In my opinion I'd say this should be top priority too. Not having any control over your own LS is kinda lame.
Printable View
In my opinion I'd say this should be top priority too. Not having any control over your own LS is kinda lame.
Agree, except #1.
When you invite someone to LS, you giving Linkshell linkpearl to this person.
Agree, except #1.
When you invite someone to LS, you giving Linkshell linkpearl to this person.
As a LS leader who is working on repearling a third time, this is a definite YES!
I've reformed three times as well. It's frustrating to say the least. Not to mention I end up losing innocent members in the crossfire who were not informed. Just found a member for the first time since we last reformed almost a month ago. He thought we all quit!
Yes, this needs to be a priority:
"2) Allow the LS leader to remove a member from anywhere regardless or online status"
So many threads about this in this forum as well as every other community forum since beta. SE has yet to even talk about it. Where's the community rep????? ><
It's like Allanon said, a nightmare to run a LS.
I'm shocked no one mentioned this but... Since we can be in 8 shells at once, It'd be nice to be able to talk in all of them without changing. Like /l1 /l2 /l8....
That should come in with the other features which are desperately needed. (Plus it allows me to spit in the eye of any 1 ls only policies. It's to early in the game for an even ls to dominate my social needs.)
Come on SE, let us know what's going on with this! :(
WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN FIXED YET??? No excuses... SE wtf
ditto to everything posted here- I was hoping to see this stuff mentioned by now in stuff to be worked on- please SE give us the tools to help foster a sense of community that this game needs severely! It's sad that I have to think twice about inviting someone to my linkshell because it's filling up too fast and I can't get rid of people that don't log on anymore. I am in agreement with every point on here mentioned to help make linkshells more user friendly.