MEMBER LOGIN   |   Username: Password:
Twitter: (The Twitter thing is temporarily down due to a Twitter-related bug or something!)
Recent Updates: The New Site is now open! (6 years ago) Which of [these facial express... Vulpin Adventure OST| "Blast to the past!", a review of Plazma Burst 2 by Rating Orb Duogduogduog
...

Forum History14 in total

This shows all forum posts by the user Rating Orb β Sunkist:

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago 7-Level Ratings77.6.XXX.XXX8 years ago
I've never quite gotten used to the violations, value and like/hate system and always thought that there must be a better way to "discipline" the users of this site. To me this new system appears to be a promising replacement, in particular for value and like/hate points. As far as I can judge from what I've read today in the forum and the news comments section it already works just fine. I wouldn't mind if you also did away with the violations entirely. Moderators should be active enough to realize that certain users are just trolling around, I don't believe you need a violation system to detect them. But maybe I'm mispredicting the amount of work that'll pile up as soon as Mardek 3 is released.

I don't think that the "binary" rating will be a big problem, especially since there's an easy way to limit its impact. I haven't tested out how you calculate the overall rating of a comment or post, but in case you're just averaging and rounding up, I'd like to propose an alternative: Take the median! It's a little more difficult to implement, but a lot more robust to "extreme" voters.

As for different user levels and stuff: I'm not a big fan of having to "climb up the community ladder". I agree with ghotiboy on this one: This should be an all-or-nothing deal. To prevent abuse of the system newbies could be given less rights and thus less possibilities to abuse the system. As soon as a user has established himself, he should be given all rights.

And I am happy to hear that you're finally accepting some help from your community in administrative issues! Hopefully it's going to make your life easier and thus make our lifes happier by giving you more time to work on your games. :-)

Edit: Another thing: I'd like to second Savagewolf on the agree/disagree-thing. For a moment I actually thought about devalueing Savagewolf's post, because I disagreed with his user level suggestions. Reading his edit then made me smile and of course I reconsidered. So, yes, he's absolutely right, it is tempting to express disagreement with negative ratings and I think a agree/disagree-button would solve that issue.
  (8)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Beast Signer v477.6.XXX.XXX8 years ago
This thread has grown too much too fast, it takes hours to read it thoroughly and even more time to consider the important stuff in a response. I guess that's why there isn't as much feedback as you hoped for. But I very much like that we can comment on all the new developments, I hope you stick to this approach! There are many good ideas worth elaborating on, but time is limited, so I'll just comment on what I think is most relevant:

Appearance: I like the new layout. It takes a while getting used to, but playing for a bit one can see that you've already put a lot of work into it. I have a Laptop with a resolution of 1280 x 800 (should be rather common). Using Firefox 3 with the standard features leaves already too little space for the game. The game is just a little bit too high. On my screen it would look nicer, if its height was reduced by about 60-80 pixels.

I can't really picture what it would look like if you put the status effects to the right of the numerical HP values. I imagine it to be a little too crammed, but I'll see as soon as you add them. What I think would be a nice feature is an explanation of the beast's skills during the battle. Of course later on there would be the beast menu where you can find all skills explained, but considering that you aim for more than 100 different skills, it might get difficult to always remember what they are, so a little popup when you press a button explaining the currently highlighted skill would be useful. Other than that I can't think of anything I'd like to see on that screen. Little beast icons would be nice, but they probably aren't worth the additional time you'd need to put into the development of each single beast.

Type system / families: We discussed this system in-depth in the previous thread and I still like it very much. I just like to once again urge you not to commit to too much work here. Even when designing a main family, I think you should free yourself of fixed patterns like the need to have seven forms adhering to the kite-growth chart. If you have a nice theme for a main family and can "only" come up with three forms for it, then that should be totally fine. I believe that having this template growth chart would somewhat diminish your own sense of achievement when creating main families that have fewer forms. Also, not putting any restrictions on your growth charts leaves you more freedom to add beasts to any family you like later on in the development. You wouldn't need to worry that much about how a new beast "fits" into an existing family as from the general systematic viewpoint it really doesn't matter where you put it.

The same holds for statements like this: "I mean, for every new type, the number of beasts increases dramatically since every other type needs to merge with it.". It's always nice to have the types merge with as many other types as possible, but that shouldn't be a necessity. If, in the extreme case, you come up with a type that doesn't merge with any other, but you like the idea, why not include it anyway?

On a related note: go for the "obscure evolutions with bizarre requirements", go for the chaos! :-)

Skills and Spells: I've gotten used to the idea of having two different sets of actions for each beast: one dependent on the type (skills) and one dependent on the element (spells) and actually like it by now. I'm inclined to think of the spells as an intuitive brute force method of using the MP, thus also being somewhat simple in their effects, while the skills are a lot more controlled/concerted way to manipulate enemy or allied beasts. It fits with the notion of the elements being something rather basic and the types being something very specific on top of the elements. However I don't find the name "spells" intuitive in this context, I'd prefer "forces".

Learning: I also think that it'd be best to make the skills inheritable just like they were in v3. Collecting a great variety of skills by merging intelligently was a major fun factor in v3. One skill per form should be sufficient (once again: keep the development time in mind!). I don't have any clever ideas for learning spells though. If I remember correctly it has been discussed in the previous thread to let the signer choose what spell to learn / improve next whenever the beast involves. This would make learning spells already different enough from learning skills.

Hacks / Signer items / Signer in battle: I think this aspect would be a nice starting point to "computerize" the game. I would suggest to differentiate between two ways of improving your signer: software and hardware. Hacks would be pieces of software you can buy in the hub or obtain while you're in one of the virtual worlds. Instead of signer items you could obtain certain pieces of hardware that improve your general capabilities as a signer like increasing your capacity for hacks and beasts or your ability to merge or control certain beasts.

During a battle I think a signer should have a very different role from the other beasts. Hacks should never directly deal damage to the enemy signer or beasts, but operate on a pure "support level". Examples for hacks could be:
-Upload/Unload: Instead of Summon/Unsommon (variation: multiple upload/unload)
-Analysis: A signer could be able to analyse enemy beasts to gain more knowledge about them (phys. + mag. resistance, available skills)
-Repair / Fix: Status effects can be considered viruses affecting your beasts that need to be detected and removed by the signer
-Interfering signal: Block the enemy signer's hack (also upload/unload, counterhack: "unblockable upload/unload")
-Copy: Creates a "ghost copy" of a friendly beast that vanishes immediately when hit, but until then behaves like the original beast

Beast items: Beast items as implemented in v3 appear very counterintuitive to me. I don't see the need to implement them at all. Skills and spells already provide you with sufficient means to "customize your beast software".

There is a lot more stuff I'd like to comment on, but I don't have the time, so that's it for the moment.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Beast Signer: Battle Changes?77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
Oh right, I forgot about these special skills, since I've never put them to use in the alpha. It's good to hear that they'll make up for a significant part of the techs. The special trait also sounds very interesting. It's basically what Tritous already suggested, just making the effects more explicit. And that part I'd consider important: the player should be made aware of these traits directly in the description of the beast.

As for animations: One animation for physical attacks and one animation for conjuring that covers all the rest would be just fine I think. Especially since you mentioned that animating takes up a major part of your time, I guess that having two animations instead of three would make your life a lot easier. As mentioned I'd even be satisfied with just one animation, but in that respect I'm probably the wrong person to judge, since I really don't have a good eye for appearance.

And now back to brainstorming, some random ideas:

I've always found it weird that beasts can recover MP during battle, but not inbetween battles. I'd like to suggest that beasts always start battles with their full MPs as they should've sufficient time to recover. To make up for this immense increase in available MPs, I'd suggest to make the techs more expensive and/or reduce the maximum amount of MP a beast has. A very powerful stage 4 tech for instance could already take up more than half of the MPs, so it can usually only be used once per battle. This would also make skills that center around recovery of own MP, burning of enemy MP respectivly more important.

Involving the beast signer in battle: How about beast signers obtain skills that allow them to participate in battle when they level up. And you're actually allowed to choose what skills you want to get, thus also determining your "style". Right now I can imagine three different branches of the skill tree: one branch with skills that boost your beasts' attacks, one branche that allows you to strengthen your beasts' defense in one way or the other and one branch that allows you to weaken the enemy signer and beasts by dispelling / cursing and that sort of stuff.

Some example of active skills (i.e. skills that need to be cast in combat explicitly) to illustrate this idea a bit more:
Offensive branch: reduce MP cost for beast attacks, increase damage for beast attacks, increase damage for certain elemental beast attacks (higher amount than the general one), increase duration of status effects beast attacks cause, etc.
Defensive branch: increase MP regeneration of beast or directly recover fixed amount of MP, increase elemental resistances, increase effectivness of beasts' healing/supporting techs, etc.
"Counter" branch: remove negative status effect, dispel positive status effect from enemy beasts, reduce MP of enemy beasts, disable enemy's ability to summon/unsummon, etc.

And finally a more general note about sth. I've been meaning to start for quite a while now: Specific tech suggestions as Tritous made them can get lost in a thread like this. I think for these kind of suggestions the Fighunter Wiki is the ideal place to collect them. So, if you have any ideas for new skills, techs, beasts or items, please consider putting them here. Having all suggestions at one central place makes Pseudolonewolfs life easier and increases the chance of ideas being picked up, since they won't get buried among other ideas in some discussion thread.

EDIT: The idea above with the skill trees for signers could also be centered around the element of the signer. Then the signer wouldn't have a choice which skill to choose when leveling up, but the skills he gets would be predefined by the element he has chosen in the beginning.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago BS Idea: Aura System77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
I'm by now rather excited about the beast-type system, so I might be biased concerning this new idea. It sounds like an interesting battle system, it gives the element combo more impact while still being simple. However I don't see it as a clear alternative to the beast-type system, since it is only a change to the battle system and not to the merging system. Therefore certain advantages of the beast-type system are not compensated here, e.g. the problem that any beast can be obtained by merging very early in the game, or the difficulties in beast design when there's no clear theme, i.e. while it's pretty clear what DINOSAUR/UNDEAD beasts should look like, it's a rather difficult task to come up with entirely new ideas for the FIRE/WATER and WATER/FIRE combos. And most importantly (to me): it doesn't align the beast system with the open development system. Ok, so from my side that's a clear: "Please go with the beast-type system".

Oh yeah, and also the beast-type system doesn't keep you from inventing a good battle system. It just doesn't work with this one. Uhm, unless.. How about this: You get one aura point per tech. For example a stage 3 AVIAN/PYRO beast might already have 7 different techs, three of them are air-elemental, two of them are fire-elemental, one is a pure power tech and one is a pure magic tech. Then this beast would get the following aura points: 3x air, 2x fire, 1x power and 1x magic. Power and magic are neutral, the rest just works as described above. I admit I haven't given this a lot of thought, but it makes me think that it shouldn't be impossible to have both, beast-type system as well as aura points.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Beast Signer: Battle Changes?77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
I very much like the direction this discussion has taken and the current "development status" of the beast-type system. I'll just quickly comment on the aspects I consider important that have come up since my last post.

Development effort: My initial idea was that the primary type determines fully the appearance of the beast, thus making the development effort grow just linearly while the possible beast combinations grow exponentially. But the influence the secondary type can have on appearance as described by Pseudolonewolf sounds very appealing, so if that's also possible I think it would turn "visual beast design" into a major fun factor of the game. However as mentioned by several people one should go very careful about this as to not make the development process unwieldy. The two major solutions to this that have been mentioned are (1) allowing for grow charts that have less models and (2) not allowing all beasts to be combined and I think those are totally reasonable "limitations". I like the approach Sockimus Prime takes to solution no. 2. So as long as Pseudolonewolf doesn't obligate himself to add too much stuff in one update (like new type with full grow chart + new skins for all existing beasts) and refrains from having "every combination possible", I hope the development effort remains reasonable. After all, Pseudolonewolf says it does, so I happily believe him :-).

By the way: I still think it might make sense in some cases that the appearance of the primary type dominates and the secondary doesn't have any effect at all. E.g. consider the combination of DRAGON with INSECT. The DRAGON phenotype might be just so strong, that the tiny insect code inside the secondary beast gets "pushed aside" and we have the usual base DRAGON beasts that just additionally have INSECT techs. That'd be solution no. 3 to reducing development effort.

Static Beast Appearance: I wouldn't mind if the beasts didn't make any fancy moves in combat. But I admit that it might look a little weird with the current battle screen. I don't know how you're handling animations right now, but maybe you can make it such that there is only one simple, generic "do an action" animation per beast and the rest depends on the TECH executed. That is the beasts don't move from their position but just wave with their hands, roar, or flap with their wings or whatever and what happens then is only dependent on the tech (be it a physical attack, or healing, or whatever). I don't know enough about Flash and how you handle things to be any more specific about this.

Number of beasts: I agree with Cabineer on this one for the same reasons, five beasts are just fine. Also it actually requires you to put more thought into how you assemble your team. Right now you can just take your seven strongest beasts and probably always find a combination that is optimal in the current battle. Two choices less force you to rethink the flexibility aspect of the beasts you take with you.

Beasts still having elements: Evidently the single-element-solution is easier to understand, especially since people already know this concept form Mardek. Also it reduces the development effort when element resistances are determined by the element the beast has, so element resistances don't need to be chosen individually and don't need to be taken into account when balancing. So yes, I think that'd be a good idea.

Options in combat: As already mentioned I think it's best to get rid of the generic attack, defend and charge options and center combat completely around the techs. However I agree that MP recharging should be possible for all beasts. If this means that you'll get a beast that can only heal, then that's totally fine with me. In fact that's already the case right now, if you look at "Sprite" for instance. It can attack, yes, but its attack is so weak that its basically useless in "real combat". But it's still good to summon it to aid your other beasts. Team play among your beasts should be important and strong supporters should be able to turn fights around, even when they don't attack themselves. Wild beasts that can only support should figure that out as well and team up with beasts that can attack.

Type vs. Type particularities: While I like Tritous' idea that certain types should have advantages against others such as AVIAN-type beasts being strong against INSECT-type beasts, I think it would overcomplicate things, if these were incorporated as general attributes of beasts of that certain type. Instead I would include these "special relations" between types in terms of techs. E.g. there could be an AVIAN tech that does additional damage if used on INSECT beasts. Implementation-wise this still is more difficult for Pseudolonewolf, but for the player it's easier to understand when it's explicitly written in the description of the tech. And it gives more freedom in designing these particularities, like for instance there could be a SUN supporting tech that works particularly well on PLANT beasts.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Beast Signer: Battle Changes?77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
Currently there are five basic options: Attack, Charge, Skills, Defend and Unsummon. I'd suggest to get rid of Attack, Charge and Defende entirely by making them part of the Skills, i.e. include more Techs for physical damage, for increasing stats, for taking defensive action, and so on. Also Unsummon is in my eyes an action more suitable for the signer, who currently doesn't get involved too much in the fight. Now, this might seem like a too large simplification as this would reduce the five options to just one, but I think this can be compensated with greater variety in Techs.

The second major and radical simplification I'd like to suggest concerns the "beast type". Currently the beast type is determined by its primary and secondary element. As it has already been observed in this thread this makes for rather weird combinations when two opposite elements are merged. My solution to this issue: Don't assign elements to beasts. I know that the element concept is a fundamental concept in the Fighunter world, as mentioned in the encyclopedia they are the "building blocks of existence". But beasts don't physically "exist", right? They are abnormities in cyberspace, viruses, some sort of computer program, so I think it's very well possible that they adhere to different "laws of nature".

So, if a beast is not determined by its elements, how else can we classify it? Well, we already have another classification for beasts, namely techs. Just we wouldn't say a beast belongs to a tech, but to a type that is named like the existing techs. The techs would still be the skills that go along with a certain type.

The number of types (and thus also the number of beasts) doesn't have to be fixed beforehand. Whenever Pseudo (or a user) comes up with a good theme/type and corresponding techs and beasts he can add it to the game. If in the beginning there are "only" five types implemented, that would be just fine. There wouldn't be any apparent "holes", no evidence of anything being unfinished. On the other hand there is also no "finish line". If there is a good idea for a new type, it wouldn't need to be rejected, because the basic categories for all beasts are already planned out. Bottom line: it suits the open development idea nicely. Also it leaves more freedom in designing the beasts. There is no need to come up with ideas for a certain element combo. Beasts can be centered around any theme you want.

So, that's the basic idea. Now let me go into some details and develop some terminology to get the concept straight. Each beast has a type like "Demon", "Virus", "Sea", etc. (a lot of existing ideas for Techs can be reused here). Of each type there exist seven beast forms following the diamond grow chart linked by Pseudo above. To each form there corresponds exactly one tech. Wild beasts only have one type. Signers however can create more powerful beasts by merging (yes, this great concept doesn't need to be lost when getting rid of the element system). When merging, the signer determines which type is primary and which secondary. The new beast follows the grow chart determined by the primary type, but inherits both tech trees. However the secondary tech tree would get a penalty. The most reasonable penalty I could come up with is that at a certain stage a beast can only use secondary techs that correspond to a lower stage. With the diamond grow chart there are four stages, so in stage 1 none of the secondary techs would be activated, at stage 2 a beast would also be able to use stage 1 secondary techs (if any were inherited) and so on.

This would allow the players to experiment a lot. Each new beast type introduced to the game would add more new possible combinations than the one added before making the search for the perfect combo an eternal and ever more complex endeavour.

While it seems that having many generations isn't that important anymore, because you don't need many different ancestors to obtain all techs your beast can use, there are still ways to make generations matter. Firstly, I would keep the level cap depending on the generation. Secondly, I would suggest to design the techs in such a way that they can become more and more powerful. That is there would not only be a tech called "Fireball", but "Fireball I", "Fireball II", etc.. The skill levels would add up, i.e. when a beast already has "Fireball I" and is merged with another beast that has "Fireball I", then the merged beast would have "Fireball II". Also when a beast that has "Fireball I" evolves into the form that usually learns the tech "Fireball I", it instead increases the "Fireball I" tech to "Fireball II". A higher skill can reflect in longer duration, more damage, less mana costs, affecting more targets, etc..

One last thing that got lost from the previous merging concept: Finding new beasts by trying out new combinations. I actually don't like about the Beast Signer Alpha that you could get any beast you want very early on. If you want you can probably have any single egg an hour after starting the game (one single egg, not all eggs). This takes away from the "exploring experience" when you advance through the different levels of the three worlds. So I'd consider the fact, that in the system I suggest when merging you're stuck with beast types you already know, an advantage over the current system.

Now, let me get back to the elements. I guess many of you don't like the concept, because I neglect the very well established element system. Don't worry. I still think there's place for elements in Beast Signer, namely in combat. I'd suggest that each beast type still has eigth different resistance stats (6 elemental, 2 for physical/magical). It's just that they're not calculated by the element combo anymore, but are determined individually for each beast type. The attacking techs would still have one of the six elements attributed to them and be either magical or physical. In that respect nothing much needs to change.

Independently of what I write above: I think that one very central, if not the most important aspect of the Beast Signer Combat System should be the team play among the different beasts. Instead of just having three beasts that are strong individually, I would like to see beasts that only develop their true potential when used in combination with other beasts. For instance a beast that can reduce physical resistance of an enemy beast signifcantly, but doesn't have a strong physical attack itself, so it rather relies on a second beast in the team that has such an attack. There should be many techs that can be used on both allied beasts at the same time and techs that allow strong "blocker" beasts to draw enemy attacks to themselves and so on..
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Fighunter.com big bug.77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
To my knowledge titles were changed by Pseudolonewolf himself, so no, the site has not been hacked. I guess it's supposed to be some sort of belated April Fool's Day joke, but he hasn't yet explained this joke in the forum or in his blog, so this is just my guess. And as for the "Stupidity" violation, don't mind it, your question/remark was very valid.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Fig Hunter Wiki77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
I love Wikis, I love most Fig Hunter games, so yes I love this idea! Actually I have maintained my own Wiki for Beast Signer detailing all the information about beasts and techs (it's in Wikidpad format, if anyone is interested in getting a copy), so I would like to migrate that information to the Fighunter Wiki step by step. This raises already the question of whether including too much information in the Wiki would be considered an unwanted spoiler. In particular a complete Bestiary with all possible beasts and the techs they learn would be really useful for planning the merging process. However this also takes away the fun when people are trying to figure those things out by themselves. I for instance already spend days on Beast Signer, just for that very purpose and I enjoyed the process. I made some example entries for the Flare Beasts in the Wiki, so people can see what kind of information I am talking about.

Concerning Idiotness' points 1. & 2.: That's exactly the kind of information I would definitely expect to be in the Wiki. And people are already including lots of it while we discuss this here.

As for describing the community: Probably I'm the wrong guy to judge this idea, since I don't feel like being part of this community, but I don't see the point in this. On this forum people already have the possibilty to describe themselves in their profiles and I think Pseudolonewolf did a good job with those profiles. I believe a community self-praisal is bound to end up very cryptic and inaccessible to new readers. I'd rather consider the Wiki a good place for people new on Fig Hunter to get help on the games and these community-related information would just be confusing. But maybe, if we don't place community information too prominently, and there is sth. of value to report - that is the community information might actually help people new to Fig Hunter - then I'd say a community section wouldn't be such a bad thing to have.

Now, let's get to the potential I see in this Wiki: Wikis are perfect to collect information in a structured way. So let's take some load off of Pseudolonewolf and bundle important feedback for him in the Wiki. For starters we can make lists of all known bugs, so people can easily find them and are less likely to report known bugs again and again in the forum or in the bugs comments section. Secondly let's maintain FAQ's in the Wiki and answer all those questions that come up in the comments sections that Pseudolonewolf doesn't need to answer since you can easily figure them out just by playing his games a little. Thirdly - that's a suggestion particular to Beast Signer - we can collect suggestions for the games. To my knowledge Pseudolonewolf still has hundreds of beasts to design, that's a huge task and it requires a lot of creativity. In the bestiary you can find in the lower right corner a mentioning of the designer. Until now all beasts have been designed by Pseudolonewolf, but I interpret his intention behind this "designer acknowledgement" as a way of welcoming other people's contributions for beast designs. So, beast designs, tech suggestions and all that sort of stuff can also be bundled in a suggestions section in the Wiki.

Looking at the contributions already made in the few days since this annoucement was made, I believe this Wiki can go a long way and it's not unrealistic for it to become the primary source for detailed information about Fig Hunter Games.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Positive Flagging77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
I would not want a 'kindness-flag', because I take a certain level of politeness for granted. It is not worth mentioning when somebody is kind to a newbie by e.g. providing a link to the thread where the newbie can find what he asked for, instead of just saying "Dude, you're so stupid, you should've looked before posting this question!". Reacting kindly to "stupid" questions, saying "please" and "thank you" and actually making an effort to advance a topic in a way the thread starter intended to are all things that I think go without saying. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where somebody is "exceptionally kind". Does it mean that instead of just saying "thanks" you praise the guy that helped you out in 10 sentences? Or that you spend three hours of your time researching a question somebody else wants to have answered? Or is it that you just don't flip out when somebody insults you? Again, the latter is sth. I'd expect of anyone.

As for the abuse I already stated why I don't think that it's a big issue. I would suggest implementing the positive flags with the same mechanics that underlie the violations. If it turns out that they're abused, the system can still be adapted. Not implementing the positive flags at all, because you're afraid of abuse doesn't make sense to me. Just try it out.
  (0)

Sunkist`s Avatar
23yr
Germany
PhlegmaticSanguine
14F
6 / 3
Rating Orb β Sunkist, Lawful Good Thief – joined 9 years ago Positive Flagging77.6.XXX.XXX9 years ago
I also think that positive flags are a great idea. My first impression of this forum was a very negative one, because red boxes cried for my attention everywhere telling me how bad/stupid/unfriendly people are. For me this makes for a very negative atmosphere in the forum, which could be improved significantly with the positive flagging.

Also I very much like the idea of making the visibilty of positive and negative flags optional for each user. These boxes are just very hard to ignore and the first thing I wanted to do here was to switch them off, because I didn't like the negativity they convey.

One positive flag I would like to see is 'humorous' for a post that just makes you laugh out loud in front of your computer, but maybe that's a too subjective one.

To prevent people from using positive flags too often I would suggest two things:
-Formulate the descriptions of the positive flags carefully, most people will read them before giving positive flags.
-Don't just simply do opposites of negative flags, because then people are more easily mislead to believe that 'not deserving a violation' means 'deserving the corresponding positive flag'. 'Kindness' would be the first one I'd kick off chocobos list.

You can't avoid misuse of flags entirely, but allowing the masses to give violations means you trust the masses to be reasonable on average. I don't see why it shouldn't work in the same way for positive flags.

And one last suggestion: As it's always some individuals who abuse the system while most people use it correctly, I think it'd be a good idea to just limit the damage one single person can do by implementing an upper bound for the flags one single person can give per day.
  (0)

Page 1 of 2: