User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Feedback (deprecated)/Friends List 2.0

Feedback on Feedback

I just don't like the “.0” name which seems to be a fashion these days. Besides that the idea is great. The simple idea of creating buddy lists is useful. Or at least allow to view the guild of the contact. I have some contacts that I don't remember where they come from, and they most likely are player from a former ally guild. But I cannot be sure, etc. Agaetis Ros 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I like these, one thing, and I'm not really sure if it goes with your suggestion or should be a separate one, but I'd like a status for people not on my list(s) and one for those not on my list(s). This could mesh with your new and improved list in that you could independently set a status for your "buddies", your "friends", and your trading partners, then have a status for everyone else. So, say you're feeling social, but not too social, so you want to be shown as "available" to your friends, but not your buddies, or, you're on just for trading, so you could set your status to unavailable for your friends and buddies, but available for your trading partners and everyone else. This everyone else category could allow you to ignore PMs from anyone you don't already have a relationship with, basically allowing you to have an infinite ignore list. -- FreedomBound 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! This is a great idea. I had something like that in mind when I first started playing, but didn't remember it all until reading your comment. Actually, your idea of only allow PMs from known players is better than anything I was thinking about. It's a basic status that's available in all email and chat programs these days.

Let me see if I can summarize here and then we can adjust the suggestion accordingly.

• Agaetis implies that there should be room to add a brief note or status about the source of the contact, which would be in addition to the "level" on the Friends list.
  • Implementation: I think the easiest way would be to simply add a former guildee section, so as not to require additional screen real-estate.
  • Alternative: color names differently, depending on their other relationships: e.g. guildies would be green, allies would be yellow
• Freedom suggests some new statuses to replace online:
  • available — same as current online; emote: /available or /avail or /public
  • limited trading — online for friends, trading partners, and buddies; offline to others; emote: /trading
  • private — online for friends; offline otherwise; emote: /private
  • hermit — same as current offline; emote: /hermit or /garbo (after Greta Garbo, famous for asking to be let alone)
  • semi-social — online for friends & buddies; offline otherwise; emote: /semi-social or /buddy

Have I captured your thoughts correctly? Thanks for the ideas; these are particularly good.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Love the hermit and semi-social. Summarized well, IMO. -- FreedomBound 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good god.. make it complex enough? Magic Talk 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes the colors would be fine. Agaetis Ros 19:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Magic, too complex. Simplify a little and it would be golden. These are all great ideas, but even trying to keep track of your statuses and things that happen automatically would be a PitA. Focus on things that would be useful to most people, and drop things that apply only to a small group and can be merged with another feature. Also, I often meet people and add them to friends, but I have horrible name memory, especially for people who aren't really close friends, but rather your notion of buddies, business partners, PUGgers, etc. I hate it when ppl message me and I have no clue who they are: "Oh.. uh.. your name looks familiar... uh... who are you again?" Allow a short text note next to the friendslist names a la: "sells ectos" "good bog runner" "helps with VQ" "from Poland" "chatted about <some band>" etc. Rose Of Kali 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think this is complicated: update the categories and allow two types of status, instead of one. However, since at least two people have made the same comment, I'll give it some more thought. If I can't put together a simple mock-up, I'll agree that peeps won't use it. If I can, I hope that those who thought it complicated will give it another look. (I actually thought adding a note would be more complicated...but perhaps not.)

Thank you for the feedback.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Location, Location, Location

The Primary thing that I would like to see and Im certain everyone would appreciate is the ability to locate fellow guild members..I.E.(current location,outpost,zone,district,ect.)..Even beter,the ability to click on there name to (Join Now) and tele to there location.(Internal Affairs)

Great idea! That sounds like an upgrade to the guild window (rather than the friends list, per se)...although Friends could use a similar feature. Thanks for your comment.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

HELL NO

Assholes can be annoying enough without them being able to add you on their Friends List and fucking stalk you. Maybe - maybe - if it's a "you're on each other's friends lists" kinda thing, but seriously you can ask people.

No offense at all, but in it's current incarnation, that's without a doubt the worst (serious) Guild Wars suggestion I've ever seen. A F K When Needed 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. Lots of people have mentioned to me how hard it is to find non-guildees; there's a lot of PMs just about, where are you now. For anti-stalking, peeps can't see your data unless you put them on a special list. In other words, TEF can't stalk AFK unless AFK puts TEF on AFK's friends list.

Incidentally, what I'm hoping for here is that ANet reads the idea and some of the specifics...and then implements something vaguely similar. I don't have specific love for any of the details on the suggestion.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Orite. Well, I didn't see that on the page, so perhaps mention which (if not all) details only apply when both people have each other added? Or if I failed just make it more prominent. A F K When Needed 20:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)