Topic

Diminish Chat/Groups Model. Emphasize Updates/Subscriptions Model.

The game client is ill-suited to chat. The tabbed pane interface is a pain to flip between chats using, and it is probably the best possible interface for in-game chat.

The game client would be better suited to a social graph based updates system along the lines of what we see on our home page. These updates see a lot of use when the game is down, including some excellent conversations and question/answer back and forth.

The help channel could scale if presented this way. New players would effectively post "@help" updates, which could then be directly responded to by older players following the "@help" update stream. the "Help Feed" could also post hourly or half hourly tips on how to play the game.

There could be a few official feeds like this. Help Feed, News Feed, Developer's Feed etc. etc.

Groups could also have feeds, controlled by administrators, allowing them to make in game broadcasts to their members.

But mostly players would be seeing and responding to updates posted by their friends. Pretty much exactly like twitter or facebook, except in the glitch client.

Huge Advantages:
Feeds would all be merged together so you could follow *everything* on a single pane, or narrow down to a single feed to focus [or even something like twitter lists, eventually].

API hooks are MUCH easier to put into and use via a feed based system than they are in a chat based one.

Would allow "stagnant" groups to spark conversations without manually IMing everyone to purposely enter a chat room.

Of course keep the existing IM and group chat systems, which would actually be enhanced by this system, since "updates" could be clicked to initiate chats.

I think moving in this direction is probably the more important thing that glitch can do right now. If you see how well people are using the updates system outside of test sessions, and how well it is building community, moving the functionality and growing it makes far more sense than an unending series of odd kludges in order to make chat scale.

Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • oh, and i think pretty much all of this should be done before trying to "fix" groups [other than the group forums].

    updates will have a much improved impact and has already been proven via the home page community building.

    we will obviously need a good group system to form proper organizations and share resources and so on, but we need a thriving community communication model [other than unsustainable help chat] far more.
    Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Striatic-if I am reading this correctly you are voting for a system similar to the update page and much like Twitter where there are multiple convos happening at once and everyone has to pretty much figure it out for themselves who has/has not responded to their convo. I think this would be incredibly confusing and thus make me NOT want to use chat in any way. It is already bad enough when 7 people answer the same question in one group. I think the way it is right now is fine. -1 is just my thought
    Posted 20 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I think this would be incredibly confusing and thus make me NOT want to use chat in any way."

    do you not like/use facebook or twitter?

    you may not understand how status updates work on such sites.

    when someone responds to something you say, you are notified to that response, and you can view an interface of just mentioning you.

    i also said that this would not be a replacement for in game chat.

    i would like you you to re-read the idea before adding a -1 to it. millions of people use facebook and twitter every single day without confusion, and chat would still exist, so i don't understand your comment here.
    Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't know exactly *how* we'd implement this, but I think the core of the idea is really good.
    Posted 20 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Striatic-sorry I read your post thoroughly the first time and still stand by my original response. No I don't use Facebook Or Twitter. So I guess its millions -1 that use those w/o confusion. Maybe I don't fully understand all about how it works but I prefer not to know and would like to remain in the dark.
    Posted 20 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • it's interesting though, because when you think about things like the size and usage rates of facebook and twitter, there are FAR more people are familiar with status update services [using them on a daily basis] than there are people who are familiar with group based chats [using them on a daily basis].

    looking at it from that perspective, group chat may well be the more confusing model.

    holly, if you don't actually use status update based services, i'm not sure how you'd know whether they are confusing or not.
    Posted 20 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just trying to put two and two together here, because no... I really don't like the streaming chaos of updates in many social networks (and would like to point out that Facebook *added* a grouping system after the fact to help filter it).

    I would kind of like to see something based more off an older model... IRC's /channel set up worked just fine... but people would find @channel easier as it's the updated version. @person could put it in an IM (auto-opening the window). Bonus: people already type @person a lot, so this would automatically send the response directly to the person in IM rather than the chat window. Complication: Usernames aren't unique, so that might get really really confusing. Secondary idea, and I'm not sure if it can be done... but @channel @person could send the text to both.

    You could save a lot of the chat space by combining the chat lines in a single command line that fits at the bottom of the screen, above the inventory (do we really need to see the 75 pixels of dirt under the floor?).... then having the text filtered into the various chat windows you have open. 

    If memory serves, it might make chat more intuitive for people since many multi-player games use an input in this particular location. For me, one of my favorite parts of text-based games was the command line... and typing ' before something I wanted to say in the 'room' and /person before something I wanted sent in private became second nature.
    Posted 20 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • " holly, if you don't actually use status update based services, i'm not sure how you'd know whether they are confusing or not."
    Striatic-Just because I don't enjoy using something does not mean that I don't know what it is. Jeez, maybe we can just agree to disagree.
    Posted 20 months ago by Holly Waterfall Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've been on Facebook for three years and Twitter for one, so I *think* I know what I'm doing. I don't want to see chat become one sided like Twitter is. I don't want to only see one side of the conversation. I think that the groups should become more streamlined, i.e. don't let just anyone form a group that serves no purpose. I see a lot of groups that only have 1 or 2 members, and I've gone into several groups that the last post was two months ago, and no one uses the group chat window. Those groups should be shut down. I mainly stick to two group chats, and occasionally help out on the help channel if I can. 
    Posted 20 months ago by Essie Kitten Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I will just chime in that I've almost stopped reading the home-page conversations because the one-sided nature of the communications is so disorienting. (I see a lot of posts from a friend responding to someone who's not a friend, so I can't guess what was said.)

    So I will posit that the home-page approach works best for tightly knit groups of friends, and does not work so well with emerging communities.


    Also, I don't imagine it working so well with the rapid-fire of the chat.
    Posted 20 months ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There is already some integration with Facebook--rather than create a new system that would be "like" facebook, how about better integration with it? It's likely that the vast majority of Glitchizens are on facebook already. I know that would leave some folks out (sorry Holly), but people are left out as it is. 

    [in full disclosure, I personally would not integrate my facebook with this game. But I bet many others would.]
    Posted 20 months ago by Mac Rapalicious Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ugg giants no Mac... I plan on dumping my FB account when Glitch goes live. If Glitch decides to integrate more with Facebook than it already has, I (and many others) will vacate for that reason alone. I understand the development perspective of using an existing tool to tap a ready audience of willing and savvy players, and Tiny Speck has done an amazing job leveraging it as a *tool*. The reason many Glitch people are on Facebook is it's the easiest access point (for the time being).... and currently the only way to 'invite others' is via Facebook. I'm anxiously awaiting another option.

    From an overarching perspective... Facebook is about due to decline in popularity and the 'next big thing' is around the corner. In my internet time it's been Usenet, IRC/ICQ, Yahoo, LiveJournal/MovableType, MySpace, and now Facebook... and those are just the names *most* of the audience will remember. It's a slippery slope when you centralize your game around an outside social community, focusing on a core internal system will 'ride the tide' of change in the ever evolving world of technology and social networking.
    Posted 20 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm with Holly on this.. I have FB... and I refuse to connect it with my social down time.  Nor do I use it as I once did, since a quick easy search in FB gives away too much personal information in my opinion.  In fact, if I had to use FB to play Glitch... i would quickly abandon the game... and go through some serious withdrawal pains .. ugh!

    And like clare stated... the run on's & one sidedness really makes for poor social interaction unless you (not literally) are the type who needs to 'friend' everyone and respond to all comments.

    I think and IRC/ICQ system is a better idea and agree with Trav as well.  typing slashes and so forth became second nature.  IF you want to change it all. 

    Personally, I don't find the in game chat difficult at all.  Join a Group or two (or Create one!) with your friends and make sure you all use it in game.  Like sc803 stated... stick with only a couple.. otherwise conversations become diluted.

    my 2 currants
    Posted 20 months ago by RainyRain Subscriber! | Permalink