• 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: We Need Separate GvG Rights PLEASE

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser1081

Proposal: We need distinct GvG rights that guild leaders can grant at their own discretion, to allow selected members to set sieges, change defense armies, use the treasury, etc. Linking GvG rights to the "trusted" right is highly impratical.

Have you Checked the Ideas section for the same idea posted by someone else?
Yes. The need for this has been emphasized repeatedly on a server I'm not allowed to mention :cool: but not here yet.

Reason: It's extremely impractical that GvG rights (setting sieges, etc) have been linked to pre-existing "trusted" rights that guilds use for something else entirely. Guild leaders need to be able to keep privy forums private without crippling our active GvGers, and to empower our active GvGers without compromising guild leaders' privacy.

Details: It would be best to have 3 levels of GvG rights:
~ a "GvG Aide de Camp" who can replace armies;
~ a "GvG Captain" who can replace armies and also unlock defense slots, set sieges, delete armies and move the HQ;
~ a "GvG Field Marshall" who can do everything a Captain can do and also release hexes.

None of these roles would have any relation to or effect on any existing guild rights.

Guildmembers who have no special GvG rights can contribute to the guild treasury, fight in GvG battles and fill empty defense slots.

(At some point the captains and/or field marshalls need to be able to trade unneeded treasury goods for stuff they do need - but that's for some further update.)

Balance/Abuse Prevention: Guild leaders would be able to grant/revoke these rights as they see fit, so abuse prevention would be an internal guild matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1081

The point is that "trusted" rights exist for a reason that has nothing - zero - to do with GvG. The way it's now set up muddles two totally separate things together. It's seriously impractical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2079

Devs: please listen to mink and give us a separate rating for GvG rights.
You know that the Guild needs priveleges and now we need a further distinction.
Please please please...there is enough to concentrate on without having to worry about this also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8813

one would have thought that since they are different sides to a game they would have thought of this..so its a plus 1 from me
 

DeletedUser7719

Devs are aware of this. Don't know if this means they're aiming to implement it though, so I'll +1 this
 

DeletedUser9057

Total agreement, different purpose, different rights.

What if a FOE player had to have a certain right to post a bug and that right also gave them the ability to see the underlying code?
 

DeletedUser101450

The gvg idea absolutely sucks. Its the worst update thats ever been done to the game.
 

DeletedUser4089

richsaxo said:
The gvg idea absolutely sucks. Its the worst update thats ever been done to the game.
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss the merits of GvG you can go to the GvG feedback thread,

This is an idea thread made with the hope of improving the GvG feature, by expanding the current rights system.

Please don't throw it off topic
 

DeletedUser13805

i dont like this idea for one very good reason
players couldnt send spies into guilds to sabotage them by granting freedoms it would cause uproar and bring down the mighty of guilds and its a tactic i think should be allowed to be included in this game.
so for that reason i dont like this idea as it could mean guilds would be protected from spies doing them some serious damage and in war spies were really powerful
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7719

desypete said:
i dont like this idea for one very good reason
players could send spies into guilds to sabotage them by granting freedoms it would cause uproar and bring down the mighty of guilds and its a tactic i think should be allowed to be included in this game.
so for that reason i dont like this idea as it could mean guilds would be protected from spies doing them some serious damage and in war spies were really powerful
Click to expand...
It's still pretty possible with this idea implemented. You just need the spy to stay a bit longer in order to ensure trust :p
 

DeletedUser13805

byeordie said:
It's still pretty possible with this idea implemented. You just need the spy to stay a bit longer in order to ensure trust :p
Click to expand...

yes that is true byeoride but i still think it would make for better drama if its left as it is
guilds should accept members at there own risk !!!!! : )
it would send parinoia right off the scale lol
 

DeletedUser96867

desypete said:
i dont like this idea for one very good reason
players couldnt send spies into guilds to sabotage them by granting freedoms it would cause uproar and bring down the mighty of guilds and its a tactic i think should be allowed to be included in this game.
so for that reason i dont like this idea as it could mean guilds would be protected from spies doing them some serious damage and in war spies were really powerful
Click to expand...

Spies destroy the game. Since there is no way to track which player does what you can't even boot the spy after his act of sabotage. As demonstrated several times on BETA a spy would get into a guild and not do a little damage but delete every army in every sector in every age, totally destroying everything the guild had worked for. The result on beta was that all the top guilds stopped recruiting for fear of spies. The smaller guilds who had to recruit to compete where therefor the ones ending up with spies wiping them out. After one major spy event it wasn't unusual for 50% or more of the player in that guild to 1) quit gvg, or 2) quit the game.
 

DeletedUser96867

To provide the background of and time line for how the trusted rights got put in. During the gvg testing multiple guilds were completely wiped out due to spies deleting all their armies in all their sectors. We were informed that programming in rights for army deletion was of a high priority but was more difficult than expected for some reason. This was several weeks after the problem was initially pointed out to FoE. It tooks 6-7 weeks from the time we were told that it was of a high priority before gvg rights were attached to the existing trusted rights. (likely a 15-30 programming fix) However linking it with the rights for siege, and unlocking defensive slots, means a lot of players have to be trusted with these rights just to take part in gvg, again increasing the risk of a spy getting the trusted rights and deleting the armies.

At no time has it been made clear that using spies to delete armies is against the rules, even though those caught(which often only happens in extreme cases) had the appropriate action taken against them. Would be great if FoE would make it clear to all, what is the rule on sending in spies to delete other guilds defensive armies.
 

DeletedUser1081

Right, but none of the above means gvg rights should be linked to "trusted" rights, which serve a completely different purpose.

And to desypete and byeordie: Separating the two types of rights also wouldn't make it impossible for a saboteur to gain the necessary rights to sabotage a guild's efforts, nor would it mean anyone would have to wait longer (or shorter) to be granted the necessary rights, because in any case it's up to the guild leaders to grant the rights to whomever, whenever. So liking saboteurs (or not) is not actually relevant to this idea. Thank you for caring, though! :cool:
 

DeletedUser10205

+1 from me

Don't see why siege army or opening defense slots should not need any special rights at all everyone should be able to do those.

Moving the HQ, granting freedom and deleting defense armies are the ones that need limited or controlled access and should have a special button like leader, moderator and inviter does.

Spies are generally used to gather intel and could still be used but guilds should have control over the functions that can really devastate their efforts.
 

DeletedUser1081

Alchemi2, thanks for your support, but setting sieges and opening defense slots most definitely need to be restricted so that impatient or under-informed guildmembers don't end up throwing away resources on things that aren't needed or undermining strategies with reckless sieges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top