Linkshell Management Recognition

**Rhomagus** · 05-25-2011 04:36 AM

The primary complaint amongst members/leaders in most linkshells is that the tools are severely limiting and needlessly so. Recruiting and ousting members from a linkshell is counter intuitive at best. It is the case with most shells that they are constantly having to break and recreate their shells in order to purge their linkshell lists of people who have decided to leave on their own accord.

It becomes increasingly frustrating when new dev-tags are released and linkshell management is not among them. Some players have been so desperate for the recognition of this issue that they've posted the issue under "[Dev 1024] Crowd Control". There was a post made by Rukirii in that particular thread but the answer did not mesh with the information gleamed in "Letter from the Producer VIII" where Naoki Yoshida clarified that there were multiple specialized teams working on different aspects of the game.

I will personally be modifying/editing this post to present the progress so far in regards to this issue.

If you so choose, please check out and reply to the following threads, and incorporate your feedback here or in there, preferably both. After reading many of the posts already, it is clear that the issues are unanimous amongst the playerbase.

Day#1
First thread to provoke me into keeping track of this topic.

Day#2
Thread I noticed on the front page the day I created this thread.

Day#3
Randomly chosen posts I came across the day after the creation of this topic.

Day#4
Arguments against this topic/making threads about this topic.

A very thorough post from Poppa which is so important I feel the need to include it in the OP as it seems I'm not the only one who has done the legwork necessary to research this particular topic.

Originally Posted by Poppa

Day#1 May 23, 2011 - Noticed a thread made by Keith_Dragoon
Day#2 May 24, 2011 - Created this thread
Day#3 May 25, 2011 - Posted thoughts from AngryNixon on common sense and Tonka on competency (pg.3)
Day#4 May 26, 2011 - Responded to statements against change by Kilta_Firelotus and Elexia. (pg. 4)

**Alothia** · 05-25-2011 04:41 AM

Yes, please. My shell will have to reform after less than a month because of the inability to remove inactives. This has got to be addressed. It can't take THAT much time to put in a simple text command at the very least. If the linkshells are to be the core means of communication and grouping in the game, then this needs to be of a higher priority than the answer we've gotten so far.

**Rowyne** · 05-25-2011 04:46 AM

I agree. It seems like every time this is brought up, we're told there are bigger priorities.

I know the battle system and the implementation of dungeons needs to be at the top of the list. We're losing too many players not to focus on this.

But LS management seriously needs to come after that. In a game that doesn't have chat channels like other MMOs, linkshells are our only social outlet, and we need to be able to manage them properly.

Yes, linkshell management needs a lot of work. They need more robust tools like guilds in other MMOs, but most of that can honestly wait until later. However, the ability to remove members, while they're offline, really needs to happen now.

Please add a dev tracker so we know this issue is seriously being addressed.

**Rhomagus** · 05-25-2011 05:04 AM

I know the battle system and the implementation of dungeons needs to be at the top of the list.

Thing is, Naoki Yoshida already responded a couple of times to this issue. The most recent being:

The dev team is actually split up into a bunch of smaller teams, each dedicated to a certain facet of the game. Off the top of my head, there’s the scenario team, the world settings team (including seasonal events), the item team, the crafting and gathering team, the battle team, the level design team, the art team, the character team, the BG team, the UI team, and so on and so forth. Each team focuses on certain game content or a particular system, and all teams’ tasks are ongoing simultaneously.

Another of his initial qualms with the game was the lack of communication and that it should be addressed. That was very early on in the very first "Letter from the Producer" :

Much as we expected, the vast majority of players are spending most of their play time engaged in battle-oriented content, with synthesis activities coming in second. I cannot help but be concerned over the 4.6% result for socializing. This leads me to believe that in its current state, the game is lacking group-oriented goals and means of communication.

While these concerns aren't directly in regards to linkshell management, it would be naive to deny that linkshell interaction would not fall under socializing and communication. It is increasingly apparent when it you see how many threads have brought this problem up before.

As of right now I only have one thread in the OP, but I'll be posting a new one everyday as they pop up.

**AuctionGirl** · 05-25-2011 05:07 AM

If linkshell administration options was put into 1.17b, then that patch would not have been a fail patch. LS Management options are needed in this game. Please add them ASAP.

**Molly_Millions** · 05-25-2011 05:43 AM

+1 we're gonna need to re-shell again soon as well. A total pain in the ass. Also, can we have more than 125 slots per LS? Being forced to run two because I want a large LS is really a pretty crappy work around.

**Neptune** · 05-25-2011 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

+1 we're gonna need to re-shell again soon as well. A total pain in the ass. Also, can we have more than 125 slots per LS? Being forced to run two because I want a large LS is really a pretty crappy work around.

I thought I heard something about the dev team wanting 10 man lses.

**Keith_Dragoon** · 05-25-2011 06:00 AM

Rhomagus to the rescue!

As I have said before a hundred times this IS NEEDED not something to simmer on the back burner while other stuff like targeting gets done 3 times or mobs/spells get blown up.

This is just as important if not more then the fore mentioned.

**Arcell** · 05-25-2011 06:02 AM

Just give us the ability to kick people regardless of location or online status. I think that's the biggest thing most people want. You can put all other LS administration options and features on the back burner if you can just get us that one feature.

Originally Posted by Neptune

I thought I heard something about the dev team wanting 10 man lses.

That was an example that was translated from an interview. I don't think he actually meant having exactly 10 man LSes but the intent was to make content for smaller linkshells to tackle. He wants to get away from requiring gigantic linkshells to do anything. Again it was an example made by Yoshida that was then translated so a large number of things could have happened.

**Molly_Millions** · 05-25-2011 06:12 AM

Small LSes are fine, but those that don't want a small LS shouldn't be locked into that option.

Thread: Linkshell Management Recognition

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Linkshell Management Recognition

Tags for this Thread