We need a button to stop deployment
July 29, 2021 9:18PM
edited July 2021
All the best laid plans of 49/50 can be undone by the 1.
Recently in a new capacity as an officer, and seeing either people almost ruin all your TB or TW plans, or flat or just do it, is so deflating for the other 49.
I assume this is a guild control many have asked for in the past. It’s new to me so has become an immediate annoyance.
In the last few months some examples are putting crosses and messages on TW to make sure the put they right squads or the GL we want there, only for someone to ignore it and ruin it. Same in TB when you have a star plan that involves taking zones to just under one star. You put the Prohibit engagement on, you write the message don’t star. You go to bed, someone has ruined it.
Be nice to just stop action where you want. To be able to lock TW spaces. To be able to stop zone and mission deployment.
Recently in a new capacity as an officer, and seeing either people almost ruin all your TB or TW plans, or flat or just do it, is so deflating for the other 49.
I assume this is a guild control many have asked for in the past. It’s new to me so has become an immediate annoyance.
In the last few months some examples are putting crosses and messages on TW to make sure the put they right squads or the GL we want there, only for someone to ignore it and ruin it. Same in TB when you have a star plan that involves taking zones to just under one star. You put the Prohibit engagement on, you write the message don’t star. You go to bed, someone has ruined it.
Be nice to just stop action where you want. To be able to lock TW spaces. To be able to stop zone and mission deployment.
5
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
But a "removing squads" feature is something that's been asked for by the community for along time.
Sometime the kitten is someone with 5.4m roster and you just don’t wanna lose it. But kinda have the 2 strike rule. But kicking didn’t solve the overall problem of the thing now ruined for 49/50.
But, yeah, even if they won’t let us un-do/remove squads/deployments, a hard lock or at least squad editing once deployed would feel like an awful nice QOL upgrade.
Having said that, maybe there's a good idea that serves as a happy medium which could find its way onto the QoL list Crumb have established.
My suggestion, while it may not help the OP in his specific example, is to prevent over-deploying. If a sector only need 500k to hit 3*, why does the game allow a player to deploy 4M GP there?
I support any additional tools that can be incorporated into the game as an option
Any excess are wasted if a single deployment or the results of a battle would otherwise carry the value over the maximum, and once you hit the max no more deployments are allowed.
You can still kick me from the guild for wasting deployments/not following instructions if I'm doing that, but no one else is affected by my personal lack of attention.
So the officers can prevent anyone overdeploying, and they can choose how much to deploy to top off a zone
I understand not wanting one player to dictate to another, but the end result is we do dictate their next move by hitting the kick button. I’m not a fan of doing that, but sometimes you’ve got no other option. Sometimes maybe someone is in your guild and happy to play along but don’t speak English well. They might not even know they are ruining something a lot of other people put a lot of work into. Believe me, getting your guild TW wins and the best possible TB rewards is a lot of work.
There are those times your guild is on for something truly great, a best ever, just to be thwarted by Rogue Actions. Can make a guild angry at one person. Feels bad.
I do think that, and a review period (what's the argument for that one again? There's still a full day between TB ending and TW starting.) are long overdue - And I know it's not even always someone's fault - Sometimes 2 people deploy for a combat mission at the same time, someone else deploys during that CM, and suddenly instead of going up 1M it goes up 5M and you go over.
Regarding review period: TB honestly feels like a review period matters more than the one for TW does due to stuff like Platoons and counting CM completions, and I know that I'm personally semi-responsible for this in my guild and I'm asleep for the 8 hours leading up to TB completing, so it's very rough estimates for the last phase unless someone else actually notes the info down. Even just a 12 hour review period would fix that issue entirely, but there's very little reason to not just have the 24ish hour one that TW and GAC have.
This was a year and 7 months ago, but don't worry guys....our requests are on a list.
This is why people, like me, say that CG doesn't listen to player feedback. Do better.
This is also why the Q&A's went away....just sayin.
Or at least allow removing def team by the player who set it. That doesn't remove agency and gives room to correct mistakes.
But it’s involving a team coordinated effort. On the flip side by taking that stance then you are limiting the control that guild officers have in coordinating proper strategies and tactics in guild wide events like TB and TW.
I personally don’t see anything wrong with guild officers being able to set deployment maximums for GP in TB, or allowing them to set specific factions to be allowed in specific zones in TW.
I have heard this rational before, however my point is always players don't have to join a guild that has this.
Maybe make it a player option "Allow my guild officer to do X"
Then if a guild requires this ability to be part of it and the player doesn't the guild can give da boot
I’ve seen this before and it’s a fascinating argument to me. CG is opposed to one player interfering with another player’s decision-making, but seem to have no problem with one player interfering with the decisions of 49 other players.
A player agrees to follow the instructions of the officers of the guild when they join. If someone disagrees with the instructions they are free to leave the guild. That’s their agency and decision-making. CG allowing them to mess with the 49 other people’s decisions is the real issue at hand. It’s not the imagined interference the one person is experiencing from guild leaders when they try to preserve the team effort using proper tools.
Not really related to this comment of yours, but in general, please consider implementing new officer tools. I'm sure there are threads here that ask the player base what kind of officer tools they would like to have, or if there isn't, you could make one; just to get an idea about what leaders and officers think would help them managing a guild and the respective events. Managing a guild can be a full time job, but you guys could reduce the time spent on that SIGNIFICANTLY, by doing some updates/QoL changes to the officer tools. It would make the experience better for everyone I think.
That would be nice, and will most likely never happen.
Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback is appreciated.
Not going to matter for us, but could matter for someone else. The game should, at a bare minimum, not allow deployments to go over the amount needed for 3*.
I do agree though that this level of micromanagement is frustrating and it would be better if it wasn’t necessary
Even we do this and we're not in a silly alliance like StarSon's.