Feature Requests

  • Search existing ideas before submitting
  • Use support.secondlife.com for customer support issues
  • Keep posts on-topic
Thank you for your ideas!
Mark Bot accounts different from human controlled avatars
Second Life as a platform is unique in that it is user driven and user built. There should be no doubt that when approaching an avatar that it's directly controlled by a human. While it is undeniable that scripted agents provide utility and amusement, they should not exist in any form that allows them to be confused with a human controlled avatar. Ideally there should be no task in SL that needs fully fledged antonymous scripted agent to accomplish and LSL needs to be expanded to remove these edge use cases. Survey and traffic bots are an annoyance, likely privacy breaching and often operating in ways that break ToS. Self identification of accounts as bots has broadly been a failure and cop-out on the part of Linden Lab. LL need to be marking bots as bots automatically. It doesn't even need fancy AI to accomplish. Metrics such as teleports per hour, time spent in the same location, viewer channel, etc etc etc. Confusion over what is behind an avatar has created a trope in SL that unresponsive avatars are in fact bots, that clubs and venues aren't occupied by individuals, the direct implication being that SL isn't a real place made and populated by real people. No one wants to waste time trying to be be social with a bot. AI chat bots are novelty and not a substitute for real people. At the very least name tags should be flagged in some way that makes it obvious an agent is scripted in some way. Participation in local chat should be equally differentiated. profiles should be limited, etc etc.
21
·

tracked

Second Life Premium Plus for Families/Friends Group
This idea is about creating a Premium Plus Group Plan for small groups of friends, family members, or alt accounts (5 people per plan), similar to what Google offers. The cost could be by main account. how it would work? so it would work like that main avi pay: 30,000 L$ per month (example) or the equivalent in real currency, with payment options for 3 months or 1 year upfront. Then person can add on their dashboard avatar names who wish (can change that chooice once per month) so all 5 added to it avis got premium plus. Why is this needed? Many users in Second Life have multiple avatars or want to share premium benefits with family or friends. This proposal allows users to share a premium plan with those who might not be able to afford it themselves, or share with alts providing more people access to premium features without each person paying individually. How will this help Second Life? There are many groups of friends, families, and creators in Second Life who would be interested in a shared premium plan. Creators with multiple avatars could benefit from having premium perks on all their accounts. This would increase revenue for Second Life, as more people would be encouraged to upgrade to a premium plan knowing they can share it across their group. Families and creators are likely to purchase such a plan because it makes premium benefits more accessible and practical for everyone involved. It will bring more money and stuff so that would work in the best intrest of Linden Lab and overall good. Thank you for reading and consider implement this change. Hugs, Marty (this text was made with help of AI translator cause my english is not the best, sorry for any weird writing or so) See You around
3
·

tracked

Wearable (BOM) Layer slots for Materials (specifically)
As an applier creator for body materials and tattoos for mesh bodies using the SLUV - it is tiring and quite redundant to program applier scripts for each body (and heads) that I would like to support. It would be an infinately more efficient system overall for all bodies if they could simply utilize a specified UUID channel that grabs those textures from a BOM wearable to get directly applied as materials on the rigged mesh wearable. Something like additional AUX layers that had multiple channels for normal and specular (or even PBR materials) for head/body UV in them. Almost all mesh body wearers have updated to BOM skin for bodies and heads, and often struggle with adding and removing materials in HUD based systems. Implimenting a system like this would make changing materials on bodies easier for base line consumers who are about to experience materials for the first time when all viewers have updated to PBR. Along with this request, I need to stress the importance of 2K bakedown service for these materials to be worth making a BOM asset. The payoff being - bodies would not need to add another stack of scripts to compensate for PBR materials on their mesh bodies and heads, which consumers are already wanting. Addressing 2K BOM requests with the ability for materials to also be BOM would greatly combat an increase in constantly running scripts in bodies and heads, and would make the entire community much happier for it!
33
·

tracked

Nonbinary avatar shape (and just more dynamic base avatar shape settings)
As many of us know there is a huge variety of avatars in Second life. It’s a wonderful part of the platform that just allows unlimited expression. However something very old remains from history, an unspoken unnoted legacy setting. Despite all the advancements over the years, the base/classic avatar shape setting still only allows Two Binary options: Male or Female. This hasn’t fully limited expression though, many creators have found workarounds over the years. Many workarounds just involve setting the base avatar shape for non-human and gender neutral/fluid avatars to female as it allows more variety in size and structure due to odd bulkiness of the SL male avatar. And while it’s all good and fine they are still just workarounds for the lack of a gender neutral base shape. It also leads to one of the ways scripts can try and guess a users chosen gender (OBJECT_BODY_SHAPE_TYPE) to end up with the wrong result and misgendering users in many cases. If it was just a hard system limitation that would be extremely hard to fix this would be understandable why it’s left this way. However again looking at ( https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OBJECT_BODY_SHAPE_TYPE ) it seems to indicate it’s a RANGE from [0.0, 1.0] which if true means the base avatar system from the beginning has always supported a Gender range from Female to Male and yet the shape editor in the viewer still only allows only two options… Again the question is why? Thus I propose a third gender neutral option combining mostly based on the dynamic range of size of the female avatar for backwards compatibility with the non overlapping male avatar sliders unlocked. This would solve the issues of a binary choice and allow even more customization of the basic avatar shape.
23
·

tracked

Load More