history lesson/faq

[Zobex]

most of this makes me roflcopter hard. greed, jealously and anger are hilarious when it's done behind the veil of online anonymity. i wonder how most of the people who hit these boards hard continuously, interact with people in reality... hmmm.... anywho!
just hoping once us mid-levels reach the top, there will be enough of us to diversify the two top guilds into four or five. and we can all cause a giant ruckus! c'monnnnn 300 server pop!
PS. I love it here. and when you tune out the retards that think they can make the GMs do what they want, life's good. I say if children can't play nice in the sandbox, GTFO

[Allizia]

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

The rest of this was already done, and failed.

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

It's funny, because this is how you guys got yourself into rotations, when we were using pretty much the exact same rules of engagement that you just listed.

I responded twice that I don't see how this idea is any different from the one we were using to begin with (that we manipulated and IB broke). Unless I am missing something? What does going back to the same rules that started all the issues solve?

I agree that the rotation is not a permanent solution, but until one is found, let me ask you this:

1) Has a GM been forced to intervene on any encounter since rotations were put into place? (MM is excluded, GM's were there for game mechanic issues, not guild drama)

2) Has IB been receiving a fair share of end game content since rotations were put into place?

3) Has Transcendence received a fair share of end game content since rotations were put into place?

4) Has anyone had to camp a raid target for 14 hours?

5) Will any idea used appease everyone?

6) Aside from the forum QQing, are people in both guilds generally getting along better? I think so. Hell, I had long civil conversations with Hasbinbad and Tiki in the last 2 days = progress.

Seriously, things are not that bad on either side. It gives everyone time to find a real and lasting solution.

[Dartagnan]

What I proposed above is not the same rule set we had before. Do I need to say it again? I think I do. I will expand on some ideas since before but it is basically the same:

Nagafen is up. He is big mean and nasty. He needs to die.

Guild A comes into the zone and shouts in their guildchat that Nagafen is up. You see, Guild A knows that they need 20 people to be in the zone and ready to go to claim this encounter. Guild A is successful in getting the required 20 people in the zone and claims the encounter.

During this time, Guild B and Guild C were doing the same, but they just could not muster the people up. They are willing to be team players and understand that Guild A was more efficient. According to established rules, Guild B and Guild C leave the zone to allow Guild A to do the encounter without any trains, possible zone lag, etc. Guild B and C wait in Lavastorm.

Guild A did a good job but they just could not handle the raid encounter and as a result they wipe. Guild B and C rejoice because they now have a chance to take the encounter. Since Guild B and C have the minimum of 20 people, they /random 0 100 to decide which guild will be able to claim Nagafen. Guild C wins the roll and as such, has 30 minutes to get in there and attempt Nagafen.

Guild C kills Nagafen. Guild B resolves to be there faster next time. Guild A resolves to work on their tactics better next time. Guild C rejoices because Nagafen dropped a Cloak of Flames.

This is an example and can be tweaked of course, but you get the idea. THIS IS NOT THE SAME SET OF RULES THAT EXISTED BEFORE. This is a new idea.

I can tell you right now that if something like this was put into play, IB would be more than willing to go along with this because it rewards organization and tactics.

This is a fair solution and would even work with Nizzarr's proposed variance spawn times if that is what we wanted.

I am trying to be a team player here. I realize that IB is not going to fully get what they want. That seldom works with negotiations. This idea allows ANY number of guilds to lay claim to a raid encounter. It does not allow a top guild to bully another guild since it is a test of quick organization, yet at the same time is a test of tactics too.

It is quite possible for Transcendence, or any guild, to lay claim on any raid encounter just as much as IB.

This solves our dilemma and allows the best possible solution in my opinion.

I would be willing to start a new thread where we can talk specifics and draft up a good proposal. Are you willing to do this? Again, I just used numbers to show the flow of how things would go. Concrete details could be discussed in a new thread dedicated to this issue.

[Allizia]

Start a new thread, I'll read anything. You do realize I'm not only looking out for Transcendence though right? Transcendence is a community based guild and IB would be destroyed by an alliance between Divinity and Transcendence, which would more then likely happen regularly if this went into place (How is IB going to compete against 1/3 of the server? Believe it or not, I don't want this. IB has worked hard to get where they are, why should they be pushed out?). How long will that last until the QQing starts again and we are back to square 1? We sat at Naggy and Vox for 14 hours to prove to you that you will have to share, and we will get raid targets.

I just think it's a bad idea from what I have seen so far, and does not fix several of the issues. It also gives motivation for people to 2 box characters to meet attendance requirements (we all know it happens, regardless of the consequences)

[Dartagnan]

I will start a new thread when I get a chance to type it all up. We are looking for competition. If we are getting wailed on by Divinity and Transcendence, then IB better look at ways to strengthen their position.

I would rather loose a good fight through competing than be forced to a rotation without competition.

I'll type this up in a few with examples and we can discuss specifics. Thanks Allizia.

[Matrim]

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

We sat at Naggy and Vox for 14 hours to prove to you that you will have to share, and we will get raid targets.

All your spawn camping proved was that you were able to use your influence with the GMs to step in and implement a non-classic rotation that benefits your guild. You didn't earn that camp by sitting there for 14 hours- your crying to the GM staff is what scored you loot there. Let's not pretend.

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

Transcendence is a community based guild and IB would be destroyed by an alliance between Divinity and Transcendence, which would more then likely happen regularly if this went into place.

I think you're confusing the words 'community based guild' with 'we have low standards for invites'. Personally, if I were in Divinity I'd be offended that you so readily assume they're the type of people willing to zerg to win. If that's what it takes to go FFA, though, I think IB would be up to the challenge.

[Zarniwooop]

The server desperately needs more people.

[Widan]

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

The server desperately needs more people.

And if these poopsocking idiots is all anyone sees when they browse the forums and login and see ooc that is never going to happen.

[Sadad]

Stop hijacking Nilbog's thread with this asinine bullshit.

[Hasbinbad]

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

Stop hijacking Nilbog's thread with this asinine bullshit.

Ahh, young one. You still have hope!! Hahahahaha!! Soon your hope will be dashed on the breakwater of everyone elses thick-headedness.