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

Replies

  • DaniB32 wrote: »
    How about get rid of carbantis 4s from rewards on tb. Just a disgrace. No one uses them. No point doing tb. For **** rewards.

    Yep we got 50 of them. Way to boost morale and try to keep people interested in the game. Lets troll them so even more people leave!
  • Yesac
    361 posts Member
    How is blocking people from deploying or doing combat missions after a 3rd star any different than a raid? If you want to solo the Rancor, but attempt to 3 hours after everyone else has, you can't. Big deal. Take your 0 damage rewards.

    You don't need to post a 0 to get the rewards in TB so nothing is lost. Personally, I think it can work both ways to help officers and the rest of the guild. Too much time is demanded from everyone. Not having to spend time on missions that have been completed, and at the same time not being chastised for inactivity. Great! If you care about 114/114, communicate that to your guild and see if people will voluntarily back down. If not, either do a FFA and first come first served, or alternate between TB who gets to complete all missions.

    My guild is 33*, and my biggest concern has been people using their squads in territories that are complete and not deploying to those that are not. 80+k tp for one squad might not seem like a lot, but if 20 people do it, that could hurt your chances for another star somewhere else.
  • Ztyle
    1969 posts Member
    SeblarAsti wrote: »
    Wolf999 wrote: »
    Am I playing this game or the officers????? Can’t tell.

    If only the officers could play the game for everyone my job would be so much easier...
    And less time consuming than the current state of TB

    I'm Danish , Leader of the Space Slug Alliance , living the SlugLife , My collection
  • Kozispoon
    3245 posts EA Staff (retired)
    Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .
    Thank you for your patience 8D Forum Guidelines
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • 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. But as pointed out, some guilds have internal competition.. (mine does not, but I see no reason to limit those that derive enjoyment from it)
    [*] 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.
    See above. TB's are time sinks.. there is no way around that, and as this is a global game with many guilds spread across timezones, this seems counter productive to including everyone. This forced lockout will only (in my opinion) drive people to deploy recklessly at the opening of a phase, increasing their ranks, but also increasing the chance of screwing up.. I see this already in our guild as people are (for some reason) desperate to get 10/10 platoon hits and not checking for rare slots they can 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.

    Hopefully you will reconsider this, the 1/2/3* lockouts would be a tremendous help to those of us in lower guilds. We don't really 3* much beyond the first phase and often lose several million points by people mis-deploying. Having the ability to lock a particular territory at a lower * level will allow us to see more clearly how close we are to additional stars by being able to calculate overages better.
    [*] 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.
    [*] The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment

    This I agree with.. individual players should be responsible for their own deployments, but the ability to get across specific guides by officers will be a tremendous help.. hopefully you will consider the comments I made here as I believe they will reduce the amount of time officers have to spend wrangling the cats..
    Sirdigbychknczr: Raidmaster of Exiles of Dathomir (998-312-712)
    Always Recruiting new blood! Hpit/NAAT
    mutesaber.com
  • 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.
    We officers are already looking into what platoons we cannot fill. It's more of a time consuming for us to have to reiterate what to do in platoons. Locking it would be more ideal for us.
  • 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
    Sirdigbychknczr: Raidmaster of Exiles of Dathomir (998-312-712)
    Always Recruiting new blood! Hpit/NAAT
    mutesaber.com
  • What about platoons? Will we be able to lock or focus specific platoons within a territory or just the general platoon function in a territory, e.g. can we lock platoon 3 in the middle territory or just middle platoons in general?
  • Snake2
    1399 posts Member
    Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .

    I disagree whole heartedly on almost everything you've just said.

    If I could log on at noon and lock and unlock certain things, I wouldn't have to sit around all day and babysit chat with people asking questions about where to go.

    I also wouldn't have to watch like a hawk on 6a after we reach 1 star. Being able to lock it completely would mean I could go enjoy my day from that point forward.
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!
    • 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.
    .

    My emphasis added, but in light of this statement, not a single tool to address the most time consuming part of TB: planning and coordination of Platoons.
  • Snake2 wrote: »
    Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .

    I disagree whole heartedly on almost everything you've just said.

    If I could log on at noon and lock and unlock certain things, I wouldn't have to sit around all day and babysit chat with people asking questions about where to go.

    I also wouldn't have to watch like a hawk on 6a after we reach 1 star. Being able to lock it completely would mean I could go enjoy my day from that point forward.

    Totally agree with this.

    Also, the 3 star thing completely skews contribution and stat tracking. Officers need and want to know the participation rate and who is doing what. Can't do that if combat is locked after 3 stars.

    One and two star locking also prevents people from deploying in the wrong area when other areas can use the GP to get to another star.

    I like that that you are trying to help the officers but is it better to listen to what the officers are telling you based upon actual experience rather than meetings between the devs?
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .

    Well, the officers in my guild aren't looking forward to these changes..."They literally did the opposite of what we wanted"
    The other general agreement is now, putting any effort into the first 2 waves of TB is pointless.
    #CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! :smiley: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!
    • 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.
    .

    My emphasis added, but in light of this statement, not a single tool to address the most time consuming part of TB: planning and coordination of Platoons.

    And tracking 600...
    #CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! :smiley: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
  • Calbear949
    839 posts Member
    edited October 2017
    Yesac wrote: »
    How is blocking people from deploying or doing combat missions after a 3rd star any different than a raid? If you want to solo the Rancor, but attempt to 3 hours after everyone else has, you can't. Big deal. Take your 0 damage rewards.

    You don't need to post a 0 to get the rewards in TB so nothing is lost. Personally, I think it can work both ways to help officers and the rest of the guild. Too much time is demanded from everyone. Not having to spend time on missions that have been completed, and at the same time not being chastised for inactivity. Great! If you care about 114/114, communicate that to your guild and see if people will voluntarily back down. If not, either do a FFA and first come first served, or alternate between TB who gets to complete all missions.

    My guild is 33*, and my biggest concern has been people using their squads in territories that are complete and not deploying to those that are not. 80+k tp for one squad might not seem like a lot, but if 20 people do it, that could hurt your chances for another star somewhere else.

    Wouldn't it be better to leave that up to the officers so that they lock whenever it is good for their guild?

    Locking after 3 star would decrease participation and skew tracking data for the officers. Some of the phase go to 3 stars pretty quickly and I would like to 1) encourage people to keep participating and 2) to see who is actually participating.
  • Thank you for the communication. @CG_Kozispoon
    I'm hoping the team is still open to our feedback, as your response implies this is a done deal and you're done working on this tool set.
    Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    * There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    For us there is. We call it "fun."
    [*] 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.
    [*] 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.
    Snake2 wrote: »
    If I could log on at noon and lock and unlock certain things, I wouldn't have to sit around all day and babysit chat with people asking questions about where to go.

    I also wouldn't have to watch like a hawk on 6a after we reach 1 star. Being able to lock it completely would mean I could go enjoy my day from that point forward.

    Soooooo much this. If we could manually lock a territory, we're done. These particular tools don't. Like Snake, we want nothing doing in 6a after we hit 1*. If we could lock it ourselves, that would cut down ALL the communication/message spam/reminders about not doing those missions/errant deployments. People make mistakes. If we could lock, there are no more mistakes, nothing for us to stress about, no more communication needed on the issue at all. You've not lessened our (officers) workload here.
  • My time as a guild officer is spent during TB trying to make sure everyone had run combat for the day and has followed our coordinated deployment instructions.

    Our members know not to deploy to a 3* area.

    Our internal motivation for self-improvement means we have a guild full of people chasing 114.

    I appreciate the new features that will help make my first job (ensuring combat and deployment) so much easier. For these, thank you.

    Removing the chase for 114 by locking 3* areas, however, is going to be a big hit to my personal motivation and I’m afraid many members as well.

    I understand the stance that this is a guild event, not an individual one. But please know that to the most competitive among us, they’re equally important. The last thing you should be looking to do is remove players’ motivation to play and improve.

    I could not disagree more with the assessment on this topic expressed by CG_Kozispoon
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .

    @CG_Kozispoon:

    The contribution lock is actually a huge detriment. As guild officers, we are attempting to assess participation and CM completion rates, so even if it means sacrificing potentially a * for rewards, we'd rather that players seek to complete 114 CM's irrespective so that we have **valid** management data to assess participation level and performance. The rest of the changes, are somewhat welcome, in the sense that they will help with the overall picture (contribution per phase leaderboards) but this particular one actually makes that picture considerably less accurate. I, and many others responding to this thread, are asking you guys **not** to lock CM's. Locking deployments if fine, and beneficial, but CM locking very much is not beneficial.
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .

    I am still good to go with all of this! How many posts have been going on about the current state of TB. Locking out when it's not necessary any more will save players time.
    Warnings and the list still give the individual players their free will to do as they wish. The focus and deployment is all I think is needed to show decent, yet busy, players where we need them.
    I also don't want to manage my players - just guide them. This is easy and clean.
    Also, considering the other side - an officer locks something but is then too busy to get back on - he just gnarly kittened that phase on you.
    Trust me, I have issues with some of what CG does... 25.5 months for MT.... but this is a great start to some of the QoL items we've asked for.
    #AcolyteShootsTwice
  • Morning and happy Monday folks!

    Thank you for all your helpful replies, feedback, and discussion regarding what we have in store for Territory Wars going forward. Noting feedback of time commitments, we wanted to expand on a couple points:
    • There is no value in continuing activity after your Guild is at three stars in a territory, thus the contribution lock when maxed.
    • Even though a territory can be locked, Platoon Missions and Special Missions will still be available to Guild members.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • The Focus and Prohibit tools will also work on Deployment
    .

    I am still good to go with all of this! How many posts have been going on about the current state of TB. Locking out when it's not necessary any more will save players time.
    Warnings and the list still give the individual players their free will to do as they wish. The focus and deployment is all I think is needed to show decent, yet busy, players where we need them.
    I also don't want to manage my players - just guide them. This is easy and clean.
    Also, considering the other side - an officer locks something but is then too busy to get back on - he just gnarly kittened that phase on you.
    Trust me, I have issues with some of what CG does... 25.5 months for MT.... but this is a great start to some of the QoL items we've asked for.

    There are other officers that can unlock.

    Players don't think about the bigger picture when they are playing. Even with the best intentions, they can screw up strategy. 6 TBs, I still have people that platoon in unnecessary tiers. Also, there should be an option to lock certain characters (or at least give notification) that toons that are being used are needed else where (i.e. Phoenix or R1 toons).

    Give the tools to the officers and trust them to do the right things. A lot of the people, me included, have spent way too much time managing TB. We are telling them our experience and the changes that we need to maximize TB and guild participation.
  • @CG_Kozispoon , it's really sad that the devs can not see how instituting a mandatory lock on a three star phase is counter productive to guild members looking to build and develop their squads. There is no justifiable reason to make a lock mandatory on three star phases. If anything, this will simply discourage players from trying because unless it is later phases, they can't do anything other then possibly deploy in a platoon, and of course, they still can play the bonus missions, yet they can't run combat missions. How exactly does this promote and encourage a team work matters atmosphere in the guild, how does this cause players to strive to improve across the board when they will be unable to even try combat mission in several phases? Overlooking the senseless mandatory lock, the rest of the proposed ideas have merit, however, that is all overshadowed by the ABSOLUTE SENSELESS MANDATORY LOCK AT THREE STARS.
  • @CG_Kozispoon , it's really sad that the devs can not see how instituting a mandatory lock on a three star phase is counter productive to guild members looking to build and develop their squads. There is no justifiable reason to make a lock mandatory on three star phases. If anything, this will simply discourage players from trying because unless it is later phases, they can't do anything other then possibly deploy in a platoon, and of course, they still can play the bonus missions, yet they can't run combat missions. How exactly does this promote and encourage a team work matters atmosphere in the guild, how does this cause players to strive to improve across the board when they will be unable to even try combat mission in several phases? Overlooking the senseless mandatory lock, the rest of the proposed ideas have merit, however, that is all overshadowed by the ABSOLUTE SENSELESS MANDATORY LOCK AT THREE STARS.

    You want to do more of the same exact waves of empire enemies then you have to? I mean, clearly you do, but I can't imagine why.

    Plus - now there's, like, a timer. If people know they won't get stats because they're too slow, it'll encourage people to be more upfront.

    I was a big proponent of phases being 24 hours - it was new, it looked like it required a lot more then it actually does. Now that it's pretty established that TB is a numbers game and the tools will help get peoples numbers where they need to be, I can see this as a method to now push TB closer to the 12 hour intervals initially proposed - but in a semi-natural way.
    #AcolyteShootsTwice
  • @CG_Kozispoon , it's really sad that the devs can not see how instituting a mandatory lock on a three star phase is counter productive to guild members looking to build and develop their squads. There is no justifiable reason to make a lock mandatory on three star phases. If anything, this will simply discourage players from trying because unless it is later phases, they can't do anything other then possibly deploy in a platoon, and of course, they still can play the bonus missions, yet they can't run combat missions. How exactly does this promote and encourage a team work matters atmosphere in the guild, how does this cause players to strive to improve across the board when they will be unable to even try combat mission in several phases? Overlooking the senseless mandatory lock, the rest of the proposed ideas have merit, however, that is all overshadowed by the ABSOLUTE SENSELESS MANDATORY LOCK AT THREE STARS.

    Maybe they're under the delusion that playing TB is fun. Fighting snow troopers wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave is awful, and most people think so. This new 3* lock gives them the perfect excuse to participate as minimally as possible.
    #CloneHelmets4Life...VICTORY!!!! :smiley: "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere." The more you tighten your grip, CG/EA, the more whales will slip through your fingers (and go F2P or quit).
  • @CG_Kozispoon , it's really sad that the devs can not see how instituting a mandatory lock on a three star phase is counter productive to guild members looking to build and develop their squads. There is no justifiable reason to make a lock mandatory on three star phases. If anything, this will simply discourage players from trying because unless it is later phases, they can't do anything other then possibly deploy in a platoon, and of course, they still can play the bonus missions, yet they can't run combat missions. How exactly does this promote and encourage a team work matters atmosphere in the guild, how does this cause players to strive to improve across the board when they will be unable to even try combat mission in several phases? Overlooking the senseless mandatory lock, the rest of the proposed ideas have merit, however, that is all overshadowed by the ABSOLUTE SENSELESS MANDATORY LOCK AT THREE STARS.

    You want to do more of the same exact waves of empire enemies then you have to? I mean, clearly you do, but I can't imagine why.

    Plus - now there's, like, a timer. If people know they won't get stats because they're too slow, it'll encourage people to be more upfront.

    I was a big proponent of phases being 24 hours - it was new, it looked like it required a lot more then it actually does. Now that it's pretty established that TB is a numbers game and the tools will help get peoples numbers where they need to be, I can see this as a method to now push TB closer to the 12 hour intervals initially proposed - but in a semi-natural way.

    People live in different time zones...they can't all hit it when it starts. People are already rushed to do what they can now...not sure why I would want to put more unnecessary pressure on them which will result in more frustration, mistake, and less return.
  • @CG_Kozispoon , it's really sad that the devs can not see how instituting a mandatory lock on a three star phase is counter productive to guild members looking to build and develop their squads. There is no justifiable reason to make a lock mandatory on three star phases. If anything, this will simply discourage players from trying because unless it is later phases, they can't do anything other then possibly deploy in a platoon, and of course, they still can play the bonus missions, yet they can't run combat missions. How exactly does this promote and encourage a team work matters atmosphere in the guild, how does this cause players to strive to improve across the board when they will be unable to even try combat mission in several phases? Overlooking the senseless mandatory lock, the rest of the proposed ideas have merit, however, that is all overshadowed by the ABSOLUTE SENSELESS MANDATORY LOCK AT THREE STARS.

    You want to do more of the same exact waves of empire enemies then you have to? I mean, clearly you do, but I can't imagine why.

    Plus - now there's, like, a timer. If people know they won't get stats because they're too slow, it'll encourage people to be more upfront.

    I was a big proponent of phases being 24 hours - it was new, it looked like it required a lot more then it actually does. Now that it's pretty established that TB is a numbers game and the tools will help get peoples numbers where they need to be, I can see this as a method to now push TB closer to the 12 hour intervals initially proposed - but in a semi-natural way.


    Lol, I am a fan of allowing the crew to play if and as they wish. I am not a fan of having terms for a "guild wide cooperative " event be dictated by how fast you can log in and try hit the combats before the phase locks out. THAT is counter productive , I'm sorry if you can't understand the concept,

    CaptainRex wrote: »
    @CG_Kozispoon , it's really sad that the devs can not see how instituting a mandatory lock on a three star phase is counter productive to guild members looking to build and develop their squads. There is no justifiable reason to make a lock mandatory on three star phases. If anything, this will simply discourage players from trying because unless it is later phases, they can't do anything other then possibly deploy in a platoon, and of course, they still can play the bonus missions, yet they can't run combat missions. How exactly does this promote and encourage a team work matters atmosphere in the guild, how does this cause players to strive to improve across the board when they will be unable to even try combat mission in several phases? Overlooking the senseless mandatory lock, the rest of the proposed ideas have merit, however, that is all overshadowed by the ABSOLUTE SENSELESS MANDATORY LOCK AT THREE STARS.

    Maybe they're under the delusion that playing TB is fun. Fighting snow troopers wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave after wave is awful, and most people think so. This new 3* lock gives them the perfect excuse to participate as minimally as possible.

    Is it repetitive? Of course, no one will disagree with that statement . However, it's not like it's the only repetitive thing in game. Once you think about this for a minute, if say 15 members hit combat and deploy in p1, and now it's three star, no one else can hit the combat missions, all they are "Good for" now is the special mission. Can you not see how this creates a rather unfair playing field and will cause some folks to be upset?

    Of Course folks that are slackers, or can not be bothered to play in TB like this, now if they delay long enough, they "can't " do a combat mission and it's not "their" fault, So tell me , how exactly does prohibiting folks from playing in a phase if they wish, help ANYTHING out with the star counts? Why is a mandatory RESTRICTION considered a good thing in what is purported to be a GUILD WIDE COLLECTIVE EFFORT.?
  • My argument to people that say locking out territories from doing any more combat missions after after it has reached 3 stars is that the more competitive people in my guild do their combat missions earlier than the others.

    SO if people really want the 114/114 title (we had 3 guild mates do that last TB and we congratulated them) then they will make time to do their combat missions earlier.

    Honestly, our only issue with TBs is that sometimes it takes people time to do their missions. Now, hopefully this will speed things up so that we can close out phases a little earlier.

    And for me, I could care less about the 114/114 waves completed title. Lol, I'll gladly let others have that and skip the combat missions in the earlier phases.
  • KyloRey wrote: »
    My argument to people that say locking out territories from doing any more combat missions after after it has reached 3 stars is that the more competitive people in my guild do their combat missions earlier than the others.

    SO if people really want the 114/114 title (we had 3 guild mates do that last TB and we congratulated them) then they will make time to do their combat missions earlier.

    Honestly, our only issue with TBs is that sometimes it takes people time to do their missions. Now, hopefully this will speed things up so that we can close out phases a little earlier.

    And for me, I could care less about the 114/114 waves completed title. Lol, I'll gladly let others have that and skip the combat missions in the earlier phases.

    It won't speed things up...people will just quit because they can't keep up or get kicked for no good reason.
  • PremierVenoth
    2285 posts Member
    edited October 2017
    I am not a fan of having terms for a "guild wide cooperative " event be dictated by how fast you can log in and try hit the combats before the phase locks out. THAT is counter productive , I'm sorry if you can't understand the concept,
    Keep it civil now, because now you're saying some pretty wacky things. I mean, based on what you say here... you have a problem that the Rancor doesnt have enough life for every one to deal max damage before it dies? Same goes for the Tank? Do you complain about that easy P2 going down too fast... those darn kitteny Resistance rascals racking up 10-14 million damage?

    Being active and being ready for the events is part of this game.

    #CheckYourselfBeforeYouWreckYourself

    EDIT: Where were all you people when we were talking about the QoL and TB? Devs are taking action and NOW everyone comes out of the woodworks.
    #AcolyteShootsTwice
  • I am not a fan of having terms for a "guild wide cooperative " event be dictated by how fast you can log in and try hit the combats before the phase locks out. THAT is counter productive , I'm sorry if you can't understand the concept,
    Keep it civil now, because now you're saying some pretty wacky things. I mean, based on what you say here... you have a problem that the Rancor doesnt have enough life for every one to deal max damage before it dies? Same goes for the Tank? Do you complain about that easy P2 going down too fast... those darn kitteny Resistance rascals racking up 10-14 million damage?

    Being active and being ready for the events is part of this game.

    #CheckYourselfBeforeYouWreckYourself

    EDIT: Where were all you people when we were talking about the QoL and TB? Devs are taking action and NOW everyone comes out of the woodworks.

    People have been here...taking action is one thing...do it right is another.
  • I am not a fan of having terms for a "guild wide cooperative " event be dictated by how fast you can log in and try hit the combats before the phase locks out. THAT is counter productive , I'm sorry if you can't understand the concept,
    Keep it civil now, because now you're saying some pretty wacky things. I mean, based on what you say here... you have a problem that the Rancor doesnt have enough life for every one to deal max damage before it dies? Same goes for the Tank? Do you complain about that easy P2 going down too fast... those darn kitteny Resistance rascals racking up 10-14 million damage?

    Being active and being ready for the events is part of this game.

    #CheckYourselfBeforeYouWreckYourself

    EDIT: Where were all you people when we were talking about the QoL and TB? Devs are taking action and NOW everyone comes out of the woodworks.

    Lol, I am keeping it civil.

    And before your digression into petty matters of heroic level raids which are immaterial when discussing the current topic, it was pretty clear that the issue is simply as stated,


    Lol, I am a fan of allowing the crew to play if and as they wish. I am not a fan of having terms for a "guild wide cooperative " event be dictated by how fast you can log in and try hit the combats before the phase locks out. THAT is counter productive , I'm sorry if you can't understand the concept,

    Please make sure to properly quote a statement.

This discussion has been closed.