Update to the "Ignore" chat command

Discussion in 'Suggestion Box Archives' started by KatydidBuild, Aug 13, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Global chat has been wonderful and new. But there have also come some new headaches/growing pains.

    I would like to be able to "ignore" a player and not have them able to send me pm's but I would like to have another setting that allows me to see what they say in public/community chat. This would apply to someone who is bothering me privately, but whom I still want to see how they interact with chat, because then chat would make sense - without the "holes" that would come with their comments being redacted to me.

    A complete, full setting would be useful if I want to completely "unfriend" someone and not interact with them on any level.
  2. +1

    Absolutely. I often don't ignore people because I want to see chat and understand what's happening - but it'd be nice if I could still block people from talking to me.
  3. +1000
    The way I typically have it is, if I've ignored someone, I'll open an alt up to see what I'm missing out on in terms of conversation in town chat. And then I'll usually just unignore them after a few hours. Maybe make it possible to specify which chat channels?
    /ignore wafflecoffee !local,residence,tell [reason]
    EDIT: Would most likely have to use verbose commands instead of being a regular argument to avoid conflict with the reason (like is used in /res set !#### blahblah)
  4. +1

    I support this, with the caveat that I want this to be a player setting. Honestly, when I block someone, I do not want to hear anything from them. Since some of my fellow EMC players do want to hear blocked people, I'd say give the player a choice by putting this in the player settings. :)
    HazardousCode and luckycordel like this.
  5. I'm sorry to hear that anyone would want to /ignore a player. :( I totally understand still wanting to be able to see the chat messages, though. Something I came up with just now, that might not be worth coding but that I want to share anyway:
    What if messages from someone you ignored showed up as a spoiler? Like "C Joy_the_Miner [This message is hidden because you ignore the player. Mouse-over if you want to read it.]" And if you would open chat and move your mouse over the tag you would see the message.
    That might still be annoying if the player in question sends a lot of messages, though? Especially if it's such a long text. Maybe the spoiler tag could simply be "[~~~~~]" or something and you just have to remember that you can mouse-over to read the message.
    Or, more likely, this won't be worth coding. :p But I am interested in whether this solution I came up with would please Katy, purplebook, Sydney and Joy. :) It might be easier to implement than I think, anyway. We do use mouse-over text in /ps, if I remember correctly, so it's clearly possible.
  6. Nice idea 607, but I think a simple switch to show/hide blocked player messages would be easier to code. :)
    luckycordel and 607 like this.
  7. I could see possibly a /ignorepm feature which could be used as a player-specific dnd. I'll talk to devs.
    EDIT: added EMC-2201
  8. Edit: added

    Does this mean it is an added feature in an upcoming update? (Be still my heart)
    luckycordel, Joy_the_Miner and 607 like this.
  9. No, it means it's an added track ticket so they have it on their list for review when adding features in updates, etc.
  10. No, it means it's in the dev tracker, and that it is planned. :) It has not been implemented/coded yet. But it might indeed be implemented before the next update—it doesn't have to be, though, there are tickets in the dev tracker that have been in there for a while, I bet, but I would assume that those are for features that are trickier to implement.
    luckycordel and Joy_the_Miner like this.
  11. Please don't bump something that is now on the tracker. This is why these threads are usually locked after addressing, though players complained so I left it open. Locked now.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.