HC needs to develop a policy on memorials.

[Seed22]

14 hours ago, Widower said:

Well, okay, but don't say I didn't warn you.

 

It has been the consensus of the team for a number of years now that additional memorial NPCs, ala Coyote or Ascendant, will not be added. There are a variety of reasons for this; the favoritism angle, the whole complex of questions around verification and privacy and consent, and the very high odds that we will get it wrong in a way that makes everyone feel some combination of bad, sad and mad. The only potential exception would be if someone who worked on the game were to pass away, as we did for GM Cyclone.

 

That said, there are no specific plans at the moment for a memorial wall/plaque somewhere. However, it is something that I personally have idly considered for a while, as have some others. If there is public interest in it as well, perhaps it could be a reality in the future.

Could you please pin this to the top of the thread so people stop tearing into each other’s throats. 
 

This thread reminds me that “CoH is the nicest community ever” is an obvious lie. 

[PoptartsNinja]

16 minutes ago, Arcanum said:

So just to keep the convo and ideas productive (because yes, we are reviewing the possibility of all the ideas being shared) - gonna quote Cipher from the other thread.
 

Whatever possibility or solution gets decided (and again as Cipher said, it is unlikely to be immediate), it would involve putting the tributes/memorials into the player's hands. So permanent map fixtures and plaques (which have been discussed before) are unlikely outside of base elements that players can create. Although I'm sure as everyone knows, anything relating to bases is - shall we say, less than ideal given how that entire code system works.

 

If it can't be in game, what about 4-6 custom plaques in the base builder that read from appropriately named .txt files in the mod folder?

Those would have uses beyond memorials, too. Offhand, I imagine people could use them to make teleporter directions. SGs could share text files with their members easily enough to make pretty much anything they wanted/needed.

[Kistulot]

2 hours ago, Seed22 said:

This thread reminds me that “CoH is the nicest community ever” is an obvious lie. 

 

I'm also going to note that while CoH is still a much smoother community than other MMOs, which tends to be the point, the forum does not represent the full population.

 

There have been continued frustrations with the way moderation has been handled in this, and other threads.

 

It feels difficult to claim that your post is not further indication of this trend.

 

[Excraft]

8 hours ago, Cipher said:

We really like the idea of being able to create costumed / named entities in bases like the holograms that appear in some missions, but we need to assess the viability of this idea from a technical perspective as it would involve creating new systems and embedding the costume data inside of the base container.

 

First, thank you for taking the time to reply to the thread.  It's appreciated and I hope that your response helps those who felt you're all ignoring everyone feel better.  I hope they now know that you're indeed listening.

 

I'd like to throw my support behind the hologram idea for bases as it makes this accessible and fair for everyone.  It puts creating memorials where it belongs; in the hands of the players.  Players can determine how best to honor their loved ones and friends without putting any undue burden on you all, and you avoid the inevitable arguing over who gets included and why.

 

I do have some questions and concerns about the hologram idea though.

1. How do players get access to a deceased players character costume in order to recreate it for the hologram?
2. How is it determined what player(s) get access to the costumes to add the hologram to their base?  Will any player be able to add the likeness of any deceased players character to their base, even if they didn't know them?
3. Potentially, a player may not have wanted their character included this way.  Is there a way for players to opt out of this program so they will not be included?
4. Potential issues with competing memorial bases for someone as to which is the "official" one and which aren't

Overall, I think the hologram idea for bases is the best route to go. 

 

[lemming]

3 hours ago, ZacKing said:

You can create plaque type objects in the base with text, or even entire memorial walls.  It's tedious to add each letter individually, but it can be done.

 I didn't think of that, but yes, very tedious. 

[lemming]

2 hours ago, Seed22 said:

This thread reminds me that “CoH is the nicest community ever” is an obvious lie. 

Don't judge by the loudest.

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, PoptartsNinja said:

If it can't be in game, what about 4-6 custom plaques in the base builder that read from appropriately named .txt files in the mod folder?

Those would have uses beyond memorials, too. Offhand, I imagine people could use them to make teleporter directions. SGs could share text files with their members easily enough to make pretty much anything they wanted/needed.

 

This seems more problematic than anything in that it would allow people to edit these text files on their local machine and add whatever they want.  Who determines which is the "correct/official" file for everyone to use?  Better to just use the existing text objects already in the base editor, tedious as it might be.

Edited Monday at 06:56 PM by Excraft

[Kistulot]

A thing I realize I only clarified on the discord that I'd like to note here, or at least I believe that's the situation:

 

I attempted to appeal to Eildath's affect on the community because those with memorials had similarly impacted the community. I feel that not extending the kindnesses that were shown to members of the past is disrespectful to members in the present and the future. Expanding that? Cool. I'm down with it. In fact, I like it better than just honoring my friend. I don't think they'd ask for treatment that didn't help anyone else additionally...

 

...but I'm going to note if it keeps being stated that these things being possibilities are still at HC discretion... heck, give me your DMs, HC. I will happy politely discuss with you, over weeks if I have to, the benefits of this resolution while calmly and respectfully listening to the responses. If the discretion is "we didn't know them, and we don't want any blowback despite being able to make adjustments in the future, so, we're not open to discussing this" then it's not really the situation that's being described as open to discussion.

 

I ignored this at the time, because things weren't being locked or otherwise threatened for moderation for not behaving in a respectful and civil manner, but the very tone of the initial council response, starting with "don't say I didn't warn you" comes off as not exactly encouraging calm, measured debate.

 

Taking the original post in the most neutral light possible, it was a request for something to be explicitly decided--something that, apparently, behind the scenes already had been but for one reason or another we weren't made aware. I feel that this is kindof an important aspect to bring up, yet one that does not really feel as if it's being properly acknowledged. Therefore, how is one not supposed to feel talked down to? Warn us? At what point does a warning enter into this situation to begin with? The tone being set by the desire to go between jovial, jokey, silly "we're your best friends, eyyyyy" and "I am sorry I am not able to discuss this time be able" is insulting, and it's going to make anyone who cares about the topic discussed increasingly upset. It's not a neutral situation any more than insinuating if any members of the community can't behave then we can't have nice things.

 

One of the issues with situations like this is that respect, and consideration, don't really need to go both ways and those who call for a certain apathy are always going to be easier to ignore their shortcomings because they aren't "causing trouble" by asking to be heard. It only takes reading a few other threads to see that the community has a very open bad actor problem, and chastising the people that get exhausted by their nonsense has to be a lot more work than it would be to deal with those problems in some appropriate fashion.

 

Worrying about people getting upset by something and adjustments needed sure never stopped the game from getting new powersets that needed to be buffed, nerfed, or not taken for anything but thematics because they became unusable.

 

If "reasons have been stated, move on" means there's no discussions of rationale, no examining of how the stated lines benefit people from Live and not from Homecoming's tenure, then I once again ask: is there a chance for open discussion here, or is this a situation where there was a decision made and the community's feelings do not, and could not, be held in lower regard as to the future of that situation?

 

I want to be clear here to: this is not me stating that this is how anyone wants anything to be. This is me using evidence of what has happened, and expressing, in my analysis, what I believe that means. Choosing to reopen the thread but ignoring the substantive responses shows a desire to show something is being done to appear to listen while not wanting to engage with the subject matter, because otherwise, well, it's right there. Calls for civility and reminders of moderation tools existing implies a lack of civility, and the idea that moderation tools either weren't at the ready before or that people would be unaware that they exist. I realize it's also a "hey, don't step out of line" reminder, but I feel like we at least need to come at this from accepting that basic decorum has been a requirement of essentially every internet forum since their inception even if not officially stated.

 

What's said, how it's said, and what is or isn't responded to are all things that deliver explicit and implicit messages.

 

Others may not feel dismissed. I respect that.

 

I can, however, provide evidence of carefully thought out posts which have seemingly only been responded to in the most broad of ways if at all, and I don't blame anyone else for not feeling the same that I do. I wouldn't anyway, because we're all different people with our own concerns, but I would request that examining how it would feel to put the effort into expressing these things, especially when, damn, it would be incredibly easy to just close the forum out of apathy, or to give in to catharsis and just scream into the void. I'm not saying those are valid options, but I'm saying that when one is attempting a civil discourse, and told to be civil, when they're seeing and perceiving a lack of civility, it makes them wonder why they even bothered when getting banned would feel like being more acknowledged than they have been in any substantive way.

[Widower]

21 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I do have some questions and concerns about the hologram idea though.

1. How do players get access to a deceased players character costume in order to recreate it for the hologram?
2. How is it determined what player(s) get access to the costumes to add the hologram to their base?  Will any player be able to add the likeness of any deceased players character to their base, even if they didn't know them?
3. Potentially, a player may not have wanted their character included this way.  Is there a way for players to opt out of this program so they will not be included?
4. Potential issues with competing memorial bases for someone as to which is the "official" one and which aren't

Overall, I think the hologram idea for bases is the best route to go. 

 

These are all pretty good questions that illustrate the difficulty of this situation. Homecoming's role (if/when this happens) would be to provide the base item to facilitate these memorials, nothing more. It would be up to the players to recreate the costume or obtain the file from those with access to the deceased's files, add it to their base and determine which one is "official."

 

I also want to caution people that there are significant technical hurdles to be resolved before we could add such a base item because of the way bases are stored, as well as the fear that stuffing a costume file inside a base file might lead to base files getting corrupted. While we'd like to resolve some of those issues, there are no guarantees that they can or will be handled in the near future or at all.

[Kistulot]

 

32 minutes ago, Widower said:

 

I also want to caution people that there are significant technical hurdles to be resolved before we could add such a base item because of the way bases are stored, as well as the fear that stuffing a costume file inside a base file might lead to base files getting corrupted. While we'd like to resolve some of those issues, there are no guarantees that they can or will be handled in the near future or at all.

Suggestion:
 

If these hurdles are so difficult that you feel the need to specify their theoretical impossibility, yet memorial NPCs have already been made in game...

 

Why, might I ask, is one off the table and the other offered as the only path forward?

 

Ascendant being added to Steel Canyon did not require additional impossible coding. Adding a fan from pre-beta days to be in the tutorial was possible.

 

What is to stop homecoming from considering these memorial requests now, and then, at a future time, remove them and allow for the community to do so instead?

[tidge]

46 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

A thing I realize I only clarified on the discord that I'd like to note here, or at least I believe that's the situation:

 

I attempted to appeal to Eildath's affect on the community because those with memorials had similarly impacted the community. I feel that not extending the kindnesses that were shown to members of the past is disrespectful to members in the present and the future. Expanding that? Cool. I'm down with it. In fact, I like it better than just honoring my friend. I don't think they'd ask for treatment that didn't help anyone else additionally...

 

...but I'm going to note if it keeps being stated that these things being possibilities are still at HC discretion... heck, give me your DMs, HC. I will happy politely discuss with you, over weeks if I have to, the benefits of this resolution while calmly and respectfully listening to the responses. If the discretion is "we didn't know them, and we don't want any blowback despite being able to make adjustments in the future, so, we're not open to discussing this" then it's not really the situation that's being described as open to discussion.

 

I feel obligated to write: This feels exactly like the "popularity contest"/"favoritism" angle that was explicitly called out as being a reason why the devs will hesitate to add such NPCs in the future.

 

That sort of policy is not directed at any individual, it is directed at everybody individually and collectively.

[PoptartsNinja]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

 

This seems more problematic than anything in that it would allow people to edit these text files on their local machine and add whatever they want.

 

Which would only be visible to them, which is the point.

It'd be up to the SG or player to add what they want, and it'd be up to the player which versions they do/don't want to use if they're in multiple SGs.

Edited Monday at 08:06 PM by PoptartsNinja

[Kistulot]

4 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

I feel obligated to write: This feels exactly like the "popularity contest"/"favoritism" angle that was explicitly called out as being a reason why the devs will hesitate to add such NPCs in the future.

 

That sort of policy is not directed at any individual, it is directed at everybody individually and collectively.

 

I want to be clear: I'm as happy to argue for everyone in the community receiving this treatment.

 

I am however responding directly to what's being said, too. If it's someone's discretion, then let me talk to them. Saying it's someone else's decision that is off over there without room for wiggling is the same as saying no one's listening.

 

At no point have I wanted unfair treatment solely for my friend.

 

In my experience, if you want X, and you see that in the past to get X it happened because of Y, and Y applies, you attempt Y even if you would prefer Z.

[ZacKing]

45 minutes ago, Widower said:

These are all pretty good questions that illustrate the difficulty of this situation. Homecoming's role (if/when this happens) would be to provide the base item to facilitate these memorials, nothing more. It would be up to the players to recreate the costume or obtain the file from those with access to the deceased's files, add it to their base and determine which one is "official."

 

Those were good questions.  Another concern is that this opens up the ability for it to be abused.  No doubt there will be the enterprising individual(s) who will use these holograms to create "walls of shame" or otherwise unflattering depictions of people they don't like.  If anyone can add anything, then what's to stop someone from making a hologram of people they don't like without that persons consent?

 

I don't envy you all on this.  It's a slippery slope.

[ZacKing]

17 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

Which would only be visible to them, which is the point.

It'd be up to the SG or player to add what they want, and it'd be up to the player which versions they do/don't want to use if they're in multiple SGs.

 

Anyone can add whatever text they want inside a base they create, so this is unnecessary.   It also wouldn't work if people can edit the files.  You suggested other uses like in-base directories and such.  That totally breaks if someone can modify the text file beyond what the original author intended there.

Edited Monday at 08:24 PM by ZacKing

[ZacKing]

18 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

Suggestion:
 

If these hurdles are so difficult that you feel the need to specify their theoretical impossibility, yet memorial NPCs have already been made in game...

 

Why, might I ask, is one off the table and the other offered as the only path forward?

 

Ascendant being added to Steel Canyon did not require additional impossible coding. Adding a fan from pre-beta days to be in the tutorial was possible.

 

What is to stop homecoming from considering these memorial requests now, and then, at a future time, remove them and allow for the community to do so instead?

 

I don't have any problem with the HC people adding likenesses of their friends or loved ones into the game.  They're running and maintaining the whole thing in their spare time and sharing their labors with us.  That gives them the right to add people important to them in my opinion and that doesn't mean it should be an option for everyone else.

 

As for your suggestion, it's back to the original issues with it - this isn't fair for everyone and it makes this into a popularity contest, which is something the HC people have said they want to avoid.

Edited Monday at 08:21 PM by ZacKing

[tidge]

5 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

 

I want to be clear: I'm as happy to argue for everyone in the community receiving this treatment.

 

I am however responding directly to what's being said, too. If it's someone's discretion, then let me talk to them. Saying it's someone else's decision that is off over there without room for wiggling is the same as saying no one's listening.

 

Except that we all can read the response that shows the people who have some say were listening. 

 

There has got to be better outlets for this than wanting to argue... with devs, with forum users, with whomever.... and some of those outlets can even happen in game, but it has to be up to the individual players to take the lead, and not try to impose something on the devs and/or the open world:

• The base tribute has been mentioned, even if "hologram" isn't a thing
• An AE mission could be created that features the passed person's character
• If the player was some sort of leader in in-game content, honor them by leading as they did

[Kistulot]

  

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

Those were good questions.  Another concern is that this opens up the ability for it to be abused.  No doubt there will be the enterprising individual(s) who will use these holograms to create "walls of shame" or otherwise unflattering depictions of people they don't like.  If anyone can add anything, then what's to stop someone from making a hologram of people they don't like without that persons consent?

 

I believe that if someone believes someone else in the community is acting abusively they can file a support ticket.

 

If I made a base that was solely created to harass another player, and someone reported it, I don't believe that I should expect to be able to use "It was a private base!"

 

4 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

I don't envy you all on this.  It's a slippery slope.

 

Slippery slope is a fallacy.

 

Either something is right, or it's wrong, and you can specifically nix out bad possibilities as they arise or with special caution. This is often used in order to prevent something that isn't wanting now by claiming the worst is inevitable, when it clearly is not.

 

1 minute ago, ZacKing said:

 

I don't have any problem with the HC people adding likenesses of their friends or loved ones into the game.  They're running and maintaining the whole thing in their spare time and sharing their labors with us.  That gives them the right to add people important to them in my opinion. 

 

As for your suggestion, it's back to the original issues with it - this isn't fair for everyone and it makes this into a popularity contest, which is something the HC people have said they want to avoid.

 

Then I have a simple solution:

 

Make it for everyone.

 

I'm cool that you like that solution. However, it has been suggested that possibility may be outright impossible. Therefore, to pretend that the only solution that exists is one that may not exist is not exactly something that I appreciate! 🙂

I'm sure you can understand where I might be coming from with this.

[Nerio72]

Ok so earlier in this thread I made a suggestions which another player basically said would be to much work, but now we are talking about holograms in bases and what not that is also a lot of work. And I think that would be awesome but I wanted to re-introduce my idea as well and maybe add some of my thoughts on it. If it doesn't work that's fine and I will drop it. I don't need another player to tell me its to much work tho, if a Dev/GM does cool.

 

My idea was to use the War Walls as sort of like a Vietnam Wall memorial. My thinking is that names could be added to it as needed or at a specified interval, every 6 mos for example. I don't know how the War Walls are constructed in the game but if they could be edited or a "skin" of some sort put over them maybe? This is just an idea, I obviously don't know the mechanics of it but I think it has merit. This would allow EVERYONE to be added to it without needing to build a new area and taking up "unused" space.

 

[Kistulot]

1 minute ago, tidge said:

 

Except that we all can read the response that shows the people who have some say were listening.

 

There's definitely a lack of active listening, reading, and then respectfully showing a complete understanding in a response. I believe some of my posts have been read, but it's hard to not feel like an awful lot of them haven't been.

 

2 minutes ago, tidge said:

There has got to be better outlets for this than wanting to argue... with devs, with forum users, with whomever.... and some of those outlets can even happen in game, but it has to be up to the individual players to take the lead, and not try to impose something on the devs and/or the open world:

 

As I stated before: I believe this is important. If you don't, and you believe other means would be more productive?

 

I would politely request that you leave the discussion so that those who would continue to discuss it to be able to. No one is stopping you from making your point, and walking away any more than they're stopping me.

 

3 minutes ago, tidge said:

• The base tribute has been mentioned, even if "hologram" isn't a thing
• An AE mission could be created that features the passed person's character
• If the player was some sort of leader in in-game content, honor them by leading as they did

 

1) We have multiple tributes already existing in game that did not require base work and can be seen by people who don't even know how to use a base code.

2) We have tributes in game content that are official and can be found without effort if you chose the right tutorial.

3) I have, in fact, been attempting to go out of my way with positivity towards others in game since their passing. However, I posted to discuss a respect that has already been paid to others. Favoritism already exists here, and pretending it doesn't benefit the past with this policy doesn't benefit anyone.

[ZacKing]

1 minute ago, Kistulot said:

I believe that if someone believes someone else in the community is acting abusively they can file a support ticket.

 

That's the point.  You've now created more work for the volunteer staff.  They're going to need a whole policy and guidelines for this.

 

3 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

Make it for everyone.

 

The ideas of using AE to create story arcs as memorials or adding a hologram base item or building a base memorial are things everyone could do.  Two of those you can do right now with no development work needed. 

 

I understand you're grieving and trying very hard to get your friend included in the game.  I'm sorry for your loss.  We can all empathize with that, but a NPC for fallen players is a privilege that I think should be reserved for those who are volunteering their free time to create and maintain the game.  It's not something that should be open to everyone.

[ZacKing]

5 minutes ago, Nerio72 said:

My idea was to use the War Walls as sort of like a Vietnam Wall memorial. My thinking is that names could be added to it as needed or at a specified interval, every 6 mos for example. I don't know how the War Walls are constructed in the game but if they could be edited or a "skin" of some sort put over them maybe? This is just an idea, I obviously don't know the mechanics of it but I think it has merit. This would allow EVERYONE to be added to it without needing to build a new area and taking up "unused" space.

 

You can create a much nicer looking monument very close to, if not exactly like the Vietnam War Wall memorial right now in a base, including names.  No development time required and it's there forever and everyone can visit it.

[Kistulot]

Just now, ZacKing said:

 

That's the point.  You've now created more work for the volunteer staff.  They're going to need a whole policy and guidelines for this.

How is "dont harrass people with bases" a new policy.

 

Finding a new way to tell someone where they can shove it is something any social experience needs to deal with.

 

1 minute ago, ZacKing said:

The ideas of using AE to create story arcs as memorials or adding a hologram base item or building a base memorial are things everyone could do.  Two of those you can do right now with no development work needed.

 

One of these options was literally stated to be theoretically impossible. It also makes additional work for our support staff. It kinda feels like you're deciding where this effort is more valuable as though it were a neutral, inescapable thing when it is not.

 

I can do them right now.

 

That's why I didn't make a thread about them! 🙂

 

2 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

I understand you're grieving and trying very hard to get your friend included in the game.  I'm sorry for your loss.  We can all empathize with that, but a NPC for fallen players is a privilege that I think should be reserved for those who are volunteering their free time to create and maintain the game.  It's not something that should be open to everyone.

 

It already isn't reserved solely to those people.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point in responding to every post you make to just restate what's already been said, so I will not be in the future.

[Excraft]

19 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Another concern is that this opens up the ability for it to be abused.  No doubt there will be the enterprising individual(s) who will use these holograms to create "walls of shame" or otherwise unflattering depictions of people they don't like.  If anyone can add anything, then what's to stop someone from making a hologram of people they don't like without that persons consent?

 

Good point.  I didn't think of that. 

 

19 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

I don't envy you all on this.  It's a slippery slope.

 

Agreed.

[Excraft]

3 minutes ago, Kistulot said:

It already isn't reserved solely to those people.

 

Doesn't matter.  Right now, it's at the sole discretion of the people who are maintaining the game.  I'm sorry that list doesn't include your friend.