• 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.

DeletedUser96867

@ mink

My point was that not only do the gvg rights have to be separated from the trusted rights, there should be multiple types of gvg rights. The rights which can be used to wipe out a guild due to army deletion, and sector freedom should be restricted to far fewer guild members than the rights to unlock defense slots and place sieges. Separating gvg rights along those 2 lines would greatly reduce the change of a spy getting the much more damaging delete army/freedom rights. So should Inno decide to implement gvg rights separate from trusted rights they may as well get it right this time and add at least 2 different gvg right levels. When i was discussing the rights issue on the test server with a mod in late November i was told adding a separate gvg right was turning into a much bigger problem than originally thought, it took them 6 weeks to come up with what they have now, which i would have considered a 15-20 minute effort for a temporary fix.


@alchemi2 On top of what Mink replied without rights needed to use the goods from guild treasury, a spy would be able to use up a guilds goods reserves placing sieges on unwanted sectors. So definitely this needs to be a right, but should be separated from the more critical rights of army deletion and granting freedom, and of course not part of the per-existing trusted right.
 

DeletedUser13805

why are you trying to make it impossible for a spy to do there dastardly deeds ? what gives you the right to decide that a spys actions should be made impossible ?

its a warfare fame and spying is very much an option in war that can cause huge disruption. i used to laugh at players who worried about spys in guilds before as what on earth could a spy do ? nothing at all
but now there are all sorts of options a spy could do and your trying to make it impossible and that in my book isn't fair.

just reading your post, i ended up getting lost with all the complicated things you want to see implemented all to stop a spy ???

i can only hope the devs think carefully about trying to stop tactics in a tactical game and spying and trying to bring down a guild with a spy is a tactic players should be allowed to use.
i know its not nice and i can imagine the outcry from players who it would happen to. but at the end of the day its a game and if someone is going to smart enough to infiltrate a guild with the soul intention of bringing it down then they should in my view.
 

DeletedUser1081

It wouldn't make sabotage impossible, desypete. It would be exactly as possible as it is now.
Look: Sabotage is possible now, if a member has trusted rights.
If there are separate GvG rights, sabotage will be possible if a member gets those separate GvG rights.
No (0) difference to the sabotage situation.

If you want to campaign against rights being needed at all, please start your own thread! :cool:
 

DeletedUser96867

@desypete

I think you need to think about it a little bit harder. I'm not against stopping all spying in a game. If a guild sends in a spy to gain intel on another guilds attack plans that is perfectly acceptable to me. I'd even accept the ability of a spy to come into a guild and delete a couple defending armies or waste good from their goods treasury providing the guild in question made the mistake of giving the player the rights to do so. There would also have to be the ability to identify the spies by his actions in an events log.

What i am against is the ability of a spy to come into a guild and delete EVERY defense army the guild has in EVERY sector they have, or grant freedom to EVERY sector they have in just a matter of minutes. This has happened several times on the test server to devastating effects. Guilds have already spent months of goods production they had stock piled on their gvg effort. If this can all be lost in a moment by the actions of one spy no guild will ever make a 2nd attempt at gvg.

On top of this after a spy commits sabotage their is no way to even recognize who did it as the event's log doesn't provide any useful information. It becomes almost impossible to identify the spy to stop him from continuing to do damage again.

If damage from spies becomes a major issue consider what it will do to guild recruiting. Guilds will completely stop recruiting players to avoid the risk. Imagine what effect that has on the game especially for the new players and the smaller guilds trying to fight gvg. The top guilds already have a huge advantage over the smaller guilds and often are close to maxing their 80 members spots. It's the smaller guilds who need more players to participate who will end up being devestated by spies as they need to recruit more players to actually have a change in gvg. This just further boosts the largest of guilds who already cleary have a major advantage over everyone else.

I'm certain if we had a spy in our guild delete or grant freedom to a large number of our sectors not only would a large number of players not ever participate in gvg again, but a good many already on the wall about the changes in FoE would leave the game for good.

So please explain how allowing spies to do unlimited damage, with no ability to identify them would have a positive effect on the game in any sort of way.

I happily wait a response from you after you have given the subject a little in depth thought. In the meantime i'll investigate trying to infiltrate someone into every guild you may be in on every world.

@mink

You clearly still miss my point. I'll leave it at that.
 

DeletedUser1081

fischh said:
@mink
You clearly still miss my point. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe I get your point exactly and agree with you. And I'll leave it at that.
(There was nothing at all in my last post directed at you, fischh - it was all @desypete)
 

DeletedUser13805

fischh said:
@desypete

I think you need to think about it a little bit harder. I'm not against stopping all spying in a game. If a guild sends in a spy to gain intel on another guilds attack plans that is perfectly acceptable to me. I'd even accept the ability of a spy to come into a guild and delete a couple defending armies or waste good from their goods treasury providing the guild in question made the mistake of giving the player the rights to do so. There would also have to be the ability to identify the spies by his actions in an events log.

What i am against is the ability of a spy to come into a guild and delete EVERY defense army the guild has in EVERY sector they have, or grant freedom to EVERY sector they have in just a matter of minutes. This has happened several times on the test server to devastating effects. Guilds have already spent months of goods production they had stock piled on their gvg effort. If this can all be lost in a moment by the actions of one spy no guild will ever make a 2nd attempt at gvg.

On top of this after a spy commits sabotage their is no way to even recognize who did it as the event's log doesn't provide any useful information. It becomes almost impossible to identify the spy to stop him from continuing to do damage again.

If damage from spies becomes a major issue consider what it will do to guild recruiting. Guilds will completely stop recruiting players to avoid the risk. Imagine what effect that has on the game especially for the new players and the smaller guilds trying to fight gvg. The top guilds already have a huge advantage over the smaller guilds and often are close to maxing their 80 members spots. It's the smaller guilds who need more players to participate who will end up being devestated by spies as they need to recruit more players to actually have a change in gvg. This just further boosts the largest of guilds who already cleary have a major advantage over everyone else.

I'm certain if we had a spy in our guild delete or grant freedom to a large number of our sectors not only would a large number of players not ever participate in gvg again, but a good many already on the wall about the changes in FoE would leave the game for good.

So please explain how allowing spies to do unlimited damage, with no ability to identify them would have a positive effect on the game in any sort of way.

I happily wait a response from you after you have given the subject a little in depth thought. In the meantime i'll investigate trying to infiltrate someone into every guild you may be in on every world.

@mink

You clearly still miss my point. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

what you outline is a very clever tactic in a tactical game
if a spy got into your guild and granted freedoms then of course it would have huge implications, but that should be part of the game. in your efforts to control everything there is about guilds or gvg your trying to stop a tactic from being used all because it would upset your members
well i dont suppose people like getting plundered much but they have to accept it as its part of the game and i would suggest you accept spys as part of the game and just be careful who you let into your guild
 

DeletedUser96867

@ desypete

As i said i'm fine with spys doing damage as long as it's LIMITED. Your plunder comparison is an interesting one. How would you like it if a plunderer could not only plunder a single buildings, but take all your coins, all your supplies, and all your goods in stock? That is the closest comparison i can come up with to compare the damage a spy can do to a guild in gvg without an appropriate rights system. Only it's not a good comparison because the damage a spy could do would be far far worse that that. Not that you care as you don't care about gvg's or guilds.

Now i will move on to actually trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone.
 

DeletedUser13805

fischh said:
@ desypete

As i said i'm fine with spys doing damage as long as it's LIMITED. Your plunder comparison is an interesting one. How would you like it if a plunderer could not only plunder a single buildings, but take all your coins, all your supplies, and all your goods in stock? That is the closest comparison i can come up with to compare the damage a spy can do to a guild in gvg without an appropriate rights system. Only it's not a good comparison because the damage a spy could do would be far far worse that that. Not that you care as you don't care about gvg's or guilds.

Now i will move on to actually trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone.
Click to expand...

i give it a bit of thought and i think the point about it being limited is a valid one.
maybe set a maximum to how many sectors a guild could set free in 24hours, this would give the guild time to know there is a spy in there camp ? and to take some action

as for defenses being deleted,i think you should only be allowed to replace injured army's in defense, that way someone couldnt just delete all the armys in a camp not unless there all injured
so i think this is a good work around for the spy problem and it would leave it in the game
 

DeletedUser2989

I think the idea of 2 levels of trust specifically for GvG is great. In a sense it would be three levels because I'm guessing that it would be possible to not grant either permission and that I like even more. The use of goods is a very sensitive issue and so is placing sieges, both of which would be fustrating to manage for guild management. I think that these changes are only going to get more important with the addition of an easier to access guild treasury. So many goods could go missing and it dosen't even have to be spies doing it, many people still find it difficult to grasp the new part of the game and accidently spend goods on defense slots the guild dosen't really need. I really hope the Dev's can implement this :D
 

DeletedUser99445

+1 from me. Well done Mink and Good Luck getting it implemented.
 

DeletedUser14349

not a bad idea but this doesn't change the fact that every member who has rights to replace armies can just delete all the armies. so I tihink that' not a solution to stop this kind of abuse
 

DeletedUser7719

Rhana said:
not a bad idea but this doesn't change the fact that every member who has rights to replace armies can just delete all the armies. so I tihink that' not a solution to stop this kind of abuse
Click to expand...
True. Even without separate rights, I would find capping the amount of armies a trusted player can delete to 4 per day per age and are not able to grant freedom to sectors good enough imo (where leaders and founders can delete as many as they want and grant freedom)

EDIT: Note that I am not against the idea, and this limit could be added unto the idea as well if we do not get a replace army option soon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser653

+1
with Byordie's comment added
byeordie said:
True. Even without separate rights, I would find capping the amount of armies a trusted player can delete to 4 per day per age and are not able to grant freedom to sectors good enough imo (where leaders and founders can delete as many as they want and grant freedom)
Click to expand...

and the restriction on freeing sectors applied to deleting armies too

Mark
 

ddevil

Chief Warrant Officer
Rhana said:
not a bad idea but this doesn't change the fact that every member who has rights to replace armies can just delete all the armies. so I tihink that' not a solution to stop this kind of abuse
Click to expand...

I think the best option will be to change the delete option completely and making it into a replace option (this option will have to compulsorily place an army if the previous army is removed otherwise the previous army stays)... Maybe only the leader & founder can have the delete option as an exclusive rights but everybody else should only have the option of replacing the army ... there's absolutely no necessity for the guild members to delete an army ....they only need to replace any damaged army ...thats the purpose of the delete option currently so changing it to replace option might solve the problem.... Only the leader / founder can decide to let go of a sector the guild holds and thereby can use the delete option ... SO maybe they can be given those rights ...
Not an original idea of mine but i think someone else had suggested this before and I am just trying to emphasis on it which seems to be a valid solution to me ...
 

DeletedUser2989

I was re-reading the OP and must update my comments on this idea. This would create 4 levels (no rights, GvG Aide de Camp, GvG captain, and both rights) which for now seems appropriate, however I do have some questions about the details.
1) Considering the new replace feature from the 1.36 update what place does it hold in your GvG rights
2) Do you still want the delete function to exist? (and restricted to GvG Captain)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top