The new Guild UI and Permissions...yikes (Part 1)

Community General Discussion
2746

Reading through the old posts still. Found this one that echoes my sentiments exactly* so I have to quote it:

*except the part about the devs listening, of course. I’m pretty sure no one is listening at this point. It’s like some zombie plague took over Blizz headquarters and infected everyone there. They can’t answer our questions because they’re just soulless shells now, wandering the halls in search of brains.

4 Likes
2747

If this is true, we should form a raid group to check it out. Maybe there’s an old god minion on the top floor that we can capture in a sheet and poke for answers.

“If you don’t answer our questions, you don’t get any pizza! And the pizza may or may not be pineapple! We’re not telling!”

shudders I can’t think of a fate worse than that.

Of course, all this messiness could be avoided by simply providing an update.

3 Likes
2748

So Blizzard, today is a big sportsball day- can we get a touchdown for team ‘Fix the Guild Permissions’? Pleeeeease?? :smiley:

But in all seriousness, this absolute lack of communication is not a good look for a AAA company that constantly says they want to be better about communication. With a lot of other large companies struggling to stay afloat for a whole book’s worth of reasons, even an acknowledgement that this thread is still being read would be better than nothing. But what would be infinitely better than that, Blizzard, is if you could give us -something-.

Even if that something is ‘we don’t have a solution right now, but we’re working on one’. Even if that something is ‘this is how it’s going to be’. The radio silence just leads more people to make the assumption that you don’t care about the players (or care about the things they care about); the best way to prove those assumptions wrong is to keep us updated, even if just to let us know you’re still listening but can’t report anything yet.

6 Likes
2749

Four accounts and you buy gold and you think somehow that you’re going to be the one to deprive Blizzard of money? Open a window.

2750

Today marks 200 days since this thread was created and ignored by Blizzard employees who claim they want to improve communication.

10 Likes
2751

Referring to my posts?

Then like myself with Wow tokens, you’ve made errors.

Please allow me to help.

I did not buy gold.

I paid for some game time thinking I was depriving Blizzard of real money and saving myself some cash in the process.

(Yep, you got me! I really messed up there all right! /facepalm However, I also never stated I was going to be THE ONE to deprive Blizzard of money.)

Due to the kindness of a certain poster, I learned I was very much mistaken (of course I am sure you’ve never been wrong about anything. Ever) and was in fact actually earning Blizzard more real life money.

Talk about a bit embarrassing!

Anyway, I already posted all this and unfortunately, you’re very late to the “bash on Druu for daring to make an error in public party”

Ie:

Not only did have I admitted my error, I have actually decided I like not paying Blizzard real money, and I may indeed continue to give them more real life money via using tokens every month as I enjoy having the extra cash to play with.

Maybe, it’s possible it’s you who should have “opened a window” nearly a week ago when all this was maybe kinda-sorta relevant and lent Brahmina a hand explaining my mistake instead of coming off like a ***hat nearly a week after the fact.

Just saying.

Have a great day! :grinning:

Oh, and Blizzard:

Please break radio silence and let all of these guild leaders and friends thereof who have put precious hours of their time and energy into this thread know what’s up regarding guild permissions.

Thank you.

6 Likes
2752

Continuing my read through. Here’s another guild master explaining how the new guild controls don’t work for them:

Yes, I know this isn’t adding anything new to the conversation–especially since it’s a previous post from this actual thread. But since it seems like no one is reading any of these posts, I feel compelled to pull them up and point at them. You know, just in case someone from Blizz accidentally clicks on this thread and somehow glances down and actually reads something posted here.

5 Likes
2753

Still no updates almost a year later.
:+1:

3 Likes
2754

Nah. I know it feels like it’s been a year, but it’s only been… (counts on fingers)… just over 7 months. But don’t worry, somehow I’ve got a feeling we will hit a full year without a response. :rage:

5 Likes
2755

We most certainly will :frowning:

1 Like
2756

I still think we should organize and launch a protest outside of the forums.

2 Likes
2757

Well, I don’t live anywhere near Blizzard HQ. Not that your idea doesn’t have merit. I just don’t see it being feasible.

And honestly, would they pay any more attention to a protest
“outside of the forums” than they do to anything else? I have my doubts.

1 Like
2759

8 Likes
2760

In all seriousness though:

Some of us, me included, have expressed a good compromise:

Advanced guild controls (old way) and Simplified guild controls (current implementation). Give us a checkbox to choose which to use, please.

7 Likes
2761

I don’t buy into the idea that some people found the old controls confusing. It’s a toggle. It’s not hard. I figured it out quite easily when I became GM.

Or maybe I should start introducing myself as Takoda, Genius GM.

Nah, too pretentious. Takoda, Fantastically Brilliant At Mastering Toggles To Customize Guild Rankings Genius GM.

Much better.

6 Likes
2762

FYI we had a Blue respond. This group decided to ignore the thread he asked us to create:

Please don’t come in months late and assume that everything you read here (the Internet) is true k? Thx,

2763

Just further verification (like more was really needed) that you’ve been trolling this thread since:

ie: The alternate bug thread you created.

Once again, that thread was “ignored” because of one simple fact that you and apparently Blizzard continue to disregard:

The issue is not a bug and never has been a bug.

It was a deliberate action taken that changed guild permissions.

You keep saying over and over and over, that the issue doesn’t effect you, yet here you are again trolling this thread because the bug thread you created got almost no attention from Guild Leaders who were smart enough to understand the difference.

4 Likes
2764

Let me break this down for you or at least point out the difference between a bug and an intentional change from a code perspective. For context and background: I write a bit of SQL (specifically T-SQL or Transact SQL which is the Microsoft SQL Server version of the SQL 2011 language standard, but I am also familiar with MySQL , PostgreSQL, and various versions of PL/SQL. Truth be known there is not all THAT much difference between the various languages. But they do produce interesting results (bugs) when you hop between platforms. So here is a bug:
Requirement is to get the appropriate data into an ETL in Informatica based on date and time with a datetime datatype field. The issue is where the actual physical server is may not be where the code is executed from. This normally does not affect anyone unless the execution point and the physical server are in different time zones. When they are you have to use a ‘workaround’ or ‘maintenance stored procedure’ to help you get what you want. Per the signature of the stored procedure below you are extracting the UTC Date from the dataset actioned.

CREATE   PROCEDURE [SCHEMA_NAME].[GetUTCDate] 
@Return_UTC_Date DATETIME OUTPUT
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;

    SET @Return_UTC_Date = GETDATE()

RETURN
END'.

Unfortunately the requirement for this procedure is not met as it asks for the date extracted to be formatted in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time (yeah the abbreviation doesn’t meet the normal order of the words what can I say? The French never have been right way forward fighting with their feet and… well this is a family oriented forum supposedly so we shant continue that old saying)) Time which means time zone information needs to be part of the equation. Since a datetime datatype in TSQL doesn’t have timezone information we use a procedure to get it. That procedure (defined above) calls a function GETDATE(). Only it should not be GETDATE() (GETDATE() works or rather it appears to work but it doesn’t quite get the job done). It lacks the timezone information. There is another function that can be called though and they both do nearly the same thing one GETDATE() returns the current date and time (no timezone information) the other GETUTCDATE() (a fairly recent addition to the MSSQL query language first becomming available in MSSQL 2012) converts the current date and time to UTC Time. The two functions have a highly similar naming sequence and are easily confused when writing code (which is always done in a rush to get it ready for release and AGILE doesn’t really help this). So a SQL Developer writes GETDATE() (because he is used to it and not the other one) not GETUTCDATE() and now the current date retrieved is several hours behind or ahead (depending on locations of execution point and physical server) and the dates and times don’t match up.

A tester (or an end user (shudder)) sees it reports the bug and in a release or hotfix the GETDATE() is changed to GETUTCDATE() and all is right with the world.

That is a bug. It has a relatively simple fix once its spotted and can easily be fixed without interrupting the users.

An intentional actions is this:

Original Code:

CREATE VIEW...CASE WHEN alias.[FieldName] = 'FooString' OR 'BarString' THEN alias.[OtherFieldName] ELSE NULL END as [NewFieldAlias]

New Code:

ALTER VIEW...CASE WHEN alias.[FieldName = 'FooString' OR 'BarString' THEN CASE WHEN alias.[OtherFieldName] = 'Baseline' THEN 'Baselined' ELSE alias.[OtherFieldName] END ELSE NULL END as [NewFieldAlias]

This change is an intentional and likely asked for change (in this case it is correcting the display of data in alias.[OtherFieldName] column to read Baselined instead of Baseline, probably because the underlying data has it wrong in the eyes of the business people who are seeing the results of the view (likely in an Excel spreadsheet report) `alias.[OtherFieldName] may have Baseline in it. The viewer (the end user or consumer or customer) doesn’t want to see rows of Baselined then all of a sudden hit a row that says Baseline, but the underlying data has it wrong for some of the rows. So the code is asked to display it as Baselined even though underneath its Baseline. Its like putting paint on a wall. You do that to hide the mistakes…
That is an example of an intentional change. In the world of the User Interface IsOfficer is most definitely an intentional change as anything that modifies the functionality AND the look and feel of the UI in one specific area cannot possibly be described as an unintentional change to the UI.

It isn’t a bug.

You now know it isn’t a bug.

If you continue to call it a bug you are purposefully spreading misinformation to disadvantage others. Which is a direct violation of the forum code of conduct and the terms of use and everyone here WILL flag it as inappropriate if you continue to do so.

5 Likes
2765

I’d believe it. We are talking about the same playerbase that found reforging to be too complicating due to basic arithmetic.

1 Like
2766

That was the stated reasons by those responsible for removing reforging. That and the truth, as we have seen previously, are not necessarily congruent. My personal belief, backed by interviews, is that reforging made changing armor stats too easy which made tuning dungeons and raids more difficult.

Reforging was to offer a way for players to customize their gear, but in practice it offered little in the way of true choice.
Players attempting to optimize every piece of gear were well advised to look up how they were supposed to reforge an item in an online guide or tool that had already
determined the optimal choice. It added yet another step to the list of things that must be done to a new item before it was ready to be equipped, reducing the
joy of getting an upgrade into a chore.

If an upgrade drops, we want you to be able to equip it with a minimum of fuss. It is for those reasons that we’re removing Reforging from the game.

I believe that most folk simply wanted their gear to be as good as it could possibly be and to that end Reforging helped that. It made the developers jobs more challenging in that the RNG that they introduced was obviated to some extent by the capability to reforge. This made tuning more cumbersome for the developer and made it easier to get to that next rung on the ladder for the player which of course needed to be delayed as long as possible.

Did they tell the truth on Reforging? You decide.

However, the PLAYERBASE never found Reforging to be too complex imho. I know I at least did not.

8 Likes