Combat Tracker - Advice and Suggestions

[shadzar]

If they are occuring at the same time, run them at the same time.

they werent happening at the same time, which was the problem and pointed out in the initial post

In game-time, the groups are separated by 5 minutes of time

This means, in theory, Group A could finish their combat before Group B ever begins. but in RPGs 5 minutes of in-game combat could take 30 minutes or more real-time, in which Group B is just sitting there at a table the want to be playing in and twiddling their thumbs waiting, in a teamspeak (why not Discord?) channel for the subgroup, so they are just talking to themselves waiting for their turn to play again.

the Combat Tracker design is the flaw that was pointed out in the FGU thread, and it was asked to prevent this couldn't each map have its own... just to bring it from that thread.

a map oriented design that just displays the participants (what is this actors nonsense anyway?) on the map in the combat tracker jsut mkes more sense to many people.

[damned]

If Group A finish before Group B then what is the issue?
If Group A are on a different map to Group B then what is the issue?

Why Actors? Because thats the terminology used in the code.
Why is participants any better?

[CrawlingChaox]

they werent happening at the same time, which was the problem and pointed out in the initial post



This means, in theory, Group A could finish their combat before Group B ever begins. but in RPGs 5 minutes of in-game combat could take 30 minutes or more real-time, in which Group B is just sitting there at a table the want to be playing in and twiddling their thumbs waiting, in a teamspeak (why not Discord?) channel for the subgroup, so they are just talking to themselves waiting for their turn to play again.

the Combat Tracker design is the flaw that was pointed out in the FGU thread, and it was asked to prevent this couldn't each map have its own... just to bring it from that thread.

I fail to see how a map-based system would solve that problem. In the scenario you proposed, you'd still have to resolve one encounter before starting the next one.
If anything, a map-based CT would make things immensely more complicated for combats that span multiple maps, which is a far more common occurrence than parties splitting in my experience.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

I would put all players in different maps (or in the same one in different locations), roll initiative for everyone and make everyone act on their turn as if they were in combat.

Players that are in combat would act. Players that are not in combat can move its movement speed and keep doing their stuf as normal.

if neither group is in combat, they ca still move, etc;

[Nylanfs]

I think I might have lost something some where. Is the 5 minutes we are talking about realtime or gametime?

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

I think I might have lost something some where. Is the 5 minutes we are talking about realtime or gametime?

He is saying that for every 5 minutes of combat in-game is equal to 30 mins in real life.
Which means the group that is not in combat would wait 30 minutes for him to finish the combat with the other group, in his example.

[Zacchaeus]

I think I might have lost something some where. Is the 5 minutes we are talking about realtime or gametime?

I don't think the figure of 5 minutes is important or necessarily accurate. What he has is a split party who are doing things at different times of the day. One party might be in a dungeon in combat and the other might be off shopping for the latest gear.

[shadzar]

i disagree @Zacchaeus. while i put 30 minutes, the initial post set up the comparison with 5:20 relation of game:real time. and that is the very crux of the conundrum caused by the singular CT. with the initial post on asking how to resolve it, and i am very curious as well since you can try all you like to say "never split the party", but do players ever listen?

If Group A finish before Group B then what is the issue?
If Group A are on a different map to Group B then what is the issue?

because what i wrote...

This means, in theory, Group A could finish their combat before Group B ever begins. but in RPGs 5 minutes of in-game combat could take 30 minutes or more real-time, in which Group B is just sitting there at a table the want to be playing in and twiddling their thumbs waiting

FG, although listed as one in GiantBomb index and last edited this year by a user by the name SmiteWorks, is NOT a game, video or otherwise. and that few minutes in-universe, takes real time to play out by REAL PEOPLE.

Why Actors? Because thats the terminology used in the code.
Why is participants any better?

Who is participating in this event? This is English.
Who are the actors in this event? This is not English.

The fact it is what is chosen in the code may be, but participants is describing in English to indicate someone is participating. Not a keyword that makes little sense. The only time "actor" is used to denote a player in a D&D game hat I know of it that Matt Mercer show that claims to be D&D while only being actors improv acting at G&S.

No DM i have ever heard say "which actors will be in this combat?"

so it is strange at any time it would appear as the term for a VTT. /shrug

you can replace "participants" with characters, combatants, etc that are also commonly used. but actors seems a weird choice to use.

I fail to see how a map-based system would solve that problem. In the scenario you proposed, you'd still have to resolve one encounter before starting the next one.
If anything, a map-based CT would make things immensely more complicated for combats that span multiple maps, which is a far more common occurrence than parties splitting in my experience.

well again, please provide me ANYTHING outside of FG that is "combat tracker" focused int he RPG world. I can provide you with thousands of adventures, campaigns, etc that are map focused dating back to the 70s, as well as non-RPGs that use turn-based combat dating back to the 50s, and some even to the 1700s and 1800s.

so it would help by #1, form following function. The tool is designed the way people do things, rather than people having to do things a specific way to use this tool. It means the tool was designed poorly, or not even designed for the task it is assigned.

why would a map-based tracker make things harder? every other VTT does it this way. they are "map-based" in that they are token-based and the token contains the relevant data for whatever the token represents. when you switch maps, you switch tokens in a split party. So any tracker would then only track the current tokens for the current combat. then when you switch to another map, it would load the states of those tokens and track them, and so on.

so if you have a combat spanning multiple maps, i can't see where the problem you mention is, unless you mean a single combat that requires more than one map because FG has a limit to map size that it supports? Unity should solve that with being 64-bit capable and allow for larger maps, more zoom depth, etc. Though I agree it is and will remain a problem for FG Classic, that will probably go unresolved.

if you mean something other than that, you will have to explain further about your multi-map combats.

[Zacchaeus]

I can't recall my party ever splitting up voluntarily but there have been situations where they have been forced to do so because of actions they took during an adventure. Once or twice this has necessitated the actors being on different maps. However since everyone was acting at the same time then it was a simple matter of just taking each actor's turn on the combat tracker as it came to them. The problem that the OP has is that he wants a solution to the problem of how to deal with a split party who are also acting at different times; and I don't think there is any real solution to that one unless you simply ignore the time difference and treat all of the actors as acting at the same time. Having multiple combat trackers I don't see as any kind of solution since that doesn't compress the time element any more than if the actors are all on the one combat tracker. I suppose the only possible benefit is that you can separate each group of actors and leave the actors who are not doing anything special sitting there until you decide you should pay them some attention.

I can't also see why a map based system would deal any more elegantly with a split party. The combat tracker handles multiple maps just fine if the party are in different areas such as some on the first floor and some on the second. As was said elsewhere by a sage head, Fantasy Grounds is not Roll20 nor any other VTT; and it does things in it's own way. So it isn't really a question of trying to force everyone to see things as you see it; it is more a question of you coming to terms with the way FG does things and seeing how the best VTT on the market works.

[Moon Wizard]

I am a champion of giving everyone to chance to express their views. However, that doesn’t mean that I always agree. Also, I have to balance needs of the business with user requests. At this point, we have no plans to change the combat tracker design.

If it’s something that you wish to pursue, the FG client can be customized through extensions to add many kinds of functionality, including the one you are discussing. If you really want map-based combat trackers, you can write your own version, or convince someone to write it for you. Basically, if you feels it’s truly the ONE way to do this, build the solution for the community, and we can see the actual usage numbers internally for your customization.

Thanks,
JPG