Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 04:47:43PM -0500, Nathaniel Kipps wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > communications etc etc etc. > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. Actually, those are all reasons to get rid of them entirely. It is too bad that this current generation has been dragged around on their cellphones and data steeling aps that aren't really more than slashdot analogs, but I don't suffer any such difficency of vission. Slack and Discord are crap spying and data collection tools that is inadequate compared to my email client for spinning discussion. They are insecure and tools for spying and break privacy. Other than that, they provide zero benifits over email lists and IRC. The problem here is in perception and being used to OSes where using more than one desktop at a time, or even one window at a time, is a major complication. I suffer from none of that, and those things I listed are factual problems and not an opinion. It would be fun to have an IRC channel inside of crossfire's clients, but it is wholing uneeded if the client plays wells with others on the desktop, which newer versions are finding more difficult to do... I am perfectly capable of playing with an IRC client sitting right on the desktop. o > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > the project should not endorse it. > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have > a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community > users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" > does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost > certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides of the fence, > the true question is whether the expanded accessibility is worth the > additional sacrifice. > > More specifically, the two primary areas that would "sacrifice" are A) > the IRC chat messages would be sent to a third party, and could be > read by and responded to by members that are not on IRC, and B) the > message history in the "other" chat system would most likely be > limited, so users of that system would not be able to easily > scrollback to their heart's content, as they are accustomed to. > > Thoughts? > > (P.S. Ruben, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not trying to attack > your perspective, only point out that it's a personal choice, and I > don't think it should be a guiding principle for the project) > > (That being said, I do hope that everyone on this list continues to > respond with their own comments and opinions.) > > --DraugTheWhopper > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
A. Discord does not data-mine. That's not how VC-funded startups work. At the moment Discord isn't concerned about finding a main source of revenue. They're funded by several investors, which wouldn't be funding Discord if it sold user data. Yes, it does share aggregate user data with partners such as Twitch, but this is for purely marketing purposes. Discord isn't Facebook. B. If you are concerned with how much info Discord has on you, then just go to your Discord settings > privacy and safety > request data and see for yourself. Nobody it suggesting a switch FROM irc, just a bridge to make it more accessible to new people who are more familiar with modern software. Your suggestion to abolish the Forums however is frankly ridiculous and indicates to me that you want the community to be even more exclusive. Crossfire will not experience meaningful growth if nothing is ever allowed to change. If the goal is to keep this project and community just as it's been for coming up on 20 years, mission accomplished. What do you think will happen if Discord is bridged to irc? Really what could possibly happen to you that wouldn't have already happened to hundreds of millions world-wide and been widely reported? "It is too bad that this current generation has been dragged around on their cellphones" You sound as if you're parodying anti-tech conspiracy theorists.This game needs:1) Community Involvement2) Community Fundingand 3) Initiatives to Grow said Community in the futureDoes threatening to leave the community over attempts at becoming more accessibly help anybody or anything? On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 10:31:40 AM EST, Ruben Safir wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 04:47:43PM -0500, Nathaniel Kipps wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > communications etc etc etc. > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. Actually, those are all reasons to get rid of them entirely. It is too bad that this current generation has been dragged around on their cellphones and data steeling aps that aren't really more than slashdot analogs, but I don't suffer any such difficency of vission. Slack and Discord are crap spying and data collection tools that is inadequate compared to my email client for spinning discussion. They are insecure and tools for spying and break privacy. Other than that, they provide zero benifits over email lists and IRC. The problem here is in perception and being used to OSes where using more than one desktop at a time, or even one window at a time, is a major complication. I suffer from none of that, and those things I listed are factual problems and not an opinion. It would be fun to have an IRC channel inside of crossfire's clients, but it is wholing uneeded if the client plays wells with others on the desktop, which newer versions are finding more difficult to do... I am perfectly capable of playing with an IRC client sitting right on the desktop. o > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > the project should not endorse it. > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have > a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community > users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" > does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost > certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides o
[crossfire] New-Content Solution Concept (Crossfire the Sandbox)
Hi, Titus here. First a little backstory: I came to Crossfire through another fork that had broken away from CF back in 2006 called Deliantra. I was impressed both with it's roguelike style of gaming as well as it's non-congruent story telling, there was no idea what I might find next. Fast forward two years and I'm now discovering a facet of RPG gaming I've not seen before, a facet that probably developed completely by accident. I'm of course talking about that forks persistent history. See, that fork had been running continuously since it's last server update and has had many players come and go. Many of those players left their mark in some way or another and it was in finding those little foot prints left by the games previous heroes scratched an itch I didn't know I had. Ultimately Deliantra was not to be. I had pieced together a nearly complete history that terminated with the Great Population Purge of 2015 and never recovered. Deliantra did this to themselves and if they had been more forward thinking would still be experiencing high numbers in population to this day. What happened? Well I think the first think to happen was that the heros of that age discovered some of the less-than-public-friendly content in late stage mlab and railed. When the DM response was to lock off those areas instead of fixing the problem, the message players received was twofold 'kiss endgame goodbye' and 'I couldn't be f*cked'. The second issue Deliantra faced is exactly what Crossfire is having trouble with now: new content. Most players did not find the 'fourth dimension' the way that I did. With too low of a population to guide new players and not enough stuff for veterans to do, the pile of forgotten knowledge grew and grew. Ok. Thank you for getting through that, I promise I have a point. So I mentioned history. This is something many games try to give players usually through narrative. Crossfire attempts this with it's anthology of the gods and some of the larger game quests. I am no writer of fiction. The stories I watch or read are of small, real life dramas which came and went. The antics of 4chan, Minecrafts anarchy server 2b2t, the rise and fall of popular rpgs from the golden age. These stories are real and inspiring because, as many say "you just can't make this stuff up". Many will 'people watch' forever, drawing infinite satisfaction from all the little ways people are unpredictable. To my eyes, The in-game Crossfire universe exists at a single replaying position in it's history. Very little distinguishes what happened last week from what will happen next week. When a player attempts to leave their marker in time, what options are there? How much can a player really feel connected both to the world or the community when he is so divorced from doing anything which might effect the next generation of players in effect creating a new era with each batch. (Get to the point already, damn) Ok, I've said a bunch of stuff but what does it all mean? So I'll get right to it, I'm developing a beta server intended to test a handful of mechanics which will turn CF into something completely unique within the Roguelike community: A true sandbox rpg complete with that all important ability to change over time. So what have I done so far? Bigworld is a flat plane in vanilla CF, I've turned it into a globe with the 'dark side' having been made into an un-populated buildable zone the size of the main continent with vertical building capabilities. Now players can manually build public and private structures using some of my new buildables. Dynamic Crafting in Jewelry, Smithery and Woodsman allows players to develop relationships with the items they use. It encourages players to find the best base item to upgrade over time into a major item of power. The completionist players will eat this up. This will also lead to the creation and circulation of new artifacts which have real history associated with them. Toggleable Permadeath will allow players to preform an in game ritual which will activate permadeath/hardcore. Hardcore players receive a buff to their exp and have a gravestone spawned on a 'leader board' cemetery map when they die (Raise Dead spells work, further encouraging population). Apotheosis (coming soon) will allow hardcore players to create their own cult by consecrating an altar to themselves. This will convert said character to demi-godhood with the following results. @ zero followers, -5% buff to all stats @ 1-5 followers +2% buff to all stats @5-8 followers +5% buff @8-12+ followers 10% buff (these figures are being workshopped) Followers in turn receive a buff for joining said cult which is calculated from a handful of random stats from the demi-god. Demi-god can then designate a 'cult-item' which is destroyed over the altar in place of it being created as a 'god given' item available for cult members. This obviously links back to dynamic craftin
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:43:50PM +, bill billy wrote: > > A. Discord does not data-mine. That's not how VC-funded startups work. At the > moment Discord isn't concerned about finding a main source of revenue. > They're funded by several investors, which wouldn't be funding Discord if it > sold user data. Yes, it does share aggregate user data with partners such as > Twitch, but this is for purely marketing purposes. Discord isn't Facebook. > don't believe it. Its uneeded garbage lookig for suckers > B. If you are concerned with how much info Discord has on you, then just > go to your Discord settings > privacy and safety > request data and see for > yourself. > > Nobody it suggesting a switch FROM irc, just a bridge to make it more > accessible to new people who are more familiar with modern software. > Your suggestion to abolish the Forums however is frankly ridiculous and > indicates to me that you want the community to be even more exclusive. > Crossfire will not experience meaningful growth if nothing is ever allowed to > change. If the goal is to keep this project and community just as it's been > for coming up on 20 years, mission accomplished. What do you think will > happen if Discord is bridged to irc? Really what could possibly happen to you > that wouldn't have already happened to hundreds of millions world-wide and > been widely reported? > "It is too bad that this current generation has been dragged around on their > cellphones" You sound as if you're parodying anti-tech conspiracy > theorists.This game needs:1) Community Involvement2) Community Fundingand 3) > Initiatives to Grow said Community in the futureDoes threatening to leave the > community over attempts at becoming more accessibly help anybody or anything? > > On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 10:31:40 AM EST, Ruben Safir > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 04:47:43PM -0500, Nathaniel Kipps wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > > communications etc etc etc. > > > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. > > > Actually, those are all reasons to get rid of them entirely. It is too > bad that this current generation has been dragged around on their > cellphones and data steeling aps that aren't really more than slashdot > analogs, but I don't suffer any such difficency of vission. > > Slack and Discord are crap spying and data collection tools that is > inadequate compared to my email client for spinning discussion. > > They are insecure and tools for spying and break privacy. > > Other than that, they provide zero benifits over email lists and IRC. > > The problem here is in perception and being used to OSes where > using more than one desktop at a time, or even one window at a time, is > a major complication. I suffer from none of that, and those things I > listed are factual problems and not an opinion. > > It would be fun to have an IRC channel inside of crossfire's clients, > but it is wholing uneeded if the client plays wells with others on the > desktop, which newer versions are finding more difficult to do... > > I am perfectly capable of playing with an IRC client sitting right on > the desktop. > > > o > > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > > the project should not endorse it. > > > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > > alienating people either way. That is w
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/discord/investors/investors_list#section-investors Researching these topics takes only slightly more effort than it takes to imagine some conspiracy scenario. On Sunday, February 3, 2019, 4:48:09 PM EST, Nathaniel Kipps wrote: On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > communications etc etc etc. Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. To follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that the project should not endorse it. And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a division between the members of the crossfire community. There are some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides of the fence, the true question is whether the expanded accessibility is worth the additional sacrifice. More specifically, the two primary areas that would "sacrifice" are A) the IRC chat messages would be sent to a third party, and could be read by and responded to by members that are not on IRC, and B) the message history in the "other" chat system would most likely be limited, so users of that system would not be able to easily scrollback to their heart's content, as they are accustomed to. Thoughts? (P.S. Ruben, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not trying to attack your perspective, only point out that it's a personal choice, and I don't think it should be a guiding principle for the project) (That being said, I do hope that everyone on this list continues to respond with their own comments and opinions.) --DraugTheWhopper ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
[crossfire] Simple ideas
A pair of simple ideas: How about a per-skill high score list? What about setting a higher maximum overall level than the per-skill maximum level? Then to max out your character, you would have to master many different skills. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Simple ideas
I'd like to have a live high score list on a website, it could be cool to have the 'by skill' option. Perhaps hardcore player graves could also read out your highest skill as well? I agree to your second point. How many skills should a player have to max before it equals max level in your opinion? On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 2:30:41 PM EST, Preston Crow wrote: A pair of simple ideas: How about a per-skill high score list? What about setting a higher maximum overall level than the per-skill maximum level? Then to max out your character, you would have to master many different skills. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Simple ideas
Maybe all of them? I have a character with 13 skills at or above level 110 on Metalforge. I get the feeling that I'm never going to get there in lockpicking or sense curse, but I could conceive of getting several more up there. Of course, "all of them" depends on the character, as I don't have meditation, flametouch, clawing, etc., but I am allowed weapons. So if we want people to reach a cap, then either 8 or 16 would seem reasonable to me. On 2/7/19 2:35 PM, bill billy wrote: I agree to your second point. How many skills should a player have to max before it equals max level in your opinion? On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 2:30:41 PM EST, Preston Crow wrote: What about setting a higher maximum overall level than the per-skill maximum level? Then to max out your character, you would have to master many different skills. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 07:15:42PM +, bill billy wrote: > > > https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/discord/investors/investors_list#section-investors > > Researching these topics takes only slightly more effort than it takes to > imagine some conspiracy scenario. There is no consiracy there but there are wreckless young turks without an insite to how technology works or how platforms are exploited. after repeated lawsuiteis and event after event, exploit after exploit, manipulation after manipulation, exposee after exposee, I get sick of discussing it with idiots who simply don't understand the risks of the survaleince state and couldn't care less about their civil rights, let alone can understand usability issues or the science of human interface design. Please don't pretend to care about accomidations from people who spend their lives thumbing on cellphone tablets so small that noone older than forth car see them or use them... The ignorance is so thick... > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2019, 4:48:09 PM EST, Nathaniel Kipps > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > communications etc etc etc. > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. To > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > the project should not endorse it. > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have > a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community > users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" > does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost > certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides of the fence, > the true question is whether the expanded accessibility is worth the > additional sacrifice. > > More specifically, the two primary areas that would "sacrifice" are A) > the IRC chat messages would be sent to a third party, and could be > read by and responded to by members that are not on IRC, and B) the > message history in the "other" chat system would most likely be > limited, so users of that system would not be able to easily > scrollback to their heart's content, as they are accustomed to. > > Thoughts? > > (P.S. Ruben, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not trying to attack > your perspective, only point out that it's a personal choice, and I > don't think it should be a guiding principle for the project) > > (That being said, I do hope that everyone on this list continues to > respond with their own comments and opinions.) > > --DraugTheWhopper > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being
Re: [crossfire] Simple ideas
So instead of skill and general exp being gained at a rate of 1 : 1 you're thinking more like 1 : 0.08? that would cause a player to see max level after about a dozen levels I think. On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 3:26:20 PM EST, Preston Crow wrote: Maybe all of them? I have a character with 13 skills at or above level 110 on Metalforge. I get the feeling that I'm never going to get there in lockpicking or sense curse, but I could conceive of getting several more up there. Of course, "all of them" depends on the character, as I don't have meditation, flametouch, clawing, etc., but I am allowed weapons. So if we want people to reach a cap, then either 8 or 16 would seem reasonable to me. On 2/7/19 2:35 PM, bill billy wrote: I agree to your second point. How many skills should a player have to max before it equals max level in your opinion? On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 2:30:41 PM EST, Preston Crow wrote: What about setting a higher maximum overall level than the per-skill maximum level? Then to max out your character, you would have to master many different skills. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
I suggest you start citing your sources or stop being a stick in the mud. On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 3:28:50 PM EST, Ruben Safir wrote: On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 07:15:42PM +, bill billy wrote: > > > https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/discord/investors/investors_list#section-investors > > Researching these topics takes only slightly more effort than it takes to > imagine some conspiracy scenario. There is no consiracy there but there are wreckless young turks without an insite to how technology works or how platforms are exploited. after repeated lawsuiteis and event after event, exploit after exploit, manipulation after manipulation, exposee after exposee, I get sick of discussing it with idiots who simply don't understand the risks of the survaleince state and couldn't care less about their civil rights, let alone can understand usability issues or the science of human interface design. Please don't pretend to care about accomidations from people who spend their lives thumbing on cellphone tablets so small that noone older than forth car see them or use them... The ignorance is so thick... > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2019, 4:48:09 PM EST, Nathaniel Kipps > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > communications etc etc etc. > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. To > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > the project should not endorse it. > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have > a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community > users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" > does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost > certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides of the fence, > the true question is whether the expanded accessibility is worth the > additional sacrifice. > > More specifically, the two primary areas that would "sacrifice" are A) > the IRC chat messages would be sent to a third party, and could be > read by and responded to by members that are not on IRC, and B) the > message history in the "other" chat system would most likely be > limited, so users of that system would not be able to easily > scrollback to their heart's content, as they are accustomed to. > > Thoughts? > > (P.S. Ruben, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not trying to attack > your perspective, only point out that it's a personal choice, and I > don't think it should be a guiding principle for the project) > > (That being said, I do hope that everyone on this list continues to > respond with their own comments and opinions.) > > --DraugTheWhopper > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coin
Re: [crossfire] Simple ideas
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:26:08PM -0500, Preston Crow wrote: > Maybe all of them? I have a character with 13 skills at or above > level 110 on Metalforge. that is really quite good > I get the feeling that I'm never going to > get there in lockpicking or sense curse, but I could conceive of > getting several more up there. I lost about 40k points trying to raise my oretory skills :) > Of course, "all of them" depends on > the character, as I don't have meditation, flametouch, clawing, > etc., but I am allowed weapons. So if we want people to reach a cap, > then either 8 or 16 would seem reasonable to me. > > On 2/7/19 2:35 PM, bill billy wrote: > >I agree to your second point. How many skills should a player have > >to max before it equals max level in your opinion? > > > > > >On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 2:30:41 PM EST, Preston Crow > > wrote: > > > >What about setting a higher maximum overall level than the per-skill > >maximum level? Then to max out your character, you would have to master > >many different skills. > > > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire -- So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 http://www.mrbrklyn.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive http://www.coinhangout.com - coins! http://www.brooklyn-living.com Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps, but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013 ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Simple ideas
No, I'm thinking that the max level for skills would be lower than the overall max level, so the ratio would stay 1:1. On 2/7/19 3:32 PM, bill billy wrote: So instead of skill and general exp being gained at a rate of 1 : 1 you're thinking more like 1 : 0.08? that would cause a player to see max level after about a dozen levels I think. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 08:34:34PM +, bill billy wrote: > I suggest you start citing your sources or stop being a stick in the mud. This is not a debate. > On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 3:28:50 PM EST, Ruben Safir > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 07:15:42PM +, bill billy wrote: > > > > > > https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/discord/investors/investors_list#section-investors > > > > Researching these topics takes only slightly more effort than it takes to > > imagine some conspiracy scenario. > > > There is no consiracy there but there are wreckless young turks without > an insite to how technology works or how platforms are exploited. > > after repeated lawsuiteis and event after event, exploit after exploit, > manipulation after manipulation, exposee after exposee, I get sick of > discussing it with idiots who simply don't understand the risks of the > survaleince state and couldn't care less about their civil rights, let > alone can understand usability issues or the science of human interface > design. > > > Please don't pretend to care about accomidations from people who spend > their lives thumbing on cellphone tablets so small that noone older than > forth car see them or use them... > > The ignorance is so thick... > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2019, 4:48:09 PM EST, Nathaniel Kipps > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > > communications etc etc etc. > > > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. To > > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > > the project should not endorse it. > > > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > > alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have > > a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community > > users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" > > does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost > > certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides of the fence, > > the true question is whether the expanded accessibility is worth the > > additional sacrifice. > > > > More specifically, the two primary areas that would "sacrifice" are A) > > the IRC chat messages would be sent to a third party, and could be > > read by and responded to by members that are not on IRC, and B) the > > message history in the "other" chat system would most likely be > > limited, so users of that system would not be able to easily > > scrollback to their heart's content, as they are accustomed to. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > (P.S. Ruben, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not trying to attack > > your perspective, only point out that it's a personal choice, and I > > don't think it should be a guiding principle for the project) > > > > (That being said, I do hope that everyone on this list continues to > > respond with their own comments and opinions.) > > > > --DraugTheWhopper > > ___ > > crossfire mailing list > > crossfire@metalforge.org > > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > > > > ___ > > crossfire mailing list > > crossfire@metalforge.org > > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > > -- > So many immigrant groups have swept through our town > that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches
Re: [crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
If you're going to call people who don't subscribe to your particular brand of paranoia 'idiots' you should probably be up for a debate (and know how to spell incite). Time after time you suggest new people coming in learn Linux or use IRC all the while it would be far more intelligent to adapt to new players coming in. Are you actively trying to keep Crossfire to the handful of people lucky enough to know about it? And what was with that 'turk' comment anyhow? lol On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 4:04:15 PM EST, Ruben Safir wrote: On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 08:34:34PM +, bill billy wrote: > I suggest you start citing your sources or stop being a stick in the mud. This is not a debate. > On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 3:28:50 PM EST, Ruben Safir > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 07:15:42PM +, bill billy wrote: > > > > > > https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/discord/investors/investors_list#section-investors > > > > Researching these topics takes only slightly more effort than it takes to > > imagine some conspiracy scenario. > > > There is no consiracy there but there are wreckless young turks without > an insite to how technology works or how platforms are exploited. > > after repeated lawsuiteis and event after event, exploit after exploit, > manipulation after manipulation, exposee after exposee, I get sick of > discussing it with idiots who simply don't understand the risks of the > survaleince state and couldn't care less about their civil rights, let > alone can understand usability issues or the science of human interface > design. > > > Please don't pretend to care about accomidations from people who spend > their lives thumbing on cellphone tablets so small that noone older than > forth car see them or use them... > > The ignorance is so thick... > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2019, 4:48:09 PM EST, Nathaniel Kipps > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 9:21 PM Ruben Safir wrote: > > > > > I see great reasons to end web based forums.. > > > > > > > > Can you give some of these reasons? I'd love to hear them. > > > > > > They depend on a browser, they spy on you, they are not quick, they > > > don't integrate with my email client, I can't run them from a shell, > > > they are a security nightmare, they don't allow for smother > > > communications etc etc etc. > > > > Let's not be too hasty here. After all, those are perfectly valid > > reasons, but they are only reasons why *you* choose not to use those > > communication methods, and not reasons to get rid of them entirely. To > > follow the same argument, I could say that we should end the IRC > > because "it depends on specialized client software, it doesn't let me > > smoothly integrate images and video into the chat, I can't run it from > > my phone, and it makes it very hard for non-savvy people to > > communicate." Remember, the systems that the CF community uses to > > communicate are there for the benefit of all community members, and it > > is up to the entire community to make reasonable accommodations so > > that we exclude as few people as possible. Just because some people do > > not wish to use a specific communication channel does not mean that > > the project should not endorse it. > > > > And so, the issue we are trying to address here is that there is a > > division between the members of the crossfire community. There are > > some that prefer and are very familiar with IRC, but have issues with > > using other methods of instant chat, and there are those that prefer > > more modern systems like Slack and Discord, but have issues with older > > chat systems like IRC. As it currently is, it does not entirely make > > sense to use IRC only, or to use Slack/Discord only, as we will be > > alienating people either way. That is why I am proposing that we have > > a way of bridging the two, so as to best serve both types of community > > users, and ensure the gap between "IRC people" and "non-IRC people" > > does not continue to widen. Of course, a bridge like this will almost > > certainly require some kind of sacrifice on both sides of the fence, > > the true question is whether the expanded accessibility is worth the > > additional sacrifice. > > > > More specifically, the two primary areas that would "sacrifice" are A) > > the IRC chat messages would be sent to a third party, and could be > > read by and responded to by members that are not on IRC, and B) the > > message history in the "other" chat system would most likely be > > limited, so users of that system would not be able to easily > > scrollback to their heart's content, as they are accustomed to. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > (P.S. Ruben, perhaps I should clarify that I'm not trying to attack > > your perspective, only point out that it's a personal choice, and I > > don't think it should be a guiding principle for the project) > > > > (That being said, I do hope that everyone on th
