The commander tag should be in different shapes

[Tinker.6924]

I could see that helping color blind players.  

[Silent.6137]

15 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Which is a perfectly valid opinion on a matter.

Sure, it is. What is annoying to me is the poster using the same one-line statement to virtually any suggestions. That poster's response: I find the game is working well enough. Why bother reading and commenting if you're going to disagree with everything and give the exact same comment?

Sure, resources are limited but players' contributions to the idea pool help makes the game that much better. Throwing ideas around may germinate some really great improvements. Just dismissing any ideas out-of-hand will just kill any incentive to contribute.

[Ashen.2907]

1 hour ago, Silent.6137 said:

Sure, it is. What is annoying to me is the poster using the same one-line statement to virtually any suggestions. That poster's response: I find the game is working well enough. Why bother reading and commenting if you're going to disagree with everything and give the exact same comment?

Sure, resources are limited but players' contributions to the idea pool help makes the game that much better. Throwing ideas around may germinate some really great improvements. Just dismissing any ideas out-of-hand will just kill any incentive to contribute.

The reason to post disagreement with a suggestion, no matter how repetitive, is for the same reason as posting agreement...to have your opinion on the direction of the game heard (hopefully) by ANet.

Players' contribution to the idea pool MAY make the game that much better. I believe that it can, and does, at times. Then again, "this interests me less than other possible uses of limited resources is a player contribution to the idea pool.

When only agreement is considered to be acceptable contribution to a discussion then the discussion is worthless.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Ashen.2907

[Silent.6137]

13 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

When only agreement is considered to be acceptable contribution to a discussion then the discussion is worthless.

Hence, come up with reasons why they are not useful, not disagree for the sake of disagreeing. As I mentioned before, that stock answer is not useful at all because it doesn't tell me why any of the suggestions are bad. Anyways, I'm done discussing this issue. Just want to get back on the topic.

[Sobx.1758]

18 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

Hence, come up with reasons why they are not useful, not disagree for the sake of disagreeing. As I mentioned before, that stock answer is not useful at all because it doesn't tell me why any of the suggestions are bad. Anyways, I'm done discussing this issue. Just want to get back on the topic.

If someone thinks additional shapes of commie tag won't be useful, what exact reasoning do you need for it? People can just think it's not useful for anything.

[Silent.6137]

5 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

If someone thinks additional shapes of commie tag won't be useful, what exact reasoning do you need for it? People can just think it's not useful for anything.

Post any idea thread and you'll get the same exact comment from that poster. How helpful is that?

[Dawdler.8521]

9 hours ago, Danikat.8537 said:

Also in WvW the same commander will frequently go between attacking, defending, scouting, ambushing enemy groups etc and having to remember to change the tag each time sounds annoying.

Especially annoying because it's not what WvW need. It's not the icon or color of the icon that's important, it's the purpose and size of the tag. The generally agreed upon "this type of color is a particular type of tag" failed when links started mixing populations. No one even tries to follow it anymore. WvW need two things in particular - hover-over tag description (so that we can actually designate the type of squad at a glance) and visual size indication (so that zerg commanders stop being so threatened by multiple smaller tags on "their" border). For the later I've still in favor of using the existing chevron on the commander tag and just making it so that it's 1-3 based on 1-10, 11-25, 26-50.

But I digress. We are more likely to actually see shapes for 300g a pop than WvW seeing any QoL whatsoever in the next year.

[Sobx.1758]

18 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

Post any idea thread and you'll get the same exact comment from that poster. How helpful is that?

It means they don't like the idea, so as helpful as someone saying they like it. And that didn't answer the question: what reasoning would you need here?

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Silent.6137]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

It means they don't like the idea, so as helpful as someone saying they like it. And that didn't answer the question: what reasoning would you need here?

I don't expect everyone to like all ideas. Some are beyond terrible.

Tell me why an idea/suggestion is bad. Not just I'd prefer resources be spent elsewhere. I'm referring to every single idea thread that poster posted in. If you can't understand what I'm getting at, then it's totally pointless discussing this since we're just running around in circle.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Silent.6137

[Sobx.1758]

13 minutes ago, Silent.6137 said:

I don't expect everyone to like all ideas. Some are beyond terrible.

Tell me why an idea/suggestion is bad. Not just I'd prefer resources be spent elsewhere. I'm referring to every single idea thread that poster posted in. If you can't understand what I'm getting at, then it's totally pointless discussing this since we're just running around in circle.

As I said above, people can just think different shapes won't be really useful for anything. And that's what it mostly means when people say it: "it sure is some kind of addition to the game, but I don't care about it, so developing it would be waste of time". Is writing this any better for you? Why? Because it has more words? It means the same thing.

And as mentioned above by someone, it's just skipping some of the past comment chains of "I don't want it" - "ok, but other people might want it, so why do you care?!" - "because it takes dev time, do something else, ty".

Edited August 27, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Silent.6137]

18 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

As I said above, people can just think different shapes won't be really useful for anything. And that's what it mostly means when people say it: "it sure is some kind of addition to the game, but I don't care about it, so developing it would be waste of time". Is writing this any better for you? Why? Because it has more words? It means the same thing.

And as mentioned above by someone, it's just skipping some of the past comment chains of "I don't want it" - "ok, but other people might want it, so why do you care?!" - "because it takes dev time, do something else, ty".

Quote

just running around in circle

 

[Sobx.1758]

Just now, Silent.6137 said:

 

Only if you refuse to respond to the posts you're quoting.

[kharmin.7683]

15 hours ago, Silent.6137 said:

Post any idea thread and you'll get the same exact comment from that poster. How helpful is that?

This is patently false.  I have "liked" many suggestions over the years.  I just didn't post in those threads. 

Saying that I prefer resources to be spent elsewhere is my attempt to show the devs who might be reading the thread that there are players who do not prefer the suggestion to be implemented.  Confused emotes used as downvotes may not get that point across.