Castle Clash: Brave Squads Today: 3    Total Posts: 9824

Total:#8

Create Thread

[Suggestion] Guild Admin Tools, Controls, Fixes, and Chat

[Copy link] 7/1783

#1
Posted on 7/25/19 10:27:38 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

This is going to be a little long, but I have a lot of things to cover here.

Guild Admin Tools:
Since it seems unlikely we'll ever get an API to make such things possible externally, can we at least get some basic Administration tools to make running a Guild easier?

Things like being able to bring up Guild Member information, such as how many of the last X (weeks, months, or whatever) Torch Battles, Guild Wars, and FF have been missed in one easy place?

I mean side by side on one page, by the way, not one page for each set of information, so we can see who helps where and how often. Having one page for each event would still be a major hassle, when all could be put in one place for easy viewing and comparisons.

How about a page showing how many donations, and number of points earned for doing so, have been made to the Guild Turf each day/week/month?

Basically things that can allow us to more easily figure out who is helping the Guild and who is just dead weight mooching off of the work of others.

Something that will allow us to see these things without the need to create a spreadsheet and spend hours each week filling in data by hand to try to keep track of them, when it's even possible to track it at all, would be a HUGE help for those of us running Guilds.

The My CC Feats event makes it clear that a lot of that information is already tracked, so all that would be needed would be to create a way for us to see and sort it. Even if it was only visible to the Guild Leaders/Vices, that would be a great improvement.


Guild Controls:
It would be nice if we could set Guild Ranks manually, instead of having them based on how much someone has donated in shards. This would include things like security options, such as who can accept applications/kick members, restrictions like who can promote/demote or can haul early or even can participate in certain events altogether, and perks like increases in the Guild Salary or maybe access to a Guild Bank that people can contribute shards and certain items to for the use of other members.

It would also be nice to be able to set more than two Vice Leaders.

Right now, 10k shards makes someone Elite, which gives them the ability to accept applications. 10k is practically nothing, these days.

I haven't bought in months, and I'm still perfectly fine throwing 10-20k shards a DAY into my Guild's coffers, and my shards have barely been dented by it, thanks to rewards and events that any free player can get in on.

That means any newbie player can join, get themselves to Elite, then accept a bunch of idiots into the Guild, causing problems. Whether this is through ignorance or malicious action is irrelevant, because it's a problem either way.

Worse, the game doesn't tell who accepted someone into the Guild, which makes figuring it out impossible unless you manage to be online with only that person when they do it to catch them in the act... or they own up to it afterwards.

Having Ranks being a perk given out by the Leaders would be a nice bonus, rather than a potential security risk.

Something like Leader, Vice-Leaders (at least up to 5), Elites, Members, Recruits would be a good starting layout, with Ranks providing more benefits and bonuses and possibly more power in the Guild. It would allow us to better control things and provide incentives to players to be active and helpful, else it could negatively impact them.

For instance we could set what Ranks are allowed to accept invitations and kick people from the guild, or potentially set a donation requirement for each rank that is automatically taken out of their shards (a hard limit would be needed to avoid abuse, but should be doable). This would give people an incentive to Rank up and not get demoted, while allowing us to help ensure the security and safety of our guilds.

Just as a couple of possible examples, mind. Not saying it's the best possible idea, but it's a starting point.


Guild Expulsion/Kicking/Booting:
Next, when someone is kicked out of the Guild, it says they "left", like they chose to do so. This is bad on a psychological level, an administration level, and on a player level.

If the Leader kicks several people for inactivity, for instance, it looks like suddenly a bunch of people just decided to leave the Guild for some reason. This can negatively impact morale, even once it is explained... and that's assuming everyone is on to see the explanation, which is as near to impossible that there's no real difference, as far as I've seen. Never been in a single Guild where every single member was online at the same time.

Now, if the game said they were kicked by X for Y reason, that can be at least partially avoided. It does nothing for people who weren't online at the time to see it, but it does at least make it clear to those online that the person was booted and why.

On an administration level, it just notes that they're gone. Not who kicked them or why. This again can be a problem, if only a minor one in the event of good communication... but good communication is hard.

Not everyone has Line or WeGamers or some external chat app, and it's hard enough keeping membership up these days without running people off by demanding they use this or that app, too. That's also if you even use them.

Honestly, I hate them... I still use WeGamers, but I don't like having to use an external app to communicate. To me that is a failing of the game, not the players. If it was just supplemental, maybe... but most suggest using it as the primary means of communication.

Then we have the player level. The person who is kicked has no idea why they were kicked. They just know they were kicked out of the guild, and that's it.

This means if they were booted because of making a mistake numerous times (such as hauling early and the Leaders never managing to catch them online to explain), they have no idea they were doing something wrong or how to fix it. So they likely go on to do it again and again and again, ad nauseam.

This could all be vastly improved by telling in Guild Chat that they were kicked instead of leaving, who kicked them, and allowing them to set a reason (either from a dropdown list or a short typed message). Then that information is also sent to the kicked player's Inbox, so that they know WHY they were kicked and by who, instead of leaving them in the dark about it.

Lastly, keep a log under the Guild somewhere, for three to six months, or even a year, of who all has been kicked from the Guild, who kicked them, and why. Kind of like Haul Info in Torch Battle, but in this case a record that can be checked to keep everything neat, clean, and clear for everyone. This would go nicely with the "who accepted their application" log mentioned earlier.


Guild Chat:
Finally, Guild Chat sucks (Chat in general, really... especially World Chat). I don't think anyone would deny this. There has been some minor improvements here and there, along with some annoying setbacks, but it's largely the same now as it was when I started over five years ago.

We have begged and pleaded for improvements, but I think I have a fairly simple solution...

Can we please get Guild Chat changed over to use the same system as in Lords Mobile (they're both IGG properties, surely someone from the CC dev team can Mission Impossible a copy of the code from the LM devs and port it over)?

It keeps a persistent log of chat (though how far it goes back, I'm not sure), it has a much higher character limit so messages don't need to be broken up into multiple lines every time you want to say something that requires an even moderately complex sentence, it has a built in translate function which is SORELY needed in CC, and it is just all around BETTER than the mess we have on nearly every level imaginable.


Well, that does it. I'm done now. If you made it this far, congrats... I'm 99.999999975328 percent sure you're not a CC Dev! :D

Signature
Ok, sure.

What?

Move along, please.
#2
Posted on 7/25/19 11:33:40 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

You are right...that is a lot so I will just touch on a few key points.
Guild Admin Tools:
I clearly understand what you are looking for however I do suggest that you do an example sheet to make sure that those responsible for implementing something like this clearly understands.  
Guild Controls:
I agree with creating more slots for leadership, not necessarily Vice Leaders, but maybe a counsel with limited permissions.  I don't think everyone associated with leadership needs all permissions available.  
Having said that I don't think there is an issue with members having the ability to accept members after obtaining Elite status.  I understand your concern, but I personally have never experienced any issue remotely close to what you have described, in fact most members don't accept anyone who has not be invited to the guild chat or instructed by leadership. Imo this type of behavior speaks more to internal issues within the guild.  I should also add that I am not a leader so I don't think along the same lines as a leader would 
Question:
As it stands the ranking of Elite is based solely on shard donations, which is about as fair a method as can be.  If this were to be assigned to the Guild Leaders, what checks and balances would be in place to ensure that it would be done fairly and not on a biased system?  
Re: Increasing the shard donations: 
Taking into consideration that the newer / lower might players need all their resources for the continued leveling of their accounts, this would be fine for the veteran players, but I don't think it would be fair for those newer / lower might players, especially considering that it take much more now then it did before and the amount increases with each new buffing method is introduced.  
Re: Additional Exit Labels:
Members can look at the GW board and see that they did not run and if this has been a consistent issue within the guild you can be certain that they will check  before asking.  Although if IGG is agreeable with implementing a tracking sheet, then I don't see why adding additional labels would present a problem.
Guild Chat:
First "World Chat" was never intended to be a guild chat but rather as an additional tool to be used for guild recruitment. And yes I agree it is horrible but without 24/7 monitoring I highly doubt that it will ever be an effective tool.  As for the implementation of the LordsMobile chat, I can only say push the issue, IGG is notorious for copying fragments of one game to another especially when it has been proven to be effective.

Finally while I find your post to be exemplary, walls of text very seldom get the level of attention expended to create them.  I would highly suggest that you compartmentalize and create a separate thread for each subsection for a less intimidating and  more welcoming reception.:angel:

Signature

Follow IGG @Facebook.com/IGG    Follow CC @Facebook.com/CastleClash
#3
Posted on 7/26/19 1:23:30 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

I had to post the table and then edit the post, because... actually I'm not sure. The editor on here is weird.

Anyway, for an example table of what I meant by putting all the information about Guild Events in a single page, I give a basic example below. The idea would be that it would show the relevant information for every Guild Member in this, or a similar, way. Everything on one list, so you can see it all at one time.





Player Name





Torch Battle





Guild War





Fortress Feud


Player A


Participated 4 time(s), using 40 haul(s), in the last 8 Torch Battles.Participated 8 time(s), using 40 run(s), in the last 8 Guild Wars. Participated 1 time(s), fighting in 3 round(s), in the last 8 Fortress Feuds.
Player BParticipated 1 time(s), using 3 haul(s), in the last 8 Torch Battles.Participated 0 time(s), using 0 run(s), in the last 8 Guild Wars. Participated 0 time(s), fighting in 0 round(s), in the last 8 Fortress Feuds.
Player CParticipated 8 time(s), using 96 haul(s), in the last 8 Torch Battles.Participated 1 time(s), using 4 run(s), in the last 8 Guild Wars. Participated 8 time(s), fighting in 21 round(s), in the last 8 Fortress Feuds.



As for the Elite ranking and bias among leadership... why would it matter if they were biased in giving out any ranking?

If you don't like how the Guild is run, find a Guild to your liking. Donating shards shouldn't guarantee you any sort of power in the Guild, unless the Leaders want it to be that way.

In regards to people accepting invites, I've personally seen it in my own Guild on Android and in the Guild I'm in on Amazon. You can say it's an internal issue, and it is to a degree, but vetting people isn't exactly any guarantee against this kind of thing.

Trolls are just as apt to lie and give a good impression, then do things like this just to be a nuisance. Newbie players can also do this, not knowing it's not a good idea or acceptable. Most people don't do this, I admit, but it's the ones who do that are a problem... and no amount of vetting will guarantee against it.

Signature
Ok, sure.

What?

Move along, please.
#4
Posted on 7/26/19 4:31:57 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

I was going to post this as a comment, but... I was trying to address a lot of points on the issue of Guild Ranks to better clarify my position, so it was easier to break it up in a full post.

I disagree wholeheartedly about Rankings. Not because I think the sentiment is wrong, because I don't. Teamwork is obviously important, and if Leadership (I'm using that term loosely to refer to Leaders and Vice Leaders for the sake of simplicity) is acting foolish then things are inevitably going downhill.

That said, bias is impossible to eliminate entirely. Trying to find a way to do so is a recipe for failure. That's why I dislike the Elite ranking as it stands.

Is it "fair" in the sense that anyone who meets the requirements gets it? Sure.

Is it "fair" to the Leadership to have to deal with the permissions it grants? Not at all.

Is it "fair" to the Guild Members who have to suffer because of problems caused by it? Again, not at all.

Did the person earn the ranking by contributing? In one sense, yes... they gave some shards. In every other sense the answer becomes a far more murky "not necessarily". Did they help in GW on a regular basis? Did they help in Torch Battles? Do they help build the Guild Turf? Do they help in Fortress Feud? Are they on to join in with Team HBM and Team Dungeons on a regular basis? This ranking takes none of that into consideration.

So what makes them "Elite"? Giving up a little bit of a resource that even a new free player can get in a matter of a few days playing, if they try? How does that benefit the Guild? How is that fair to the members of the Guild if that person gets the rank, accepts a ton of random applicants who screw up Torch Battle, inflate their GW rank without participating, don't help in FF, and don't contribute to the Guild Turf? In short... it's not.

Sure they can fix it by booting the people, but that's even more work on top of the losses it causes.

Some Guilds are casual, and some are not. That one fact alone will be almost guaranteed to change how they feel Guild Rankings should be handled. Is one right? Is the other? Who gets to decide "fair" in that instance?

Casual Guilds will likely bias themselves toward friendly/social people, and worry less about participation and people adhering to a certain set of non-social standards.

Hardcore Guilds will likely bias themselves toward ambitious people who aren't worried about stepping on a few toes to get things done. They may be no less friendly, but put more emphasis on gameplay than social interaction.

Other Guilds may fall somewhere in the middle with a ton of different variations in what they consider the "ideal" Guild Member.

It is for that reason alone that Rankings in a Guild should always be at the prerogative of the Leadership of that Guild, because they are the ones who set the course and tone for that Guild. It is a fundamental part of the structure of each Guild.

That's why it's handled this way in just about any game with Leadership controlled Guild Ranks, of any kind. No one who joins any Guild has "earned" the right to be any specific Rank, unless the Leadership has decided that is so.

This is especially true when a Rank comes with privileges that can make things harder on the Leadership for no good reason, and that goes doubly so when it can be gotten for donating something as easy to get as 10k shards. Hero Collector alone makes it simple enough to earn more shards than that for the price of a few Honor Badges, which are so easy to get it's ridiculous these days.

Now if you want to say they can earn something for contributing, I'm all for that. Something like a special Emote, a tag/flag that shows in their listing in the Members List and Guild Chat, a Statue for their Base, or something like that for being a "Patron", then sure... though in that case I'd personally want it to be a time limited thing, so they have to keep doing it on a regular basis to keep qualifying for the reward.

However, Ranking in a Guild is almost always about security, organization, incentives, and possibly a chain of command/who should I ask or listen to for help list.

Why should someone be considered "Elite" if they just tossed out 10k shards one time, but do NOTHING of use for the Guild as a whole? It's ridiculous, in my opinion.

As I said, that's not saying teamwork isn't important or that being so biased as to border on prejudicial treatment is a good thing... but generally Guilds that don't appreciate teamwork or are so biased as to seem tyrannical are going to fail, anyway. Rankings aren't going to change that.

This is all just my opinion, though.

Signature
Ok, sure.

What?

Move along, please.
#5
Posted on 7/26/19 10:28:27 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

Elite status is as it should be, though I think guild leaders/co-leaders/elite by majority vote should be able to ban 1 member per month from elite,and possibly the guild. One thing I'd like to add is: Ranks by shards is a motivation; why not add more ranks?

Signature
I am F2P. Don't judge me
#6
Posted on 7/26/19 4:04:53 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

I think the best way to approach the issue of ranking is to retain the ranking of "Elite".  This would be and actually should remain as the lowest obtainable ranking. As such I believe that shard donations is not an unreasonable means of obtaining this rank.  Currently the only benefit to having this rank is the ability to accept new members, which is actually an additional asset to Leadership whom it is unreasonable to expect to be online 24/7.  There can also be simple rules in place to guarantee that only pre-approved applicants are accepted such as:  (1) All pre-approved members are invited to the guild chat, where all members can scan prior to verify pre-approval. or (2) No member is allowed to accept new applicants without prior authorization from Leadership. (3) The names of new members still on Cooldown are listed on the guild board.  This can be decided within each individual guild and should someone not follow the rules in place then the appropriate disciplinary measures should be taken.  Point is that the ranking of "Elite" is a small measure that allows all members to feel like they are a part of the whole.  Based on the commentary thus far it appears the biggest issues with this rank is due to the limitation of available ranks.

Having said that I would add additional ranking which would be comprised of key members such as a "Counsel", "Trainers - responsible for helping members to elevate their battle strategies" "Captains" for each guild related game modes and maybe even a Secretary" responsible for maintaining guild records,  As The_Spectre stated the requirement for obtaining these ranking could be based on a combination of proven skill sets as well as actual activity.  (Along with this type suggestion, the number of additional leadership slots and associated titles should be included)

Something structured alone these lines should address the semi-retired, laid back or even hardcore guilds by providing more specific rankings that can be ignored or fully utilized based on the needs of each specific guild.  It also addresses the issue of shard donations for the lower ranking "Elite" members, which basically only symbolizes acceptance into an organized group as well as the more specialized higher ranks which could be awarded based on elections or more biased means without causing any unnecessary dissension within a group where team work is essential for success.

Signature

Follow IGG @Facebook.com/IGG    Follow CC @Facebook.com/CastleClash
#7
Posted on 7/26/19 5:19:59 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

I keep writing near essays on this subject, but I feel rather strongly about it, so... meh.

It's only an asset to the Leadership if they want it and find it helpful. Personally, I don't.

I have had problems with it on my Guild on Android and I've seen my Guild on Amazon have to deal with it a few times as well. That's enough for me to want it to stop.

Usually it was newbies who didn't know any better or thought they were helping. Once or twice it has been trolls looking to cause problems, who acted alright on the surface and were just looking to cause mayhem and frustration for their own amusement.

No amount of vetting players or explaining rules is going to fix the occasional troll or person who doesn't really understand until they run up on it.

I mean how many times are people told to never haul before a certain time, only to do it, then say they didn't know because they'd never done Torch Battle before? That's the go to excuse of nearly every low might early hauler ever.

So laying out the rules won't fix that in all cases, because there will be people who didn't understand, forgot, or wanted to cause problems. This is especially true since most don't even think about the issue of Elite allowing people to accept new members until it becomes a problem, in the first place. I know we didn't.

I don't have a problem, necessarily, with an earned Rank. In fact, I could see it possibly working fine, if handled correctly. I would still prefer it to be a monthly thing, so they have to keep contributing to keep it if it means that much to them, but whatever.

Something like a Recruit Rank Player (newly joined member) can earn Soldier Rank (normal member rank) by being promoted by Leadership. They can then earn Elite Soldier Rank by being in the Guild for a certain amount of time and making a set donation, similar to how Elite works now.

I'm just making up random Ranks for example purposes, by the way, not saying those should be what the Ranks are actually called.

Anyway, I could see that working alright, if it came with nothing more than the designation in the Members List or something superficial like that in terms of reward. A simple way to say this person has been with the Guild long enough to be promoted and contributed some, so they're no longer a "mere" standard Soldier would probably be fine.

The fact that it provides permissions to players that the Leadership has no control over is the real problem, in my opinion. Permission to accept players should be controlled solely by the Leadership and whoever they deem fit to have that power.

As for Leadership needing help due to them only being a few people, that's also why I suggested the ability to have more than just two Vice Leaders. More Ranks with the ability to set permissions such as who can accept applications and boot people would also work to that end.

Either way, allow us to pick the help we want, that will best help the Guild, rather than sticking us with random players who may have just joined, tossed out relatively nothing to get that Rank, and may or may not have good intentions.

Lastly the issue of Elite symbolizing acceptance into the guild... I thought being accepted into the Guild did that quite nicely.

Being promoted should be something you've earned in the opinion of the Guild, not something you've bought that the game arbitrarily decides was good enough.

Elite should be a recognition of players who are above the rank and file. People who are stand outs on some level, or have achieved something of use to make them of note.

A 5k might who rolled a Dryad with Honor Badges to get 30k shards and threw 10k of that into the Guild isn't an Elite anything, IMO.

I'm not saying they're worthless or that their contribution isn't appreciated, but how does that make them Elite in any way? How has that earned them special privileges? Especially ones that can impact the whole Guild negatively, through no fault of their own...

Signature
Ok, sure.

What?

Move along, please.
#8
Posted on 8/13/19 4:16:29 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

This thread has been banned.

Signature