• 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.

DeletedUser2989

Runsamok said:
If you actually read the thread http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/...-Rights-PLEASE&p=156536&viewfull=1#post156536 you'll see that Star told you exactly what was forwarded so what do you expect the cm to tell you precisely?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion, when I said "I'm asking our CM if this exact idea was also forwarded" I meant I am asking if the idea in the OP here (to simply remove the trusted requirement from the ability to place defensive armies) was also forwarded. As there is a subtle difference to the two the devs may reject one and accept the other, so if both were forwarded I wouldn't be surprised (but I'm also not 100% sure if they both have been).
 

DeletedUser80579

Tankovy said:
Sorry for the confusion, when I said "I'm asking our CM if this exact idea was also forwarded" I meant I am asking if the idea in the OP here (to simply remove the trusted requirement from the ability to place defensive armies) was also forwarded. As there is a subtle difference to the two the devs may reject one and accept the other, so if both were forwarded I wouldn't be surprised (but I'm also not 100% sure if they both have been).
Click to expand...

Well no, because it's not going to be implemented exactly as the idea describes is it? If 2 were forwarded one of them would just be closed as a duplicate, so what's the point.
 

DeletedUser98663

+1
This is an absolutely crucial aspect which needs to be added as soon as possible! As the leader of a 'top-5' guild I have to be very careful of who I grant these permissions to - which unfortunately means some very good, eager members and GvG'ers can get alienated as they don't feel like they can participate fully.

Maybe Inno could introduce a system whereby we are just given a wide variety of 'actions' which can be performed, then we can assign them to our own 'rights' buttons, so every guild can fully customise what permissions are granted to players with "Founder" "Leader" "Moderator" "Inviter" and "Trusted" rights. I'm no programmer, so not sure how practical it would be to implement this kind of system though...?
 

DeletedUser80579

electricrainbows said:
Well at least he's trying Runsamok

PS Thanks again Tankovy - your efforts are very much appreciated :)
Click to expand...

Well he's not the only one, star's already bent over backwards to try and get the changes through, but changes often take time so you'll just have to be patient and see what the upcoming changes he's already said are coming entail.
 

DeletedUser99438

Personally I think we've been patient enough. The work of all Moderators and Managers, etc is very much appreciated, always on all counts.
 

DeletedUser80579

Well the changes are unlikely to come any sooner than they've been scheduled for, so there's really no option but patience to find out what they contain.
 

DeletedUser99588

Well the changes are unlikely to come any sooner than they've been scheduled for, so there's really no option but patience to find out what they contain.
Click to expand...

And the schedule is ......? Part of the frustration is that there doesn't appear to be a schedule otherwise Starzaan job would be a lot easier as he could come back to us and say yes this feature will be implemented in the month of ........

That doesn't happen and I imagine many are wondering if various features are going to take as long as the attached/unattached filter which I really can't understand why that took so long to implement considering sorting/filtering of data is a standard task in a database. What we have been given is the simplest of additions with no bells or whistles so why did it take so long and will these other features that are apparently on there way going to be done in a more timely fashion.
 

DeletedUser80579

thanatos100 said:
And the schedule is ......? Part of the frustration is that there doesn't appear to be a schedule otherwise Starzaan job would be a lot easier as he could come back to us and say yes this feature will be implemented in the month of ........

That doesn't happen and I imagine many are wondering if various features are going to take as long as the attached/unattached filter which I really can't understand why that took so long to implement considering sorting/filtering of data is a standard task in a database. What we have been given is the simplest of additions with no bells or whistles so why did it take so long and will these other features that are apparently on there way going to be done in a more timely fashion.
Click to expand...

Yes there's a schedule, but the mods don't know it and the comas can't publish it until close to the time in case it changes.
 

DeletedUser99588

Yes there's a schedule, but the mods don't know it and the comas can't publish it until close to the time in case it changes.
Click to expand...

Do you work for Innogames and have some inside knowledge to a schedule existing? Are the CM's giving you more info than the rest of us?
 

DeletedUser80579

Star is my OH, I can't help but pick things up since I play also. I was a mod for a while as well so I know what info they have access to. Mods rely on the cm team for info on bugs and upcoming features.
 

DeletedUser1302

My response to this topic, trusted rights for entire guild, is fully in support of ABSOLUTELY NOT !. It brings to my memories my 2 1/2 years playing GREPOLIS. There were internal battles that affected the Alliance you were in with SPIES everywhere. Some players were drafted JUST to infiltrate the top alliances to collect intel. Then trying to flush the spy out was very difficult. Some people actually thought this was part of the game.
If giving trusted rights to every member of your guild is passed, there will be spies sent to join the top guilds to only destroy all the goods saved in our treasuries on a daily basis. It costs a substantial amount to set a siege & collecting these goods is tough enough as most players are still working on their Tech tree or their GB development. To those members of their own guild that have EARNED their trusted rights, then there will normally not be a problem.
The other part of this topic is the language barrier that will also be a problem for those members that may not totally understand what these rights cost the guild in goods if they are, for example, to place a siege in a totally wrong place.
I could go on but I think I have pointed out MY view on this. Trusted rights should remain with the founders or the top dedicated members of each guild that have PROVEN themselves to their respective guild.

NEPTUNE59
 

DeletedUser99588

Neptune I think you need to read what the OP has suggested which isn't trusted rights for all of a guild and is in fact the opposite as currently if you want everyone to be able to replace defence you need to give them trusted rights.
 

DeletedUser99588

Star is my OH, I can't help but pick things up since I play also. I was a mod for a while as well so I know what info they have access to. Mods rely on the cm team for info on bugs and upcoming features.
Click to expand...

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.
 

STBs

Private
+1 for this.
FoE is in many ways a great game and the developers obviously spent a long time balancing many aspects. It makes me surprised that they did this mistake.
To require trusted rights to replace troops is almost as stupid as not having an "idle icon" for goods buildings...
 

DeletedUser98188

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...

+1 to Overtype's proposal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top