Grouping (womhole suggestion)

[Knight05]

Would it be possible to add a feature wether toggable or automatic to stay grouped after wormholing? For those of us who run terminal jobs with our own je and multibox etc? I know you don't support multi boxing and thats not the reason you do it but even for raids or a variety of other functions i could see how remaining in formation after a wormhole could be useful/beneficial. Unless there is a specific reason you didn't make that possible upon release to begin with and if so could you tell me why please just out of curiosity?

 

Otherwise would staying in formation after a wormhole be an option? Its such a minor thing but can be annoying and/or tedious over a long term period and I think almost everyone would be happy with this change but I don't speak for everyone so maybe others can chime in on like/dislike.

[rhobix]

I wouldn't mind a change like this. I think it would be difficult to implement though, since not all members of a group are wormholed at the same time due to the confirm popup. The devs may need to add a toggle do disable the confirm popup when in formation that would have to be activated by players to stay in formation after traveling through a wormhole. The JE opening the wormhole could be the exception, just to avoid wormholing the whole group by mistake.

[GenghisBob]

The confirmation popup is likely to cause a problem.  First, any of the grouped players may reject the wormhole, this would change the group order. Or they may only delay acceptance for some reason. How do you put them back?  What if they never answer (afk, ctd, ect).

 

Second, you only need be within range (not grouped) to accept a wormhole.  Some may be grouped, some not.

 

Also, the JE quite often does not accept the wormhole.  I often send other player somewhere without going myself.

 

There may also be technical reasons, but it seems to be the same mechanics as gating .

[Knight05]

Couldnt it be as simple as adding a toggle box like loot ffa allowing you to ask players permission to disable the pop up confirm for wh's and wh them at will etc. They would get a one time pop up box asking permission to let the group leader have full control etc And then make it so it either disables a confirmation to wh all together with that option toggled on or give the host permission to auto accept for them since they declined to do it themselves and give the host permission. As far as them being to far away or waiting for a confirm most people wont wormhole till people are in formation or within 1-2k away. Or possibly you could add a tiny ready box with an X or check mark next to it showing whos ready and whos not. I could see it not being the easiest thing in the world to do but with a tad bit of brain storming it doesn't seem all to hard and rather doable

[GenghisBob]

Like gating, does grouped wormhole require everyone in the group to have already visited both sides of the wormhole?  Actually, just the destination weft.

 

I like the idea, just trying to bring up possible problems so that can be discussed and solved.

[SiSL]

Any reasonable benefit for non-multiclient or non-multiboxers?

Edited April 28, 2013 by SiSL

[GenghisBob]

Just the same reasons that gating would be.  What is the real difference between gating and a worm hole?

 

And, yes, I do realize there are some differences, I just don't see how staying in formation would differ between the two.

[SiSL]

Gating was real hassle to everyone in group, especially for long distances, multi-gates, every time each of group should wait for leader to reinstate formation and then form again etc. Wormhole is not such process compared to gate-to-gate, often once you wormholed to closest weft, then its over...  Grouped people often don't form before wormhole, they just meet at a point and wormhole then go their destinations formed... 

 

Btw, I'm not saying it is a bad idea or anything, but does it really worth to change all mechanics, disable wormhole approval, confusing people with commands (considering nothing can be changed over client) etc. etc. worth it?

Edited April 28, 2013 by SiSL

[GenghisBob]

Yes, I agree, to a point.  That's why I was raising possible problems in the above posts.  To find all the pros and cons and see if it was worth the trouble.  If all the problems are small or can be easily solved that still leaves the question as to whether it should be done.

 

I see no reason not to as it is simply another way to gate.  If in formation, stay in formation.  But being in formation is not required.  As long as the toon have already discover the weft.

 

People should also comment if they see a reason that this would not be a good idea. even if possible.

[dgvol]

TBH even if the group leaders formation setting persists through a wormhole that would be helpful, then people who took the WH still have the choice to form up.

[Shaddex]

Speaking as a player and not a dev, this idea is just bringing in built macros into the game. We already started this by group gating.
Enb is not a game where in game macros should be used.
And from a dev point of view, we do not support multiboxing.

[SiSL]

Good thing would be, leader should always keep formation setting unless disbanded, left the group or changed formation. 

 

Also when leader only have summoned, yes, formation must be disbanded but leader should still keep group formation setting that others should again click to form, same with any gating, wormholing etc.

Edited May 8, 2013 by SiSL

[Knight05]

I agree I think that as long as a weft has been explored previously like it is for gating that a group should stay in formation by default when worm holing. If players don't want it to be that way and don't want to be in formation they still always have the option to break formation at anytime and accept/decline the wh.

As for the issue of macros. Let's be real. If someone wants to macro they're going to find a work around and super easily and you can't stop it. As a former macro designer its to easy for me to set something up to tell my mouse to click multiple formation boxes and form up. Even on multiple clients. Its a bad reason to disprove having this IMO. Not to get side railed and off topic bit macros should be stopped at the SOURCE if people want them gone. Not by continually adding things like pop rocks and field guardians yadda yadda and changing or manipulating mechanics to try and stop them. That hurts leg its more than bottlers cause borders will ALWAYS find alternative means or work arounds. I know this because I myself have done this and very easily. And I am not a smart coder/macro'rr by any means. I'm still for this idea if enough people support it.