Proposal: Fireteams

Nizaris

DESCRIPTION

Fire teams would be ad hoc channels created when needed by characters, similar to parties. However, fire teams will represent smaller groups of characters in a common party. Members of parties may be assigned to individual fire teams on their creation, or may be invited to existing fire teams. Fire teams will each have a name to serve as an identifier for easy communication.

RATIONALE

Present group combat strategy sometimes necessitates peeling off portions of a group to accomplish separate tasks. Additionally, party channel spam can often be difficult to keep up with, when parts of the chatter are irrelevant to all party members.

This solution would allow the retention of a common party channel for communication between smaller groups, while also cutting down on spam created by other fire teams.

Fireteams will also represent smaller groups of combat forces that may be commanded as a single unit. For example, a raid leader may command a single fire team to perform a certain task. This has the additional benefit of allowing less-experienced group leaders to practice leading while leading a smaller strike force.

Similar mechanics exist in other games for management of large groups and smaller sub-groups. Achaea's culture of scripting and automation represents an increased reliance on the party channel than many of these other games (notable example: World of Warcraft and raid with sub-parties). Yet, we lack this form of organization, despite our increased reliance on these channels for communication as compared to those graphical games.

Finally, it should be noted that this proposal represents an addition to the game whose use is optional. Since the Party channel is already in use, I decided for purposes of this proposal to keep parties as they presently exist largely unchanged in their purpose and use. People will not need to change their scripts if they choose not to use fire teams.

Example 1

A particular raid force consists of both melee and ranged fighters. While retaining a common party channel for coordination, both the melee and ranged teams will operate on separate channels for tighter coordination around their separate tasks.

Example 2

A raid force decides that with their greater numbers than their opposition, they would like to leverage their greater numbers by taking down two targets at a time, rather than one – forcing the defenders to split and defend as well.

USAGE

Core Verb: FT (replaces PARTY verb in all “existing” commands)

“Existing” Commands

CONFIG COLOUR FTTELLS pick the colour for your fire team channel

FT ACCEPT accept an invitation into a fire team

FT INVITE <who> invite someone into your fire team (and party, if

applicable)

FT INVITE FRIENDS invite all online friends to your fire team (and party, if

applicable)

FT MEMBERS see who is in your fire team

FT QUIT quit your fireteam

FT TELL <message> say something to your fire team

FTT <message> say something to your fire team

FTTOFF stop listening to your fire team channel

FTTON listen to your fire team channel again

FTWHO see who is in your fire team

New Commands

PARTY FT CREATE [name] create a fireteam and specify an optional name. If no name

is listed; use Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, etc as names.

PARTY FT ASSIGN <ft> <who> assign a character to specified fireteam “ft”

PARTY FT DESTROY <ft> destroy a fireteam

PARTY FT RENAME <name> <new> rename a fireteam

DISPLAYED TEXT

Changes to Party

If fire teams have been organized for a given party, the following changes ought to be made to parties for the purpose of providing increased visibility to what fireteam a character belongs to:

• Party chats should be changed to: (Party): Person ($fireteam_name) says, “message.”

• PWHO and PARTYWHO should be changed to display a character's present fireteam next to their name.

Fireteam Related Echoes

You have been assigned to fireteam $fireteam_name by $name.

$name has left fireteam $fireteam_name.

The fireteam $fireteam_name has been destroyed by $name.

The fireteam $fireteam_old_name has been renamed to $fireteam_name by $name.

$Name has invited you to join their fireteam, $fireteam_name. (Accepting will change your party.)

SIDE TOPIC: Hard coded party/fireteam leaders and chain of command

Achaea presently treats all party members as equal. As many of us have experienced, this can lead to great confusion about who is actually calling targets, especially when the RP-appointed party leader has died. While off-topic, I think that a mechanic can be created where party and fireteam leaders can be appointed, as well as a chain of command that the game will respect when a leader has died. This was potential need is prompted due to both the experience of being uncertain as to who is calling targets in the present system, as well as authorizing a certain person to create/destroy/rename fire teams, as well as move people between them.

Antidas

I'm not certain this is necessary...for one, there are already plenty of groups that already do this with clans. For example, the Naga have the OSM, which allows them to communicate their LoS/backstab efforts without bothering the rest of the raid party. I personally head a clan that I intend to use for that same purpose, although I don't plan on really putting it to use until we get houses. Its not really a -bad- idea overall, rather its just not something I would want our coders to put focus on instead of working on other, more important things.

Nizaris

Antidas said:

I'm not certain this is necessary...for one, there are already plenty of groups that already do this with clans. For example, the Naga have the OSM, which allows them to communicate their LoS/backstab efforts without bothering the rest of the raid party. I personally head a clan that I intend to use for that same purpose, although I don't plan on really putting it to use until we get houses. Its not really a -bad- idea overall, rather its just not something I would want our coders to put focus on instead of working on other, more important things.

@Antidas: Thanks for replying.

I agree that it's not as important as, say, class balance and the present class leads. Since at the very least, it would require integration with the present party system to implement (if not, require a complete overhaul of the party system to implement the party leader/chain of command side topics), I do suspect that it would take significant coder time. I believe that is a good investment, however, as most combat in Achaea is now centered around group combat. Since this is a text game, being able to easily organize and delegate combat efforts sounds like a good way to provide overall improvement to that experience.

I am also in agreement that clans can be used to manage this sort of thing, but clans lack the ad hoc nature of this idea: when you need it, you create it. When you no longer need it, you leave it, and it is destroyed. Clans aren't as flexible.

Santar

So you want upgraded party functions, and the ability to be in more than one party at a time. Ok. That's not a terrible idea.

Sarapis

Cool but so far down any priority list as to be effectively a non-priority.

Nizaris

Side topic idea

In regards to chain of command, this is what I envision. The first person to perform party invites is automatically the party leader. The party leader may then:

PARTY LEAD SET <person> to appoint a new leader.

A party leader speaks in this manner on the party channel:

(Party Lead): Person0 says, "message."

To set a chain of command, a party leader may also do:

PARTY COC SET PERSON1 PERSON2 PERSON3

When the party leader dies, the system goes down the chain of command until it finds the first leader who is alive. When the leader (Person0) comes back to life, the lead reverts back to them. (Repeat: if PERSON3 is presently leading, and PERSON1 or PERSON2 come back to life, PERSON3 continues to lead until PERSON0 finishes embracing or is rezz'd.). This is so that things don't get really hectic with far too many leader changes.

Fireteam leads would work like this:

FT LEAD SET <person>

FT COC SET PERSON1 PERSON2 PERSON3

And, of course, an FT lead would talk like this:

(FT Lead): Person says, "message."

Jonners

Antidas said:

I'm not certain this is necessary...for one, there are already plenty of groups that already do this with clans. For example, the Naga have the OSM, which allows them to communicate their LoS/backstab efforts without bothering the rest of the raid party. I personally head a clan that I intend to use for that same purpose, although I don't plan on really putting it to use until we get houses. Its not really a -bad- idea overall, rather its just not something I would want our coders to put focus on instead of working on other, more important things.

Having to purchase a clan to perform this function is silly at best. I agree it might be low priority but this could actually add a lot of depth to group combat and possibly even events and world games.

Sena

It seems very overcomplicated. I think it would work a lot better (and be more widely usable) if, as Santar said, it was just the ability to be a member of multiple parties with a few additional features added to parties in general.

Sylvance

I keep reading the thread title as 'Proposal: Firearms', and thinking "Wtf..."

Xith

It is complicated. I'd opt for allowing PARTY INVITE <person> [partyname] and being in multiple parties. 

The tricky part would be talking then. You'd have to sort everyone's parties on a PARTY LIST like CLAN LIST and allow moveup movedown. PT1 Xith sniped S

For now, might as well have ranged and melee party be two different parties and have established raiders/defenders in a city-owned OOC clan for overall instruction. Possibly even give every city an extra channel called cityraid established to be OOC called (Cityraid): which uses CTR/CRT to talk.

Katzchen

Why would instructions be given on an ooc clan? That makes very little sense. In Mhaldor at least, our raid parties are always IC. Are people just 'knowing' what to do, if the instructions don't even happen IC? Can they not talk about why they're doing what they are (x told us!).

Silas

I'm pretty sure every city has a centralised defence/combat clan. Use that as the main "party" and create parties for the separate defence teams.

Wouldn't complain about being allowed to be in more than one party, but this idea just seems needlessly complex.

Xith

Katzchen said:

Why would instructions be given on an ooc clan? That makes very little sense. In Mhaldor at least, our raid parties are always IC. Are people just 'knowing' what to do, if the instructions don't even happen IC? Can they not talk about why they're doing what they are (x told us!).

Because parties are OOC by default and echoing what you've done is kinda the same.

Katzchen

Xith said:

Katzchen said:

Why would instructions be given on an ooc clan? That makes very little sense. In Mhaldor at least, our raid parties are always IC. Are people just 'knowing' what to do, if the instructions don't even happen IC? Can they not talk about why they're doing what they are (x told us!).

Because parties are OOC by default and echoing what you've done is kinda the same.

Announcing what you do is no more ooc than a trigger to do an action when something happens.

Xith

Sure, but I think most take advantage of the OOC parties rule because of the ruling that it's illegal to illusion targets to an OOC party, as illusions must be IC.

If some monk sapienced and found out your phrasing or however that works, they could change everyone's target because it's IC. Could be wrong but that was my understanding.

Jacen

The ruling on that is very quirky/weird, becase apparently its fine to force PT target calls, but not illusion them.unless the OOC ruling was because of the repeated attempts at illusioning, rather than the fact that it was illusioned.

Silas

The ruling that parties are OOC by default is silly and should be overturned. It only encourages people to metagame, and enforces an OOC sense of us and them when you think that the primary use of parties is for organising group combat.

Targ's parties have always been IC except on rare occasions where they're necessary for OOC planning and coordinating during events, and they'll remain such.

Katzchen

I use parties mostly for group combat (IC), hunting (either, depends on who's in it), observing and commenting on people's first novice exam's (mostly IC) and planning performances (OOC). I like that it can be either, but I don't know about automatically OOC. I think raid parties should be IC, you have to be getting your instructions from somewhere.

Nizaris

I disagree that my proposal is "needlessly complex", as it included only four new commands to implement it (as far as I could tell). I do like the multiple party solution, however.

That said, what is the consensus on party leaders/chain of command feature alone? Requires minimal preparation work (one command, maybe two if the desired primary leader isn't the one that created the party). Makes it very clear who is leading/calling targets, even when death occurs.

Cardan

Xith said:

Katzchen said:

Why would instructions be given on an ooc clan? That makes very little sense. In Mhaldor at least, our raid parties are always IC. Are people just 'knowing' what to do, if the instructions don't even happen IC? Can they not talk about why they're doing what they are (x told us!).

Because parties are OOC by default and echoing what you've done is kinda the same.


Eta: stupid quoting functions

Actually, parties are IC unless all party members have clearly agreed to the OOC as per HELP PARTIES.

It would seem that the simplest solution would be to allow multiple parties, I'll check the code implications when I get home and comment further

Sena

The ruling was specifically "calling targets over the party channel automatically makes the party OOC", which applies to most raid parties.

Jonners

Calling targets is about as ooc as PK Cause. They may say it's OOC but in reality it can't be. Otherwise your character wouldn't be constrained by the rules and would kill people for half-cocked reasons all the time. When I'm calling a target I am telling my group/party/whatever that I want them to target Joe. Then everyone having heard that information IC then reacts to it. How is that the slightest bit ooc? Because you use triggers to do it? Cuz triggers themselves aren't ooc either.

Cardan

Sena said:

The ruling was specifically "calling targets over the party channel automatically makes the party OOC", which applies to most raid parties.

Then the ruling should have been appealed. Parties being used for raid teams make absolutely no difference on IC/OOC. Calling raid target is (as Jonners said) most definitely IC. Talking about the mullet-sporting, inbred moron in sparkly hot pants, leopard print singlet, and ugg boots that you saw when you last visited Walmart is OOC.

Sylvance

Does that change the ruling on illusioning?

Kyrra

Illusions should always be IC

Sylvance

Kyrra said:

Illusions should always be IC

Yes, so given what Cardan's just said it should now be okay to illusion targetting into an IC party:

Xith said:

Sure, but I think most take advantage of the OOC parties rule because of the ruling that it's illegal to illusion targets to an OOC party, as illusions must be IC.

If some monk sapienced and found out your phrasing or however that works, they could change everyone's target because it's IC. Could be wrong but that was my understanding.

Asmodron

I first misread this as FIREARMS.

I was like "YES! An Idea for guns in achaea!"

Xith

Yeah now why is illusioning target calls illegal if the illusion is mimicking an IC party?

Tvistor

I was sincerely hoping the Automatic Rifleman class was being released.

I'm pretty eager to get my lands on a level 3 M249 LMG.

Also, Xith, it is not illegal, the previous ruling was just pretty stupid.

Suddenly slightly embarrassed because I'm in the faction that was auto-targeting. Ugh, my self-esteem.

Kyrra

You could fix that @Tvistor by coming North