[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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?

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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..!

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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:

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

No worries, I was just giving a little bit of hell. :P

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

[Official Standing And Rules Regarding Raid Triggers.]

Knowing the difference between official game rules and self imposed "player made" rules is important, Pest has a valid question here.  As I see it, the only groups that signed on to the agreement are the big 3 guilds.  Regardless of whether public has a spot in the rotation, individuals are free to play as they see fit so long as they're following the GM's rules.

Was just discussing this very issue privately with another player... It is worth widening that discussion I think!

 

In a persistent-state on-line Game, informal and formal agreements between players will always rise and fall, according to their usefulness and relevance at any given point in the life-cycle of the Game.

 

So what happens when a player joins an established Game, and is expected or asked to abide by the "Rules" of an intra-player agreement that was established prior to their joining the Game?

 

They have just joined the Game. They were not party to the drafting or approval of the "Agreement" that is in effect. So why should they have to abide by that agreement?

 

On a similar note:

 

What if an agreement is approved only by a majority of players?

 

What compels those players in the minority who did not approve the agreement, to abide by it?

 

Assuming that no formal sanction can be applied to any player refusing to abide by an agreement they didn't vote for, or were not around when it was being discussed and voted on:

 

What is there to stop an individual player (or minority group of players) from disregarding the desires of the majority of players?

 

Are there any easy answers to this dilemma..?

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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!

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

Read Post # 6 I said keep as is and I did not ask for a slot.

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!

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

The problem is, that now EG has also said they don't want a rotation slot, they want it left alone. Or at least, that is what was said via GHB.

 

So, back to exactly where it started ....

 

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

Lets bring this issue to an end.

 

Holyman since you're are doing a damn fine job seeing both sides of the coin i would like to ask you to gather all well documented plans that will/have shown up here and maybe come new year we can make a new thread were we can post all of them together for people to see and have a vote for selecting the one most will agree with.

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!

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

I have to admit Holyman you could chairm the robe off a Nun. 

 

 

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

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

They can't enforce anything like that or they would do it in every single MMO name one game just one where content is created for specific groups and enforced by the staff that no one else can use it?

 

Want to know why there are no games that do this ? No new player would feel comfortable with this system and it would be the end of the game.

 

Your essentially making 5 guilds far more desirable then anything else in the game.

 

Its wrong.

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

This game has a finite number of raids just as a playground has a finite number of toys.

 

All the kids in the neighborhood want to go to the playground and enjoy the toys like all E&B players want to do the raids.

 

I understand some raids are more desirable than others being by simple preference, loot usefulness or just loot quantity. Same in the playground, some kids like some toys better than others or in a given day they want to do just one thing or there is even a toy they don't like.

 

Like i have mentioned before, unfortunately in E&B the current game design cant support a high number of people concentrated in a single area and that is unlikely to change as long as the devs don't have any control over an important game element, the game client.

Similarly there are only so many of the spring riders or swing seats or of the sliders etc in the playground.

 

If the kids were left unchecked to just do whatever they please all the time imagine what would regularly happen in the playground.

Same in E&B and thats where the rotation agreement comes into play. It splits the kids into groups and says you kids can have the swings this time while the other group of kids gets the spring riders etc consequently all the kids get something to do instead of fighting over with each other.

 

Its my understanding some kids will be doing something they might don't prefer to do or even something they don't like one day (rotation slot) BUT they will get to do that the next time (another rotation slot).

But ALL kids get to play in the playground and regularly get to do the fun things they want.

 

Very well put Efi.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

Holyman i feel your proposition should be discussed further.

 

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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!

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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:

[Official Standing And Rules Regarding Raid Triggers.]

I've been reading a lot of background material on the Raid Rotation of late, and my understanding would be:

 

The Development Team will not get involved in anything to do with the Raid Rotation. It is purely an agreement amongst players and not something the Devs have the time or inclination to get involved in.

 

I infer from this that a player taking down a Raid trigger that was not due them in the Raid Rotation would not constitute a breach of the Terms of Service.

 

Harassment of other players - "disrupting the normal playability of a region, territory, area or location" - does constitute a breach. But would opting to disregard the Raid Rotation really constitute disruption of a "region, territory, area or location"? I wouldn't read it that way.

 

Deliberately causing other players grief... Going out of one's way to disrupt the general harmony of the Player Community... Getting involved in any conversations regarding one's actions, where one uses language or a verbal tone that is unacceptable... All bad. All actions subject to sanction from the Dev's.

 

But a player or a group of players deciding not to abide by an agreement that was made by other players, potentially before that group of players were even playing the Emulator...

 

Difficult to see what Emulator rules of service that behaviour would breach.

 

All that said...

 

I think it is maybe not a good idea (and actually, quite unfair..!) to ask the Development Team to make an explicit/definitive ruling on matters related to the Raid Rotation. You are putting them in a dreadful position..!

 

If they state, indicate or hint that they will/do police adherence to the Raid Rotation in even a slight way, they will be setting themselves up to arbitrate/adjudicate in every alleged or perceived transgression of the Raid Rotation agreement.

 

And if they emphatically state that the Raid Rotation is no business of theirs and is purely something that the Community has to deal with...

 

Then that statement will be used as an armour-plated justification by every yahoo this side of Antares to ignore the Raid Rotation Agreement.

 

Of course the Dev Team don't want to get embroiled in player-squabbles over access to the Raids.

 

And of course the Dev Team don't want the Community to be engulfed in fractious negativity.

 

If I were on the Dev Team, I'd be using Christmas as an excuse to avoid answering the request... And then keep fobbing off the requester in the hope that they'd lose interest.

 

Sorry Pestilennnce. I just think you're putting the Dev Team in an impossible position asking for clarity, where a detached ambiguity has to be the most practical position for them to take with regards the Raid Rotation.

 

:unsure:

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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!

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

The Public spokesman would fill the role of "guild leader" for discussions when an issue arises and would speak on behalf of the public group.

As I recall there were 3 who accepted the role,  Syber, CIA(MIA) and Id have to check on the other

 

Leader of the "Everyone-Not-In-Static-BI-or-VGE" Guild..?

 

I'm in!!

 

Do I get my own Space Station..?

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

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

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

2. About the data of the raidslot holders performance in the past 3 month. I see there is concern on the first glance that DEVs will refuse based on thier commitment not to parttake in the serverpolitics etc.

But once you think about it, it is not an issue. Its just a set of names and numbers which is truely objectiv and cant be questioned. Whatever conclusion we all draw out of it, is up to the community alone and doesnt require any DEV to hold our collectiv hand or play favours towards any of the involved parties. And I think if any of the Big Three would be opposed to be under the lookingglass in this manner, I would totally respect that. It would be a conclusion in itself tho.

 

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.

[Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?]

I am all about improvement, but seems like on here at least, Gunney, Holy, and myself are the only ones that seem to see an issue with the rotation.  We can and have brainstormed many ideas, met with "Leave it as it is", so I guess I am done trying.  Ironically, I raid less than most on the server, but I do see an issue with the raid system.  So it affects me less than most.

 

In ideal world, yes, a TS meeting of the masses would be AMAZING, but that is almost comical to think of as well as being a real option that would get any real results.

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.