Holyman

I don't think you can compare this EnB Emulator to other MMO games.   It is a resurrected game using base code written more than a dozen years ago. The Development Team that resurrected it and work to keep it operational and moving forward do so for no money whatsoever; and we players pay no money to play it.   It is very difficult for the Emu Development Team to add additional content, or change existing fundamentals.   Converting all time-spawned raids to trigger-activated raids would be great. Reducing the times between spawns would also be an improvement. But that cannot be done easily.   This Game *DID* end: 12 years ago.   It has been resurrected by a Development Team and a Player-Base who have very fond memories of playing the Game, all those years ago. The relationship between the Dev Team and Player-Base is much closer and much more symbiotic than any commercially available contemporary game.   Comparing this EnB Emulator to a modern MMORPG is comparing apples with oranges: two different fruit.   The Development Team began this project for the love of the Game; and I suspect it is the opportunity to use their skills on a project for love rather than money, that keeps them engaged.   I'm a professional management consultant, and the kind of mediation, negotiation and arbitration I've been doing in this thread, I also do for money in my day job: and I can tell you that I have been enjoying contributing to this thread over the last few weeks far more than the rubbish I have to deal with for money.   The Community taking the initiative to bring some form of order to the accessing of the limited amount of End-Game Content is an attempt to reciprocate the efforts of the Development Team.   I would far rather Kyp & The Gang focused their limited time and effort on their excellent development activities, than waste it on trying to mediate between squabbling players.   I do think you are mistaken about there being no new players that would feel comfortable with this arrangement.   Apart from a very brief (and disengaged) period playing the Emu in 2012, pre-wipe, I've only been playing since March this year. I am a new player. I was not party to any of the discussions regarding the Raid Rotation, way back when.   And I am very comfortable with the Raid Rotation Agreement. I can totally understand why it needs to be in place. I've never participated in any of the raids in the Rotation. I'm sure I will, in the fullness of time, but I'm in no rush. What am I gonna do once I've raided everything there is to raid, and equipped everything there is to equip? Wait for the Expansion Pack..? Wait for a whole new load of DLC to become available..?   Of course, that's just me. I do understand from the tone and content of your posts Panda that you are keen to get raiding, and I'm not disparaging you for that: just suggesting that not everyone is going to have the same priorities as you when it comes to playing this particular game.   I do think you might find the situation less frustrating if you try and modulate your expectations with regards this Emulator. It really isn't comparable to any commercially available contemporary Game. The relationships within the Player-base, and between the Player-base and the Development Team are much more intimate. And a lot of us Old Timers like it that way, and are happy to accept and work with the limitations that are an inherent part of this Emulator's dynamics.   Change will and always does happen... But in this Game, it just happens much more slowly.   Some players aren't going to like that; but a lot players prefer it that way.

  Very well put Efi.

  Great.   Here is the proposition again (for clarity):   1) Expand the current Rotation Period from four to eight weeks.   2) Static, B.I. and V.G.E. all keep their current permanent spots, with one week each in the eight-week Rotation   3) Epic Gamers and Sirius Cybernetics Corporation get permanent spots in the eight-week Rotation   4) Raids are still "Open to the Public" one week out of every four (two weeks in the eight-week Rotation)   5) The remaining week in the eight-week Rotation is assigned/awarded to "junior" Guilds by the Raid Council (B.I., Static, V.G.E., E.G. and S.C.C.) based on criteria set by the Raid Council   6) The Raid Council would meet regularly to assess applications for the "spare" slot in the eight-week Rotation; and also to deal with any "Matters Arising" (e.g. breaches of the Raid Agreement).   So for each Raid, the Eight-Week Rotation would look like this:   Week 1 - Builders, Inc. Week 2 - VonCorp Galactic Empire Week 3 - Static Week 4 - Public Week 5 - Epic Gamers Week 6 - Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Week 7 - Awarded to "Junior" Guild by the Raid Council Week 8 - Public / F.F.A.   OK then.   When I first mooted the above, I said I was "tabling it for discussion"; and Efi, you said you feel the "proposition should be discussed further".   So to everyone else: the above should *NOT* be taken as a full and final blueprint to be approved or disapproved (using whatever mechanism...); it is a potential framework for a new Raid Agreement that should be considered, discussed, and/or modified. It is a *DRAFT* template; not The Final Blueprint for a new Rotation Agreement.   For example:   It has already been said that the inclusion of Epic Gamers and S.C.C. into the Rotation might lessen the need to have a "Public" slot; since with the five biggest Guilds in the Rotation, that might/would cover a sufficient percentage of the Player-base, particularly given that Guilds with a Rotation Slot often ask "Public" players to fill up gaps in those Guild's ranks.   In which case, it might be more appropriate to just give "The Public" one week in the eight week Rotation, rather than two.   The spare week that this would free up could be made available to another "Junior" Guild by the Raid Council.... Or:   A distinction could be made between a "Public" week and a "Free For All" week.   Since a minority of players do occasionally suggest doing away with the Raid Rotation Agreement and making Raids "Free For All"... Why not address that by making one week out of every eight just that: a Free-for-All?   The distinction between a "Public" week and a "Free For All Week" would be that during the "Public" week, members of Guilds that have a permanent seat in the Rotation ("The Big Five"), plus whichever Guild may have been awarded the Week 7 slot, are not allowed to participate - or allowed to participate only in a supporting/advisory capacity, but not claim loot.   But in the "Free For All" week, anyone can have a go: "Public" players; Guilds in and not in the Rotation; hell, even multi-boxers..!   Maybe that is an idea that should be considered somewhere down the line, after the above Rotation Cycle (if it, or a variation of it is approved) has had time to bed in. Or maybe it should go in at inception..? To be discussed... But it *WOULD* be an accommodation of those players who think that a "Free For All" approach to Raids would be in the Community's best interests. And it could always be revoked (by the Raid Council) if it caused too much unpleasantness..!   Just a thought..!   Finally then, to try and frame (and contain!) what hopefully will be a constructive discussion:   We are (I believe) looking for an evolution of the existing Raid Rotation Agreement that will - above all else! - maintain a cordial and positive culture within the Player Community.   We are looking for a revised Raid Rotation Agreement that accommodates and harmonises multiple attitudes and opinions.   We would like a Raid Rotation Agreement that affords every player who wishes it, the opportunity to experience End-Game Raid Content within the Emulator, and to increase their chances of gaining possession of high-end items that drop only at End-Game Raids.   And any revised Raid Rotation Agreement needs to be as simple to operate and broadcast as possible, in order to encourage and facilitate adherence.   There we go then. Hopefully the above is a useful basis for constructive discussion about what the future could look like. And as Kyp and others have already pointed out: that's the only kind of discussion worth having; and the only sort of discussion that we should be having in this thread.

Thanks for the constructive responses Efi and Overtkill.   To emphasise as strongly as I can:   The Raid Rotation Agreement/System for the four big time-spawned Raids absolutely has to remain in place. As imperfect as it is, it is clearly superior to having no agreement/system in place.   A common vibe I've picked up from this thread, and from several other threads on the same topic, is that it is not the Raid Rotation Agreement that is being questioned (some people are questioning it, but only a small minority...): but the lock that Static, BI and V.G.E. have on the 3 out of 4 weekly slots.   From what I see flying around the Galaxy, it would appear that Epic Gamers and Sirius Cybernetics Corporation field the same amount of toons on any given day as "The Big 3". It seems a little incongruous that E.G. and S.C.C. aren't also in the Rotation.   But the explanation for that is that not only do Static, BI and V.G.E. have a permanent lock on 3 out of the 4 weekly slots in the Rotation: they also decide if, when and how the Rotation Agreement should be reviewed and/or modified.   If another Guild were to join the Raid Rotation Agreement with a 4th permanent slot, Static, BI and V.G.E. (let's call them "The Original 3" or "O3"  :) ) would lose out somewhat. The benefit they gain every four weeks would be diminished if a 4th and 5th Guild joined the Rotation.   So having the Original 3 determine the Rules of Entry/Qualification has to be something of a Conflict of Interest.   Here is what I would propose:   1) Double the Rotation period from 4 weeks to 8 weeks.   2) Static, BI and V.G.E. each keep their permanent seats, and are joined by Epic Gamers and S.C.C., who take the 4th and 5th seats in the (now 8-week) Rotation.   3) Let the Public have 2 weeks in the 8-weekly rotation (weeks 4 and 8, I guess), and that means No Change for "The Public" (they still get access 1 week out of every 4)   4) For the one remaining slot..:   Well... You'd now have a Five Member Raid Council, which is much more of a valid quorum. Allow any other Guilds to apply for that 8th slot (the week 7 slot, if the Public keep weeks 4 and 8) to the Raid Council. The Raid Council can decide which applicant Guild gets the slot, based on whatever factors they deem appropriate. The Council could (and should) set their own rules for that: e.g. a Guild can't apply if they had the Junior-Guild Slot in the previous 8-weekly Rotation; a Guild has to have a certain number of active players; limits on Multi-boxers &c.   The purpose of allowing a "Junior Guild" to have unmolested access to a Raid for a week is that they could have at least 2 or 3 attempts at it to try and improve their expertise and experience.   This would help these Guilds *GET* better organised, work out their strategies and know what their fellow Guildies will do in a given situation.   (Excluding them or restricting them from the Raid Rotation *BECAUSE* they don't have these qualities, goes a long way to ensuring they will never get them.)   It would also give the Raid Council a meaningful reason to meet regularly to conduct Raid Business... Rather than just having to come together every time the natives start getting restless about the imperfections in the Raid Rotation Agreement.   It would be a Change that would cost Static, B.I. and V.G.E. 1 weekly slot out of an 8 week rotation... But really, one way or another, the only way for "The Original Three" is down... That can't be avoided if any Change is to ever be made... And if no changes are to ever be made... There's a good chance that the O3 could lose more than just 1 week of exclusive access every 8 weeks..!   So there..: that would be the proposal I'd table for discussion!

Actually Efi, I'd take your theme one step further, and pick up on the point Gunney made about the Modi's Child and Warder spawns:   I think it can actually go beyond simply wanting all one's toons equipped with the highest level gear. I think it can get towards what is called in the Military: "Area Denial".   The psychology would be: once you've got all of the exclusive kit for your toons, you want to maintain that exclusivity by preventing others from having it.   What point having all the super-elite Kit, and the most uber craft in the Galaxy... If everyone else is on a par with you?   Throw in the fact that the Credit Economy in the Game is more or less irrelevant beyond OL150, and "owning" a spawn or raid that provides in-demand items affords the owner a significant in-Game status.   Meaning: even if you have all that you need, you may be inclined to keep stock-piling high-demand items in order to maintain exclusivity and keep exchange rates high.   Which brings me onto the purpose of the Raids themselves:   Are the Raids meant to be high-level experiences of End-Game content...?   Or are they just meant to be vendors of End-Game equipment that are difficult to get at?   I think there's an important difference.   Working your way steadily up through the Game, you want to be aiming for the ability to take down bigger and bigger scores. Being able to successfully participate in End-Game Raids obviously represents the pinnacle of that ambition.   When you reach the point that you can do all of the Raids with your eyes shut... Without any risk of failure or (dare I say it...) "wasting" a trigger...   Isn't it the case at that point that you are using the Raid as a high-end vendor, rather than part of the Game experience?   Which is fine, I guess... But the issue for the Community then is:   Who should have Priority Access to the Raids: those using it as a high-end vendor; or those wishing to experience End-Game content?   If there is no contention... I.e. On a given day, there are shoppers, but no Raid-Noobs... Then the shoppers can max out their credit cards.   The contentiousness in the Community arises when those who have little or no experience with Raiding would like to do a Raid (to gain experience and enjoyment from doing the Raid); but must defer to those players/guilds who have plenty of experience doing the Raids, and can do them easily without "wasting" a trigger.   Or at best, must accompany players who are experienced in the Raids... Because "To Waste a Trigger" (on the major Raids) is considered somewhat of a felony..!   Because...   The focus on Raids in the Game is actually about focus on Raid-Loot, and not on the Raid Experience itself.   And I'm not so sure that's the best way to approach this Emulator, given the difficulties involved in adding new Raid content.   In terms of Game Immersion and cutting ourselves off from the outside World... Having to figure stuff out for ourselves through trial-and-error is what extends our involvement in the Game. There's a reason why there isn't a single, one-stop-shop walkthrough for Agrippa: 'cos figuring out (mostly) by yourself is part of the Game Experience.   Therefore... Having "The ability to successfully take down a Raid" as a qualification to be in the Raid Rotation seems a bit... Unfair.   And I think that's why the issue of the Raid Rotation keeps coming up.   If anything... The ability to successfully and easily take down a Raid should be a *DISQUALIFICATION* from being in the Raid Rotation!!   Denying people a regular and repeatable opportunity to practice their Raid techniques and organisation *UNTIL* they have been able to master a Raid, seems a bit back-to-front.   I honestly don't think that anyone really wants to see the Raid Rotation done away with. Even the 1 or 2 people who might mention that as a proposal, are just saying it because they feel something isn't right with the current Rotation, and can't think of any better alternatives.   Of course there needs to be some form of ordered rotation around access to the Raids.   I think what is really being debated is:   What qualifies a select group (or Guild) of players to hold a priority seat in the Rotation? And once they occupy that seat, do they hold it indefinitely?   I absolutely think that the Raid Rotation should remain.   But I do think that the "permanent" seat-holders need to be reviewed on a regular basis.

Hope you included me in the "want to see absolute change but think it best to leave it alone until thoughts/ideas/opinions have unexpectedly popped in to say hello" group Alurra!   'Cos that's definitely where I'm sitting right now.   Probably.   :wacko:

The current Player Agreement with regards four of the spawned Raids in the Emulator is not perfect.   But it *IS* an agreement.   Any agreement is preferable to disagreement. Especially in a Player Community as small as ours, that is supported by an all-volunteer corps of Developers.   Unless a different proposal is developed and agreed by the Player Community to be an improvement on the existing agreement: the existing agreement *HAS* to stand.   Because whilst some players may feel they are losing out because of the existing agreement, if it is replaced by disagreement, then the entire Player Community will lose out.   Even if the Development Team do not respond to fractious and negative behaviour by “taking the toys away”: our Community is too small and intimate to withstand more than the unavoidable, trace amounts of negativity and hostility.   So it isn’t a question of holding a poll, or a Teamspeak Summit, or a Guild Leadership Council *WHEN* but *IF* an alternative agreement is reached or proposed.   I am a negotiator, arbitrator and mediator by profession, inclination and experience. I am enjoying my participation in this thread because it is Christmas, and most of the people I am paid to negotiate and mediate with are on leave! Weaving and skipping my way around the opinions, desires and voices in this thread is something I can do where firing up the Game Client would be frowned upon… Either by my colleagues that are still in the office, or by my partner when I’m supposed to be “Working From Home”..!   So I’m in no rush to conclude anything here (in case you hadn’t noticed…).   As far as I’m concerned, I’ll get much more satisfaction if I’m able to complete the “Raid” that is this thread and topic, than I will from surviving any repeatable encounter in DT, BBW, Paramis or AP!   Right then… Time to buff up!   Access to and successful completion of any of the four time-spawned raids in the EnB Emulator rewards participating players with “End Game” equipment that is superior to anything else available in-Game.   Consequently, the ability to successfully participate in Raid Encounters is an aspiration of many (though by no means all) players.   Because of the much smaller player base in the Emulator compared to the “Live” Game (and associated dynamic differences), it is fairly easy for a player to equip themselves with the knowledge and their characters with the equipment necessary to successfully complete a Raid.   However, due to limitations on the ability of the Development Team to easily alter the rate at which these four Raids respawn, allocation of the opportunity to engage in these Raids has been - and continues to be - a contentious issue.   As a result of past disagreements, an agreement was reached by the leaders of the larger player guilds in the Game to organise a rotation system that allocated the opportunity to engage in the key Raids.   Following that agreement and initial implementation, the Rotation System was subsequently modified to incorporate a fourth raid (in the newly-opened DT Sector), and a fourth “seat” in the Allocation Rotation to “The Public” (i.e. Players who are not members of the three senior guilds).   This agreement has been generally regarded as satisfactory, and has kept disagreements about opportunities to Raid to a minimum.   Periodically, the validity and effectiveness of the current Raid Rotation Agreement is questioned by Players, in-Game and on this Forum.   How’s that for a synopsis..?!   Observations then:   “You can’t please all of the people, all of the time.” &c.   Any alteration to the Raid Rotation Agreement would mean that some parties will gain increased rights to Raid, whilst other parties will see their rights to Raid decrease.   It can be generally (though not definitely) assumed that those parties seeking increased Raid Rights will vote in favour of any alteration that delivers that increase; and those parties that are reluctant to see their existing Raid Rights diminished, will vote against any alteration to the existing Agreement.   The Development Team have consistently communicated that they are not willing to arbitrate in Community disputes.   Notwithstanding the Player Community dissolving into schism and negativity, the Emulator is not going anywhere. The four Raids in the Rotation will remain available on a limited basis for the foreseeable future. Some players will continue to feel that they are not well served by the current Rotation Agreement; others will feel that they are very satisfied with the status quo; and many more players will remain sublimely indifferent to (or even completely oblivious about) the Raid Rotation Agreement.   There seems to be a 3-6 month cycle where the Raid Rotation Agreement is revisited/reviewed. Players have their say, make their suggestions, propose modifications… And any adjustments are incorporated, or not, depending upon the general consensus.   Any discussion or debate around the Raid Rotation Agreement has to remain positive and constructive, or the outcome of those discussions and debates will not be positive or constructive.   There is no need to place an arbitrary date for conclusion on discussions about the Raid Rotation Agreement. All the while discussions continue, the existing Agreement remains in force. Only when and if general agreement is reached on an alternative, will substitution take place.   Trying to shut down or limit discussion on revisions and developments to the Raid Rotation is counter-productive. If any player or players feel that the current Raid Rotation Agreement unfairly disadvantages them: being told to keep quiet about those feelings will only increase the sense of being treated unfairly.   Equally: using discussions about the Raid Rotation Agreement to conduct personal attacks, or to accuse other parties to those discussions of acting in bad faith or protecting self-interest, is also not going to be constructive or productive.   The existing Raid Rotation Agreement is not perfect.   But none of us are individually able to come up with a less imperfect alternative.   Any improvements that may be made to the Raid Rotation Agreement can only come from us working collectively and constructively.   I prefer playing the EnB Emulator to any other MMORPG, primarily because it is Player v. Environment, and not Player v. Player.   The “Environment” we are all looking at right now, is one where access to these four time-spawned raids is limited, and very difficult for the Development Team to change.   If we are going to overcome these “Environmental” constraints, we are going to have to work together, not against each other.   I think it is definitely worth keeping that in mind.   And BTW:   Merry Christmas EnB!

  Leader of the "Everyone-Not-In-Static-BI-or-VGE" Guild..?   I'm in!!   Do I get my own Space Station..?

Also:   I put Sirius Cybernetics and Epic Gamers into the six-week rotation template, and it came out like this:                                     Wk1                  Wk2                Wk3               Wk4             Wk5                Wk6   'Troller                     Static                 EG                 BI                   SCC             Public              VGE DT                           VGE                  SCC               Public             Static            EG                  BI RD Base                  BI                      Static             EG                  VGE             SCC                Public GoBB                       Public                VGE               SCC               BI                 Static              EG

I wonder if it could be something as simple as ordering the Guilds on the Net-7 Portal Stats page in the order of most active..?   I'm assuming it is currently listed in the order that the Guilds were created... Since there's a "Holy Independent" Guild I created back in 2012, pre-wipe, listed near the top of the current list... And I *KNOW* that's defunct!   With regards a Public Spokesperson...   I'm not sure what the functional requirements of that role would be..?   When an agreement on the Rotation is reached (the current status quo, or any modifications), then everything is settled. The Rotation should run on auto-pilot.   That's one of the major plus-points in favour of keeping the existing Rotation: it does seem to be very low maintenance..!   Not sure what value a "Public Spokesperson" would add..? I suppose it depends on what the leaders of the 3 Guilds in the Rotation discuss, but it doesn't seem like there is much to discuss under current arrangements... And if a new arrangement is implemented, it will really need to be equally low maintenance if it is to be a justified alteration.   H.

To be fair to those advocating the "Leave It Be" approach Murf: you only need to spend a while reviewing many of the posts related to the Raid Rotation in this area of the Forum to see how contentious it has been in the past.   I would imagine that there is a strong desire to avoid re-opening old wounds and returning to the Bad Old Days of contention, negativity and disharmony.   But I don't think that translates as a point-blank refusal to consider anything that might alter, diminish or threaten anyone's (or any Guild's) privileged status as a permanent Raid Rotation member.   I read it more as an expressed desire to avoid rocking a boat that has taken a while to settle. And unless or until a counter-proposal has been developed and put forward: much better to leave things as they are.   I actually agree with that.   I'm definitely up for brain-storming and idea development (in case you hadn't noticed...  ;) )... But I'm quite open to the possibility that after all the words in this thread, it may just conclude with the understanding that the current system is the least imperfect and most practical state of affairs.   I'm not sure we're at that point yet though.   If we're going to ask other players to consider an alternative to the existing system (that has proved... satisfactory and stable for most), then it needs to be thoroughly thought through and sanity checked.   Considering how that proposal might be advertised and opened up to a wider discussion (not just those who visit this forum) is as much a part of any change that might take place, as developing the actual details of any alternative arrangement might be.   I *DO* think it is incumbent upon the leaders of the three guilds who are currently in the Rotation to contribute to this thread; and with more than just a "Leave it be" comment.   That is exactly what Efialtis is doing on behalf of V.G.E., and I think it would be really good to get some substantial input from the leadership of Static and B.I.

A poll wouldn't necessarily be binding or final.   It's more a way of aggregating and refining discussions up to that point.   That said... It is difficult to know what other mechanism might be more valid or purposeful..?   Problem with polling/voting/surveying is that stakeholders have a vested interest in the outcome, and so will generally refute or reject any mechanism that might not produce the result they most favour.   The whole issue of the Raid Rotation is a delicate one, because it is primarily an attempt to reconcile "ownership" of a facility/function that doesn't readily lend itself to ownership.   Those who currently have part-"ownership" are going to be as reluctant to surrender all or some of that "ownership" as those without any current "ownership" will be eager to gain it.   And apart from being the object of the Community's general disapproval, there is no viable form of sanction that can be applied to anyone who chooses not to respect the terms of an agreement they may not have supported, voted for, or been party to drafting.   It's delicate stuff this!

I actually thought it was a bit sophomoric...

Apropos of your post Cimbad: I'm guessing this thread is moving (in a generally positive direction) towards what will probably be a multiple-choice poll.   I think this thread is about defining what those poll-choices will be; and what duration of polling would produce a result that everyone feels is valid.   As far as the choices go, well, we already have our minimal and maximal choices:   1) Keep everything exactly as it is... Forever!   99) Do away with the Raid Rotation altogether... Forever!   Choice (2) should probably be: "Keep everything as it is, but review again in another [3, 6 or 12] months".   Meaning that Choice (98) would then have to be: "Run without any kind of Raid Rotation for [3, 6 or 12] months and see what happens."   Just a question then of working out what (if any) additional choices should go in between.   (And at the point of agreeing those choices: correctly number them - (98) and (99) are just placeholder/editorial priority numbers).   Possible additional choices then:   ..) Maintain the 4-weekly 3 Guild: 1 Public (4W3G1P  ;) ) Rotation; but allow other Guilds to compete/qualify for the Guild Seats   ..) Expand the time-cycle of the Rotation (e.g. to 6- or 8-weeks) to allow additional Guilds to sit in the Rota and make more Public slots available.   ..) Use a new form of Raid Rotation Cycle that addresses Time-Zone issues   ..) Hold a competition at the beginning of each Raid Cycle where Guilds have to compete for the slots.   That sort of thing.   No rush, of course. It is Christmas after all.   Peace and Goodwill, and all that.   :)

Have been thinking about:   Assuming the existing four-weekly rotation remains in place, what is the on-going qualification/requirement for the three Guilds occupying 3 of the 4 slots to maintain their positions in the rotation?   Purely hypothetically...   What if the number of active Static (to pick one of the current incumbents at random) members declined significantly, whilst at the same time, the number of active Epic Gamers or Sirius Cybernetics Corporation players increased?   What mechanism is in place to review which Guilds continue to qualify for a permanent seat in the Rotation?   Does the existing agreement imply or mandate a tenured position, that once achieved, can never be lost?   Occupying a permanent seat in the Rotation is a significant advantage to the members of the Guild that holds that seat. A virtuous circle could be the result, in that new (and existing) players might be inclined/persuaded to join a Guild that holds a seat in the Rotation, in contrast to one that doesn't.   So:   What qualifies a Guild to occupy one of the three seats in the Rotation?   And how/when is that qualification monitored and/or reviewed?   The lack of cohesion and organisation in "The Public" may make it seem like increasing their opportunity to Raid is a waste of bytes, which comes at the expense of the three organised and experienced guilds currently holding seats in the Rotation. And that could well be the case...   But what would another Guild have to do to qualify for a seat in the Rotation?   And would they have to displace an existing seat-holding Guild? Or could the Rotation be expanded to account for additional Guilds?

Right.   HolyFacilitator here with a Round-Up on progress so far!   Point No. 1: The Existing Rotation Is Still In Effect   The current Raid Rotation is still in effect. No changes to any agreement(s) have been formally proposed (or even drafted, come to that…), much less voted on, agreed upon, or implemented.   This thread is purely to discuss, negotiate and/or develop ideas about any potential revision to the current Raid Rotation.   Point No. 2: Triggered Raids   I think we would probably all agree that having all Raids triggered rather than timed would be an ideal solution… However:   Changing the four raids in the Rotation to triggered Raids would require a substantial amount of development work. If not for whatever would need to be done to convert them from timed to triggered, then for whatever mission chain/device build would be used to create the trigger.   I would imagine that from a Development Director’s perspective, allocating time and expertise to changing these four raids from timed to triggered would not be a high priority; since the only real driver for doing that (from a Dev perspective) would be to try and mitigate the tensions that occasionally arise between a small number of players in a small Game population.   I would far rather the Development Team spent their (freely given) time developing new content and addressing any bugs that still exist, than devote their limited time and energy doing something solely to address the fair-sharing of existing content.   Point No. 3: Player Population   If the population actively and regularly playing the Emulator are predominately members of Static, V.G.E. and B.I… That is: if approximately 75% of the human players logging onto the Game in an average week are members of one of those three Guilds…   Then there is no need to change anything with the Rotation.   It does seem as though the main impetus/catalyst for this thread (going back to Gunney’s original post) is that “The Big Three” aren’t quite the dominant Triumvirate (in terms of player-count) they were when the current Rotation was agreed and implemented.   I have no idea about that. But *IF* it is the case, then that does tend to support the idea of reviewing the Rotation. If it is not the case, and somewhere in the region of 75% of the active players belong to one of those 3 Guilds, then there is no reason to change the Rotation.   Point No. 4: End-Game Content   This is a resurrection of a nearly 14-year old MMORPG. Is it appropriate or useful to compare it to contemporary MMORPG’s?   Using my best “Finger-in-the-Air” estimation, I’d say that the bulk (c. 90%) of the Game Content is not what we’d call “End-Game” Content. There’s really rich and substantial content for players to experience as they work their way up to OL150, which is easy to overlook if one is hell-bent on maxing out characters a.s.a.p.   Hungering to become the meanest, l33test, most dangerous character in the Game is not particularly satisfying in any MMORPG; but in a Game that is a decade-and-a-half old, that is lovingly maintained and developed by volunteers, that sort of ambition is a spectacular way to miss the point of the Emulator.   Point No. 5: Multi-Boxing…   …Is permitted by the Development Team.   Some players Multi-Box, others don’t.   How Multi-Boxing/Multi-Clienting should be handled when it comes to multi-player grouping, is for those players to decide.   I multi-(client) *ALL* the time… But I’ve always been too embarrassed to turn up at a multi-player event with my group and a half of simultaneously logged toons. I do the triggered Ten-Gu Raids with my multiple toons, but I’ve never felt comfortable eyeing a timed Raid through six or nine Holy-toons’ cockpit windows.   If I accept/ed an invitation to join a multi-player Raid, I’d turn up with a single toon, and only suggest logging additional ones if the Raid Party was having trouble reaching a quorum.   And pretty difficult to hide the multi-box (/client) nature of my toons, since they all have the “Holy” prefix… It’d be tough to fool anyone with that…   (Incidentally: “The Disciples of One” is just the Guild I set-up for all my characters. I’m the only player in it Efi!)   (Final!) Point No. 6: Discussion, Negotiation, Agreement.   As a Player-Base, the number of Real Live Actual Human Beings in the Emulator would struggle to have qualified as a medium-sized Guild on any of the Live servers, Back in the Day.   Static, B.I., V.G.E., Epic Gamers, even The Disciples of One and Driver Carries No Cash… Are really just factions of the same Emulator Guild.   As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve never, ever been on the receiving end of any discrimination in the Emulator because I don’t belong to one of the other Guilds. I regularly receive help from members of all the aforementioned… And that’s one of the aspects of the Emulator I most enjoy and appreciate.   We draw these invisible demarcation lines between groups of players because… Well… I guess because that is what we are used to in Real Life…   …But I’m not entirely sure what purpose such lines of division and separation serve in the reality of this EnB Emulator..?   It seems that this topic never fully resolves itself, because of the lines of demarcation between “The Guilds”. And the sense that “The Big Three” (which now seems more of a pejorative than an accolade…) sit atop a status quo that occasionally appears to be unfair to those who have chosen not to sit within the lines drawn by those three guilds (sometime ago…).   In the words of Uncle Ben (not the rice guy…): “With great power comes great responsibility.”   The three guilds that hold permanent spots in the Rotation have an advantage over Emulator players that choose not to be in one of those three guilds. The fair price for that advantage must be an agreement to periodically review the entitlement to that advantage.   If it really is the case that 75% (or thereabouts) of the players in the Game are members of one of those three guilds, then that is what the review will show, and the matter can be put to rest for another period of time. Any reluctance or resistance on the part of the three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council… (Sorry..!) the Rotation to allow such a review, is only going to heighten suspicions from the rest of the General Assembly that Global Dynamics have changed somewhat since the end of the last war…   (Apologies: I’ll try and stay focussed..!)   With such an obviously contentious and emotive issue as permanent allocation of seats in the Raid Rotation, it is incumbent on those who hold positions of advantage in that Rotation to allow honest and constructive periodic reviews of the Rotation; and be open to Change, *IF* Change is warranted.   If no change is warranted, because the server population dynamics have not changed (much, or at all), then there is no need to resist or dismiss the idea of a periodic review.   And if change *IS* warranted, because the server population and active Guild Member participation *HAS* changed, then resisting or dismissing the idea of a review, and/or any objection to modification, is going to produce precisely the sort of negative sentiment the Raid Rotation Agreement exists to avoid.   I for one do not think that any change to the Raid Rotation should be made unless there is a generally positive consensus that it needs changing, and on what it should be changed to.   But I do think it very important to periodically measure what that consensus is.   And I think that is just what we are doing in this thread.

Thanks Syber. That's instructive... Can see immediately where my assumptions were incomplete...!   So, if we take that existing rotation and flip it around 90 degrees:                       Week 1      Week 2     Week 3     Week 4   'Troller         Static         BI              VGE          Public DT               Public        Static         BI              VGE RD Base      VGE          Public        Static         BI GoBB          BI               VGE          Public        Static   Which means that in the current Raid Rotation four-weekly cycle, 75% of the Raids are allocated to three guilds; only 25% of the Raids are allocated to everyone else not in those three guilds.   If this were adjusted so that the three guilds were allocated 50% of the Raids, and everyone else not in those three guilds were also allocated 50%:                       Week 1      Week 2     Week 3     Week 4     Week 5     Week 6   'Troller         Static         Public        VGE          Public       BI              Public DT               Public        BI               Public       Static        Public        VGE RD Base      VGE          Public         BI             Public       Static         Public GoBB          Public         Static         Public        VGE        Public        BI   The Public (i.e. Non-Static/BI/VGE) are allocated two of the four raids every week.    Each of Static, BI and VGE get a raid allocated to them 2 weeks out of every 3.   I suppose the question is:   Are 75% of the human players (rather than accounts/characters) who are active in the Game in a six-week period, all members of Static, VGE & BI?   If so... Then it would be hard to justify changing the existing Rotation.   But if the number of Static, VGE and BI players who actually play the Game in a six-week period is closer to 50% of the population... Then this adjustment (or something similar) becomes more justifiable.   (*DEFINITELY* still just spit-balling..!!)

Week 1 and Week 3 are Guild Assigned: to the "Big"/"mini"/whatever sized Guilds.   The Guilds in the rotation rotate through those weeks.   Week 2 and Week 4 are Assigned to the Public.   Rinse and Repeat.   Would also look (something) like this:   Six-Week Rotation:   Week 1: BI Week 2: Public Week 3: Static Week 4: Public Week 5: VGE Week 6: Public.   More simply:   Every other week is Public.   Guilds organise their agreed rotation through the non-Public weeks.   (Still just brain-storming!)

Potentially being a bit over sensitive.   When I read Cimbad's words, I took it as him saying he'd wait until the weekend before creating the poll, to see if any additional options for that poll came out in the thread.   Perhaps it was his use of the phrase "...I will let..." that seemed a bit "Administrative"...   But personally, I was willing to let that go... Since I can't imagine anyone ever being able to permanently silence discussion on the Raid Rotation..! (And I didn't think that was Cimbad's intent...)

Bit harsh.   I only see Cimbad facilitating the flow and progress of the discussion here.   He's not taking on or claiming any authority to do anything. Any one of us could create a poll on the topic at any point: Gunney could have done it if he desired.   Nobody is suggesting that the results of any poll that might be created (by Cimbad, Gunney or whomever) will be binding. It's an attempt to gauge the general sentiment and disposition of those who are following this discussion.   Cimbad seems an obvious person to act as facilitator, since as Advocate, he is more or less required to maintain a studied neutrality. And the main focus of that neutrality is between what the Players want, and what *HE* wants. I haven't noticed any indication that Cimbad is behaving without that required impartiality, have you?   As for when, how and why Cimbad chooses to function as Player Advocate: that is entirely up to him.   Alurra had her way of doing things - and a jolly good job she did. But the role that became vacant was not "Alurra", but Player Advocate. Alurra is still gracing us with her helpful and positive presence, so no need to find a replacement for her. The job of Player Advocate is always going to - and can only - be shaped by the person who occupies that position.   If the Development Team feels that the Player Advocate is under-performing, I'm sure they will discreetly let that individual know. And if the Player-Base thinks that the Advocate is doing a bad job, then we can all rise up in revolt and demand his or her head on a spike outside F7, as a warning to all other would-be pretenders to the post.   But until that happens, the current Player Advocate has to create their own identify and do the job in the way that seems most appropriate to them, and most compatible with their RL activities.   I think you have been excessive in your criticism of Cimbad. The role is primarily that of Relationship Management, not some go-between lackey at the beck-and-call of demanding players.   I wouldn't say that Cimbad is doing the job better or worse than Alurra: he's just doing it differently. He's still finding his feet, still figuring out how he wants to take the role forward. And if we want to make the role of Player Advocate purposeful - and attractive to anyone who might want to follow Cimbad into the role - we should be supportive and constructive, not critical and negative.   That is just common sense.

  Looking back over some (or most) of the Forum-based material relating to the Raid Rotation... It does seem that the conflict was always between the "Big Three".   The accord that was reached then, was intended to mediate between these three guilds. And "The Public" got the fourth weekly spot in the cycle as a concession...   I can't recall any post describing any conflict arising from a non-"Big Three" Guild or group of "Public" players taking a raid when it belonged to one of the "Big Three"... Though I suppose that doesn't mean that never happened.   I like your suggestion that the Rotation Period covers the weekends... Say 00:01 UTC on Friday to 23:59 on Monday?

Actually... I think there are two common threads:   One is certainly, "leave it alone".   But the other is "Change things."   However... "Do away with the Rotation System altogether." is *NOT* a suggestion that seems to have any support.   It does seem that everyone agrees that some form of ordered control/rotation is necessary, to avoid all of the... Unpleasantness that comes with having it all "Free For All".   But it also seems that the driver for most in the "Change Things" Camp, is the legitimacy/qualification of "The Big Three".   One question:   This forum and most peoples' Chat Logs are replete with examples of what happens when one of "The Big Three" encroaches on the Raid Entitlement of one of the other "Big Three".   But what happens if any spontaneous Public Group, Multi-boxer, or non- "Big Three" Guild takes down a Raid that is currently allocated to one of the Triumvirate?

I'll consider that a Hall Monitor's Permission Slip then!   Thanks Cimbad.  :)

So...   Keep the rotation as it is, but have the ownership/assignment of it (to whichever Guild's turn it is) run from 00:01 UTC on the Monday of the week through to 23:59 UTC on the Friday?   That would make life easier from an awareness point of view wouldn't it?   All Raids are FFA (including any of the "Big Three" Guilds) on Saturdays and Sundays; and Public (but not "Big Three") every fourth week?

Well thank you very much indeed.  :)   Just the bit of information I required.   Was able to launch off that and carry out the remaining steps in the missions for all three races. A very happy Holyman now.  :D   One final question though (to any and all):   What's the "Done Thing" with regards the Wiki entry for the Oni Communication mission?   I note that it is linked from the "High Level Content" page, but is still awaiting an entry...   Is that because we're keeping things under wraps (like Agrippa); or just that nobody else has gotten around to it?