Page 1 of 2
Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:36 am
by Monad
Tell if you oppose/support this.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:18 am
by Dargon
It is good to see if someone on allied guild is online if there would be the need of help or something. I cannot see the metagaming idea in this - you see who is online, but you can't see where they are anyway..
Dont see the reason to change this atm - if you dont trust a guild, don't alliance it.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:29 am
by Biggs
Should have a on / off option in .options command, or just incorporate it into vox books as you get to choose if your online or not inside that.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:29 am
by Palma
Between having it available or unavailable I prefer unavailable.
Though I'd still prefer if the guild masters could choose to have it on or off.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:09 pm
by Zaradon
Biggs wrote:Should have a on / off option in .options command, or just incorporate it into vox books as you get to choose if your online or not inside that.
+1
But if it's only a Yes/No thing - then a No
Disables metagaming for big time.
But also weakens the RP (if you know where your friends live you just go over and RP if you got nothing to do)
I'd still go for the guild function thing.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:38 pm
by Aileth
Guild on/off function would be great.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:53 pm
by Palma
Removed*
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:17 pm
by Corvus Albus
did a mistake voting. meant to vote "yes" and hit "No"...
Remove it.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:36 pm
by Johnny Walac
It's kinda a useless thing that can only create metagaming and nothing else.
Re: Allied guilds online list
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:59 pm
by yuusou
Just remove it from .online, we've got vox books now, if we want someone to know whether or not we're on, we'd have them there.