Linkshell Management Recognition

[Molly_Millions]

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

[Alothia]

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

Exactly. We have a large LS, and we like it that way. I don't want to have to start turning people away because SE won't let me have more than 128 people in the shell. It sucks for that person, it sucks for me. No one wins by limiting us like that. No one.

[Jaihtmc]

I'm fairly new to the game almost 2 weeks now. When I learned that Ls had break monthly because they couldn't break inactive players shells or had to be in proximity It all seems needlessly complicated and just off. Like they didn't finish the admistrative tools for shell leaders or something. Would be cool to see some progress In that simple as it be.

[Dimo]

"I'm not sure how I'm supposed to hold onto any hope that these "big" changes they are making will be worth sticking around for if they can't get the tiniest and most basic of issues worked out."

Thats the truth, plain and simple. I am baffled as to why these basic issues havent been fixed yet. Sure I can understand a few departments working together to knock out big changes, but cmon now. If the departments are as Yoshi P says, these changes should have been fixed a long time ago.

Regardless, keep up the good work Rhomagus.

[tachikoma]

Add a text command to kick players without a proximity requirement. This is the only thing needed now to solve this thread. The other features to chat in channels /L1 /L2 etc and to have a fancy UI are not important right now. This small feature would solve the hundreds of comments listed here and make linkshell management much easier.

[Elkwood]

Dear SE...

O yeah I brought this one back as well

[Rhomagus]

May 25, 2011 Day#3

Noticed another thread, which I've already posted in before titled: "Linkshell Administration options"

On page 11 Angry Nixon related his frustrations, which I believe are common amongst the playerbase. He explains the root of frustrations on this particular issue. It is not the first, nor the last, nor the best point made on this issue. It quite literally is a quote I lazily just happened upon as it was at the end of the thread. I could easily pull the same sentiment from numerous threads on these forums.

In the same thread, on the same page, Tonka makes a more succinct statement hinting at the level of competency necessary to address such a small issue, in light of bigger, comprehensive, and more divisive issues.

The first is from Angry Nixon, he wrote:

As has been said numerous times the conditions required the meet the necessary threshold for the ability to remove someone from a linkshell to work are so completely counter intuitive in a situation where you would want someone removed from a linkshell to begin with as to make not even the slightest shred of sense.

It is so far removed from good and common sense that it functionally does not exist. That is to say there is no real difference at this point between having no command at all, and having the command as it is implemented. And so, it needs to be implemented as soon as possible. Even if it is only that command for the time being, as it is fundamental to the administration of a linkshell to be able not only to add, but also remove, members at will.

I should simply add that it made no sense from the outset that any LS command should be bound by proximity to other linkshell members except for the actual trading of the pearl to that member upon entrance into the LS. Especially given that LSs allow players to communicate freely across the whole of the game regardless of location. Conceptually speaking LSs aren't a location centric means of socializing, and so the commands associated with them should follow suit.

Three paragraphs longer than anticipated. In short, get'er done.

To sum it up shortly: The primary reasons you'd want to kick a person from your shell is if they were purposefully evasive or never present. Linkshells are a tool, by nature, too keep in contact with other characters regardless of distance. It makes absolutely no sense that removing players should have proximity conditions. This feature, even if it's the only feature that you implement, should be instituted as soon as possible.

Tonka, in the next post, wrote:

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to hold onto any hope that these "big" changes they are making will be worth sticking around for if they can't get the tiniest and most basic of issues worked out.

To the point. Not much else to add. If I were to add anything it would be that the quote is coming form a long time, well known Final Fantasy XI veteran. Not that his opinion is more important than the new player that just signed up yesterday. I only add it to show that this issue comes from a person who is well versed in the universe of Final Fantasy MMOs. Seeing as how I just randomly chose these from the first page that I viewed discussing a related topic, I'm sure finding different perspectives won't be too difficult.

The only difficult thing to find will be someone arguing to keep it the way it is. If I find such a sentiment, I will be more than happy to include it into the OP, but for now I think I'm going to try to express the unanimity of the issue.

[Alothia]

We talked about this a lot on tonight's Dodostampede (http://dodostampede.tumblr.com) and I don't think I need to add a whole lot more. You're pretty thorough Rho. Keep up the good work.

[Keith_Dragoon]

I have kinda given up on this battle after creating 3 topics on it and recreating one of them a fee times.

I will however give my support in your endeavor.

[viion]

We seriously need this fixed, the LS tools have absolute nothing to do with the Battle System so if the same people is being used that is bad team management.