kingdom/party guilds

busyrobot · #1 01-15-2004, 04:12 PM

Why was the party system changed in this way to auto party when on tag?

Many people like to party with people in other kingdoms, but can't know.

We had the ability to party with kingdom members, or with just others or with a combo before, now, there is less functionality, not more.

Why?

Satrek2000 · #2 01-15-2004, 04:40 PM

Good question. All it does is get people to take their tag off, and while the old partysystem has been used frequently, forced partying will only make things worse...

graaliholic · #3 01-16-2004, 07:43 AM

Look at it this way: If things didn't get progressively worse on GK, it wouldn't be GK now, would it? GK has been going downhill almost since the moment it was started, so it's kinda expected.

Admins · #4 01-19-2004, 06:06 PM

That's not right x-x I haven't got reports about the new partying thing, if its good or bad so right now I don't know why I should switch to the old system. The old thing was too complicated, sharing exp in a guild should not be a problem. At least I have not got any complain about losing exp to friends. The other players need to have the same guild tag and be close to you, so there is no danger when doing treasure maps or dungeons when you are alone or only playing with friends.

Monkeyboy_McGee · #5 01-19-2004, 06:59 PM

I think the new system is lame; some of us who aren't in guilds can't party anymore, and even if you were in a guild, the person that's a close level to you that you want to party with might be in a different guild

Satrek2000 · #6 01-19-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefan
That's not right x-x I haven't got reports about the new partying thing, if its good or bad so right now I don't know why I should switch to the old system. The old thing was too complicated, sharing exp in a guild should not be a problem. At least I have not got any complain about losing exp to friends. The other players need to have the same guild tag and be close to you, so there is no danger when doing treasure maps or dungeons when you are alone or only playing with friends.

Stefan, some friends and I regularly used the old system, and it was quite easy - someone forms a party, the others join, that's it. I know some who got exp from others without asking, or being asked respectively. Imagine someone prays at an altar, while another kingdom member is close and hunting lords. They will share, whether they want it or not, unless one of them takes their tag off - to the effect that there are less members on tag, which I think is a bad thing for kingdoms.
The point is that you have no choise - either you share, or you take your tag off. The previous system didn't require that choice, and, more important, people could share across the boundaries of kingdoms, if they wanted.
Personally, I think the old system worked okay...

graaliholic · #7 01-20-2004, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefan
That's not right x-x I haven't got reports about the new partying thing, if its good or bad so right now I don't know why I should switch to the old system. The old thing was too complicated, sharing exp in a guild should not be a problem. At least I have not got any complain about losing exp to friends. The other players need to have the same guild tag and be close to you, so there is no danger when doing treasure maps or dungeons when you are alone or only playing with friends.

As far as I could tell (concerning the old system), you would only share exp if you were on the same map as well. Also you could set the password to anything (since on CF, a popup would appear where you could type the password, on graal there isnt one so it keeps everyone out), so all one would have to do (assuming they want to log their exp), make their party, join, lock, and make sure nobody is in it. Since there was no limit ont he amount of parties one could make, you could just abandon your old party to make a new one, should you want someone to join you. Now, with the new system, I can't party with anyone, as I choose to be a wanderer with no kingdom, and I'm not willing to pay for a VIP account to make a guild so I can party. :o

Admins · #8 01-21-2004, 05:19 PM

So does anyone like the new stuff with guild tag exp sharing?

Borgie · #9 01-21-2004, 07:34 PM

uhm... no?
especially when your map-mate is in another kingdom :grrr:

Satrek2000 · #10 01-21-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefan
So does anyone like the new stuff with guild tag exp sharing?

The older system allowed players to share their exp with who they wanted, no matter what kingdom they were in. It also allowed them to remain on tag. I vote for the old one... and I personally know two others who agree with me.

GoZelda · #11 01-21-2004, 09:29 PM

Old one for live Stefan.

Now he's watching this thread:

Forts.

Monkeyboy_McGee · #12 01-22-2004, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefan
So does anyone like the new stuff with guild tag exp sharing?

Not really, i personally want the old one back. Sorry :'(

Quote:

Originally posted by GoZelda

Now he's watching this thread:

Forts.

Just had to...

Note stuck on by a blob of glue: Forts! Like the one that samurai has off their western coast! It's just a small building surrounded by a square wall structure on a little island (you could have ones on mainland too of course). All you gotta do is give us the ability to plonk three or four of these down on our kingdoms and put a lil' flag on top that regulates what kingdom owns it and Boom !

graaliholic · #13 01-22-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefan
So does anyone like the new stuff with guild tag exp sharing?

Maybe go with the old system, but when you join a party you get the parties name as a guild tag. Would be really good, except that people would create really stupid names. Maybe give it a harsh punishment for rude names (like banning), maybe just lose the ability to party if it's a dumb name (like aaa, askjhfas, etc.), harsh punishments would keep people from trying to bend the rules :P, and since parties log the creatore for a day after it's been emptied, they couldn't get away with it. Anyway, this way you could use 'toguild:' instead of /party say to message your party.

Satrek2000 · #14 01-22-2004, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by graaliholic
Maybe go with the old system, but when you join a party you get the parties name as a guild tag.

I don't think that this would really be an improvement. Apart from the possible abuse you mentioned, I wouldn't want everyone to see who I am partying with and when. Also, people would use that instead of guilds, and it's not for no reason that guilds need approving. Also, you still wouldn't be able to remain on your kingdom tag.

graaliholic · #15 01-22-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satrek2000

I don't think that this would really be an improvement. Apart from the possible abuse you mentioned, I wouldn't want everyone to see who I am partying with and when. Also, people would use that instead of guilds, and it's not for no reason that guilds need approving. Also, you still wouldn't be able to remain on your kingdom tag.

Then maybe just add two commands for parties, '/partytag on/off', usable by only the creator of the party. True, people would use them instead of real guilds also, but it only takes a few minutes to get in and doesn't last forever, so people would always go back to their regular tags eventually. The tags would mostly be used for communication between groups of friends (like your own private place to talk for the time), and possibly/maybe used by some for RPing.

Damix2 · #16 01-22-2004, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satrek2000

I don't think that this would really be an improvement. Apart from the possible abuse you mentioned, I wouldn't want everyone to see who I am partying with and when. Also, people would use that instead of guilds, and it's not for no reason that guilds need approving. Also, you still wouldn't be able to remain on your kingdom tag.

You could prevent abuse by making all the party names a number. Maybe have 100 parties and you adn those you party with just have to look untill they find an empty one.

Satrek2000 · #17 01-22-2004, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Damix2

You could prevent abuse by making all the party names a number. Maybe have 100 parties and you adn those you party with just have to look untill they find an empty one.

Then why bother making tags for them at all? Party names don't hurt, it's the idea of making them into tags that complicates matters.

Damix2 · #18 01-22-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satrek2000

Then why bother making tags for them at all? Party names don't hurt, it's the idea of making them into tags that complicates matters.

I don't know, I was telling people that there are ways around people abusing it.

Satrek2000 · #19 01-22-2004, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Damix2

I don't know, I was telling people that there are ways around people abusing it.

There always are, but what I mean was mainly that I think the old system worked find. Making the party-name into a guild-like tag will not only result in abuse, but also defy the guild-verification system - and the problem of not being able to be on a kingdom's tag is still untouched. And numbers as guildlike tags wouldn't look too rpish, anyway

Ziro_Vitrudestec · #20 01-27-2004, 06:39 AM

I only saw one problem with the old party system and I'm not even sure if it was just me or everyone else had it also: password. I could not put a password on the party and get it working to join with it. If I saw a group of people who were obviously helping eachother, and there was no way to get a working password system for their party, I could easily use the command to list all the parties, try a bunch of them and say "/party who" each time to find them, and then just idle while in their party to steal exp. It seems very unlikely, but passwording a party makes things nice...like for sending "party messages" like "/ksays" if that doesn't exist already....

Satrek2000 · #21 01-27-2004, 08:29 AM

Personally, I've never tried to set a password, never needed to - hence I don't know whether it would work. But it worked fine without, and I guess it can be fixed if necessary.

Monkeyboy_McGee · #22 01-27-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziro_Vitrudestec
I only saw one problem with the old party system......

that can be solved -easily- though, all you have to do is remove the command that gives a list of all the parties =X

evilsanta8889 · #23 01-29-2004, 03:48 AM

personally i think you should go with the old partying methode wih 1 smple change... that is to give the person who made the party the power to kick members... i odnt see a problem in that .. do you?

Monkeyboy_McGee · #24 01-29-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by evilsanta8889
personally i think you should go with the old partying methode wih 1 smple change... that is to give the person who made the party the power to kick members... i odnt see a problem in that .. do you?

No, sounds good.

LordZen · #25 01-29-2004, 09:04 PM

Um. I believe the way to set the password was to have a space after the party name while your forming it and have the password written there, and then you would have to join the party using the password yourself (I think).

Like, if the command was /party form (cant remember), then you'd do:

/party form superteam 39dkfh

and then do

/party join superteam 39dkfh

I think...