plinker2
Well-Known Member
This is a reasonable suggestion, not an attempt to stifle anyone. You should give it proper consideration.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Algona
Well-Known Member
Oh, yes it does! One rogue fighter can imperil the sort of agreements and treaties that make GvG the static morass it's been for years.
Calling out folk for their particular posting style opens one ip for a similar review.
Don't mind if i do!
That snip is from a magnificent post. You're eloquent and Oh! so subtle in using implications to enhanceyour position and diminish the responses of others. I wish I had the time to critique your entire post with a fine tooth comb, but reality beckons.
So we'll just take a look at that snippet.
A call for reasonable discussion is always in order: Unfortunately by reasonable discussion you mean:
Calling folks who disagree trolls.
Branding a simple statement of disagreement as stifling.
Calling about the same number of people who disagree a minority.
Stating that a short response saying no is vocal in a 500 word post.
Dismissing that so many of the folk who want the controls are indeed from GvG centric Guilds.
Closing the thread is the only alternative to giving feedback the wya you think it should be.
That last is delightful. You're trying to exert the same control over this thread that you have in GvG and want in GBG.
----------
I did. Not sure anyone else has.thought through the implementation.
80 players can generate thousands of entries per day.
Nevermind INNO having to develope. deploy, maintain a new database with millions of entries per day.
instead think about the Guild Treasury log.
Now i don't know that INNO will give us the equivalent. Maybe they would enable it with some really good features to search for whatever folk want to find?
Graviton
Well-Known Member
That does not describe most guilds, at least not in my experience. Some are more stringent than others but I've never heard of one requring the completion of GE in 24 hours. That's absurd, frankly; I'm not sure why anybody would stay in a guild like that.
I would hope nobody's trying to stifle anyone, but you must expect differing opinions.
Several of us have agreed with the idea of some kind of activity log.
An argument is also that it would seem to be counter to Inno's intended design, that every player can enjoy GBG at his own pace. You go on about how important communication is but then you ask Inno to relieve you of that burden by closing off the first battle on a province to everyone but the guild leaders. That removes the need for communication, doesn't it. So the argument against that is indeed: communicate with your guild. Do not force the rest of us into a leaders-only strait jacket just because corralling your guild may be difficult. Perhaps GBG will help guild leaders get better at it.
Again, that's an issue of communication. I don't see a need to delete a siege.
The first suggestion, a battle log, alleviates the need for the other two suggestions.
DeletedUser40577
I'm a little bit shocked at the moderators here. Just my $0.02, but if an idea is silly, it'll toss itself out. It is pretty clear to these eyes that GbG and GvG are not meant to be the same. A logical reader having made it to this point should have (2) takeaways at a minimum.
Get upset at me if you like, I'm just trying to bring some reality and objective eyes to this.
- Per Player Logs & Attack origination is something guild leaders have asked for, and doesn't seem damaging to the system
- Tile recognition (mouse over) and/or messaging (copy/paste, attach to message) seems desired by guild leaders
Get upset at me if you like, I'm just trying to bring some reality and objective eyes to this.
(An argument about the copy/paste could be made as non-objective; I did propose it here, but others have also proposed it elsewhere)
DeletedUser40996
Which is why there's 1000's of guilds on any given world since not everyone fits into that box and is why I'm so vehemently opposed to any type of restrictions on who can start a fight in GbG .
Algona
Well-Known Member
No reason to be. Mods are unpaid volunteer players. It is explicitly stated in the forum rules that mods are entitled to have and post about their opinions.
If you think a mod broke a forum rule, feel free to report it.
Otherwise a fine post.
DeletedUser40996
Logs are ok especially of it concerns guild treasury spending
It is damaging if you need a guild leader available to continue to the next sector . Communication is key here . Plan the next sector to attack when you're close to taking the one before and you wouldn't need something as restrictive as a Leader/Founder permission
This would help with communication so it would be helpful if INNO actually programs it into the game
DeletedUser37581
Proposal:
In Battlegrounds, have the ability to pull up a log for a province that shows who has attacked the province, how many advances each attacker contributed, and (optionally) who has built or deleted buildings.
Reason:
Throughout the game, information is routinely provided to show user activity. Battlegrounds is also a feature where user activity is useful to know.
Details:
When a province is clicked, a window appears that currently displays information relevant to the province, such as who owns the province, who the besiegers are and how much progress has been made, and how many points per hour the province provides. In addition, there are three buttons - to attack, to negotiate, and to build. This proposal would add an additional button - to display a log of the summary of user activity. The button would only be available if your guild has attacked the province or owns the province. The user activity would include a list of people who have attacked the province (sorted by total number of advances) along with the number of negotiations and fights of each user. Optionally, the log could also include the building and deleting of province buildings.
Summary:
Game play experience is enhanced by having information about what is happening. In many parts of the game, bragging rights are obtained by knowing who is leading, who is contributing, who is performing. The desire to be first, the desire to be the best, the desire to be at the top - these are all things that drive people. Having a province log seems like a natural continuation of the sort of information that is already provided in other parts of the game.
In Battlegrounds, have the ability to pull up a log for a province that shows who has attacked the province, how many advances each attacker contributed, and (optionally) who has built or deleted buildings.
Reason:
Throughout the game, information is routinely provided to show user activity. Battlegrounds is also a feature where user activity is useful to know.
Details:
When a province is clicked, a window appears that currently displays information relevant to the province, such as who owns the province, who the besiegers are and how much progress has been made, and how many points per hour the province provides. In addition, there are three buttons - to attack, to negotiate, and to build. This proposal would add an additional button - to display a log of the summary of user activity. The button would only be available if your guild has attacked the province or owns the province. The user activity would include a list of people who have attacked the province (sorted by total number of advances) along with the number of negotiations and fights of each user. Optionally, the log could also include the building and deleting of province buildings.
Summary:
Game play experience is enhanced by having information about what is happening. In many parts of the game, bragging rights are obtained by knowing who is leading, who is contributing, who is performing. The desire to be first, the desire to be the best, the desire to be at the top - these are all things that drive people. Having a province log seems like a natural continuation of the sort of information that is already provided in other parts of the game.
barra370804
Well-Known Member
+Infinity
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
I will no longer entertain proposals from anyone calling anything a siege. That tells me you have no idea what you're talking about and come from a bent of wanting to stuff Battlegrounds into your worldview of GvG. No. In fact, you can stuff any idea that wants to stuff Battlegrounds into the GvG box.
Learn Battlegrounds and learn to speak Battlegrounds, talk about Banners, Advancements, Owners, etc. I might consider your idea, but until then, not a chance.
Also, to the control freaks coming out of the woodwork - Learn to communicate and educate your guild why having and following a strategy is both important and beneficial to your guild and guild mates. Any asks for detailed logs, new permission controls, attrition level displays, etc. are all non-starters with me. Don't ask Inno to paper over your deficiencies in organization and communication. Guild leaders should learn to lead, then actually lead.
Learn Battlegrounds and learn to speak Battlegrounds, talk about Banners, Advancements, Owners, etc. I might consider your idea, but until then, not a chance.
Also, to the control freaks coming out of the woodwork - Learn to communicate and educate your guild why having and following a strategy is both important and beneficial to your guild and guild mates. Any asks for detailed logs, new permission controls, attrition level displays, etc. are all non-starters with me. Don't ask Inno to paper over your deficiencies in organization and communication. Guild leaders should learn to lead, then actually lead.
Silvysa
Member
Proposal
Guild Battlegrounds needs more player controls that guild leaders can enact, specifically: controlling who can start an attack on a new province, the ability to delete an attack, and the ability to see who has started those attacks.
Current System
Any guild member can begin attacking any adjacent, unlocked province and guild leaders have no way of knowing who did it. It creates mass chaos, anger, and frustration. This is supposed to be a guild/team effort, but the lack of these controls turns it into a free for all.
Details
We currently can control who has the ability to add buildings to provinces. Additional controls should be added to that menu so guild leaders can authorize who can begin attacks on new provinces. Guild leaders should also have the ability to click on their guild’s attack and delete it, as well as see who began each attack.
Abuse Prevention
I see no possible abuse.
Conclusion
Since this is a guild activity, guild leaders need to have the ability to guide the guild through controls and more information in the logs of member activity.
Guild Battlegrounds needs more player controls that guild leaders can enact, specifically: controlling who can start an attack on a new province, the ability to delete an attack, and the ability to see who has started those attacks.
Current System
Any guild member can begin attacking any adjacent, unlocked province and guild leaders have no way of knowing who did it. It creates mass chaos, anger, and frustration. This is supposed to be a guild/team effort, but the lack of these controls turns it into a free for all.
Details
We currently can control who has the ability to add buildings to provinces. Additional controls should be added to that menu so guild leaders can authorize who can begin attacks on new provinces. Guild leaders should also have the ability to click on their guild’s attack and delete it, as well as see who began each attack.
Abuse Prevention
I see no possible abuse.
Conclusion
Since this is a guild activity, guild leaders need to have the ability to guide the guild through controls and more information in the logs of member activity.
barra370804
Well-Known Member
Attachments
Silvysa
Member
Woah. That’s really hostile. We have a strong guild leadership team, but with 80 guild members and a challenging FoE messaging interface system, there’s no way to make sure everyone sees every message. The reason people are asking for these controls is that it’s currently a problem. Please take our concerns seriously.
DeletedUser40577
The attack origination is in reference to log keeping. I.E "Attack on A2
started by 'MaliceKooper' .." I'm not personally a proponent of this, but it has multiple requests behind it, and doesn't seem like a bad thing.DeletedUser40577
I have no problem with the moderators posting their opinion. I think my message was misunderstood, and I may have done a poor job communicating it. I'm shocked at the moderators "being" in here. Not that they did anything wrong, but more or less that they took a position on what seemed fairly obviously non-essential feedback. (I hope that is politically correct enough)
I'm not hunting anyone down for breaking ToS here or anywhere else. I'm sure they know the rules and keep well enough inside the lines. I'm sure others are happy to hold them quite tightly inside those lines - no need for me to grab a pitchfork and join.
DeletedUser26416
Is there any advantage to placing 2 or more of the same building in one province?
DeletedUser40996
The attack origination is in reference to log keeping. I.E "Attack on A2
I'm not against a "LOG" I'm against needing a leader / founder to start the next sector once the current sector gets conquered . I'm not on 24/7 and I'm sometimes on at all different hours of the night . I shouldn't need a leader or founder to start a new advancement/sector as long as it's been communicated to the members where to go
DeletedUser40996
Too bad there's not a ❤ button instead of a simple like
DeletedUser40996
What's so challenging about it ??? Just make a thread titled appropriately and add the members to it . If your "MEMBERS" don't understand something so simple the you need to step up as a leader and lead .