Enemy Sign Functionality

[Kinseykinz]

I kinda understand the logic behind only allowing party leaders to make signs, but it's flawed and you should reconsider. Typically, it works best if either the puller or tank marks the target and they may or may not be the party leader. Heck as a whm, you might not even be targeting the mob ever. I just ask that you test the practicality.

[Atoli]

Or the party leader could just give pt lead to the one who does the marking, you know?
It's not like it's such a big deal.

Not that I'm against the leader being able to appoint assistants.
It's just not really something so much-needed that resources have to be put into this now, in my opinion

[KumaAkuma]

Party leader only is bad

Sometimes it's nice to have multiple people being respondsible for their own signals:

Tank: focus on this target first.
Blm: I slept this mob, leave it alone.
Random party member: I need a heal!

Now in in small party, attacking a few mobs, it's still manageable by one person. But in bigger raids with complex strategies and/or a large amount of mobs (we are getting those right?!...) , that shouldn't all fall down to one person.

[Mychael]

Three things:
1. If we actually need "I NEED A HEAL" signals, etc, they should not be the same type of sign we're talking about; they should be pop-ups that disappear within seconds, as opposed to the "THIS IS THE TANK" or "DO NOT HELP ME, I AM KITING" kind of ally signs I'm imagining, which would have to be toggled on/off. On the other hand, the XI elitist inside of me just wants to say, "If you have to ask, someone's not doing their job."

2. If only one person in a huge group (i.e. Free Company) can control markings, that will be a mess--practically a job in itself (and a wasted party slot). That said, I'm in favor of restricted access over just opening access to enemy signals to everyone. If we really do see 30+ people working together, having more than one person with access seems logical, but having 30+ people marking makes them meaningless. Allowing leaders to allot rights per person seems to make the most sense.

3. I think the functionality of signals could be improved. Rather than simply pictures floating around, make them useful. Examples:

• If a mob is asleep and you don't want anyone to attack it, put a "DO NOT ATTACK" symbol on it; in addition to the icon, party members cannot attack it until the signal is removed.
  • Players should be able to disable/enable the effects of these "functional" symbols, i.e. if the party leader is a jerk/idiot and signals a mob that's attacking as do not attack, you could just type /sign (or something) and signals would just be pictures again. This is self-limiting, kind of--if a player frequently ignores real signals, they'll become undesirable, fast.
• For enemy targets, go with the numbered target idea. Then, allow /target <t1>,<t2>, etc. Allow mobs to be marked more than once. Then, half of a group can macro t1, the rest t2, and BLMs use t3, and the leader(s) can assign those groups to different targets or have them all on one.
• A kiter could be marked as no-help, so that no one could cure them while they build hate. Again, if a leader is being a jerk, just disable the effects of signals.

Also, there should be a failsafe in case of death or d/c. If no members are able to mark a target, all party members should temporarily gain access to add/remove the aforementioned marks.

Still, you know the best alternative to all of this? Everyone knowing what they're doing. >.>;

[Tinks]

I agree with the others, the signs need to be usable by more than just the party leader. Preferably everyone, but at the very least the leader should be able to delegate sign users. In any scenario where your party has to split up its going to be necessary. On top of that, if the inability for the unconscious player to do anything stands, then no mobs are getting marked while the leader is taking a dirt nap.

And what about Ally signs? Will everyone still be able to use signs to mark themselves? I can't tell you how many times I used the "I'm out of MP" sign to gently indicate to my bards that Ballad needs renewed (or was thankful when someone else did when I was on bard.)

[Myranda]

Hmm some valid points have been brought up and you've won me over. Having more than the leader able to do markings could be useful... it just needs to be done carefully so that the leader still has priority on certain markings.

[Rukkirii]

For those asking specifically about limiting the ability to place signs by the leader -- our plan is to start out with this limitation in place. The main reason being that there is a concern that parties might get confused if signs are placed randomly on multiple enemies. However, we're considering opening this up to other members but would like to base this decision off of feedback after you try it out.

[Jynx]

we're considering opening this up to other members but would like to base this decision off of feedback after you try it out.

Best solution to include the limitation to party leader, and allow party members to place signs is to leave it up to the PT leader who can place signs within the party (and Alliance if we ever get them for larger scale content)

This would help surpass the language barrier a few experience and would be greatly benificial for larger scale engdame events. If you want even more functionality place the party members #(Slot they show up in party screen to other players) beside the sign.

Let's say a giant Fist means (Attack this first!) put a 1. in the corner for the player in slot 1.

This allows for larger groups to help bring in newer members without lengthy chats before the fight, or at least dramatically reduce the length of these speaches.

[Shougun]

For those asking specifically about limiting the ability to place signs by the leader -- our plan is to start out with this limitation in place. The main reason being that there is a concern that parties might get confused if signs are placed randomly on multiple enemies. However, we're considering opening this up to other members but would like to base this decision off of feedback after you try it out.

Yeah... As Jynx pointed out, we really dont need to think about it. Other party members should be able to do it (when given the rights from leader).

We've seen the system before and this way is far more preferred.

[Rex]

For those asking specifically about limiting the ability to place signs by the leader -- our plan is to start out with this limitation in place. The main reason being that there is a concern that parties might get confused if signs are placed randomly on multiple enemies. However, we're considering opening this up to other members but would like to base this decision off of feedback after you try it out.

Why not make it an option for the party leader to toggle on/off? You know? Make it so party leader can toggle whether or not other members can mark targets.