Sorting Rooms By Favorites/Size Without Scamming Us

[Xaufin]

@Gizmo @Lisa

When you released the colored nametags for people to purchase, you also included the option to disable the tags. This means people could purchase something that other people will not see, which is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

Now, you're introducing the ability to sort rooms, which is wonderful. But players are still paying to promote their room to the top of the list. So again, you have conflicting features, one of which is paid. That is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

Maybe you already have a solution to the problem you're about to cause, but the preview videos on Discord suggest you don't.
We appreciate the efforts to improve 3DX, but your approach to some of these features is messy and doesn't cater to the way players run rooms.

[Xaufin]

Please add the option to choose a category when you host, such as club / sex / rp / other. Those would be useful filters to use when searching the room list.

[TashaTight]

7 minutes ago, Xaufin said:

Please add the option to choose a category when you host, such as club / sex / rp / other. Those would be useful filters to use when searching the room list.

Would like that too so you don't have to spend title to tell what type of room it is but could focus on using title for room name instead, so category or tags being possible to assign without using room title would be welcome feature I think.

[CatKatW]

39 minutes ago, Xaufin said:

@Gizmo @Lisa

When you released the colored nametags for people to purchase, you also included the option to disable the tags. This means people could purchase something that other people will not see, which is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

Now, you're introducing the ability to sort rooms, which is wonderful. But players are still paying to promote their room to the top of the list. So again, you have conflicting features, one of which is paid. That is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

Maybe you already have a solution to the problem you're about to cause, but the preview videos on Discord suggest you don't.
We appreciate the efforts to improve 3DX, but your approach to some of these features is messy and doesn't cater to the way players run rooms.

I don't feel I should be forced to see the colored nametags you freely purchase. Same thing with the rooms you choose to boost.

I'm very happy with the colored tag disable option. Same with the future sorting/favoriting of rooms.

Anyway I would give you a point regarding rooms list... despite the sorting, the boosted room should stay on top (or on top of the non-favorites, if this feature is used).

 

[Xizi]

3 hours ago, Xaufin said:

When you released the colored nametags for people to purchase, you also included the option to disable the tags. This means people could purchase something that other people will not see, which is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

The feature to disable colorful names was introduced in the same update as a colorful names themselves. People was knowing what they paying for.

3 hours ago, Xaufin said:

Now, you're introducing the ability to sort rooms, which is wonderful. But players are still paying to promote their room to the top of the list. So again, you have conflicting features, one of which is paid. That is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

No one forcing you or anyone else to use room boost. 

[Xaufin]

17 hours ago, Xizi said:

The feature to disable colorful names was introduced in the same update as a colorful names themselves. People was knowing what they paying for.

No one forcing you or anyone else to use room boost. 

It isn't about whether they're forced or whether they realize what they're paying for. 

But yes, the club meta does require people to use room boost, with the expectation that it works uniformly and as intended and can't simply be disabled. Implementing the sorting feature without improving the boost feature will just create a worse environment akin to when rooms were always sorted by numbers.

[Xizi]

1 hour ago, Xaufin said:

Implementing the sorting feature without improving the boost feature will just create a worse environment akin to when rooms were always sorted by numbers.

I was playing back in times when rooms was sorted by numbers and it was much better this way, at least from the point of regular user. Much easier to find a room your friend inviting you in when they just telling you how much people in it. 

If it was worse for the ego-driven room-hosts who want to feel good because they are popular - can't care less. Hosting room is not a big deal, everyone can do it, you don't even need to create the room yourself, don't even need to keep your PC on - as long as at least someone stays in your room. 

 

[MeiLing]

1 hour ago, Xizi said:

I was playing back in times when rooms was sorted by numbers and it was much better this way, at least from the point of regular user. Much easier to find a room your friend inviting you in when they just telling you how much people in it. 

If it was worse for the ego-driven room-hosts who want to feel good because they are popular - can't care less. Hosting room is not a big deal, everyone can do it, you don't even need to create the room yourself, don't even need to keep your PC on - as long as at least someone stays in your room. 

 

they create multi accounts.... and alts to fill their empty rooms and stop the ability to leave a room open without being online. The list has become a mess since this feature.

Pay per open is the best solution

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by MeiLing

[CatKatW]

35 minutes ago, MeiLing said:

they create multi accounts.... and alts to fill their empty rooms and stop the ability to leave a room open without being online. The list has become a mess since this feature.

It's a pity when some feature (any feature) is abused.

Keeping the room open while someone is in there has its advantages. At least the shared room doesn't close every time there is a disconnect.

I hate (and I leave immediately) when I go to a room with 50 players and 40 are dancers 

[CatKatW]

2 hours ago, Xizi said:

I was playing back in times when rooms was sorted by numbers and it was much better this way, at least from the point of regular user. Much easier to find a room your friend inviting you in when they just telling you how much people in it. 

The new system seem to allow it again 

[BellaGirl]

Why not randomly shuffle the list except for the boosted rooms. Maybe shuffle every minute or whatever timer the community decides from a poll vote. Boosted rooms could be put on a timer before they're returned back into the shuffle. Just my thoughts on this issue.

[MissD]

5 hours ago, BellaGirl said:

Why not randomly shuffle the list except for the boosted rooms. Maybe shuffle every minute or whatever timer the community decides from a poll vote. Boosted rooms could be put on a timer before they're returned back into the shuffle. Just my thoughts on this issue.

Please no, I sometimes like to explore most of the rooms, seeing what people have built, and I kinda like just going from the bottom up, making it easier to know which room I have already checked out, shuffling it would become a pain

[MeiLing]

or come back to the old system.... First open bottom, newly open top...

[MistressBeryl]

After the room list degenerates more and more into a contact exchange, I have my regular clubs or certain preferences and have to to search forever long every time i want to join, i also don't care at all which is boosted top or not, I will include the developers for these new features in my evening prayer.

[BellaGirl]

16 hours ago, MissD said:

Please no, I sometimes like to explore most of the rooms, seeing what people have built, and I kinda like just going from the bottom up, making it easier to know which room I have already checked out, shuffling it would become a pain

This is kind of the problem we have with the current sorting, there's no real good answer that solves everybody's concerns. Honestly, my vote would be to keep everything the same and just add the new search feature.

[Loruna]

I honestly love those new features.

It seems the boosting sorting will be the default one and each of us can select if we want the rooms sort by numbers or by boosts.

And that we can select favos or search for names is by far the best thing in that matter. That will be really a quality of life update. Thanks in advance devs  

And really... I dont see how this could be a scam... I mean... those who hosts big rooms and maybe could get scammed by it as they boost their room every minute, waste thousands of xGold for gifts (or what ever payment they take, I dont know) for all of those dance groups.

[Xaufin]

2 hours ago, BellaGirl said:

This is kind of the problem we have with the current sorting, there's no real good answer that solves everybody's concerns. Honestly, my vote would be to keep everything the same and just add the new search feature.

Exactly, there are different players with different preferences. The game is used in several very different ways.

• Clubbers/Hosts: Like to have their rooms visible to throw big parties.
• Cold: Like to find big fuck rooms with lots of acronyms in their titles.
• Explorers/Builders: Like to visit builds from bottom to top.
• Gamers: Like to find board games and mazes that add an extra element to the fuckin.
• Roleplayers: Like to find dedicated RP rooms to create a character and story.

The top two categories probably make up more than half of players, while the remainder are scattered among other smaller rooms. The biggest problem with the new sorting feature is that it doesn't particularly help anyone and appears to invalidate gold boosts entirely.

For the record, the current system of boosting and advertising sucks. Which is, again, because rooms with different purposes are being shown in the same list.

People looking for clubs are looking for clubs. People looking for 100-player cold rooms are looking for 100-player cold rooms. People looking for 2-player quickie rooms are looking for 2-player quickie rooms. Showing them all in the same list serves absolutely nobody and encourages everyone to effectively waste gold, which is predatory (a.k.a. scammy). Any system that enables players to waste gold, whether they know it or not, is predatory.

Sort feature is the right answer.

• The favorites filter is fine (does it save rooms by player, or name, or just instance?).
• The numbers filter is okay, but only if it preserves boosting functionality in a meaningful way, otherwise you're screwing boosters like before.
• What you need to add is a type filter. Let us declare a room type when we open: club/sex/game/rp/other. Then players can look for what they want much easier.

I believe I first suggested room filters on the forums about 18 months ago. So I'm glad the devs have decided they're worthwhile, but the most important filter to add is room type. Please do it.

[Xaufin]

On 11/19/2022 at 2:27 AM, CatKatW said:

I don't feel I should be forced to see the colored nametags you freely purchase. Same thing with the rooms you choose to boost.

I'm very happy with the colored tag disable option. Same with the future sorting/favoriting of rooms.

Anyway I would give you a point regarding rooms list... despite the sorting, the boosted room should stay on top (or on top of the non-favorites, if this feature is used).

 

Yeah to be clear, I have the names disabled, but this means people who think they're showing off to us actually aren't, and are therefore being misled by their purchase. The only thing better than the disabling of the feature would have been to find a better use for colored names, such as a different color for friends, instead of just Microsoft WordArt everywhere.

[Xaufin]

On 11/20/2022 at 2:27 AM, MeiLing said:

they create multi accounts.... and alts to fill their empty rooms and stop the ability to leave a room open without being online. The list has become a mess since this feature.

Pay per open is the best solution

 

Rooms have to stay open without the owner, otherwise disconnects and other emergencies would interfere with running it. Pay per hour might be useful.

For alts, I would suggest making them a feature that is cheaper than separate accounts and performs better, but they also don't count toward room numbers. I think the only other way to stop the alt problem is to require a door charge, so if you stay longer than 15 mins in a room you pay 50 gold. It would cost them 2000 more gold per hour to run 40 alt accounts, and their guests might be less inclined to spend their 50 gold at a place that uses fake accounts.

But that's basically a whole different game at this point.

[Xizi]

7 hours ago, Xaufin said:

Yeah to be clear, I have the names disabled, but this means people who think they're showing off to us actually aren't, and are therefore being misled by their purchase.

I have a colored name, bought it when the prices got reasonable. I am not feeling misled or scammed in a slightest. I knew/know that many people don't like this new feature at all and have it disabled and I am fully support their right to do so.  It was like this since the very moment when colored names was added to the game.

7 hours ago, Xaufin said:

I think the only other way to stop the alt problem is to require a door charge, so if you stay longer than 15 mins in a room you pay 50 gold.

Is this some kind of bad joke? So a regular paying customer, who don't buy xgold, just pays the subcription - have a right to stay 300/50*15 = 90 mins in public rooms? 90 mins in public rooms and then go away and do something else in private because few ego-driven room-hosts are having a bad feelings because of unfair competition? Like... Lets wreck the game quality for 90% of playerbase to please few dozens of room hosts? Great idea.

 

[EvaMarie]

20 hours ago, Xaufin said:

For alts, I would suggest making them a feature that is cheaper than separate accounts and performs better, but they also don't count toward room numbers. I think the only other way to stop the alt problem is to require a door charge, so if you stay longer than 15 mins in a room you pay 50 gold. It would cost them 2000 more gold per hour to run 40 alt accounts, and their guests might be less inclined to spend their 50 gold at a place that uses fake accounts.

Just like @Xizi said... This idea is a real no-go, a red line that developers should never cross.

[lMAXl]

Sort by number of visitors are the worse thing ever. gizmo changed it to avoid having all the time the same room at top. i don't think room owner want to remember the old time with zigzag room 24/7 open and top #1 all the time in sort list. the current one are the most fair sorting, bad one of course like all that get tested but the less bad. With actual system everyone can open a room and fill it. with good name to help fill, and knowing when good to start the opening and when not. also when to use xgold and just not burn them thinking need to be always #1 in listing to fill. ( filled many time different room with my best friend with 50+, 100+... with only like 5K-7K of gold spend, and not with an absurb amount. that why Xaufin telling " Waste of gold " not really true. still need luck too, will not fill every time but atleast better than when old sorting was used. it will not be by default so let see what will happen first.. 

On the other hand, search feature will be good. some room was already using room name with tag to fill, there will simply be more to use this method. One thing that could be exciting, would have been to be able to copy an Invite link instead of room name. link that we send on private message and when someone click on it, make them join room. Then, when we tell someone, for exemple: " i'm on X room, come look it's nice room ". People will just have to click on link to go there. would have been a lot of time saved.

Edited November 23, 2022 by lMAXl

[MeiLing]

7 minutes ago, lMAXl said:

Sort by number of visitors are the worse thing ever. gizmo changed it to avoid having all the time the same room at top. more specifically sex room because it was them that get impacted by this way of sorting room. i

Of course sex rooms are shocking in a sex game... rofl

[Xaufin]

On 11/21/2022 at 8:47 PM, Xizi said:

On 11/21/2022 at 1:14 PM, Xaufin said:

Rooms have to stay open without the owner, otherwise disconnects and other emergencies would interfere with running it. Pay per hour might be useful.

For alts, I would suggest making them a feature that is cheaper than separate accounts and performs better, but they also don't count toward room numbers. I think the only other way to stop the alt problem is to require a door charge, so if you stay longer than 15 mins in a room you pay 50 gold. It would cost them 2000 more gold per hour to run 40 alt accounts, and their guests might be less inclined to spend their 50 gold at a place that uses fake accounts.

But that's basically a whole different game at this point.

Is this some kind of bad joke? So a regular paying customer, who don't buy xgold, just pays the subcription - have a right to stay 300/50*15 = 90 mins in public rooms? 90 mins in public rooms and then go away and do something else in private because few ego-driven room-hosts are having a bad feelings because of unfair competition? Like... Lets wreck the game quality for 90% of playerbase to please few dozens of room hosts? Great idea.

 

But it's not 50 gold per 15 minutes. I said if you stay longer than 15 mins, you get charged 50 for the evening.

The idea would be:

• Non-club rooms have a player limit of 20.
• Small club rooms have a player limit of 40, and cost 1000 gold per hour to run.
• Small club rooms have no player limit, and cost 2000 gold per hour to run.
• Joining a club room is 50 gold for a guest for the night.
  • At 10 mins, users are prompted to pay to stay. If they haven't paid by 15 minutes, they're removed.
• Remove boosting entirely but list clubs (paid rooms) in a section at the top above other rooms.
• Instead of putting numbers by rooms, use dots to show the range of users.
  • No dot for less than 10 users, then dots representing more players than 10, 20, 40, 80.

What happens:

• The 40 dancer alts pay 50 gold once, but that's all they can pay. So the first hour is paid for, but those alts add no money for subsequent hours, so the room owner must attract new unique guests, or just lose 2k per hour.
• 150 free xGold per day means visiting 3 clubs for free. Clubs will run shorter hours and aim for higher quality experiences to attract the needed players, instead of faking their popularity with alts.
• Not showing room numbers probably means less competition. 
• Small rooms that "don't care about numbers" and aren't "ego-driven" experience the exact same game they do now!

As I said, it would be a whole different game. These features would be a start, but they would also benefit from additional economy design (bartending, sending gold, worthwhile gold purchases, etc.) and better room sorting by room type as I mentioned.

Sorry for derailing my own thread.

[Xizi]

3 hours ago, Xaufin said:

But it's not 50 gold per 15 minutes. I said if you stay longer than 15 mins, you get charged 50 for the evening.

Well that's better of course, but its still terrible. 

Its still means that people should have pay additional currency for a basic game functionality. It may be acceptable in some "free" to play money drain game (especially on mobiles where people are believe that its normal and its how things should be), but its totally not okay for a honest p2p game.

About the rest of your post, its all about making the game worse for a regular player and better for dolphins and whales, making game less of honest subscription based p2p venue and more of a mobile game-style """free""" to play shit where you need to pay for everything. Next step would be VIP subscription and additional customization stuff for xgold, I am pretty sure you would enjoy it lol.