Hey guys, We need your input on the call for help feature. We are brainstorming on the best method and can't seem to reach a verdict. When an agent calls for help, an icon will appear on your agent map, which you can then click to aid them with their current mission. This will be helpful, but we are worried it could also cause many a spoiler. Obviously, the chat between agents will be unregulated and spoilers could happen naturally, but, for instance, you could be on mission 3, and help an agent that is on mission 5, and in helping them you learn something about mission 3. So what do you think, should anyone be able to answer anyone else's call for help, or should it be more regulated. Thanks
If there is anything that I've known during the last few ARGs, it's that no agent is an island. We play to our strengths when working as a group even if it's meant to be done individually. The larger the group, the much more chaotic the situation is when following all sorts of leads, hunches and red herrings. For myself, I don't even stay on the same mission if there's more than one part, I'll jump to another if I'm stuck. However, the larger the group that is participating or have participated, the more vast and deep the amount of esoteric knowledge is in the community as a whole. Just as we get to know one another more in this community, we'll also get to know who we can call on for support as we get to know their strengths. We can trust them not to ruin the experience but to guide us gently on how we could be approaching the problem. Even just a frame of reference from another agent helps if they haven't done the problem yet and in return, they have a head start on the problem if they are in the midst of solving it or haven't gotten to that point yet.
Before I vote, I'm curious to know more about what exactly it is that'll happen when a player answers a call for help. Does it allow them to write directly in the requesting player's journal, or is there some other chat interface where they talk? It it only a chat session, or is there any other form of interaction? Is the requesting player able to edit/delete comments from the answering player(s)? Is the requesting player able to terminate the request and block some/all of the answering players? I'm thinking largely in terms of deliberate abuse here (it's harder to defend against spoilers from well-meaning but ham-fisted players). There's also a question of how it's intended to be used. If the idea is to encourage players to use it as a collaboration tool to work together on solving puzzles, it makes sense to restrict it to players who haven't yet completed the mission. If instead it's intended to be primarily used as a hint/lifeline feature, then it makes more sense to allow players who've completed some/all of the stages of that mission. In either case, players probably shouldn't even be shown calls for help on missions that they haven't yet gotten access to - since even the existence of a mission (and especially the title) could be seen as a spoiler. -Bats
Thanks for your input. The call for help feature will be used as a collaborative tool outside of the forums, as a way for players to get immediate help for a specific issue relating to their current mission(s). Bats, you bring up a good point about the need to block/delete comments from the answering players. That is important, both to prevent abuse and spoilers.
Would it be possible to include both? Let me elaborate (as if I wouldn't rant inanely about something, p-hah!). Say you're on your lonesome, but you're hopelessly stuck on a mission, so you decide to try and pool your resources with someone else - two heads versus one, and all that. This "Collaboration" ping would then be visible to Agents who have yet to solve that particular mission, i.e. people who are either stuck, or just begun the mission (or left it in favour of another and will return later), and they can join you - opening a chat with participating agents. This way, if you're going solo, the "Call for help" is more of a "team-up" feature, than a "helping hand" as such. This "Collaboration" ping remains open untill enough Agents agree to "close" it (by voting?). While open, any Agent that hasn't solved the mission yet, is free to join the group - alternatively, if a third Agent pings for help, the Open group is highlighted on their map. Now, let's assume that the Agents remain stuck. Now - if they've closed the group for further invites - they get the option to "Call for Help" again, but this time, it'll be a "Senior Agent" ping, which notifies all Agents who have completed the mission, or at least the step the group's on. This "Senior Agent" can then join the group and help them - and at the end of mission, the group can rate the Senior Agent, as a mechanic that would help flag griefers (better safe than sorry). As for whether or not the "Senior Agent" ping should remain open, I'm not entirely sure. No point in every Agent who's completed it flocking in, and much harder to "control" not spoiling it for anyone, but then again, I can imagine some Agents might consider helping other Agents as their "Raison d'être". Had a brain-fart about a timer for the "Senior Agent" ping: The first to see are the Agents who have completed the step the group is stuck on, but not subsequent steps (if any). If the ping goes unanswered, it becomes visible to more Agents (i.e. Agents 1 mission ahead/solved mission X time ago, Agents 2 missions ahead/solved mission X+(-?)Y time ago, etc.), but that might very well be more cumbersome than beneficial. Anywho, to sum up (it's a necessity when you're prone to ranting..) Single Agent "Calls for Help" -> "Collaboration" ping. Other Single Agent(s) stuck on same step can join, until the group is voted closed by the group. Group of Agents are still stuck, "Calls for Help" -> "Senior Agent" ping. An Agent who have solved the step can join the group // Agents who have completed the step get first dibs on the ping, with Agents who've solved the entire mission getting the chance if the ping goes unanswered. Mission is eventually solved, Group rates Senior Agent - rinse, repeat (unless you've gotten too low a "score" as the Senior Agent). (Note: Also beneficial if you're planning on adding Achievements for those helpful Agents, i.e. "Helped X groups", what not - but I digress. Note²: Terminology is just placeholders, as "Senior Agent" might give the wrong impression)
I'm not sure that really answers my question about the intended usage... Are you saying that it's meant for players who want to quickly round up a group of others to collaborate with them on solving a puzzle? Or as a way for a player to get instant help/hints/answers when they're stuck? In my mind the two would target help requests at an entirely different (and largely opposite) group of players. -Bats
I think this would be an excellent way to handle it (with the caveat that, if members will have to vote to close a group, individuals would need to be given the ability to leave. The ability to vote out a senior agent before the end of the mission might also be wise) - although it's starting to turn into a developed enough chat system that it might not fit the "Journal" metaphor anymore. Right. "Senior" is probably a poor choice of word. It might give people the impression that TBW agents actually have a realistic chance of surviving to old age. -Bats
Good point - no-one should be locked into participation. As for voting out the .. "Senior Agent" (I'm stumped for another term atm) .. I agree. But as much as we need to protect the experience for Agents solving the mission, we also need to make sure that the "Senior Agents" can't be "thrown away". <cue scene of retired not-so-old TBW Agents huddling around a notice-board with wafting sheets of blank paper on it, croaning sweet nostalgia> Perhaps an automatic system, with a more general "vote-kick" mechanic in case someone within the group is trying to grief the group itself? If the "SA" has just completed the step the group is on, s/he remains in the group. If the "SA" has completed subsequent steps, they're automatically "reassigned" back to the Map overview, and the rating happens. Should the Group request help again later on, they can choose to also ping the SA who helped them previously, due to familiarity with the group (unless they were rated poorly, of course). Leaving the SA in the group though, might cause the system to be prone to "Speed-running" groups for the rating at the end. Indeed. I reckon "Senpai" would also just be.. odd... It would still be a better love sto.. ya' know.
They can too live to an old age! That is, if you only consider their age relative to other Agents. As far as the discussion goes, if it's meant to be collaborate (Not "I'm stuck and need a hint") then I suggest only people who haven't completed the mission.
I was thinking less of being locked into participation, and more of getting trapped... I was guessing based on the interface & journal metaphor that it's basically meant to be a single channel for all communication and note-taking (no tabs, no channels, no separate journals for separate missions) - which could severely cripple a player if they ended up with a griefer or otherwise uncooperative player who was able to keep them from dissolving the collaboration. I suspect there's something here that I'm overlooking, because I'm having trouble seeing where the problem lies. If an SA there as part of a help mechanic, it should be possible for the players they're supposed to be helping to collectively decide to show them the door with a minimum of fuss... Maybe they're abusive, maybe they're lacking in restraint when it comes to spoilers, maybe their brand of help is too pushy, or maybe the group has decided that they really want to crack it without hints after all - but the decision should be entirely in their hands. If they were there in a command role (something that a "Senior Agent" designation might be more appropriate for) then it would be another matter, but, while it could definitely be an interesting mechanic, I haven't seen much that's pointing towards squad-based activities. But then, we might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves, debating the mechanics of kicking Senior Agents in a system that currently has neither SAs nor kicking I suspect that this has about the same chance of being/not being an issue regardless of Senior Agents or groups. With the exception of as-yet-unseen mission types explicitly requiring teamwork (which hopefully we'll see at least a few of), a speedrun would likely be just as fast (likely faster) copying & pasting answers from a walkthrough. -Bats
I was mainly arguing from the point of view that acting as a Senior Agent would grant that Agent something or other, be it good ol' reputation or what not. Keeping that in mind, it's not outside the realm of possibility that griefers might group up in order to invite in SAs, swiftly kick them out, and give them a negative rating. Conversely, the speed-running was as much from the point of view of the SA, rather than the Group itself - otherwise, I very much agree, copy/pasting would likely be faster from the point of view of the Group. Granted, however, if the group doesn't like the (speed-running) SA's methods - i.e. rushing them along - this becomes a non-issue either way, if they can kick the SA. Indeed - but food for thought nonetheless. ^^ Either way, as I said at the start of my rant, I think I might prefer a system that first "Teams-up" Agents on the same step, and after that, opens up the possibility to add an Agent a (or more) step(s) ahead of that Group - as it gives way to a more co-operative feel than a "Hint me baby"-button would. In other words; my answer would be "Any Agent (caveat: but divided into stages)"
With the understanding that you are talking about a simple "SOS--lets work together to get me un-stuck" I voted "only agents on the same mission." I have a bias toward anything that facilitates collaboration by people who are otherwise working independently on the same kinds problems. I personally find it more rewarding when I can solve a problem by working with someone who is more or less in the same boat as me rather than relying on a the guiding hand of someone in the know. That said, I understand not everyone feels this way, and even I have to cry uncle sometimes. That’s why I also like the other ideas that allow for a different kind of request or an escalation of this one to involve agents who have already completed the mission and are in a position to offer informed guidance. I would vote for those in addition to what I voted if I could, but not in place of it. The only option I see little value in is allowing any agent to respond. I just don’t see the point.
I voted for any agent but feel that priority should be given to agents on the same mission. As people have already noted it's better to solve missions when you're on the same level with the other agent, then by getting hints that eventually lead you to the answer.
I voted for the first option but I am totally in for Santiaks "tier system". First you get people in the same boat as you then you'll get help from a mentor.
We will have a two tiered system, based on Santiak's approach. When you click 'Call for Help,' you will be given two options: 'Collaborating'- asking others on the same mission as you to collaborate 'Senior Agent' - asking for mentorship/help/hints from any agent that has already completed your current mission. This system is meant to be used as an alternative to, rather than a replacement of live chat and the forums. The interactions involved during a call for help will be recorded on the journals of every agent involved. Also, you will be able to leave a 'call for help' conversation whenever you want, and whoever initiated the conversation (i.e. whoever needed help in the first place) will have the ability to boot other agents who are being abusive or providing unwanted spoilers.
This honestly sounds perfect to me. I'd complain about something, but I haven't found any problems with this yet. Good job!
When an agent in a group initiates a call for help, does the requested agent interact with the whole group or will it always be in a one-on-one basis?
Seems to be a good built-in-(the-client) solution with the tiered system. But it is good to hear that it is an add-on to live chat and forum threads which I prefer.
