Forums » Suggestions
Increase group size limit
I know this has been suggested before (
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24444?page=3
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/17743
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10306
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24444
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/21963 )
But I'm suggesting it again. If team wars / nation wars are going to be be a regular thing again, and they keep getting popular, then we need larger group sizes. Eight players to a group is too small in my opinion.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24444?page=3
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/17743
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10306
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/24444
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/21963 )
But I'm suggesting it again. If team wars / nation wars are going to be be a regular thing again, and they keep getting popular, then we need larger group sizes. Eight players to a group is too small in my opinion.
Eight players to a group is too small in my opinion.
Yes, and the biggest reason for this is situational awareness in combat, namely:
-Location of team members
-Health of team members
Combat is VO's strong suit -- prioritizing things that enhance large group pvp would be very effective at improving player retention.
Capping groups at 8 members stifles our ability to assemble and participate in a "massively multiplayer" combat situation.
Yes, and the biggest reason for this is situational awareness in combat, namely:
-Location of team members
-Health of team members
Combat is VO's strong suit -- prioritizing things that enhance large group pvp would be very effective at improving player retention.
Capping groups at 8 members stifles our ability to assemble and participate in a "massively multiplayer" combat situation.
It is easier to advocate for location and health awareness, than it is to lobby explicitly for increased group sizes. There are things that hinge on group size, currently (like voice chat), that probably have little bearing on what you're trying to accomplish.
Also, you would need to mitigate expectations on how polished the result would be. The UI basically starts to break over 8 people, with lots of overlapping data on some of our supported HUD resolution/font/aspect configurations. We just don't have time to screw around with all of that right now. But, we could just.. let it be ugly and broken.
Anyway, I'll see what I can do for larger groups, or other mechanics for awareness, or both.
Also, you would need to mitigate expectations on how polished the result would be. The UI basically starts to break over 8 people, with lots of overlapping data on some of our supported HUD resolution/font/aspect configurations. We just don't have time to screw around with all of that right now. But, we could just.. let it be ugly and broken.
Anyway, I'll see what I can do for larger groups, or other mechanics for awareness, or both.
Squadrons.
Squadrons would be groups of groups. Someone who wishes to be form a squadron needs to be a current group leader. They would then invite other groups' leaders to incorporate them. A squadron chat channel would be available for squadron-wide communication; group chat should not be eliminated when a squadron is formed. The group leader that performs the initial invites becomes the squadron commander. The commander can promote other players, regardless of their position in a group, to act as Lieutenants with the same abilities as the commander, except for those of promotion. The commander may promote someone else to be the commander, which will result in the previous commander being demoted. If the commander leaves the squadron without first appointing a new commander, then a new commander will be selected arbitrarily.
Commanders can:
* invite groups to the squadron.
* move players between groups
* kick players from a group
All members of a squadron can see who is in the different groups of a squadron.
/squadron invite [group leader's name]
/squadron list -- list groups in the squadron, the commander's initial group is group #1
/squadron move [player] [to group #]
/squadron kick [player]
/squadron promote [commander|lieutenant] [player] -- Commander only
/squadron demote [player] -- Commander only
/squadron leave -- Group leader only
Lua API wishlist:
* functions to support the above commands
* functions to return the health and location of squadron members
EDIT: added a few more details as inspired by later posts.
Squadrons would be groups of groups. Someone who wishes to be form a squadron needs to be a current group leader. They would then invite other groups' leaders to incorporate them. A squadron chat channel would be available for squadron-wide communication; group chat should not be eliminated when a squadron is formed. The group leader that performs the initial invites becomes the squadron commander. The commander can promote other players, regardless of their position in a group, to act as Lieutenants with the same abilities as the commander, except for those of promotion. The commander may promote someone else to be the commander, which will result in the previous commander being demoted. If the commander leaves the squadron without first appointing a new commander, then a new commander will be selected arbitrarily.
Commanders can:
* invite groups to the squadron.
* move players between groups
* kick players from a group
All members of a squadron can see who is in the different groups of a squadron.
/squadron invite [group leader's name]
/squadron list -- list groups in the squadron, the commander's initial group is group #1
/squadron move [player] [to group #]
/squadron kick [player]
/squadron promote [commander|lieutenant] [player] -- Commander only
/squadron demote [player] -- Commander only
/squadron leave -- Group leader only
Lua API wishlist:
* functions to support the above commands
* functions to return the health and location of squadron members
EDIT: added a few more details as inspired by later posts.
+1 to the squadron idea. I think the health thing doesn't need to be squadron wide, if the groups are retained then the health reporting can just stay in group. Should this be implemented I'm sure it will get a good bit of use.
I'd think that an additional command /squadron kick [group #] would be desired in the case where a squadron wants to split up but still keep the group intact. Plus, having to individually kick every member of a group when kicking the entire group is desired would be a pain.
Similarly, a /squadron leave command might be useful for group leaders.
Would there only ever be one squadron commander? i.e. /squadron promote commander [player] promotes [player] and demotes the commander who entered the command. And if the commander were to logoff without first promoting someone else, then there'd have to be measures to automatically select a new commander somehow (same with group leaders).
I'd expect that trying to display the health of all squadron members on the HUD would get to be too unwieldy, but showing it in a PDA tab could work (perhaps with sector locations too).
I'm assuming that when you say Lua function to return the location of squadron members, you mean return the sector of squadron members. If that's the case, that would already be necessary by design in order to implement squadron chat (assuming the squadron chat would show sector locations of the player chatting like for group chat).
Similarly, a /squadron leave command might be useful for group leaders.
Would there only ever be one squadron commander? i.e. /squadron promote commander [player] promotes [player] and demotes the commander who entered the command. And if the commander were to logoff without first promoting someone else, then there'd have to be measures to automatically select a new commander somehow (same with group leaders).
I'd expect that trying to display the health of all squadron members on the HUD would get to be too unwieldy, but showing it in a PDA tab could work (perhaps with sector locations too).
I'm assuming that when you say Lua function to return the location of squadron members, you mean return the sector of squadron members. If that's the case, that would already be necessary by design in order to implement squadron chat (assuming the squadron chat would show sector locations of the player chatting like for group chat).
Nonsense, Viking. Health information is crucial.
Also, I think we should avoid terms of rank here -- especially if they are the same as guild ranks. Better to use "owner" or "leader".
Also, I think we should avoid terms of rank here -- especially if they are the same as guild ranks. Better to use "owner" or "leader".
+1 for squadrons!
I'd like for all the group members of the same squadron to all appear as white dots on radar or better yet maybe a color not yet used on radar.
I'd like for all the group members of the same squadron to all appear as white dots on radar or better yet maybe a color not yet used on radar.
The Lua functions added as part of this should be enough that anyone can make a management UI or add their own HUD details until something official can be added. Afterall, it's the UI that often requires the most development time. Especially with IUP in its current form.
I'm not sure that distinguishing other group leaders on the radar would be the best thing to do. Perhaps a better solution would be to add a command that allows a player in a squadron or group to flash their current position on the radar if they need assistance or to help get people together (normal radar limits allowing). This would probably need to be done in a manner similar to how a beacon would operate if they were in game, though owned by the player node and vanishes after a short period or if the player leaves the sector. Though this shouldn't be required as part of the squadron implementation.
The simpler and more unencumbered the implementation, the easier it will be to expand on in the future.
I'm not sure that distinguishing other group leaders on the radar would be the best thing to do. Perhaps a better solution would be to add a command that allows a player in a squadron or group to flash their current position on the radar if they need assistance or to help get people together (normal radar limits allowing). This would probably need to be done in a manner similar to how a beacon would operate if they were in game, though owned by the player node and vanishes after a short period or if the player leaves the sector. Though this shouldn't be required as part of the squadron implementation.
The simpler and more unencumbered the implementation, the easier it will be to expand on in the future.
Yup, I'm all for a hierarchical solution. That was my goal as well, with flight squads vs combat wings, to serve much the same purpose. It also minimizes the voice chat issues, as the top of the pyramid might be able to optionally broadcast to everyone, but no one else would be able to inundate all the groups.
The simpler the solution in the near term, and the simpler it is to actually implement, the easier it is for me to schedule the time to do it.
The simpler the solution in the near term, and the simpler it is to actually implement, the easier it is for me to schedule the time to do it.
"But, we could just.. let it be ugly and broken."
Exactly! I don't care if it's going to be ugly and cumbersome and have no voice chat. That would still more than we have right now. Support for both tiny pretty groups and big ugly cumbersome groups is superior to support for only tiny pretty groups. People who don't like the large groups can just not use the large groups.
And would hierarchical groups be nicer? Sure. But how much longer would that take to even get around to doing, let alone completing? A house is nicer than a cheap apartment, but that doesn't mean the logical thing to do is to go live on the streets until you can afford a house. If we could have big ugly groups significantly more quickly than hierarchical groups, then go for it. It would make the next several years while we continue waiting on hierarchical groups more pleasant.
Exactly! I don't care if it's going to be ugly and cumbersome and have no voice chat. That would still more than we have right now. Support for both tiny pretty groups and big ugly cumbersome groups is superior to support for only tiny pretty groups. People who don't like the large groups can just not use the large groups.
And would hierarchical groups be nicer? Sure. But how much longer would that take to even get around to doing, let alone completing? A house is nicer than a cheap apartment, but that doesn't mean the logical thing to do is to go live on the streets until you can afford a house. If we could have big ugly groups significantly more quickly than hierarchical groups, then go for it. It would make the next several years while we continue waiting on hierarchical groups more pleasant.
yeah screw voice chat if it's holding us back from better self-assembling...
Even if you increased the group limit, but still restrict the HUD display to 8 would solve most of the issues. A person could go to the Group screen if they want to see everyone, but on the radar etc, the white dots would be a help in Nation Wars etc.
Possibly sort the group list on the HUD by the first 8 members closest to you...
EDIT: Voice Chat... still leaks, so I'm not sure we should worry about it much. TGFT uses Mumble, and it works through VO perfectly. Even the assigned PTT key works.
Possibly sort the group list on the HUD by the first 8 members closest to you...
EDIT: Voice Chat... still leaks, so I'm not sure we should worry about it much. TGFT uses Mumble, and it works through VO perfectly. Even the assigned PTT key works.
Lisa can you explain a little more how you guys use Mumble to get around the leaking voice chat ???
They have their own mumble server hosted so they can connect when they play. They then use that as an alternative to the ingame-VC. Which is what I do as well, I use Mumble on a server, and it's a LOT of fun just having VC that consistently works.
I can only imagine, being part of the measly VO plebeian class.
Though, I do foresee a mumble server setup in my future.
Though, I do foresee a mumble server setup in my future.