• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • Announcements

    • Peter

      App Available on Android Now   08/16/2016

      Commanders, the Android Official Version has released, please go to Google Play to get it. To those commanders who participated the open beta, you can continue your previous progress in the official version. More info, please check the specific post.
Jane

LC Permissions?!

Which solution is the best one?    72 members have voted

  1. 1. How to fix this issue?

    • League leader should be able to give the production and distribution power to either each member or only CINC & Staff Officers.
      5
    • Improve league logs to make it more robust.
      8
    • Both 1 & 2 are necessary.
      50
    • This issue should be handled inside a league. Nothing should be changed!
      1
    • I have another better solution. (If you select this one, make sure share us your solution in comment! :))
      8

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

49 posts in this topic

We plan to improve it in stages:
First, make league Resources logs undeletable. (Resources log records resources distribution.)
Second, add another log page showing cumulative Resource donation & Armament Taken of each member. (To be determined. )
Third, add another option that League leader can give the production and distribution power to either each member or only CINC & Staff Officers. This is an addtional improvement. By default each member has the access. 

I think we have the same mind on #1 & #3. But I am not sure about #2. Is it sufficient? If you have mature ideas on #2, feel free to show us a picture about it! Better not too complicated or it will be difficult to make it happen. 

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts!!! :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jane, to answer your question on the quartermaster log page.   I would follow the structure that you use today to send LC transports out.   Left hand column listing all league members and a right hand screen showing that member's activity.  Something like this:

IMG_0448.thumb.PNG.5d546cac5d15080ce7ed08819dbb279f.PNG

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MkV said:

That wont work for everyone. Wefew issues equipment based on what a player needs, not what they contribute. We have contribution expectations of course, but one of our guys (or gals in TDF's case) isn't going to do without say bombers, just because they have no oil. Set permissions is fine if you need to restrict it, but having some automatic system for micromanaging simply wont work. If its that bad, maybe you should start booting people.

At that point, where its early on and someone doesn't have oil or if they get wiped and need to rebuild quickly but don't have the resources all you have to do is keep in mind that they will be negative. This isn't to automatically cut off someone for going negative. It's a fall back to the honor system. I'm sorry that Wefew doesn't trust their members enough not to steal from the LC but i don't see that being a game wide issue and with tracking who's donated/leeched from the LC it can then be handled "in house" there doesn't have to be a new program made Everytime someone does something in greed to restrict people from doing it again. If the league leader doesn't have the balls to kick someone being a constant strain on the leagues resources then they shouldn't be the league leader. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not give the players 2 options for donating resources to LCs? The first option would go to a shared pool that could be distributed to all members or used for LC upgrades. Armaments produced via this option would be available to everyone. The second option would be exclusive to the person that donated the resources, meaning that other people could not use the resources you sent to upgrade the LC or build armaments. Armaments built using the second option would also not show up in the shared pool, thus preventing people from stealing what you built. 

 

Another option could be to just make LCs boost the team's score. You could potentially set it up such that having an LC would be a prerequisite to a specialized building at members cities that will allow them to build LC armaments. This would bypass the resource and armament theft completely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

38 minutes ago, Boredomfalls said:

At that point, where its early on and someone doesn't have oil or if they get wiped and need to rebuild quickly but don't have the resources all you have to do is keep in mind that they will be negative. This isn't to automatically cut off someone for going negative. It's a fall back to the honor system. I'm sorry that Wefew doesn't trust their members enough not to steal from the LC but i don't see that being a game wide issue and with tracking who's donated/leeched from the LC it can then be handled "in house" there doesn't have to be a new program made Everytime someone does something in greed to restrict people from doing it again. If the league leader doesn't have the balls to kick someone being a constant strain on the leagues resources then they shouldn't be the league leader. 

Interesting that your response is to take a shot at WeFew. Not cool, and I'm not sure how me not wanting an automatic system implies that I don't trust. My point is and was is we don't CARE what the individual player sends in. If you need it, you get it. I don't want to have a system that only lets a player pull if they've sent enough in. It's precisely that I DO trust my team that I don't want the system micromanaging it for me. You're the one who said that you brought this up as a problem a long time ago. 

To Clarify, I think permissions would be good and I'd love to have better logs, past that, let the leagues manage it for themselves. We don't need an automated system. Also, I don't want ANY restrictions on what can be pulled, rss or armaments. Not only would it be a PITA, it would severely limit a league's logistical flexibility in dealing with a changing battlefield.

As far as a LL not having the balls to kick someone, I agree, although I have found it far better to restrict entry. 

Edited by MkV
spelling
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MkV said:

Interesting that your response is to take a shot at WeFew. Not cool, and I'm not sure how me not wanting an automatic system implies that I don't trust. My point is and was is we don't CARE what the individual player sends in. If you need it, you get it. I don't want to have a system that only lets a player pull if they've sent enough in. It's precisely that I DO trust my team that I don't want the system micromanaging it for me. You're the one who said that you brought this up as a problem a long time ago. 

To Clarify, I think permissions would be good and I'd love to have better logs, past that, let the leagues manage it for themselves. We don't need an automated system. Also, I don't want ANY restrictions on what can be pulled, rss or armaments. Not only would it be a PITA, it would severely limit a league's logistical flexibility in dealing with a changing battlefield.

As far as a LL not having the balls to kick someone, I agree, although I have found it far better to restrict entry. 

I apologize for it seeming that it was taking a jab, that was not my intent you just happened to bring up Wefew so I used it as an example, I just personally don't believe that people stealing from the LC is a game wide issue and if we had better logs there would be a paper trail for those stealing making it possible to take action on them. But it does seem we had a communication failure lol. 

You mentioned you don't want the system micro-managing, in this case what would be an example of micro-manage?  Because my vision of this doesn't restrict who can take arms (even when negative) but simply gives you the net amount of resources per player (rss donated-rss used [either directly taken out or in the form of arms]- equal take away from LC upgrades = net resources donated)

57 minutes ago, Bravoalphaniner said:

Why not give the players 2 options for donating resources to LCs? The first option would go to a shared pool that could be distributed to all members or used for LC upgrades. Armaments produced via this option would be available to everyone. The second option would be exclusive to the person that donated the resources, meaning that other people could not use the resources you sent to upgrade the LC or build armaments. Armaments built using the second option would also not show up in the shared pool, thus preventing people from stealing what you built. 

 

Another option could be to just make LCs boost the team's score. You could potentially set it up such that having an LC would be a prerequisite to a specialized building at members cities that will allow them to build LC armaments. This would bypass the resource and armament theft completely.

I see what you're saying and I don't disagree, but I feel programming the first option for a mobile game would cause too many glitches and be too big of a headache to even attempt. 

I would support your second idea more, but in order to have a trade off because the whole point of building these super troops at the LC is the threat of losing them enroute to your base and the time it takes to get to your base, you would only be able to build one or two units at a time

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

47 minutes ago, Boredomfalls said:

I apologize for it seeming that it was taking a jab, that was not my intent you just happened to bring up Wefew so I used it as an example, I just personally don't believe that people stealing from the LC is a game wide issue and if we had better logs there would be a paper trail for those stealing making it possible to take action on them. But it does seem we had a communication failure lol. 

You mentioned you don't want the system micro-managing, in this case what would be an example of micro-manage?  Because my vision of this doesn't restrict who can take arms (even when negative) but simply gives you the net amount of resources per player (rss donated-rss used [either directly taken out or in the form of arms]- equal take away from LC upgrades = net resources donated)

 

It seems we are having some coms static. We are saying similar things. 

I agree it's not a game wide problem and thus doesn't need a game wide solution. As far as the micromanaging part, I misunderstood and thought (assumed) that if a player was negative, they wouldn't be allowed to pull. This is what I was strenuously objecting to.

1 hour ago, Bravoalphaniner said:

Why not give the players 2 options for donating resources to LCs? The first option would go to a shared pool that could be distributed to all members or used for LC upgrades. Armaments produced via this option would be available to everyone. The second option would be exclusive to the person that donated the resources, meaning that other people could not use the resources you sent to upgrade the LC or build armaments. Armaments built using the second option would also not show up in the shared pool, thus preventing people from stealing what you built. 

 

Another option could be to just make LCs boost the team's score. You could potentially set it up such that having an LC would be a prerequisite to a specialized building at members cities that will allow them to build LC armaments. This would bypass the resource and armament theft completely.

Option 1 sounds like it would work, but imo is more trouble than its worth, especially considering the amount of  TTR it would take the devs to get something like that implemented.

Option 2, imo, would be detrimental to the game. It would make players too city dependent and make it harder to recover from the loss of a capital or major city. It also would seriously affect game balance.  Besides, having the LCs be the source of the armaments makes battles over them so much more interesting.

Edited by MkV
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MkV said:

It seems we are having some coms static. We are saying similar things. 

I agree it's not a game wide problem and thus doesn't need a game wide solution. As far as the micromanaging part, I misunderstood and thought (assumed) that if a player was negative, they wouldn't be allowed to pull. This is what I was strenuously objecting to.

👊🏻 Fist bump for fixing comms issues 

Honestly though looking at the vote most people want both. Personally I would be okay with both if the CinC could turn on/off restrictions to pull arms from one field to the next and instead of making it "officers and higher can send arms" make it "these 12 can send arms and these 8 can't" that way there's still accountability to the officers for alliance requests and such because otherwise every field for some leagues would have 12-15 officers and you can't figure out who did the officer thing because no one wants to admit they screwed up

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Boredomfalls said:

👊🏻 Fist bump for fixing comms issues 

Honestly though looking at the vote most people want both. Personally I would be okay with both if the CinC could turn on/off restrictions to pull arms from one field to the next and instead of making it "officers and higher can send arms" make it "these 12 can send arms and these 8 can't" that way there's still accountability to the officers for alliance requests and such because otherwise every field for some leagues would have 12-15 officers and you can't figure out who did the officer thing because no one wants to admit they screwed up

I cant speak to that with any authority, so ill agree based on assuming you know what your talking about. Those are large league issues and I was only in a large league for my first 3 games, and then only as a trigger puller. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My final thoughts on the matter. I DESPISE the thought of restricting who can take out munitions. The only way I am okay with it is if CinC can pick by person who has permission and who doesn't, not by rank. And if in the LC there's a page for those without permission to submit a request for specific arms and in that page those with permission only have to hit "accept" and it automatically sends those arms (assuming there are enough) to the requested city. 

image.png

image.png

image.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Permissions work as long as it can be passed down further than just officers. The ability to allow members to manage the LC is necessary. Improved logs files will help root out the LC mooches. Both of these are a no brainer. It essentially includes the option of "let the leagues sort it out" by allowing the CINC to assign permissions. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All great opinions guys and girls !! I dig it . To me the only problem I see is how fortune is shared , all Wolfpack members fully understand the rules and expectations of our LC's , so no issues on my side . Thanks -JaiJai

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Iggy112 said:

Jane, to answer your question on the quartermaster log page.   I would follow the structure that you use today to send LC transports out.   Left hand column listing all league members and a right hand screen showing that member's activity.  Something like this:

Thanks. Actually I am thinking that we can display ranking lists with resources donation & resource or armament taken. Can I ask why is displaying each LC important? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Jane said:

Thanks. Actually I am thinking that we can display ranking lists with resources donation & resource or armament taken. Can I ask why is displaying each LC important? 

Because if everyone sends iron to LC 194 and not 289 you can't build anything that needs iron out of 289. So why are you going to bundle that together? Besides you need to EQUALLY divide up the cost of LC upgrades between everyone using that LC at that time otherwise the numbers won't add up. Again just bundling all that together makes no sense. I'm not gonna penalize Joe for an LC upgrade when that LC is on the other side of the map and its physically impossible for him to use it. Unless you're gonna make it that iron oil and rubber that's sent to one LC can be used at any LC it's not fair

Edited by Boredomfalls
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both options set forth. Gives a good way to keep team accountable. 

 

ALSO....while you are working on LC changes, please make it to where converting a Lvl 5 LC back to regular city takes longer than a Lvl 1. It makes it nearly impossible to capture a LC against an active league as all they must do is demo. It should be an option but the length of time should depend on the size of the city. Give the attackers a chance to capture AND the owners the responsibility to defend. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I will admit, nothing is more frustrating then depositing your hard earned resources to a league city and then waiting the hours it requires to have them finish cooking only to return to the city and they are gone. Many league handle this problem internally. We watch our logs, send out weekly mails in regards to league city use, players who are online who notice unauthorized league city use often step up and we manage as best we can. I think you the developers of the game can easily accommodate every league in the game to your future decision. Give them the choice. Allow the league leader to check a box in the league menu that engages or disengages league city policies. Allow the options to be made by each league because that's what will truely keep all players happy. You can vote so that only the CNIC and his staff officers can manage the league city, even I've suggested that in the past, but it was suggested at a time of frustration with the current system. Our league works really well with putting resources in and taking weapons out at the moment and I'm sure there are many leagues who also enjoy the current system. Many players who enjoy the game never make it on the furoms to discuss it basically because they have nothing to complain about. Leave the choice up to the leagues leaders of how they wish to handle it.   Crafty353

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that when a player sends resources to the LC they should go into a tab for that player with an option to keep for personal use or donate to city where all can use. When he makes arms from his account the arms stay in his account and only the player that built them can distribute them. This brings an end to all LC problems!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Gatorkiller said:

I think that when a player sends resources to the LC they should go into a tab for that player with an option to keep for personal use or donate to city where all can use. When he makes arms from his account the arms stay in his account and only the player that built them can distribute them. This brings an end to all LC problems!

Not necessarily, what if I build a crap ton (that's a technical term btw) for the league and I get off and won't be back on for a few days? They lose out on the production time and those units. Plus including different tabs for what each player donated is complicated for programming and leaves a lot of room for glitches, and if you've played this game for any length of time you know how hard it is to get a game crippling glitch fixed let alone something "small" like that

Edited by Boredomfalls
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, in general I agree with MKV that enhancement that encourage more micromanagement are doomed to get too far into the weeds and not helpful.  I had 2 main issues - lack of accountability and poor communication we work to address in the league but need help from developers as follows.  We continue to fairly frequently have connection or game issues, undoubtedly when developers intervene ( and response has been improving) logs are lost or reset or at the very least not continuous so you lose visibility, so improvement there would be very helpful.  The other issue was communication, what we have done which tends to work well is communicate clear rules to all league members and establish a separate lc chat for each bf so that orders, rss requests and shipments of lc items are separate from the general chat that occurs, this has helped greatly not lose requests, lose sequencing or priority.  Perhaps once developers take in this feedback they could come back with a tangible proposal that we could offer feedback on as well.  Fight on.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the problem starts with deleting the log.   Seen more then a few times it's happened.   If we could remove the ability to delete the log that would hold people accountable to what they gave and take.   

 

PS.  Also the people in your league that are against control of the lc are your main culprits.   I made a big deal about someone taking but never giving.  Turns out the person who came to his defense was the one taking supplies and rss.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is an essential part of war. Subterfuge is part of every combat/war operations. For the most part, the older leagues/players have the loyalty and honesty to do there part. As a league grows, like a platoon, we get players unknown to us or the operations of the current bf. It takes a few bf's to get to know/trust the FNG. Play on. Ban the thief from ur league and destroy. Better yet give the troop movements of the thief to an enemy so you can really get by watching troop movements. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, we want to thank you all for actively taking part of this discussion and casting your vote. We will be checking with our developers to see what the progress of this is, and where we stand with the votes. So far, it looks as though these two are taking the lead:

  • League leader should be able to give the production and distribution power to either each member or only CINC & Staff Officers
  • Improve league logs to make it more robust

What will the results determine, stay tuned to find out!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why don't they make it to where Staff Officers and CINC can send out armaments to whoever whenever regardless of who sent the resources and then other members of the alliance can retrieve armaments but to do so they have to send the resources to build the armament and after the resources arrive they get to grab that armament if one is already stored, or they can build that one with said resources and send it to base. This makes it to where say the CINC donates a bunch of resources he or the staff officers can send armaments made with those out to other league members and not have to worry about a member taking all the armaments and leaving others who need them armamentless, but say a member need a armament and can't wait hours for the CINC or staff officer to log on they just send the resources, put in the armament (say a giant transport) grab one that's already built and send it back to their base, another thing that would help is a loan system where say a member has a emergency and can't wait for the resources to transport they just pay amethyst, or diamonds to get the armament delivered but tit costs a decent bit to get them and then the if the armament is returns the member gets their diamonds back.

Edited by Steve1179
Typo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only changes that need to be made are non deletable logs ( which came in last update- thanks ) and only officers can send res to a member base. LC-LC is ok. Once someone has donated to the LC they can't get the res back, or take others res. There's no need to make it more complicated than that. 

We didn't have many issues in Corbulo Pact with "thieves" but occasionally a new guy would try it and would be warned once. A second time and they would immediately get booted and killed. As for armaments we shared  everyone got 1-2 gigs first then you could buy more. To run a productive league all members need those troops even if they didn't land beside an oil or rubber zone. That's part of being in a league sharing the burden.  Maybe he is on rubber motherload and you've got steel coming out your eyeballs. Together you can build something split you'll both be waiting for days to build armaments. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now