Guild Wars 2

can you change the system since commander title is readily available/obtainable through gold ?

before implementing = refund all the commander tags to the Players who bought it

if you want a gold sink: My idea:(you can suggest your own here)

through VOTING, and one vote is 10silver each, and you can vote for your favorite commander-electoral

requirements:

1. one vote costs 10 silver each playable character
(for the purpose of gold sink)
you can vote multiple times given that you have multiple characters
(maybe a limitation that would be seen here is creating multiple characters to get a vote)
(we can make a variable that at least LEVEL 20 Characters can only Vote)

1.1 any player who intends to run must pay a fee of 1 gold (still for the purpose of Gold sink, and for the purpose of not oversaturating the electoral race, the bad part is that what if 10000 players wants to run for the position)

- to combat this scenario a 3 day time frame to file for candidacy is inforced (maybe at this process thousands of players will file)

- 4th day, he/she must submit at least a 500 word speech in game (it is easily checked because we can have word count) (at this stage dedicated/intellectual/strategic players will be the one who will initiate this stage)

- 5th day, the first 50(fifty) candidates who completes the requirements are the one who is going to run. (first serve status)

2. the commander candidate must at least 2 weeks old in a server

3. the candidate must be in a guild for at least two weeks also
(hindsight the commander can switch between guilds he is affiliated with, but if there is a system that if he/she is the commanding arms, he/she cannot switch guilds until his post is relieved)

3.1 one guild member CAN only run for the post, no multiple representatives

4. like the previous games that I played, (and in real life) commanders can only take the post for a certain period of time

maybe 1 month is enough for leadership

5. after 3 weeks of leadership. filing candidacy will take on effect to prepare for the next commander

6. the previous commander can be re-elected, can re-run for the post.

7. in lieu of different time zones and limited play time of some commanders ( due to real life activities and what not, we can elect 10 commanders in one month, or 15 maybe plausible)

8. if the commander changes server permanently, his/her commander status is revoked, and in this scenario, a game announcement will be published through mail that a certain commander is out. and emergency elections will be carried out immidiately without the cost of 10 Silver

8.1 guesting commanders will have a different color tag and will have a dignitary previledge to lead PvE in other worlds.

9. since their power is bestowed upon by the majority, commanders will have 3 timed abilities to command its people

- he can send one mail to all its constituents to call for arms (cooldown time 45 minutes, so it will not be annoying)

- he can use mass party maybe 75 individuals players

- he can use emergency, to teleport all his party members to his location (for assault) (cooldown 30 min)

10. commander hall of fame UI. to track good/bad commanders, and its constituents can make a rating of the commanders (a track record for officials)

11. the developers can make a sub-forum to discuss past present and future commanders,

12. in game – we can view their speeches and intent to run the commander post (so we can gauge their competencies)

and after a month a new cycle will begin

any Amendments is greatly appreciated if it can make the rules clear enough

So that will work out like this..Big guild with their leader having a comm tag,Everyone votes him,asks friends to vote aswell etc etc,while he may not even be that good…Unknown commander 1,not many fiends but great view of mind and tactical viewpoint,get 1 vote but is alot better then the comm from the Huge guild.This wont work out for the best,like Every voting system doesn’t.

thats one of the limititation of a democracy, and the rule of the majority

thats why we have a commander UI ot track their records

as a responsible voter, you have the power to elect the commander you want,

and in reality (in the Philippines at least) Popularity will play a good role in the electoral race

and in USA, only 2 parties are involved? democrats and republicans, am i right?

since one of the Rules stated above we can have 10 commanders at a given time

Caedmon.6798:

So that will work out like this..Big guild with their leader having a comm tag,Everyone votes him,asks friends to vote aswell etc etc,while he may not even be that good…Unknown commander 1,not many fiends but great view of mind and tactical viewpoint,get 1 vote but is alot better then the comm from the Huge guild.This wont work out for the best,like Every voting system doesn’t.

and in lieu to your idea, that we may have a bad commander that was elected,

is it not prevalent in our current system that bad players are having a commander tag for the sole purpose of buying it, and some other reasons behind it.

and in regard to that statement, we can also name a few commanding officer that is good right now.

Yet with our curent system, pplayers who have plenty gold can access commander tag.

Section 6 statees that you can re elect commanders, it may be for a good reason, or a bad one.

section 1.1 states that any electorates must provide a speech so we can see their intent or whatsoever.

further statements imply that in the commander UI we can rate the commanders according to how good and bad they are

so in the end we can have an informed decision and consent on to WHO shall we vote for

I agree with you that the current commander system stinks because it’s based off of a gold purchase. However, I think Anet should scrap the entire system and replace it with the ranking system that they’ve already announced for the March update.

I understand your frustration, I feel it to…. but that suggestion could lead to issues.

Many commanders on the map are often just trying to coordinate multiple guild groups. If we had support for medium size forces (2-4 groups) then we’d see a reduction of “bad commander” pins on the map.

You could also have a minimal number of people that must be in a squad before someone can flag a commander pin. IE: Once 20 people are joined in a commanders squad he’s allowed to flag the pin. This way if we have a someone in WvW who has no idea what he’s doing then no one will join his squad, and he can’t put his pin up.

Either way they need more FREE support for multiple groups to coordinate in game without having a commander pin up.

Have minimum requirements like 200 hours in wvw plus X number of wins/loses and player defeats etc and allow voting in addition to reinforce popularity status of commander. Also show play records and other statistics of commanders when mousing over tag icon. Have a window interface to show all available commanders, their party size and location etc. Have a commander window that the commander can use to command the team. This window would have a mini-map with icons that can be placed for orders and be ping-able for general pinging. When the commander uses an icon on the mini-map a large representation of the icon would appear on his teams map and at the area of the game world where only his team (or server) would be able to see it, that way players can visually see it when they are in the area and also on their map. 100 player teams should suffice per commander. He/she would have a commander window with a roster of players on the team. The team would be split into four groups of twenty-five as a default group set (groups A,B,C,D with 25 possible players in each group) to capture each of the four different points. Commanders would be able to add more groups if needed,, up to ten total(still manageable number) groups of ten players per group (a,b,c,d,e,f…. with 10 per group as default). Each time another group is added, the maximum for the unfilled groups are reduced to balance out the total of 100 maximum player. Commanders will be able to adjust each party maximum size individually if needed too but when one party size is reduced another will increase to balance the numbers out. Parties can be renamed also and given different permissions (very much like the guild rank system except for field battle purpose uses though). Example of Team: Team A (Castle Zerg Team) (28/40), Team B (Keep Zerg Team) (23/30), Team C (Tower Zerg Team) (10/15), Team D (Resource Camp Zerg Team) (6/15). Example 2: Team A (Big Zerg Team) (76/90), Team B (Scouts) (5/5), Team C (4/5). Minimum of five-limit per team sounds reasonable. A sub-Commander can also be assign for each team to manage that team separately. Commanders would either have a roster of all players or just the numbers…Each player would have this roster also to help coordinate team etc. When in a commander team, the commanders portrait would show on the top left side and each group sub-commander would appear underneath that, so a total of 1 commander + 9 sub-commanders would appear total. five on the left side and five on the right side of the screen. Commanders and sub commanders would be able to chat with all team members through their chat bubbles when they sent a all-chat message. They could also send a message to individual parties or only their own party through a sub-commander chat selection check box thing or something of that sort. First players in each sub-team party would be the default sub-commander but would be able to hand their position over to another player if they’d like at any point without having to leave and rejoin the team. Commanders do not need to interfere with each sub-team, he/she just needs to organize the numbers for each group. If a commander leaves the whole team, the team still remains intact but commander-less and non-number changing etc until the first sub-commander adds a new commander. Sub-commanders can also kick out a main commander if their is a majority or unanimous vote by the sub-commander to kick him/her out. This way large groups can still stay intact if there are problems with the commander.