Ally Party

Cardan

Antidas said:

Cardan said:

Currently gems/chameleons are respected by PARTYWHO as parties are by and large, treated as IC. 

I know this is way off topic, so there's no need to respond...but I feel obliged to point out that there was a ruling a while back about how illusioning an ally calling targets on PT was against the rules because parties are OOC in nature. Just had to say it

Don't know who gave that ruling, but from the top of HELP PARTIES:

HELP PARTIES said:

Parties are informal groups for communication. Anybody can form a party or join
an existing one. Language rules and IC rules apply on party channels(*).
Immortals can hear them.

* An exception for parties is made, similar to clans: a party may be ooc if
every single party member clearly agrees that the party is ooc.

Tvistor

@Cardan The ruling was put out some time ago because Shallam got caught auto-targeting, and complained when an illusion was used that hilariously made them start executing each other.

The rulings here appear to be contradictory. If they are planning IC actions on a party, that should make the party IC by default.

Eld

Cardan said:

Currently gems/chameleons are respected by PARTYWHO as parties are by and large, treated as IC. If this is approved, then such a command would respect gems in the same manner so that there is no functional benefit from using either this command or a triggered PARTYWHO to build your player list from (other than this being a single command). 

Now for the technical questions - 

Should it append to the ally list or replace it? If the former and there isn't enough slots left, should it error at the start or just ally as many as it can?

Appending, and erroring out at the start if there aren't enough slots, seems like the most sensible route to me.

Sena

Antidas said:

I know this is way off topic, so there's no need to respond...but I feel obliged to point out that there was a ruling a while back about how illusioning an ally calling targets on PT was against the rules because parties are OOC in nature. Just had to say it

More specifically, the ruling was "using a party to call targets automatically makes the party OOC", not "all parties are OOC".

Cardan said:

Should it append to the ally list or replace it? If the former and there isn't enough slots left, should it error at the start or just ally as many as it can?

I think appending is better, if there are enough free slots. You can just UNALLY ALL;ALLY PARTY if you don't want to keep your old allies.

Xith

I guess if they're equally easy to implement, either append or replace is fine. The reason I have to use like 8+ ally slots is as a jester for friendly puppets. Have no other use for allies besides shops I operate and friendly door perms.

But a bard doesn't have allied puppets to worry about using so I can't see the harm in making them remove their whole list to sync visible party allies. But then again the chances of a surplus of non-gemmed people in a party being greater than their available 20 ally slots depends on their allying habits. 

I guess append is probably best but I'm thinking 'error at the start' so people know they need to remove some to be as effective as possible. If they get an error after they'll just have to unally anyway.

Way overthought whatever I just said.

@Cardan And what of ENEMIES TRANSFER?

Sena

Thinking more about what to do if there aren't enough slots, I think it should just ally as many party members as it can, and then tell you that there aren't enough slots for everyone (and maybe tell you how many were left unallied).

There are a lot of reasons you'd want to keep certain old allies, so automatically replacing them could potentially be problematic, and just not allying anyone if there's not room for everyone would often make the command pointless. There's also the situation where you have more than 20 (or however many slots you have) party members, so you can never ally all of them.

Xith

Yeah I guess if the party's too big. Big if but yeah. Then they'd still have to unally and ally who they want.

Seftin

For a moment i thought this would be an ability to merge parties. That would be cool, if you have two defence parties you could do party merge (party leader name) on topic party ally sounds useful

Xith

This thread is increasingly more deserving of the title "Pimp My Party".