Guild Battlegrounds Arrival Feedback

[DeletedUser40996]

So, bottom line: They don't know how to add the access rights. Rumor has it that's the reason GBG instead of GvG for device. One or more of the team that designed GvG is gone & those that are there don't know how it was designed so cant fix it.

Or quite simply to make it DIFFERENT from GvG . Adding in the "controls" that the GvG "dictators" want work in a full 80 active member guild but absolutely won't work in a smaller 30-40 member guild where players are on at all different hours of the day or night

 

[Graviton]

So, bottom line: They don't know how to add the access rights.

Literally nobody said that. It's not a bug, it's not an oversight, it's a feature.

 

[DeletedUser]

So, bottom line: They don't know how to add the access rights. Rumor has it that's the reason GBG instead of GvG for device. One or more of the team that designed GvG is gone & those that are there don't know how it was designed so cant fix it.

That is not what I said at all. Not even close. If they wanted those controls in GBG, I am 100% sure that the people they have could have done it. It was a choice, not an oversight or mistake. A deliberate choice.

So, you've got so much control over ur own, bright guy. How do u do it? Tell us, oh wise one, what ur secret is. We're DYING to know.

I'll tell you how I do it when I lead a guild. I get rid of members that don't cooperate. Period. And if you don't know which ones they are, then you're not paying attention. If they're not cooperating in GBG, then there will be signs in other areas of guild life. And the members that are on board with guild leadership appreciate when guild leaders get rid of those type of players. I know that from 5 years of experience leading guilds.

 

[DeletedUser30312]

I also hope these types of logs are never implemented. The ability of guild leaders to wrangle their members should be one of the differentiating factors in a guild's success. Instead of trying to find out which members aren't following your lead, you might want to find out why your members aren't following your lead.

Logs can help the guilds know if the problems are a small number of players who won't work with the group and are probably poor team players or a larger group of players which would indicate a communication problem.

I'll tell you how I do it when I lead a guild. I get rid of members that don't cooperate. Period. And if you don't know which ones they are, then you're not paying attention. If they're not cooperating in GBG, then there will be signs in other areas of guild life. And the members that are on board with guild leadership appreciate when guild leaders get rid of those type of players. I know that from 5 years of experience leading guilds.

That's usually the case. I've already seen the guilds I'm in actively communicate where to put their efforts into GBG. Most of them have a thread in the message center for discussing GBG strategy, and one of the guilds has made some effort to voluntarily organize the guild's efforts at different times of day. If you've got a player who ignores the strategy discussion and fights wherever, that player is probably the type that doesn't aid the guild, participate in any GE, posts losts of junk trades, snipes guild members and so on. Still, there really isn't anyway to know for sure who's sabotaging the efforts of everyone else.

 

[DeletedUser30935]

Ummm, because that would not be constructing?

The very real and excellent reason is that there is no game reason to do so. It is a GvG feature that makes no sense in GBG. In GvG there is a cost to the guild for a siege. In GBG there is none. The only excuse for it would be due to alliances, which is a player construct, not a game feature. You could say that GBG is closer to reality than GvG in this regard, though. In reality, alliances can be ignored by individuals at their discretion, just like in GBG. There is no real world equivalent to the GvG level of guild control over players' actions.

To sum up, guilds in GvG are used to the player construct of alliances. GvG has guild control features that give guild leaders complete control over their members' ability to attack sectors, thereby enabling the player construct of alliances. Since there is no game feature marking guilds as allied (and it has been proposed from time to time), it seems clear that Inno is not interested in giving further alliance-enforcing tools to guilds. The fact that GBG has no such controls bears this out.

It would be deleting, just like how the constructor role is allowed to delete buildings.

 

[DeletedUser40996]

It would be deleting, just like how the constructor role is allowed to delete buildings.

Difference between the 2 is buildings cost "Guild Treasury Goods" where attacking a sector costs "Players personal goods or units"

 

[mamboking053]

So, you've got so much control over ur own, bright guy. How do u do it? Tell us, oh wise one, what ur secret is. We're DYING to know.

It's not really control, I would imagine. It's the quality of guild members. I've been in a lot of guilds and the quality of players can be shaky even in the best guilds, but the occurrence is a lot less likely in stronger guilds. In those, people tend to be well-established in the game and dedicated to growing themselves and the guild. So there is no need for direct control.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

I'm in a 50-member guild (platinum league) where no one has even once planted a flag in a province where it didn't belong. The biggest problem with Battlegrounds that we have is when we're told to attack a province, and then midway we are told to stop before conquering it - the stopping doesn't always happen (but it does most of the time).

 

[DeletedUser40996]

I'm in a 50-member guild (platinum league) where no one has even once planted a flag in a province where it didn't belong. The biggest problem with Battlegrounds that we have is when we're told to attack a province, and then midway we are told to stop before conquering it - the stopping doesn't always happen (but it does most of the time).

The problem isn't with GbG It's a leadership problem . The situation you describe sounds like your leaders cut a deal with guild x and don't want them crying if you finish taking the province you started .

 

[DeletedUser14168]

I don't do it at all. I play this game for enjoyment, not to act out some petty fantasy of power and control.

Oh, so that explains ur "control ur guild" comment.

 

[DeletedUser14168]

Or quite simply to make it DIFFERENT from GvG . Adding in the "controls" that the GvG "dictators" want work in a full 80 active member guild but absolutely won't work in a smaller 30-40 member guild where players are on at all different hours of the day or night

Dictators? Seriously?

Sounds like somebody's got issues with authority. Hope u don't use that language when the cops pull u over. Lol *rolls eyes*

Dictators... *chuckle*

 

[DeletedUser38368]

The problem isn't with GbG It's a leadership problem . The situation you describe sounds like your leaders cut a deal with guild x and don't want them crying if you finish taking the province you started .

I can't speak for the person you quoted but I can say there are tactical reasons to not take a sector at a certain time. Sometimes those reasons don't present themselves until after a siege has started.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

The problem isn't with GbG It's a leadership problem . The situation you describe sounds like your leaders cut a deal with guild x and don't want them crying if you finish taking the province you started .

How is it a leadership problem when everybody does what the leaders want them to do most of the time?

 

[DeletedUser38368]

Guys, there's already a "halt unwanted siege button" but it's called "remove from guild."
Find out who is not listening (screenshots help) and remove them promptly.
I can see the pro logs argument but stopping/removing siege is pointless IMO.

 

[Sheriff Of Rottingham]

Any guild "leader" complaining about this is missing the point. You aren't a dictator. This isn't real life. It's a game. If you want to circumvent the intention of the developers of making GBG a chaotic, free-for-all activity by creating under the table alliances, that is your right. But if you are unable to communicate, and convince your members (using leadership abilities) to hold up your end of the bargain, then that is YOUR FAILURE. Bottom line, this has been discussed for a month on this thread. It should be over. Move on. If the current game play is unacceptable to you, go back to just GVG. Or play GBG the way INNO intended you to play it. Or quit...no one cares.

 

[DeletedUser]

There's absolutely nothing stopping any other guild from doing the same thing, you know. This isn't at all like GvG.

Uh yea there is, YA KNOW? If you're a small/medium sized guild and your put up against a huge guild then you're screwed. Pretty straight forward.

 

[Vger]

HUGE PROBLEM

Mah...no. This is a problem for some guilds, but no where near a HUGE PROBLEM.

...I believe every guild must be experiencing and that is communication.

Yes, lots of guilds are struggling with this problem. But that just means it's a level playing field, right?

...Inno should have some kind of way for players in GbG...

Why is this Inno's problem to solve? It's a level playing field, Inno gives you some tools to sort it. The rest is up to you.

 

[Algona]

Dictators? Seriously?

Sounds like somebody's got issues with authority. Hope u don't use that language when the cops pull u over. Lol *rolls eyes*

Dictators... *chuckle*

You do realize that you just characterized yourself as authority and equated your status with the police? Consciously or your subconscious at work?

I read the rest of your posts in this thread and dig you are having problem with folks not doing as you want in GBG. Maybe instead of asking INNO to fix that for you you could figure out what your real problems are and try to address those?

Don't sweat it. You are not alone, this thread (and the forum) is crammed full of folk making the same two mistakes of not identifying their real problems and then not asking for help to resolve those problems:

Uh yea there is, YA KNOW? If you're a small/medium sized guild and your put up against a huge guild then you're screwed. Pretty straight forward.

Two different things you are wrong on.

Size is only one factor, Participation and Quality of Players are also factors in predicting success in GBG.

You will eventually wind up matched against Guilds based on overall performance. The keyword is eventually. Sooner or later you will wind up against Guilds about your capability.

When that happens your Guild is still going to not win or take second well over half the time.

Always look on the bright side of life! I've given you two more excuses for not winning.

 

[qaccy]

@glommy While I disagree with the 'suggestion' of the person you quoted, they indicated manually observing what's going on since logs aren't available. I imagine that means monitoring the member activity to see whose encounters/negotiations are increasing while a sector is being advanced, indicating which members are actually clicking on 'unwanted' sectors.

 

[DeletedUser32558]

@glommy While I disagree with the 'suggestion' of the person you quoted, they indicated manually observing what's going on since logs aren't available. I imagine that means monitoring the member activity to see whose encounters/negotiations are increasing while a sector is being advanced, indicating which members are actually clicking on 'unwanted' sectors.

I was told that some "feedback" is not allowed so I "suggested" instead giving feedback.