Rejected Log the member who closed the sector in GBG (eg last battle \ negotiation

[Retired Guy]

Reason

Help guilds track down rogue members not following orders, or needing help understanding the symbology.

Details

In the GBG activity log, add an entry for the member who did the final battle\negotiation that closed the sector.

Balance

No impact on other game features

Abuse Prevention

I don't see a way this could be exploited, or cheated.. it's just a log.

Summary

Small addition to the GBG logs to include the member who closed a sector. Will help in overall battleground management.

Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?

Did not find a duplicate

In GBG we have logs of who built and deleted various buildings, but we don't have any record of who closed a sector. If we had that, it would make tracking down any rogue guild members much easier.

 

[Kranyar the Mysterious]

For the millionth time. No.

If there were a poll up at the top of this thread, that's how I'd vote.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

In GBG multiple players could be fighting/negotiating at the same time, all of them could have seen that there were still 12 fightsor encounters to finish the sector, therefore they started their action. However, the others who are online concurrently, may have finish 11 actions and then this player finish his/her fight or negotiation last and ended as the one who closed the sector. But when he/she started there were still 12 battles to go. Multiple reasons can be pointed out:

• He/she likes to battle manually not in Auto battle.
• He/she is slow in deciding which goods to offer during negotiations
• The [player got interrupted in RL and returned to finish the battle 5 or 10 minutes later.
• Others...

Fair to suffer the ire of the Guild GBG Leaders?

 

[xivarmy]

In GBG multiple players could be fighting/negotiating at the same time, all of them could have seen that there were still 12 fightsor encounters to finish the sector, therefore they started their action. However, the others who are online concurrently, may have finish 11 actions and then this player finish his/her fight or negotiation last and ended as the one who closed the sector. But when he/she started there were still 12 battles to go. Multiple reasons can be pointed out:

• He/she likes to battle manually not in Auto battle.
• He/she is slow in deciding which goods to offer during negotiations
• The [player got interrupted in RL and returned to finish the battle 5 or 10 minutes later.
• Others...

Fair to suffer the ire of the Guild GBG Leaders?

Well I mean it's fair to be able to address it to the right player. Mistakes happen, and you can sort it out and work on plans for it not to happen in the future - like setting the suggested stop point earlier to let everyone finish up their current encounter - and then having a single player walk the stopped sector once you're sure everyone's out.

But if you can't figure out what happened, you just wind up with unhelpful finger pointing. The current resolution to that requires someone stalking the fight table to narrow down who's doing it if no-one owns up.

If the GBG leaders are ireful over an occasional mistake, it's also fair to find a guild with more level-headed ones.

Edit:

The case against it in my mind is that leaving almost-finished sectors either for farming or control purposes does not make for fun GBG. So making that easier to manage might not be so desirable. I think we crossed that bridge with the popup though where now you know someone willfully went against the directive when a sector that was marked ignore closes an hour later - because a popup had to jump in their face.

 

[Retired Guy]

Unless they turned the popup off....

 

[DEADP00L]

It is not the last fight (159/160) that generates the capture of a sector, but the sum of the 160 encounters.
To point the finger at the last one is only hypocrisy!

 

[Retired Guy]

When it's at 159\160 with a hold symbol it is... ;-)

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

When it's at 159\160 with a hold symbol it is... ;-)

In my example the status was at 148/160 when the player starts the battle or negotiation, but for whatever reasons (some listed at my post, there could be others) the battle or negotiation ended as the last one. the Player didnt had the opportunity to see a 159/160 posted at the sector pop up screen or "ignore / no attack sign" over at the map over the sector.

 

[xivarmy]

In my example the status was at 148/160 when the player starts the battle or negotiation, but for whatever reasons (some listed at my post, there could be others) the battle or negotiation ended as the last one. the Player didnt had the opportunity to see a 159/160 posted at the sector pop up screen or "ignore / no attack sign" over at the map over the sector.

Which is one reason why most guilds when "priming" a sector have an early stop. To give everyone a chance to finish up their last encounter before blowing the end of the sector. As long as what happened can be identified adjustments can be made to make sure it doesn't go wrong next time.

If you come back an hour later rather than minutes later to finish your fight, well then it is your fault You can't assume an hour later that it's still safe. (Someone probably walked it up slowly once everyone was out). They still shouldn't yell at you over it, unless it's a pattern. But it's a lot more useful to be able to identify what happened than to have a "who did that?" with no one owning up.