Lock Server Until an Agreement is Met

[Yinikren]

Originally Posted by Elements [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bag limit seems fine. I need 6 guilds for all my alts, probably 7 in a week or two, and 8, 9 10 soon after.

There's your entitlement, Xasten.
In all seriousness, I get what you are saying about competing.

In my system, they compete for harder, more valuable mobs, instead of just more of them like you do now. It opens the doors for more guilds to compete, instead of what appears to scraps offered once a week.

Of course we fought for a 50/50 split. You compete with one other guild during your split. We compete with 6 in ours.

[jaybone]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Um, don't lock the server... I have leveling that still needs to be done before an agreement is made.

Looks like everything is still golden for me to hit 60 before a new agreement is made too.

Nobody cares about a banned MQ user who is still allowed to play on this server.

[Elements]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For the record, btw, nothing about TMO/FE (Alarti's) new proposal stops CAT A guilds from making CAT B alt raiding guilds either.

Point?

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Elements [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Point?

These systems suffer from the same flaws.

[Elements]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These systems suffer from the same flaws.

So where should casuals put their money?

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Elements [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So where should casuals put their money?

I think both should stop looking at ways to beat the system, CSR already stated they would ass rape anyone doing it, so while many of you talk about how you'd do it, none of you have the balls to actually do it as a cohesive unit/guild.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I find most interesting is that everyone freely accepts the idea that more work leads more rewards. Camping an FBSS for many hours should, and does, lead to that person realizing more benefit than those who are not as dedicated to acquiring that particular item.

Yet, when we apply that to the endgame, people begin chafing as if the concept did not apply. EQ was built upon this notion from the ground up. Abashi even went on record saying that "no one is "entitled" to items in the game." The hardcores are not seeking entitlements. They're asking that the system that Classic EQ was based off of be respected. However, this is not a perfect reflection of Classic, and everyone recognizes that part of this server's purpose is to create an environment for people to experience content they did not see on live. However, preservation of the Classic environment has always been the primary consideration. With both purposes in mind, there's no reason to think that we can't act cooperatively while respecting both the classic roots of work and effort and the modern notion of respect for the casual. However, we seem to be far from that synthesis.

The GM staff has recently handed a large portion of the population an immense amount of artificial bargaining power for the purpose of creating a system that respects both sides while still rewarding extra effort. The casual side was recently offered one third of all mob spawns, and it was flatly rejected for want of a direct 50/50 split. This is blatant rent seeking, and the recent rejection was a brazen attempt to hostilely maximize the outcome of an artificially produced windfall.

Calling the hardcores "entitled kids" is unproductive when you're categorically rejecting deals offered in good faith by leveraging your artificial bargaining position to grind talks to a halt.

[Elements]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think both should stop looking at ways to beat the system, CSR already stated they would ass rape anyone doing it, so while many of you talk about how you'd do it, none of you have the balls to actually do it as a cohesive unit/guild.

Any system that tries to remove monopoly and spread resources amongst various non-competing guilds is going to have the natural consequence of spreading people out into multiple guilds. There doesn't need to be any cohesive effort.

[Funkutron5000]

Originally Posted by Elements [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Any system that tries to remove monopoly and spread resources amongst various guilds is going to have the natural consequence of spreading people out into multiple guilds. There doesn't need to be any cohesive effort.

TMO is our version of Too Big to Fail.

Loot bailouts inc.

[Elements]

Originally Posted by Funkutron5000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TMO is our version of Too Big to Fail.

Loot bailouts inc.

I'm not saying having alts in multiple guilds should be a bad thing or even discouraged. It's just more than likely going to happen.