Should there be a minimum required number of commanders in WvW?

[Forty Keks.9620]

I feel that having one commander most of the time makes WvW considerably less fun. rolling around in one giant blob of condi spam and guardians isn't my idea of fun.

i would suggest that there be a minimum of 3 commanders at all times plus a system that let's a designated commander get a birds eye view of the map and set objectives and spawn siege engines and AI to assault a tower. it would eliminate the problem of giant death blobs by spreading out the population a little bit and would create a lot more fights.

post your thoughts.

[Jwake.7013]

It sounds like you don't have a problem with commanders but with the amount, so shouldn't your poll be about how many commanders are optimal per map?

[Israel.7056]

No one is forcing players to blob up under one commander.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

@Jwake.7013 said:It sounds like you don't have a problem with commanders but with the amount, so shouldn't your poll be about how many commanders are optimal per map?

This too. xD

[dynomite.5834]

i like giant death blobs especially when they meet another one and an epic battle ensues (it's called WvW after all). if i wanted small scale i'd play sPvP

[Forty Keks.9620]

@dynomite.5834 said:i like giant death blobs especially when they meet another one and an epic battle ensues (it's called WvW after all). if i wanted small scale i'd play sPvP

you can still have large scale without the giant death blob. it's not like you're reducing the number of players. just giving players incentive to split into more groups

[Forty Keks.9620]

@Jwake.7013 said:It sounds like you don't have a problem with commanders but with the amount, so shouldn't your poll be about how many commanders are optimal per map?

i changed the title to make more sense.

[volpenvieh.3201]

@Forty Keks.9620 said:a system that let's a designated commander get a birds eye view of the map

You mean something like the minimap...?

and set objectives and spawn siege engines and AI to assault a towerSounds a lot like Commander Siegerazer.

it would eliminate the problem of giant death blobs by spreading out the population a little bit and would create a lot more fights.Sounds more like it would create much more ppt.

Also, how do you want to ensure that there's a minimum number of 3 commanders at any given time? First it's already difficult enough to find ONE person that is willing to tag up. Second, what if there's only one commander? He's not allowed to tag up until two other tags come along or what?A lot of people actually enjoy blobbing. If blobbing is not for you, you might want to try creating your own havoc squad.

[coro.3176]

IMO, the game is best when there are multiple small groups (like, 15 or less) operating independently.

To this end, having commanders is good! .. but in practice, having a mega blob run over small groups one at a time just works better, so that's what people do.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

Should there be a minimum required number of commanders in WvW?That's either a military decision or a social one; it's not something that the game should be imposing upon any side.

Plus, what happens in the following circumstances (presuming that '3' is the minimum):

• There are four commanders up, two leave due to RL. What happens to the other two?
• There are four commanders up, three are running closed guild squad raids. How is the "minimum" going to improve that?
• There is one commander up, three troll accounts turn on their commander tags. And turn them off. Turn them on, and turn them off.

The actual issue of concern to the OP isn't the number of commanders. It's the blob-v-blob style of combat. That isn't something that will get "fixed" because ANet imposes artificial limits on commanding. After all, we had BvB even when commander tags were scarce. And we have them now, when commander tags are plentiful.

There are other ways to address BvB, some under player control (some not):

• Tag up. Not sure why the OP isn't tagging up if they think the issue is too few tags on the map.
• Roam. Or small-group havoc. These are nearly always useful (and rewarding) activities and don't require a blob.
• Join a dedicated WvW guild that focuses on tightly-knit squads of precisely determined subsquads.
• Move to a world that runs more tags
• ANet can change the underlying mechanics to favor middle-sized groups. (Although: they tried this in DBL, because the size in theory benefits 3 coordinated groups over a blob.)
• ANet can overhaul WvW skill balance, to favor tighter groups.

[LetoII.3782]

@Israel.7056 said:No one is forcing players to blob up under one commander.

And besides that, multiple commanders could still stack, it happens every week.OP you're trying to treat a symptom, it makes sense to clump up in GW2 because of the AoE cap. It allows the blob to share damage amongst the whole group, the larger the clump the less likelihood any one player will get struck twice. It's a major flaw of the game.

And how would Anet even go about forcing commander presence, random chance? The entire concept of this thread is ludicrous.

[Israel.7056]

The problem is with all the players insofar as a problem can be said to exist.

[Forty Keks.9620]

@volpenvieh.3201 said:

@Forty Keks.9620 said:a system that let's a designated commander get a birds eye view of the map

You mean something like the minimap...?

and set objectives and spawn siege engines and AI to assault a towerSounds a lot like Commander Siegerazer.

it would eliminate the problem of giant death blobs by spreading out the population a little bit and would create a lot more fights.Sounds more like it would create much more ppt.

Also, how do you want to ensure that there's a minimum number of 3 commanders at any given time? First it's already difficult enough to find ONE person that is willing to tag up. Second, what if there's only one commander? He's not allowed to tag up until two other tags come along or what?A lot of people actually enjoy blobbing. If blobbing is not for you, you might want to try creating your own havoc squad.

it isn't about tagging up by choice. there would be a mandatory selection where people can volunteer or vote or kick a bad commander. also your comment about a minimap doesn't at all pertain to my suggestion. the point of a commander is to give orders right? a system that lets the commander see the battlefield and deploy siege engines or AI is what i'm talking about. the minimap doesn't do that. what kind of commander leads the charge? last i checked commanders are supposed to... you know.. command. what better way than having the ability to set objectives and spawn things? it would sure make the game feel more like a warzone rather than blob versus blob versus blob and a few mesmers/thieves running around capping camps.

[Forty Keks.9620]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

Should there be a minimum required number of commanders in WvW?That's either a military decision or a social one; it's not something that the game should be imposing upon any side.

Plus, what happens in the following circumstances (presuming that '3' is the minimum):

• There are four commanders up, two leave due to RL. What happens to the other two?
• There are four commanders up, three are running closed guild squad raids. How is the "minimum" going to improve that?
• There is one commander up, three troll accounts turn on their commander tags. And turn them off. Turn them on, and turn them off.

The actual issue of concern to the OP isn't the number of commanders. It's the blob-v-blob style of combat. That isn't something that will get "fixed" because ANet imposes artificial limits on commanding. After all, we had BvB even when commander tags were scarce. And we have them now, when commander tags are plentiful.

There are other ways to address BvB, some under player control (some not):

• Tag up. Not sure why the OP isn't tagging up if they think the issue is too few tags on the map.
• Roam. Or small-group havoc. These are nearly always useful (and rewarding) activities and don't require a blob.
• Join a dedicated WvW guild that focuses on tightly-knit squads of precisely determined subsquads.
• Move to a world that runs more tags
• ANet can change the underlying mechanics to favor middle-sized groups. (Although: they tried this in DBL, because the size in theory benefits 3 coordinated groups over a blob.)
• ANet can overhaul WvW skill balance, to favor tighter groups.

i don't mean people buy their own tags and tag up. i mean when you enter wvw the game presents you with a popup that shows the current commanders, you have the option to be a commander, if there aren't 3 then one is randomy selected, of course the commanders would get special rewards to give incentive to people to be a commander.

i get what you're saying but the problem is that what you're saying simply doesn't happen.

-i tag but nobody likes to follow a holosmith, the meta simply isn't in my favor. i don't like warrior or guardian.-roaming is nice every now and then but you can't do much other than kill a few thieves or mesmers and cap some camps-dedicated WvW guilds that focus on tightly-knit squads are in very short supply, i don't know if you realized.-all world that have enough pop to run multiple tags are full.-changing the underlying mechanics is exactly what i'm suggesting here.-and lastly, skill balance? come on brah, anet doesn't know how to balance, the meta has been firebrand scourge blobs since PoF dropped.

[MedievalThings.5417]

I went with no on this one...and here is why. We don't expect Anet employees to tag up and lead each and every map in every tier.So, the commanders are just people playing the game. Unless they are going to start paying me $10 or more an hour to "tag up" during "mandatory" tag time, there isn't anyway to do this.

[Some Call Me Tim.2319]

No min or max please. People can pick who they want to run with.. Considering that the commander agrees

[Blodeuyn.2751]

Where is the option for no commanders? Not everyone wants to follow a tag or needs to follow a tag in order to get stuff done.

Also, I'd rather have no tags than 3 crappy ones. There is no way to guarantee the quality of a commander, unfortunately.

[Roxanne.6140]

So what happens in this system of enforcement? All three commanders must organise themselves dragon stand-style and tag up at the exact same time or the system will not let them tag? Once one of the three commanders tag down, the map will kick the remaining two squads to eotm?

[Riba.3271]

You want 15-25 man groups?A: Join a WvW raiding guild

You want 1-10 man groups?A: Make/join a roaming guild

You want random pugs vs random pugs with almost no guardians?A: Play desert map and learn to command without ts on a random class like thief so you won't accidentally get guardians in squad

Unfortunately only way you can get your clowny 20v20s that last a while would be bad players vs bad players, usually off-hours like morning crew and nightcrew matches this. Thank god Desert map also exists for that.

Tbf most servers dont even have 3 competent commanders so even in your system, all players would just go to the good commander

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Forty Keks.9620 said:I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough: the issue raised in the OP is that the OP doesn't like BvB. There are multiple ways to address that without touching commander tags. Which is good because decreasing the barrier to tag up isn't going to decrease the existing incentives to blob. Do you really think people blob because only one person wants to command? Do you really think out of 20-50 in a squad that there's only one who owns a tag? Do you really think that paying someone to tag up is going to generate better fights?

@Forty Keks.9620 said:i don't mean people buy their own tags and tag up. i mean when you enter wvw the game presents you with a popup that shows the current commanders, you have the option to be a commander, if there aren't 3 then one is randomy selected, of course the commanders would get special rewards to give incentive to people to be a commander.Let's ignore the issue of invalidating the 100g, 300g, or 450g existing commanders have spent on tags. Then this still isn't a solution to the problem stated in the OP; this a solution to the imagined problem of "not enough people are choosing to tag up." The issue raised in the OP is: the OP doesn't like to blob.

@Forty Keks.9620 said:i get what you're saying but the problem is that what you're saying simply doesn't happen.I don't think you get what I'm saying. I was listing the variety of ways in which we (or ANet) can help reduce blobbing.

@Forty Keks.9620 said:-i tag but nobody likes to follow a holosmith, the meta simply isn't in my favor. i don't like warrior or guardian.How is "random tag" going to solve that? Plus, you're also saying, "a random tag among only warriors or guardians or whatever happens to be meta for commanding this month."

Are you saying that if ANet paid you to tag up, you'd switch to warrior? Or guardian? And do you think that would change the nature of fights? Instead of 40v40 blobs, we'd have three 15v15 blobs. That is, a blob isn't just a blob because it's big, it's because it's not focused.

@Forty Keks.9620 said:-roaming is nice every now and then but you can't do much other than kill a few thieves or mesmers and cap some campsI guess you haven't done much roaming, because it's more than that. And that's it's different from havoc teams. The point is: we have options other than "nothing" or "BvB."

@Forty Keks.9620 said:-dedicated WvW guilds that focus on tightly-knit squads are in very short supply, i don't know if you realized.I don't know if you realized that there are reasons that they are in limited supply. But they aren't so limited that you can't find one recruiting if you want to. But again, the point is that there are options, not that this is the option you should choose.

@Forty Keks.9620 said:-all world that have enough pop to run multiple tags are full.I'm confused by this. Either you think that there aren't enough people with tags (hopefully not, since there's no evidence that is true, quite the contrary). Or you think that there's not enough population, in which case: how is forcing more commanders on the map going to help? Do you think that having three random dorittos is going to attract more people into each map?

@Forty Keks.9620 said:-changing the underlying mechanics is exactly what i'm suggesting here.But it's a major change to produce a minor effect (random commander tags), rather than spending the same effort to attack root issues.

@Forty Keks.9620 said:-and lastly, skill balance? come on brah, anet doesn't know how to balance, the meta has been firebrand scourge blobs since PoF dropped.Which is among the reasons I don't think you get what I'm saying, brah. I'm pointing out that if we wait for ANet to change something, we'll be waiting a long time.

[bq pd.2148]

the game shouldnt force any amount of commanders.if you want people to run in smaller groups, reward smaller groups more.gw2 reward system is as long as you participate you get rewards, so a large group will allways be better.change the reward system in WvW to sharing rewards between all participants and you will see more smaller groups/solo and maybe some toxicity cause of 'leechers'.that sharing doesnt have to be linear but for example if you kill someone solo you get 7 bags, with 5 people you get 3 bags each , with 10 you get 2 bags each , with 20 you get 1 each and with 50 you got a 50% chance.
you might get more warscore in multiple smaller groups but you dont see rewards for warscore so there is no reason aside from fun to play in a smaller group.

[Scud.5067]

I voted Yes. The option looked lonely.

[Etheri.5406]

I'm not sure if you've actually ever played this game.

Many small groups works if you have organised guild groups or many established commanders. With pugs, most pugs just join whatever commander leads "best"... assuming you even have several players who want to tag up.

When it comes to PPT, having several groups that can hold their own and do their own thing is optimal. Even when fighting 70 man death blobs, having 2-3 guilds pushing them is insanely hard to deal with.

The moment you started talking about deploying siege through the map as "commander" rather than leading a charge I realised you're talking about some kind of sick PPT warfare and your idea of commanders is... kimberlite? If I could tell players what to do and they would just do it, then I'd lead a looooooooot more. The amount of commanders only decreases further, at least in EU. If you're going to wait until a server has 3 then I think most servers and maps will have none.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

Having a "minimum" amount of commanders would force people to command, who maybe doesnt want to on certain days, wish wouldnt be able to be enforced in any way/change/form

[Turkeyspit.3965]

I would just like to see friendly player positions across the entire map so I can link up rather than running solo and being Mesmer/Thief bait. A commander tag just makes it easier to find an allied group.