I agree. The new changes to the guild permissions are horrible. Trying to simplify things only made it worse to be able to manage the guild how the Guild Master wants. How is removing options and forcing them into one ever a good idea? I consider this removing game content rather than adding content.
Quoting McGrammar for my bump today. Let's keep the comments constructive.
07/25/2018 01:59 AMPosted by McgrammarHey all,
First thing:
Just wanted to thank everyone for keeping this post going/on the front page.
Second thing:
Now that we have at least in some small way been acknowledged by blizz id like to try and steer the convo away from grabbing their attention (which we have) and more towards what we actually want from them because i can tell you now there will not be a lot of these moments available too us.
So final thing:
For everyone that is keeping this going (i love you all <3) lets get as much detailed information about actual changes that we want to see from them. Im not just talking about reverting, im talking about really revamping this system and making it what we want it to be!
Guild rank permissions is what makes every guild go round.
It was a simple system in which guild masters could not only give progression towards those that remain in the guild, but help promote the one thing Blizzard is really trying to push right now. Community.
Guild events are events published towards the whole guild. They are not events in which a couple of guys go into a treehouse to talk smack about everyone else in the guild. It's not a secret club, or an officerial permission. GMotD is, but now we cannot give the Veteran rank permission to make guild events while limiting them from editing the GMotD, or info. Why? Because of this "Is Officer" super permission. This permission gives the following
Access officer channels Remove people from voice chat Delete other people's chat messages Delete other people's guild events View and edit officer notes Edit public notes Edit Guild Info Edit Message of the Day This is deceiving. It clumps so many privileges together and does not show what it actually takes away. That's already on top of the extreme limitations that are being forced onto guildmasters.
Realistically, very few guilds are adapting well to this change. It is almost like depression. To keep running the guild, you have to put on a smile and pretend nothing's wrong. Beneath the mask, everything's on fire and all over the place. An absolute mess.
It was a simple system in which guild masters could not only give progression towards those that remain in the guild, but help promote the one thing Blizzard is really trying to push right now. Community.
Guild events are events published towards the whole guild. They are not events in which a couple of guys go into a treehouse to talk smack about everyone else in the guild. It's not a secret club, or an officerial permission. GMotD is, but now we cannot give the Veteran rank permission to make guild events while limiting them from editing the GMotD, or info. Why? Because of this "Is Officer" super permission. This permission gives the following
Realistically, very few guilds are adapting well to this change. It is almost like depression. To keep running the guild, you have to put on a smile and pretend nothing's wrong. Beneath the mask, everything's on fire and all over the place. An absolute mess.
I have been thinking of other ways to improve the system outside of just reverting it which it so very much needs.
After playing around with Guild Roster Manager a bit there are MANY things that would be awesome to have that GRM has.
Join date of each guild member:
This would help guild leaders to see who has been there the longest and gives them a pooled option on promotions with in the guild via ranks and permissions.
Alt list:
This would allow us to not have to worry about keeping track of adding notes of people's toons. Instead of taking time to add note's like "Goober's alt" it will mass populate the list when you click on the person's toon name showing you all their toons in guild.
Name changes:
If someone decides they want to change their toons name or they get reported and have to change their name it will automatically update this information.
Ban list:
You can actively ban people who are extremely toxic from ever being invited back to the guild. Even more so to expand on that, it would be awesome if there was an option to when you ban someone they wouldn't be able to join on any toons again. This would help tremendously as it would protect guilds from toxic people being removed from being able to join again to cause havoc.
These are just a few ideas taken from GRM that I feel like would bring added benefit to the guild UI. Will comment again when an idea hits me.
After playing around with Guild Roster Manager a bit there are MANY things that would be awesome to have that GRM has.
Join date of each guild member:
This would help guild leaders to see who has been there the longest and gives them a pooled option on promotions with in the guild via ranks and permissions.
Alt list:
This would allow us to not have to worry about keeping track of adding notes of people's toons. Instead of taking time to add note's like "Goober's alt" it will mass populate the list when you click on the person's toon name showing you all their toons in guild.
Name changes:
If someone decides they want to change their toons name or they get reported and have to change their name it will automatically update this information.
Ban list:
You can actively ban people who are extremely toxic from ever being invited back to the guild. Even more so to expand on that, it would be awesome if there was an option to when you ban someone they wouldn't be able to join on any toons again. This would help tremendously as it would protect guilds from toxic people being removed from being able to join again to cause havoc.
These are just a few ideas taken from GRM that I feel like would bring added benefit to the guild UI. Will comment again when an idea hits me.
Mass Invite for events. That has been crazy trying to do as it is based on inviting anyone from one set rank up. More tailored fit where you can select the ranks for invite would be amazing.
For example, you are hosting a pvp event. You know that pve only players wouldn't want to join. So you check the pvp rank you have in guild and it only invites them. Not them and everyone above that rank.
Another example would be holding a tmog event. Some people just don't care about that sort of thing and so you could only invite those who are part of a tmog/achieves rank.
Upping the cap for mass invite from 100 would work wonders too.
For example, you are hosting a pvp event. You know that pve only players wouldn't want to join. So you check the pvp rank you have in guild and it only invites them. Not them and everyone above that rank.
Another example would be holding a tmog event. Some people just don't care about that sort of thing and so you could only invite those who are part of a tmog/achieves rank.
Upping the cap for mass invite from 100 would work wonders too.
07/29/2018 09:14 AMPosted by KeiralynnMass Invite for events. That has been crazy trying to do as it is based on inviting anyone from one set rank up. More tailored fit where you can select the ranks for invite would be amazing.
For example, you are hosting a pvp event. You know that pve only players wouldn't want to join. So you check the pvp rank you have in guild and it only invites them. Not them and everyone above that rank.
Blizzard? There is an upside to making this or something like it happen. Its an upside particular to you. Doing this cuts down on the amount of messaging necessary to send out a properly targeted mass invite. Less messaging == less resource drain on the messaging servers. It cuts costs while potentially increasing revenue. When has profit been a bad thing?
1. Revert the permission changes.
2. Fix all the issues with inviting, seems the new UI has a bug with it.
3. Make sure that you untie tie communities permissions from guild permissions.
There are too many negative things that a community could be used for:
If a guild member decides to make a community for pugging raids and says its sponsored by his guild and that they will bring people into raids through it but only for gold. This could be done in secret and could damage a guild's rep.
If a guild member decides to do something underhanded like sharing game exploits in game in their private community and somehow they tie it into their guild without their GM's knowing about it. The guild could be punished for this without being a part of it.
Not to mention the worse things that could be added into communities like people selling/trading illegal items such as drugs, sex, child !@#$, credit card numbers and so on. Since you are basically creating these communities in game you will become responsible for the actions of those users if they commit a real world crime.
There are many doors that open with the community groups but there are some that could damage the overall game structure.
Its nice when people use Discord outside of the game its not controlled by Blizzard and basically outside communities have no real way of effecting guild reps but within the game lots of issues can occur.
In any case I tend to look at the negative side of this because after eight years of being a GM and ten years of playing the game I know human nature is not always on the bright and good side.
2. Fix all the issues with inviting, seems the new UI has a bug with it.
3. Make sure that you untie tie communities permissions from guild permissions.
There are too many negative things that a community could be used for:
If a guild member decides to make a community for pugging raids and says its sponsored by his guild and that they will bring people into raids through it but only for gold. This could be done in secret and could damage a guild's rep.
If a guild member decides to do something underhanded like sharing game exploits in game in their private community and somehow they tie it into their guild without their GM's knowing about it. The guild could be punished for this without being a part of it.
Not to mention the worse things that could be added into communities like people selling/trading illegal items such as drugs, sex, child !@#$, credit card numbers and so on. Since you are basically creating these communities in game you will become responsible for the actions of those users if they commit a real world crime.
There are many doors that open with the community groups but there are some that could damage the overall game structure.
Its nice when people use Discord outside of the game its not controlled by Blizzard and basically outside communities have no real way of effecting guild reps but within the game lots of issues can occur.
In any case I tend to look at the negative side of this because after eight years of being a GM and ten years of playing the game I know human nature is not always on the bright and good side.
Daily bump, disappointment in blizz can't possibly grow more at this point.
My guild always had "anyone can invite to guild". Since the last changes, only guild officers can invite. This is really screwing with our numbers, and alts.
07/29/2018 12:44 PMPosted by AeluinMy guild always had "anyone can invite to guild". Since the last changes, only guild officers can invite. This is really screwing with our numbers, and alts.
As a work around they can manually do it with /ginvite command now..... Still stinks
07/29/2018 11:35 AMPosted by Greenstone1. Revert the permission changes.
2. Fix all the issues with inviting, seems the new UI has a bug with it.
3. Make sure that you untie tie communities permissions from guild permissions.
There are too many negative things that a community could be used for:
If a guild member decides to make a community for pugging raids and says its sponsored by his guild and that they will bring people into raids through it but only for gold. This could be done in secret and could damage a guild's rep.
If a guild member decides to do something underhanded like sharing game exploits in game in their private community and somehow they tie it into their guild without their GM's knowing about it. The guild could be punished for this without being a part of it.
Not to mention the worse things that could be added into communities like people selling/trading illegal items such as drugs, sex, child !@#$, credit card numbers and so on. Since you are basically creating these communities in game you will become responsible for the actions of those users if they commit a real world crime.
There are many doors that open with the community groups but there are some that could damage the overall game structure.
Its nice when people use Discord outside of the game its not controlled by Blizzard and basically outside communities have no real way of effecting guild reps but within the game lots of issues can occur.
In any case I tend to look at the negative side of this because after eight years of being a GM and ten years of playing the game I know human nature is not always on the bright and good side.
For the situation you mentioned with the guildy making a community for raiding and claiming guild sponsorship. It would be nice if they had a verification thing where you could have the GM "verify" it.... Kinda like social media with celebrity pages where it shows verified and official page of whoever. But yeah some applications of communities are going to be toxic with no oversight.
They also need to overhaul the recruiting system it's dated, clunky, and practically useless. We do need our permissions seperated again how they were. The way it is now is just too much and giving them access to MoTD and guild info makes me cringe. I mean I trust my current officers but makes me semi hesitant to promote new ones for sure
It would also be nice since the window is so big now if they made it movable.
I am lucky I have a very small, almost personal guild. I don't know how I'd manage a larger guild with these changes. I doubt I'll ever consider growing our guild with the permissions and control the way it is now.
I truly feel for those who do have large, active guilds--or who want to build large, active guilds. I sincerely hope Blizzard fixes this sooner rather than later.
I truly feel for those who do have large, active guilds--or who want to build large, active guilds. I sincerely hope Blizzard fixes this sooner rather than later.
07/29/2018 01:07 PMPosted by Nysalla07/29/2018 01:05 PMPosted by FumelI am lucky I have a very small, almost personal guild. I don't know how I'd manage a larger guild with these changes. I doubt I'll ever consider growing our guild with the permissions and control the way it is now.
I truly feel for those who do have large, active guilds--or who want to build large, active guilds. I sincerely hope Blizzard fixes this sooner rather than later.
Yeah, with so many of my friends coming back to the game I'd thought about making a guild for all of us and really starting to recruit. But I'm not going to try and manage a guild with such limited options. That plus the chat history sticking around forever *shudder*.
Yeah that chat thing forces us to micro manage more.... because previously you didn't have to babysit it. conversations would occur when certain people were on and it was ok.... but not something you want sticking around forever not that anything wrong was done. But sometimes if you have all the adults on they would joke around but if you have younger kids in the guild you don't want them to read it. We don't need a #metoo moment from a guildy scrolling through the guild chat haha. But seriously it does stink. Wouldn't be as bad if we could make separate channels to separate that chatter.
07/29/2018 12:54 PMPosted by Carthorinn07/29/2018 12:44 PMPosted by AeluinMy guild always had "anyone can invite to guild". Since the last changes, only guild officers can invite. This is really screwing with our numbers, and alts.
As a work around they can manually do it with /ginvite command now..... Still stinks
ill give that a try.
Has there been any update on this?
At this point, it just feels like we're all screaming into the void.
At this point, it just feels like we're all screaming into the void.
For the past, what 10 years of WoW - I've been hoping for the day that the permissions would get an overhaul, so that they might actually be more useful, and more fine-grained controls.
Had to make do with the silly 'delete last created rank first' issue. That got fixed, and we could re-order them - which was a welcomed change.
We still had/have the annoying 'you have to empty the rank to turn-on 'Requires Authenticator" - Honestly this is like accepting a quest "you're currently mounted" just toggle the thing. If I turn on 'requires authenticator" pop a warning and say all those with will be dropped a rank - problem solved. But no.
I've always wanted a guild permissions panel more like a role based template - here's All the settings possible as a bunch of individual toggles. You make a Roll , set all the options that granting that role to a person would give them - and then you go and assign role(s) (yes- a person can be multiples) and their permissions become the result of all of those things turned on.
So you can have your pal John who is "a guildy", "a raider", "a raid-organiser", "an-officer" "bank-tidy-person" and they get the summation of permissions each of those roles grant.
When it comes to "Rank" - those should not be tightly coupled to permissions, but simply a guild-label so that others can easily see WHO is where in terms of "years of service" "smarty-pants" "twit" etc.
Anyway, at the end of the day I came here to see 40+ pages of people very-unhappy with a change, that I to am disappointed with - my main reason. "View and Edit Officer Note" and "Edit Public notes" are BOTH in the "is Officer" toggle.
Why... just.. why?
*sigh*
-A
Had to make do with the silly 'delete last created rank first' issue. That got fixed, and we could re-order them - which was a welcomed change.
We still had/have the annoying 'you have to empty the rank to turn-on 'Requires Authenticator" - Honestly this is like accepting a quest "you're currently mounted" just toggle the thing. If I turn on 'requires authenticator" pop a warning and say all those with will be dropped a rank - problem solved. But no.
I've always wanted a guild permissions panel more like a role based template - here's All the settings possible as a bunch of individual toggles. You make a Roll , set all the options that granting that role to a person would give them - and then you go and assign role(s) (yes- a person can be multiples) and their permissions become the result of all of those things turned on.
So you can have your pal John who is "a guildy", "a raider", "a raid-organiser", "an-officer" "bank-tidy-person" and they get the summation of permissions each of those roles grant.
When it comes to "Rank" - those should not be tightly coupled to permissions, but simply a guild-label so that others can easily see WHO is where in terms of "years of service" "smarty-pants" "twit" etc.
Anyway, at the end of the day I came here to see 40+ pages of people very-unhappy with a change, that I to am disappointed with - my main reason. "View and Edit Officer Note" and "Edit Public notes" are BOTH in the "is Officer" toggle.
Why... just.. why?
*sigh*
-A
I do believe Blizz is working on it, but because the problems have to do with the new community feature being integrated with guild things, it's not going to be a quick fix. They generally don't like to say anything before they can make a definite statement. Right now, I imagine it's like trying to untangle 12 strands of X-mas lights.07/29/2018 02:26 PMPosted by ElypsisHas there been any update on this?
At this point, it just feels like we're all screaming into the void.
07/29/2018 02:48 PMPosted by FumelRight now, I imagine it's like trying to untangle 12 strands of X-mas lights.
And it very well may be but it would make all of this bearable if they could explain why this was done to begin with.
The entire new guild interface is awful. I don’t like having grayed out names on the chat window and I am still looking for the loot log.
The old expression of
One step forward and two steps backwards
Does not apply here as they tried to take a step forward and took 100 steps backwards.
The old expression of
One step forward and two steps backwards
Does not apply here as they tried to take a step forward and took 100 steps backwards.