Re: Whoinvis Discussion General /WDG/
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:52 am
Damnit. Amicable disagreements are the worst. XD
The Inquisition Legacy Forums
https://ti-legacy.com/forums/
I like both of these suggestions.Zeita wrote: 1) Whoinvis with an Argument. When entering whoinvis, a player would be required to enter a reason for wanting to use whoinvis. Staff could monitor these reasons, and speak to anyone that they consider abusing the system (which would be made clear in a help file), potentially banning the whoinvis command from the serial offenders. This would allow free use of whoinvis for those using it as intended.
2) Whoinvis Allowance. A player and/or PC is given an allocation of whoinvis hours that they can use per week, either a flat amount or a percentage of their logged-in hours.
Code: Select all
Hi Az,
Here's an update to the whoinvis changes.
Please change whoinvis so that:
It costs 250xp to initially toggle whoinvis on. This XP is refundable on death.
- If the player does not have enough XP, error:
Kinaed does not have enough XP to turn on whoinvis.
- If the player has enough XP, message:
250xp deducted.
Kinaed is no longer visible to the WHO command.
Whoinvis may be freely toggled on and off for 6 OOC hours, until ##:## mm/dd/yyyy.
- Place an affect on the player that lasts for 6 OOC hours that
allows them to toggle whoinvis on and off for free.
- When the 6 hour period expires, send a message:
Kinaed can no longer freely toggle whoinvis.
- When the affect expires, automatically toggle whoinvis off.
- Toggling whoinvis on and off while affected sends the following:
Kinaed is no longer visible to the WHO command.
Kinaed is now visible to the WHO command.
- Show the whoinvis affect in Score and Status.
- No longer toggle whoinvis off on login.
- Make certain that the whoinvis affect naturally expires whilst
the player is offline after 6 OOC hours. If this happens, they'll
login visible.
I don't think that you need whoinvis to do crimes at all, I sure never used it for them. Even if someone with a tinfoil hat will watch it and link the dots OOCly, they still have to meet help policy cnote, so they only thing that they really ruin is their own mystery by metagaming, without gaining an IC entry. If you suspect that someone is now "paying more attention" to your criminal based on OOC connection you can always drop a request to staff to make sure everything is up to par (as there is usually more than your PC will know/see).Andruid wrote:This spec isn't the end of the world, but reading it doesn't lessen my concerns about the cost feeling like a "covert" tax or a "crime" tax, as Lei mentioned. When a villain wants to use whoinvis to protect themselves against metagaming, which is (as I understand it) the intended purpose of whoinvis, they are going to have to pay this fee -- and that's going to deincentivize not only the use of whoinvis but the kind of legitimate gameplay it was designed to enable and protect, especially for "up and coming" characters without a lot of free XP to spare.
Zeita's suggestion of a whoinvis "Allowance" might be a decent middle ground.
Excellent point. An allowance would be helpful to lawful types, as well.Puciek wrote: And the purpose behind whoinvis was to allow the occasional and temporary cover from WHO when you expect meta to be at play already, not as a blanket whenever you do something vanish. The actual physical use case for which it was created was so the lawful types can lay ambushes for criminals who don't act when reeves are around. But, obviously, it was also never intended for Reeves/knights to be permanently whoinvis either, instead, it is to be a temporary and targetted measure. Just like it should be with crime, not used for every single one but when you expect that foul play may be afoot.
I don't like the allowance because I am yet to see an actual case of someone coming here and telling WHY they need whoinvis to run the RP. Do we really have people who metagame the who and simply log off whenever they see you? Or otherwise, abuse who, but not in a way that can be proven for policy? I think it simply matters of having that peace now and using the benefits it provides, rather than actual metagaming at play.Andruid wrote:Excellent point. No need to make it feel like just a "crime" tax. An allowance would be helpful to lawful types, as well.Puciek wrote: And the purpose behind whoinvis was to allow the occasional and temporary cover from WHO when you expect meta to be at play already, not as a blanket whenever you do something vanish. The actual physical use case for which it was created was so the lawful types can lay ambushes for criminals who don't act when reeves are around. But, obviously, it was also never intended for Reeves/knights to be permanently whoinvis either, instead, it is to be a temporary and targetted measure. Just like it should be with crime, not used for every single one but when you expect that foul play may be afoot.