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.

The action we have for this is to kick that person.But a "removing squads" feature is something that's been asked for by the community for along time.

I don’t know if they will ever revisit this (because it certainly can be agonizing for a guild), but there was a dev statement a few years ago that they were pretty hard set against this due to (paraphrasing) ‘not wanting one player to be able to dictate, prevent, or invalidate another players actions’.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.

It's def frustrating, but a point I've heard more than once from the dev side is that they don't want to take agency and decision-making away from players (for example, giving one player the power to undo or override another player's actions). 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.

"CG_Doja_Fett_MINI;c-2282436" wrote:It's def frustrating, but a point I've heard more than once from the dev side is that they don't want to take agency and decision-making away from players (for example, giving one player the power to undo or override another player's actions). 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?

How about a "are you sure you want to be kicked from your guild" message.

We need a button to stop deployment

crzydroid
Retired Hero
4 years ago
The action we have for this is to kick that person.

But a "removing squads" feature is something that's been asked for by the community for along time.
TheJEFFtm
4 years ago
I don’t know if they will ever revisit this (because it certainly can be agonizing for a guild), but there was a dev statement a few years ago that they were pretty hard set against this due to (paraphrasing) ‘not wanting one player to be able to dictate, prevent, or invalidate another players actions’.

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.
CG_Doja_Fett
4 years ago
It's def frustrating, but a point I've heard more than once from the dev side is that they don't want to take agency and decision-making away from players (for example, giving one player the power to undo or override another player's actions).

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.
Persimius
New Scout
4 years ago
"CG_Doja_Fett_MINI;c-2282436" wrote:
It's def frustrating, but a point I've heard more than once from the dev side is that they don't want to take agency and decision-making away from players (for example, giving one player the power to undo or override another player's actions).

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?
tvsfrink
4 years ago
How about a "are you sure you want to be kicked from your guild" message.
NotRealUltra
Seasoned Newcomer
4 years ago
"TVF;c-2282440" wrote:
How about a "are you sure you want to be kicked from your guild" message.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/897/718/c5f.gif
iosvandroid
4 years ago
Tbh, there have been many requests for improved/additional officer tools - afaik none have been implemented - I understand the devs viewpoint that it is seen as taking away decision making from players however it certainly does not improve anyone's QoL being tagged to deploy/do combat when they already have because we don't get a ship/squad deployment breakdown.
I support any additional tools that can be incorporated into the game as an option
MasterSeedy
New Ace
4 years ago
Just allow guild officers to set maximum TP score in a territory.

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.
NotRealUltra
Seasoned Newcomer
4 years ago
I think the easiest fix is to prevent rogue actions by non-officers when a node is blocked in game by officers

So the officers can prevent anyone overdeploying, and they can choose how much to deploy to top off a zone
gerryhendo
4 years ago
"CG_Doja_Fett_MINI;c-2282436" wrote:
It's def frustrating, but a point I've heard more than once from the dev side is that they don't want to take agency and decision-making away from players (for example, giving one player the power to undo or override another player's actions).

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.

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.