I think it'll be less interesting for other players (especially newer ones).

That said, I don't feel super-strongly about this, but since the current system is what it is now, I don't feel it's worth replacing it with something that in my opinion would have a relatively small (good or bad?) effect. Sure, it could be positive for some players, but it could be negative for others... Also, this vote has showed that there is definitely not an overwhelming majority in favor of changing it. Yes, I know it's not nearly enough voters to get a clear view of what players in general feel, but it at least provides some idea about what the playerbase thinks. So... nah... I think we'll keep it as it is.

I don't know if this was mentioned, but another idea could be for the 'who' list to show the titles/mortal level/race of players at the time they introduced to you. So, if any change occurred after the introduction, you won't know about it on your 'who' list.

Only after examining the remembered player, would your 'who' list get updated accordingly.

Rincon wrote: ↑

17 Jul 2021 10:59

I don't know if this was mentioned, but another idea could be for the 'who' list to show the titles/mortal level/race of players at the time they introduced to you. So, if any change occurred after the introduction, you won't know about it on your 'who' list.

Only after examining the remembered player, would your 'who' list get updated accordingly.

It has been discussed in the past. It's more "realistic", but I think it would also be very confusing. Say you meet someone when they are a new character, and then you don't meet them again for years (or ever). So, they'll always be "Name, the Cadet, beginner" to you, when in fact they are now a myth and the Grandmaster of the Knights. Actually, except for your closest friends, your "who f"-list will just be completely inaccurate and wrong. So... what would be the point of having "who f" at all? Might as well just have "who", since you can't trust anything on the "who f" list anyway?

And, if you DO want to try to keep it up to date, you would have to remember to examine your friends every time you meet, or go out of your way to find and examine your enemies on a regular basis. Sounds a bit annoying and something you're likely to forget / not want to spend time on doing? Sure, it opens up for some sort of "spy missions", but... other than that, it sounds more confusing than good I think. I get the idea, and I get why it would logically make sense, but game design-wise it don't think it's such a good idea.

Current "who f"-list:

A the Myth, male human
B+ the Legend, female human
C the Unique Title, male human
D the Myth, male human
E the Legend, female human
F the Myth, male human
G+ the Unique Title, myth, male human

The majority voted against the idea, yet it seems to me the majority grew fangs and.. whaddoyaknow? No titles!

Can I please get the OPTION now?

Nils is going off script here being... right. I support the idea vamps or no vamps but this now is eye-poking

It's so hard to find out who's the vampire now... Secret guild betrayed by their own secrecy in not having titles

nils wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2021 15:15

Current "who f"-list:

A the Myth, male human
B+ the Legend, female human
C the Unique Title, male human
D the Myth, male human
E the Legend, female human
F the Myth, male human
G+ the Unique Title, myth, male human

The majority voted against the idea, yet it seems to me the majority grew fangs and.. whaddoyaknow? No titles!

Can I please get the OPTION now?

No.

For vamps... one could argue it makes sense. For mercs, I'd argue it's un-needed.

TaranGoatWalker wrote: ↑

16 Dec 2021 19:30

For vamps... one could argue it makes sense. For mercs, I'd argue it's un-needed.

I think it is so you can roleplay with just your lay guild title.
You can be a dedicated templar of Takhisis, or what ever you are into.
I think it makes sense.