Topic

The Hairball Holy Rollers Chat Revival and Traveling Medicine Show

Ok, so I just joined another group that is positioning itself to be the Global chat replacement, and I was looking at the pending invites and I wasn't in the list (I just joined because I saw clare joined), and it occurs to me that if you only see chat channels for groups that you belong to and hear about them via your network...well, that's not really very public, is it?   The serendipity (what I like to call it) of Global chat can't be nurtured that way, can it?

At the very least, in the chat UI, it would be good if a player could see which channel has the most players in it at a given time, so they could go join the group and check it out (Invite-only groups being the exception, those would not show up).  It's kind of a bee-yatch to have to flip out to the groups page, find the group and then join it too, so maybe you could get the option to join a group quickly via the chat UI.

Posted 17 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Wouldn't the chat UI then have to contain every single group, making it impossibly long to scroll through?  Or do you mean to just have a top-10 list of most active groups?

    Crazy as this sounds, if global chat is to really go away, maybe it'd be better to do that now, rather than later, to see what the actual impact of not having it is and then to be able to come up with ideas to provide a better experience (if one if needed).  It's beta - it could always be brought back if it's a miserable failure after one or two tests.  Maybe replace it with Regional chat for a test to see if that strikes a nice balance.

    Also, how will global replacements scale if global cannot scale?  That question has been bugging me for a while.  Then again, I'm not keen on large groups for the sake of having large groups ("10 million photos" comes to mind, which is a long story I don't want to get into, but relevant staff may get my drift, although the scaling issue is different here on Glitch).

    So, my assumption is that groups are supposed to be sort of little societies with niche interests that one can join to connect with people interested in that niche subject.  That plays well into the concept of group halls, whatever they may be, but assuming they have something to do with shared space amongst a small community.  Two assumptions so far, but maybe not far off the mark.  The problem, then, as I see it, is surfacing those niche interests to newer players.  Going to new or popular groups may not cut it, and popular in particular will favor the largest group, which actually diminishes the two assumptions I've made above.

    Consider... say group halls are indeed a way for groups to have a shared space in-game.  That will work out just peachy for a niche group, a small group.  How well is that going to work out drama-wise for the larger groups or global replacement groups or let's-see-how-many-people-we-can-cram-into-one-group groups?  What sort of havoc ensues when people not-like-minded all play in that shared space (we already know the answer to this one, because we see the tension in-game already between those that want to do X and those who want to do Y to spoil X).

    So, I'm kinda thinking this.  Have some group categories that admins can assign to their groups.  So, let's say you do start that Hairball Holy Rollers group.  You might assign it to Herbs and maybe Trading.  Say the Limenskie Miners group goes into Mining or maybe even Crafting.  Happy Crabs can go into the Quest category (where Quest could be given quests or player created quests).   Then, an interested player can visit the category of interest, see what groups are about, see the membership lists, and decide to join or not (this assumes public groups).  I'm going to make a final assumption that the serendipity we have in our smallish global now will flourish in a categoried group place, where interested parties can find each other, chat away and have a better chance at using their shared group hall with reduced drama.  

    My point is: find a way to surface groups so that new players have a shot at serendipitous play rather than trying to re-create Global for Global's sake, because I just don't trust one-size-fits-all groups for a number of reasons (who will admin it?  will there be competing global groups because some don't like the way it's being admin'd? what strain will that have on the system if 'global can't scale'?)

    And consider tossing Global now if the long term plan really is that it can't scale.  Let's get rid of it to see what problems arise and how they can be solved.  Or, let's see if it's not the end of the world as we know it.
    Posted 17 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh god, top five, not even ten, busiest group channels, thanks zee, I should have mentioned that.  

    I have to read the rest of your post later, on the way out the door.
    Posted 17 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I"m thinking this is much adoo about little. As the admin. of the innerGlitch Community - I realy don't want someone else deciding where our group "fits."

    Over "categorized" has little to do with community...People seem to want to put-things-in-their-proper-place and when someone labels a group "...this or that..." then we have a tendency to join or not join based on the label rather than the experience of the group. 

    At this point I'm more in favor of not categorizing groups and letting people discover for themselves.

    My InGame Chat window suggestion:

    Have 14 groups showing:

    First, top 7 with the most group members inGame in their respective group chats.
    Second, the top 7 group chats by membership...

     
    Posted 17 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just to clarify, I meant the admins of a group could categorize the group if they wanted to do so and there'd be a page that listed all the public groups in a given category.  Optional.  No one else would categorize the group and you wouldn't have to categorize it if you didn't want to do so.

    Also, when this game grows, I'm not sure how easily surfaced some groups will be right now given that they are just piled into 'popular' and 'newest'.  True, you could search for a group, but you'd kinda have to know what you are searching for.  So, other than tripping through someone's profile page or watching your home page updates to see what your friends are doing, there is not that much serendipity in finding new groups and as 1000s more join, that will get harder.  

    I also don't think that surfacing large groups in the chat ui is necessarily the best way to find a group that you'll jive with.  But it is a good way to create large groups which have no central theme other than 'large'.
    Posted 17 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "My point is: find a way to surface groups so that new players have a shot at serendipitous play rather than trying to re-create Global for Global's sake, because I just don't trust one-size-fits-all groups for a number of reasons (who will admin it?  will there be competing global groups because some don't like the way it's being admin'd? what strain will that have on the system if 'global can't scale'?)"

    Taking Global Chat 2.0 as an example, I don't think of that as a group.  It's a chat channel wearing group clothes so that a chat channel called Global Chat 2.0 will be accessible during game play--it absolutely does not matter one whit who admins that group or how big it gets.   InnerGlitch is an active group with a theme (I assume, don't think I am a member and I am not really active in many groups).   The former, for me, meets the criteria for maximum potential of serendipity.  The latter much less so, although it probably also has much lower potential for maximum drama because it's ostensibly a bunch of like-minded players.

    The one that floats to the top is going to be the one with the most generic, non-specialized title, that is to say that sounds the most like Global Chat, and I don't mean "sounds like" such as the Noble Rat group. 

    ETA: apologies to DJoe6897 if my conclusions about Global Chat 2.0 are incorrect.  If that group is meant to have active group discussions, my apologies for underestimating its groupiness!
    Posted 17 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Seems silly to me that TS would want a group to be the source of a global chat function. I was surprised when they announced it would vanish when public and maybe they have other plans in mind?? 

    I'd much rather see TS come up with a new Global Chat solution then having it be implemented via. a group.
    Posted 17 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • MeherMan, I am with ya on that, 100%.
    Posted 17 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • :)  I disagree that it doesn't matter who admins the group.  Right now, if someone acts out really really badly in Global, staff can just mute them for a while (this has happened).

    If someone acts out really really badly in a group chat, I assume that staff will leave group and group chat oversight functions to the group admins.  If there are not enough group admins in Global Chat 2.0 to cover all times of day, and if something shitty happens when no admin is around or an admin who doesn't really give a damn, then that chat goes south real fast.  Conversely, if there are too many group admins, other types of chaos can arise (rogue admins, or rouge admins as some jokingly refer to them).

    But then, I wonder what the guidelines will be for group chats.  I'm not a big fan of staff oversight of groups (admins should do that) but I can see instances where groups could get abusive.  A fine line, that.
    Posted 17 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And I am in different groups for different reasons. I would say 85% of my groups are for non-game downtime and 15% serve the purpose of in-game communication or camaraderie. It would be nice to see a chat-ready or non-chat function on the groups. Perhaps 'groups' and 'premium groups' (for lack of a better term, not monetarily based at all!).
    Posted 17 months ago by Mistress*of*Fishies Subscriber! | Permalink
  • zeeberk, excellent points, as usual.  Seems like moderator roles are going to have to be added at some point.
    Posted 17 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh dear, I just had a silly thought. The Glitch Social Page: complete with basic reviews of each Group, party announcements and reports, new clothing sales, weddings, funerals, divorces, births, and special activities.
    Posted 17 months ago by Sweet Pea Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sweet Pea: I absolutely LOVE that idea! :) 

    I started my group, Beta Global Glitches because I absolutely love group chat. I've made so many great friends, and the thought of us not having a way to talk to all those people makes me super sad. Once we no longer have Global, I imagine it will be an active group, with discussions. 

    However, I realized after reading someone else's thoughts on the subject, that once we go live, a main global chat would be a MESS. (Kinda like before shut down, when everyone is talking and the screen's going CRAZY) 

    Maybe the best way is to form group chats, and let the new people know about it. Maybe groups with certain niches will end up being a good thing. I still hope to see a regional chat in the future. 
    Posted 17 months ago by NutMeg Botwin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Region chat channel is good solution for newbie. I bet that Ur will be a huge, huge place in near distance future. Probably, Groddle areas will be empty when a newbie visit that area for first time and with no help or interactive with players.  With a region chat channel can help a newbie to get in touch with anyone who are in the same region (or nearby?) to get a help or answer their common questions.

    Zeeberk does raise a good view on the admin situation. Region chat channel is responsible by staff? I don't want to burden their responsible. I want them to focus on the project of this game, instead of glued to all chat channels all day and night.

    So, yea, that's what moderators are for?
    Posted 17 months ago by Milolin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • But where is the medicine show? Taylor Swift has bronchitis :(
    Posted 17 months ago by Taylor Swift Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @zeeberk - good points re. having enough group adms 24/7 for a global-chat-group.
    Posted 17 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink