GBG ignore flag -- please improve it

[Zeratul 2.0]

I do NOT know what I'm talking about...

^ But that is a merit!

You guys give others (those under your leadership included) the impression that you know it all, and that you have figured out the 100% correct way, or that you have find the "one most important factor" (such as "teamwork", the claim that "ultimately in the end it is teamwork that prevails"...)

In other words, all you have, is in fact "just confidence"...

Will people follow you? Will they obey you? Given your impression of "sobriety" and of knowing-what-you-say, and your full-blown confidence?

Yes, plenty! Including not the least a vast majority of people who put the "mannerism," the "politeness," the "courtesy", the "face", the "ego" (yes these are all in fact the same thing with different degree of moderation/frankness) -- people who put these first and above everything else, and seek mutual confirmation and mutual flattering and call such thing as the essence of humanity; abandoning critical thinking and abandoning the seeking of the truth.

In such a way, your "leadership“ may become "successful", yes... you as a group, be it leading-and-following, be it equal-team-working, will be able, at the maximum, to act as one, as an aimplified individual, a single person, but inflated, and very big. The big person that thereby formed, however, will still have the same drawback as a normal person. The group-slash-person will become confused and bewildered and wonder "we are a group then why do we feel lonely"...

--
Append: So, those who ask for "improved flags" are on a path of becoming a bigger version of an individual from a normal individual. On the end of that path you would have achieved nothing but you would have lost something. -- You would have lost hope. At first, you would think all the shortcomings you and me currently have are because we are just a single isolated person and, hope, that the shortcoming will be gone once we become a consolidated, connected, group. But if that group is just a big version of an individual, to solely and unanimously carry out an individual's will, what is left to hope for? What to further become?

Append to appendance: So, be content with the status quo, and seek not (or not only) to find out the "who" about the culprit/saboteur/perpetrator as you call it; but try (also) to find out and understand the why, in the behind, and the beneath; before you think of terminating it / snuffing it out / making it begone...

 

[r21r]

I do NOT know what I'm talking about...

^ But that is a merit!

You guys give others (those under your leadership included) the impression that you know it all, and that you have figured out the 100% correct way, or that you have find the "one most important factor" (such as "teamwork", the claim that "ultimately in the end it is teamwork that prevails"...)

In other words, all you have, is in fact "just confidence"...

Will people follow you? Will they obey you? Given your impression of "sobriety" and of knowing-what-you-say, and your full-blown confidence?

Yes, plenty! Including not the least a vast majority of people who put the "mannerism," the "politeness," the "courtesy", the "face", the "ego" (yes these are all in fact the same thing with different degree of moderation/frankness) -- people who put these first and above everything else, and seek mutual confirmation and mutual flattering and call such thing as the essence of humanity; abandoning critical thinking and abandoning the seeking of the truth.

In such a way, your "leadership“ may become "successful", yes... you as a group, be it leading-and-following, be it equal-team-working, will be able, at the maximum, to act as one, as an aimplified individual, a single person, but inflated, and very big. The big person that thereby formed, however, will still have the same drawback as a normal person. The group-slash-person will become confused and bewildered and wonder "we are a group then why do we feel lonely"...

--
Append: So, those who ask for "improved flags" are on a path of becoming a bigger version of an individual from a normal individual. On the end of that path you would have achieved nothing but you would have lost something. -- You would have lost hope. At first, you would think all the shortcomings you and me currently have are because we are just a single isolated person and, hope, that the shortcoming will be gone once we become a consolidated, connected, group. But if that group is just a big version of an individual, to solely and unanimously carry out an individual's will, what is left to hope for?

whoever wants to play the game will follow us, and we will follow him. who wants to chat and have his coffee with quality company, ain't the person we are seeking

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

whoever wants to play the game will follow us, and we will follow him. who wants to chat and have his coffee with quality company, ain't the person we are seeking

Sounds very deep... would it be dangerous if I assume I understand it? -- So are you saying you would not accept any member of "The Finer Things" club? (The Office US reference)...

 

[r21r]

Sounds very deep... would it be dangerous if I assume I understand it? -- So are you saying you would not accept any member of "The Finer Things" club? (The Office US reference)...

There is nothing deep, i can understand that some people are here to chat or to hang around, but game ain't designed for that.
and as you said, it is not a club, it is Battlegrounds, if anyone thinks he can have his tea while fighting, then ok, let him shoot cups hahaha

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

There is nothing deep, i can understand that some people are here to chat or to hang around, but game ain't designed for that.
and as you said, it is not a club, it is Battlegrounds, if anyone thinks he can have his tea while fighting, then ok, let him shoot cups hahaha

I see. In that case, the "danger" I mentioned is real. So you are instead saying, that you see the game "as is" and others "have angles"...

 

[r21r]

I see. In that case, the "danger" I mentioned is real. So you are instead saying, that you see the game "as is" and others "have angles"...

No mate, the only "danger" as about Battlegrounds, is that if you chat instead of taking action, you will probably lose from a guild that doesnt.
Did you ever saw the official video about battlegrounds ?

 

[Giskler]

It could perhaps be made clearer by adding a dialogue box that would say "This province has been marked as ignore, are you sure you wish to proceed?" if anyone without GBG leader privileges tries to attack/negotiate. Given how long it took just to get simple markers implemented I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

[r21r]

@Gisklerific could help, but what about the people being on manual battle or negotiation ?
i many times saw people starting a negotiation while the sector ~100/160 and just because the command was "150/160" or "155/160" the sectors was locked..

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

No mate, the only "danger" as about Battlegrounds, is that if you chat instead of taking action, you will probably lose from a guild that doesnt.
Did you ever saw the official video about battlegrounds ?

The danger is that we still disagree with each other, about what action to take, among other things, before you demand we hastely take the action that only you see fit.

In the above, you did two things I disagree with.

First, you said "we will" and "we are", the use of "we"makes you a representative of some kind of collective, and makes your opinion "group consensus", fired against other's "personal opinion" "one-guy opinion".

And secondly, you are interpreting "what the game is" "what it is design for" to others, as if you are now developer and know better than other player.

Thirdly, Ingame excessive chat I'm against, too, but this is forum.

 

[r21r]

The danger is that we still disagree with each other, about what action to take, among other things, before you demand we hastely take the action that only you see fit.

In the above, you did two things I disagree with.

First, you said "we will" and "we are", the use of "we"makes you a representative of some kind of collective, and makes your opinion "group consensus", fired against other's "personal opinion" "one-guy opinion".

And secondly, you are interpreting "what the game is" "what it is design for" to others, as if you are now developer and know better than other player.

Thirdly, Ingame excessive chat I'm against, too, but this is forum.

yes mate, i did, and that is because you are not in a guild which has Battlegrounds as #1 priority ?
or am i mistaken ?
Do you want me to give you a link about the official promo video ? or you feel good judging a player without having anything to suggest other than social evaluations, which are irrelevant on how the game works ?

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

@Gisklerific could help, but what about the people being on manual battle or negotiation ?
i many times saw people starting a negotiation while the sector ~100/160 and just because the command was "150/160" or "155/160" the sectors was locked..

The chat is expression of a person's will. Same as the actions. You want to take, or to stop taking a certain sector, and you did it. You expressed your will through deed. Others (if they disagree) are deprived of the privilege to express their will through such action, and they should also be deprived of the right to express their will through "chats"?

 

[r21r]

The chat is expression of a person's will. Same as the actions. You want to take, or to stop taking a certain sector, and you did it. You expressed your will through deed. Others (if they disagree) are deprived of the privilege to express their will through such action, and they should also be deprived of the right to express their will through "chats"?

and how this post helps us improve the flags use ?
or it is has a deeper meaning ... ?

 

[Giskler]

@Gisklerific could help, but what about the people being on manual battle or negotiation ?
i many times saw people starting a negotiation while the sector ~100/160 and just because the command was "150/160" or "155/160" the sectors was locked..

Just like you can get a message while in the middle of manual battle saying the province has changed owners it could pop up a message saying "This province has just been marked as ignore, do you wish to continue the battle?". It would require coding some common sense quality of life things though so probably very, very low on the priority list.

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

yes mate, i did, and that is because you are not in a guild which has Battlegrounds as #1 priority ?
or am i mistaken ?
Do you want me to give you a link about the official promo video ? or you feel good judging a player without having anything to suggest other than social evaluations, which are irrelevant on how the game works ?

No mate, I did not know every guild takes Battleground as #1 priority. I did not see the promo video. (I speak from limited participation in the GBG and I'm not one of your elite group that has more control, has more rights, and has enjoyed more extensive participation.) Once again my view is "one-guy view". You as plural think alike (and meanwhile you do not attribute your success to the socialization among yourselves) well good for you.

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

and how this post helps us improve the flags use ?
or it is has a deeper meaning ... ?

The post does have a deeper meaning. I'm explaining why the flag needs no improvement and is fine the way it is.

 

[r21r]

No mate, I did not know every guild takes Battleground as #1 priority. I did not see the promo video. Once again my view is "one-guy view". You as plural think alike (and meanwhile you do not attribute your success to the socialization among yourselves) well good for you.

Then take a look at the video, open your mind to suggestions made by people who spent a lot hours monitoring and guiding GBG, had the same problems with the people who made this topic, and then come judge the "social-effects" please.

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

The post does have a deeper meaning. I'm explaining why the flag needs no improvement and is fine the way it is.

The post has deeper meaning just as every action you take in the game has a deeper meaning and has influence on not only your own progress but others whom you neglected as well; and your "not deep" your superficial leading skills appall me.

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

Then take a look at the video, open your mind to suggestions made by people who spent a lot hours monitoring and guiding GBG, had the same problems with the people who made this topic, and then come judge the "social-effects" please.

Those Videos are for promoting the product and advertisement to attract new players, on a totally different layer.
Strategy-wise, and style-wise, I do not need any other player, nor the game developer themselves, to tell me how to play. Unless you are saying watching the promo video is mandatory? And the video has set out, not "tips", but "rules", about how to play battleground?

-- Disclaimer, this statement in no way imply I'm a breaker of guild rules, or disobey guild leader instructions. Again this is forum not guild chat.

 

[r21r]

Video are promoting and advertisement to attract new players
Strategy-wise, and style-wise, I do not need any other player, nor the game developer themselves, to tell me how to play. Unless you are saying watching the promo video is mandatory? And the video has set out, not "tips", but "rules", about how to play battleground?

If you watch the video you will find tips aswell.

 

[Zeratul 2.0]

Then take a look at the video, open your mind to suggestions made by people who spent a lot hours monitoring and guiding GBG, had the same problems with the people who made this topic, and then come judge the "social-effects" please.

And now you are issuing kind and amicable suggestions and recommendations, and no more cruel and stern orders and instructions? If you are a guild leader, are your rules amicable and "for reference only" as well? And "mates" can follow those rules and instructions if they like, and disobey if they don't like, yes?