Forums » Suggestions
A few days ago I was unwittingly subjected to a beta test of the new guild system. RED had two simultaneous commanders and the world didn't explode. We discovered two things in the process:
1) There is no hard-code conflict preventing multiple commanders; and
2) It works really well.
Essentially we are stuck with inflexible guild structures for no reason whatsoever. The mods are doing *all* the admin work on the guild system with the exception of recruiting new members since most people don't know how to use the broken guild system - we essentially have a player moderated guild system anyway.
So why not just let each guild determine how many of each executive rank they want to have? Seems really dumb if it can accidentally work not to have it intentionally work.
This suggestion doesn't even require developer intervention, Whistler and Phaserlight have the necessary permissions to make the changes, they're just waiting on the go ahead from management.
1) There is no hard-code conflict preventing multiple commanders; and
2) It works really well.
Essentially we are stuck with inflexible guild structures for no reason whatsoever. The mods are doing *all* the admin work on the guild system with the exception of recruiting new members since most people don't know how to use the broken guild system - we essentially have a player moderated guild system anyway.
So why not just let each guild determine how many of each executive rank they want to have? Seems really dumb if it can accidentally work not to have it intentionally work.
This suggestion doesn't even require developer intervention, Whistler and Phaserlight have the necessary permissions to make the changes, they're just waiting on the go ahead from management.
+1 but how do I find true love?
ITAN had 3 LTs for like a month a couple years ago. It technically works fine.
I don't think the purpose of the limitations is to avoid technical problems though.
I don't think the purpose of the limitations is to avoid technical problems though.
Essentially we are stuck with inflexible guild structures for no reason whatsoever.
Something tells me there is a reason.
Something tells me there is a reason.
+1
As yet another "absentee commander", I sure wouldn't mind appointing a co-commander or Lt. Commander, who can be authorized to /expel regular members, or do other commanderly actions.
As yet another "absentee commander", I sure wouldn't mind appointing a co-commander or Lt. Commander, who can be authorized to /expel regular members, or do other commanderly actions.
I don't have any problem with this, in theory. But in practice, there are probably assumptions in the code that guilds will only have one commander, regardless of TRS's short-term experiences.
We would want to audit that code, at the very least, before doing this intentionally. Otherwise you may well end up with strange and broken situations, that we have to fix manually in the database, etc.
We would want to audit that code, at the very least, before doing this intentionally. Otherwise you may well end up with strange and broken situations, that we have to fix manually in the database, etc.
\o/
Why don't we just found a test guild and put a bunch of people in that, then get whistler to go nuts with making many commander and lieutenants, give us a week and we'll find all the problems!
I'm not sure that's what Inc meant with "code auditing" :-)
(If I wonder whether some routine is actually used I am fond of just removing it in a live system and see if any users complain, but I guess that's the benefit of not actually depending on your users for paying the mortgage :))
(If I wonder whether some routine is actually used I am fond of just removing it in a live system and see if any users complain, but I guess that's the benefit of not actually depending on your users for paying the mortgage :))
Either way, having the playerbase test the code in practice for a period of time is the best kind of code audit you can get. Obviously things can happen under the hood that we won't see but it'll stick out anyway.
As you wish Incarnate, we can't do anything here without you and we know manpower is limited, but it is one of those things that we'd like to see happen and seems like low hanging fruit.
As you wish Incarnate, we can't do anything here without you and we know manpower is limited, but it is one of those things that we'd like to see happen and seems like low hanging fruit.
+1. I think that the guild commander should decide what layout his guild is in. If he wants 6 commanders and everyone lieutenants, why not? If its not a desirable guild structure, than they are responsible for the failure. I think it would add aa nice twist. Imagine an inner-guild conflict between commanders. I'm all for dramatic conflict
You say you're all for dramatic conflict Gally, but when dramatic conflict comes your way you get defensive and irritable.
He likes being defensive and irritable!
Why don't we just found a test guild and put a bunch of people in that, then get whistler to go nuts with making many commander and lieutenants, give us a week and we'll find all the problems!
Why not do that on the test server? Just make a PCC guild and put everyone on the PCC in it to make a mess and see what happens.
Why not do that on the test server? Just make a PCC guild and put everyone on the PCC in it to make a mess and see what happens.
TRS: The code audit I require is Ray actually auditing the code.
Player-visible breakage is actually not my biggest concern, but rather some under-the-hood stuff that we end up having to manually dis-entangle later in the database. I'm not saying it's super likely, but we have had previous situations where we said "oh this should be FINE!" and then it uhh.. wasn't, and we had to burn a bunch of time un-screwing-up the resulting situation.
So, anyway, noted. Auditing the guild code shouldn't take more than an hour or so. But Ray doesn't have an hour this week. Current projects are too time-critical. But next week might be cool.
Player-visible breakage is actually not my biggest concern, but rather some under-the-hood stuff that we end up having to manually dis-entangle later in the database. I'm not saying it's super likely, but we have had previous situations where we said "oh this should be FINE!" and then it uhh.. wasn't, and we had to burn a bunch of time un-screwing-up the resulting situation.
So, anyway, noted. Auditing the guild code shouldn't take more than an hour or so. But Ray doesn't have an hour this week. Current projects are too time-critical. But next week might be cool.
I like TRS's idea of a test guild. Let Ray audit the code while we test it on a throw-away guild. Worst case scenario, we throw it away.
Real men test in production.
Real men test in production.
We will follow up next week then to see how it went, good luck ray.
"Worst case scenario, we throw it away."
Well, no. Worst case scenario is the database gets bunged up in a way that requires restoring from backup, wiping all progress any players (involved or not) made since the test began.
Well, no. Worst case scenario is the database gets bunged up in a way that requires restoring from backup, wiping all progress any players (involved or not) made since the test began.
Shhhh....
I will slap you Rin.