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

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> 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.

 

I understand. However, there are many that don't want someone joining them. Commanders and roamers alike.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> 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.

 

This is a community problem. You could *easily* have 5 tags on a map. It doesnt matter. Every little party could be tagged if they wanted.

 

But no, the community has decided that only guilds are allowed to tag outside of that one pug commander that has to be a minstrel firebrand or he should tag off. Most seem to argue that a border without a tag is better than a border with multiple tags, if there is no blue zerg tag.

 

No way to solve that. People feel they are entitled to join a blue tag, so they push aside the rest. Thats why people dont tag up. I sometimes *try* to tag out of pure courtesy when I roam and stop to take a tower, instantly you got people joining with their zerg builds expecting you to start zerging and demand class switching. Needless to say, the tag is momentary. I never tag blue.

 

I find the suggestion of forcing commanders laughable.

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > 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.

>

> This is a community problem. You could *easily* have 5 tags on a map. It doesnt matter. Every little party could be tagged if they wanted.

>

> But no, the community has decided that only guilds are allowed to tag outside of that one pug commander that has to be a minstrel firebrand or he should tag off. Most seem to argue that a border without a tag is better than a border with multiple tags, if there is no blue zerg tag.

>

> No way to solve that. People feel they are entitled to join a blue tag, so they push aside the rest. Thats why people dont tag up. I sometimes *try* to tag out of pure courtesy when I roam and stop to take a tower, instantly you got people joining with their zerg builds expecting you to start zerging and demand class switching. Needless to say, the tag is momentary. I never tag blue.

>

> I find the suggestion of forcing commanders laughable.

 

The community has decided that they can do whatever they want on "zergs". I tag up on my minstrel firebrand, discord ready to go break open the T3 keep and... oh whelp, I have 50 players "roaming" around me, more thieves and rangers than firebrands and a total of 9 players on TS despite having 50+ in my vicinity. Most refuse to listen to a word you say, yet if something is under attack they'll be the first to tell you that you must defend it. If you wipe twice they'll tell you to stop pushing, maybe build some acs and wait in a tower but they still won't stay alive longer than 15 seconds into an even numbered fight. Not sure where they get the audacity to join you, not do a word you say yet still dare tell you what to do.

 

I agree the suggestion is laughable; but it goes both ways. Most players are clueless pugs flocking to commanders without giving a shit about them; so we run most of our squads without tags at all. Save WvW, say no to entitled pugs!

[Arioch.6507]

> @"Scud.5067" said:

> I voted Yes. The option looked lonely.

 

same

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > 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.

>

> I understand. However, there are many that don't want someone joining them. Commanders and roamers alike.

 

I can understand a small roaming group wanting to be exclusive, especially if they are using comms and coordinating things like steath cooldowns.

 

But for zergs? That argument is a non-starter. Exactly what negative impact would result in my joining the squad, even if I had no clue how to WvW? The only argument I could accept would be I'd be taking a slot from someone else, but am I supposed to believe that every single available player slot on a WvW map is being occupied by a cutting edge WvW player with mad skillz, and by taking their spot, I'm diminishing the effectiveness of the squad? The 4-5 people sitting afk at the base camp would disagree strongly with that sentiment.

 

If I want in on your squad, I'm obviously not afk.

I do know, at least somewhat, how to WvW, and run a WvW focused spec + gear set.

And I am on the same server / linked server - which means we're all on the same team.

 

So as a newer GW2 player and semi-casual WvW'er, I invite the collective WvW community who "don't want someone joining them", to remove the stick out of their respective behinds.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > I understand. However, there are many that don't want someone joining them. Commanders and roamers alike.

>

> I can understand a small roaming group wanting to be exclusive, especially if they are using comms and coordinating things like steath cooldowns.

>

> But for zergs? That argument is a non-starter. Exactly what negative impact would result in my joining the squad, even if I had no clue how to WvW? The only argument I could accept would be I'd be taking a slot from someone else, but am I supposed to believe that every single available player slot on a WvW map is being occupied by a cutting edge WvW player with mad skillz, and by taking their spot, I'm diminishing the effectiveness of the squad? The 4-5 people sitting afk at the base camp would disagree strongly with that sentiment.

>

> If I want in on your squad, I'm obviously not afk.

> I do know, at least somewhat, how to WvW, and run a WvW focused spec + gear set.

> And I am on the same server / linked server - which means we're all on the same team.

>

> So as a newer GW2 player and semi-casual WvW'er, I invite the collective WvW community who "don't want someone joining them", to remove the stick out of their respective behinds.

>

 

This has been covered Ad Nauseum in the forums.

- most closed will allow you in if you run a class and build they can use

- Guild groups of 15-30 don't want more on them because of the challenge.

- If someone doesn't get in TS, (or discord) they aren't helping.

 

You can choose to disagree, but it most definately isn't a non starter.

 

If you meet criteria 1 & 3 above and the group doesn't meet criteria 2, then you need to ask them.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > I understand. However, there are many that don't want someone joining them. Commanders and roamers alike.

> >

> > I can understand a small roaming group wanting to be exclusive, especially if they are using comms and coordinating things like steath cooldowns.

> >

> > But for zergs? That argument is a non-starter. Exactly what negative impact would result in my joining the squad, even if I had no clue how to WvW? The only argument I could accept would be I'd be taking a slot from someone else, but am I supposed to believe that every single available player slot on a WvW map is being occupied by a cutting edge WvW player with mad skillz, and by taking their spot, I'm diminishing the effectiveness of the squad? The 4-5 people sitting afk at the base camp would disagree strongly with that sentiment.

> >

> > If I want in on your squad, I'm obviously not afk.

> > I do know, at least somewhat, how to WvW, and run a WvW focused spec + gear set.

> > And I am on the same server / linked server - which means we're all on the same team.

> >

> > So as a newer GW2 player and semi-casual WvW'er, I invite the collective WvW community who "don't want someone joining them", to remove the stick out of their respective behinds.

> >

>

> This has been covered Ad Nauseum in the forums.

> - most closed will allow you in if you run a class and build they can use

> - Guild groups of 15-30 don't want more on them because of the challenge.

> - If someone doesn't get in TS, (or discord) they aren't helping.

>

> You can choose to disagree, but it most definately isn't a non starter.

>

> If you meet criteria 1 & 3 above and the group doesn't meet criteria 2, then you need to ask them.

 

Well, for a topic that has bene covered Ad Nauseum, it appears that nobody has picked up on the obvious reality that there is nothing stopping a player from following RIGHT BESIDE the roaming group / or zerg. There is no vote to kick in WvW. So if I choose to follow a roaming group / zerg playing Power Soulbeast with a Shortbow + dagger/torch wearing no armor, being unable to count to 15 or 30, and without discord set up, nobody can stop me.

 

"most closed will allow you in if you run a class and build they can use ".

This isn't an ARPG like Diablo where the more people in the party, the harder the enemy mobs become. I get the desire for synergy in a group comp, but you cannot argue, in any way, that a +1 to the group is a bad thing.

 

"Guild groups of 15-30 don't want more on them because of the challenge."

lol, ok. Map chat is a constant barrage of whines about PPT tryhards and pve trash, so yeah, adding more players to a group will diminish the 'challenge'.

 

"If someone doesn't get in TS, (or discord) they aren't helping."

Hard to get into TS when people are excluded from a group because they aren't in the guild or don't play a "class" that is desired.

 

And yet, the forums are full of posts about WvW being dead, realms that were full pop are now 'open', and everyone lamenting about glory days, when new players enter Gw2 on a daily basis, only to be treated as you described.

 

I'd say that qualifies as a non-starter, as the argument not only doesn't solve the issues of WvW, but it instead feeds them.

 

I mean really, I don't care all that much, as I don't take WvW as seriously as the people you are describing. But they are the ones complaining, and I'm the one having fun. Hmm, maybe it is better if they exclude me lol.

[Strider Pj.2193]

Run along beside them then.

 

If someone starts a squad, it is their choice who to allow in. They purchased the tag to start it, whether it's actively displayed or not.

 

I honestly don't have a dog in the fight. I have a tag and don't tag up for reasons.

 

The +1 thing? So there it is. If you are unable or unwilling to run a build they want, then you aren't going to be able to join them.

 

C'est La Vie.

 

Also? Non starter? Is there an argument that has ensued? :smile:

[Etheri.5406]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > > > 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.

> > > >

> > > > I understand. However, there are many that don't want someone joining them. Commanders and roamers alike.

> > >

> > > I can understand a small roaming group wanting to be exclusive, especially if they are using comms and coordinating things like steath cooldowns.

> > >

> > > But for zergs? That argument is a non-starter. Exactly what negative impact would result in my joining the squad, even if I had no clue how to WvW? The only argument I could accept would be I'd be taking a slot from someone else, but am I supposed to believe that every single available player slot on a WvW map is being occupied by a cutting edge WvW player with mad skillz, and by taking their spot, I'm diminishing the effectiveness of the squad? The 4-5 people sitting afk at the base camp would disagree strongly with that sentiment.

> > >

> > > If I want in on your squad, I'm obviously not afk.

> > > I do know, at least somewhat, how to WvW, and run a WvW focused spec + gear set.

> > > And I am on the same server / linked server - which means we're all on the same team.

> > >

> > > So as a newer GW2 player and semi-casual WvW'er, I invite the collective WvW community who "don't want someone joining them", to remove the stick out of their respective behinds.

> > >

> >

> > This has been covered Ad Nauseum in the forums.

> > - most closed will allow you in if you run a class and build they can use

> > - Guild groups of 15-30 don't want more on them because of the challenge.

> > - If someone doesn't get in TS, (or discord) they aren't helping.

> >

> > You can choose to disagree, but it most definately isn't a non starter.

> >

> > If you meet criteria 1 & 3 above and the group doesn't meet criteria 2, then you need to ask them.

>

> Well, for a topic that has bene covered Ad Nauseum, it appears that nobody has picked up on the obvious reality that there is nothing stopping a player from following RIGHT BESIDE the roaming group / or zerg. There is no vote to kick in WvW. So if I choose to follow a roaming group / zerg playing Power Soulbeast with a Shortbow + dagger/torch wearing no armor, being unable to count to 15 or 30, and without discord set up, nobody can stop me.

>

> "most closed will allow you in if you run a class and build they can use ".

> This isn't an ARPG like Diablo where the more people in the party, the harder the enemy mobs become. I get the desire for synergy in a group comp, but you cannot argue, in any way, that a +1 to the group is a bad thing.

>

> "Guild groups of 15-30 don't want more on them because of the challenge."

> lol, ok. Map chat is a constant barrage of whines about PPT tryhards and pve trash, so yeah, adding more players to a group will diminish the 'challenge'.

>

> "If someone doesn't get in TS, (or discord) they aren't helping."

> Hard to get into TS when people are excluded from a group because they aren't in the guild or don't play a "class" that is desired.

>

> And yet, the forums are full of posts about WvW being dead, realms that were full pop are now 'open', and everyone lamenting about glory days, when new players enter Gw2 on a daily basis, only to be treated as you described.

>

> I'd say that qualifies as a non-starter, as the argument not only doesn't solve the issues of WvW, but it instead feeds them.

>

> I mean really, I don't care all that much, as I don't take WvW as seriously as the people you are describing. But they are the ones complaining, and I'm the one having fun. Hmm, maybe it is better if they exclude me lol.

 

You have the right to run outside of the squad besides me, and I have the right to drag my zerg back and forth through the damage just to get rid of these players too.

Just like I have the right to hide my squad, port around the maps and avoid you the best I can. And the right to kick you from any and every zerg I am lieut or commander of... Which is most of them on my server.

 

People are not necessarily "useful". I'd say 1/5th of the players on EU are so bad you're better off without them. Extra players do take up resources such as resses, boons and heals and often give very little or nothing in return. I've seen players manage literally no damage on alive players on DPS classes. When epi was a thing, bringing ranger was by default NEGATIVE impact for your group if the enemy could press the magic epi button. Only carebears think "everyone is useful !!!!" no you're not.

 

Now, if there was a small amount of players just doing their thing nobody would care. That's not reality. Reality is 80-90% of players doing random trash. As a result, quite a few veteran commandres have completely given up on leading these monkaS and plain don't. You're not the first entitled casual who's incredibly upset about "the right" to join whatever zerg they want; but we've gotten pretty damn good at getting rid of them.

 

Without squad, I wish you the best of luck surviving "next to the zerg". You'll be in spawn more often than you'd like to admit. Which of course is entirely fair; if you were roaming you'd be in spawn too.

[Kaiser.9873]

I voted no simply because I despise rules that heavily restrict how someone plays a game/

 

That being said, I had much more fun when there were multiple tags on map running 15-25. The fights seemed more fun, and if you died you knew why, and likely saw the player that killed you. My server refuses to run one tag map queue most of the time, and often that puts us at a disadvantage.

[shiri.4257]

This dude prolly thinks he should be Eisenhower and Patton et al should follow underneath his superb wvw prowess.

[Ubi.4136]

I answered no already, but it got me thinking. I have essential tremors, which means some days my hands shake more than others making playing hard.

On those days, does the OP really want me to tag up so I have 15-25 people on me doing what I do those days?

 

we are blue this week:

Me to squad: ok guys, hands are pretty shaky today, we're gonna reflip Umber and Dane when they flip, respond to swords at those if we aren't aren't really in to the movie I'm watching, same with Lang and Brav sentry, and run yaks if we need to reset our participation timer

squad: what else are we gonna do

Me to squad: tick siege folks, we may need it later

 

It just seems like a bad idea for Anet to "force" this on anyone.

 

 

[Iozeph.5617]

It's not a question of commanders as forcing players to tag up isn't going to solve issues of coverage disparity across time zones. Plenty of people are willing to tag on the server match-up where I'm at but when you find that your pairing is outnumbered, often in your own borderland, to the point that the enemy has the resources to have a superior blob as well as several smaller havoc squads to take nearly everything in quick succession. And this goes again for EBG at the same time. Well, having the dorito just means that you're all together when they trounce you.

 

What we need are more breakout solutions, especially in our home borderlands, which allow us to have more NPC assistance events. Whether that's a way to work toward an airstrike on Stonemist sent from Overlook, Lowlands, or Valley to break open its walls. Or whether it's a way to do the same from the respective home borderland Citadels when everything at the farther reaches, including Garrison, has been lost. Something more needs to be done to facilitate movement in drastically uneven matchups. I don;t believe the world reorganising alone will do this as it's only a matter of time before players figure out how to abuse the alliance system.

 

For home borderlands it could be as simple as having the supply dumps in Citadel refilled so long as the nearest supply depots are held by the home team. Or having the old non-assailable siege spots restored to the east and west of each home alpine borderland's respective citadels so that players are able to at least take those towers nearest to the citadel in order to gain back some momentum.

 

For EBG having a doomsday weapon at the staging areas that would allow players to forward observe for a massive, wall-busting artillery strike on selected objectives.

 

In general there could be a scripted tie-in to the troubles in Maguuma with a leyline-associated portal malfunction event which, rather than a simple 'outnumbered' buff would dynamically track portal traffic per player in the respective battlegrounds and weigh the extent to which a borderland's owners are outnumbered. This so that if one extremely dominant realm flocks to one realm's borderland then suddenly collectively tries to take its mega blob to another borderland their portal use goes offline. They find themselves stranded in-theatre while the outnumbered realms are then given a short grace period of free travel during which they're able to travel to either EBG or the mega blob server's borderland to create havoc and flip objectives until their portals reopen a short time later. Something to help get the rubbish out of one's home border land when even the tag and the lion's share of the players from your own side would rather stay in EBG and not send help(this is frustrating beyond belief for defenders)

 

Perhaps neither of these is a perfect solution but this way, at least, there might not be such a general feeling of hopelessness during off hours leading to even less coverage than before where players begin logging out in disgust.

[XenesisII.1540]

If you manage to find a way to have 1 player commander on every map at all times, you get my vote.

[Djamonja.6453]

What are you going to do, force people to tag up by having the game stick a tag on their head? The poll makes no sense.