Already Suggested: Delete Siege Option on GbG

Should there be a delete siege option in GBG?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Total voters
    2
Status
Not open for further replies.

Emberguard

FoE Team
Senior Forum Moderator
Ingame Moderator
I didn't think that was necessary
It is. Thankyou for formatting. You can find the “create poll” option to the top right of your post. Please make it a straight yes or no poll, no end date, can be viewed without voting and can change votes at any time
 

Cursedveggie

Forum Ambassador
I dont we have a thread where we discuss strategy and tactics but not everybody reads it so there has to be the facility to remove the errors that some guild members make. I would also like a method where we could see who created the flag so they could be questioned as to why they took that action even though it had not been discussed.
So you want to interrogate guild members and possibly punish them for not doing exactly what you want.

Glad I'm not in your guild
 

Vesiger

Monarch
Speaking as someone who has been receiving abuse for the actions of guild members who did precisely what I had given my word that they would not do - yes, I'd like a means of killing an obsolete or erroneous siege, precisely so that I can redirect efforts without an elaborate apparatus of enquiries and punishments as to who did what.
 

Cursedveggie

Forum Ambassador
actions of guild members who did precisely what I had given my word that they would not do
a) why give your word for something that you cannot guarantee?
b) why try and set up alliances or non aggression pacts?

I have real issue with people determined to control exactly how others play and really do not see the point of alliances in a time limited feature, it's supposed to be a battle, win or lose everyone should be able to play it in whatever way they like attacking others along the way

as someone who has been receiving abuse
If you have received abusive messages they should be reported to support for the necessary action
 

Zamzara

Would make sense if only the Leaders or trusted members who have been given Trusted rights (like that of placing GbG buildings) can initiate attacks on GbG Provinces. This way, non-trusted can't attack provinces randomly, even the pointless ABCD4s at the beach.

Otherwise by just having that Delete Siege button, there would be another unplanned attack set somewhere else by someone without permission. I know it's annoying for some Leaders who make an agreement with another guild.

Agreements are too fragile due to player's freedom to attack what and when without paying attention to chat or instructions/orders. And we can't see who attacked what on the Member Activity menu either.
 

JustGuardian

Forum Ambassador
I veto this idea. The guild as a whole, should collectively work together to achieve its goal. If a member doesn't bother to read guild msgs, and attacks whichever sector s/he pleases, why would you want that member in your guild? Just remove that member.
 

Emberguard

FoE Team
Senior Forum Moderator
Ingame Moderator
GBG is definitely designed more towards guilds standing on their own then it is for alliances. One of the complaints from GvG is alliances ruin the fun for anyone that's not in the alliance (and to some extent to the guilds making the alliance)

An alternative idea to deleting sieges is locking sectors so the flag progress can be resumed if the plans suit it. Either of which you could always suggest on the GBG feedback thread and it'll be passed along: https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-battlegrounds.38275/
 

Gisklerific

Legend
Ofcourse it is a problem, but the solution isn't making you dictator.
Why not? Great solution!

I veto this idea. The guild as a whole, should collectively work together to achieve its goal. If a member doesn't bother to read guild msgs, and attacks whichever sector s/he pleases, why would you want that member in your guild? Just remove that member.
Since when do you have veto rights? :P
 

Zamzara

GBG is definitely designed more towards guilds standing on their own then it is for alliances.
I agree with that. I always tell my guild to keep alliances in GvG where they belong (they're just trying something new). I know what most allies are up to (already seen example of one), see Hunger Games. Anyways, back on topic, this thread needs a poll of "yes" or "no". LastWarrior?
 

Fulhamguy

Corporal
Why do you feel that you should be allowed to force people to do what you want?
I dont we have a thread where we discuss strategy and tactics but not everybody reads it so there has to be the facility to remove the errors that some guild members make. I would also like a method where we could see who created the flag so they could be questioned as to why they took that action even though it had not been discussed.
Ofcourse you would. If players do not read the threads, you have the wrong players. You should work on that. If they start an unwanted siege there is no problem with it at all, cause you can just ignore it and tell those that do read not to follow up on it. Only time it can ever be a problem is when you try to start an aliance with another guild and your members still attack that guild. In that case, if the placed siege is seen by them before you remove it, you might still have a problem. So why is this really needed, other than you can show you are telling everybody what they are supposed to do?
But which ones are the wrong players ?
There is currently no way of telling, I am guessing you don't lead a guild ?
I would like to change our Guild to open again but with the current state of GbG and the lack of support for leaders I cant do that :-(
 

Agent327

Overlord
But which ones are the wrong players ?
There is currently no way of telling, I am guessing you don't lead a guild ?
I would like to change our Guild to open again but with the current state of GbG and the lack of support for leaders I cant do that :-(
I guess you think you lead a guild.

There is way of telling. You start a thread on the subject and make players that have read it leave the thread. You will be left with a smaller group. Next step you go to memberactivity in battlegrounds and note the totals of those left. When the numbers on the map change, you look who's numbers have changed.
 

Emberguard

FoE Team
Senior Forum Moderator
Ingame Moderator
There is way of telling. You start a thread on the subject and make players that have read it leave the thread.
That doesn’t tell you anything other then they deleted the thread.

You’re assuming those who left both read the message and aren’t the ones you’re looking for. You have no real way of knowing if someone who left was the person making sieges. Just because they didn’t read before doesn’t mean they won’t see the new thread. Neither does it mean those that saw the initial instructions wouldn’t miss the new thread
 

Bewildered Zeratul

Chief Warrant Officer
+1.0
(accurate to one decimal place)

"Deleting siege" is different from "preventing from placing siege".
Therefore the "1.0" to support the exact idea, not similar ideas that put restrictions.
Potential problems with restrictions is the scenario where ordinary members are online and ready for action but no leaders are online,
and if no flags have yet been placed, or if all sectors with existing flags have already been taken, then ordinary members can only wait.

-- Also maybe a siege cannot be deleted after [30] 35 advances. Because that indicates someone really really wants to dig that sector,
and maybe they believe there is treasure buried beneath there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.