Forencith Goblin Squad Member |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just tossing out an idea for consideration, the ability to "nest" parties. The idea is intended to address the desire for larger non-persistent groups.
To clarify how this would work, parties can be composed of 1 party leader and 5 members which can in turn be either parties or individuals. If a party leader invites the leader of another party, the whole party gets appended under that party leader.
Dynamically, flags would get inherited down, but not up.
Bringslite Goblin Squad Member |
Just tossing out an idea for consideration, the ability to "nest" parties. The idea is intended to address the desire for larger non-persistent groups.
To clarify how this would work, parties can be composed of 1 party leader and 5 members which can in turn be either parties or individuals. If a party leader invites the leader of another party, the whole party gets appended under that party leader.
Dynamically, flags would get inherited down, but not up.
There are precedents in other games similar to your idea here. It is late (kinda tired), but I am wondering how the flag part would work...?
The top "party" must make the move and those below inherit the "state" and the options/consequences of that "state"?
Am I reading your idea right?
BrotherZael Goblin Squad Member |
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Jascolich Goblin Squad Member |
Interesting concept, how would this be represented in-game as there would potentially need to be stacks of screen real estate to manage and visualise the depth + complexity?
What would the benefits be? (wider raid-like groups or some such)
- in-game communications could potentially be super confusing
Also wondering about flags... if the top-level group smacked down an innocent, that could have serious negative impacts on the nested parties.
I'd like to see where this goes...
Forencith Goblin Squad Member |
The top "party" must make the move and those below inherit the "state" and the options/consequences of that "state"?Am I reading your idea right?
Exactly. Inherited down, whereas a leaf level party (with no nested parties) it only responsible for itself.
Also wondering about flags... if the top-level group smacked down an innocent, that could have serious negative impacts on the nested parties.
Exactly, as above.
What would the benefits be? (wider raid-like groups or some such)
- in-game communications could potentially be super confusing
Well, currently there has been no "raid-type" group announced. As far as I have seen, the largest non-persistent social group is the "party of 6". As for communication, I would suggest the following communication channels:
Raid (or I like someone else's idea for a Band)
Party (which is the Party you are currently part but not leader of..."party up" in the hierarchy)
Party Leader (which is the Party you are the leader of..."party down" in the hierarchy)
So actually, the only people who would have more than Party and Band are the few members who are heading a nested party.
Jascolich Goblin Squad Member |
Forencith Goblin Squad Member |
DeciusBrutus Goblinworks Executive Founder |
Forencith Goblin Squad Member |
Top leader would only see their party, including themselves and 5 other members who each may or may not be the leaders of their own parties.
Typical use case:
Party of 6: Standard party dynamics. Everyone can see their team mates.
Party of 11: Leader can see their team of 6, one of those 6 (say member 3) is a team leader of 5. Those 5 are invisible to the top level team, but are visible to each other. I would suggest member 3 is either locked into the team he/she captains, or has a toggle. Any effect (such as flag) on the top party in inherited by the lower, an effect on the lower does not necessarily affect the top.
Cool feature, a group can have some measure of control on the effects of their party utilizing interesting data structures (read trees, graphs, linked list, circular linked lists...etc.). Then consider how effects are inherited.
DeciusBrutus Goblinworks Executive Founder |
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
Might be a bit wonky for a group to come up and attack one of these big Bands, and have only 1/4, 1/2, or the entire Band become active in the combat based on who you attack first. (though that would likely make little to no difference in game, as those who aren't automatically made active could easily join in, as long as I understand hostility correctly)
Being Goblin Squad Member |
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
EVE Fleets are composed thusly:
A squadron consists of 10 ships, one of which is the squad leader. A wing can consist of up to 5 squadrons, led by a separate wing commander. A fleet can consist of up to 5 wings, led by a separate fleet commander. Most of the structure has to do with passing down bonuses. Everyone in the fleet is considered in a single "party."
Kios |
It sounds like if you attacked the smallest group, one of its members would also be a team leader that is in a larger group. As he is being attacked and in both groups, both groups would be considered as being attacked. And this could lead all the way up to the main group and then down to all the smaller groups again if organized properly.
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
It sounds like if you attacked the smallest group, one of its members would also be a team leader that is in a larger group. As he is being attacked and in both groups, both groups would be considered as being attacked. And this could lead all the way up to the main group and then down to all the smaller groups again if organized properly.
That's just the thing, he specifically said that the hostility wouldn't transfer up. So if you attack any of the 5 people in the small group who aren't the leader, the big group doesn't get attacked.
Bluddwolf Goblin Squad Member |
Banesama Goblin Squad Member |
I like the "Nesting" idea Forencith is suggesting. When I asked about party size in another thread, my main focus was on PVE stuff like dungeon exploration.
However, when it comes to raiding outpost or banditry, 6 players won't always be enough. I can see bandits getting as many members together to 'blockade' a road. However, if they become too big, lets say 35+ for just one 'blockade' I can see the nearest Settlement or a Settlement interested in protecting their merchants to send a military squad to squash the bandits.
Forencith Goblin Squad Member |
Good points all, that's why I wanted to discuss it. I think it makes an interesting dynamic.
If a "band" of 11 wanted to get universal inheritance, they just need to link the tails of the parties.
For instance:
Party of 11 (variant #2): like the original, but insure the top level leader is also a member of the lowest level party. This creates a circular structure (assuming no branches) and exhaustive inheritance.
Bringslite Goblin Squad Member |
Lam Goblin Squad Member |
Bringslite Goblin Squad Member |
There are a few more people sitting down here than at a TT game. If the magic number for party size is "six" for reasons of UI clutter and other factors, that is fine. There may be reasons that larger numbers may be desired to group and be linked, other than and until regular warfare battles (formations).
Drakhan Valane Goblin Squad Member |
Bluddwolf Goblin Squad Member |
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
Why not just have it that when one member of an association sees a hostile act against another member of that same association, he too sees the attacker as hostile.
If you attack my brother, you have attacked me. Company affiliation should be automatically linked when it comes to hostility.
This is talking about the specific case of parties, not companies. So assume every person in the party is from a different company.
Lam Goblin Squad Member |
I hear that @Bringslite has had GM who could only handle 4-6 players. I have seen that in the last decade. I had one Gw who was good for 6 players. In the previous century I had 3 GM who were each good for games of over 10 players. These were more mature GM (though most were younger than myself.]
So this is aimed at the LOWEST common denominator. Lower expectations. Like the D&D 4.X GMs and their pseudo war games.
SO?
Can two groups (of 5 or 6) work together?
Bringslite Goblin Squad Member |
I hear that @Bringslite has had GM who could only handle 4-6 players. I have seen that in the last decade. I had one Gw who was good for 6 players. In the previous century I had 3 GM who were each good for games of over 10 players. These were more mature GM (though most were younger than myself.]
So this is aimed at the LOWEST common denominator. Lower expectations. Like the D&D 4.X GMs and their pseudo war games.
SO?
Can two groups (of 5 or 6) work together?
@ Lam
I think that they are looking into it. I hope that they find out that it is a yes. Obviously we can work out ways to do it ourselves. It would just ne nice if we could have some mechanics.
There have been times that I have DMed for as little as one player and as many as 14. My personal favorite is 4. More chance for roleplay and story development. This has little to do with TT numbers, so I am not quite sure that I understand what your point is or what you are asking... :)
BrotherZael Goblin Squad Member |
DeciusBrutus Goblinworks Executive Founder |
Nihimon Goblin Squad Member |
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
DeciusBrutus Goblinworks Executive Founder |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DeciusBrutus wrote:Homonyms are fun, and I hate them.How do you feel about homophones?
Homophones with divergent spelling effect a smaller affect in me, but their lower rarity effects the effects that I can get while using them. Effectively, my affection for a given homonym is greater than what the individual effects of homophones and homographs would effect without synergy.
Jazzlvraz Goblin Squad Member |
Pax Shane Gifford Goblin Squad Member |
Kios |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta love a crowd that turns a topic about Nesting (probably the solution to some of the current S&D arguments) into English lessons.
But seriously, how do you see such groupings working? I like Forencith's initial idea, but I would like the flags that the initiating group sees to flow down so that the attacking party sees only the group that they attacked as hostile and the flags the victims see to flow up so that all parties that party is attached to through party leaders can see the attackers as hostile.
This way initial attackers are only aware of the small party's grouping unless their allies decide to aid them.
LordDaeron Goblin Squad Member |
The EVE-like party (fleet) concept sounds perfect to me.
Especially as it allows the leaders to give bonus from their group skill to the rest of the party (fleet, wing etc).
So if the leader(s) have learned the leadership skill he/she would grant a certain bonus for all his group. Example: if he has a skill like "army defensive strategy" he grants a bonus in defense for the entire party, if he has a skill such as "bowmen commander" the archers in the group would have an ofensive bonus, etc.
Harad Navar Goblin Squad Member |
Urman Goblin Squad Member |
But seriously, how do you see such groupings working? I like Forencith's initial idea, but I would like the flags that the initiating group sees to flow down so that the attacking party sees only the group that they attacked as hostile and the flags the victims see to flow up so that all parties that party is attached to through party leaders can see the attackers as hostile.
This way initial attackers are only aware of the small party's grouping unless their allies decide to aid them.
I don't think the size of each side needs to be a secret to anyone. There might be tactical reasons to try to keep it a secret, but there should be skills that penetrate/hide the connections. Our characters are hardened survivors; they see things that we as players don't necessarily see.
I think the nesting parties would be the basis of unit combat. Like others have said, it's somewhat like EVE's fleets.