Thanks for PS Anet - Spent $ on Gems to say TY ?

I've been waiting years for a private squad option... YEARS. Granted while it was possible to still run without a tag from a small havoc groups perspective at least. A lot of us knew it would have been much nicer with the option. Even if some other people didn't think so at the time. Maybe partly due to how they played themselves as one possible factor. I just hated the feeling of having to play what feels like a "Babysitter" (to someone else) just to lead my group group. At least that was the small joke my friends and me would make. Every time we knew the risk of throwing up a tag. However, all this was never meant in offence to anyone... Not wanting to invite someone or lead them. It was just... I and others shouldn't be given the burden to lead everyone that come's looking our way. No one is entitled to mine or another's leadership. And someone who might feel that "entitlement" is not someone who truly respect's that leaders right to choose how/who they want to lead anyways. And is definitely not someone I want around me just based on that to be fair.

• I mean imagine taking this attitude into a job setting: "You must hire me because I showed up". "If not...You're a horrible/egotistical person". How ridiculous ?

• Now, this change may not have changed the choice to not run with a visible tag up; as a leader/commander role. However, it did try to improve the QoL of this choice?

For anyone else not invited and does not understand "Why". The reason is often just because of a possible strong foreseen conflict of playstyles and overall interest... If that isn't already known. That really just wouldn't mesh well with the overall values of that leader/group. It is what it is ?‍♂️

However, this is where I want to take a moment to say a sincere Thank You to ArenaNet for making this change. Now, it's easier for commander's to actually further enjoy leading in better ways that before. Along with their chosen squads with them. Seriously... Thanks. As a result, I spent some money on gems to better support the company. Not much... However, mostly done as my way of saying "thank you". I will offer up more $ once big WvW problems are fixed. You support us (reasonably) as WvW player's... And in turn, I at least, will better support you as a company. Sounds fair right? Saying this as someone who has spent $100 on the expansions. Including buying other various items in the past as a Veteran. Keep it up Anet and hopefully you earn some more Players back.B) ?

P.S. If any commander's still wish to be visible because they want to and enjoy that. Then I still 100% respect that too :)

Separate from this initial "Thank You". My 1 gripe is "Commanders who choose to keep their squad public will now get an extra 3 pips per tick" from https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/84527/game-update-notes-august-13-2019#latest. While I fully understand and appreciate the intention here. I don't at all agree the execution. What this basically is... Is a double edge sword. You basically feel punished for running private. While more greatly rewarded for running visible. At the end of the day both are commanders helping out their server in their own ways that they enjoy and that choice should be respected equally. By both player and company.

• If people want a tag that bad. People should ether do it themselves or preferably just have have an NPC or NPC's to follow to an objective. NPC's because it's irresponsible IMO just to rely on other players for especially long-term form's of content. At the end of the day. Those are fair options because no one (including the game/company) is automatically entitled to the leadership of another player; no matter how it may look in game. Players are there to help how and when they want to. Thus, players are not inherently responsible for anyone's content... The game is ?

• Example NPC's: 1.) https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Champion_Commander_Siegecrusher 2.) https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Champion_Commander_Siegecrusher There are your backup tags right there for starters. Or develop more/better functioning one's since this is 2019 now nearing 2020... Again, this is just an example.

~ Thanks

=) i feel you. though i dont care about the pips. it does feel freeing being able to socialize with your squad versus having to carry people.

using the commander relay every friday, i hope players can see from our perspective how hard it is to lead and fight and siege. although the one good thing is i have committed my core to follow them, even if its a type mander. its the one day of the week where that i get to rest and players gain fight experience. and my hope is they take the help if i am not online or when i am online they make their own groups too.

we do give rewards to those who my guild vote as deserving. an option to even give a legendary was secretly made. but not sure yet if that can be justified. but that to my mind is how important wvw commanders are and pugs needs to see that wvw cant survive without a spear. and commanders need to understand that, it is those who they lead that gets results.

I lead small havoc stuff with my guild 3 nights a week, pip wise my goal is to get gold complete. Even with 3 extra pips open tagging is not my style so I still avoid it, though I feel like even with the new extra pip boost for open tags I don't see ANY new ones popping up, which I feel like they are trying to remedy. I still see the same guild groups but I don't see the random tag pugmanders anymore, the game definitely could use them.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

• I mean imagine taking this attitude into a job setting: "You must hire me because I showed up". "If not...You're a horrible/egotistical person". How ridiculous ?So how would you call it, when you lose on purpose because you refuse to play together with other ppl.

Its just common these days that EBG has queue at prime time but no full squad, because X doesn't want to play with Y. Then X is blocking the map with a 25ish group, leaving no space for a full squad on that map. SMC falls because X can't defend it with 25 ppl. Fights become a horrible massacre of 25 vs. 50.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

• If people want a tag that bad. People should ether do it themselvesDoesn't change a thing. So then there would be 3-4 tags on EBG, of 10 to 25 ppl each, the outcome is the same.

It could work theoretically if these groups (or closed guild tags) would coordinate simultaneous attacks, and join together to defend vs. an enemy blob. But that happens not that often.

So yeah, its selfish behaviour in a team game.

@Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:I lead small havoc stuff with my guild 3 nights a week, pip wise my goal is to get gold complete. Even with 3 extra pips open tagging is not my style so I still avoid it, though I feel like even with the new extra pip boost for open tags I don't see ANY new ones popping up, which I feel like they are trying to remedy. I still see the same guild groups but I don't see the random tag pugmanders anymore, the game definitely could use them.

The pips are more about principal for me than anything else. Placing a higher value in one over another. When they should be considered equal. Kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth personally.

I mean anyone is more than welcome to tag if they want to fulfill the role of a pugmander; that are able. OR like I said... let people follow some NPC's towards objectives to help fulfill that role. This all really shows the effort people are willing to give to meet certain desires in WvW if anything else.

@Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:I lead small havoc stuff with my guild 3 nights a week, pip wise my goal is to get gold complete. Even with 3 extra pips open tagging is not my style so I still avoid it, though I feel like even with the new extra pip boost for open tags I don't see ANY new ones popping up, which I feel like they are trying to remedy. I still see the same guild groups but I don't see the random tag pugmanders anymore, the game definitely could use them.

the pip boost has always been there. it was just emphasized as different from tagless coms who had no bonus.

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

• I mean imagine taking this attitude into a job setting: "You must hire me because I showed up". "If not...You're a horrible/egotistical person". How ridiculous ?So how would you call it, when you lose on purpose because you refuse to play together with other ppl.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

• If people want a tag that bad
  . People should ether do it themselvesDoesn't change a thing. So then there would be 3-4 tags on EBG, of 10 to 25 ppl each, the outcome is the same.

you got to sit down and mediate commanders to coordinate. im sure they can be reasonable. else, thats just how it is, they will die. if you got 35 got players, you will have a chance to beat a queue.

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

• I mean imagine taking this attitude into a job setting: "You must hire me because I showed up". "If not...You're a horrible/egotistical person". How ridiculous ?So how would you call it, when you lose on purpose because you refuse to play together with other ppl.

X would have been blocking the map either way. This also is server specific behavior. Fight guilds on my server for example do not go EBG (or only go if there is no public and borders are empty, usually turning into a semi public) and try to avoid borders with big publics specifically to not interfere with each other. Commanders on my server also do not get in each other way, again a community issue more likely.

Also what you are basically saying is: your opposing server manages to pool its player while your server does not. That's a coordination issue and seems a server unique problem (since obviously your opposing server manages just fine).

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

• If people want a tag that bad
  . People should ether do it themselvesDoesn't change a thing. So then there would be 3-4 tags on EBG, of 10 to 25 ppl each, the outcome is the same.

Here are some of the unwritten EU rules for engages on borders:Open Field

• if two guilds are fighting, you stay out until one side has won
• if it's a public similar or bigger your size, you engage
• if it's a public vastly smaller your size, you can chose to ignore it if you have other targets (can chose does not mean will chose, those are some tasty lootbags after all)
• if it's a public against public, you can engage in support of your own public (usually with similar size publics, guilds might stay out of it for fairer fights)
• if it's your public against an enemy guild, you let them fight until either side wins
• if any side is Scrimming, you stay out of it and watch

Inside Objectives (say Tower, Keep or Castle)

• you fight to win at all cost

If any side piles on

• it becomes a free for all for that evening and you can expect big lags from people just going ham on each other (which is often good fun too)

Most established guilds and experienced commanders stick to these rules and 9/10 evenings things work out just fine even with multiple tags. So if you see a closed tag not help out, that has more often to do with being a fair (or unfair) sport.

That gem store purchase helps buy gas for Mike O'Briens yacht as he celebrates another living story release

@enkidu.5937 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:

• I mean imagine taking this attitude into a job setting: "You must hire me because I showed up". "If not...You're a horrible/egotistical person". How ridiculous ?So how would you call it, when you lose on purpose because you refuse to play together with other ppl.

Sure, I would call it "fair game". If your choices helped result in a loss. Then that's what happens. If you choose not to run a even a decent build... That choice helped the decide the outcome too. People make these choices all the time in various ways. It's fair game.

Its just common these days that EBG has queue at prime time but no full squad, because X doesn't want to play with Y. Then X is blocking the map with a 25ish group, leaving no space for a full squad on that map. SMC falls because X can't defend it with 25 ppl. Fights become a horrible massacre of 25 vs. 50.

@"Whiteout.1975" said:

• If people want a tag that bad
  . People should ether do it themselvesDoesn't change a thing. So then there would be 3-4 tags on EBG, of 10 to 25 ppl each, the outcome is the same.

Population imbalance.

It could work theoretically if these groups (or closed guild tags) would coordinate simultaneous attacks, and join together to defend vs. an enemy blob. But that happens not that often.

Population imbalance.

So yeah, its selfish behaviour in a team game.

I disagree. I don't believe it's truly selfish behavior to enjoy playing the game how you or anyone likes to. The opportunity to pugmand if you want is still there. Selfish here, is more like trying to guilt trip someone into fitting how you would like them to be/act IMO.

• I will also make the point that you have to be a little selfish in order to find the enjoyment in things. Else you are just playing/doing things for other people looking to take advantage of you. Which is far worse. Some "team" that is.

@hunkamania.7561 said:That gem store purchase helps buy gas for Mike O'Briens yacht as he celebrates another living story release

Lmao... Well, if he want's anymore fuel from me. He's gonna have to coordinate some fix's on big problems in WvW. Because as it stand's I don't plan on buying the next expansion till most of that is fixed. However, I don't mind supporting when a true good deed is done for WvW.

@Whiteout.1975 said:I disagree. I don't believe it's truly selfish behavior to enjoy playing the game how you or anyone likes to.Except that you are not playing the game, but your own.

@Whiteout.1975 said:Population imbalance.Ehm no, when both servers have same numbers and ppl on one server group up together and some ppl on the other refuse to, because they "want to enjoy playing the game how they like", thats not population imbalance.

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I disagree. I don't believe it's truly selfish behavior to enjoy playing the game how you or anyone likes to.Except that you are not playing the game, but your own.

Well I'm still playing the game. I'm just not playing for the demands of others. I or anyone can also still be contributing while invis to kills/ppt. If that's what you mean.

@Whiteout.1975 said:Population imbalance.Ehm no, when both servers have same numbers and ppl on one server group up together and some ppl on the other refuse to, because they "want to enjoy playing the game how they like", thats not population imbalance.

Oh I thought you were referring to 25 vs 50. Well, then they refuse. They have the right to do that... Whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Just how it is.

Is a double edge sword. --- Whole this thing is double edge sword. I understand your points, but imagine now new players who never did before wvw. Many them got on wvw just going for warclaw. Since no tag nowhere is way harder for them got anything. This is kinda good for pve content, but wvw time will show.

• if two guilds are fighting, you stay out until one side has won--- Before i stayed out, but now is best let everyone know on team chat where they are. Its fair for pugs and casuals.

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I disagree. I don't believe it's truly selfish behavior to enjoy playing the game how you or anyone likes to.Except that you are not playing the game, but your own.

-> ppl will immediately leave WvW after logging in because they think its empty-> no coordination like "Guild A already went hills, so lets try to take bay then"-> invisible tags that occupy lots of map capacity and thus make it impossible for a public com to fill his squad, and he doesn't even know-> there's a battle cross and you don't even know if its our forces or the two enemy servers-> our keep is in-fight and you don't even know that there is a (invisible) friendly group that already fended off the attacketc. etc.

This is completely different from the usual "I don't want to play with non-meta / non-voice chat casuals." Its the next level of "I don't want to teamplay but do my own things instead."

hiding tags used to be the norm, we just targetted x person prior to having tags. its not that hard if you take the time to focus.

Commanders who tag up with open squad are contributing heavily to the community fun. They deserve even more. Closed squads are generally more selfish fight groups and they should be content with limited rewards. It's their choice and it's perfectly reasonable.Both closed and open squads have a place in WvW and re required to keep the game mode alive.

What exactly is the difference? You were able to just close your squad and make it invite only...The only thing now is that ppl dont see you on the map and as commander? I guess trolls wont find you as easy... Until they just walk to the big orange cross on the map.Otherwise it just makes coordination harder i guess?

If we had 3-4 different guilds on a map it was always easy to coordinate different attacks or defenses etc by just looking at the map and not needing to directly communicate with 2 other guilds, which just takes up time

@RedShark.9548 said:If we had 3-4 different guilds on a map it was always easy to coordinate different attacks or defenses etc by just looking at the map and not needing to directly communicate with 2 other guilds, which just takes up timeNot to mention they need the tag to show where they are because above all, they want to be seen winning. Especially by the other guild commanders and pug commanders, so they can see their obvious superiority.

As I've said over and over - self moderation.

And here I always thought WvW was an open multiplayer game mode where everyone could participate...

I do kind of miss the times when I was on a server with a tight-knit community where everyone was welcome, nowadays it seems like guild-raid here, voice-chat there, selfishness everywhere.I mean, I can understand it to some degree, because the "pugs" are also selfish, with their overuse of non-zerg classes and builds, especially since rangers for example have been overpowered for so long. It would be more helpful to be able to relog a different character without losing your spot on the map (when there's a queue) than to have these hidden tags. That way those who were on their roamers could be helpful to a zerg when suddenly a tag pops up.

We should think about MORE teamplay, not less.And a proper guild-vs-guild gamemode, with options for different sized raids to compete against each other on an even battlefield, leaving WvW open for everyone.

I understand that in some ways "hidden tags" may be a necessity to some, but in the grand scheme I don't see them improving WvW. If their use becomes more prevelant they will just end up hurting the "alledgedly dead" game mode even more.

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Whiteout.1975 said:I disagree. I don't believe it's truly selfish behavior to enjoy playing the game how you or anyone likes to.Except that you are not playing the game, but your own.

Like I said... This can be fixed with people choosing to public tag and preferably adding NPC Commanders that can move towards objectives.

-> no coordination like "Guild A already went hills, so lets try to take bay then"

"Like I said... This can be fixed with people choosing to public tag and preferably adding NPC Commanders that can move towards objectives." Also, coordination would be easier because then you can almost always rely on a NPC to play tactically around. Whether you're a hidden squad or not.

-> invisible tags that occupy lots of map capacity and thus make it impossible for a public com to fill his squad, and he doesn't even know

2+2=4... Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

-> there's a battle cross and you don't even know if its our forces or the two enemy servers

This adds Risk and encourages communication. "Do we risk checking it out?" This is also something that has happened before many times before this change. Even if it happens a bit more. It's not a bad thing to encourage some more risk and communication.

-> our keep is in-fight and you don't even know that there is a (invisible) friendly group that already fended off the attacketc. etc.

Yea, but nether do the trolls. This is also something that has happened many times before this change. Also, encourages communication to reach your goals. Whether people share those goals is up to them.

• Examples are when I would take a tower with 5-10 people that I was leading (hidden). Then our zerg shows up to take a tower too. They far more than often would just take it with us at that point regardless. It wasn't ever really a big deal.

This is completely different from the usual "I don't want to play with non-meta / non-voice chat casuals." Its the next level of "I don't want to teamplay but do my own things instead."

"non-meta / non-voice chat casuals" by default are not teamplayers. They are not building themselves up for/towards the challenge ahead. We may share the same family name... But not at all the same values ultimately. I want to team play... Just not for or under entitled players who don't act like real teamplayers to begin with.

We should just respect each other in how we enjoy the game and not force anyone to play under our standards. Just like I don't force someone to build themselves a certain way. I don't expect to be forced to babysit everyone that comes my way. Encouragement towards a goal is fine... But forcing actions through a sense of self entitlement is not?

@BadMed.3846 said:Commanders who tag up with open squad are contributing heavily to the community fun. They deserve even more. Closed squads are generally more selfish fight groups and they should be content with limited rewards. It's their choice and it's perfectly reasonable.Both closed and open squads have a place in WvW and re required to keep the game mode alive.

I agree with everything except this:

@BadMed.3846 said:They deserve even more. Closed squads are generally more selfish fight groups and they should be content with limited rewards.

Commanders deserve more... Just not more in Comparison to other commanders IMO. As you say "Both closed and open squads have a place in WvW and re required to keep the game mode alive".

• Put it this way... If I choose to donate to one charity over another. That helps people with the similar general problems; in their own respect. Should I be looked at as lesser? Sure, it might not be personally your preferred charity... But does that make me any less of a person for still helping those whom I just happen to select; even for my own reasons? I don't see any reason why I should be.

Whiteout,

Thanks for reminding me to spend some money on gems whenever there's a change I like.

@"Syrus.2174" said:And here I always thought WvW was an open multiplayer game mode where everyone could participate...

I do kind of miss the times when I was on a server with a tight-knit community where everyone was welcome, nowadays it seems like guild-raid here, voice-chat there, selfishness everywhere.I mean, I can understand it to some degree, because the "pugs" are also selfish, with their overuse of non-zerg classes and builds, especially since rangers for example have been overpowered for so long. It would be more helpful to be able to relog a different character without losing your spot on the map (when there's a queue) than to have these hidden tags. That way those who were on their roamers could be helpful to a zerg when suddenly a tag pops up.

We should think about MORE teamplay, not less.And a proper guild-vs-guild gamemode, with options for different sized raids to compete against each other on an even battlefield, leaving WvW open for everyone.

I understand that in some ways "hidden tags" may be a necessity to some, but in the grand scheme I don't see them improving WvW. If their use becomes more prevelant they will just end up hurting the "alledgedly dead" game mode even more.

How many times has this conversation occurred?

Player 1: Any tags?Player 2: Tag up yourself.Player 1: I don't have a tag. I can't afford it.

@Chaba.5410 said:Whiteout,

Thanks for reminding me to spend some money on gems whenever there's a change I like.

@"Syrus.2174" said:And here I always thought WvW was an open multiplayer game mode where everyone could participate...

I do kind of miss the times when I was on a server with a tight-knit community where everyone was welcome, nowadays it seems like guild-raid here, voice-chat there, selfishness everywhere.I mean, I can understand it to some degree, because the "pugs" are also selfish, with their overuse of non-zerg classes and builds, especially since rangers for example have been overpowered for so long. It would be more helpful to be able to relog a different character without losing your spot on the map (when there's a queue) than to have these hidden tags. That way those who were on their roamers could be helpful to a zerg when suddenly a tag pops up.

We should think about MORE teamplay, not less.And a proper guild-vs-guild gamemode, with options for different sized raids to compete against each other on an even battlefield, leaving WvW open for everyone.

I understand that in some ways "hidden tags" may be a necessity to some, but in the grand scheme I don't see them improving WvW. If their use becomes more prevelant they will just end up hurting the "alledgedly dead" game mode even more.

I see the problem with Player 2 here. A simple "No" or "Not at the moment" would've been sufficient. Instead it's the same boring troll answer you get all the time.It's like, if you can't say anything constructive, why say anything at all?

The problem with people not wanting to tag up even if they could goes both ways. The people following expect the commander to carry them to victory, forgetting that they ned to do their part and do it well, otherwise it won't work. But I've also seen commanders try to force something, when it clearly is not working. If you can't beat an enemy zerg or take an objective despite trying again and again, it might be better to try and do something else instead of ranting against the players following - who after the first two wipes usually get fewer anyway. It's a difficult thing, as there is a lot of responisibility on the commander, they need to know how to lead well, how to have a decent composition of the zerg with what they got at hand. Not everyone can do it. But does that give you the right to exclude everyone else, telling people to go elsewhere in an open world multiplayer game mode? If the player wants to be there, there is nothing you can do about it. Harassment goes both ways. Can't we just play together and support our server together, enjoy this game mode without excluding those who just want to be helpful?Coordinating a bit with the other people around is much nicer than just telling them to liquify away in my opinion. Just don't be a selfish jerk in a multiplayer game. Doesn't sound so hard when you say it.

(I mean... unless you play ranger, of course... 8| )

@"Jayden Reese.9542" said:These threads are ridiculous. Every one is some rant about "entitlement of pugs". Are you serious. You are the ones that are acting "entitled" like no one in a 50 person map should have the audacity to follows a tag or 15 man guild or take that same camp or tower you are heading too. Go invisible. In fact Go away completely. I roam w/o you follow when taking stuff never join squad but to read these 3 threads now with the same tone is just sad.

I made the post describing why I was thankful for the change. I wasn't about to just be thankful without giving context as to why. This is only for the ones that feel entitled to be apart of a group. In the sense that they should be accommodated for, in some way, by that group. Even though they aren't really apart of it. Has little to nothing to do with attempting to follow. Rather the accommodation that commander/group used to have to fulfill in making following easier. Via a forced public tag only option. The group doesn't have to accommodate for your or others wants. If you feel they do... Well, that's just called entitlement.

You say "Go invisible. In fact Go away completely". And yet you call this Thank You thread as the one being "ridiculous"... Lol. However, you're more than welcome to "go away" yourself if you don't like it instead. Or have a real discussion. Ether one works for me.

This is just the typical entitled "You must hire me because I showed up". "If not...You're a horrible/egotistical person" attitude I was talking about in the OP. Thanks for illustrating that further.