[Serious] Lets talk Top raiding guilds and their behavior

[Ripqozko]

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

They are also coming up with new rules that will be in place when these rotations and agreements inevitably fail... those are what we want a say in

You voted for Biden

[MarauderOHHYEAH]

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

You voted for Biden

I'm voting for a meteor

[Dreenk317]

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

They are also coming up with new rules that will be in place when these rotations and agreements inevitably fail... those are what we want a say in

No, the GM's are. Are they using the proposals to help them come up with a server rule? Yes. But the GM's are making the rules. They said so.

And just to reiterate. ONLY AG/Freedom/Riot have to agree to whatever proposal they come up with as far as server agreements go. No one else does. So that whole "being bound to a server agreement we didn't come up with" argument, is moot.

This is why the GM's are also changing/creating new rules. So that even if the agreement falls apart. We don't descend back into what we currently have.

[xdrcfrx]

Originally Posted by Dreenk317 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, the GM's are. Are they using the proposals to help them come up with a server rule? Yes. But the GM's are making the rules. They said so.

And just to reiterate. ONLY AG/Freedom/Riot have to agree to whatever proposal they come up with as far as server agreements go. No one else does. So that whole "being bound to a server agreement we didn't come up with" argument, is moot.

This is why the GM's are also changing/creating new rules. So that even if the agreement falls apart. We don't descend back into what we currently have.

Right, but they're asking AG / F / R for input on those fallback rules, also. That should be a conversation they're having with everyone.

[Dreenk317]

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

Right, but they're asking AG / F / R for input on those fallback rules, also. That should be a conversation they're having with everyone.

Why? The three main guilds that compete and lawyerquest the rules are being asked for feedback. Probably because they have the best understanding of the mechanics of the encounters in question. Lets take PoG for instance. Which, as far as i know, is the only proposed RULE change so far. When was the last time kittens or DB or TSS or Aegis did PoG? Why do you not trust the GM's to come up with something fair for everyone?

[xdrcfrx]

If it were only the GM's drafting, deciding, and implementing these rules that'd be fine, if less than ideal. The issue is that they're seeking the input / suggestions of some, but not all, of the people that are going to be bound by those rules. I would also suggest to you that the guilds not part of this discussion understand more of the mechanics behind the encounters than you are giving credit for. Everquest isn't exactly rocket surgery, the mechanics aren't *that* complicated.

Can't speak for TSS / DB / AEGIS - I feel like TSS was in there recently on a team up. KWSM hasn't done growth in a fairly long time - without being able to schedule in advance we'd probably have a pretty rough go of it, so tunare in the no-rotation era is not usually a high priority. Basically would need to be a weekend afternoon-into-primetime kind of raid, I think, due to how long the clear would likely take.

That said, I think we *could* conceivably get it done, given the right circumstances. And in fairness, I think it was totally appropriate that in AG's proposal, KWSM isn't initially included in the suggested rotation. The rotation part of the proposal included a mechanism for guilds not currently part of the rotation to be added, which I think is about as much as can be asked. On this same point, I appreciate that AG *did* include KWSM in it's proposed ring war rotation, which is also appropriate as we have completed many solo ring wars at this point.

However, even with all of that said - server-enforced fallback rules that are going to be applicable against everyone regardless of any pro-active agreement by those bound should be open to discussion with everyone, and should be seeking input from everyone. Rotation agreements ought to as well, since the server should be seeking to get buy-in, even from guilds not currently owning a slot, to help promote the stability of the agreements so that they last.

[Ripqozko]

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

If it were only the GM's drafting, deciding, and implementing these rules that'd be fine, if less than ideal. The issue is that they're seeking the input / suggestions of some, but not all, of the people that are going to be bound by those rules. I would also suggest to you that the guilds not part of this discussion understand more of the mechanics behind the encounters than you are giving credit for. Everquest isn't exactly rocket surgery, the mechanics aren't *that* complicated.

Can't speak for TSS / DB / AEGIS - I feel like TSS was in there recently on a team up. KWSM hasn't done growth in a fairly long time - without being able to schedule in advance we'd probably have a pretty rough go of it, so tunare in the no-rotation era is not usually a high priority. Basically would need to be a weekend afternoon-into-primetime kind of raid, I think, due to how long the clear would likely take.

That said, I think we *could* conceivably get it done, given the right circumstances. And in fairness, I think it was totally appropriate that in AG's proposal, KWSM isn't initially included in the suggested rotation. The rotation part of the proposal included a mechanism for guilds not currently part of the rotation to be added, which I think is about as much as can be asked. On this same point, I appreciate that AG *did* include KWSM in it's proposed ring war rotation, which is also appropriate as we have completed many solo ring wars at this point.

However, even with all of that said - server-enforced fallback rules that are going to be applicable against everyone regardless of any pro-active agreement by those bound should be open to discussion with everyone, and should be seeking input from everyone. Rotation agreements ought to as well, since the server should be seeking to get buy-in, even from guilds not currently owning a slot, to help promote the stability of the agreements so that they last.

Unless the mechanics in VP, 4/6 still alive . Wru trazzle

[xdrcfrx]

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

Unless the mechanics in VP, 4/6 still alive . Wru trazzle

Less mechanics and more lack of people with experience and proper faction. Can't just rely on wooly to do it.

For better or worse, most of the time it's exceedingly difficult to get any kind of practice on these encounters to learn the pulls and the tactics to kill.

We're trying though!

[Ripqozko]

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

Less mechanics and more lack of people with experience and proper faction. Can't just rely on wooly to do it.

For better or worse, most of the time it's exceedingly difficult to get any kind of practice on these encounters to learn the pulls and the tactics to kill.

We're trying though!

You already did sw and Hosh no one needs faction now, faction trainup is only needed for them.

[xdrcfrx]

you shoulda come in with TSS last night for hosh!