Archived Private "parties" Chat Channel

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Status
Not open for further replies.

HarryManUltra

Alexander Redguard
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
3
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
England
Faction
Redguard
Kingdom
Damorn
Roleplay Guilds
N/A
Okay so my recommendation is simple, an extra feature that allows players to create their own chat channel, give it a name, make it so it can be invite-only, or available for the public to join.

I think this idea would be good, as perhaps you wish to make a chat for the factions you have the relation of Truce with, perhaps you want a private chat for a specific role-play group you're in. Either way, I don't really see any downside to this idea, and I heavily recommend it at least gets considered by staff.


If you do decide to create this feature/plugin the commands could be:

/chat channel (Could also use cc)
/cc create (Name) (Whitelist/Public)
/cc invite (Username)
/cc public
/cc whitelist
/cc kick (Username)
/cc ban (Username)
/cc rename
/cc leave (Name)


To prevent too much chat channels, perhaps it could cost in-game money, say 150R. And as for the chat cooldown, I think it should stay the same as it is for Alliance - Non-exist. After all people would be able to leave the chat if they decided too.
 
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
Its not a bad idea. But it seems like this is already accomplished through the current chat system and TeamSpeak
 
I'd say it has a chance but there are tons of things that they are working on as of late, and it's also a money sink, but sounds cool.
 
I mean y'all could code an rp party plugin that has a chat feature to enable better closed rp sessions and could function as like a multi person /msg.
 
I mean y'all could code an rp party plugin that has a chat feature to enable better closed rp sessions and could function as like a multi person /msg.

If this is something roleplayers would like to see, please create a new feature suggestion pertaining to it.


This idea for itself will be rejected as there are not enough benefits to constitute the time + Tech prioritization means this would be very low on their list and unlikely to be implemented.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.