[SOCIAL OPTION] Adding a "quiet" mode

[Carallot]

Each person feels differently and sometimes more than others.

Sometimes we are in our high, sometimes in our low and sometimes a fast or slow mix of both.

This game has this natural escapade feeling and helps to do mental travel (when I'm stressed and I don't feel going out I love just walking in the game a few minutes or taking a long horse to nowhere, F12 and zoom all in).

This is not intended to me, but let me explain a bit why I think that this could be useful:

Long ago, when still there were a lot of LotRO servers (if you have seen that square with lamps in Michel Delving, well, each lamp was a server then) I was in a server called "Elendilmir", it was by far the quietest server (in English) of all. The experience there was still nice because when you saw someone was like a "Woah! Someone!", the auction house (in the last months) even got normal in prices and items, the chat was scarce but nice... Not bad, not bad at all </radagast>.

So, why not adding in "Social options" a "Quiet mode" where other players are not rendered in the game and you are fully invisible?

Maybe "All quiet", "Only friends", "No quiet" options?

Out of all chats?

Like a single-player-ish mode?

[AegisRegnat]

Amazing idea! It's like entering an unlimited instance.

Also the possibility of impermeability would be a great thought.

I mean visible to everyone but not chat, no interaction of any kind, no emotes or applied benefits etc

[Thurallor]

The main problem with this is that there are some aspects of the game that are affected by other players. For example, landscape mobs. If the server had to maintain a separate copy of every landscape mob just for you, it would increase server load.

[Carallot]

Amazing idea! It's like entering an unlimited instance.

Also the possibility of impermeability would be a great thought.

I mean visible to everyone but not chat, no interaction of any kind, no emotes or applied benefits etc

Something like that, yes!

The main problem with this is that there are some aspects of the game that are affected by other players. For example, landscape mobs. If the server had to maintain a separate copy of every landscape mob just for you, it would increase server load.

That's true, maybe when a mob starts a fight with a player "with incompatible quietness level" it could simply die and disappear for the others?
For signature mobs but the classic "use the horn item for calling it" should be added in older places.

[DavidmeetHal]

I have nothing against it, but with their limited resources, I cannot see SSG taking the time to do this. Also, I'm not sure if there would be enough of a demand to justify this for time and labor.

[Radhruin_EU]

So, why not adding in "Social options" a "Quiet mode" where other players are not rendered in the game and you are fully invisible?

Antisocial mode...

- or -

Misanthropic mode?

[TesalionLortus]

where other players are not rendered in the game and you are fully invisible?

In all honesty, this would be far more useful for screenshots though Ever wanted to take a good shot but people keep riding though? xD Or, make yourself invisible to yourself - so there is no clipping when trying to record some views in water from first person view.

[Carallot]

Antisocial mode...

- or -

Misanthropic mode?

Aww, come on!

In all honesty, this would be far more useful for screenshots though Ever wanted to take a good shot but people keep riding though? xD Or, make yourself invisible to yourself - so there is no clipping when trying to record some views in water from first person view.

Nice! More uses!

[Bothketbog]

Each person feels differently and sometimes more than others.

...

So, why not adding in "Social options" a "Quiet mode" where other players are not rendered in the game and you are fully invisible?

Maybe "All quiet", "Only friends", "No quiet" options?

Out of all chats?

Like a single-player-ish mode?

First of all, this is a multiplayer game. Having said that, you might consider turning off all chats? You'd still see other toons, but unless they were using "Say" you wouldn't hear (or read) a word from them.

[AegisRegnat]

First of all, this is a multiplayer game. Having said that, you might consider turning off all chats? You'd still see other toons, but unless they were using "Say" you wouldn't hear (or read) a word from them.

The main idea is quite accessible. An on/off switch that will allow a player to turn into a "third kind" character, neither friendly nor hostile but neutral just like the allies or pets who follow the other players arround.

We could go a little further than that, by giving full autonomy to him and a state of impenetrability, so even someone else try to apply a benefit on him, automatically it becomes unavailable (grey out) for that player (not even recorded at the combat tab).

[Elmagor]

More and more ways to make MMO into single player game. Why humans hate other humans so much?

[AegisRegnat]

More and more ways to make MMO into single player game. Why humans hate other humans so much?

We're talking about an on/off switch dude, for whoever wants and for as long as they want. No hatred from anyone here. You've missed the point of my argument.

[Elmagor]

We're talking about an on/off switch dude, for whoever wants and for as long as they want. No hatred from anyone here. You've missed the point of my argument.

You can't on/off part of this world in game what doesn't suppose to work this way. As use people as example above, you can't kill mobs safe way without cause trouble to other players. And any way to remove players from your sight just add more work to ancient engline and cause more lags. We need MORE people playing Lotro, not LESS people playing Lotro

[AegisRegnat]

You can't on/off part of this world in game what doesn't suppose to work this way. As use people as example above, you can't kill mobs safe way without cause trouble to other players. And any way to remove players from your sight just add more work to ancient engline and cause more lags. We need MORE people playing Lotro, not LESS people playing Lotro

No one deprived you of players, the suggestion talks about players visible but with limited interaction. They can't cause problems to other players in any way.

[Carallot]

You can't on/off part of this world in game what doesn't suppose to work this way. As use people as example above, you can't kill mobs safe way without cause trouble to other players. And any way to remove players from your sight just add more work to ancient engline and cause more lags. We need MORE people playing Lotro, not LESS people playing Lotro

As I say in post #1: This is not intended to me.

I EXPERIENCED something like what I'm asking and I tried explaining WHY is useful to SOME PEOPLE. Now I'm in Evernight and if you know the server population is far from being empty and I'm happy with it!

And YES, we NEED MORE PEOPLE, an maybe they are ones who are having a bad time, are in a low moment, are very introverted, feel more than others and they need feeling fine in a beautiful world based in the best fantasy work ever created. Maybe later they will join us!

[Bothketbog]

The main idea is quite accessible. An on/off switch that will allow a player to turn into a "third kind" character, neither friendly nor hostile but neutral just like the allies or pets who follow the other players arround.

We could go a little further than that, by giving full autonomy to him and a state of impenetrability, so even someone else try to apply a benefit on him, automatically it becomes unavailable (grey out) for that player (not even recorded at the combat tab).

Well, you can kinda do that. (Disable involuntary emotes in the Options menu.) I see your point, but you'll never be 100% invisible in the game (unless you're a burglar!)

[AegisRegnat]

Well, you can kinda do that. (Disable involuntary emotes in the Options menu.) I see your point, but you'll never be 100% invisible in the game (unless you're a burglar!)

First of all, ignore please any syntax error because I'm using a translator. This does not deprive me of the right to state my views.

Now please give attention to that: Turning off involuntary emotes is not enough, it doesn't fully disable the interaction.

Many times in game, someone wants to do his job seamlessly, without the care if someone else is trying to communicate with him or disturb him with emotes, or even play with him, etc.

In this way, the suggestion is to become "unavailable" to others for any further interaction, but still being there for everyone, as just another player.

I think it's fair enough that players should have this possibility, so that they don't have to run to another area on each time or disconnect, which I find that unacceptable for the standards of this game.

This is a very understandable and human measure, fully compatible with online communicate and has nothing to do with feelings of hatred towards others.

Those weird feelings are fed by people who find the interaction with community as a good opportunity to harass others.

And certainly such people have no place in the community.

[hagermanj]

I feel that way sometimes, I just want to travel around.

What I do is take my highest character and travel to a zone where I am at least 10 levels higher that any mob. That way they do not attack me.

I know that will not do everything you want, but it does help.

[SophieTheEnchantress]

If such an option existed, I would use it at all times except when grouping with friends or role playing.

[paintpixie]

They could do this by allowing you to download the game in an off-line version.

I've often wished mmo's would do that, offer another way to purchase the game to play it alone, off-line, or just with buddies, locally or on a personal server.
I'd play both, if they offered that. I'd buy both versions. (live and off-line) But...no cash shop with off-line games. I guess that's why. Plus, it would probably have to be developed differently. Maybe more compact, I dunno. I'm not a developer.

But if mmo's DID offer their games to purchase and play off-line, lotro is definitely one that I would buy to play offline from time to time.
GW2 I would only buy if they offered the original game, no expansions.
ESO I'd buy maybe up through a couple expansions.
For lotro I would prefer live because I think the community is what makes lotro, lotro. The most fun I've had here has been because of my friends. But I'd still buy an off-line version if it were available.

[Radhruin_EU]

They could do this by allowing you to download the game in an off-line version.

MMOs have a bunch of moving parts behind the scenes IT-wise so I'm pretty sure that's no small thing you're asking there.

[Carallot]

MMOs have a bunch of moving parts behind the scenes IT-wise so I'm pretty sure that's no small thing you're asking there.

You are right, maybe a dedicated server for only quiet players is the best approach but then is far more clunky (character transfers are not an easy to-do thing). Maybe making it only for VIP would cover the extra work for SSG.

[maartena]

They could do this by allowing you to download the game in an off-line version.

The problem with this is that the character you log in would not be able to gain any experience or do anything that would require interaction with the game's databases. Pretty much everything related to your character from money to experience to items in your inventory to what is in your shared storage to receiving rewards, titles, deed completions..... yeah pretty much 99% of your interactions in the game REQUIRE talking to these databases. Kill a boar, you tell the server "up my boar deed (or quest count) by 1". Pick up a flower from a field, you tell the server "up my inventory for this flower by 1". Every single thing you do, is pretty much communicated to the server. Like... everything, including your movement.

A single player version of this game would be almost impossible to do. The only way it could be done is if SSG releases an "offline server package" that you can install on your own computer as an "offline server" and create characters there. (They could even allow a bullroarer like copy to the local database). You could then "connect" to your local server, and play the game. The character would never be allowed to be copied BACK to a live server because of the high chance of manipulation software being used on the offline server - much like a "trainer" for a game - so your character would purely remain offline and thus different than a live server.

There is however a really good reason why SSG would NEVER do this, and I already mentioned it above: Just like any game that is completely offline can have a "trainer" (which essentially reads game memory and then changes certain things, such as money or life, or whatever), someone would without a doubt write something that can analyze the memory of the server running, and then subsequently use it to their advantage on a live server. Essentially, it would open up a massive can of worms, and although people would get banned for it quickly, it would create an environment where the game servers can no longer be trusted because someone has "hacks" and "cracks" for it developed with the offline version.

The day they release an "offline" version of this game, is the day you know they are preparing to shut it down and are offering people the chance to take their characters home...... and I hope that never ever comes to pass.

[DavidmeetHal]

MMOs have a bunch of moving parts behind the scenes IT-wise so I'm pretty sure that's no small thing you're asking there.

So many people don't get this.

[paintpixie]

So many people don't get this.

1.) I actually DO get this. I'm married to a developer who develops both as a career AND on the side, for fun, making video games.

2.) I have played numerous mmo's on private servers, though none as big as this one.

Additionally, my post wasn't one sentence long, though it seems many got to the first sentence and stopped reading:

...Plus, it would probably have to be developed differently. Maybe more compact, I dunno. I'm not a developer.

I thought this was a place for churning out ideas and suggestions that we thought would be neat. And the OP made me think of something cool I'd always wanted to have as an option for online games. I didn't say "This is totally doable, and I think it should happen." I said "This would be neat and it would be cool if it happened." I even added my own little caveat.

But if you want to continue to pat each other on the back for being such clever "experts on the internet", be my guest. But I am a person, you know, behind these words. And you are not representing what I was saying fairly.