This is important I don't know why it's not being immediately addressed



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Korn wrote:
A "black list" feature for hideouts is part of our road map.
Neef wrote:
I don't get the ganker uses the hideout thing and if a mega guild member gets ganked hes going smash my hideout, Like really the hideout is public for the mega guild and the ganker so what if you just got ganked, Every guild ganks how can you decide who gets kicked from the list and who doesn't if everyone ganks at some point, Seems silly if everyone has access whats the problem, Also if the mega guild has access why doesn't he just enter the hideout, If you don't attack the gank you can just enter the hideout, I understand you want to limit the ganking that happens in atleast the zone your public hideout is @ but the way I see it intil they do add the blacklist anyone that gets ganked by a public hideout should understand that you can't blacklist players yet and keeping the hideout open to everyone is the best option intil the option comes into live gameplay, It isn't your fault the game doesn't allow blacklisting and ganking is part of the game so to me cry babies need to get over getting ganked and not take it out on the hideout itself lol.... Either way I don't feel its a big deal personaly but hey some people get butt hurt too much, That being said I totally agree there should be a blacklist option but intil then public hideouts shouldn't be the ones taking the hit because like I said even mega guild gank......
GuardianDragonLord wrote:
I might know a way to fix this.
If they simply text the name and use that as a priority queue, and then use the rights on the far right-hand side of it attached to the name for example priority name permission rights.
priority : name : permission rights
So as you can see this example the other players will be fixed and all the other priorities set correctly, this would even allow you to kick out certain players or guilds. Guild A and Alliance B are part of the same group,
- Guild: Guild A : visitor
- Alliance:Alliance B : no access
- My Guild: co-owner
- Other Player: visitor
The post was edited 1 time, last by blappo ().
blappo wrote:
The only real issue with current set up is that the current tiers prioritize access over in-access.GuardianDragonLord wrote:
I might know a way to fix this.
If they simply text the name and use that as a priority queue, and then use the rights on the far right-hand side of it attached to the name for example priority name permission rights.
priority : name : permission rights
So as you can see this example the other players will be fixed and all the other priorities set correctly, this would even allow you to kick out certain players or guilds. Guild A and Alliance B are part of the same group,
- Guild: Guild A : visitor
- Alliance:Alliance B : no access
- My Guild: co-owner
- Other Player: visitor
I think an extra tier needs added, no access stays, then add Blocked below it, blocked would take the highest priority.
Example Co-owner: Player A no access: other players | only owner and Player A have access
Co-owner: Player A Blocked: other players | only owner has access. because blocked has the highest priority.
Co-owner Player A Builder: Players B,C,D,E Visitor: Guild A,B,C No Access: Blocked: other players | only owner access
Co-owner Player A Builder: Players B,C,D,E Visitor: Guild A,B,C, other players No Access: Blocked: Guild D,E | only Guild D,E are not able to access