Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanthallas
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If a guild acts in a way that is against the vast majority of guilds interest, there will be consequences to that guild. If that guild thinks that there will be no consequences because the vast majority of other guilds like to talk about things instead of act upon things, then the vast majority of guilds simply dont deserve to have their positions be dominant.
What you are talking about here is a guild breaking an agreement and killing a dragon that other parties had some pre-arranged deal for. This is not the end of the world. It is one mob. If a guild acts that way, the enforcement mechanism that exists is consequences.
Noone gives a shit about your playstyle if you arent going to fight for your playstyle.
|
Correct. And now continue reading my post so you realize I actually answered this. But, for the sake of simplicity, I will restate it.
I am not against the idea of players enforcing player made rotations. By all means. And in FFA, that is possible. What Derubael suggests is that we should port up BDA to help zerg and defend compliant guilds who are being opposed by non-compliant guilds, to provide
consequences (see? I can bold text too.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]), to those guilds. I describe that the 2-kill lockout makes this an incredibly improbable form of player based enforcement, as the structure they have put on us with this rule has made such a thing unenforceable in this way.
Additionally, the traditional classic EQ form of maintaining a rotation would be through having guilds boycott that guild in terms of ports, rezzes, and the like. And as I said, that enforcement mechanism (offering consequences on the player base for leader's decisions) worked in classic, but cannot work here because to the classic timeline, we're in Planes of Power. There is such a concentration of 60s, that every guild is a self-contained superstructure that can persist without the assistance of the community as a general whole. This is not the fault of the players, it is not even the fault of the developers or the staff. This is a consequence of the fact that we are not in a purely classic experience, and therefore the classic means of delivering consequences to non-compliant guilds are not met.
These two things together are the primary enforcement mechanisms, the first being what Derubael suggested (guilds helping other guilds to enforce player based rotations), but the structure forced down does not permit that on the grounds of having 1-2 people on the list will add to the raid lock out for Class R. Therefore, such consequences cannot exist. And since this server is terribly inflated, it cannot exist in that form.
Believe me, I am all for player agreements being player enforced. My focus of study is on International Relations, and I love the work of Keohane and Nye, Waltz, Wendt, and the rest. I am all for having class R fight for class R play style. But the parts added to the plan make it impossible for that play style to be defended in the way Derubael suggested, or in the classic EQ sense.
If you have another way of delivering consequences (I can think of PvP, but we're blue), by all means share.