• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Forwarded: Army Replacement: Remove Trusted Rights

  • Thread starter DeletedUser12400
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser80579

thanatos100 said:
Understandable and can appreciate your support for the CM team. However, not making a schedule known or at least the month of implementation suggests they have no faith in meeting it. If there was the odd feature delayed by a short period (maybe a week or two) by a technical difficulty I'm sure that would be seen as the exception rather than the norm.

Currently we are all blind to what is happening if anything and quite frankly the wait for something to be implemented is IMO unreasonably long. So many of the issues that are being discussed could and should have been resolved many months ago. Some of the GvG ones should have been implemented before it got out of beta if not soon after.

Overall many are disappointed with the changes the developers have decided to implement with GvG because they seem to have ignored the knock on effects they have on the game. Trusted rights for defence replacement being one example. They removed the delete defence option without putting in place a well thought out alternative and not resolving the real issue which is providing a GvG rights management system which has been requested for the best part of a year now.
Click to expand...

I think there is a lot of misdirected frustration going on - there seems to be a culture of blaming the devs for everything, people think they're in charge of the whole show and decide what happens and when. But inno is a company and the devs are employed by that company, whilst great importance may be placed on player opinion, ultimately it is the company who decides how it's employees allocate their time not the customer, like any other company. This decision must be made with a view to the needs and desires of the customer of course, but there are also other concerns, fiscal and long term project development among them, to consider. This is my own opinion from experience in business, and I'm not saying the game or company structure are perfect - none are, but also not everything is the devs' fault, and inevitably some changes will take time to implement.
 

DeletedUser653

sorry Runsamok, if a business decides what their employees do with no reference to what their customers want then the customers will walk (and we have seen this here).

A good business does listen to their customers and will make changes based on customer feed back along with their own action plans.

But this request is over a year old now and i cannot remember a single bit of feedback on the subject. its a bit like putting suggestions in an envelope and posting it fro your window, theres a chance it will get to INNO but less chance it will get read and acted on. I think the big problem is that we get no feed back on the planned developments and while we are screaming for army management (thankyou) and removal of trusted status we hear nothing but see development work has been done to add birds/bunnies and deer to the game which nobody asked for.
Perhaps if Inno had better communication with us the customers about things they are working on and why they are not working on other things it would go along way to making players feel better about INNO. Today Inno is faceless and has no communication with the players and hence the mods sometimes get unfair criticism (sometimes it is fair!).

But back to the thread

+1 very badly overdue and really is a big improvement for all guilds playing GvG
 

DeletedUser80579

errr you managed to misread my post quite spectacularly if you somehow read there that i said decisions were made without reference to what their customers want :rolleyes:

and as for there being a 'chance' a suggestion will reach inno, that's ridiculous and an insult to the effort the team here puts in.
 

DeletedUser97883

The current system is a huge security risk for any guild with significant holdings. Since it is necessary to give a great many members the rights, in order to keep our defences up, we face an unreasonably high chance of any spy infiltrating our ranks doing significant damage. I know the game is balanced towards making things easier for small guilds and harder for large guilds, but this is going too far in enabling the unsavory aspects of the game, spying and sabotage.

+1 for the original suggestion.
 

DeletedUser7420

Everything i have read here points to only one solution, GET THIS DONE INNO, +1 from me and +77 from members of my guild :)
 

DeletedUser105579

+1....I said I would give a +1 a whiles earlier, that I have.

I still do believe that a blanket permission is not the way to go about with this, but nevertheless, this idea has momentum and offers a solution to the problem, so I'll jump on the bandwagon :)
 

DeletedUser105579

Exactly.... but we could always suggest small changes here and there

overtype said:
Proposal: I propose to remove trusted rights requirement for army replacement.
(If there is open slot then units can be placed by anyone.)

Reason: We've been requesting a proper rights system for over 1 year.
This system is anti-social, it creates divides within guilds and excludes
newer members and inexperienced players from participating in a simple
aspect of GvG that there should be no problem in participating in otherwise.

Details: Trusted rights being needed for army replacement is a serious issue.
Trusted rights is not only allowing to replace army but also to release sectors and
place sieges which can lead to devastating losses not to mention hidden forum.

Balance/Abuse Prevention: N/A
Click to expand...

Proposal: --Addition to idea--

Have a checkbox in permissions for army replacement. This box is automatically checked when a person joins a guild. however, leaders/founders can uncheck this box if someone is donating without logic.

Reason:

This will create the same effect as the current idea, but it will prevent blanket permission. IF a guildmate is randomly putting in units without logic, they can be prevented from doing so if needed.

Balance/Abuse Prevention:

Cannot be abused.


Perhaps this could be a small edit to change that?
 

DeletedUser99438

Strategy Master 101 said:
Exactly.... but we could always suggest small changes here and there



Proposal: --Addition to idea--

Have a checkbox in permissions for army replacement. This box is automatically checked when a person joins a guild. however, leaders/founders can uncheck this box if someone is donating without logic.

Reason:

This will create the same effect as the current idea, but it will prevent blanket permission. IF a guildmate is randomly putting in units without logic, they can be prevented from doing so if needed.

Balance/Abuse Prevention:

Cannot be abused.


Perhaps this could be a small edit to change that?
Click to expand...


If it were fast and easy to implement then yeah be an improvement :D Though it should probably have to be checked by the leaders rather than them having to uncheck - if the feature is easy to add then make it secure as possible for guilds :)
 

DeletedUser105579

I would say uncheck over check, as it would save time, and you want new guildmates to start replacing right away. Only if you realize a guildie is replacing in a negative way would you want to prevent it, having it need to be checked would be a slight deterrent and take away from the point of having a counter to a blanket permission.

Long story short, only once you realize a guildie is mis-replacing you would know to stop them, not the other way around.

Thats just my take on it though. :)
 

DeletedUser99588

Disagree, founders should assign rights they shouldn't be given by default.
 

DeletedUser105579

thanatos100 said:
Disagree, founders should assign rights they shouldn't be given by default.
Click to expand...

overtype said:
Proposal: I propose to remove trusted rights requirement for army replacement.
(If there is open slot then units can be placed by anyone.)
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagreeing, Thanatos, the idea here was to allow anyone and everyone in the guild to replace. The idea in the auto check being that that blanket permission is given (that is the checked box for everyone). The idea behind the check box being un-check able is that if a guildmate is replacing troops without logic, this can be prevented.

If, as you suggest, the check box is left for players with higher rights to assign, you are requiring higher players to check this box off every time a player joins. Would you not agree that the box would be better checked from the start?

I don't have anything against either way; from the comments made to this thread I presumed that having a checked box would be better. I can always re-edit the suggestiong if you think otherwise
 

DeletedUser99588

If there was to be a check box I would prefer it to be unchecked first. The OP's idea is one of desperation after they removed the delete defence button without first putting a viable alternative in. What is really needed is a dedicated rights system for GvG not the hijacked trusted rights that was originally for hidden areas of a guild forum.

However, as I have no idea if they are even considering it let alone working on it the OP's suggestion would at least mean not having to give the all or nothing that we have now.
 

DeletedUser12400

Tankovy said:
A similar idea was forwarded:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24306-We-Need-Separate-GvG-Rights-PLEASE

There will be some changes made to GvG, we unfortunately don't know what it entails or exactly when they'll be implemented but the hope is for soon (and for the changes to include the forwarded idea linked above in some way!).

Another similar idea (if not the same idea) was posted but wasn't formatted like this one:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24705-All-or-nothing-guilds-rights
Click to expand...


Tankovy said:
It's been confirmed that this idea (the removal of trusted rights needed for defense army placement) has been in effect forwarded when the following thread was forwarded:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?24306-We-Need-Separate-GvG-Rights-PLEASE

We won't be considering the forwarding of this idea with high hopes for the above linked idea being implemented. This thread will thus be marked as "Already suggested".
Click to expand...
It's similar, yet different. I'm not proposing seperate rights but rewind of unpopular decision that InnoGames made. Community is not happy with this decision. If we are talking about separate GvG rights then it would take couple of months if not another year to be implemented. InnoGames could create in game vote and ask their community if trusted rights are required or not for army replacement while they are working on separate GvG rights + it's affecting hidden guild forum. Everyone is annoyed with this decision. It's affect game performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser99438

overtype said:
It's similar, yet different. I'm not proposing seperate rights but rewind of unpopular decision that InnoGames made. Community is not happy with this decision. If we are talking about separate GvG rights then it would take couple of months if not another year to be implemented. InnoGames could create in game vote and ask their community if trusted rights are required or not for army replacement while they are working on separate GvG rights + it's affecting hidden guild forum. Everyone is annoyed with this decision. It's affect game performance.
Click to expand...

An in game vote would be good, 121 people alone made the effort to sign a petition outside of FOE on this. And only founders of the top 10 guilds of each world up to Jaims were notified by message about the petition. So 121 people might not sound grand but on the scale of the administration, it is.

I think an ingame vote would see much more support.

This is an issue that needs rectifying in some manner, now, not in months or years down the line.

+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top