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

Persimius
Seasoned Scout
4 years ago
"DarjeloSalas;c-2286414" wrote:
"StarSon;c-2286409" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2286347" wrote:
"StarSon;c-2286174" wrote:
Latest example of why we need something like this: we told the guild to top off mid, and then go south. Well, 3 people happened to hit the deploy button at the same time, and about 4M GP was wasted.

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*.

Not necessarily a solution to this, but in our guild we always close zones before they reach our star target and have officers do the final deployments. That way it’s coordinated and we never overfill, and never have simultaneous deployments either.

I do agree though that this level of micromanagement is frustrating and it would be better if it wasn’t necessary

We do the same. Things just worked out with 3 hours left to go that we opened deployments and tagged everyone with around 40M to go, and instructions to move south once mid was 3*. Things just worked out such that with about 6M left 3 people all deployed at the same time, causing the overflow.

You don’t do the same.

Officers save their deployments to do it when the zone is closed. Tagging everyone with 40M to go is not the same as that.

We do. None of our officers had deployed, and had enough to cover south.
tvsfrink
4 years ago
"StarSon;c-2286425" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2286414" wrote:
"StarSon;c-2286409" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2286347" wrote:
"StarSon;c-2286174" wrote:
Latest example of why we need something like this: we told the guild to top off mid, and then go south. Well, 3 people happened to hit the deploy button at the same time, and about 4M GP was wasted.

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*.

Not necessarily a solution to this, but in our guild we always close zones before they reach our star target and have officers do the final deployments. That way it’s coordinated and we never overfill, and never have simultaneous deployments either.

I do agree though that this level of micromanagement is frustrating and it would be better if it wasn’t necessary

We do the same. Things just worked out with 3 hours left to go that we opened deployments and tagged everyone with around 40M to go, and instructions to move south once mid was 3*. Things just worked out such that with about 6M left 3 people all deployed at the same time, causing the overflow.

You don’t do the same.

Officers save their deployments to do it when the zone is closed. Tagging everyone with 40M to go is not the same as that.

We do. None of our officers had deployed, and had enough to cover south.

You said you you gave instructions to move south "once mid was 3*." That is not the same :woozy:
acelnx
4 years ago
I want to point out that the damage one rogue officer could cause with these suggested tools is way worse than the damage caused by a few people not following directions. *That* is why you can't let officers edit other players' actions (in addition to just wanting players to have that individual freedom while playing on principle).
SnakesssOnAPlan
4 years ago
"MilHanso;c-2289094" wrote:
A stupid player entered our guild, completely ignored the officials commands for deployment of troops and deployed 21 squads without synergy in the front ranks. We kicked him, but the damage was already done. He messed the fun for the other 41 people who were signed for the TW and were doing the right thing. So we, as officers should be able to correct that mess to some extend... This CG posture sucks...

Sounds like the guild officers were being ignorant for not properly screening nor communication with knowing their team. Real leadership isn’t easy.

Forum Discussion

We need a button to stop deployment

About SWGOH General Discussion

Related Posts

TB Deployment [MEGA]

Still no OK-Button. This gets REALLY annoying!

Auto Deployment GA

Return of the missing buttons

TBs and deployment

Recent Discussions

Borrowed Heros Leader Ability

Nuova nave

WAT Bundle

Character idea: Decoy Clone Trooper

No Micro Attenuators dropping during double drops?