Shartak The Official Shartak Forum
Click here to play NOW!
November 24, 2017, 11:14:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Travelling companions  (Read 5001 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
G3N
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 296



View Profile
« on: March 11, 2012, 03:36:47 PM »

Short outline of your suggestion:

The companion feature would allow characters to travel together. This would make travelling around Shartak a more social experience.


More detailed information on your suggestion:

  • A character would be able invite a player on the same square to join them as a travelling companion. That player would be able to accept or decline their invitation.
  • Players that are part of the same party would then be "attached" together.
  • Any player in that party can invite more characters to join the party provided they are on the same square and the party is within the size limit.
  • Any party member that moves, would move the whole party. Each member of the party would pay the standard movement cost as if they had moved themselves.
  • The AP cost of moving would be determined by the party member with the lowest movement skill. So a group of 4 trailblazers with 1 level 0 player would move at the cost of the level 0 player (they would slow down the group) but a group of 5 trailblazers would move at their standard 0.5 AP rate.
  • As a result, moving as a party is often a slower option of travel, unless all characters in the party have the same movement skills.
  • If a party member tries to move when one of their companions is out of AP, it would return the message "____ is too exhausted to move further!".
  • A player could choose to leave the party at any time at no extra cost.
  • There would be a limit on party size to prevent anything too ridiculous, perhaps up to five players?
  • It wouldn't change combat mechanics, individual party members can still attack and be attacked as usual.


Why it should be implemented:

Exploring and travelling about the island as a group could be a pretty fun feature.  Hunt animals together or travel to other towns etc.
At the moment, in order to travel with people you have to take turns moving and constantly catch up or even track down the other person.
Agreeing to join a party would mean anyone in the party would be able to move you which would cost you the standard movement rate. 


Possible problems:

It might be impossible to code!
Some players might not like the idea of characters travelling on the same square.
Logged

characters:

Pirate/Idiot: G3N

Cannibal: Master Teeth

Hired Killer: Kamikui

Shaman: Rill
Iceman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2171


I don't like you because you're dangerous


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2012, 09:13:12 PM »

I love it. Apart from the actual coding aspect, I can't think of any reason why this shouldn't be implemented. Granted, it effectively enables 'character sitting' whereby your character can be controlled (to your advantage) by someone else while you're away, but other games - building games, usually - have this sort of feature, and it's balanced somewhat by the fact that you can't guarantee the other player won't mess with you.

Nominated for feature voting.
Logged

Twist - boner-inducingly handsome | ClickClick - guardian of the Dalpoki | Sympathetic Phil - hard-bitten mercenary and surly drunkard |
Tkltchk - hungry, want eat | Fist McRhinopuncher - fairly self-explanatory

"Iceman?" How gay is that? | Suggestions
jaqs
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 267


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2012, 09:53:14 PM »

Apart from the actual coding aspect, I can't think of any reason why this shouldn't be implemented.

That sounds like a challenge to me...........

I like a challenge.
Logged
Simon
Shartak Developer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1343



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2012, 09:58:45 PM »

Would you be able to kick people out of the party as well? For example, if everyone was stuck on a swamp tile because someone was too exhausted to move - it might be in the rest of the party's interest to kick the tired person out and move everyone else a couple of squares away to somewhere safer (after saying where you'd be to the person who got left behind).

I'm sure there are other things to think about but I'll leave it at that for now.
Logged
Iceman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2171


I don't like you because you're dangerous


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2012, 10:06:03 PM »

Apart from the actual coding aspect, I can't think of any reason why this shouldn't be implemented.

Although I should say that if it is going to be labour-intensive for Simon and jaqs, it needs to be weighed against how many people would actively use the feature. Just because it's great doesn't necessarily mean it should be given priority over something that will be used more.
Logged

Twist - boner-inducingly handsome | ClickClick - guardian of the Dalpoki | Sympathetic Phil - hard-bitten mercenary and surly drunkard |
Tkltchk - hungry, want eat | Fist McRhinopuncher - fairly self-explanatory

"Iceman?" How gay is that? | Suggestions
Dani
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1684


drama queen in recovery.


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2012, 03:02:54 AM »

Although I should say that if it is going to be labour-intensive for Simon and jaqs, it needs to be weighed against how many people would actively use the feature. Just because it's great doesn't necessarily mean it should be given priority over something that will be used more.

I would definitely have used something like this for my short-lived Travelling Carnival. It would also make raiding parties more effective (everyone gets there on time at the same place), but it's balanced by the fact that it would be easier for defenders to scout them out and attack--there's no safety in numbers in Shartak.
Logged

Quote
Shroombaker says “Who was it that was looking for Dani al..la-ka-zam?
Witch Hazel
Full Member
***
Posts: 208


Honey, been there, done that.


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2012, 03:59:51 AM »

My first thought about this whole idea was how easy it would make it to attack. If done right if would be very effective unless you got caught. I also see it being used for traveling merchants. It does have it's pros and cons but it would be interesting to see how it works out. I would like to see it implemented.

-there's no safety in numbers in Shartak.

What!
Logged

The Great Wraith of the NG - Witch Hazel
MUCK the road clearer extraordinaire!
Dani
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1684


drama queen in recovery.


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2012, 05:55:44 AM »

What!

The more people gathered in one place, the easier it is to kill them all at once. It's why people (like myself) keep attacking Derby as opposed to less populated villages. In combat terms, and certainly for this suggestion, all defenders would need to do is find the group and then alert their clan, and they could pick them off, so rather than finding and killing the odd lone raider you could effectively destroy a warparty all at once (with help).

Probably pretty obvious, but this suggestion would also make scouts/explorers more useful, both for the party and also for recon. It would be even better if they got a skill that gave them a non-stackable party movement bonus.
Logged

Quote
Shroombaker says “Who was it that was looking for Dani al..la-ka-zam?
Witch Hazel
Full Member
***
Posts: 208


Honey, been there, done that.


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2012, 06:35:18 AM »

I knew what you meant but the statement you said is wrong. Isn't it because they were in great numbers the reason why you have never beat them?

I could see traveling together being good and bad. I would think this would be exciting to see what you could get away with or not in the case you were caught. In one of these threads I read about some traveling elephant that merchants could get on and it would go from camp to camp. I don't remember the details but it's here somewhere. This sounds somewhat the same.
Logged

The Great Wraith of the NG - Witch Hazel
MUCK the road clearer extraordinaire!
andrewbuff
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 569



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2012, 06:48:13 AM »

all this talk makes me think about guerrilla attacks like the revolutionary war, or vietnam, which is totally awesome. large groups of folks traveling on one of the main roads would be prime opportunity for bandits and highway men! give me your gold, or die!
Logged

woodrow guthrie: a derby folk singer. out to map the entire island and bag some exotic game.
fluffhead: a york fellow who is helping operate the derby training facility. are you dtf?
Dani
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1684


drama queen in recovery.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2012, 07:08:44 AM »

I knew what you meant but the statement you said is wrong. Isn't it because they were in great numbers the reason why you have never beat them?

Not really. It doesn't matter if there are a lot of them--most of the great massacres in the last few years were committed by just one guy (with a lot of ap). What matters is how well-prepared they are, how quickly they can mobilize, clan communication, etc. You can defend any village with less than six guys, so long as they all know what they're doing. And that's largely the case with Derby; they have a lot of people but only a small percentage defend it, because the rest don't need to.
Logged

Quote
Shroombaker says “Who was it that was looking for Dani al..la-ka-zam?
Zeek
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 585



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2012, 07:35:19 AM »

the flip side is that keeping people in one spot means any killing will be witnessed, and there will be multiple people to track the killer.

if this were implemented, i'd be concerned about individual members pulling the group off course or getting them lost, either deliberately or not. maybe it would be a good idea to designate a 'driver' to keep that from happening.
Logged
Dani
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1684


drama queen in recovery.


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2012, 08:00:30 AM »

If this were implemented alongside a 'driver' addition, it wouldn't be that difficult to pull off raan'duls slavery idea.
Logged

Quote
Shroombaker says “Who was it that was looking for Dani al..la-ka-zam?
G3N
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 296



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2012, 09:18:51 AM »

Would you be able to kick people out of the party as well? For example, if everyone was stuck on a swamp tile because someone was too exhausted to move - it might be in the rest of the party's interest to kick the tired person out and move everyone else a couple of squares away to somewhere safer (after saying where you'd be to the person who got left behind)

I didn't think of that! Rather than the ability to kick other members out (which might get too complicated) how about this:

When one of the party members has 0 AP left, a warning is issued to the rest of the group saying that "____ is exhausted and can't continue!" moving the party again would automatically leave behind the player with 0 AP. Would this be easier than having a "kick out" button?


if this were implemented, i'd be concerned about individual members pulling the group off course or getting them lost, either deliberately or not. maybe it would be a good idea to designate a 'driver' to keep that from happening.

Not too sure about groups having to designate a "driver".
After all, if a player doesn't trust the other characters ability to navigate they can choose to leave the party at any time. Also I rather like the idea of a group of people travelling together, only to get lost in the jungle - an perfect opportunity for arguments about who was reading the map correctly and the old "you said this was a shortcut!". I suppose the idea is that a certain element of trust is needed fo people to form a group together. Essentially your concern is correct - an individual member of a group of five could suddenly lead the party into deep water as far from land as possible - but the result of this is that the other members wouldn't want to form a group with that person again. Unless it was some kind of high risk synchronised swimming group (CLAN IDEA RIGHT THERE).
Logged

characters:

Pirate/Idiot: G3N

Cannibal: Master Teeth

Hired Killer: Kamikui

Shaman: Rill
Milkchew
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1154


Who said that?


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2012, 12:18:26 PM »

Safety in numbers, I like it

/Looks at Dani  Grin
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!