Although I dont agree with the topic, this thread has been made as a result of the other thread topic going off track.

Please make any dicussion on this thread from now on.

I don't see why you can't just search for the player you're ignoring to see where they are at. Or just click on their name from your Ignore List. It really doesn't take up much time or effort, whereas asking Nick to implement this feature will derail him from working on improving gameplay on other areas of the site.

agreed

You can.

But according to that line of thought, we wouldn't really need almost any of the other features in this game that people take for granted either - pretty much all of it is convenience and not necessity - as is also the case here.

Sure, you *can* paddle from Europe to the US in a life raft... Would probably survive, only take 2-3 months if lucky with the weather, but it's a LOT more convenient to take a plane in the first place wouldn't you agree?

Very good point Katie.

It may also be advisable to everyone to try to work on the relationship between you and other people if you have them on ignore...

Yes, sometimes that can't work out, but not everyone in someones ignore list will be impossible to deal with forever.

I did think about the implementation of blocking people from game rooms on which are ignore lists and I thought it was a good idea - but then when you think about this, it defeats the fun side of the site. We are all on here to chill out and have some fun. I can only see more fights emerging if there was a tool where certain people were blocked from game rooms, whether they are on an ignore list or not.

Those who may be on ones ignore list also have friends - so if we use your example Jan with the Killer, an argument may flare up during a game for why someone is on your ignore list. If this was to happen (which I think it would), then you would in the end be adding more people to your ignore list as there is a massive disagreement which once again defeats the purpose of the site.

Don't get me wrong, I think thats a good idea. However, there are massive downsides to the idea which I think are too big.

Not really an argument at all - Nick has to (and does) prioritize all items in the database anyways - so adding more suggestions is never a bad thing or a problem.

I'm sure no one, and certainly not myself, has any illusions about something like this getting any significant priority at all, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be aired. Nor is "I don't see the need for this myself" any counter argument either, contrary to what a lot of people, including staff, seem to think.

This line of thinking seems sensible at first glance, but is unfortunately completely unrealistic. It would be nice if people were all content and never envy each other or get in each others throats, but it's as likely to happen as rain on Mars.

In my opinion it's far better to face a problem and try to deal with it in as good and proper ways as possible, rather than the quite naive policy of ignoring it and pretend we're all friends. (and that's not addressed to you flumpy, but a problem with general site policies and mindsets)

Edited at 14:51 Mon 26/04/10 (BST)

That scenario would 100% certainly happen, yes. No doubt in the world.

Question is what concern takes priority though. And also, the malcontent friends wouldn't have to be ignored, they would simply have to relate to the fact that there are certain players not welcome in a given game owner's games - something they can whine about but never change. And which by the way is practically already the case too - just in a manual way rather than having the game help you achieve it.

Edited at 14:52 Mon 26/04/10 (BST)

Not if you would fly through Icelandic volcano ash

Maybe other admin could sort something out allowing Nick to concentrate his efforts (in his own time of course) on other more important things

That is a non-problem - as already mentioned, as any other software developer would, Nick already has the means in place to prioritize tasks.

It's vital that people in general, and particularly FP staff, understand that new requests to the game do not come in the way of, or at the cost of other more important changes - based on Nick's prioritizing of bug fixes and additions.

So in conclusion:

1: "This is a bad idea since there are so many other more important things Nick need to do for this game" is never ever an argument. Less important things get less priority, but should none the less be added to the queue.

2: "I don't see the need for this", or as is more often the case "I don't understand the need for this" is likewise never ever an argument.


Lets discuss the content of the matter, technical aspects of it, not in which order Nick chooses to implement things. That's entirely down to him anyway and well in hand.

Yep, I've always said there is no such thing as a "bad idea", just less important and less practical ones



Maybe not an argument, but an opinion, and a very valid one, especially when prioritising.



Definitely.

So, can someone outline exactly what is being asked for here?

a way to monitor those on the ignore list (e.g. Enemies online) -not the right word but it'll do for now-

blocking people on the ignore list from joining rooms you create (not tourny rooms)

I said maybe have ignored users 'hidden' from the list of players in the room (on the left)

Well, prioritising isn't a topic for us as users, nor for mods, so that's an opinion that frankly is off topic in any debate where a new addition or game change is being proposed. Sorry for being grumpy, just sick and tired of people using that as an argument against any given suggestion since it's exclusively down to Nick to prioritise his quite limited time spent on this site anyway.




Basically a spin-off from the other ignore thread, where someone had trouble with not getting private messages blocked from ignored users. No idea if that's a bug or a feature.

My thoughts were in the direction of being able to not only ignoring people, but block them from joining your games. This was never a valid need for two player games where you could leave and make a new game and hopefully get staff to help you if the problem user kept following you.

The mechanics are very different for large killer games though, were a lot of people may have formed up to play the game owner, which then has to leave and make a new game when a problem user joins. Impractical to say the least, and inconveniences a lot more than the game creator.

Not such a big deal as it may sound, but I'm annoyed with the apparent lack of understanding for how different from other games a 10 player game is.

I can't see any reason to want to "monitor" someone on an ignore list. If you ignore someone in real life do you also follow them around? Very strange thing to want to do IMO.

The ignore feature is deliberately designed so as to prevent the need to block anyone entering any game or chat room. If all someone can do is play, then there is nothing intimidating/offensive they can do, and private rooms are already there for anyone who wants to be really picky about who they play.

I have an alternative suggestion : the ignore list should be flushed every 24 hrs.

The feature is really there so that if someone is abusive, you can send a complaint about them to admin and then put them on ignore so you can play in peace until they are dealt with.

Letting the restriction run on indefinitely goes against an inclusive "community" driven atmosphere.

That's the last thing in the world we'd want imo.

First of all, you can't ignore the fact that the player is present if he's indeed taking part in the game and not watching.

Secondly because you'd want to know whether they are there or not in order to stay away since they can disrupt the game for others than yourself even if you yourself have them ignored.

Post removed by forum moderator

That's the complete misconception a few others had at the start of this debate too. Monitoring a user, or keeping track of.. call it what you will, is not with the intention of following them - but the very opposite - being able to stay away.

Again this is a matter of complex social relations where whether I can create a game or not is largely dictated by a fortunately small, but select set of users. Needless to say, I don't appreciate that fact very much.

Post removed by forum moderator

This is simply not the case. Yes, Nick will prioritise what happens when, but this very forum dictates to a great extent the prioritisation of updates.

The sites development has always been user driven, and that means paying attention not just to the ideas, but to the reaction to them.

Post removed by forum moderator