Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Or we could, y'know, attempt to emulate classic, remove variance.
|
Nothing I've said precludes those. They're two separate issue. Regarding your comment that we remove CSR: many servers had GM enforced agreements and community agreements regarding raid scenes. Am I unequivocally suggesting that we should have GM enforced agreements? No. I am suggesting that agreements are an option be they player run, or GM enforced, and that they are
undeniably classic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tiddlywinks
more people spinning conjecture on how to make the server enjoyable to the largest number of people/themselves as opposed to actually recreating a classic server.
|
What are you suggesting? As I mentioned, any proposed rules/agreements that I have mentioned are well within the scope of "classic" due to the varied circumstances among the many servers. Are you suggesting that I am proposing these changes because they benefit me or TMO? Without a PoG agreement TMO, or any guild for that matter, would be able to jump into PoG and destroy Tunare while the smaller guilds are just standing there holding the bag after clearing the zone for 5+ hours. This way, if she pops while they're farming smaller guilds have a guaranteed manner in which to attempt her.
It's the same in NToV. If training is allowed, NToV will be hellishly difficult, doubly so if the proper proximity aggro changes are put into place. TMO is currently the only guild that might stand a chance at downing a dragon while being trained, and even then it's a VERY iffy proposition if the trainers are half-way competent. These suggestions make it more difficult for TMO to monopolize certain content.
If you're not suggesting that my suggestions are self-interested, then please ignore the above. I am unsure of what you mean to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skope
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Don't bother.
|
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy and a defeatist attitude. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with it, unless you mean to maintain the status quo. Which I strongly doubt you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I speak for myself, but I'm calling bullshit on this. BDA, VD, and FE have all stated they were willing to work on agreements. I'm at a catch-22 where I feel its futile to bring anything to TMO while at the same time I can't trust anything TMO may bring to the table.
|
I don't really blame you, or anyone else for that matter, to doubt the sincerity or the motivations of the guild, but there's not much to lose by trying. The majority of TMO are reasonable people. We all know how quickly and easily certain individuals can co-opt the direction of an organization. I catch a lot of flak for saying this, but there's just a smaller section that are vehemently against agreements of any kind, and they gain traction and support as mistrust builds. It's really a negative cycle. There's also a minority that supports cooperative play to varying degrees, and they can also gain traction under the right circumstances.
Velious can be seen as a fresh start, and I think it's entirely possible for the entire server to embrace some rules and agreements before hand.