There should also be a "report player" option in the case you get someone doing what was identified by the OP. At the least, CG can see check marks in the person's profile to know if they're trolling guild events to cause damage to other people's play. Not that it happens very often I'm sure, but at the least something to be aware of.
There should be a way for the guild leader to fix teams if there's an issue. I've seen more than one time where someone put the leader in the wrong spot on a team. Mistakes happen, there should be some way to remove that team so you can fix the mistake.
Could be, someone's friend or child got a hold of their device and messed it up. Happened to someone I know, they were showing the game to their kid and their kid ended up leaving our guild, losing raid and I think tw or tb rewards. So please don't assume it was because someone was intentionally trying to screw you over.
There should also be a "report player" option in the case you get someone doing what was identified by the OP. At the least, CG can see check marks in the person's profile to know if they're trolling guild events to cause damage to other people's play. Not that it happens very often I'm sure, but at the least something to be aware of.
There should be a way for the guild leader to fix teams if there's an issue. I've seen more than one time where someone put the leader in the wrong spot on a team. Mistakes happen, there should be some way to remove that team so you can fix the mistake.
Both TW and GA need this - but it should be an ability for the individual to amend their team, not something an officer can do. In the most recent TW our enemy placed a wall of zKRU FO squads in zone 1b - except that one of them had the wrong kylo in the leader slot. I bet the guy that placed that team was kicking himself and would have fixed it in an instant if he were able to.
Both sides of the argument have been stated many times in this thread (and a few in the Territory Wars section of the forum too), but for me the case is stronger for officers NOT to have this power.
The main reason is that the officers retain the ability to “punish” someone who sets rubbish defence and/or ignores instructions by removing them from the guild. They can do this during setup phase, as the OP did, or, if they’re feeling particularly vindictive, they can remove them minutes prior to rewards appearing in your inbox.
If the power to amend / remove squads were granted to officers and they were to abuse that power by removing defences just prior to attack phase, the affected player has no means to respond. They can’t boot the officer out of the guild, they couldn’t remove other squads to re-place theirs.
People can dismiss the possibility of that scenario if they like, but I’ve read posts in this forums detailing the actions of guild officers / leaders that sound like megalomaniacs in the making. If the power to remove / edit squads were extended to officers, the power would be abused by someone, period.
I think @Kyno said it earlier - one of the aspects of succeeding at this game is communication. If your guild don’t all pull as one, they are weakened. Officers should be aiming to support members in doing the right thing, not clearing up their mistakes for them. That’s not how people learn.
If you dont trust you Leaders and Officers, change guild...
We had the same happen to us this TW, a guy that had been in guild for a couple month now suddenly places low cp nonsense teams (no leader, no synergies)
I as an officer wouldve liked to remove his teams, or for all I care only remove them after I kicked that troll.
There should also be a "report player" option in the case you get someone doing what was identified by the OP. At the least, CG can see check marks in the person's profile to know if they're trolling guild events to cause damage to other people's play. Not that it happens very often I'm sure, but at the least something to be aware of.
There should be a way for the guild leader to fix teams if there's an issue. I've seen more than one time where someone put the leader in the wrong spot on a team. Mistakes happen, there should be some way to remove that team so you can fix the mistake.
I think it’s been defined as a rule that player-shaming will never be tolerated, in-game or on the forums, specifically in terms of recruitment or “Black-listing” players based on behaviors. I’m uncertain if the context is in regards to players’ honest mistakes that have been misinterpreted, or anyone’s honest desire to stop being a troll and take something seriously. In either case, any sense of profile-tracking with public marks is a socially elitist disaster waiting to happen.
My opinion, any set defenses shouldn’t be locked in until the phase “locks in.” You can sign up for a whole day and play around with mods and upgrades before you’re roster is locked. I think the same should be said for determining where you want to place your teams, and for officers to review for mistakes (like accidentally not using Hera as the Phoenix leader) or misplacements. No control - just providing interface tools to enhance communication that already exists. Let’s not forget that Line and Discord have been used LONG before in-game messaging became a thing.
"I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." ~ Hoban Washburne
Side note: especially with the new QOL function coming soon about setting up Squads with the “shared” indication of “used up” characters so you’re not stacking your team assignments, this should be relatively easy to implement using the same squad-building mechanics in TW zones. Just a thought, but I’m not a programmer. I wouldn’t know how to make it functional, just practical in design.
"I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." ~ Hoban Washburne
There is a danger of how far you bring this idea of controlling players who are not of officer or guildmaster rank, because next you may offer to have officers and guildmasters having full control in using our squads in all raids, TW and TB as to *control the strategy*. QOL improvements do not mean zero strategic thought of players is the goal.
@Altazarus I think it’s a bit of a stretch to imply that this direction of QOL adjustments could lead to leadership roles taking control of a player’s “raid teams.” But I understand the core concept of your point about escalation in general. It’s a slippery (and potentially dangerous) slope, and one that should be given great consideration (and beta testing) before ever being implemented publicly. Or even, with the ability for guilds to opt in or out of this option, for the higher-end guilds vs the casual ones.
"I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." ~ Hoban Washburne
A guy putting weak teams on key territories doesn't affect the gameplay of all your guild?
If you had to chose wouldn't you prefer to give that choice to an officer? who is chosen to manage the guild.
And it's probably better than comply or be kicked, cause that's the only thing an officer can do.
Me personally, no. If you cant play the game, someone else should not be allowed to step in and play for you.
Either way, the dev team have stated it will not happen. This is why any prohibited actions can be ignored.
Someone placing a weak, unwanted team in defense is preventing someone else to place a good, wanted team there. The argument goes both ways, except in one way it’s always positive, the other way being negative only.
I don’t understand that argument at all to be honest. Guilds should have all the tools available to them. It’s the very nature of guilds to have rules and enforce them so the group can grow and function properly. It would only make things much healthier with zero downside to give more management tools to the guild.
As of right now the only action available is to kick the player out of the guild (by the way preventing said player to use any team in any current guild event, affecting his/her gameplay infinitely more than removing a team). Really makes no sense.
You are only seeing this from one point of view...... Nobody needs some trumped.up overbearing guild officer pulling their teams out of tw...... A simple system where an officer can politely reach out and have the player remove their team would be sufficient.....
Talk about someone seeing something from one point of view..... Really your biggest concern is some "trumped up" guild officer? Says all you need to know about your guilds leadership
My guild has great leadership..... I'm actually an officer myself (disclaimer)....
It's very simple, we recruit and screen our members in advance..... If someone makes a mistake, we work together to follow up with them. If they show disdain for simple orders then they won't be in our guild long..... We set clear concise instructions for each territory and expect our team to follow them..... It would be great if you could ask players to remove a team and they were able to.do it..... Not to mention, it's easy to accidentally place an incorrect toon, so the feature would be great for that as well.....
Everyone is an agreement that players should have the ability to alter their defenses during setup phases of tw/ga. But to suggest that giving guild leadership the same power to support the guilds goals in tw as unnecessary or somehow a power reach, is.
If you are an officer you know there will always be real life events that might prevent players from undoing a defense in time. Giving the guild leadership this Power helps in that. I can't for the life of me understand why this is so divisive. Are people really that worried the guild leadership is gonna sabotage their own efforts in tw? Gimme a break. If that happens just change guilds it's not a guild you likely wanna be in anyway.
Giving someone else arbitrary power to remove your teams is straight up wrong...... Tw is a guild / team event, not an individual one...... Allowing one person to control what gets out down would be ridiculous...... It's not rocket surgery, set good criteria for each zone and ensure folks follow it...... Giving one or two people control over everything 50 people set is a recipe for disaster and takes away from everyone's participation.....
You haven't made one legitimate argument as to why giving guilds leadership this ability is a bad thing. ....
A guy putting weak teams on key territories doesn't affect the gameplay of all your guild?
If you had to chose wouldn't you prefer to give that choice to an officer? who is chosen to manage the guild.
And it's probably better than comply or be kicked, cause that's the only thing an officer can do.
Me personally, no. If you cant play the game, someone else should not be allowed to step in and play for you.
Either way, the dev team have stated it will not happen. This is why any prohibited actions can be ignored.
Someone placing a weak, unwanted team in defense is preventing someone else to place a good, wanted team there. The argument goes both ways, except in one way it’s always positive, the other way being negative only.
I don’t understand that argument at all to be honest. Guilds should have all the tools available to them. It’s the very nature of guilds to have rules and enforce them so the group can grow and function properly. It would only make things much healthier with zero downside to give more management tools to the guild.
As of right now the only action available is to kick the player out of the guild (by the way preventing said player to use any team in any current guild event, affecting his/her gameplay infinitely more than removing a team). Really makes no sense.
You are only seeing this from one point of view...... Nobody needs some trumped.up overbearing guild officer pulling their teams out of tw...... A simple system where an officer can politely reach out and have the player remove their team would be sufficient.....
Talk about someone seeing something from one point of view..... Really your biggest concern is some "trumped up" guild officer? Says all you need to know about your guilds leadership
My guild has great leadership..... I'm actually an officer myself (disclaimer)....
It's very simple, we recruit and screen our members in advance..... If someone makes a mistake, we work together to follow up with them. If they show disdain for simple orders then they won't be in our guild long..... We set clear concise instructions for each territory and expect our team to follow them..... It would be great if you could ask players to remove a team and they were able to.do it..... Not to mention, it's easy to accidentally place an incorrect toon, so the feature would be great for that as well.....
Everyone is an agreement that players should have the ability to alter their defenses during setup phases of tw/ga. But to suggest that giving guild leadership the same power to support the guilds goals in tw as unnecessary or somehow a power reach, is.
If you are an officer you know there will always be real life events that might prevent players from undoing a defense in time. Giving the guild leadership this Power helps in that. I can't for the life of me understand why this is so divisive. Are people really that worried the guild leadership is gonna sabotage their own efforts in tw? Gimme a break. If that happens just change guilds it's not a guild you likely wanna be in anyway.
Giving someone else arbitrary power to remove your teams is straight up wrong...... Tw is a guild / team event, not an individual one...... Allowing one person to control what gets out down would be ridiculous...... It's not rocket surgery, set good criteria for each zone and ensure folks follow it...... Giving one or two people control over everything 50 people set is a recipe for disaster and takes away from everyone's participation.....
You haven't made one legitimate argument as to why giving guilds leadership this ability is a bad thing. You are just saying it's disaster with zero proof that such a thing would be harmful to players and the guild overall. Assuming leaders are somehow interested in sabotage is ridiculous.
Could be be abused sure but as you and others pointed out if you don't like what the leadership is doing in tw then that's probably not the right guild for you. That's not a argument to implement something that can if used correctly benefit the entire guild.
Then isnt the current argument of why they dont need that power: if you dont like what someone is doing then they are probably not the right fit for your guild.
Just a few other ideas beyond the possibility of abuse.
- removal of defensive teams could cause a player to not gain points and therefore not "participate" and get 0 rewards.
- guilds with minimal communication could have issues conveying information to a player and removing the teams may seem like a solution but doesnt actually fix the problem. The whole teach a man to fish argument.
- it's just not necessary. We are here to play the game, if someone feels that strongly about the TW setup and others do not, there is a mismatch of ideals and that root cause should be addressed.
- there are better ways to help solve the problem and not ever have someone else involved in another's roster. It seems like a good line not to cross and it doesnt need to be.
It's a different problem when a player does something wrong and the guild removes that person. The damage is already done there is nothing the guild can do to undo the damage. Which impacts potentially 49 other people.
Whereas if a guild leader sabotages (which is highly unlikely) but let's assume they do. There removal doesn't impact everyone else because you can substitute their squads for alternative ones if they are removed. Giving the guild a better chance to correct the problem.
Going into a TW with 4-5 less defensive positions because someone removed them at the last minute is the same as someone placing bad ones that cant be removed.
@Kyno the potential scenarios you state are appreciated but an all be addressed in code.
-1 if a player submits defenses and those defenses are removed cg can detect that and still initiate rewards for that player if somehow they fail to deploy correct defenses or have a success on offense.
-2 not sure what the scenario is? Lack of communication is surely one aspect as to why this feature is useful but not the only one and agree forcing players to learn the methods a guild might use for coordination is more important.
-3 the issue is that it is to late to learn if a player isn't a fit. Forcing the entire guild and 49 other players to endure someone's horrible game play is equally unfair.
-4 i disagree obviously it's a guild event not a personal one. A player cannot join tw if they aren't in a guild thus a guilds direction and rules trump a individuals solo play. A player cannot expect solo privileges in a cooperative aspect of the event like tw. Ga is the game play they can use to play the way they want not in a cooperative game play. I know we disagree on this and i wish i could persuade your position. But simply put a person whos playing a cooperative event that is in fact a guild event should be forced to follow the Guilds wishes and not play in whatever fashion they so choose.
1- sure, I guess they could but in the current setup if you score no points you get nothing.
3 - its 1 TW not the end of the world.
- giving a player the ability to edit their own teams and the removal of all teams if someone is removed from the guild during the setup phase, is more than enough of a solution. There is no need to cross a line of giving someone else the ability to edit someone else choices. 1 TW is not the end of the world, give a player a chance, dont like it or dont like the guild move on. There are plenty tauntauns on Hoth.
There is a danger of how far you bring this idea of controlling players who are not of officer or guildmaster rank, because next you may offer to have officers and guildmasters having full control in using our squads in all raids, TW and TB as to *control the strategy*. QOL improvements do not mean zero strategic thought of players is the goal.
They already have that control. They can remove you from the guild entirely.
There should also be a "report player" option in the case you get someone doing what was identified by the OP. At the least, CG can see check marks in the person's profile to know if they're trolling guild events to cause damage to other people's play. Not that it happens very often I'm sure, but at the least something to be aware of.
There should be a way for the guild leader to fix teams if there's an issue. I've seen more than one time where someone put the leader in the wrong spot on a team. Mistakes happen, there should be some way to remove that team so you can fix the mistake.
Both TW and GA need this - but it should be an ability for the individual to amend their team, not something an officer can do. In the most recent TW our enemy placed a wall of zKRU FO squads in zone 1b - except that one of them had the wrong kylo in the leader slot. I bet the guy that placed that team was kicking himself and would have fixed it in an instant if he were able to.
Both sides of the argument have been stated many times in this thread (and a few in the Territory Wars section of the forum too), but for me the case is stronger for officers NOT to have this power.
The main reason is that the officers retain the ability to “punish” someone who sets rubbish defence and/or ignores instructions by removing them from the guild. They can do this during setup phase, as the OP did, or, if they’re feeling particularly vindictive, they can remove them minutes prior to rewards appearing in your inbox.
If the power to amend / remove squads were granted to officers and they were to abuse that power by removing defences just prior to attack phase, the affected player has no means to respond. They can’t boot the officer out of the guild, they couldn’t remove other squads to re-place theirs.
People can dismiss the possibility of that scenario if they like, but I’ve read posts in this forums detailing the actions of guild officers / leaders that sound like megalomaniacs in the making. If the power to remove / edit squads were extended to officers, the power would be abused by someone, period.
I think @Kyno said it earlier - one of the aspects of succeeding at this game is communication. If your guild don’t all pull as one, they are weakened. Officers should be aiming to support members in doing the right thing, not clearing up their mistakes for them. That’s not how people learn.
Those points are so simplistic and naive seriously. A group of 50 different people is not easy to handle with all the requirements the game has. You have to set rules, and if there are rules, you need ways to enforce those rules. As of now the only way to enforce those rules is the most extreme, you remove the player.
If you want to make the game a life lesson, in real life there are rules everywhere and people with the tools to enforce them everytime. Variety of tools depending on the situation. Expecting 50 people to function perfectly right away and all guild leaderships to be able to find only flawless people who will always listen to everything all the time is simply not realistic. It’s not how people work.
Sometimes asking nicely doesn’t do much, and a small disciplinary action would do the trick. Nothing horrible, a simple 1 raid miss or something. More diverse powers to leadership can also mean more ranks with different abilities.
A lot of games have those and what do you know, you don’t feel horribly abused by dictators when you play them.
Having nothing like here in swgoh is not about communication or being respectful or staying out of someone’s gameplay. It’s just the game being completely binary. You do what i want or you’re out. I do what i want or i leave. Great.
Having more management tools can and would only make the guild environment healthier. It would make it easier for everyone. There is no downside to it. You can say « devs said no so no » and fine, be like that. But trying to argue weird, unrealistic things like enforcing rules is a bad thing ???? Makes zero sense whatsoever.
Having more management tools can and would only make the guild environment healthier. It would make it easier for everyone. There is no downside to it.
I highly doubt that giving officers more control over such things only makes the guild environment healthier to be honest.
One rather obvious downside is ofcourse that it requires less thought/effort from all 50 members if one or two officers can just do it for them. What's the point in having guild events if coordination doesn't pay off?
Those points are so simplistic and naive seriously. A group of 50 different people is not easy to handle with all the requirements the game has. You have to set rules, and if there are rules, you need ways to enforce those rules. As of now the only way to enforce those rules is the most extreme, you remove the player.
If you want to make the game a life lesson, in real life there are rules everywhere and people with the tools to enforce them everytime. Variety of tools depending on the situation. Expecting 50 people to function perfectly right away and all guild leaderships to be able to find only flawless people who will always listen to everything all the time is simply not realistic. It’s not how people work.
I am an officer in a 190M GP guild - a guild that has had one change in membership since Revan first arrived in game. In the early days of TB and TW there were an awful lot more departures and arrivals than that. Our guild functions well - but of course not flawlessly.
I dispute your claim that "the only way to enforce those rules is to remove the player". Point out the mistake, ask them to wait before deploying defence next time so they can seek advice, allocate a mentor or similar to help them meet the requirements. There are lots of ways to help people become better guild members. Booting them out is surely at the end of that list.
Sometimes asking nicely doesn’t do much, and a small disciplinary action would do the trick. Nothing horrible, a simple 1 raid miss or something. More diverse powers to leadership can also mean more ranks with different abilities.
A lot of games have those and what do you know, you don’t feel horribly abused by dictators when you play them.
Having nothing like here in swgoh is not about communication or being respectful or staying out of someone’s gameplay. It’s just the game being completely binary. You do what i want or you’re out. I do what i want or i leave. Great.
That's exactly what our guild uses as a sanction for certain things, like missing your 600 (though we would always encourage everyone to JOIN a raid) or posting early damage. The other sanction is a donation run.
Having more management tools can and would only make the guild environment healthier. It would make it easier for everyone. There is no downside to it. You can say « devs said no so no » and fine, be like that. But trying to argue weird, unrealistic things like enforcing rules is a bad thing ???? Makes zero sense whatsoever.
You're kinda proving my point here. When someone's getting something wrong in the guild, it's up to the guild to help them realise this and improve. Cleaning up their mess every time will not help them - they'll keep doing things wrong.
TB, TW, Raids are all about guilds working together. Guilds that are better at communicating and collaborating will do better in these game modes than guilds who are poor at those things. I'm not sure why so many people are fiercely defending an idea that would mean they don't need to improve at something they're weak at.
A guy putting weak teams on key territories doesn't affect the gameplay of all your guild?
If you had to chose wouldn't you prefer to give that choice to an officer? who is chosen to manage the guild.
And it's probably better than comply or be kicked, cause that's the only thing an officer can do.
Me personally, no. If you cant play the game, someone else should not be allowed to step in and play for you.
Either way, the dev team have stated it will not happen. This is why any prohibited actions can be ignored.
Someone placing a weak, unwanted team in defense is preventing someone else to place a good, wanted team there. The argument goes both ways, except in one way it’s always positive, the other way being negative only.
I don’t understand that argument at all to be honest. Guilds should have all the tools available to them. It’s the very nature of guilds to have rules and enforce them so the group can grow and function properly. It would only make things much healthier with zero downside to give more management tools to the guild.
As of right now the only action available is to kick the player out of the guild (by the way preventing said player to use any team in any current guild event, affecting his/her gameplay infinitely more than removing a team). Really makes no sense.
You are only seeing this from one point of view...... Nobody needs some trumped.up overbearing guild officer pulling their teams out of tw...... A simple system where an officer can politely reach out and have the player remove their team would be sufficient.....
Talk about someone seeing something from one point of view..... Really your biggest concern is some "trumped up" guild officer? Says all you need to know about your guilds leadership
My guild has great leadership..... I'm actually an officer myself (disclaimer)....
It's very simple, we recruit and screen our members in advance..... If someone makes a mistake, we work together to follow up with them. If they show disdain for simple orders then they won't be in our guild long..... We set clear concise instructions for each territory and expect our team to follow them..... It would be great if you could ask players to remove a team and they were able to.do it..... Not to mention, it's easy to accidentally place an incorrect toon, so the feature would be great for that as well.....
Everyone is an agreement that players should have the ability to alter their defenses during setup phases of tw/ga. But to suggest that giving guild leadership the same power to support the guilds goals in tw as unnecessary or somehow a power reach, is.
If you are an officer you know there will always be real life events that might prevent players from undoing a defense in time. Giving the guild leadership this Power helps in that. I can't for the life of me understand why this is so divisive. Are people really that worried the guild leadership is gonna sabotage their own efforts in tw? Gimme a break. If that happens just change guilds it's not a guild you likely wanna be in anyway.
Giving someone else arbitrary power to remove your teams is straight up wrong...... Tw is a guild / team event, not an individual one...... Allowing one person to control what gets out down would be ridiculous...... It's not rocket surgery, set good criteria for each zone and ensure folks follow it...... Giving one or two people control over everything 50 people set is a recipe for disaster and takes away from everyone's participation.....
You haven't made one legitimate argument as to why giving guilds leadership this ability is a bad thing. You are just saying it's disaster with zero proof that such a thing would be harmful to players and the guild overall. Assuming leaders are somehow interested in sabotage is ridiculous.
Could be be abused sure but as you and others pointed out if you don't like what the leadership is doing in tw then that's probably not the right guild for you. That's not a argument to implement something that can if used correctly benefit the entire guild.
Sure, and you are saying they should be given the power with zero proof it would be a good thing.... Since teams can't be removed either way, it's all conjecture at this point isnt it?
The whole point of TW is that the guild works together to place defence and attack with each individual guild member using their own roster to do their best to earn banners for the guild and prevent the opposing guild from earning banners.... The idea of a guild officer meddling around with someone else's team because they don't feel it's placed properly just cheapens the whole thing to me....
There should also be a "report player" option in the case you get someone doing what was identified by the OP. At the least, CG can see check marks in the person's profile to know if they're trolling guild events to cause damage to other people's play. Not that it happens very often I'm sure, but at the least something to be aware of.
There should be a way for the guild leader to fix teams if there's an issue. I've seen more than one time where someone put the leader in the wrong spot on a team. Mistakes happen, there should be some way to remove that team so you can fix the mistake.
I think it’s been defined as a rule that player-shaming will never be tolerated, in-game or on the forums, specifically in terms of recruitment or “Black-listing” players based on behaviors. I’m uncertain if the context is in regards to players’ honest mistakes that have been misinterpreted, or anyone’s honest desire to stop being a troll and take something seriously. In either case, any sense of profile-tracking with public marks is a socially elitist disaster waiting to happen.
My opinion, any set defenses shouldn’t be locked in until the phase “locks in.” You can sign up for a whole day and play around with mods and upgrades before you’re roster is locked. I think the same should be said for determining where you want to place your teams, and for officers to review for mistakes (like accidentally not using Hera as the Phoenix leader) or misplacements. No control - just providing interface tools to enhance communication that already exists. Let’s not forget that Line and Discord have been used LONG before in-game messaging became a thing.
I wouldn't call it player-shaming for CG to see if someone is being a troll to guilds so that CG can privately take action if someone gets excessive about going to guilds and doing things that negatively impact 49 OTHER players. (Other games do it regularly.)
As far as 'locking in" teams, I agree that at the least we should be able to pull our teams out if we make a mistake (though officers being able to pull a team would be good too). However, swapping mods and upgrades before the attack starts would be a bad idea. Some guilds would exploit this and take all their mods off, wait to plus up gear until after they are matched with a guild and then right before attack gear up, mod up, etc., to have a bigger advantage against the other guild. (Which is why once guilds are matched the rosters are locked in I'm quite sure. CG knew that would happen if they didn't.)
Glad to see that at the least we agree that there should be some way to adjust / tweak teams we set before the attack phase starts.
@Kyno the potential scenarios you state are appreciated but an all be addressed in code.
-1 if a player submits defenses and those defenses are removed cg can detect that and still initiate rewards for that player if somehow they fail to deploy correct defenses or have a success on offense.
1- sure, I guess they could but in the current setup if you score no points you get nothing.
If only there could be a way of scoring points by taking down your opponents teams.. : p
Kyno the potential scenarios you state are appreciated but an all be addressed in code.
-1 if a player submits defenses and those defenses are removed cg can detect that and still initiate rewards for that player if somehow they fail to deploy correct defenses or have a success on offense.
1- sure, I guess they could but in the current setup if you score no points you get nothing.
If only there could be a way of scoring points by taking down your opponents teams.. : p
There are actual matches where your guild can take down your opponent before you get there.
Haven't read through the whole thread, sorry if someone came up with this idea before...this situation could be avoided if officers had the opportunity to add restrictions to the territorys , like allow only this toons at that gear lvl etc.
Those points are so simplistic and naive seriously. A group of 50 different people is not easy to handle with all the requirements the game has. You have to set rules, and if there are rules, you need ways to enforce those rules. As of now the only way to enforce those rules is the most extreme, you remove the player.
If you want to make the game a life lesson, in real life there are rules everywhere and people with the tools to enforce them everytime. Variety of tools depending on the situation. Expecting 50 people to function perfectly right away and all guild leaderships to be able to find only flawless people who will always listen to everything all the time is simply not realistic. It’s not how people work.
I am an officer in a 190M GP guild - a guild that has had one change in membership since Revan first arrived in game. In the early days of TB and TW there were an awful lot more departures and arrivals than that. Our guild functions well - but of course not flawlessly.
I dispute your claim that "the only way to enforce those rules is to remove the player". Point out the mistake, ask them to wait before deploying defence next time so they can seek advice, allocate a mentor or similar to help them meet the requirements. There are lots of ways to help people become better guild members. Booting them out is surely at the end of that list.
I’m an officer in a 60m gp guild that has had much more than one change since revan first came into the game. We are a small guild with a core of dedicated, serious, mature players and a lot of smaller, more casual players. Every tw, and i mean every single one, someone screws up the defense by ignoring the very obvious, very easy to understand rules in place. They don’t do it because they are mean, not because they lack intellect, they do it because they can’t be bothered. They don’t realise it’s important. So every single tw we pm the player ingame to explain nicely (by the way, how long until this was actually possible to do ?), and every single tw, either a new one screws up, or the same, and we have no option but to kick.
Both our experiences are very different, and both are mostly irrelevant to the point i was making. I might add you are obviously in a serious, tryhard guild, that’s a very specific situation.
Sometimes asking nicely doesn’t do much, and a small disciplinary action would do the trick. Nothing horrible, a simple 1 raid miss or something. More diverse powers to leadership can also mean more ranks with different abilities.
A lot of games have those and what do you know, you don’t feel horribly abused by dictators when you play them.
Having nothing like here in swgoh is not about communication or being respectful or staying out of someone’s gameplay. It’s just the game being completely binary. You do what i want or you’re out. I do what i want or i leave. Great.
That's exactly what our guild uses as a sanction for certain things, like missing your 600 (though we would always encourage everyone to JOIN a raid) or posting early damage. The other sanction is a donation run.
You're kinda proving my point here. When someone's getting something wrong in the guild, it's up to the guild to help them realise this and improve. Cleaning up their mess every time will not help them - they'll keep doing things wrong.
TB, TW, Raids are all about guilds working together. Guilds that are better at communicating and collaborating will do better in these game modes than guilds who are poor at those things. I'm not sure why so many people are fiercely defending an idea that would mean they don't need to improve at something they're weak at.
I’m absolutely not proving your point, i’m arguing for mine which is rules are necessary and the means to enforce those rules are necessary to if you want to have an healthy group, especially as the group grows in number (50 people is a lot in a game’s guild for example). Clean up their mess (which by the way they can’t even do themselves currently) would only be the 1st step obviously. I don’t even know why you are arguing against it while actually pointing out that you make up rules and sanctions yourself (rule = 600, sanction = 1 raid miss or donation run, both unavailable tools in the game). I’m really receiving mixed signals here ? Or i’m missing something.
I don’t understand how your last paragraph is related to the point i’m making in any way.
Having more management tools can and would only make the guild environment healthier. It would make it easier for everyone. There is no downside to it.
I highly doubt that giving officers more control over such things only makes the guild environment healthier to be honest.
One rather obvious downside is ofcourse that it requires less thought/effort from all 50 members if one or two officers can just do it for them. What's the point in having guild events if coordination doesn't pay off?
You must have quoted the wrong person because nothing i’ve said in this thread has anything to do with « one or two officers can just do it for them », guild efforts, coordination or pay off. I’m arguing for a better leadership structure and more management tools.
You must have quoted the wrong person because nothing i’ve said in this thread has anything to do with « one or two officers can just do it for them », guild efforts, coordination or pay off. I’m arguing for a better leadership structure and more management tools.
Right, so that better leadership structure and more management tools you are talking about wouldn't result in officers being able to just that? In the context of this discussion and the posts you quoted you seem to be saying exactly the thing you're now saying you didn't say.
To set the record straight, what do you actually mean with "better leadership structure and more management tools"?
Kyno the potential scenarios you state are appreciated but an all be addressed in code.
-1 if a player submits defenses and those defenses are removed cg can detect that and still initiate rewards for that player if somehow they fail to deploy correct defenses or have a success on offense.
1- sure, I guess they could but in the current setup if you score no points you get nothing.
If only there could be a way of scoring points by taking down your opponents teams.. : p
There are actual matches where your guild can take down your opponent before you get there.
Aww cmon, where does that end? Ppl can miss any phases or even the full thing for various reasons.
Kyno the potential scenarios you state are appreciated but an all be addressed in code.
-1 if a player submits defenses and those defenses are removed cg can detect that and still initiate rewards for that player if somehow they fail to deploy correct defenses or have a success on offense.
1- sure, I guess they could but in the current setup if you score no points you get nothing.
If only there could be a way of scoring points by taking down your opponents teams.. : p
There are actual matches where your guild can take down your opponent before you get there.
Aww cmon, where does that end? Ppl can miss any phases or even the full thing for various reasons.
Yes, but this is a situation in which somebody believed he had gotten points to get rewards and wound up learning when it was too late that he didn’t, due to the actions of somebody else over which he had no control. The opposite is also possible — a weaker member of a strong guild may find himself unable to defeat any of the opposing teams that are available to fight.
You must have quoted the wrong person because nothing i’ve said in this thread has anything to do with « one or two officers can just do it for them », guild efforts, coordination or pay off. I’m arguing for a better leadership structure and more management tools.
Right, so that better leadership structure and more management tools you are talking about wouldn't result in officers being able to just that? In the context of this discussion and the posts you quoted you seem to be saying exactly the thing you're now saying you didn't say.
To set the record straight, what do you actually mean with "better leadership structure and more management tools"?
To do just what ? I have no clue what you mean.
I’ve explained multiple times through my posts here what i mean : diversified ranks, more tools to actually run a guild instead of having to do everything outside the game and kicking people out as the sole actual power officers have right now.
Examples : ability to create a permanent chat where the rules could be displayed, ability to enforce said rules through various actions (such as already mentionned 1 raid miss, or other interesting possibilities like i don’t know, preventing people from asking for donations for a period of time, etc), abilities for officers to assign players to territories both in defense and offense, for example in the form of individual/group orders/notifications instead of only guild wide. Ability for officer to send a notification (like a raid has started or new order) but with their own content (example : reminder that the next tw starting xxx will have xxx bonuses, or anything you want to put in really)
That’s just some examples.
And yes, i would definitely include being able to remove teams from tw defense. If people want to play the « don’t mess with someone else’s gameplay (i’ll never understand that argument, i don’t even have words), you can make it so it’s only possible if the player has been kicked out. This way it doesn’t affect their gameplay since they can’t touch that tw anymore, and it’s not « doing things for them » (what?) since they can’t touch that tw anymore. The only purpose of this tool would be to protect the integrity of all members gameplay against trolls/ill intended/lost causes players.
You must have quoted the wrong person because nothing i’ve said in this thread has anything to do with « one or two officers can just do it for them », guild efforts, coordination or pay off. I’m arguing for a better leadership structure and more management tools.
Right, so that better leadership structure and more management tools you are talking about wouldn't result in officers being able to just that? In the context of this discussion and the posts you quoted you seem to be saying exactly the thing you're now saying you didn't say.
To set the record straight, what do you actually mean with "better leadership structure and more management tools"?
To do just what ? I have no clue what you mean.
I’ve explained multiple times through my posts here what i mean : diversified ranks, more tools to actually run a guild instead of having to do everything outside the game and kicking people out as the sole actual power officers have right now.
Examples : ability to create a permanent chat where the rules could be displayed, ability to enforce said rules through various actions (such as already mentionned 1 raid miss, or other interesting possibilities like i don’t know, preventing people from asking for donations for a period of time, etc), abilities for officers to assign players to territories both in defense and offense, for example in the form of individual/group orders/notifications instead of only guild wide. Ability for officer to send a notification (like a raid has started or new order) but with their own content (example : reminder that the next tw starting xxx will have xxx bonuses, or anything you want to put in really)
That’s just some examples.
And yes, i would definitely include being able to remove teams from tw defense. If people want to play the « don’t mess with someone else’s gameplay (i’ll never understand that argument, i don’t even have words), you can make it so it’s only possible if the player has been kicked out. This way it doesn’t affect their gameplay since they can’t touch that tw anymore, and it’s not « doing things for them » (what?) since they can’t touch that tw anymore. The only purpose of this tool would be to protect the integrity of all members gameplay against trolls/ill intended/lost causes players.
okay gotcha.
We don't really have problems enforcing the rules in our guild. The good ol' kick/invite pretty much does everything you're asking for. For everything else we've got discord, chat banner, inbox message and territory banners. Between all those options you can basically just do everything that needs to be done to successfully coordinate within a guild.
You sneaked that being able to remove teams from TW in there, which is an entirely different form of management. But you do seem to limit having control over members' TW team placement to only after they're no longer part of the guild. I have no issues with that.
We set our guild to "Invite Only" as soon as TW sign up starts.
Prevents what you encountered and from having someone's alt from the opposing guild join after deployment and give away all your deployments (spies).
This can't happen. If they join your guild after the TW player lock, the event will not be visible. They will not be able to see your defensive deployments. They can only obtain information that players share in the guild chat or third party apps like Discord or LINE.
Replies
There should be a way for the guild leader to fix teams if there's an issue. I've seen more than one time where someone put the leader in the wrong spot on a team. Mistakes happen, there should be some way to remove that team so you can fix the mistake.
Both TW and GA need this - but it should be an ability for the individual to amend their team, not something an officer can do. In the most recent TW our enemy placed a wall of zKRU FO squads in zone 1b - except that one of them had the wrong kylo in the leader slot. I bet the guy that placed that team was kicking himself and would have fixed it in an instant if he were able to.
Both sides of the argument have been stated many times in this thread (and a few in the Territory Wars section of the forum too), but for me the case is stronger for officers NOT to have this power.
The main reason is that the officers retain the ability to “punish” someone who sets rubbish defence and/or ignores instructions by removing them from the guild. They can do this during setup phase, as the OP did, or, if they’re feeling particularly vindictive, they can remove them minutes prior to rewards appearing in your inbox.
If the power to amend / remove squads were granted to officers and they were to abuse that power by removing defences just prior to attack phase, the affected player has no means to respond. They can’t boot the officer out of the guild, they couldn’t remove other squads to re-place theirs.
People can dismiss the possibility of that scenario if they like, but I’ve read posts in this forums detailing the actions of guild officers / leaders that sound like megalomaniacs in the making. If the power to remove / edit squads were extended to officers, the power would be abused by someone, period.
I think @Kyno said it earlier - one of the aspects of succeeding at this game is communication. If your guild don’t all pull as one, they are weakened. Officers should be aiming to support members in doing the right thing, not clearing up their mistakes for them. That’s not how people learn.
We had the same happen to us this TW, a guy that had been in guild for a couple month now suddenly places low cp nonsense teams (no leader, no synergies)
I as an officer wouldve liked to remove his teams, or for all I care only remove them after I kicked that troll.
I think it’s been defined as a rule that player-shaming will never be tolerated, in-game or on the forums, specifically in terms of recruitment or “Black-listing” players based on behaviors. I’m uncertain if the context is in regards to players’ honest mistakes that have been misinterpreted, or anyone’s honest desire to stop being a troll and take something seriously. In either case, any sense of profile-tracking with public marks is a socially elitist disaster waiting to happen.
My opinion, any set defenses shouldn’t be locked in until the phase “locks in.” You can sign up for a whole day and play around with mods and upgrades before you’re roster is locked. I think the same should be said for determining where you want to place your teams, and for officers to review for mistakes (like accidentally not using Hera as the Phoenix leader) or misplacements. No control - just providing interface tools to enhance communication that already exists. Let’s not forget that Line and Discord have been used LONG before in-game messaging became a thing.
Going into a TW with 4-5 less defensive positions because someone removed them at the last minute is the same as someone placing bad ones that cant be removed.
1- sure, I guess they could but in the current setup if you score no points you get nothing.
3 - its 1 TW not the end of the world.
- giving a player the ability to edit their own teams and the removal of all teams if someone is removed from the guild during the setup phase, is more than enough of a solution. There is no need to cross a line of giving someone else the ability to edit someone else choices. 1 TW is not the end of the world, give a player a chance, dont like it or dont like the guild move on. There are plenty tauntauns on Hoth.
They already have that control. They can remove you from the guild entirely.
Those points are so simplistic and naive seriously. A group of 50 different people is not easy to handle with all the requirements the game has. You have to set rules, and if there are rules, you need ways to enforce those rules. As of now the only way to enforce those rules is the most extreme, you remove the player.
If you want to make the game a life lesson, in real life there are rules everywhere and people with the tools to enforce them everytime. Variety of tools depending on the situation. Expecting 50 people to function perfectly right away and all guild leaderships to be able to find only flawless people who will always listen to everything all the time is simply not realistic. It’s not how people work.
Sometimes asking nicely doesn’t do much, and a small disciplinary action would do the trick. Nothing horrible, a simple 1 raid miss or something. More diverse powers to leadership can also mean more ranks with different abilities.
A lot of games have those and what do you know, you don’t feel horribly abused by dictators when you play them.
Having nothing like here in swgoh is not about communication or being respectful or staying out of someone’s gameplay. It’s just the game being completely binary. You do what i want or you’re out. I do what i want or i leave. Great.
Having more management tools can and would only make the guild environment healthier. It would make it easier for everyone. There is no downside to it. You can say « devs said no so no » and fine, be like that. But trying to argue weird, unrealistic things like enforcing rules is a bad thing ???? Makes zero sense whatsoever.
I highly doubt that giving officers more control over such things only makes the guild environment healthier to be honest.
One rather obvious downside is ofcourse that it requires less thought/effort from all 50 members if one or two officers can just do it for them. What's the point in having guild events if coordination doesn't pay off?
I dispute your claim that "the only way to enforce those rules is to remove the player". Point out the mistake, ask them to wait before deploying defence next time so they can seek advice, allocate a mentor or similar to help them meet the requirements. There are lots of ways to help people become better guild members. Booting them out is surely at the end of that list.
That's exactly what our guild uses as a sanction for certain things, like missing your 600 (though we would always encourage everyone to JOIN a raid) or posting early damage. The other sanction is a donation run.
You're kinda proving my point here. When someone's getting something wrong in the guild, it's up to the guild to help them realise this and improve. Cleaning up their mess every time will not help them - they'll keep doing things wrong.
TB, TW, Raids are all about guilds working together. Guilds that are better at communicating and collaborating will do better in these game modes than guilds who are poor at those things. I'm not sure why so many people are fiercely defending an idea that would mean they don't need to improve at something they're weak at.
Sure, and you are saying they should be given the power with zero proof it would be a good thing.... Since teams can't be removed either way, it's all conjecture at this point isnt it?
The whole point of TW is that the guild works together to place defence and attack with each individual guild member using their own roster to do their best to earn banners for the guild and prevent the opposing guild from earning banners.... The idea of a guild officer meddling around with someone else's team because they don't feel it's placed properly just cheapens the whole thing to me....
I wouldn't call it player-shaming for CG to see if someone is being a troll to guilds so that CG can privately take action if someone gets excessive about going to guilds and doing things that negatively impact 49 OTHER players. (Other games do it regularly.)
As far as 'locking in" teams, I agree that at the least we should be able to pull our teams out if we make a mistake (though officers being able to pull a team would be good too). However, swapping mods and upgrades before the attack starts would be a bad idea. Some guilds would exploit this and take all their mods off, wait to plus up gear until after they are matched with a guild and then right before attack gear up, mod up, etc., to have a bigger advantage against the other guild. (Which is why once guilds are matched the rosters are locked in I'm quite sure. CG knew that would happen if they didn't.)
Glad to see that at the least we agree that there should be some way to adjust / tweak teams we set before the attack phase starts.
If only there could be a way of scoring points by taking down your opponents teams.. : p
Prevents what you encountered and from having someone's alt from the opposing guild join after deployment and give away all your deployments (spies).
There are actual matches where your guild can take down your opponent before you get there.
I’m an officer in a 60m gp guild that has had much more than one change since revan first came into the game. We are a small guild with a core of dedicated, serious, mature players and a lot of smaller, more casual players. Every tw, and i mean every single one, someone screws up the defense by ignoring the very obvious, very easy to understand rules in place. They don’t do it because they are mean, not because they lack intellect, they do it because they can’t be bothered. They don’t realise it’s important. So every single tw we pm the player ingame to explain nicely (by the way, how long until this was actually possible to do ?), and every single tw, either a new one screws up, or the same, and we have no option but to kick.
Both our experiences are very different, and both are mostly irrelevant to the point i was making. I might add you are obviously in a serious, tryhard guild, that’s a very specific situation.
I’m absolutely not proving your point, i’m arguing for mine which is rules are necessary and the means to enforce those rules are necessary to if you want to have an healthy group, especially as the group grows in number (50 people is a lot in a game’s guild for example). Clean up their mess (which by the way they can’t even do themselves currently) would only be the 1st step obviously. I don’t even know why you are arguing against it while actually pointing out that you make up rules and sanctions yourself (rule = 600, sanction = 1 raid miss or donation run, both unavailable tools in the game). I’m really receiving mixed signals here ? Or i’m missing something.
I don’t understand how your last paragraph is related to the point i’m making in any way.
You must have quoted the wrong person because nothing i’ve said in this thread has anything to do with « one or two officers can just do it for them », guild efforts, coordination or pay off. I’m arguing for a better leadership structure and more management tools.
Right, so that better leadership structure and more management tools you are talking about wouldn't result in officers being able to just that? In the context of this discussion and the posts you quoted you seem to be saying exactly the thing you're now saying you didn't say.
To set the record straight, what do you actually mean with "better leadership structure and more management tools"?
Aww cmon, where does that end? Ppl can miss any phases or even the full thing for various reasons.
Yes, but this is a situation in which somebody believed he had gotten points to get rewards and wound up learning when it was too late that he didn’t, due to the actions of somebody else over which he had no control. The opposite is also possible — a weaker member of a strong guild may find himself unable to defeat any of the opposing teams that are available to fight.
To do just what ? I have no clue what you mean.
I’ve explained multiple times through my posts here what i mean : diversified ranks, more tools to actually run a guild instead of having to do everything outside the game and kicking people out as the sole actual power officers have right now.
Examples : ability to create a permanent chat where the rules could be displayed, ability to enforce said rules through various actions (such as already mentionned 1 raid miss, or other interesting possibilities like i don’t know, preventing people from asking for donations for a period of time, etc), abilities for officers to assign players to territories both in defense and offense, for example in the form of individual/group orders/notifications instead of only guild wide. Ability for officer to send a notification (like a raid has started or new order) but with their own content (example : reminder that the next tw starting xxx will have xxx bonuses, or anything you want to put in really)
That’s just some examples.
And yes, i would definitely include being able to remove teams from tw defense. If people want to play the « don’t mess with someone else’s gameplay (i’ll never understand that argument, i don’t even have words), you can make it so it’s only possible if the player has been kicked out. This way it doesn’t affect their gameplay since they can’t touch that tw anymore, and it’s not « doing things for them » (what?) since they can’t touch that tw anymore. The only purpose of this tool would be to protect the integrity of all members gameplay against trolls/ill intended/lost causes players.
okay gotcha.
We don't really have problems enforcing the rules in our guild. The good ol' kick/invite pretty much does everything you're asking for. For everything else we've got discord, chat banner, inbox message and territory banners. Between all those options you can basically just do everything that needs to be done to successfully coordinate within a guild.
You sneaked that being able to remove teams from TW in there, which is an entirely different form of management. But you do seem to limit having control over members' TW team placement to only after they're no longer part of the guild. I have no issues with that.
This can't happen. If they join your guild after the TW player lock, the event will not be visible. They will not be able to see your defensive deployments. They can only obtain information that players share in the guild chat or third party apps like Discord or LINE.