Option to Set Commander Tag to Guild-only — Guild Wars 2 Forums

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.

Comments

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

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

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Kraag Deadsoul.2789Kraag Deadsoul.2789 Member
    edited February 7, 2018

    @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.

  • Hiraldo.7954Hiraldo.7954 Member ✭✭✭

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

    [KEK] [kitten] [KRAB] [TTD] [TG] | Fort Aspenwood

  • @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.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • @Kraag Deadsoul.2789 said:

    @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.

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

    #nornmodeisbestmode

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    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 the
    Mode 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 of
    Who is on the map.

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

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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:

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

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

    Very good pro tip: :joy:

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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

    Ranger main before it was viable.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • Is WvW to become a guild only game?

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 7, 2018

    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.

    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)
    For the geographically challenged, yes, Tarnished Coast is located IN the Maguuma Jungle.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    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.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Genesis.5169Genesis.5169 Member ✭✭✭

    @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 kitten 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.

    Get safe spaces out of spvp, demand real post game stats!
    Gw2 already the easiest MMO on the market if you believe content is too hard its time for some self reflection.
    Stop asking to nerf classes if you PvE exclusively it makes no sense.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

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

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger main before it was viable.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

    /shrugs

    1.) Set tag to invite only
    2.) Fake push
    3.) Watch the pugs get killed
    4.) 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.

  • Norbe.7630Norbe.7630 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

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

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

    Why So Serious?

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    /shrugs

    1.) Set tag to invite only
    2.) Fake push
    3.) Watch the pugs get killed
    4.) 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.

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    /shrugs

    1.) Set tag to invite only
    2.) Fake push
    3.) Watch the pugs get killed
    4.) 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.

    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.

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    @Baldrick.8967 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    /shrugs

    1.) Set tag to invite only
    2.) Fake push
    3.) Watch the pugs get killed
    4.) 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.

    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.

    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.2759
    Like 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.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    /shrugs

    1.) Set tag to invite only
    2.) Fake push
    3.) Watch the pugs get killed
    4.) 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.

    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.

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

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

    ... oh, wait.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger main before it was viable.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

    Yea, but it goes both ways. I mean pushing when you know those people aren't, and somehow hoping they miraculously will seems like a mistake to me.

    Also, I am owed many repair bills.

    Anyhow, the way I see it, the dorito is meant for a map-wide communication tool, and its utility is to give incentive to lead. It sorta makes sense that as a team, you would know where your teammates are. Besides, unless you're doing exclusively 10v10s or less, you'd set off oranges anyways. if there are no tags, then well, people aren't that daft....

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You're not wrong, though you never know how much militia support you're actually going to get. Its that sort of thing what causes guilds to run closed rallies. Well, one of the things.
    Its frustrating when you're in a guild with 20 people, have 15 militia on you and push an enemy group of 30~40 thinking the green names are going to pull their weight. Then after the fact its your (the guild's) fault they died, for pushing a group that was too big in their eyes to push.

    At least when you're running a closed rally you know what you're capable of fighting. In that regard I agree with OP's thoughts. More ability to control what you as a group have to work with would be nice. Ultimately however it goes against Anet's vision of the gamemode.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger main before it was viable.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

    @Kovu.7560 said:
    You're not wrong, though you never know how much militia support you're actually going to get. Its that sort of thing what causes guilds to run closed rallies. Well, one of the things.
    Its frustrating when you're in a guild with 20 people, have 15 militia on you and push an enemy group of 30~40 thinking the green names are going to pull their weight. Then after the fact its your (the guild's) fault they died, for pushing a group that was too big in their eyes to push.

    At least when you're running a closed rally you know what you're capable of fighting. In that regard I agree with OP's thoughts. More ability to control what you as a group have to work with would be nice. Ultimately however it goes against Anet's vision of the gamemode.

    ~ Kovu

    Yea, that is true. I don't disagree with you much. Running open can be frustrating, especially if you're like dealing with 20 guild vs 50 people and you sorta need to do something about it to make it playable. I ran in closed raids for a lot of WvW's existence as well. Well okay, before squads, they were just parties of 5. I sorta preferred that over some ranger whining about not being paired with 2 guardians.

    Though if random pug comes along, sorta just treated it as a thing. I'm just mocking the people that have much more unreasonable expectations of randoms though I admit having them survive for one pass is a victory in my book, lol.

    But as the quoted red post suggests, I sorta thought that's what Anet meant the tag to be and it's not too objectionable. I think closed squads should send the message enough, though yes, sometimes it doesn't matter.

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Can-we-have-something-Private-Tag/page/1#post6554291

    @McKenna Berdrow.2759
    Like 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.

    Thanks, but that quote no longer applies. That was the status quo we have. They are making changes that make this option a necessity.
    Worlds will not have equal populations. Players will be weighted individually and running totals will add up to a world total which will be matched with other world totals. Meaning you could have 3 worlds in a match, where one world has 2000 players, one has 2100 players and the next world 2500 players. They've already stated as much. Metrics such as tag time and players following are weighted into those equations. If every group ran tagless, they could essentially lower their total value, allowing them to stack worlds even further. I, for one, can see a need for only showing tags to raid members. Might help with all the tag watching, and it will make that metric more reliable. It will also help eliminate confusion on the map for militia.

    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)
    For the geographically challenged, yes, Tarnished Coast is located IN the Maguuma Jungle.

  • Catmander tag! I recently found out if you have the Catmander, and you create a squad, then pass tag to someone who has the regular commander tag, but not catmander, THERE IS NO VISIBLE TAG! You can then use squad markers to mark your driver!

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ubi.4136 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Can-we-have-something-Private-Tag/page/1#post6554291

    @McKenna Berdrow.2759
    Like 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.

    Thanks, but that quote no longer applies. That was the status quo we have. They are making changes that make this option a necessity.
    Worlds will not have equal populations. Players will be weighted individually and running totals will add up to a world total which will be matched with other world totals. Meaning you could have 3 worlds in a match, where one world has 2000 players, one has 2100 players and the next world 2500 players. They've already stated as much. Metrics such as tag time and players following are weighted into those equations. If every group ran tagless, they could essentially lower their total value, allowing them to stack worlds even further. I, for one, can see a need for only showing tags to raid members. Might help with all the tag watching, and it will make that metric more reliable. It will also help eliminate confusion on the map for militia.

    Everything you list after 'they are making changes' is the same situation we have now. None of that justifies a hidden tag.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    We've asked for this before and unfortunately it doesn't look like we're ever going to get it.
    If we could just get private tags that wouldn't be visible to the public I think that'd be great for guild groups who want to have all the utility of the tag without having to worry about attracting randoms.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

    Have one tag up as scout and closed. Setup your driver as lieutenant. Put squad marker. make squad parties. Go. If u vant follow the squad mark, that group needs to practice more.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • The suggestion I've made in no way will lead to a scenario where all squads are running tagless; there will be plenty of commanders who will still tag up publicly. All the suggestion will do is permit those guilds who prefer it to run a private tag for the benefit of their guild members. It adds functionality for guilds while taking nothing away from the current implementation of tags.

    Public commander wants to tag up and be visible to all on the map? Great, continue using the current system. Guild group wants to tag up but make the tag visible to just their guildmates (or, as a compromise, visible only to those who've joined the squad regardless of whether they're in the same guild or not)? Great, implement a simple checkbox. Win-win.

    The game is called Guild Wars 2; I would think mechanics which assist guilds in maintaining cohesion and are supportive of group tactics would be welcome. Especially with the coming changes to WvW wherein guild affiliation and contribution will become even more critical as the existence of server/world loyalty and community will be utterly eliminated.

  • @Ubi.4136 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Can-we-have-something-Private-Tag/page/1#post6554291

    @McKenna Berdrow.2759
    Like 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.

    Thanks, but that quote no longer applies. That was the status quo we have. They are making changes that make this option a necessity.
    Worlds will not have equal populations. Players will be weighted individually and running totals will add up to a world total which will be matched with other world totals. Meaning you could have 3 worlds in a match, where one world has 2000 players, one has 2100 players and the next world 2500 players. They've already stated as much. Metrics such as tag time and players following are weighted into those equations. If every group ran tagless, they could essentially lower their total value, allowing them to stack worlds even further. I, for one, can see a need for only showing tags to raid members. Might help with all the tag watching, and it will make that metric more reliable. It will also help eliminate confusion on the map for militia.

    Personally, I'm ambivalent. I can see a lot of good uses to have a guild-exclusive tag. I also see ANet's perspective. However, the main reason I posted the quote was to make sure that people knew ANet's stance & would address ANet's reasons for thinking this would be unhealthy for WvW:

    • Many players will not participate in WvW if they don’t see a commander tag,
    • [ANet tries] to avoid adding features that can be used to exclude players.

    The entire value, according to you, is the exclusivity: you can control who sees or joins. And that's the very thing that ANet wants to avoid. In all likelihood, that's more of an issue in a game without Worlds: unaffiliated players are already concerned about what sort of place they might have (and even players in guilds might be concerned if they play during hours without the rest of their guild).

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 8, 2018

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    Have one tag up as scout and closed. Setup your driver as lieutenant. Put squad marker. make squad parties. Go. If u vant follow the squad mark, that group needs to practice more.

    Oh oh a new market emerging!

    I tag up as a scout, close the squad. Then it cost 1g per hour for a guild to rent party 2 and one lieutenant. If the guild want to rent more parties its an extra one time fee of 20s per party.

    Honest Dawdlers Kitten Party Services (tm)

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • @Israel.7056 said:
    We've asked for this before and unfortunately it doesn't look like we're ever going to get it.
    If we could just get private tags that wouldn't be visible to the public I think that'd be great for guild groups who want to have all the utility of the tag without having to worry about attracting randoms.

    2 posts above, I explained it. Someone with a catmander tag can pass the tag to someone who has the regular commander tag, and voila, it's not visible. Then you can put a squad marker on your driver.

  • FrizzFreston.5290FrizzFreston.5290 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Personally I dont think it matters if its visible or not, other than for the fear of spies being able to track movements.

    Any information towards your own team/world is beneficial. Your guild will still be part of a world. Then again I also dont have allergic reactions to multiple Tags on the same Map. Just means people need to, like always, communicate.

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @Baldrick.8967 said:

    @Roxanne.6140 said:

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    /shrugs

    1.) Set tag to invite only
    2.) Fake push
    3.) Watch the pugs get killed
    4.) 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.

    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.

    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?

    Try reading again. Then remember there is more than one server and I have more than one account. Then remember that guilds server hop, so from time to time I run across one of these 'elite' guilds - who usually stay for a little while being toxic before hopping off to annoy another server.

  • This is really kind of silly IMO:

    The argument of exclusion is mostly MOOT IMO because, it's not terribly difficult to identify an ally zerg if you are out and about in WvW or just sit by spawn for 5-10mins until they (the zerg) eventually port back, and then you can just tail'em. Or, look on your map where there's orange swords and make your way there.

    The argument of saying the guild should manage all their members WITHOUT a tag (if they want to run without one) is silly, as the reason to have the commander's tag is for having the functionality for organization and control of the groups, marking capabilities, etc. Plus the tag wasn't that cheap.

    Plus, being able to run without showing a tag on the map assists with making it a bit more difficult for an enemy to track their opponent (by way of spies on the other server). Though, with a very good scout, this is kinda moot.

    I vote for allowing the commander the ability to NOT show the tag on the map while retaining the functionalities that came with the purchase of the commander's tag.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.