Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 454
  1. #241
    Developer Codeshaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The nearest brewpub
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tolero View Post
    It can't be said enough (for the benefit of newer folks) but we see way more than we make comment on. Just keeping up with this thread while I'm trying to multi task EU translations, Monster profiles, and art contest winners is quite a handful, much less if I were trying to code things :X to be fair under the old system people were still only seeing things to comment on after the dev had already done the work. They're aware that they've been a little too quiet this month. Snow and grindstone have been harsh masters... but they're finding things to bring forth ahead of time and chatter about.

    One day I'll figure out a way to hook a transcriptionist bot directly to their brains. It will be designed to look just like a quori head crab and you'll just have to excuse that from time to time they'll blurt out "The Path leads to knowledge!". mwuhahaha!!

    Actually wait no, that might be a bad thing. I can only imagine the evils that Flimsy and Genasi would unleash upon you were you tapped directly to their heads oO;
    Tolero is right, we do read the forums when we can. And for the love of all the gods, please don't let dev thoughts out into the wild! It's a scenario that just doesn't bear considering. <Shudder>
    "I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone" - Bjarne Stroustrup

  2. #242
    Developer Codeshaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The nearest brewpub
    Posts
    70

    Post Feedback works!

    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    "I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone" - Bjarne Stroustrup

  3. #243
    Community Member Lorien_the_First_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    17,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    Thanks Codeshaper.

    I'm not sure anyone was suggesting such a long delay for the successor though, your timeline there was fine and a successor only exists if someone chooses one so the guild leader is in full control.

  4. #244
    Community Member Elyanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    Thank you for your hard work and understanding here. Hopefully a suitable solution can be worked on for officers to be able to usurp if a leader and successor go missing or they happen to be the same person.
    Got a question the answer may be on the wiki! http://ddowiki.com

  5. #245
    Community Member Malithar45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tolero View Post
    That's why they have the rest of us to help further highlight what you're "trying" to say even if the way you tried to say it wasn't the way they'll understand it ^^
    *Clicks Dev Tracker*

    *Thinks the apocalypse has hit this thread*

    Good to know the above. Where can I send donations for your new F5 key?

    OT: Gotta agree that it'll be a useful system in the right hands. Unfortunately, in an MMO, you never know if the one's who'll have access are the right hands or not. :/ See the biggest complaint being that it can reach the point that member's can take it over. Just doesn't strike me as an issue, since if you're in a guild worth anything (IMO) you're going to have the Successor and Officers getting a shot at taking over prior to that point. If that's not happening, then perhaps the guild you're in needs to have a look at how things are run, prior to throwing a fit about a useful change that will prevent guild's from stagnating due to a loss of the leader.

    And not to add to your plate, but did the issues Sunday set back the Monster Profiles? Been itching to read the next one, specially since you guy's hinted at Reavers/Renders/Flensers being a topic at some point.

  6. #246
    Community Member Elyanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malithar45 View Post
    *Clicks Dev Tracker*

    *Thinks the apocalypse has hit this thread*

    Good to know the above. Where can I send donations for your new F5 key?

    OT: Gotta agree that it'll be a useful system in the right hands. Unfortunately, in an MMO, you never know if the one's who'll have access are the right hands or not. :/ See the biggest complaint being that it can reach the point that member's can take it over. Just doesn't strike me as an issue, since if you're in a guild worth anything (IMO) you're going to have the Successor and Officers getting a shot at taking over prior to that point. If that's not happening, then perhaps the guild you're in needs to have a look at how things are run, prior to throwing a fit about a useful change that will prevent guild's from stagnating due to a loss of the leader.

    And not to add to your plate, but did the issues Sunday set back the Monster Profiles? Been itching to read the next one, specially since you guy's hinted at Reavers/Renders/Flensers being a topic at some point.
    The issue is with a guild that communticates Daily through either a Website/Email/Phones however the message needs to be gotten spread to the other officers and most members. The guild leader may not need to be changed even in a long absence. But the one member who doesn't communicate outside of game MIGHT just be that member you mention who is the wrong hands.
    Got a question the answer may be on the wiki! http://ddowiki.com

  7. #247
    Community Member Bladedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Eberron, NY
    Posts
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    Half a year with out a guild leader.
    I think thats a way to long. A lot can lot happen in 180 days in the DDO world. Should make it between 45-90 days, by then update 10 should be release. If no chages come along with u10 those who want to move the guild along can without having till wait for summer or resorting to starting a new guild.
    Last edited by Bladedge; 02-02-2011 at 02:50 PM.
    HEY, I'M TRYING TO SOLVE THAT!
    STOP TOUCHING MY PUZZLE!
    TOUCH MY PUZZLE ONE MORE TIME AND YOU'LL BE SORRY!
    PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS GAME -- I QUIT! AND YOU SHALL DIE!

  8. #248
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    With that kind of timeline, even I can agree that that can be fair. Now it doesn't feel like accidently inviting the wrong person to your small guild before a lengthy vacation can come back to find everything they've bought gone.

    Removing the ability for members and officers to usurp is great too. I'm sure there's some people out there who decided to buy a guild for themselves, paid for a ship for all their alts and populate the officerlist entirely with their own alts.... why should just that one last guy you invited out of pity to use your ship get to take it over? THAT made no sense, and I'd be demanding a refund... and taking my money elsewhere once this code was released, just to avoid the possibility of problems in the future!

    If you HAD to give the ability to officers to usurp back, 180 days for that on top of the 180 days would be acceptable to almost anyone, I bet.

    I don't understand why these people don't just pay turbine the 150 points to form a new guild, personally... It's win-win, they get to be leader, Turbine makes a little more cash...

  9. #249
    Founder Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, Ca.
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    With that kind of timeline, even I can agree that that can be fair. Now it doesn't feel like accidently inviting the wrong person to your small guild before a lengthy vacation can come back to find everything they've bought gone.

    Removing the ability for members and officers to usurp is great too. I'm sure there's some people out there who decided to buy a guild for themselves, paid for a ship for all their alts and populate the officerlist entirely with their own alts.... why should just that one last guy you invited out of pity to use your ship get to take it over? THAT made no sense, and I'd be demanding a refund... and taking my money elsewhere once this code was released, just to avoid the possibility of problems in the future!

    If you HAD to give the ability to officers to usurp back, 180 days for that on top of the 180 days would be acceptable to almost anyone, I bet.

    I don't understand why these people don't just pay turbine the 150 points to form a new guild, personally... It's win-win, they get to be leader, Turbine makes a little more cash...
    I would think that 180 days [that's six months in Rio Linda (about 5 miles from here )] would be long enough for the entire process, but as has been said in this thread before it's best to err on the on the side of caution.

    As far as your last paragraph, the concern is for guilds that already have Airships and possibly a guild account full of Astral Diamonds / plat for an upgrade or two.
    Last edited by Hambo; 02-02-2011 at 03:01 PM.
    Carpe D.M.! (Sieze the Dungeon Master!)
    Founder #2003 - Interocitor Repair - Call for discount prices

  10. #250
    Community Member Malithar45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elyanna View Post
    The issue is with a guild that communticates Daily through either a Website/Email/Phones however the message needs to be gotten spread to the other officers and most members. The guild leader may not need to be changed even in a long absence. But the one member who doesn't communicate outside of game MIGHT just be that member you mention who is the wrong hands.
    In that situation, the guild leader needs to be changed then. As has been mentioned above multiple times, what's the issue of a responsible person taking the lead as a temporary status? It makes no sense to me to be scared of taking the lead from the leader, if you intend to give it back. Where's the harm?

    As far as waiting until the point that a member can take it, that's on the hand's of the leadership (Leader, Successor, Officers) to work out BEFORE members can. If no one steps up and does what's needed, then perhaps they shouldn't of been in a position of responsibility to begin with.

    As to this revision Codeshaper... Meh. :/ 180 days is entirely too long. Half a year of no Leader, no one capable of promoting Officers, no one capable of handling a problem Officer. It'd all become a mess, to the point that its a change that wouldn't effect much, IMO. Just a straight tiered system of 60/120/180 would work best to me. 60 days no leader login, successor can take over. Another 60 with him not taking over and no leader login, officers can step in. If all of that fails, another 60 and a member can step up. If no one from the leadership of the guild has logged in within six months, I think it's a fair assumption that they have abandoned the guild. With this most recent change, that will continue, with little else changed.

  11. #251
    Community Member cardmj1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    Thank you Code, please keep us up to date with the expected changes to come. I (we) appreciate your efforts.

  12. #252
    Community Member Lifeblood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    now that this is behind us ..at least for now..how are druids coming along?

    "Come on folks its easy" Tico 20 Cleric, Montico Arti, Longlife 18/2 Ranger/monk, Jaaomae wc 20, Teeco Cleric

  13. #253
    Community Member Elyanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malithar45 View Post
    In that situation, the guild leader needs to be changed then. As has been mentioned above multiple times, what's the issue of a responsible person taking the lead as a temporary status? It makes no sense to me to be scared of taking the lead from the leader, if you intend to give it back. Where's the harm?
    It's not about harm ... It's about tradition and respect in long standing (5 Years in my guilds case) Guilds. It's shouldn't need to be passed. We know our successor would be a great leader. They can lead us without having to take the title. We have plenty of officers that going without the leader would not cause an issue like having to promote new officers during said absence so the only reason we would need to change the guild leader tag is to stop the arbitrarial change of leader that these game rules would possibly cause or to demote an officer which would be via a vote of no confidence in that officer at a guild officer meeting being led by the Successor. The demoting would be a valid reason for the Successor to usurp if the leader was away for an extended time otherwise why can't a guild show it's respect and solidarity behind the Leader who is out of game by not allowing the Leader change? Where is the Harm in that???
    Got a question the answer may be on the wiki! http://ddowiki.com

  14. #254
    Community Member DakFrost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    714

    Default

    180 days? Wow...so what exactly does this solve then?

  15. #255
    Hatchery Founder
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Coldin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    30 Feet from my Soul Stone
    Posts
    5,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!

    Hmm....I don't really like this change to the change.

    180 days is a really long time to wait if a guild leader disappears. And if officers can't usurp, we're back to a problem with guilds that haven't set a successor.

    Maybe we could split the difference? Go 120 days for successors. Then 30 days after that, officers can usurp. Members can never usurp a guild.
    RedShirt / Roleplayer of Giant Slayers, Inc. on Thelanis, formerly Tharashk.
    Member of the DDO Player Council

    Coldin-Artificer; Lynton-Bard; Alydyn-Swashbuckler;
    Takai-
    Monk; Rosein-Paladin; Ellyiana-Cleric; Aurixs-Sorcerer

  16. #256
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
    I would think that 180 days [that's six months in Rio Linda (about 5 miles from here )] would be long enough for the entire process, but as has been said in this thread before it's best to err on the on the side of caution.

    As far as your last paragraph, the concern is for guilds that already have Airships and possibly a guild account full of Astral Diamonds / plat for an upgrade or two.
    Yeah, in that case I CAN understand it, and that'd be why I'm not entirely opposed. With a 6 month timeline, those with patience do have a way of recovering that... Those who were just greedy for other peoples stuff would probably not wait 6 months, but those who actually did donate that probably would.

  17. #257
    Community Member Mr_Tank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Twilight Forge
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Codeshaper View Post
    OK, so for the next release, we’ve now removed the ability of officers and members to usurp, and increased the successor waiting period to 180 days, just to be really safe. We’re going to take all the feedback into account and revise the larger system for the following release.

    Thanks, all!
    Have gone over a year with out a guild leader/successor would not like to wait till U10 to fix that but since others don’t seem to trust their fellow guild mates I understand.

  18. #258
    Founder & Hero jjflanigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,063

    Default

    I see so many posts about people saying that it's bad to FORCE an officer or the successor to usurp control of the guild....why? Why is it bad? If you lead a guild you trust your successor, you trust your officers. This implementation would have just required one of them to act in the best interest of the guild, which I would hope they would do anyway?

    How would it have hurt anything at all to have an officer usurp the guild and then give it back to the real leader once they returned? All you need is one officer to do that and it would never degrade to the point where the unknown / friend-of-friend-of-friend member would even have the opportunity to take over the guild.

    You wouldn't lose anything, you'd just have an officer "house sitting" until you returned. No loss of face, no loss of guild, no loss of money, no loss of time, just a guild that is able to continue fully functioning while you are away.

    I know the devs have already backed down on this one...I just can't wrap my head around why anyone could see this as bad. Unless you don't trust your officers, there would never be any real risk of you losing control of "your guild"

    If I totally missed something, please let me know. I'm not trying to be dismissive or dense, I just don't see it

  19. #259
    Community Member Elyanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjflanigan View Post
    I see so many posts about people saying that it's bad to FORCE an officer or the successor to usurp control of the guild....why? Why is it bad? If you lead a guild you trust your successor, you trust your officers. This implementation would have just required one of them to act in the best interest of the guild, which I would hope they would do anyway?

    How would it have hurt anything at all to have an officer usurp the guild and then give it back to the real leader once they returned? All you need is one officer to do that and it would never degrade to the point where the unknown / friend-of-friend-of-friend member would even have the opportunity to take over the guild.

    You wouldn't lose anything, you'd just have an officer "house sitting" until you returned. No loss of face, no loss of guild, no loss of money, no loss of time, just a guild that is able to continue fully functioning while you are away.

    I know the devs have already backed down on this one...I just can't wrap my head around why anyone could see this as bad. Unless you don't trust your officers, there would never be any real risk of you losing control of "your guild"

    If I totally missed something, please let me know. I'm not trying to be dismissive or dense, I just don't see it
    Some guilds would be fully functioning without having to usurp the control. They have plenty of officers, that still could run the guild day to day. Why force the officers to usurp until a day to day operation situation requires it? Leader is a position I'll never take lightly after being one. The idea that a member should be even allowed the chance to do it strikes me as bad design. A guild should by it's nature have a Leader, a Successor and Officers of which the afforementioned are not all the same real world person. Otherwise is it a guild or a dictatorship?
    Got a question the answer may be on the wiki! http://ddowiki.com

  20. #260
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Alt-pletionist
    IronClan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,146

    Default

    While I think 180 is probably overly safe I'm glad you guys are going the "safe then tweak it lower" rout simply so you don't blind side some unsuspecting guild leader.

    I think 60 days for successor and the successor being active is fine, pass it on to officers at 120 days IF the successor has not logged in, and put in a voting system, or allow us to prioritize our officers (or give more ranks), with the highest ranking officer getting a "leader in absentia" title (can't kick the original leader or successor).

    Make it so a leader can come back and take back over with a click... Give that a reasonable time limit after the usurp.

    Now lets talk about where you guys are going with "End Game" and the "Epic reboot" because if you guys keep that secret and do a lot of work on it and it's not pretty kick a$$ there's going to be howling here the likes of which even the offer wall never saw...
    Last edited by IronClan; 02-02-2011 at 04:12 PM.
    You guys filibustering a new mode have already succeeded in scaring the Dev's into not doing it the right way and re-scaling the existing settings, why in the world are you still filibustering? Drunk on your success? Schadenfreude? Spitefulness?

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload