Guild Wars 2

Aye.8392:

Ahmrill.7512:

We often run guild only forces, but occasionally invite non-guild members for multiple group havoc forces. People shouldn’t be forced to leave a guild and join yours, just so they can run under your pin. Making a private option allows for guild only, or guild with some friends. If players enjoy running smaller size forces consisting of a few groups, it shouldn’t exclude non- guild members.

Agree with this to an extent — I’d like to see it where people who are members of your guild, even if not currently representing, can see the tag and join the squad.

It could be guild tag, so that every guildien in map (representing or not?) could see it automaticly. ( I would supose that if you are in same guild as commander, atleast some level you want to play with him) Guild tag could have option to invite non guildies to squad so that they see the tag.

That way we would get guild tag with option to invite non guildies to squad→closed squad. Or is there someone saying that you don’t want to show your commander tag to your guildies? :P

All I want is a commander tag only visible to a guild. If you’re a member of that guild you can see the tag. If you’re not…you can’t.

If you made that one addition I’d be happy with it.

DevonCarver.5370:

Perhaps the largest question I still have, how would everyone feel if the only changes to commander were the smaller scale ones? The other stuff is super interesting and has a lot of promise, but is also a major task and one I can’t make any guarantees about. I suppose the crux of the question is how priority is the rest of the stuff, if the smaller bits are taken care of? Would the commander system be functional enough with more markers, guild only tags, less suppression, better supplyinfo, and possibly additional marker shapes?

Why do anything if it’s not going to be the best? This Collaborative Development Initiative is supposed to not only make players happy but help GW2 go down in history as one of the best games.

6 months from now I would like to see the minor changes we’ve talked about but long-term I would like to see the ideas that have promise go into the game. I fully expect major projects to spring from this initiative, in fact, I thought it was the point.

DevonCarver.5370:

I have a couple of other things I’d like to mention. I don’t think we’d want to focus the commander on the guild system. It could be that I’m wrong about that, but it feels restricting to say you can’t be a commander, or a full-fledged one, unless you are in a guild of a certain size. How would people feel if, instead, there were some additional unlocks you could get as a guild commander that only displayed to people in your guild? Maybe if you are in guild only mode on your tag you have some additional tools?

YES! This absolutely should be in addition to the regular commander option, but I would love it if I could set a rank permission to allow somebody to become a guild commander.

My guild generally has about 5-10 people in WvW each evening. It’s great if we have 5, we can party up and everybody knows where everybody is. 9 or 10 is ok too as that’s two full groups, but when we have 6 or 7 is where it gets a bit awkward. We can, and do, split into more even groups, but it’s a hassle. Having a commander tag only seen by the guild could help immensely.

a guild members only mode would be good for being able to do events with only your guild members, and to show this as different, the guilds symbol could be used for the icon.

Julenal.3907:

Aye.8392:

Ahmrill.7512:

We often run guild only forces, but occasionally invite non-guild members for multiple group havoc forces. People shouldn’t be forced to leave a guild and join yours, just so they can run under your pin. Making a private option allows for guild only, or guild with some friends. If players enjoy running smaller size forces consisting of a few groups, it shouldn’t exclude non- guild members.

Agree with this to an extent — I’d like to see it where people who are members of your guild, even if not currently representing, can see the tag and join the squad.

It could be guild tag, so that every guildien in map (representing or not?) could see it automaticly. ( I would supose that if you are in same guild as commander, atleast some level you want to play with him) Guild tag could have option to invite non guildies to squad so that they see the tag.

That way we would get guild tag with option to invite non guildies to squad->closed squad. Or is there someone saying that you don’t want to show your commander tag to your guildies? :P

What I’m really trying to say is we simply need two options for commander and squad…. either toggle PUBLIC or PRIVATE.

Public Commander Pin: As it is currently, everyone can see the commander pin on the map and everyone can join it.

Private Commander Pin: Only those people currently in the squad can see the commander’s pin on the map. This could then be made for guild only, or guild & friends. This gives players more flexibility to create forces the way that works best for each guild and player style.

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

Thanks for all the answers might be hard for me to answer everyone but I’m up for a bit any questions I could answer?

Question then for you or Devon.

What is your definition or idea of Guild Commander?

- Can anyone see a guild commander pin on the map or only guild members?
- Can people in the guild squad see the public commanders pin on the map?
- Are we able to invite friends or members of alliance guilds to the guild commanders pin for specific events or are they out of luck?

I’m a little confused as to what the devs idea is vs the players idea? I think the players are looking for a closed/private system to create small or medium size forces. We want to do this without taking players away from a public commander, but still have the flexibility to create private forces the way that works best for us.

Hickeroar.9734:

All I want is a commander tag only visible to a guild. If you’re a member of that guild you can see the tag. If you’re not…you can’t.

If you made that one addition I’d be happy with it.

That’s better than what we have, but it’s still too limiting. I’d prefer to see a “private” squad over a “guild only” squad. A “private” squad could be made only for your guild, or it could be made for any other possible scenario players have.

Why exclude players that aren’t in a guild or old school players who like to represent just one guild? If they don’t like to zerg they don’t have the option to join a private havoc squad. More flexibility is better.

DevonCarver.5370:

It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

Nothing I said indicated I expected these changes next month, in fact I suggested seeing the minor changes in 6 months. I’m not sure what your turn around is but I do remember a Dev mentioning that resources are already allocated out to projects for the next 4 months.

I’m sorry if you read it as a demand, I was trying to answer your question about priority.

I fully understand that if an idea is not promising, or cannot fit into the infrastructure of the game it will not happen. However, if it can, why not? Not tomorrow obviously, I do not even expect major changes to be made in 2014. This is a great game and I have high expectations as to where it can go, and I completely understand that it will take a lot of time to realize those expectations.

i would love to see an ability for commanders to paint on the map similiar to the (left shift +left mouse) but with permanent paintings for the squad. That way commander would get free hands to make battle plans quite fast and easily /and it would be quite easy for squad members to read. But ofc every coin has its flip side and some commanders would just focus on painting the whole map with beatiful flowers… but then again not sure if you want to be in such commanders squad;P

@Devon: Maybe we should split the ideas and concepts up into few sections:
* Short-term realiseable stuff (in order to reduce urgent “pain”)
* Long-term ideas which may seem realistic
* Long-term wish-list (you know, the big default pile)

As an example for short-term ideas:
* Commander simply gets a buff which shows the amount of supps: a) around him b) in his squad on a 5 or 10 second tick timer – reduces the uncertainity of supply amount
* The simple coloring of commander icons (fixed preset of colors), I’m sure communities will find a way to arrange them at first with the few colors and what meaning they have in different contexts.

As Devon said the resources are finite. The more we encourage Arenanet to put more resources on a deep going overhaul of the commander system the resources will be available for other issues we are facing in WvW. The risk is high then that other projects would be set on halt for a long time. Do we want this? Maybe the smaller changes are enough for the moment. This would keep resources free for other important solutions of different issues. I think we have to weight carefully the different issues.

DevonCarver.5370:

Chidori.9483:

I fully expect major projects to spring from this initiative, in fact, I thought it was the point.

The point of this initiative is not to create major projects but to discuss the basic principles behind the design of our game with you all. That can mean explaining why we didn’t do something one way or explaining why we did do it a certain way. It also means that through that discussion we get a better sense of the best versions of many of the things we intend to work on at some point or ideas for changes that can be made to existing parts of the game. It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

Would you please explain the state of the commander system at launch? I am genuinely curios, not trying to be snarky. I am curious was it realized before the game went live that the command system would be as rough as it has shown to be? Was it a matter of time constraints to get other systems polished and it was deemed low priority at the time? Or with internal testing was the ultra competitive nature of a live community not there to expose the limitations of the current system, that the very nature of commanders to get every last piece of siege they can up has exposed the rough edges?

I am also sure you would agree that most of the wish list expanded functions for commanders that go beyond simple functionality mostly arrived after you asked if we would care for a complete overhaul. The nature of these also vary wildly because of it. It does seem most of us agree on core functions. Perhaps before this thread closes you could include a quick request for us to review the ideas in this thread so far and in as brief a post as possible list what we consider to be needed for a core system, what would be nice and which ideas we would not want to see?

Keep up the great work Devon. Thank you and Izzy both for being so vocal and patient in this subject

DevonCarver.5370:

The point of this initiative is not to create major projects but to discuss the basic principles behind the design of our game with you all. That can mean explaining why we didn’t do something one way or explaining why we did do it a certain way. It also means that through that discussion we get a better sense of the best versions of many of the things we intend to work on at some point or ideas for changes that can be made to existing parts of the game. It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

Heehee. The onus falls to us the posters to come up with something so awesome that the Devs feel they MUST act on it . As happy as I am with some of the ideas put forward, I don’t think we’ve seen that magic, transformative concept yet.

I suspect some of the ideas about new colors and shapes have resonated with the Devs. Its one of those simple but also powerful ideas. But I think the degree to which players view the existence of PvE and WvW tags as separate things may have been a bit of a shock to the Devs.

I’m wondering if we can improve upon the current arrangement by leaving the 100g commander books in place, but also selling the same basic commander books for X Badges of Honor and Y Guild Commendations (with X being around 1,000 and Y around 100 just eyeballing it). Keep the unified mechanical bundle, but make it more accessible to people who are already doing the types of content it’s most used for.

Chidori.9483:

DevonCarver.5370:

It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

Nothing I said indicated I expected these changes next month, in fact I suggested seeing the minor changes in 6 months. I’m not sure what your turn around is but I do remember a Dev mentioning that resources are already allocated out to projects for the next 4 months.

I’m sorry if you read it as a demand, I was trying to answer your question about priority.

I fully understand that if an idea is not promising, or cannot fit into the infrastructure of the game it will not happen. However, if it can, why not? Not tomorrow obviously, I do not even expect major changes to be made in 2014. This is a great game and I have high expectations as to where it can go, and I completely understand that it will take a lot of time to realize those expectations.

I think Devon was replying specifically to your “I fully expect..” statement. I believe that the point was to temper player expectations. And while you may not have indicated a demand like “I want this now!” a few other posters have indicated feelings similar to that statement. Others have said things like “these [insert topic here] should have been there day 1!” or " I can’t believe an MMO wouldn’t have [insert topic here]!" or “We have waited a year for changes!”, etc. Those aren’t strictly demands either, but they are semi-antagonistic and rather unhelpful in fostering productive discussion.

We have a great opportunity to offer ideas and suggestions, but even Chris mentioned multiple times that not all ideas are feasible or fit within the pillars. But even bad ideas should be heard because it could prompt internal brainstorming.

There should be a way to upgrade your commander tag to high commander. Maybe for 2500 honor badges, 100 laurels, 100 guild commendations and 1m karma. It would give additional perks like permanently removing the despawn timer of a weapon, destroying ill placed siege or temporarily (like 1 hour) prevent griefers take supplies from a keep or tower.

Hokie.1045:

I think you have it wrong. Should be more along the lines of: Commander System passes from ‘horrid’ to ‘acceptable’. I believe it’s understood that this system will always be able to improve and some sort of attention will always be placed on it. I believe this then goes back to long term vs short term changes. From my interpretations of your posts, your saying you’d like a big change to come much further into the future. I don’t agree with you in this sense and feel quick changes which can be released faster are better, because, believe it or not, WvW is still being played everyday.

To me WvW works and is playable and fun right now. Naturally it can be better, but the broader context is I’d like to see Commander System changes hit one out of the park so hard that when people inevitably wander off to try out the next generation of MMOs, I want them thinking “Why am I messing with this trash when I could be in Guild Wars 2 right now doing some WvW?” Guild Wars 2 has set some standards for the industry as a whole. I notice things cribbed from it making LotRO’s PvE experience better all the time. I don’t see WvW having had that level of impact, yet.

Shapes and colors for tags is a great thing – though I think people have seriously overlooked the interface demands for managing that expanded functionality. Its gonna probably have to be a huge extension to the finishers sub-page about doubling its current size with clicky-choices. You could put it on its own sub-page but they’re already getting pretty saturated with icons along the left side of the hero panel…

I love evolutionary refinement of systems. Sincerely. But is shapes and colors the ‘killer app’ that’s going to seize the Stomemist Castle-like center of attention of WvW players and make them think that GW2’s endgame is a over a year better instead of over a year old as the new competitors hit?

I really wish we were seeing some more ‘dream big’ suggestions.

Stuff the Devs haven’t thought of yet. Stuff nobody has thought of yet.

WvW’s killer app .

Tons of suggestions in this thread. May have been mentioned before, but if we’re going down the route of a squad interface (needed IMHO), then let’s try and keep it as simple as possible. Obviously this would list all players in your squad (if you have to limit squad size to avoid making the UI too large that’s fine. I’d say a limit of 30 is perfect). Frankly, just 3 things would be important to me:

1. Player’s supply count (with a total for all players at the bottom)
2. Player’s profession
3. Player’s current health (important so commanders know when waterfields are needed for the whole group, not just their own party.)

Boons/conditions by player would clutter the interface and are totally not needed.

Nice to haves for the squad system would be squad wide ability to draw on the map (like parties), and squad wide dots on the map (like those blue dots for parties). I can delegate individuals to different tasks, and know where they are on the map. (E.G do I have scout coverage of keeps/towers? Where’s my roaming group?)

Malediktus.9250:

There should be a way to upgrade your commander tag to high commander. Maybe for 2500 honor badges, 100 laurels, 100 guild commendations and 1m karma. It would give additional perks like permanently removing the despawn timer of a weapon, destroying ill placed siege or temporarily (like 1 hour) prevent griefers take supplies from a keep or tower.

Would trolltolly troll such a system.

Having the raid leader system from WoW would be amazing for both WvW and PvE. Being able to have up to a 40 man raid group with frames, raid text and raid warning popups would be a hugely better experience.

Although, one thing I ironically do love about GW2 is that Anet has really tried to make the game as open and inclusive as possible by not having stuff like that.

havoc.6814:

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

My point wasn’t that we don’t want large fights we love large fights but we want a mix of large and small fights, different tactics and tools for players to use to approach any battle or situation. I think the commander tool could help solve these problems in all situations.

This.

There are some really bad ideas in this thread. Everybody seems to want the commanders to have a great increase in functionality, even to the point of some ridiculous requests for better rewards for being in his squad and following like a good drone. This will not end well.

WvWvW used to have such incredible depth. You could always zerg, surely, but you could also roam, scout, join a havoc squad, defend, whatever. While most of those things are still possible, they are on the decline. Roaming or being in a small squad is a death sentence the minute a zerg steamrolls the area. There is no real reward in WvWvW for skill, just for following the tag like a mindless drone. WvWvW has already turned into a mindless champion train farm like that in Frostgorge Sound.

The zerg has turned into a blob, and WvWvW has turned into Blob vs Blob vs Blob. There are fewer defenders, roamers and havoc squads than ever before. Anybody doing any of thes things will be screamed at for not following the commander. We’ve all seen the rage in team chat at those who dare to do their own thing. The depth of the game has been lost in a great part due to the blob, and the commander is what creates the blob.

The blob does not refresh siege, build defensive siege, or upgrade towers. The blob even makes most of those defensive upgrades pointless. It does not hunt for mesmers in captured towers and keeps. Those individuals who do this will be left by the blob to a certain death as they later try to make it back. The blob is a karma and loot train which only moves from point to point capturing towers and camps and keeps in an endless cycle. The blob rewards mindless conformity rather than rewarding skill and individuality. The blob allows the casual pve’er to get greater rewards than the hardcore wvw’er who does care about the depth of the game and will defend, roam, and refresh siege.

Commanding today is all about personal glory and the desire to stroke ones ego. What is truly missing in every commander I have seen is the most common and sought after trait in real world commanders: responsibility.

I would like to see the commander system reworked to reward responsibility, and punish the lack thereof. Rewards should be given for doing responsible things, like refreshing or building defensive siege. The commander system should support the creation of multiple groups as opposed to a single blob. The karma and loot train should not be rewarded for destroying the depth that was WvWvW.

My suggestions for doing this:

• Limit the credit for taking objectives to a set number of people – not just everybody in the circle. call it a max of 10 people for a camp, 20 for a tower, and 30 for a keep. Have inclusion in the reward be either random or based upon skill usage during the taking of the objective. This way a zerg of 80 people means that a majority won’t be rewarded for being mindless drones. That will encourage them to stop being such, to do something productive. This will preserve the integrity and the depth of the game rather than destroying it.

• Make blueprints account only and raise their price. Making them trade-able was a serious mistake which basically made them a non-factor in the game. Throwing down siege should mean something. It should represent a commitment to take or defend an objective. Established defensive siege should hurt if it is allowed to disappear due to neglect. Armies of dozens of Omega Golems should simply not exist.

• Allow commanders to assign Lieutenants and give them a temporary smaller tag, color coded to represent their assigned activities. This allows a commander to break up a blob into useful components to bring some of the strategy back into the game.

• Add a seperate communication channel and seperate markers for commanders to communicate with lieutenants

• Include squad functionality for lieutenants.

Honestly, there is so much promise in this game mode, that it would be an utter shame to have it reduced further into the karma train mentality that it is quickly becoming.

Great post. Unfortunately, just about every change to WvW since launch has degraded it from that vision, and I sincerely doubt that anyone at ANet associated with WvW has the same perspective of what it could and should be as you (and I) do.

brittitude.1983:

Chidori.9483:

DevonCarver.5370:

It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

Nothing I said indicated I expected these changes next month, in fact I suggested seeing the minor changes in 6 months. I’m not sure what your turn around is but I do remember a Dev mentioning that resources are already allocated out to projects for the next 4 months.

I’m sorry if you read it as a demand, I was trying to answer your question about priority.

I fully understand that if an idea is not promising, or cannot fit into the infrastructure of the game it will not happen. However, if it can, why not? Not tomorrow obviously, I do not even expect major changes to be made in 2014. This is a great game and I have high expectations as to where it can go, and I completely understand that it will take a lot of time to realize those expectations.

I think Devon was replying specifically to your “I fully expect..” statement. I believe that the point was to temper player expectations. And while you may not have indicated a demand like “I want this now!” a few other posters have indicated feelings similar to that statement. Others have said things like “these [insert topic here] should have been there day 1!” or " I can’t believe an MMO wouldn’t have [insert topic here]!" or “We have waited a year for changes!”, etc. Those aren’t strictly demands either, but they are semi-antagonistic and rather unhelpful in fostering productive discussion.

We have a great opportunity to offer ideas and suggestions, but even Chris mentioned multiple times that not all ideas are feasible or fit within the pillars. But even bad ideas should be heard because it could prompt internal brainstorming.

LOL. Just about every statement Devon has ever made on these forums has tempered my expectations of when and if any improvement of note will ever happen for WvW. I think he has been completely successful in that regard.

DevonCarver.5370:

Would the commander system be functional enough with more markers, guild only tags, less suppression, better supplyinfo, and possibly additional marker shapes?

I never felt a need for more markers, as nobody ever seems to really join the squad, and markers placed before they joined are not visible to them. That could be fixed I guess to make them a bit more useful (or perhaps it already has been fixed, haven’t checked in the longest time now).

But guild only tags, yes! Please look into making this happen. What guilds tends to do right now is to mark their “commander” (Ctrl+T), which takes away a rather important ability otherwise for trying to co-ordinate focus-kills in massive fights. If we lose track of our “commander”, that can be certain death. Having a guild only tag would really help change how smaller scale (20-25 or less) groups can fight the “blob” (50+).

I never ran into a suppression problem. I don’t spam the same commands over and over, I mix up my messages if any. A lot of servers runs community-TeamSpeak servers anyways, to co-ordinate through voice rather than text.

As for better /supplyinfo, another yes! Sorely needed. The radius is way too small to be efficient. If you just increased the range to about 3000 or so, that’d alleviate a lot of shortcomings with this command. Better yet, if it could work only for guildies in perhaps an even larger radius when used in combination with a guild only mode, that’d be like receiving a kiss from Dwayna.

More marker shapes I can’t say that I feel much need for myself. Same reasons as I listed above. I don’t really use markers as I find that it is a bit pointless when people don’t join the squad at any rate. And at least in the past (I’ll stand corrected if it’s been fixed), those that joined after they had been placed, would not see them.

DevonCarver.5370:

My intent with breaking the concepts into small scale and wholesale change buckets is simply to get the feeling about how broken the system is and what everyone thinks it should do. Hopefully that clarifies somewhat what I’m trying to do.

Are you just looking for ideas that can be ratified by some sort of 51% majority? Personally I find paint-by-consensus boring…

Or maybe I’m mis-reading that phrase and you meant “what each of you thinks it should do.”

Makes me wish we had more robust tools for surveys so we could move on to the synthesis and creativity rather than spend so much CDI time on reporting.

DevonCarver.5370:

My intent with breaking the concepts into small scale and wholesale change buckets is simply to get the feeling about how broken the system is and what everyone thinks it should do. Hopefully that clarifies somewhat what I’m trying to do.

i think the currently visible portions of the system are almost adequate, needing only small superficial changes to allow variety and usability (tags, suppression, supplyinfo)

i think the squad system needs a major overhaul and is very broken… i think it should act as a tool that enhances organization and coordination. it does not, because it is only a different color map chat that auto blocks other possibly important pieces of info (other tags) and is a pain to join and rejoin.

DevonCarver.5370:

The point of this initiative is not to create major projects but to discuss the basic principles behind the design of our game with you all. That can mean explaining why we didn’t do something one way or explaining why we did do it a certain way.

In that spirit why was the commander system implemented in the way it was and not with more of a fully featured squad management UI?

DevonCarver.5370:

Chidori.9483:

I fully expect major projects to spring from this initiative, in fact, I thought it was the point.

The point of this initiative is not to create major projects but to discuss the basic principles behind the design of our game with you all. That can mean explaining why we didn’t do something one way or explaining why we did do it a certain way. It also means that through that discussion we get a better sense of the best versions of many of the things we intend to work on at some point or ideas for changes that can be made to existing parts of the game. It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

If this is truly how you see this than you might as well shut the CDI down right now as it will be utterly pointless because you do not want to participate. Honestly most of your posts drip of unwillingness to actually do anything.

The CDI was set up to help developers make content better, which you seem extremely apprwhensive about.

One thing that is really bad is how close people have to be to be to tell how much supply they have. Maybe make the radius of the counter larger or have little numbers above peoples heads of amount of supply they have.

There is too much to read so I didn’t read through everything in detail.

I have seen some suggested a very complicated commander system.

Initially, much of the complains about the squad is that it isn’t useful. Generally, majority of the players expected it to be similar to a party system but instead able to host more players. Unlike the party system, the commander naturally is the leader of the squad, one will have the ability to invite people to the squad and also kick people out of the squad.

I believe many also requested for raid dungeon, basically a dungeon which host plenty of players and I believe the squad can be used for that as well, which can also justify the gold for purchasing it.

The minimum expectation of a squad system is that players of the squad should be able to see the squad members’ locations just like how you can see the party members’ location. Likewise, a UI of members (classes and status) within the squad.

Of course, a squad should impose a maximum number of players to prevent any form of abuse and instil a certain standard.

Also, the option to remove tag from the map (for non-squad members) for privacy reason.

Since there will be times when there are many commander tag on the map, it will be nice to have a different marker color for the squad you have joined.

Lastly, the squad system can be build upon existing party system but not necessary. For example, combining several parties together to form one squad.

I’m going to post this again, because it got lost in the 10 pages of posts. However, it’s still extremely relevant, given what @Devon has said about the goals of this initiative..

Before adding any new awesome functionality or change gating to the tag, first fix what makes being a commander aggravating. Annoying the player is the worst thing you can do in a game, and fixing that should take priority over changing anything else currently in place. That means systems that are clunky, hard to use, or just plain NOT used because they are too hard or obscure to access.

Quick, Easy fixes that we Commanders need ASAP:

- Text Suppression for Commander: Say chat is most heavily used because it pops over the commander’s head. It needs to be at least 2x or 3x the current volume that is allowed. Keep the limit, but make it bigger for those tagged up. That’s all. Let testing or a ‘trial period’ of real observation sort out how much is enough/too much.

- SUPPLY INFO: Increase radius – it’s a MUST. 1200, 1500, 3000, whatever. Just more than it is now. Make it Bindable to a hotkey! That’s all that’s needed. Very little or no UI needed. Just not having to type the command every few minutes – that’s aggravating.

- Commander Tag Colors: No need to make this hard/complicated. Tag up, Choose a color. That’s it. Keep them simple, too. Red, Green, Blue, Gold, Purple, etc. Let each server community decide for themselves what this means and how to use it.

- Optional Waypoints: Even if you cannot change how waypoints work now, at least make them Key-Bindable and accessible to/from the Minimap so they can be placed while moving. Show them on the minimap (on the edge if out of range), just like the Commander Tag, so people can head there. That’s it. No more needed. Let the community figure out what it means.

Doing these few things well is enough for commanders to do the things they want to do to achieve their goals, and lets servers/guilds/communities be creative at how they do things. It also buys Anet time to make bigger changes in the future if they choose to…. and even if they don’t, we still have something an order of magnitude better than we had.

“Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” – General George S. Patton

what i would like to see is private tags and for tags to be account bound. i think these 2 thing would really make alot of people happy (if tags do become account bound would be a nice jesture to give a refund to players who bought more than 1)

chestonu.8059:

- Text Suppression for Commander: Say chat is most heavily used because it pops over the commander’s head. It needs to be at least 2x or 3x the current volume that is allowed. Keep the limit, but make it bigger for those tagged up. That’s all. Let testing or a ‘trial period’ of real observation sort out how much is enough/too much.
[..]

- Optional Waypoints: Even if you cannot change how waypoints work now, at least make them Key-Bindable and accessible to/from the Minimap so they can be placed while moving. Show them on the minimap (on the edge if out of range), just like the Commander Tag, so people can head there. That’s it. No more needed. Let the community figure out what it means._

I have to say “Please No” to these particular suggestions. I think these would mean most people will buy tags for extra powers.

Svarty.8019:

chestonu.8059:

- Text Suppression for Commander: Say chat is most heavily used because it pops over the commander’s head. It needs to be at least 2x or 3x the current volume that is allowed. Keep the limit, but make it bigger for those tagged up. That’s all. Let testing or a ‘trial period’ of real observation sort out how much is enough/too much.
[..]

- Optional Waypoints: Even if you cannot change how waypoints work now, at least make them Key-Bindable and accessible to/from the Minimap so they can be placed while moving. Show them on the minimap (on the edge if out of range), just like the Commander Tag, so people can head there. That’s it. No more needed. Let the community figure out what it means._

I have to say “Please No” to these particular suggestions. I think these would mean most people will buy tags for extra powers.

100G is a steep price to pay just to spam say chat (where people could just go away from you, and also /ignore you). Also, waypoints…same thing. This is clearly not the problem you think it is. Also, please note the big italicized —Optional-- moniker next to waypoints.

Whereas anyone who has commanded for any length of time knows that Chat suppression for Commanders is a major problem. I simply cannot text-command. I get suppressed in about 3 minutes, if I’m being careful. 30 seconds if it’s an urgent situation.

Ever been a Militia Commander, with only a handful of your group on voice, and suppressed in the middle of a big battle? Yeah. Big problem. Biiiig problem. Big. Problem.
(PS: Just in case it doesn’t have enough emphasis. Big problem. Yeah.)

Conner.4702:

DevonCarver.5370:

Chidori.9483:

I fully expect major projects to spring from this initiative, in fact, I thought it was the point.

The point of this initiative is not to create major projects but to discuss the basic principles behind the design of our game with you all. That can mean explaining why we didn’t do something one way or explaining why we did do it a certain way. It also means that through that discussion we get a better sense of the best versions of many of the things we intend to work on at some point or ideas for changes that can be made to existing parts of the game. It is not a forum for making demands of what we absolutely must do, nor should the expectation be that whatever we are talking about right now is going to show up next month. If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.

If this is truly how you see this than you might as well shut the CDI down right now as it will be utterly pointless because you do not want to participate. Honestly most of your posts drip of unwillingness to actually do anything.

The CDI was set up to help developers make content better, which you seem extremely apprwhensive about.

Certainly the CDI on population imbalance was totally pointless, for pretty much the same reasons. Absolutely nothing … not even a summary of key items to explore … has come of it.

Cactus.2710:

Certainly the CDI on population imbalance was totally pointless, for pretty much the same reasons. Absolutely nothing … not even a summary of key items to explore … has come of it.

Let’s keep this On-Topic to Commander System, please. Complaints about other areas of the game belong in those topics, not here. Thanks

I wouldn’t call this whole initiave pointless… the Living world discussion for example has shown how productive this whole CDI thing can be…but I can’t get rid of the impression that the responsible person here in wvw isn’t as confident about the benefit of this whole thing! All we get in here are catchphrases, whose only purpose is to make us clear that the CDI is nothing more than an information gathering… and (this is only my opinion) a measure to calm the waves in the wvw community…

Discussion is useful. Good ideas prosper. Bad ones tend to be left behind to die. Natural order of the universe. I embrace it.

Hengis.1036:

I wouldn’t call this whole initiave pointless… the Living world discussion for example has shown how productive this whole CDI thing can be…but I can’t get rid of the impression that the responsible person here in wvw isn’t as confident about the benefit of this whole thing! All we get in here are catchfrases whose only purpose is to make us clear that the CDI is nothing more than a information gathering… and (this is only my opinion) a measure to calm the waves in the wvw community…

i also get the same impression.

I’d point out the discussion in the Living Story CDI didn’t have relentless focus on “How soon will we see this?” from the poster-side. Without asking “so, when?” every few minutes, I think we can trust a few persistent refrains have absolutely worked their way into the Devs’ awareness. Consider:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I hope you can appreciate this as i appreciate your dialogue and understand that when it looks like a point has hit home, it probably has.

Chris

I’m actually glad to hear a variety of “What the CDI is for” statement from posters. I don’t agree with several of them (‘ploy to placate us’ high on that list…), but I’m glad to see people taking on a broader vision. To me, what CDIs are for is to discuss areas with them and my fellow posters until we’re ready to put ideas in front of them that are so attractive they want to pursue them ASAP. Its not an exercise in wringing a timetable out of them . That was in the ground rules of the first round of threads and while I didn’t read as closely this time I’m pretty sure its still there in the first post of this thread too.

If anything we’re just losing valuable Dev reading/response time to repeatedly reiterating that timetables cannot be revealed. I dunno: maybe the division of ideas into piles based on potential delivery dates makes it impossible to not scratch at the “ya, but when?” aspect? It seems like a sensible bit of organization, but maybe it’s sidetracking us.

Cactus.2710:

Certainly the CDI on population imbalance was totally pointless, for pretty much the same reasons. Absolutely nothing … not even a summary of key items to explore … has come of it.

I can think of two (good) things that came of it.

1. It was a perhaps necessary negative example. That was ‘how not to run a railroad’, and they know it. Keep in mind we’re back to having CDIs in WvW and PvP while the PvE field lies fallow this cycle.

2. There was enough recognition that the thread failed to deliver that the topic is getting another shot under the improved Dev participation model. We’ll be back better prepared and so will they.

((sharpens wits and knives…))

chestonu.8059:

Cactus.2710:

Certainly the CDI on population imbalance was totally pointless, for pretty much the same reasons. Absolutely nothing … not even a summary of key items to explore … has come of it.

Let’s keep this On-Topic to Commander System, please. Complaints about other areas of the game belong in those topics, not here. Thanks

Ahh .. you mean the one that was locked over a week ago. Gotcha …

But in any case I wasn’t trying to derail this thread. I was simply replying to Conner’s comment that we weren’t getting much encouragement that this thread would lead to anything actionable on the commander system either. If you believe otherwise, what specifically would that be?? Please quote the dev response that supports it, because here’s the “collaborative” dev response that sticks out for me:

“If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.”

Continuity of Command Mode (C2C)

Commanders may set themselves to C2C mode, indicating they are ready to take up the burden of command if another leader they are following falls.

When a Commander with an active map-wide tag dies, there is a check to find the closest allied player with their tag in C2C mode (to a maximum of 2000 range). That player’s command tag is set to active.

- – -

Basically I was just thinking about tools for commanders to manage standard zergs. Not formal squads but the looser arrangement of un-grouped players we see so often now. C2C would allow multiple commanders working in concert to turn off some of the spare tags, yet still maintain a visible map cue to focus the group if the active Commander falls.

I’m just wondering if in our focus on improved squad functionality we’re failing to look at what could be done to improve the non-grouped behavior of the game. Or is the inherent contempt for casual blobbing too ingrained ?

Cactus.2710:

Ahh .. you mean the one that was locked over a week ago. Gotcha …

Actually, this one:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/CDI-Process-Evolution/first

I’d say frustrations and concerns about the past performance of CDI threads are extremely topical there.

Cactus.2710:

chestonu.8059:

Cactus.2710:

Certainly the CDI on population imbalance was totally pointless, for pretty much the same reasons. Absolutely nothing … not even a summary of key items to explore … has come of it.

Let’s keep this On-Topic to Commander System, please. Complaints about other areas of the game belong in those topics, not here. Thanks

Ahh .. you mean the one that was locked over a week ago. Gotcha …

But in any case I wasn’t trying to derail this thread. I was simply replying to Conner’s comment that we weren’t getting much encouragement that this thread would lead to anything actionable on the commander system either. If you believe otherwise, what specifically would that be?? Please quote the dev response that supports it, because here’s the “collaborative” dev response that sticks out for me:

“If you are expecting to see any of the things we have discussed happening quickly, you should adjust that expectation. Some of it could, but the simple fact that we are discussing it here is not a promise to that effect.”

Here you go:

DevonCarver.5370:

4: Together we will share and evolve design philosophies which will impact how we develop the game moving forward.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is significant room for improvements of functionality as well as the possibility that a completely overhauled system would better serve the needs of the WvW community and the PvE community.

DevonCarver.5370:

Okay, so before we get too far into this discussion, here is something else to think about:
Would you rather see us make some number of small improvements in the short term and larger changes long term or just tear the whole thing down and start from scratch?

To be a bit more specific, we could probably do something like multicolor markers without too much work, although it is not a given, but that would likely be the extent of things for a long period of time.

DevonCarver.5370:

It is important to us that when we introduce new UI elements we have fully fleshed out their place in the rest of the game UI.

Isaiah Cartwright.8569:

I think overall this discussions will help shape the feature and backlog list of things to do with commander which could lead to many ideas here spawning improvements. As for time frame thats not really what this thread is for so I’ll dodge roll that question.

DevonCarver.5370:

We’d rather build one system that can work for both areas of the game for the sake of clarity.

Perhaps the largest question I still have, how would everyone feel if the only changes to commander were the smaller scale ones? The other stuff is super interesting and has a lot of promise, but is also a major task and one I can’t make any guarantees about.

DevonCarver.5370:

It also means that through that discussion we get a better sense of the best versions of many of the things we intend to work on at some point or ideas for changes that can be made to existing parts of the game.

DevonCarver.5370:

The guarantee is that we will discuss the design of them as a community to better inform our decisions. That means, in many occasions, we will end up doing almost exactly what gets discussed.

I hope all these help dispel the idea that nothing will come from this. I believe that based on reading everything the devs say that they are actually optimistic and want to know what we think.

Let’s move on.

Nike.2631:

I’d point out the discussion in the Living Story CDI didn’t have relentless focus on “How soon will we see this?” from the poster-side.

I think this mischaracterises some of the aggravation of the posters in the past 24 hours or so on this thread, which is due to Devon stating that they only want to consider quick solutions and implying that issues which would take more work to implement will not be considered.

If he said they will work on implementing some quick wins immediately and they will continue looking at the more resource intensive issues on a longer term basis I wouldn’t have a problem and I doubt most would.

morrolan.9608:

I think this mischaracterises some of the aggravation of the posters in the past 24 hours or so on this thread, which is due to Devon stating that they only want to consider quick solutions and implying that issues which would take more work to implement will not be considered.

Now see, I didn’t get that at all. I saw more of a ‘we can do quick fixes and then take an extended break from the topic or we can do major overhaul in the time it takes to do a major overhaul (which can include many of the smaller features).’

Which was answered a bunch of times with “we want both.”

‘That ’OR’ statement in there wasn’t optional. Pick One.’

“We still want both.”

((Tears))

If he said they will work on implementing some quick wins immediately and they will continue looking at the more resource intensive issues on a longer term basis I wouldn’t have a problem and I doubt most would.

And there’s “we want both” again .

Mungrul.9358:

Julenal.3907:

Colour coding shouldn’t be problem as there are over 400 dyes and if commanders get RBG slider amount of possible colours is bigger than screens can produce.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear with my idea. If there are too many colours, there is more chance of not being able to distinguish between certain ones at a glance. With limited colours, they can each be a distinct one that is impossible to confuse with others. It’s a user interface design issue.

Exactly how I feel about “too many” different colors. Thats why I suggest 3, with different squad limits/roles/names/ranks/prices.

Blue—————upto 70 members——-General———100g———Main Map General

Gold————-upto 30 members——-Commander——50g———Squad Commander

Red—————-upto 10 members——-Captain———-25g———Strike team Captain

Same way trait manuals are bought, u have do buy 1 tier and complete some roles within that tier (x amount of supply caps/ruins captured as a captain) before u can purchase the next tier rank. And x amount of towers/mercenary camps captured as a Squad commander before u can purchase General tier tag. All whilst leading and tagged up ofc.

Nike.2631:

morrolan.9608:

I think this mischaracterises some of the aggravation of the posters in the past 24 hours or so on this thread, which is due to Devon stating that they only want to consider quick solutions and implying that issues which would take more work to implement will not be considered.

Now see, I didn’t get that at all. I saw more of a ‘we can do quick fixes and then take an extended break from the topic or we can do major overhaul in the time it takes to do a major overhaul (which can include many of the smaller features).’

Which was answered a bunch of times with “we want both.”

‘That ’OR’ statement in there wasn’t optional. Pick One.’

“We still want both.”

((Tears))

If he said they will work on implementing some quick wins immediately and they will continue looking at the more resource intensive issues on a longer term basis I wouldn’t have a problem and I doubt most would.

And there’s “we want both” again .

while you are probably right i think people want more resources put into commander redesign than devon’s pet project wxp for new golem mastery or whatever he is making that players didnt ask for. I think everyone assumes the wxp was something to tide us over till they did the big work on the bigger problems but all we get is more wxp and no progress on the big problems. well this is one of the big problems and it deserves more resources than it is getting.