Ingame tags?

[Jorvasker]

Ok, so this is something I have been wondering this for a while. I have noticed the evolution of the brackets in tags over the past year. I was in the FKI with they started doing it, and it seems that almost ever NA regiment now does it. Including 12th, 15e, 54th, 15th, 14th, and 3te.

So, I guess I am asking all of you why, because I personally think it looks horrible. I just want to hear your thoughts on it and tell me why you prefer it over the original ways.

12te_Rank_Name Looks way better than these two

[12te]Rank_Name Or 12te[Rank]Name

[FrithBiscuit]

I prefer the first one, yeah. I'm glad 99% of EU regiments use it.

63e_Lt_FrithBiscuit is way better than [63e]Lt FrithBiscuit

[tico13]

The underscore looked bland to me. Not to mention, it takes up more room. 2nd_QF_Rank_Name is longer in a scoreboard then [2ndQF]Rank_Name. If I'd known we could use brackets earlier, 2nd QF tags would have been different as well. It honestly just never occurred to me and I implemented it in my most recent regiment.

I think it looks slightly better too.

[#LionCarry]

I think [brackets] only look good at numbers 10-19

[Walko]

[4teSLR]Gmnr_Name

Ew. Looks quite terrible, and there is no good way to put companies in

[Audiate]

There was already a pretty... well-known regiment by the name of 1tesPmrs, so [1tes]Pmrs was the get-around. Also, there's no way once we joined the IIte (which was in the works for over a month before it happened publicly) that we could fit IIte_1tesPmrs_Rank_Name in, when it's actually a bit difficult for some people to fit their names after IIte[1tes]Pmrs_Rank_. It's all down to preference, I guess. If a regiment has a tag, like Pmrs or LG or QF or whatever, I find it better to use the brackets, like [Reg]blahblahblah_rank_name. The #[Rank]Name system is plain weird IMHO. Especially when it's like, oh, idk, 24th[Rank]_Name. It's just odd. lul.

The only instance where I don't believe in that is Grenadier regiments. Personally, I like 1er_Gren_Rank_Name, and Nr24_Gren_Rank_Name. It just looks oddly nice, and arguably better than [1er]Gren_ and [Nr24]Gren_.

If I lead a regiment that wasn't in an army and didn't have a distinct tag like Pmrs to separate us from the other 1tes', I'd probably go with the classic #_R_N.

[tico13]

There was already a pretty... well-known regiment by the name of 1tesPmrs, so [1tes]Pmrs was the get-around. Also, there's no way once we joined the IIte (which was in the works for over a month before it happened publicly) that we could fit IIte_1tesPmrs_Rank_Name in, when it's actually a bit difficult for some people to fit their names after IIte[1tes]Pmrs_Rank_. It's all down to preference, I guess. If a regiment has a tag, like Pmrs or LG or QF or whatever, I find it better to use the brackets, like [Reg]blahblahblah_rank_name. The #[Rank]Name system is plain weird IMHO. Especially when it's like, oh, idk, 24th[Rank]_Name. It's just odd. lul.

The only instance where I don't believe in that is Grenadier regiments. Personally, I like 1er_Gren_Rank_Name, and Nr24_Gren_Rank_Name. It just looks oddly nice, and arguably better than [1er]Gren_ and [Nr24]Gren_.

If I lead a regiment that wasn't in an army and didn't have a distinct tag like Pmrs to separate us from the other 1tes', I'd probably go with the classic #_R_N.

He pretty much put all my thoughts I couldn't put into word into this eloquent pair of paragraphs. +1.

[4teSLR]Gmnr_Name

Ew. Looks quite terrible, and there is no good way to put companies in

I think that looks quite nice, actually! Except like you said, the implementation of a company tag would be awkward there. Its all preference and what you're used to, in the end.

[Apollo]

Honestly, having played since tags were first implemented, I can say I prefer the brackets in most situations.

[Becker-]

Yeah we started with the 54th[Rank]Name for a change in pace. We were trying to push the regiment in a more professional mindset. So we changed to these because they stand out. I guess you could say we started the whole bracket fad, everybody will say we didn't but we changed and a bunch of others changed soon after.

It just looks nice, the underscores look like a one eyed step child wrote it and it bugs the hell out of me. Brackets just clean it up a bit.

[Audiate]

*cough* 24th *cough*

[Von Alten]

 i think that the (e.g) 1st_rank_Name setup looks more historical, this is my opinion, no h8 pls

[tico13]

Yeah we started with the 54th[Rank]Name for a change in pace. We were trying to push the regiment in a more professional mindset. So we changed to these because they stand out. I guess you could say we started the whole bracket fad, everybody will say we didn't but we changed and a bunch of others changed soon after.

It just looks nice, the underscores look like a one eyed step child wrote it and it bugs the hell out of me. Brackets just clean it up a bit.

If anyone started it, it was Millander's FKI, when 54th and a lot of other modern, bracket-using regiments didn't exist.

[Audiate]

 i think that the (e.g) 1st_rank_Name setup looks more historical, this is my opinion, no h8 pls

wut

[PurplePanda]

Yeah we started with the 54th[Rank]Name for a change in pace. We were trying to push the regiment in a more professional mindset. So we changed to these because they stand out. I guess you could say we started the whole bracket fad, everybody will say we didn't but we changed and a bunch of others changed soon after.

It just looks nice, the underscores look like a one eyed step child wrote it and it bugs the hell out of me. Brackets just clean it up a bit.

Millander's FKI was the first I ever saw. So no, you didn't start the whole bracket fad.

[Audiate]

I thought Becker was referring specifically to #[rank]name?