Territory Battle and War - Guild Leader and Officer Tools Update [MEGA]

18910111214Next

Replies

  • Sick_Grimes
    12 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Screenshot_20171125_122013.png
    Commanding done right
  • I was one of the only people in the guild that was running full clears on the combat missions but since I logged in 20 minutes after the phase started, I don't get to play the ships portion of the phase as it's already 3*. Now I can't compete for a perfect combat mission run. It really irritates me that I can't play the game because the developers think "it doesn't serve a purpose." It would probably blow their mind to think there's any fun or competitive aspects to the game.
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    .

    This is point right here was written by someone who doesn't play this game, and possibly any game, I guarantee it. Hands down, the dumbest thing about territory battles so far. They are legislating the game beyond fun. In fact, it's ironic how fun isn't mentioned in any of the posts about territory battles. Competing for a perfect run of combat missions WAS fun...but now if you aren't logged in within the first 5 minutes of the phase, you miss out in the cheese ship combat.
  • tialishomaaroma
    61 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    TB Ship Platoon - Orbital Bombarmant doesnt work. We filled all 6/6. And there is no advantige there.
    Post edited by tialishomaaroma on
  • So, today or ships section auto-locked after reaching 3*. We completed 32/50 combat missions.

    It is now 4 hours to close of the phase, and my guild has 50/59, 50/50, and 48/50 combat completed in the other sections.

    How can I use the new combat mission tracker stats to tell which 2 of my members can still complete some combat for us? They’re all mixed in with the 18 who have 3 missions completed but can’t proceed further.

    @CG_Kozispoon — this is the “value” of allowing members to participate after a region is locked. Let me manage my members who Mis-deploy. Because now, despite some upgraded stat trackers that should be very useful, I cannot tell who is missing combat.
  • I’ll join in the ranks protesting the auto lock. Our guild have become extremely organised, superb at following orders and our TB star count is the proof of that. Nobody cared about the leaderboard, because if everyone did their bit, the 50 names would be in an almost completely predictable order.

    Now we’ve got people who are genuinely anxious about their position in the standings, largely down to their time zone or RL commitments meaning that zones will likely be locked when they get online.

    It’s the ship zone, in particular, that this is felt the most. 19/50 of us hit it, then 3* achieved. 2 or 3 of them didn’t even deploy after the battle. That’s 31 people deprived of activity in a game for absolutely no reason.

    In ground zones it’s less of an issue, as after phase 3 we were not maxing all territories anyway, but the ship zone is going to become divisive if the auto lock remains.
  • GraniteSheep
    68 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    Echoing much of what has been said, but on behalf of That’s So Revan, please remove the auto locking at 3*. It’s a dreadful feature and I can’t see how it benefits any Guild, well any that have organised players.

    Yesterday 17/50 got to play the mission in ships, today 30/50. That’s with only a couple accidental deploys (auto pilot from pre lock TB’s). Players are being deprived access to content.

    DS is a step up in toons missions so won’t be as hard felt as LS TB, but please remove it before another TB is run.

    Yes, where you place doesn’t matter, but it’s nice to have personal development and track improvement. Challenge yourself. This option has been removed.

    A switch on or off lock for officers would be useful. This current lock is not useful. It’s detrimental to the experience.
  • It's not perfect, but it's a good idea as a workaround imo.

    My guild has always had a deploy time (8pm AEDT). Hence, any deployments before that and any CMs not done after that nets a warning (2 warnings mean a raid sitout, 3 means demotion after TB to a less casual guild in our alliance, 4+ means removal after Day 6 but before rewards).

    Basically, lock all deployments until a specific time (arrange with your guild) and allow everyone to do CMs. Then, since there's a lag for deployments everyone can deploy if they're fast enough after that point.

    at least this way everyone gets to do CMs.
  • Thats between you and your guild
  • Thats between you and your guild

    I'm just offering a workaround to the only bad officer tool.
  • Youll have a guild of 50 ppl...good luck. The tools provided are to help...not control. Every guild will have some of the same issue
  • They want us to think tactical etc? Ur suggestion is tell us what to do
  • Just makes me glad I’m nothing to do with Alliance Guilds and in a good fun well run Guild
  • Sheep i agree in a great guild...thats harsh lol
  • I recommend that everyone leaves OPs guild. Removal before rewards is just harsh.
  • It's not perfect, but it's a good idea as a workaround imo.

    My guild has always had a deploy time (8pm AEDT). Hence, any deployments before that and any CMs not done after that nets a warning (2 warnings mean a raid sitout, 3 means demotion after TB to a less casual guild in our alliance, 4+ means removal after Day 6 but before rewards).

    Basically, lock all deployments until a specific time (arrange with your guild) and allow everyone to do CMs. Then, since there's a lag for deployments everyone can deploy if they're fast enough after that point.

    at least this way everyone gets to do CMs.

    U are the same dude who removed a player from your guild till after they contributed to tb but before they got their reward will never take or listen to your advice.
  • swgohfan29 wrote: »
    I recommend that everyone leaves OPs guild. Removal before rewards is just harsh.

    well just because you guys think not getting 600s, overdeploying, not doing CMs, etc. is okay doesnt mean everyone does so too.
  • GraniteSheep
    68 posts Member
    edited November 2017
    swgohfan29 wrote: »
    I recommend that everyone leaves OPs guild. Removal before rewards is just harsh.

    well just because you guys think not getting 600s, overdeploying, not doing CMs, etc. is okay doesnt mean everyone does so too.

    RL dictates this sometimes. Amazes me the way some guilds treat the game and create unnecessary extra work for officers. You don’t have to run a dictatorship with over the top punishments dished out when your little rules aren’t met. Each to their own, but I’ll stick with our way of talking to each other, encouraging, supporting and working as a team. Funnily enough that doesn’t lead to chaos and people not doing 600 or not following officers guide.

    EDIT: this and some of above has been merged from a different thread, so context lost.
    Post edited by GraniteSheep on
  • swgohfan29 wrote: »
    I recommend that everyone leaves OPs guild. Removal before rewards is just harsh.

    well just because you guys think not getting 600s, overdeploying, not doing CMs, etc. is okay doesnt mean everyone does so too.

    RL dictates this sometimes. Amazes me the way some guilds treat the game and create unnecessary extra work for officers. You don’t have to run a dictatorship with over the top punishments dished out when your little rules aren’t met. Each to their own, but I’ll stick with our way of talking to each other, encouraging, supporting and working as a team. Funnily enough that doesn’t lead to chaos and people not doing 600 or not following officers guide.

    EDIT: this and some of above has been merged from a different thread, so context lost.

    I dont know about you but most large alliances are practically millitant guilds enforcing 600s/day, CMs etc.
  • swgohfan29 wrote: »
    I recommend that everyone leaves OPs guild. Removal before rewards is just harsh.

    well just because you guys think not getting 600s, overdeploying, not doing CMs, etc. is okay doesnt mean everyone does so too.

    RL dictates this sometimes. Amazes me the way some guilds treat the game and create unnecessary extra work for officers. You don’t have to run a dictatorship with over the top punishments dished out when your little rules aren’t met. Each to their own, but I’ll stick with our way of talking to each other, encouraging, supporting and working as a team. Funnily enough that doesn’t lead to chaos and people not doing 600 or not following officers guide.

    EDIT: this and some of above has been merged from a different thread, so context lost.

    I dont know about you but most large alliances are practically millitant guilds enforcing 600s/day, CMs etc.

    Maybe so.
    Which alliance are you a part of again?
  • Thank you for the tools and the stats.

    Some remarks :

    I would like to select which peloton are prohibited.
    Actually, all the pelotons are prohibited. If only one or two can't be completed, the only solution is to give order.

    Separate the pg deployed for the ships and characters
    Actually, the stats for the pg deployed regroup the pg for ships and characters.
    We can't know at the end when the territory for ships are completed how many pg for characters are available.
  • swgohfan29 wrote: »
    I recommend that everyone leaves OPs guild. Removal before rewards is just harsh.

    well just because you guys think not getting 600s, overdeploying, not doing CMs, etc. is okay doesnt mean everyone does so too.

    RL dictates this sometimes. Amazes me the way some guilds treat the game and create unnecessary extra work for officers. You don’t have to run a dictatorship with over the top punishments dished out when your little rules aren’t met. Each to their own, but I’ll stick with our way of talking to each other, encouraging, supporting and working as a team. Funnily enough that doesn’t lead to chaos and people not doing 600 or not following officers guide.

    EDIT: this and some of above has been merged from a different thread, so context lost.

    I dont know about you but most large alliances are practically millitant guilds enforcing 600s/day, CMs etc.

    And thus the reason to avoid them. Militant is not a word that make an alliance appealing to me.
  • I think a lot of issues could be solved by a simple redesign of TB.
    1. make platoons only matter in later phases, not the current one. (exception: P6)
    2. just one big territory, all units are deployed upon entering, that select battles and platoons. (exception: P6)

    You still have to coordinate platoons, and would appreciate a lot of the things said in the OP.
    Banthas want to eat me, but I eat back!
  • Work a round
    1) each msg starts with offi tag
    E.g. "t: no fights" where t is the tag of only one offi.

    For the other points use 3rd part tool, e.g. discord.
  • Work a round
    1) each msg starts with offi tag
    E.g. "t: no fights" where t is the tag of only one offi.

    For the other points use 3rd part tool, e.g. discord.

    Doesn't really address the issues.
    Assume that you have a bunch of officers, and some of them may have different ideas, not do as agreed, make mistakes, whatever. Just as in any system (be it financial, computer, whatever), there needs to be an audit trail, accountability, know who did what. Otherwise how do you detect a rogue operative?

    Discord doesn't do it either. The point is to make it as easy as possible for the players to do what you want, and difficult for them to do something else. "Operator error" is a euphemism for poorly designed system. Assume that the players won't bother with discord, and won't remember what they read there.

    (Of course one could argue that this whole game is how to deal with a poorly designed system. So many things it makes you do manually which should be automatic - like collecting daily store items, etc.)
  • try this again.. my other post deleted for some reason..
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    From a prize standpoint, yes. However, as pointed out, some guilds derive enjoyment from additional internal competition.. while my guild is not one of these, I see no reason to shut out those who do.
    [*] Locking a territory at 3 stars provides guilds a clearer picture of effective contributions vs general engagement. It does so by limiting a player’s ability to climb stat leaderboards after a territory is already completed.
    Sort of. As above, some have additional internal goals.. But as a global game, and especially as a global guild, locking out these 'completed' territories will only serve to alienate those who are not able to play immediately. I feel as though this will drive players to log on quickly and recklessly deploy in order to get higher ranking on the leaderboards.. this is already a problem in my guild as people will 'shotgun' platoons to get 10/10 instead of searching out rarer slots to fill.
    [*] We made the call not to let officers lock at one, two stars. We feel the coordination to lock/unlock Territories at specific times drives Guild Officers time commitment up significantly.
    Our guild doesn't 3* much beyond Day 1. The ability to lock at 1/2/3* would allow us to see a clearer idea of where we in regards to reaching additional star levels. I actually feel this would have the opposite effect in that it would drive down the time commiment for officers as they can lock the star levels early, and leave the players to complete to that point. revisiting it at a later time and perhaps lifting the lock if its possible to reach a new star level.
    [*] Dedicating Guild member deployments solely to officers would again drive up time commitment of officers exponentially. Territory battles is intended to reward the efforts of all Guild members and we’ll continue looking for ways to reward and enhance guild wide efforts.


    This, I agree with. Deployments should be an individual players job, but the ability of officers to send out guidelines and even regulate limits is important.

    Hopefully you will read and take these suggestions and comments to heart, and I feel they will greatly improve the tools you are already providing us.

    Thanks

    Perfectly said. We've never gotten 3* & not likely too. Several times we might or could find have gotten 2* + 2* instead of 2* + 1* if I'd been able to stop people keeping going after the 2* when it'd never reach 3*.
This discussion has been closed.