[Suggestion/Proposal] Leave claiming queue on canceling claim

[zemiacsik.4590]

Hi,

could we, please, remove a guild which canceled its claim right from a priority queue? Because if someone does not want to claim an objective it just unnecessarily blocks the others..

For example, we just captured a camp and I have the highest claiming priority but I have already claimed some other objective so I cancel it (pressing "X") but other guilds still need to wait for the timer to reach the end.. and so on.

Thanky.

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 hours ago, zemiacsik.4590 said:

Hi,

could we, please, remove a guild which canceled its claim right from a priority queue? Because if someone does not want to claim an objective it just unnecessarily blocks the others..

For example, we just captured a camp and I have the highest claiming priority but I have already claimed some other objective so I cancel it (pressing "X") but other guilds still need to wait for the timer to reach the end.. and so on.

Thanky.

No, because if one person in that guild cancels it, it doesn’t mean that someone else in that guild would want it.

[Svarty.8019]

1 hour ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

No, because if one person in that guild cancels it, it doesn’t mean that someone else in that guild would want it.

What? That makes zero sense. You're representing a guild, not individuals. Either the guild wants it or it doesn't.

[Strider Pj.2193]

10 minutes ago, Svarty.8019 said:

What? That makes zero sense. You're representing a guild, not individuals. Either the guild wants it or it doesn't.

Claiming rights can be quite deep.  Often I’ll clear it on my screen but our guild leader will claim it.

 

This doesn’t need to be changed.  It’s not longer than 20-30 seconds.  
 

If someone can’t wait that long, then maybe they don’t want it.

 

I’d rather they fix the bugs, missing walls, and at least a couple of the exploits

[Sviel.7493]

It's 15 seconds per guild.  If none of the guilds claim it, it's 45 seconds spent waiting for supply.  That's twice as long as it takes to break both outer and inner walls of Bay/Hills for a 30 man zerg.

I agree with OP that cancelling it should remove the guild from the queue.  If someone doesn't want to cancel it for their whole guild, they can wait the 15 seconds for the small box to disappear from their screen.  It might also be a good idea to reduce the base claim time to 7 seconds.

[Dawdler.8521]

10 hours ago, Sviel.7493 said:

It's 15 seconds per guild.  If none of the guilds claim it, it's 45 seconds spent waiting for supply.  That's twice as long as it takes to break both outer and inner walls of Bay/Hills for a 30 man zerg.

I agree with OP that cancelling it should remove the guild from the queue.  If someone doesn't want to cancel it for their whole guild, they can wait the 15 seconds for the small box to disappear from their screen.  It might also be a good idea to reduce the base claim time to 7 seconds.

An solution would probably be to have the usual claiming window but an additional "Dont claim" button that effectivly cancels the claim option for the entire guild and directly skips to the next guild in queue. But it would require access to it - the button would only be seen by members of the "Skip claim queue" access in guild ranks, defaulting leader and officer but not member.

There's so much Anet could do with guild ranks but I digress, never gonna happen.

[zemiacsik.4590]

On 10/9/2021 at 8:05 PM, Strider Pj.2193 said:

No, because if one person in that guild cancels it, it doesn’t mean that someone else in that guild would want it.

There is a Permission for "Claim Objectives" and I would say if someone has the right to claim an objective also should have the knowledge and overview of situation whether it is worth of claiming or not and as was mentioned - time in WvW is something not for wasting.. 😉

[koben.2654]

i agree with the person that listed that other exploits and issuses need to be taken care of first 

but QoL would be to add a one of 2 conditions
since most wvw guild missions require at least 3 members online us this as a 3 vote to skip que system 
if you are the only member of the guild on it by passes the 2 other skip votes needed to skip 
Or each "decline to claim" reduces the cool down on the que by 5 seconds. still gives enough time for someone in the guild to claim if they want to (or if they need to debate on unclaiming something) 

and the game already has protections for grieving/trolling if they added the QoL 
cause all guild leaders have the option give certain roles claiming rights in general (and if you dont have claiming rights via your role if you cap a camp repping that guild it wont even go in to the running priority period 
 

[Bristingr.5034]

On 10/9/2021 at 2:53 PM, Sviel.7493 said:

It's 15 seconds per guild.  If none of the guilds claim it, it's 45 seconds spent waiting for supply.  That's twice as long as it takes to break both outer and inner walls of Bay/Hills for a 30 man zerg.

If there's that big of a zerg hitting your Bay/Hills, you're either going to have enough people that claiming doesn't matter because you'll have drained it before the pop-up box even appears, or there's not enough of you and that extra +5 isn't going to help you stop them at all.

[zemiacsik.4590]

Bumping because #standingincamp30to45secondstoclaimisnotfun..

I can see three possible solutions (sorted from the easiest to implement):

1. reduce the time for each guild from 15 to 10 seconds
2. remove a guild from the claiming queue after pressing "X"
3. add a button to the claiming dialog to leave the queue

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 is fine. 2 is out due to multiple claimers and deferring in a group setting. 3 is ok as long as it doesn't cancel the claim for the other claimers in same guild.

[Morden Kain.3489]

2 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

1 is fine. 2 is out due to multiple claimers and deferring in a group setting. 3 is ok as long as it doesn't cancel the claim for the other claimers in same guild.

Your points on 1 and 2, I agree with.  #3, I can both see, and not see.  On #3, if an higher up cancels then the option should disappear from anyone lower than them... ie: Guild "Lieutenant" automatically removes those below them in "chain-of-command".  I still like the idea.

I would say that there is a 4th option that could be available: If you own a keep on the map, you do not get notified for a tower or camp.  That would help remove the guilds that already own higher up stuff from the queue, and may be easier to implement instead of #2 and #3 😀.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Morden Kain.3489 said:

Your points on 1 and 2, I agree with.  #3, I can both see, and not see.  On #3, if an higher up cancels then the option should disappear from anyone lower than them... ie: Guild "Lieutenant" automatically removes those below them in "chain-of-command".  I still like the idea.

I would say that there is a 4th option that could be available: If you own a keep on the map, you do not get notified for a tower or camp.  That would help remove the guilds that already own higher up stuff from the queue, and may be easier to implement instead of #2 and #3 😀.

 

There reason I see for 3 is that at times a Guild Leader might be part of a Warband but not be the driver at the time and leave that choice to the driver of the Warband. Same could be said for Officers and such. So having a pass option to allow a player to clear their screen but not take the option from the driver has purpose here.

[Morden Kain.3489]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

There reason I see for 3 is that at times a Guild Leader might be part of a Warband but not be the driver at the time and leave that choice to the driver of the Warband. Same could be said for Officers and such. So having a pass option to allow a player to clear their screen but not take the option from the driver has purpose here.

That makes perfect sense!

[MedievalThings.5417]

On 10/9/2021 at 1:08 PM, Svarty.8019 said:

What? That makes zero sense. You're representing a guild, not individuals. Either the guild wants it or it doesn't.

Guild has 20 members.  Guild leader is currently tagged, and deciding what is claimed/not claimed.  All 20 have claim rights though, because tag isn't always on.  Guild leader (tag) caps smc, and 19 people hit cancel before the leader can claim it.  A random guild then claims it, even though the guild leader (tag) wanted to claim it, and was planning on it.

 

And, you don't see how this suggestion is a problem?

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

Guild has 20 members.  Guild leader is currently tagged, and deciding what is claimed/not claimed.  All 20 have claim rights though, because tag isn't always on.  Guild leader (tag) caps smc, and 19 people hit cancel before the leader can claim it.  A random guild then claims it, even though the guild leader (tag) wanted to claim it, and was planning on it.

 

And, you don't see how this suggestion is a problem?

 

To be fair to Svarty, this thread was necro'd 16 hours ago after over a year ago's last post. This is one of those forum rules/ideas that are counter productive to pull old threads where as people might not consider their original posts the same since times have changed.

[Xoranium.6481]

Just remove the claiming que and leave it open as soon as it flips..

[TheGrimm.5624]

29 minutes ago, Xoranium.6481 said:

Just remove the claiming que and leave it open as soon as it flips..

Not sure that would work as that would leave it more open to trolling and alt-account spy claims. Reduced time might be the best and most cost effective change to make.

Edited January 6, 2023 by TheGrimm.5624

[MedievalThings.5417]

7 hours ago, Xoranium.6481 said:

Just remove the claiming que and leave it open as soon as it flips..

Or have it prioritize if a commander tag is in the area, same area as the banner is allowed.  Give a notice to a commander tag for like 5-10 seconds and then have it be free for all, instead of random 3 guilds.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Ubi.4136 said:

Or have it prioritize if a commander tag is in the area, same area as the banner is allowed.  Give a notice to a commander tag for like 5-10 seconds and then have it be free for all, instead of random 3 guilds.

I don't think its random, its actually kind of hard to program random truth to tell. I think one of the more interesting ways have seen is adding in barometric pressure into the calculation to come up with a random number. Not sure I completely agree with wiki either being just pure numbers of guild members at the objective. I think its more of a mix. Members of a group yes, but counting those that have claim rights and activity at the objective over a set of time and not just that take. I say that since I have seen five of us with claim rights get an option to take an objective while there was 20 others of another guild at the same capture and we received first option to claim. That might support the random idea, but have also seen times where there is only 1 guild in list while there are a mix of guilds in the same cap. Hence why I think it only counts those that have the option to claim present. 

[Meviken.2054]

On 10/9/2021 at 12:08 PM, Svarty.8019 said:

What? That makes zero sense. You're representing a guild, not individuals. Either the guild wants it or it doesn't.

The guilds are generally not that organized.  I'll usually claim if we don't have something else claimed on the map. Not a guild policy; just common sense.

[Meviken.2054]

On 1/6/2023 at 10:07 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I don't think its random, its actually kind of hard to program random truth to tell. I think one of the more interesting ways have seen is adding in barometric pressure into the calculation to come up with a random number. Not sure I completely agree with wiki either being just pure numbers of guild members at the objective. I think its more of a mix. Members of a group yes, but counting those that have claim rights and activity at the objective over a set of time and not just that take. I say that since I have seen five of us with claim rights get an option to take an objective while there was 20 others of another guild at the same capture and we received first option to claim. That might support the random idea, but have also seen times where there is only 1 guild in list while there are a mix of guilds in the same cap. Hence why I think it only counts those that have the option to claim present. 

Yeah, but 1 hit can give the option to claim. There should be a minimum, I think. Not sure what that should be, or how healing damage would count. Or how increasing combat effectiveness of others should count. That they should, I have no doubt.

[Meviken.2054]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:51 AM, Morden Kain.3489 said:

 On #3, if an higher up cancels then the option should disappear from anyone lower than them... ie: Guild "Lieutenant" automatically removes those below them in "chain-of-command".  I still like the idea.

I would say that there is a 4th option that could be available: If you own a keep on the map, you do not get notified for a tower or camp.  That would help remove the guilds that already own higher up stuff from the queue, and may be easier to implement instead of #2 and #3 😀.

I agree with those points.