I think there are quite a lot of players who create specific characters to be nasty or edgy and also have "regular" characters in their legacy. Sometimes you can even tell by the character name. Just a couple of days ago I had to report another player that used a character name very similar to a prominent figure in Nazi Germany.

Then let them play an "edgy" character in RP events. Being flat out rude/bigoted/trollish, either in fleet chat or in a group, is not RP.

Let me put it this way: If you ignored all the players that sometimes exhibited bad form or nasty attitudes, I think we would be left with a very low population of "good and nice" players that cannot do group content anymore.

Nerf-excrement. They may get the message that people don't want to play with them and their toxicity. Treat others the way you want to be treated. I'm not asking for good and nice characters ... this is a game about good vs evil, after all.

The hypothetical argument that we would have a smaller population of players to do group content is fiction. Trolls aren't interested in cooperating, so I'm not interested in being a part of a group they are in, regardless of which toon they may currently be on. I certainly don't want to see their garbage on fleet and if its just a bot selling credits, I certainly don't want that either. Account-wide ignore might even help the Devs track down accounts of credit sellers. If they see a whole bunch of people /ignore-ing the same account in a brief period, that may help them track down the offending account.

I want to see a yellow name specifically say why this hasn't been implemented yet.

Didn't they remove the legacy name restriction that only allowed one person/account to have the same legacy name back when they went down the server merger path? I am pretty certain this is the case as in our guild there is another person that has a character in both the pub and imp guilds with my same legacy name.

As such, if you banned off the character name of BigMouth Trashtalker and set to ignore the legacy name of Trashtalker and 3 other people with different accounts also had the same legacy name Trashtalker, wouldn't you ignore them too? Or are you wanting them to dig down past the "legacy" name, and bind it somehow only to the legacy name tied to that account?

Not saying it doesn't have merit, just raising an issue.

Didn't they remove the legacy name restriction that only allowed one person/account to have the same legacy name back when they went down the server merger path? I am pretty certain this is the case as in our guild there is another person that has a character in both the pub and imp guilds with my same legacy name.

 

As such, if you banned off the character name of BigMouth Trashtalker and set to ignore the legacy name of Trashtalker and 3 other people with different accounts also had the same legacy name Trashtalker, wouldn't you ignore them too? Or are you wanting them to dig down past the "legacy" name, and bind it somehow only to the legacy name tied to that account?

 

Not saying it doesn't have merit, just raising an issue.

Yes, people can have the same legacy name, but the computer doesn't see it that way, they see they account, so although two legacy names look the same to us, the computer sees it differently. I'm sure a more tech saavy person could explain it better, i'll stick to the simple explanation

If I remember correctly, Keith has addressed this in either a forum post or stream or podcast and said they have discussed doing it.

The reason they haven’t is because of technical difficulties due to the legacy and the character ignore systems being so different. (I think most of us understand how much of a Frankenstein game engine this is).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m sure he said they want to do it. But it will come down to priorities and how much time it will take vs more important things (that’s code for content development).

Good to know that they have been at least discussing it! That means it is entirely possible that it is on the "board" so to speak.

I know that is a far cry from execution of the idea.. but at least the idea is there and being discussed !! IMO... That is a VERY good thing !

I'd like to have legacy ignore too, with the option to choose a) ignore a character with all my toons, b) ignore the account with all my toons. It would also be nice to have a few levels on it: ignore someone forever and ignore for 30/60/90 days or something like that. So even if someone is a jerk once or twice, they wil have a chance to get off from people's ignore list in time, if they learn how to behave.

Another option would be to get rid of the deserter timer, so we can just leave groups with obnoxious people in it and q again immediately.

With a more positive approach I'd love a legacy friend list much more, and ONE friend list across all characters.

After that happens I will grant you the right for a legacy ignore list. :-)

I'd like to have legacy ignore too, with the option to choose a) ignore a character with all my toons, b) ignore the account with all my toons. It would also be nice to have a few levels on it: ignore someone forever and ignore for 30/60/90 days or something like that. So even if someone is a jerk once or twice, they wil have a chance to get off from people's ignore list in time, if they learn how to behave.

 

Another option would be to get rid of the deserter timer, so we can just leave groups with obnoxious people in it and q again immediately.

The deserter timer needs to stay, otherwise the group finder really would be useless. But I doubt they will ever do a legacy ignore either. If someone is being a troll in group, that is what the kick vote is for. If you can't get the vote (which is a very low bar) then maybe others in the group don't agree with you.

But if you are going to jump in and quit group because you feel someone is being "mean", then there should be a penalization for it. You are sticking everyone else in that group into a hole.

Another option would be to get rid of the deserter timer, so we can just leave groups with obnoxious people in it and q again immediately.

Another, perhaps worthwhile suggestion, that totally ignores human nature. How long after eliminating the lockout timer would you expect to see ***hats just entering GF and leaving over and over, just to troll people.

Another, perhaps worthwhile suggestion, that totally ignores human nature. How long after eliminating the lockout timer would you expect to see ***hats just entering GF and leaving over and over, just to troll people.

You pretty much nailed the issue on the head. Some people need to realize this is not a solo game, that there will be all kinds of people they meet while playing, some good, some bad. I mean there is a solution, the kick option. And that can't really be abused unless 2 or 3 people make a group and go into GF for a fourth. But that is rare.

I mean there is a solution, the kick option. And that can't really be abused unless 2 or 3 people make a group and go into GF for a fourth. But that is rare.

A problem (I think) I've noticed with the kick option. It seems as though, if you click on the "x" to ignore the vote**, the vote just depends upon the ones who do vote - even if that's just the 1 or 2 left.

So, if you don't think a player should be kicked, be sure to actually vote "don't kick".

** I am guilty of this.

Some people need to realize this is not a solo game, that there will be all kinds of people they meet while playing, some good, some bad. I mean there is a solution, the kick option. And that can't really be abused unless 2 or 3 people make a group and go into GF for a fourth. But that is rare.

Fair enough -- but beware the law of unintended consequences. The lack of legacy / account ignore is one of the primary, albeit not the only, reason that some of us, including yours truly, often eschew PuGing. I will absolutely never, ever PuG on a tank or healer in SWTOR. I would be far more likely to if legacy / account ignore existed.

I don't care if people think I'm a special snowflake (I'm not -- I'm the most special snowflake of all). I have a very high threshold for incompetence assuming people are open to listening / learning about simple mechanics. I have a very low threshold for d-baggery.

While the kick option is a partial solution, it is incomplete and imperfect. I feel comfortable saying this having played other games where account-wide ignores are in place.

Dasty

P.S. With that said, someone earlier posited the idea of a timeline on the ignore duration so that it would expire. This would allow a 'redemption arc' for d-bags. I'm not opposed to this assuming I could control the parameters. In other words, I could control whether it was a perma, or a couple months, etc. I recognize, though, that would be a pain for the devs so it probably wouldn't be worth the cost to implement.

Another, perhaps worthwhile suggestion, that totally ignores human nature. How long after eliminating the lockout timer would you expect to see ***hats just entering GF and leaving over and over, just to troll people.

If someone would be doing that (which I doubt), the group can decide to continue with a companion, or add that person into ignore so the empty spot won't pop for him.

Someone said it's not a solo game and people should get a lock if they leave a group they don't like. Seriously? This isn't kindergarten: I'm paying for the game, I am allowed to choose which people I play with. Trying to force me into playing with idiots will only make me not use GF at all. The more people choose to only go with mates instead, the lower the pop rates will be. That will hurt the game for sure.

If someone would be doing that (which I doubt), the group can decide to continue with a companion, or add that person into ignore so the empty spot won't pop for him.

 

Someone said it's not a solo game and people should get a lock if they leave a group they don't like. Seriously? This isn't kindergarten: I'm paying for the game, I am allowed to choose which people I play with. Trying to force me into playing with idiots will only make me not use GF at all. The more people choose to only go with mates instead, the lower the pop rates will be. That will hurt the game for sure.

Yes you are, just group with friends or guildies then. But if you use the GF, that is random pull, and you get what you get. Not to mention the fact, that out of all the times I have played using GF maybe....MAYBE 1 out of 30 has a jerk in it. As for the lockout issue, I didn't say that, BW did. They have never changed it in the course of the game, so I think their view on the subject is pretty clear.

Fair enough -- but beware the law of unintended consequences. The lack of legacy / account ignore is one of the primary, albeit not the only, reason that some of us, including yours truly, often eschew PuGing. I will absolutely never, ever PuG on a tank or healer in SWTOR. I would be far more likely to if legacy / account ignore existed.

 

I don't care if people think I'm a special snowflake (I'm not -- I'm the most special snowflake of all). I have a very high threshold for incompetence assuming people are open to listening / learning about simple mechanics. I have a very low threshold for d-baggery.

 

While the kick option is a partial solution, it is incomplete and imperfect. I feel comfortable saying this having played other games where account-wide ignores are in place.

 

Dasty

 

P.S. With that said, someone earlier posited the idea of a timeline on the ignore duration so that it would expire. This would allow a 'redemption arc' for d-bags. I'm not opposed to this assuming I could control the parameters. In other words, I could control whether it was a perma, or a couple months, etc. I recognize, though, that would be a pain for the devs so it probably wouldn't be worth the cost to implement.

Dasty I am with you with the low tolerance for D-bags, or incompetents that just spam basic attack, or who don't bother to listen, hell I am probably worse. But GF is GF, and as I stated above, out of 30 instances of GF, I may get one that is with a jerk (not assuming you have had the same experience mind you). But in that instance, I either vote kick, try to finish the FP and then add them to ignore, or in worst case, I leave. But that is a lot different then legacy ignore, which if they added it, with the low population of this game, it would cost subs.

If someone would be doing that (which I doubt), the group can decide to continue with a companion, or add that person into ignore so the empty spot won't pop for him.

 

Someone said it's not a solo game and people should get a lock if they leave a group they don't like. Seriously? This isn't kindergarten: I'm paying for the game, I am allowed to choose which people I play with. Trying to force me into playing with idiots will only make me not use GF at all. The more people choose to only go with mates instead, the lower the pop rates will be. That will hurt the game for sure.

I agree with this. Most of us probably deal with enough d-bags in the real world, at work, commuting, whatever. There shouldn't be a moral obligation to grit one's teeth and put up with them in a game one is paying for that is supposed to be fun and escapism. There have certainly been enough people here and in other threads who have pointed out that dealing with jerks in the game makes many people reluctant to group up with strangers and leads them to either stick to their own closed groups or play solo. One can't press the 'block' button for jerks in the real world most of the time, but in an activity that is supposed to be fun, letting people curate their experiences is necessary IMHO.

I agree with this. Most of us probably deal with enough d-bags in the real world, at work, commuting, whatever. There shouldn't be a moral obligation to grit one's teeth and put up with them in a game one is paying for that is supposed to be fun and escapism. There have certainly been enough people here and in other threads who have pointed out that dealing with jerks in the game makes many people reluctant to group up with strangers and leads them to either stick to their own closed groups or play solo. One can't press the 'block' button for jerks in the real world most of the time, but in an activity that is supposed to be fun, letting people curate their experiences is necessary IMHO.

You can't say that just because a couple people have mentioned it on the forums, that that represents the players as a whole. 90% + of players in this game don't post to the forums. Not to mention, that just proves my point about BW's view on the matter. It has been brought up a couple of times, and they have not changed it. Basically, you are asking BW to change the rules for a very small minority of players that would affect the the majority as a whole. I mean feel free to keep posting about it, but I really doubt it will ever change, and I highly doubt they will implement legacy ignore. They have addressed it, and provided a kick option, as well as an ignore option. If the group is so terrible because of one player, ignore them, leave group, and wait 15 minutes to get another. I have been forced to do that a couple of times, and it solves the problem.

I don't understand why people feel the need to live in a bubble, closed off from the world to protect themselves from mild inconvenience.

I don't understand why someone would make the above statement while having the following quote in their signature:

Quote: Originally Posted by cjohnk

"You can't add completely arbitrary assumptions on to someone's statement. When a statement is made, take it for what it is not for what it could be if you tack on 7 more words of your own choosing."

No one in the thread asked to "live in a bubble, closed off from the world" or described their reasons for wanting a legacy ignore as being due to "mild inconvenience." Those are entirely your own characterizations and are adding "completely arbitrary assumptions on to someone's statement."

Count me among those who would like to see a legacy ignore added to the game. In the real world, there are mechanisms in place for dealing with (or avoiding) people we don't want to be around. Why is it difficult to understand that people would want mechanisms in place to have similar options available to them in a paid online leisure activity?