Option to Set Commander Tag to Guild-only

[ArchonWing.9480]

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.7560]

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

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"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.4136]

> @"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.

[Shagaliscious.6281]

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.2193]

> @"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.

[Israel.7056]

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.1093]

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.

[Kraag Deadsoul.2789]

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.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"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).

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"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

[Shagaliscious.6281]

> @"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.5290]

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.8967]

> @"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.

[Yamato Shinobi.4378]

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.