Global Chat

[normalforce]

That wouldn't work as well because you can't join a Linkshell unless another player explicitly invites you into it. We need to have a chat channel in which everyone is allowed to communicate freely, without having to be invited by someone else first.

I've been thinking about this a bit because the way the game is setup, one of the benefits of joining a linkshell is for this limited ability to globally communicate with each other. Actually, at this point in time, it might be the only benefit until they add more LS-centric abilities.

Introducing much needs global channels would take away from the apparent specialness of linkshells. But that conversation (what benefits should be given to linkshells) is probably best left for another topic.

Honestly, there isn't much difference between LS chatter and IRCish style global channels.

[Wolfie]

I've been thinking about this a bit because the way the game is setup, one of the benefits of joining a linkshell is for this limited ability to globally communicate with each other. Actually, at this point in time, it might be the only benefit until they add more LS-centric abilities.

Introducing much needs global channels would take away from the apparent specialness of linkshells. But that conversation (what benefits should be given to linkshells) is probably best left for another topic.

Honestly, there isn't much difference between LS chatter and IRCish style global channels.

But isn't that more of an issue with Linkshells, rather than chat channels? LSes right now are little more than glorified private chat channels, but that means that they need to IMPROVE LSes, not refuse to add good communication features to the game.

[Akira-Niji]

Observing this thread, I find it interesting that most who are leaving objective and insightful opinions on this matter are also thorough as to how and why this would improve XIV's chat system. Some against cite subjective, short sentence answers such as, "I just don't like it." which doesn't bring anything to the table of helping those who are being objective here, such as the devs and community managers reading this who are trying to understand why this feature would or wouldn't be helpful.

Citing reasons such as RMT and trolling are not helpful when they are generalizations based on the entire internet and its demographic of users as a whole. It is not the fault of an online game's design for those problems--it is the user who is too intolerant and lazy to block something that exists unavoidably everywhere on the internet and not just in this game. Especially when users have an internet standard level of control over these issues and it does not take more than a few precious seconds of their time to block them either. By the logic of this argument, RMT and trolling already exists now in both XI and XIV's chat system, so should we further limit the existing chat functionality as well?

Some stated that making global chat channels "optional" still does not work if the user could miss important conversations due to them disabling the chat channel to avoid spam and/or griefers. This is again laziness and the user's fault for not blocking the interruptions or notifying the proper in-game authorities. It's an argument that shoots itself in the foot. Expressing value in the idea of an optional chat channel and then stating one's own laziness to control these issues within seconds is not the fault of the game's design and why you could potentially miss an important conversation--it's that user.

Some stated expanding the options on our chat system would not enhance the community in this game without citing a reason why. Please tell us, the devs and community managers who are reading why it wouldn't enhance the game's community (without the use of internet generalizations like RMT and trolling).

If no one thinks and responds objectively about these discussions that better shape the future of this game, then it will be the subjective voices of this community that will be known for further limiting and driving this game into the ground. A little more objectivity, please.