Linkshell Management Recognition

[Rhomagus]

Day #10 May 1, 2011

Missed out on a couple of days there, my apologies. It was still pretty easy to find this thread and [dev1024] Linkshell Administration Options.. Which is a good thing. It's the primary reason as to why I wanted to get this thing started as there's no doubt there is a need for this topic to be properly addressed, the only problem is that it was being spread too thin amongst newly created threads and unfortunately, those threads would quickly fall to the third page perhaps even further.

The proper areas of the forums are being under utilized. The place where this subject belongs is in the UI section of the forums. There were a vast amount of threads created on the subject of linkshell tools but a lot of them barely get any recognition. I don't think it's because this isn't an important or wanted topic. I do think that people get caught up with things that are currently coming down the pipe from the development team. I'd assume it's because people feel that their opinion has more weight to it when they know the development team is working on a particular facet of the game. They're under the assumption that the development team is working on it now and they want to get their opinion in last second before the final release.

I'm a bit torn on this. While I do believe the recent Q&A topics consist of legitimate wants to address the issue, I have a feeling that, by the time dev-tags are made, the issue is already past the conception or planning stages and is in development. I can't say this for sure but it's a plausible option.

So with that frame of reference a question arises.

Are the dev tags meant to be used by the community to provide an efficient means of supplying the development team with their input...

or

Are the dev tags meant to be used as a communications tool by the community team in order to inform the player base what changes are being implemented.

They need not be mutually exclusive nor the only options, but let's assume option A.

If option A is true, the responsibility of feedback and input falls on us (the player base). We've been given the means to do so in a highly efficient way with the implementation of dev tags. This would allow the community team to prioritize certain issues and ready them for submission and translation to the development team.

If option B is true, once a dev tag has been made, the issue is probably already in the testing phases. By then, it's really out of our hands. All we can do is complain about it's implementation and hope that it is changed. I'm assuming that this has been the rationale behind the seemingly quick implemented target lock control schemes that we've been seeing.

At the end of the day, even considering both options, it's in our best interest to responsibly address particular topics accordingly. I don't think that means not creating multiple threads on a similarly related topic though. I'm also of the opinion that the reason multiple threads are created in the first place is that sometimes the current threads don't represent a particular players point of view. So in lieu of posting their opinions in a sea of counter arguments, they decide to create a new topic entirely in hopes of garnering responses from people of the same opinion. This is the conundrum that we come to when creating thread topics on issues we consider important.

Is the sheer number of posts in a thread a sign of the issues importance?
How many posts are the community team reading before formulating an opinion?
What makes a good opinion?
Are there examples where a valid argument was made but not heard in a thread full of invalid arguments for an opinion?
Can these very specific English opinions be properly translated into other languages?

and so on...

There is a vast gap between our individual opinions and how they are finally communicated to the development team. It's a monumental task to properly prioritize these issues and at the end of the day, that may not be up to us or the community team. The development team has what they need to work on, and should be diligent in the tasks appropriated to them. I think the majority of frustrations from this particular issue on linkshell management is that it seems to have been inappropriately prioritized. I think there are many contributing factors as to why it has been inappropriately prioritized but that's a discussion for another day.

Regardless of how topics are prioritized to the development team, we can discern what's in our control and what's out of our control. Through that we can choose what the best courses of action can be, that are in our control, to create a desired outcome. There is a valid argument for the opinions not being heard, but has that person supported their opinion rationally? Have they exhausted all routes and research before creating a new thread to be sure someone hasn't already refuted their position or made their points already? Is their tone reminiscent to how an adult would converse with another adult? or does the new thread topic offer new insight into a particular aspect of an issue? As a community we should carefully contemplate these things before creating a new thread. It may help the community reps condense issues more efficiently and whatever makes that part of the communication process more expedient is in the best interest of all parties involved.

What I would like to do now is to guide you to a post made in the appropriate forum for this topic.

This not only shows that I am not the first to be baffled about the priority of this issue, but that it's not something that just cropped up just last month. Nicodemus created a topic in the UI forums and also appropriated his own dev tag. Depending on the context you could view his dev tag number as a criticism on the urgency for this issue or that the issue seems to not exist. Without further ado, here's what Nicodemus wrote:

[dev0000] Linkshell Commands

I've dug through the forums a bit and read the letters from the Devs - and very little communication seems to be forthcoming about changes in, commands. The biggest culprits are:

/lscmd Invite? Kick? Promote? Leave a Message After the beep?
/chatmode Why not allow chat to switch betwen mutliple linkshells if not
/ls1
/ls2
/ls3 ...directly?


But the real question is, how do we highlight this to the devs? This is nowhere in the "in development" section of the forum so there are no tags that I can (legitimately) attach, and honestly I think it's a relatively quick fix.

Ideas?


~Nico

This thread was created on April 14, 2011 and at the time of this writing is located on page 3 of the UI forums. So if you really care about this issue I'd also ask you to post in the threads found there as well. Mods/GMs/ and Community Reps have asked us to post in the threads found in General Discussion but I think it's safe to say that this is a User Interface problem so that would also be a good place to post.

[Zenge]

Indeed this is a major issue. In the pass 3 days after the repearling of a LS, we are still inviting the members from other shell and it's really troublesome asking them to meet a certain time or place to receive one.

[EgweneALvere]

I couldn't let this fall to the second page.

Bump!!

[Wooba]

I'm sure it has been stated numerous times already, but Linkshell Management is truely a nightmare in this current state. It is really baffling how Square has gone this long without addressing such a simple problem. My Linkshell has had to create a new shell and reform at least 3 times now, and everyone is getting sick of it. Linkshell/Guild Management in an MMO should be something that is easy to do, and shouldn't take days worth of planning and explination just to clear out inactive members. It should be as simple as a Left Click in the member list, followed by clicking Remove.

I don't understand how this has been ignored since September. It has always been a problem, and Square hasn't even recognized it as a problem. I'm greatful for all the planned changes, and am looking forward to them, but I'm not looking forward to creating /Meh again to get rid of all the people that don't play anymore. Something so simple as this really shouldn't take this much time to bring to attention, certainly not with the number of topics created about the issue.

[UllrHellfire]

Bump!! We need the dev teams response in detail on why this is not a issue to them or the dev team. At least it seems that way

[Allanon]

I agree that the dev team really needs to respond to this huge issue in the game. I currently run a LS on Palamecia server and have had to break the shell twice just to remove the inactives. Dev team please PLEASE respond to us concerning the LS administration tools or lack there of. We need at least the ability to remove inactive members regardless of there online status or location in the world.

[Rowyne]

Keep fighting the good fight, Rhomagus. Eventually our voices will be heard.

[UllrHellfire]

I am on my 3rd Re-pearl 4th within the weeks to follow unless change happens and happens now this is a dire issue which needs change. we don't need gear color, we don't need 50 ways to target 1 mob hell they can stay the same size let me manage the men and women i play the game with i love so much. Is all i and we ask.

[Cutriss]

That would make a lot of sense.

Not to spam or anything, but I'm going to copypasta my bump to the Linkshell Administration thread in UI - if Companies end up being the new linkshells, I would hope they incorporate more improvements upon the original XI design.

Additional rank levels - It'd be nice to have one or two more levels of granularity between "shellholder" and "sackholder". You might want to give some people the right to issue pearls but not to break them. Keeping with the "pearled" theme, you might move sackholder to the recruitment tier, and add in Pearlbinder and Pearlkeeper or the like. Further...
Moderated chat - Allows members of a specific rank or higher to "quiet" the channel so that they can speak to everyone without being interrupted. This is pretty important for larger-scale events. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the "STFU WE'RE IN DYNAMIS" type of situation. In moderated chat mode, if the original individual that set moderated chat logs off, the chatmode returns to normal (so as not to mute a shell for an indefinite period of time). If someone sets moderated and leaves it on without freeing it, players are free to /tell another officer asking them to disable it.
Rank list - Since it seems that XIV retains the linkshell member list while people are offline, it would be useful to be able to view the members of a particular rank at any given time, in case you need to contact an officer with a question or concern.
Transfer ownership - If LSes will have persistent space in XIV (see the Lodestone), then the LS itself should be able to persist through a player's departure. The owner should have the ability to hand the shell over to another player. OR...
Decentralized leadership - Perhaps the best solution to the idea of being unable to transfer a linkshell would be the ability for a shellholder to promote people into shellholders, allowing for multiple people to be fully "in charge". That way if a shellholder goes MIA, the linkshell does not have to dissolve. Some groups may be more oriented toward this style of leadership anyway.

Given the implementation of achievements and their integration into the Lodestone, and Linkshell integration into the Lodestone, I feel rather positive that there will also be Linkshell-oriented achievements coming, and so there may be a package of changes that will encompass some of these requests in the future.

To clarify on that last bit, WOW has guild achievements, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them make their way into XIV.

[Rhomagus]

Day #12 June 3, 2011

Sorry for not posting yesterday. I had a huge headache that wouldn't go away so I decided to take a short nap. Turns out my short nap turned into a 3 hour snooze and, yesterday is now today. Anyways, my post this time will be significantly short than usual as I really should get back to bed.

Today's post jumps from what I talked a bit about in Day #10's post. I mentioned that there was a thread that had 0 responses. That thread was made by Flower. What I like about it is that the title was properly formatted with the [suggestion] tag, it's to the point, and lacks an abrasive tone.

[Suggestion] Linkshell Permissions

This is something I am sure all of us are hoping you guys fix. The ability to kick members from the linkshell whether they are online or offline. Same goes for the ability to promote or retire officers. Also just in case this situation ever comes up, the ability to transfer leadership of a linkshell to another person.

It would also be nice if you guys added more linkshell crests to set all the thousands of linkshells apart from each other.

This post was created 6 days after the post I'd mentioned in Day #10 by Nicodemus. As to why there was no response to it I could only guess at 2 possible reasons.

1.) It fell off the first page of the UI forums.
- This seems to be a death sentence for almost any topic that isn't in General Discussion. General Discussion can usually survive the 2nd page, but topics begin to hit the graveyard at page 2 on any other forum it seems. The bright side is that there's only 10 pages to look into on the UI forums. You could see that as a positive in some lights or negative, but it certainly makes it easier to see if there's already been a thread made on the subject you're talking about.

2.) People already felt they've put in their two cents on the issue.
- Once someone has already posted about an issue once, they feel that's all that's necessary. Granted at the time of my post yesterday, there were less posts in Nicodemus's thread than there were thread topics in UI on Linkshell tools. I haven't yet figured out what the oldest post is in regards to this issue.

As I've said before, Linkshell tools is one of the few thread topics in the UI forums which I've noticed there to be multiple iterations. The main reason as to why it gets repeated creations I could only chalk up to people not being able to find threads on the subject on the first page. If we stay vigilant on a thread topic I think it has a higher chance of getting a rep/dev response. Regardless, I am a firm believe that this particular issue doesn't need to be dragged out for as long as it's slated too. I don't see why this couldn't be included into 1.18 as we've seen changes happen quickly and without provocation on other UI related features.

Good night. Even though it's actually morning here.