Option to Set Commander Tag to Guild-only

With the pending dissolution of world servers, the fundamental unit within WvW will become the guild (and perhaps that's appropriate in a game titled "Guild Wars 2"). As such, many guilds will likely want to run in WvW with just their guildmates. However, at the same time, they may want the visual focus a commander tag affords for any one of a number of strategic and tactical reasons. Unfortunately, with the current implentation of the commander icon, it broadcasts itself across the map.

This suggestion requests ArenaNet add a checkbox to the squad formation panel which will hide the commander's icon from general view, displaying only to the commander's guildmates. It in no way infringes upon the current commander icon mechanics; this is not a call for the creation of a guild-specific tag (though, perhaps, that's something worth considering, as well). Rather, everything remains as it currently exists including the requirement to purchase the commander icon. It simply asks for the addition of a checkbox to hide/unhide the icon from non-guild member view.

We've already had this conversation. A lot.Anet won't do create any tools that will intentionally or unintentionally encourage exclusion.We'll have to work with the tools we've got. (Call target on the driver or put an arrow/icon above them.)

~ Kovu

mmm. you can always run tagless. we used to do this before with no problems with no squads even. =)

@Kovu.7560 said:We've already had this conversation. A lot.Anet won't do create any tools that will intentionally or unintentionally encourage exclusion.We'll have to work with the tools we've got. (Call target on the driver or put an arrow/icon above them.)

~ Kovu

The conversation hasn't been had in the context of a radical change to the WvW paradigm; which is what the dissolution of the servers represents. With such a massive change comes suggestions for pre-emptively addressing potential future issues and unintended consequences that heretofore may not have been considered. Under this new paradigm, it's not unreasonable to suppose many guilds will want to run a tag for various reasons. Rather than having twenty tags on the map muddying the waters, this suggestion - very simply and succinctly - addresses the issue to the satisfaction of both the guilds who wish to run a non-public tag and players not associated with that guild who don't want the confusion of seeing a multitude of tags running across the map.

As to the charge of exclusion, it holds no water. Using existing mechanics, players can already create squads that are invite-only; doesn't get much more exclusionary than that. With this suggestion, at least, such squads aren't broadcasting their presence publicly. It's the difference between the current implementation where a tagged-up but invite-only squad denies non-affiliated players an invitation despite their tag being there for all to see versus this suggestion where such a squad runs invisible to all other players.

Furthermore, we already have exclusion fundamentally built into the game; they're called guilds. If you're in a guild, you're included within that group while all other players are excluded. Providing a very simple-to-program checkbox which visually conveys guild association in WvW is not tantamount to excluding other players any more than they already are through membership within a guild.

Calling target on the driver is of no utility when target is being called on enemies during combat. However, there is utility in being able to quickly and easily identify the driver/commander during combat; which is precisely what this suggestion would allow.

Toxic elitists want to exclude my soldiers longbow rangers from their raids :disappointed:

@Hiraldo.7954 said:Toxic elitists want to exclude my soldiers longbow rangers from their raids :disappointed:

This suggestion ins't referring to raids. If you prefer, limit the suggestion to WvW-only.

@Hiraldo.7954 said:Toxic elitists want to exclude my soldiers longbow rangers from their raids :disappointed:I am fairly sure even your pet is going to run away, ashamed of being there.

Either way I just see this new system as making it more important to have visible tags and show support for both the alliance and the new worlds instead of guilds trying to hide their presence, as if they dont want to be part of it.

I know some players shrivel up like raisins at the mere sight of multiple tags because its as taboo as showing a little ankle in the early 1900s but seeing more tags on maps is not a bad thing. It will be self moderated anyway - the limitations of what makes sense and can fit on a border doesnt change, thats a 50 man blue, a couple larger guilds and a roaming tag or two. I doubt we will even see that many on a regular basis, large swaths of time there will be no tags.

Like I've said before, the new system doesnt magically give birth to thousands of new players. Its gonna be the same population as now. There will be no change on this front.

@Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:

@Hiraldo.7954 said:Toxic elitists want to exclude my soldiers longbow rangers from their raids :disappointed:

WvW'ers refer to their WvW time as a raid. ;)

The massive change is exactly the reason why hidden tags should not be available. There are going to be many players that are not going to have the security of tags they know, either Pugmanders, nor known guild commanders.

While it is not the responsibility of guild commanders to hold people's hands, I am reminded that we are excited about the possibility of more evenly distributed matchups and more control over who we play with.

But with that comes, to a point, the responsibility to foster continued growth of the mode. Not being welcoming to new players, assisting them in learning the mode, and consistently avoiding them in groups will effectively drain off theMode yet again.

This isn't to suggest that the commanders were responsible for the player drop off. Quite the opposite actually.

But not having those tags visible, will stunt the growth. Having multiple tags on the map wouldn't be confusing at all. It can be effective for havoc groups to know where else to be to reign havoc, give other commanders an understanding ofWho is on the map.

But it is also a very visible sign of activity when entering a borderland.

@Red Haired Savage.5430 said:

@Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:

@Hiraldo.7954 said:Toxic elitists want to exclude my soldiers longbow rangers from their raids :disappointed:

Very good pro tip: :joy:

OP. No. It's quite simple- if you want to run a guild only raid, don't tag up. It's not that hard to do.

Otherwise, tags are there as rallying points for the many non-aligned players or even other guilds within the alliance that are not currently running a tag.

Multiple tags isn't confusing at all. Blue is public tag- the rest can be open or closed or scouts. Ask in map or ts and all is very clear.

If you guild has the only tag up, then expect people to come and join in- welcome them, ask them politely to do things and you never know, a future leader of your guild might be right there.

Being elitist isn't going to help your alliance - but will make it more likely you get wiped more.

@Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:Under this new paradigm, it's not unreasonable to suppose many guilds will want to run a tag for various reasons.

Many guilds want to run a guild or squad specific tag right now, the introduction of a more guild oriented matchmaking system doesn't change the fact that whichever system we're using there will always be people outside of the squad or guild who want to participate.

I highly doubt Anet will change their stance on that particular issue.

@Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:Using existing mechanics, players can already create squads that are invite-only; doesn't get much more exclusionary than that.

If a squad is okay with militia but want an organized group of players with voice comms to coordinate their fights then they put a tag up. There are statistical and mechanical reasons for not wanting other people in your squad, its hardly a matter of "I don't like that guy". Its not exclusionary if you know where the tag is and are able to participate in fights with them. Such squads run tagless if they truly don't want militia to follow them around. If people say "get on comms or get off tag", that's on that group and not the system.

@Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:Furthermore, we already have exclusion fundamentally built into the game; they're called guilds. If you're in a guild, you're included within that group while all other players are excluded.

I disagree with this glass-half-empty analogy. By that logic everyone is forced to be excluded from almost every single group of associated players in the game, save for up to 5 groups. Just because you're not in a guild that doesn't automatically mean you can't play with them. This game does have plenty circles of friends, but most guilds are open to new players.

@Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:Calling target on the driver is of no utility when target is being called on enemies during combat. However, there is utility in being able to quickly and easily identify the driver/commander during combat; which is precisely what this suggestion would allow.

Then, as I suggested, use a squad marker.

~ Kovu

Is WvW to become a guild only game?

Kraaag has a very valid argument here. Especially since Anet said they will be using several metrics to determine matchups. Some of those were tag time and people on tag. It is going to create issues when there are 7 visible tags on a map. And, the system shouldn't force people to run untagged when the system will track and weight you based on tag time/followers. There is no reason, with the formation of new (ever changing) worlds (guild/alliance focused), that they couldn't add the option of displaying tags for raid members only.

I think they should because of the system they are about to implement.

They already said no.The alliance changes are not game play changes, it's just the way servers/worlds are recreated every 8 weeks, nothing changes beyond that.We're not going to see 20 tags up on a map unless it's a joke going on.Also as Kovu said, there's squad markers, start using them.

@Kovu.7560 said:We've already had this conversation. A lot.Anet won't do create any tools that will intentionally or unintentionally encourage exclusion.We'll have to work with the tools we've got. (Call target on the driver or put an arrow/icon above them.)

~ Kovu

The needs to be some exclusion to make meaningful content, or make guilds worth something more other then to just exist within them. That's my opinion, part of the reason i feel WvW failed because there's no actual real gain in making a guild and becoming bad ass at it. Until Anet does something about that the dissolving of world servers won't do anything other then dethroning Blackgate.

And too be honest making huge WvW changes because people can't beat a server is a cop out fix to the greatest degree anet but i understand you had to do something.

I feel excluded from Raids because I don't have much "experience".If there's any Catch 22 gamemode its that one.

~ Kovu

/shrugs

1.) Set tag to invite only2.) Fake push3.) Watch the pugs get killed4.) Now kill the enemy.5.) Congratulate yourself in comms for this genius tactic.

In reality though, given you can control the flow of things through an alliance, this should be less of an issue before.

@"Genesis.5169" said:

Until Anet does something about that the dissolving of world servers won't do anything other then dethroning Blackgate.

They are correcting their past mistake.

Part 1https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Please-Open-Blackgate-Server/page/1

Part 2https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/BG-is-open-by-the-way-andhttps://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Tanks-you-Anet-to-re-open-BG-server

@ArchonWing.9480 said:/shrugs

1.) Set tag to invite only2.) Fake push3.) Watch the pugs get killed4.) Now kill the enemy.5.) Congratulate yourself in comms for this genius tactic.

In reality though, given you can control the flow of things through an alliance, this should be less of an issue before.

Yea but the pugs who actually pushed with you are not worth dying.

@Roxanne.6140 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:/shrugs

1.) Set tag to invite only2.) Fake push3.) Watch the pugs get killed4.) Now kill the enemy.5.) Congratulate yourself in comms for this genius tactic.

In reality though, given you can control the flow of things through an alliance, this should be less of an issue before.

What happens in reality is you fake push and the pugs stay back, then the enemy fakes a couple of times then pushes and wipes your guild whilst the pugs you've been ignoring turn and run off, laughing and talking about it in map chat.

'did that annoying elitist guild just get wiped again' 'yep, couldn't bring themselves to admit they needed us, fake pushed which we ignored then got wiped when we stepped back when the enemy zerg pushes, hahahah'.

Don't know what level your pugs are in your server, but ours seem a shade better (in general, there are a few who obviously should be in pve) than yours as they regularly wipe similar size guild groups without voice comms and sometimes without even a tag up. They just cloud, which means the guild group doesn't have anything to focus on, then pick off the guild who are probably calling the pugs all sorts of names on ts rather than realising their many hours of planning were useless as the pugs aren't playing into their hands and being as dumb as the guild thought they were.

@Baldrick.8967 said:

@Roxanne.6140 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:/shrugs

1.) Set tag to invite only2.) Fake push3.) Watch the pugs get killed4.) Now kill the enemy.5.) Congratulate yourself in comms for this genius tactic.

In reality though, given you can control the flow of things through an alliance, this should be less of an issue before.

Reading this made my brain writhe as the first two paragraphs and the third paragraph seemed like two different people in separate rooms talking at once. So if the pugs on your server are that great then where did you base the bad behaviour from lol. An enemy server that you can hear whilst fighting them?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Can-we-have-something-Private-Tag/page/1#post6554291

@McKenna Berdrow.2759Like others have mentioned in this thread, we don’t think this would be a healthy feature for WvW. Many players will not participate in WvW if they don’t see a commander tag, and we try to avoid adding features that can be used to exclude players.

@Roxanne.6140 said:

@ArchonWing.9480 said:/shrugs

1.) Set tag to invite only2.) Fake push3.) Watch the pugs get killed4.) Now kill the enemy.5.) Congratulate yourself in comms for this genius tactic.

In reality though, given you can control the flow of things through an alliance, this should be less of an issue before.

Well, that's just life. Everyone is free to use the map and they certainly proved their worth.

Point is, it's a common meme that guilds often blame pugs as rallybait that make them lose fights but in practice a guild that doesn't know how to shake off its weakest link probably deserves to be wiped anyways.

More like the guild wiped because the militia didn't push with them.Pugs are scared of repair bills.

... oh, wait.

~ Kovu