Holyman

Actually, I opened a GM ticket a couple of days ago (nothing serious: just a wasted FB trigger due to server crash...), and I didn't get a confirmation Email either - my Email address in the forums is exactly correct.   Like Jalen: nothing to do with actual response times from hard-pressed volunteer GM's (I know my issue was looked into, 'cos I got "frozen" briefly whilst logged on..!)...   Just that the Email confirmation after logging tickets may not be working as intended/expected.

Might be totally irrelevant, but...   Have you tried installing the E&B client software to the default directory on your C: drive, rather than to your F: drive..?   The "Version Cannot Be Determined" error may be a result of the auto-patcher not being able to locate all the client files...   Possibly.

That's a really good idea liuu.   But mostly, I think it is a really good idea for having a facility in-Game to restore quality (or increase quality to 125%) for non-manufacturable items.   As far as a solution for the Credit Inflation issue though... I wonder if it is really a (good) solution for a non-existent problem?   Personally, I find the liberation from restrictions around credits quite pleasing. Credit economies are never very effective in any Game where (as Mattsacre eloquently described) utility is more important than pure wealth. And I think that applies to EnB.   Raid-only loot, rare-drops, feathers, cortexes, loot-only components, rare ores... All have utility in-Game; and consequently, all have an inherent value that is reflected in the way that they are traded between players, and in the general exchange ratios: the Market is lively enough, if you have the correct "currency".   Credits currently have little or no utility within the Game, and I don't think the Game is suffering as a result. There is plenty of farming going on for feathers, ores, hulk items, and of course, XP...   So I'm not sure there is any need to add Credit Farming into the mix.   (But would still love to see a facility added to the Game to improve the quality of non-manu items..!)

Is the server down..? Or is it just me..?   (Difficult to tell from inside this Fishbowl..!)

Not touching Native American Politics in this veering-out-of-context thread with a barge-pole..!!  :unsure:   Like you say: a matter of perspective..!   With regards Economic Bubbles and the commodities that have been at the root of some of them:   My favourite has always been Peruvian Bird Sh*t (a.k.a. guano): http://www.coha.org/the-great-peruvian-guano-bonanza-rise-fall-and-legacy/   Talk about Drop Rates having an adverse effect on an Economy..!   :D

Good post Mattsacre.   It reminded me about the history of the Spanish Conquistadores in South America in the 16th Century.   At that time, silver formed the actual and literal basis of currency in the Spanish Empire. So when the Conquistadores gained control of vast and largely untapped silver mines in Peru and Bolivia, the sense was that this would make the Spanish Empire wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.   But in actual fact, it ended up bankrupting them.   Because after tons and tons of “Nuevo Mundo” silver started arriving back in Spain, the Spanish had completely failed to see the massive inflation problems this would cause.   Suddenly, silver was no longer the rare and durable commodity it had once been, and it was the scarcity of silver that had made it suitable as a currency, not its intrinsic usefulness.   The Spanish Economy did not expand in terms of productive capacity, new goods or services: there was suddenly just a lot more “money” around with which to buy the same amount of goods from the same amount of producers.   After a short while, all this new Spanish silver spread out across Europe, and after a brief period of economic expansion fuelled by the ability to buy up what other European Nations were producing with all that new silver, the Spanish Economy imploded. And it has never again risen to the giddy heights of Superpower Status it enjoyed in the 15th and 16th Century.   And all because the Spanish thought “money” actually had any intrinsic value.   The fools..!   :blink:

Check your F/W settings on your Sky hub.   I went through a very frustrating July last year, after Virgin pushed out a firmware update that reset the Firewall on my hub to maximum protection.   Afraid I'm not familiar with Sky/BT hubs, but I'm sure there must be a built in firewall on it. Try disabling it completely first, to see if that makes any difference. If it does, you can then turn it back on and try finding the right level or settings on it to make it work.

Note that you are in the UK...   If you are using Virgin Media as your ISP, make sure that the Firewall setting on your Virgin hub is set to "Low".   Really doesn't work comfortably if it isn't: I speak whereof I know..!

Dang! I just beat you to it...   I just closed out this month's donation run. If I'd waited an hour and let you make your donation, it would have been cheaper for me to do that..!   The way it works is:   When Kyp & Co's Treasure Chest starts getting low on dubloons, Kyp opens it up so that us passing pirates can tithe some of our own booty into it. He sets a target limit for the maximum amount of funds required for that month's/period's drive; and as soon as that total is hit, the website automatically shuts and locks the chest.   But worry not, because it re-opens fairly regularly. So give it another month or so and you will be able to make your donation then.

To clarify and emphasise Kyp's point ('cos this comes up a *LOT* in my office as well):   Just having your account be a member of the local "Administrators" group on your PC isn't enough.   You need to right-click on the installation (and configuration) executables/shortcuts, and select "Run As Administrator".   This "Elevates" the process you are running to grant it full administrative access.   Anything less won't cut the mustard!

Not sure what the chirping crickets and tumbleweed tumbling is an indicator of..?   Uncertainty..? An impasse..? Catharsis..?   I would suggest that it is unlikely to be… Closure!   How are things In-Game..? I’m back to The Grind now, so only logon during the (European) evenings, and Sunday mornings if I can surreptitiously sedate the kids and my partner… But I haven’t seen or heard of any disputes concerning Raids…   Is the (existing) Raid Rotation still holding up between Static, V.G.E. and B.I?   For my own part, the key understanding I have taken from this thread (so far), is that the “Raid Rotation Agreement” is a legitimate and active agreement between the Leaderships and memberships of those three Guilds.   This Agreement was reached between “The Big Three”, because at the time it was reached, they really were… The three biggest guilds. And the contentiousness and arguments around Raids took place… Between members of “The Big Three”.   Since there was contention between members of these Guilds regarding access to the time-spawned Raids, their coming together to reach an agreement was a really positive step, because members of those three Guilds constituted a sizable majority of active players.   It was an Agreement reached when the (then?) leaderships of each of these three guilds got together to address problematic behaviour between members of these three guilds. When the fourth week was allocated to “The Public” by “The Big Three”, it was done so as a concession. That was probably (and quite rightly) seen as a “good P.R. move”, to offset or respond to grumbles from non-Big-Three players about the perception of the “lock” on Raids that the Raid Rotation Agreement conferred on “The Big Three”.   The Raid Rotation Agreement was (and is…) still very much between “The Big Three”; with “The Public” expected to comport with it, because of some uncertain involvement that a handful of non-Big-Three players may (or may not…) have had in accepting the fourth week concession from “The Big Three”.   When Gunney “opened the Door” to this latest thread, he did ask some relevant questions; perhaps the most pertinent being about whether or not “The Big Three” still constituted the same kind of majority of active players.   That particular question seems to have been somewhat skipped around, despite it being probably one of the most relevant… Perhaps because it is too difficult to provide an accurate or valid answer to.   But here’s the thing:   If this current Raid Rotation Agreement between “The Big Three” exists to prevent arguments and contentiousness between the members of “The Big Three”... Then it is entirely up to the Leaderships and members of those three Guilds whether or not they choose to maintain and respect this Agreement.   It is irrelevant to any players who are not members of one of these three Guilds.   If members of these three Guilds still constitute an active majority of players in the Game, and the Agreement remains in force, then it will continue to serve the purpose it was intended to serve. But if the majority of active players are no longer members of one of these three Guilds…   …Well, to what extent should non-“Big Three”-Guild members continue to respect that particular Agreement?   I think that the argument put forward by those who want to see the current Raid Rotation Agreement continue to be in effect, is that some order is better than no order.   That is a plausible assertion... But as Gunney suggested in his original post, the assumption that disorder would ensue if there was no form of ordered agreement, is not necessarily a given.   One key point Gunney made is that “…the spawns are nothing new.” By which I take him to mean that the novelty of the Raids covered by the agreement has worn off; and let’s be honest, anyone who was desperately hungry for the loot that results from these raids should probably have satisfied their appetites by now!   Who knows..?   What can be said for certain is that there is a growing sense that the Raid Rotation Agreement instituted by and between “The Big Three” may not have the legitimacy it once did.   Nobody has been able to present a good argument to support the requirement that players that are not members of one of “The Big Three” Guilds should adhere to the Raid Rotation Agreement made between those three Guilds... Only the assertion that order would breakdown (again), if the Agreement is not in place.   But again, from an objective perspective:   The majority of the disorder and discord that existed prior to “The Big Three” instituting their Agreement, existed between members of those three Guilds. If players who are not currently members of one of those three guilds chose to no longer abide by that Agreement, that would not mean that those three guilds shouldn’t maintain the agreement between themselves.   In fact, if they are that certain that disorder will ensue between their own members if their Raid Agreement is scrapped, they should definitely keep it in place!   As for any agreement that non-“Big Three” players (a.k.a. “The Public”) might decide should be in place… Well, that really is a separate discussion I think.   I definitely think that some form of schedule or order should be in place, for a variety of reasons… But that’s just me… Just one player, who happens to be a professional negotiator… So *OF COURSE* I think there should be some kind of Agreement in place..! But I know others feel differently about that…   In conclusion then, I think there are two distinct questions that remain to be answered:   1)      Should players who are not members of one of “The Big Three” Guilds be expected to abide by the Raid Rotation Agreement that was created by and between those three Guilds?   2)      Should the Player Community as a whole devise, institute and maintain an agreement that controls and schedules access to the time-spawned Raids in the Game?   Are these not actually the questions we should be trying to answer..?

Thanks for the input Keith.   What are your thoughts on the three "bugs" in the current Agreement, that I listed above?   (Repeated here for your convenience):   1) The existing Raid Rotation Agreement does not have any legitimacy with currently active and future players that are not members of B.I., Static or V.G.E.   2) The requirements for an additional guild (or group of small guilds) to occupy an additional week in the Rotation Agreement are unfair; and there is a Conflict of Interest if it is up to the leaderships of the three Guilds currently in the Rotation to approve additional Guilds joining the Rotation.   3) The existing Rotation Agreement limits the opportunities of players in different Time Zones to get a chance to raid.   Also... Would I be correct in assuming that as "Exec Chief in Command", that makes you the Guild Leader of Builders, Inc?   If so: would you mind me asking your views on the nature of the existing agreement?   Do you feel that it is just an agreement between your Guild, Static and V.G.E?   Or do you believe that it is an agreement between these three Guilds and ALL "Public" players, which is/should be binding on all those "Public" players?

Weeellll…   I’ve always viewed that more as a challenge, than a block!   You certainly can’t give everyone what they want, if they all want the same thing and that same thing is in limited supply... But I do think it is possible to reach consensus agreements that all parties are generally satisfied with, even though all requirements are not completely fulfilled.   The point I was aiming to make in my New Year’s Day post (#164), which probably got lost in my philosophical diversions, was that nobody should or could really have expected players in an On-line Game to come up with a perfect, cast-iron and enduring contractual agreement, at least at the first attempt.   That doesn’t mean that the attempt at ordering access to the Raid Content in the Emulator was a total failure and should be discarded: it wasn’t a total failure (it has actually been quite successful in maintaining good order and a positive spirit in the Community) and it shouldn’t be discarded.   But nor does it mean that it should remain in its exact and current state in perpetuity.   An analogous situation would be (probably is..!) having a bug in the Game’s code, that whilst being inconvenient and a bit annoying, everyone has learned to live with. The feeling being that it is better to live with the slight bug in the functionality, than get rid of the functionality altogether.   But a better situation than either living with the bug or getting rid of the function that is bugged, would be to try and fix the bug.   And to widen this response to refer to Alurra’s (#180) post:   I think that is what we are engaged in doing here: addressing the “bugs” in the current Raid Rotation Agreement.   Not having any form of ordered arrangement regarding the time-spawned Raids in the Game would be… Undesirable.   Having some form of ordered arrangement, albeit an arrangement with some flaws in it, is a much better state of affairs: like being able to play a much-loved and fondly-remembered MMORPG all over again, even if it does have the odd bug in it..!   The ideal situation that we should be aiming for is a “bug-free” Raid Rotation Agreement… And that just requires an on-going, patient approach to developing the Agreement until it reaches a stable, mostly “bug-free” state.   And fortunately, that should be a lot easier with respect to the Raid Rotation Agreement, than with the Game itself!   So what are the current “bugs” in the Raid Rotation Agreement?   Well, it is worth first reiterating what the stated purpose of the Raid Rotation Agreement is:   The *PRIMARY* purpose of the/any Raid Rotation Agreement is not to ensure fair distribution of Raid Loot; and it is not to ensure that as many players as possible get to experience Raid Content: these are Secondary Purposes for a Raid Agreement.   The Primary Purpose of the/any Raid Agreement is to maintain good order, civility and a generally positive and friendly culture within the Player Base.   This is the Primary Purpose because it is more important and more essential to the survival of the Game than either of the Secondary Purposes.   I do not think that any player within the Emulator Community wants to see the culture break down into acrimony and unpleasantness. Even those players who have explicitly suggested a complete abolition of any Raid Agreements, have supported their suggestion by pointing at the more mature and reasonable player demographics within the Community.   To infer something from what the “Free For All” advocates are saying, their position could be stated as:   The current Raid Rotation Agreement (between “The Big Three”) is creating increasing levels of resentment among players who have joined the Game subsequent to that Agreement having been made. If the parties who drafted and maintain that Agreement are inflexible about making changes, there is a good chance that some players will soon start ignoring the Agreement, and in doing so, may disrupt the generally positive status quo. An orderly dismantling and abolition of the current Raid Rotation Agreement must be preferable to a disorderly breakdown of the same thing.   To draw a similar inference from the points you have made Alurra, your position could be stated as:   A disorderly, “Anything Goes”, “Free For All” approach to the Raid contents will not be positive for anyone in the Community. Some form of ordered control of allocation and access to the Raids is vital in order to avoid social anarchy within the Game. The Raid Rotation Agreement currently in effect was assented to by representatives of players not in either B.I., Static or V.G.E., at the time it was instituted in its current form. Therefore, to prevent a disorderly breakdown of the Player Community, it has to remain in effect.   The point of these inferences being: everybody wants the same thing – to prevent disorder.   Nobody is advocating disorder. A few are advocating getting rid of the Raid Rotation Agreement altogether, because that will prevent disorder. And a few others are advocating leaving the Raid Rotation Agreement in place, in its current form, because that will prevent disorder.   And a few others, myself included, are advocating that we all develop the Raid Rotation Agreement and renew its legitimacy, also because that will prevent disorder.   I think that is where we are at. All of us united in our desire to maintain good order and a peaceful, positive Community Culture: there are just different views on how best to go about doing that.   So looking specifically at what the “bugs” in the current Raid Rotation Agreement are…   The first and perhaps most obvious is the one concerning the legitimacy of the Agreement.   Between who was the Agreement reached? Is it fair or realistic to expect all current and all future players in the Emulator to abide by an Agreement that was reached without their involvement?   It might be possible to use the argument that “Public” players at the time the Agreement was set, were given the opportunity to have an input into the Agreement… But that is obviously not an argument that can be used in the case of players who started playing *AFTER* the Agreement was reached.   Flip makes a *REALLY* good point in post #189:   “I’m in one of the big 3 guilds, by joining I chose to abide by the rules that my guild leadership set, therefore I follow the raid rotation.”   It’s a key point because it is about a choice Flip personally made within the dynamics of the Game, to abide by a set of rules that exist and are enforced by the game dynamics:   Want to join Builders, Inc? Then you must abide by Builders, Inc.’s rules of Guild membership.   Don’t want to abide by Builders, Inc.’s rules of Guild membership? Don’t join Builders, Inc.   Have joined Builders, Inc., but no longer want to abide by Builders, Inc.’s rules? Leave Builders, Inc., or get booted out.   No similar provision relating to the Raid Rotation Agreement exists for people choosing to start playing the EnB Emulator.   Prospective players are not told that they can only play the Game if they are willing to abide by the Raid Rotation Agreement; and that if they don’t want to abide by the Raid Rotation Agreement, then they shouldn’t join, or they will get booted out. Because of course, this is not the case and never will be the case.   Can you see why new players might feel the injunction to abide by the Raid Rotation Agreement is unfair?   I would suggest therefore, that one possible approach to addressing this “bug” would be to make reviews of any Raiding Agreement a regular affair, and have any resulting changes legitimised by a Community-Wide poll.   A reasonable interval between reviews and poll would probably be around 12 months, since new players aren’t going to be in the “Raid Zone” straightaway. By the time that an average player is ready to start raiding, there’s a good chance that a review and poll will have rolled around.   And if a non-average player is mad-keen to get raiding, as soon as possible, well, they can always join one of the Guilds with a permanent seat in any Rotation Agreement, and get a leg-up that way.   Another bug that has been highlighted by a few posters in this thread, including myself and Kyp, is with the requirements that need to be satisfied by any Guild (or confederation of small Guilds) looking to occupy a permanent seat in any rotation.   I can certainly understand why the requirement was set that any candidate Guild should be capable of successfully completing a Raid to a standard set by existing Rotation-Seat holders, because of the desire to not see Raid-Looting opportunities go to waste…   But as I suggested in a previous post, I think this is more borne from the idea that Raids are in fact opportunities to visit a “High-End Vendor”, than to enjoy the experience of Raid Content with friends, and collectively working to overcome the challenges presented by the Raid.   If Raiding is about having fun with your friends, and learning how to complete the Raid, then there can’t really be any such thing as a “wasted Raid”.   So that probably needs looking at… For as long as having Guilds with permanent seats in a Rotation remains the core principle of any Agreement.   Finally (and not to labour the point about Agreement “bugs”!), there is the issue of players from different Global Time Zones getting a fair opportunity to attempt raids…   …That also probably needs looking at!   So there you go… I promised you a fuller response.   To summarise:   No need to go for the “Anarchy” option. Nobody wants that, even the people suggesting a “Free For All” approach.   Sticking with the current Raid Rotation Agreement without making any changes, ever, is likely to create (is perhaps already creating) the kind of situation the Agreement exists to avoid.   The current Raid Rotation Agreement has been really successful in keeping the Peace and maintaining order within the Community, and nobody who helped formulate, implement and maintain it should feel any shame about any “bugs” that may have been subsequently observed.   It is probably a good a time as any to consider reviewing the Agreement to see if any of the “bugs” can be eliminated.   And at the end of such a review, why not get as many players who are inclined to do so to look at the output, and indicate whether they agree or disagree with any revised arrangements?   We may not be able to give everyone everything that they want, but so long as everyone who wants more than they have, gets a little more than they’ve got: this usually keeps everyone satisfied, at least for a while!   :)

Thanks for the responses people.   It's getting kind of late here, so I'm aiming for a fuller response tomorrow, but I wanted to just respond quickly to your post Alurra with a quick question, in the hope that you can answer it in before my fuller post tomorrow.   I should disclaim that I'm not a lawyer either. But I do spend a lot of time working with lawyers (bit more time than I'd like, if I'm honest...) on contractual matters mostly, and I'm reasonably tuned in to anticipate their questions and positions. And I'm fairly sure that if I ran your post past them, the questions they would advise me to ask you are these:   Is it your contention that because a handful of players who were/are not members of B.I., Static or V.G.E. assented to only raiding during the fourth week that was added to your Rotation Agreement with B.I. and V.G.E... That all other "Public" players (i.e. not members of B.I., Static or V.G.E.) current and future should abide by the Raid Agreement?   A Raid Agreement that many may not even be aware exists, much less feel they ever assented to or are required to assent to.   I did think my summary was fairly accurate and comprehensive, without being *TOO* long-winded...   But did I omit a reference to an occasion when a large portion of the "Public" Community were asked to vote in favour of the agreement, on the basis that they would be granted the fourth weekly slot?   Was the question of the legitimacy of the agreement, as it pertains to players outside of the three guilds that originally devised the agreement, ever considered? And if so, how were those considerations concluded?   These aren't "Gotcha!" questions Alurra, sincerely: just trying to fill up any blanks in my knowledge..!   Look forward to reading your response.

Always nice to hear an unequivocal statement in response to an inquiry..!  Thanks 'Panda.   How do you feel about the post I wrote and the three options I proposed for the poll? Do you think it/they serve purpose, or do you think more/less information and/or poll options are necessary?

Thanks Kyp.   I'm actually wondering if there is any need for a poll at the current juncture..?   Looking forward to hearing the thoughts of Gunney, FlamingPanda and others who have expressed uncertainties about current raiding arrangements in this thread.   I think if we were going to put you and the team to the trouble of advertising the poll, it is really the prerogative of Gunney and others to initiate that.   The piece I've written above is intended to provide substance for such a poll *IF* it is held... But if a poll isn't held, then I hope that post can also serve to underline and conclude this whole thread; and perhaps also serve as a reference point in the future, should anyone else query the Raid Rotation Agreement that B.I., V.G.E. and Static have between themselves.   That last was really the critical point I wanted to highlight in my summary:   That we are talking about an agreement that was made between players of those three Guilds, concerning the interaction of players within those three Guilds.   As has been established in this thread, no players outside of those three Guilds are compelled or required to abide by that Agreement. If players not in those Guilds *DO* choose to respect the fact that those three Guilds created the fourth "Off-Week" as a boon to "The Public", and reciprocate by respecting the "On" weeks, then that is all to the good of the Emulator Community as a whole.   If players not party to the Agreement wish to compete with whichever of the three Guilds is allocated a particular raid in a particular week, then that can still be done in a positive and competitive manner that does not breach any Game Rules.   Personally...   I think if the three Guilds added a fifth week to their Rotation Agreement, designating it as a second "Public" week, that would go a long way to addressing some of the misconceptions about their Raid Rotation Agreement, and be a positive concession to players outside of those three Guilds.   But I also think that Efialtis and Alurra have been consistently correct in their assertion that the real frustrations felt by "The Public" come not from the weeks when a particular raid is assigned to one of "The Big Three", but from "The Public's" inability to effectively organise and utilise the week that has been deferred to them in "The Big Three's" Raid Agreement.   Therefore, if a second "Public" week *IS* added to the B.I./V.G.E./Static Raid Rotation Agreement, it will be in "The Public's" interest to implement some form of organisation/order of their own (that's my thinking behind the "Timezone Week" idea).   Fundamentally, I think the contention around the Raid Rotation Agreement is emotional, not logistical.   Fact of the matter is that the leaderships of B.I., V.G.E. and Static got themselves sufficiently organised and prepared to compromise, and created an agreement among themselves that has had a really positive impact on the Emulator Community.   It is of course much easier for players outside of those three Guilds to complain about the advantage that these three Guilds have gained from their cooperation and coordination, than it is for "The Public" to cooperate and coordinate among themselves. Those who complain about this advantage call it "unfair", only because they see it as disadvantaging them.   I think if those who find it easier to complain stopped and thought about the situation a bit more rationally, they would see the opportunity to take advantage of the week that has been set aside for "The Public". But in order to extract that advantage, they will need to put a similar effort into cooperating and coordinating their activities as "The Big Three" have done.   All of which, I think, can probably be achieved without needing to bother those players who are not (yet) particularly interested in End-Game Raid Arrangements; and of course, without having to put you and the rest of the Development Team to any more trouble than you already go to on our behalf.   I reckon..!

Ooo-kay... So... Feels like this round of discussions is drawing/has drawn towards its end, so as self-appointed (but apparently not objected to...) facilitator, the following is the draft content for what I would propose putting in a separate Poll Thread:   ###   Following a recent discussion - https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/11584-raid-rotation-discussion-time-for-a-change/- regarding the current in-Game Raid Rotation Agreement, it has been proposed that a poll of the Player Community be held to validate the most popular approach to ordering (or not) Player Access to the four/five Time-Spawned Raids within the EnB Emulator.   Please read the following before casting your vote:   There are five Raids within the EnB Galaxy where triggers respawn after a certain amount of time (typically around 48 hours) has lapsed since the previous trigger was activated (killed/"taken down"). These Raids are:   "The Controller" - Blackbeard's Wake (BBW) "Scooter" - Der Todesengel (DT) "The Red Dragon Base" - Aragoth Prime (AP) "Genril" - Der Todesengel (DT) "The Ghost of Blackbeard" (a.k.a. "GoBB") - Paramis   Approximately 3 years ago, just after the Emulator went "Live", the leaderships of 3 of the largest guilds in the Game - Static, Builders, Inc. (BI), and VonCorp Galactic Empire (VGE) - got together to co-ordinate between themselves a "Rotation Agreement".   The purpose of this agreement was to prevent conflict between players in these 3 guilds whilst Raiding. Initially, just 3 Raids (The 'Troller in BBW, the RD Base, and GoBB) were available, and with 3 Guilds coordinating an agreement, a 3 week rotation was determined to be the simplest and most manageable form of agreement.   This agreement was not intended to block players who were not members of one of these 3 guilds from Raiding (triggering these Raids). Groups of "Public" players (i.e. players not members of Static, BI or VGE) were not prohibited from attempting Raids as a result of the Agreement established between the three large guilds. The Agreement simply stipulated that if a time-spawned trigger were available, only one guild (out of the three) could attempt it in any given week during the Rotation Cycle.   In practice, effective coordination of players within and between these three Guilds meant that players who were members of these Guilds were more likely to be able to participate in these Raids, than players who were not members of "The Big Three".   There was no conspiracy or "cartel" intended to deny "Public" players from experiencing the Raids covered in the Agreement. It was simply that when a time-spawned trigger was identified (and advertised) as being "up", the Guild that had rights to the particular Raid under the Agreement was more capable of quickly organising sufficient numbers of (Guilded) players to carry out the Raid than non-Guilded (or smaller Guild) players. This facility was enhanced by the Agreement, since only 1 of the 3 guilds that (at the time) were capable of quickly assembling a Raid Party would be going for the trigger.   Over time, at least two other Guilds became large and well-organised enough to also be able to respond quickly to notification that a time-spawned Raid Trigger was available. If either of these other two Guilds (competitively or cooperatively) activated the trigger and carried out the Raid, they were not considered to be in breach of the Raid Agreement, since they were not parties TO the Agreement. The same applied to any smaller guilds or spontaneous groupings of "Public" players.   However, it remained most probable that any Raid activated and completed would be done so by one of the "Big Three" Guilds, primarily because of their more effective organisational capabilities, and also because of the Agreement in place between the three of them.   This created the perception among some "Public" players that "The Big Three" had a "lock" on Raid Content in the Emulator. This despite the fact that the Agreement was solely intended to avoid disagreements between Static, B.I. and V.G.E., and had no stipulations or prohibitions covering what "Public" players could or could not do with regards Raid Content.   As a result of the perception that "The Big Three" were dominating/controlling Raid Content in the Game, and following the opening of the Der Todesengel Sector (and the two Raids within it), a fourth week was added (by "The Big Three") to the Raid Rotation Agreement, which was designated "Public".   In this new Agreement, there were now four raids (the 2 raids in Der Todesengel were treated as one), a four-weekly cycle, and a fourth "Guild" in the shape of "The Public", i.e. any players who were not members of Static, B.I. or V.G.E.   As far as the members of "The Big Three" Guilds were concerned, they had all agreed to take that fourth week "off" raiding (whatever the Raid was). The "Public" could then do whatever they wanted during that week, without fear that their ad-hoc attempts to Raid would be dominated/negated by whichever of the "Big 3" happened to be assigned to any given Raid in any given week.   This is the current state of the Raid Rotation Agreement, which has been in effect for at least eighteen months, and which is generally considered to have been successful in preventing discord and dispute among the EnB Player Community. Which to summarise in its simplest form:   The current Raid Rotation Agreement is an agreement in effect between 3 of the largest Guilds in the EnB Player Community: Static; Builders, Inc.; and VonCorp Galactic Empire.   The Agreement stipulates that each of the four(/five) time-spawned Raids is allocated to each of the three Guilds on a weekly basis; with a fourth week for each Raid when it is not allocated to any of the three Guilds that are parties to the Agreement. During this fourth week, players in those three Guilds have agreed not to organise or initiate that particular Raid if the trigger is available.   Other Guilds and players that are not party to this Raid Rotation Agreement may attempt any Raid Content at any time, if and when a time-spawned trigger is available.   Destroying the NPC that is the trigger for a particular Raid does NOT constitute ownership of the Raid-spawned MOBs that follow.   The Game Development and Game Masters Teams are NOT involved in any way with the drafting, approving or enforcing of any intra-Player Agreement regarding Raid Content.   The Rules of the Game relating to player behaviour and conduct remain effective at all times with regards to Raid Content, all Gameplay and player interactions: https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/8820-rules-of-the-game/   The Game Masters Team will respond to any reports of violations of the Rules of the Game, investigate and respond as they deem appropriate. Game Masters' decisions relating to breaches of Game Rules are final.   Recently, a thread was created in the "Raid Discussion Area" of the Forum to discuss the situation with regards the Raid Rotation Agreement: https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/11584-raid-rotation-discussion-time-for-a-change/   Following the discussions in this thread, it has been suggested that a poll be taken to canvass the views of the widest number of players as possible.   It should be emphasised that the existing Raid Rotation Agreement is an agreement negotiated and adhered to by players within the 3 large guilds: Builders, Inc.; VonCorp Galactic Empire; and Static. There is no facility within the Game or contained in the Rules of the Game to prohibit players from making any agreement among themselves, provided that agreement does not contravene the Rules of the Game. If the players and leaderships of these three Guilds wish to continue operating an agreement that was intended to prevent conflict between themselves, there is no mechanism that can force them not to abide by such an agreement.   The first option in this poll is:   1) There should be no agreement between any Guilds that schedules access to Raid Content.   If you vote for this option you will be indicating that you disagree with the decisions of the players in the three Guilds to institute and uphold an agreement between themselves to schedule access to Raid Content. Even if this option proves to be the most popular by the time the poll closes, it would be up to the leadership and membership of these three Guilds to decide whether or not to maintain their agreement.   The second option in this poll is:   2) The existingRaid Rotation Agreement between Static, Builders, Inc., and VonCorp Galactic Empire should remain in effect without any changes.   If you vote for this option you will be indicating that you agree with the desires of the players in these three Guilds to uphold the current agreement. It will remain up to the leaderships and membership of these three Guilds to decide whether or not to maintain their agreement.   The third option in this poll is:   3) There should be a wider formal agreement regarding Raid Content between ALL interested players in the EnB Community, not just the three large Guilds.   If you vote for this option, you will be indicating that you would like to see a new agreement between all players and Guilds concerning the four/five time-spawned Raids in the EnB Emulator. The final details of this new agreement have yet to be finalised, but will likely include:   Adding a fifth "Public" week to the existing Rotation Agreement Splitting the two Der Todesengel Raids ("Scooter" and "Genril") into separate Raids Having the second of the two "Public" weeks organised/coordinated to ensure fair availability to players in multiple time-zones Formation and operation of a Raid Council to coordinate Raid events and resolve disputes. To reiterate: the purpose of this poll is to canvas opinion from as large a number of EnB Players as possible, in order to steer future developments and cooperation with regards Raid Content in the most positive and harmonious direction.   The purpose of this poll is NOT to validate, authorise or mandate any binding agreement among current and future players in the EnB Emulator Community. The Rules of the Game remain paramount, and any consensus agreement reached between interested players will be an effort to ensure that those Rules continue to be adhered to.   ###   What do we think..?   :unsure:

In the right place for that..!  :wacko:   So...   I guess once the Winter Festivities are over, we can look back on the thread and see what, if any new proposal needs to be drawn from it.   I say "if", because with E.G. and S.C.C. declining a permanent spot in the Rotation, the only substantial change that has been proposed (by me!) is that what is currently a 4-week Rotation be expanded to a 5-week Rotation, with "The Public" getting an extra week to play with.   Bunch of other technical stuff as well, regarding Raid Rules and how Timezone Raids could/might be organised, but other than that, in terms of "Big" Change there is only the addition of an extra Public Week in the Rotation as it stands.   And I wonder if that still requires a poll? Would the assent of the Leadership of the three Guilds in the Permanent Rotation be sufficient to make that change?   I would have thought it pretty much a foregone result if "The Public" were asked if they would like an extra week...   Anyhoo, there's that to consider, plus some of the other "Guidelines" that have been articulated and posted. Certainly be useful to put all that down into a concise post, possibly in a new, clean thread, and definitely not using any font colouring that might damage any Developers' eyes!   Happy to take care of that.   Meanwhile, in response to Vitaes' post (#160) and other, more general comments on a similar theme, I thought it might be useful to provide my personal perspective on what we have been attempting to do in this thread, and previous threads on Raid Agreements.   As I've mentioned previously, part of my work involves mediating between professional parties (usually in an attempt to avoid expensive legal battles), negotiating contracts between commercial entities, and arbitrating operational disputes within businesses and teams.   I enjoy the work, and I also recognise that I am reasonably effective at it. That recognition comes from a fairly solid success rate (success and failure in mediation is very easy to measure..!), the fact that I am still being referred to new clients by past clients, and the fact that I still managed to get paid to do a job I enjoy..!   And I'm writing my capsule CV in this post for one very good reason:   To point out that negotiating agreements between parties that have conflicting interests (the only kind of parties you *NEED* to negotiate agreements between..!) is not an easy or straightforward activity. People like me are professionally engaged to do it, because we have practised and made a practise out of doing it.   When players join an On-Line Multiplayer Game, they don't (or at least, very rarely...) join the Game because they want to engage in intra-Community negotiations about sharing access to aspects of the Game. Generally speaking, they join the Game because they want to enjoy playing it, as the Developers (and/or Ressurection Team!) designed it to be played.   However, depending on the nature of the Game and its Player-Base, it is not-at-all uncommon for disputes to arise within the Community about the way it should be played; and in particular, about what constitutes "Fair Play".   Everyone has their own definition of "Fair Play".   Usually, that definition is: the way *THEY* think the Game should be played.   Player A wants to play the Game one way, and that is the way that Player A sees as "Fair".   Player B wants to play the Game another way, and that is the way that Player B sees as "Fair".   If Player A does not like the way that Player B is playing the Game, instead of saying, "I do not like the way that Player B is playing the Game, because it is not the way that I want to play it"; they say: "Player B is playing unfairly".   And vice versa.   Point being: there is no objective definition of "Fair Play". There is only, "The way I want to see the Game played is fair. If others are not playing the Game the way I want to see it played, then they are playing unfairly."   It's no different in business or politics btw, so I hope nobody thinks I am patronising anyone because the matter at hand is about playing games..!   Elite Special Forces soldiers who go under cover, and try to infiltrate, disrupt and hopefully neutralise our enemies, are heroes, fighting for Freedom.   But any person working for our enemies, who infiltrates our societies, disrupting and destroying our people, are terrorist scum, fighting to destroy our Freedoms..!   It's just a matter of perspective, isn't it?   And it is the Clash of Perspectives that produces disharmony, discord and disorder. And away from the World of politics, religion and power, disorder can just as easily consume a Game-Playing Community, because different people have different ideas about the way a Game should be played.   Sometimes, that disorder reaches such a level that the people who develop, support and play the Game just give up doing so, because it isn't worth the hassle.   And other times, some players decide that they want to get together with other players who dislike the disorder, but love the Game, and try to bring some order to the chaos.   That's what happened in response to the chaos that was taking place around the Raids in the EnB Emulator: some players (the leadership of the biggest Guilds at the time) stepped up and attempted to enforce some order, where there was only disorder.   Did they produce a Perfect Agreement that would please absolutely everyone, all of the time, forever..? No.   Did they consider how the Raid Rotation Agreement might be reviewed and maintained on an on-going basis, as the dynamics of the Community changed..? Not as such...   Were/are any of the Players who helped develop and formulate the Raid Rotation Agreement professional contract negotiators and/or arbitrators..? Probably not.   But did the Raid Rotation Agreement bring order where before there was disorder? Yes, it certainly did.   Have most Players in the Community been generally happy with the Raid Rotation Agreement because of the peace it maintained? It really does seem that way.   Was every new player that joined the Game always going to be happy with the existence of a Raid Rotation Agreement that they were not party to drafting or approving? That seems unlikely.   Would it be in anyway practical or feasible to scrap the Raid Rotation Agreement every time a new player joins, just in case that new player doesn't approve of it? Of course not.   Is it worth reviewing the Raid Rotation Agreement periodically, inviting input and discussion, and following any consensus regarding any changes that might be necessary? Sounds sensible to me!   And I think that's what this thread has been all about, hasn't it?   After all the posts and words in this thread, it could well end up that the Raid Rotation Agreement that existed prior to Gunney's first post remains in effect.   Does that mean the whole exercise has been a waste of time? Absolutely not.   Everyone who had an inclination to do so has shared and recorded their thoughts We've got to more than 160 posts without any major Flame Wars breaking out We've scrutinised and examined the existing Raid Agreement, pointing out its benefits and its flaws We've tossed around some new ideas, and considered what they may be like And those of us who feel frustrated about the existing Raid Agreement, and those of us who feel frustrated about the people who feel frustrated about the existing Raid Agreement... Have expressed our frustrations! And if the existing Raid Rotation Agreement still stands after all that! Then it is clearly more robust, effective, and dare I say "fair", than perhaps even the people who originally devised it believed it could be.   And if we build on the foundations of the existing agreement by adding a second "Pubilc" week that is managed according to a TimeZone allocation, then we will have Evolution - which is always preferable to and less messy than Revolution!   I really do think it is worth acknowledging that despite our differences in opinion with regards to the specifics of the Raid Rotation Agreement, we all share the same love for this Game, and the same passion to want to see it continue to grow on solid foundations.   If there was a single, objectively verifiable solution to ensuring every player capable has a "fair" opportunity to participate in Raids and share in the Loot, then there would be no need for any Agreement: we would just implement that solution.   But if such a solution exists, it has not been described or publicised by anyone yet. And we'll know if and when it does get described, because every single one of us will say: "Yes! That's it!!"   But in the meantime, we do need to develop and maintain an agreement amongst us, *BECAUSE* we disagree..!   Just thought it would be helpful to make that point.  :D

Sorry 'bout that Kyp...  <_<   Will ensure that as and when a formal draft is prepared for submission to the Assembly, it will be much easier on the eyes!

Yup, got that Syber.   Was conscious from the point I first brought it up that I might have been trying to foist something on you/S.C.C. that you didn't particularly want.   Was thinking more about the, uh, "debate" around E.G.'s previous attempts to gain a seat in the Raid Rotation when I was referring to the contentiousness; plus other general comments about additional Guilds joining the Rotation.   Hopefully in the future, this thread will be a good reference point for anyone who feels that the existing Rotation-Seat holding Guilds are resistant to anyone else joining them!

I think that's ok: I did anticipate that as a possibility after S.C.C. declined the slot they were offered.   So in my proposal I did describe a "five week cycle" (if E.G. declined).   I guess I'd look to Efi now to see if he still felt the need to keep his proposal as a stand-alone offering (but without E.G.), roll it up into Proposal 2 ("Keep Things As They Are"), or incorporate/merge his proposal with mine.   Have to say that with E.G. and S.C.C. declining the offer, that already constitutes some positive progress in my book.   Scan through this thread and some of the others, and one of the issues that has been contentious was about other Guilds being offered places in the Rotation, and what steps they might have to (or did...) go through to qualify.   But now that two significant Guilds have declined a no-requirements/qualification offer to participate in any new Rotation Agreement, that will somewhat neutralise any future arguments about additional Guilds being blocked from joining the Rotation.   Couple that with what Efi has highlighted - that people are quick to criticise what exists, but when offered the opportunity to propose an alternative, come up short - then I think even if nothing changes at all in the Raid Rotation Agreement, substantial progress has already been made in terms of reducing opportunities for conflict around it.

Thank you Efi.   And happily!   To start to steer towards a conclusion then... We have two definite options for any eventual poll:   1) Do away altogether with any Community arrangement or agreement regarding the four time-spawned Raids.   2) Keep the current Raid Rotation Agreement exactly as it is.   OK, then we'll have your proposal Efi as option 3 - modified slightly to account for S.C.C.'s declining of a permanent slot:   ###   A 5 week rotation with 4 weeks allocated 1 each to B.I., Static, V.G.E. and E.G.; and the remaining 5th week allocated to the Public.   The four Guilds with their own rotation slots define their own rules for how they conduct their own raids. In their week, it is up to them what, how and if they do anything with the Raid Trigger that is their's for the week.   However, the four named Guilds are forbidden from including members of the other three named Guilds in any Raid Party; but may invite any other player that is not affiliated with the other three named Guilds to join in with their Raids.   Regarding the week allocated to "The Public" (and I'm going to paraphrase a bit here Efi, 'cos you got a little fuzzy in #130..! But obviously correct any missteps I make.):   No member of the four named Guilds may initiate or organise a Raid during the Public's week.   However, members of the four named Guilds may participate (in any capacity) in a Public-Week Raid, provided the Raid Party is made up of at least a clear majority (=> 65%) of non named-Guild players. Any member of the named Guilds participating in a Public-Week Raid may not claim loot.   It is up to whichever member(s) of "The Public" organises and leads the Raid to determine how loot will be distributed.   If it becomes obvious that unique participants of Public-Week raids are regularly exceeding the maximum practical capacity (2 - 3 groups), the Rotation Allocation will be revisited to consider allocating additional time to "The Public".   (How'd I do Efi?  :unsure: )   ###   OK, Option 4 would be my proposition (hope you're all sitting comfortably!):   The Rotation Cycle to be made a 6 week cycle (or a 5 week cycle if Epic Gamers declines a permanent spot).   If 6-week (4 x Permanent Guilds):   (W)eek1 - (G)uild1; W2 - G2; W3 - Public; W4 - G3; W5 - G4; W6 - Public.   If 5 -week (3 x Permanent Guilds):   W1 - G1: W2 - Public; W3 - G2; W4 - Public; W5 - G3.   Each named Guild with a permanent seat in the Rotation entirely sets its own rules. The spawn is their's to do with as they see fit - if they even feel like doing anything at all with it. They can invite any non-Guild players from any other Guild (including from the other named Guilds in the Rotation); and if they want to, they can donate their spawn to the Public.    Their allocated week = their spawn, to do with as they please, according to their own, In-House Rules.   Also: once a Guild has been awarded a permanent seat in the Rotation, it is a tenured position. That means they can only surrender that permanent seat, it cannot be taken away from them.   Looking back over the thread before writing this post, I could see that one of the key concerns expressed by several posters (including myself), was about what qualified a Guild to maintain a permanent seat in the Rotation. What if a Guild was regularly "wasting" spawns, because they weren't interested in taking it down that week, or couldn't summon up the interest within their Guild?   There were several suggestions that the active player-base within a Guild that held a permanent spot should be assessed and/or monitored in order to justify that spot.   But I got to thinking about this...   First off: having to operate/enforce some kind of monitoring/oversight system to ensure that a Guild with a permanent seat in the Rotation still qualifies would be... Onerous. Not to mention a bit oppressive...   But second off:  I think the members and leadership of B.I., Static, V.G.E. and Epic Gamers have *EARNED* tenure in the Rotation Agreement.   Based on my own experiences in-Game, and what I see on the Market Channel, I'll bet there can't be many players flying around the Galaxy that don't have at least a couple of useful items built by members of those Guilds. Items that were built as-needed, when-needed, and with a lot of value-added advice thrown into the deal for free! Couple that with the patience, resilience and contribution that the leaderships of these Guilds have put into the Game since its resurrection, and I think the whole Community owes them a lot of gratitude.   So I think permanent seats in the Rotation should be for these Guilds to surrender, rather than to have to maintain qualification for. They've earned tenure.   And like I mentioned, that also has the advantage of not having to formulate or implement any system of monitoring or oversight to see who qualifies for a permanent seat on an on-going basis.   Since we're requesting that these Guilds' memberships lose a little bit of regular access to the Raids; I think giving them tenure in their position would be an appropriate compensation.   The Public Weeks then, an exact repetition of Efi's proposal:   No member of the four named Guilds may initiate or organise a Raid during the Public's week.   However, members of the four named Guilds may participate (in any capacity) in a Public-Week Raid, provided the Raid Party is made up of at least a clear majority (=> 65%) of non named-Guild players. Any member of the named Guilds participating in a Public-Week Raid may not claim loot.   It is up to whichever member(s) of "The Public" organises and leads the Raid to determine how loot will be distributed.   If it becomes obvious that unique participants of Public-Week raids are regularly exceeding the maximum practical capacity (2 - 3 groups), the Rotation Allocation will be revisited to consider allocating additional time to "The Public".   Also, a suggestion for the management of the Public Week allocations:   Why not make a Rotation Agreement within a Rotation Agreement?   For the Public, select/appoint/volunteer three Public representatives: one based in Europe; one based on the East Coast of the U.S.; and one based on the West Coast.   Within each of the two weeks that are assigned to the Public (in my proposal), have one European Raid, one East Coast Raid, and one West Coast Raid. And have the three Public representatives (and any deputies they require) co-ordinate the handover among themselves.   Or perhaps with two weeks assigned to "The Public", have one week as a "Free-for-All" (though with the rules regarding named-Guild member participation still in effect), as it is now; and have the second week as a "TimeZone Week".   The three Public Representatives would also then be the obvious nominees to participate in any Raid Council that might operate.   And finally:   The Raid Rotation "Week" runs from 00:00 UTC Wednesday to 23:59 UTC Monday.   No Raids are to be triggered on the Tuesday.   The reasons for which should hopefully be self-explanatory.   ###   So that's four options so far. The first two of which are a given; and the third and fourth are still open to discussion, correction and/or modification.   The Floor is still open for additional options/suggestions!

Heh. Going to have to pass that line to my agent and ask her to add it to my references.  :D   OK. So thanks very much for the offer of your spot as the Public Rep in the Raid Council.   If I say I'm happy to accept the offer, it is with a couple of provisos that may need to be worked out with the other players on that Council:   The first is that defining, re-forming, reconstituting or just plain carrying on with the business of the Raid Council may at the current stage be a little... Pre-emptive. I think we're still trying to confirm what that Council might be overseeing - or continuing to oversee. For any Council to be purposeful, it would really need a Terms of Reference, which would have to follow whatever it is that is agreed.   That said, there is an existing Rotation Agreement that is still current; so if it is a question of sitting in with the leaderships of Static, B.I. and V.G.E. for an off-line (off-forum...) conversation, I am happy to do that.   Second proviso for any on-going role... I think if I were representing the Great, Unwashed "Public", I'd feel a lot more comfortable doing that with as much transparency as possible. Which means that this Forum is probably the best place to conduct any meetings to discuss that sort of business, so that everyone I might be representing can, uh, monitor my performance..!   But like I said... Maybe getting a bit ahead of ourselves there.   More importantly: your decline of a permanent spot for S.C.C. might help move things along.   Efi has generously and constructively agreed to move from a 4-week to a 6-week schedule. Still waiting to hear from B.I. and Static on how they might feel about that. And also to (officially) hear from Epic Gamers to see if they want the slot that has been offered them.   But let's work on the assumption that B.I. and Static are okay to expand, and E.G. do want the slot. What we might now have is either a 5-week rotation, or a 6-week rotation with two weeks that could be set aside for "The Public" (week 3 and week 6 would make sense there).   So taking Flip and Gunney's points into consideration, how about this:   For a trial period at least, let the one or two weeks that it has been proposed to assign to (/keep with) "The Public" be run the way that Flip and Gunney are suggesting.   It shouldn't be any sweat to accommodate. The 3 or 4 Guilds in the Rotation can continue (or start) to run things in whatever way they feel as a Guild that they want to.   The "Public" weeks can be run along the lines that Flip has (very helpfully) proposed. Or variation(s) thereof. Call it a "Proof of Concept" if you like.   Flip: I think the "Business of Guilds" has to be those Guilds' business and nobody else's. What other purpose do Guilds serve in the Emulator, if not to create a small degree of seclusion/sequestration from the rest of the Community?   How they run their Raids... If, when, why or how they take down the Raids is entirely up to them. In my experience, it's best not to pry into the affairs of Private Members' Clubs that you have chosen not to be a member of (I become a member of those Clubs I'm *REALLY* interested to know what goes on in..!).   So would a happy medium, at least for an interim term be to let the Guilds continue to use their Raid Weeks as they see fit, whilst you and others test out your ideas and concepts on the weeks that are allocated to "The Public"?   If those tests of your concepts prove to be highly successful, then you'll have a lot more information and evidence with which to continue to press your case for a greater allocation of slots to "The Public", at the next review.   And finally Redd!   I would definitely like to see all Raids activated by a trigger. So, I think would just about everyone else. I only do the G8 and FB with my multi-box Armada *BECAUSE* they are trigger-activated, and I know I'm not robbing anyone else of any opportunity... (Though I can sometimes drag my heels on the G8-Raid if I'm having an all-fingers-no-thumbs day, and by the time I'm done, a bit of a queue has built up... Sorry all!)   But I think it has been established that the effort required and time and resources necessary to convert these Raids is not high on the Development Team's agenda... And personally, I think that's actually a good thing.   Who knows what Kyp & Co. might come up with if we give them a bit of Peace and Quiet?   Surely the most ideal situation would be for newer Raids to arrive and displace these rather well-worn ones. Doubtless any new End-Game Raids will be designed around trigger activations, and wouldn't it be a great situation to have everyone disregarding GoBB, RD, 'Troller and DT, because they've moved on to being obsessed with getting the even better loot that comes from the new Raids?   I think we've got to appreciate that everything we have available to us today has come from Kyp and The Development Team setting their own goals and managing their own progress and priorities. I can't imagine they would change those priorities to address minor squabbles over Raid Rotations, but even if they did, I wouldn't want them to.   The four existing raids being trigger-activated would be great. But all new (and trigger-activated!) Raids would be even better! Wouldn't you say?  :D

Meanwhile...   There is a very solid and simple proposal now on the table (from Efi).   Be really useful to hear the (official) views of Static, B.I., Epic Gamers and S.C.C. on it.

Well, I don't think you need have any concerns with regards Dev Enforcement. I think Kyp & Co. have made it quite clear that they don't want to get involved in anything to do with controlling access to the Raids; and that if they do get involved, it will be *THEIR* rules that they will enforce, not the Community's.   I don't think any of us see the Raid Rotation Agreement as an "authority". It is a consensus agreement that most of see the rationale for, and respect it for what it is.   It is worth acknowledging that there is no formal sanction that can be applied to any player who chooses not to respect the Raid Rotation Agreement.   Those who are keen to see the Raid Rotation Agreement maintained (in current or new form) will try to strongly discourage anyone from not adhering to it, primarily because of past experiences when it was unpleasantly Free-For-All. But that's all they can or will do: try to discourage.   If anyone ignores the Raid Agreement, they can't be harassed, stalked or in anyway have their Game Play interfered with. And they won't have to put up with any of that.   At worst, they will feel the cold shoulder of the /ignore command, but even that will dissipate quite quickly. The main reaction that breaking the Raid Agreement will create will be one of sadness and disappointment amongst the majority of players that are content with the current, generally positive In-Game atmosphere.   That's really the price a single player (or small group of players) has to pay for increasing their own enjoyment by ignoring the Raid Agreement: decreasing most everyone else's ability to enjoy the Game.   I multi-box *ALL* the time... Never less than 6 clients running on my PC; and when I'm doing a Gate Raid or Fishbowl, I have 9 clients running simultaneously. It has taken the Game to a new level for me: trying to manage 9 toons with different abilities/functions. And I'm quite sure I could have a fair crack at the time-spawned Raids if I felt so inclined.   But I've never been tempted to do so.   Because the element of the Game I most enjoy is being part of an intimate Player-Community that, on the whole, gets on so well with itself. My sons are always begging me to join in with the On-line Games they play, but frankly, I can't abide the negativity and griefing that seems to be so common to the Games that they play. But I don't judge. I just keep an eye out to make sure the language filter is in place for the Games my younger son plays, and let them get on with it, whilst I immerse myself in the more mellow and less intense EnB Emulator Experience.   And since enjoying the good natured and generally placid interaction in the EnB Community is what keeps me coming back day after day, any action on my part that might disrupt any of that, would be counter-productive.   So much as I am curious to see how I'd get on, multi-boxing the GoBB, 'Troller and RD Base, I know any enjoyment I might get from that would come at the cost of disrupting everyone else's enjoyment.   That's just not a cost I want to incur.   I'm sure an opportunity will arise at some point in the future. Maybe I'll catch Blacklung on a quiet night and he'll open the PRS for me and my Armada... But until then, no rush. Plenty of other stuff to enjoy in the Game.   Content *IS* available for all to do as they see fit.   And the Community of EnB Players is also available for all to engage with as they see fit.   I'd rather play this Game as a part of this Community, than apart from it.   But that's just an articulation of my personal choices. No personal attack is expressed or implied. Just hoping to shed some light on the motivations behind mine and others' support for the Raid Rotation Arrangement.