[Player Advocate Section]

Howabout...

 

Returning to a previously considered situation: that of an "intern"-style, transitional post?

 

I think as collectives, we clever-monkeys have a tendency towards incorporating organisations and appointing people to positions, where actually, simple and open human relationships are more than adequate.

 

Case in point:

 

There is (or at least, was...) a requirement for somebody to occupy the nexus position between the Player Community and the Dev Team (for the reasons I described in my previous post).

 

Alurra has delivered this function more than adequately, so much so that there is more than a little reluctance all round to see her depart the role.

 

But Change is the only Constant. And Alurra wants to explore new frontiers with the Dev Team. That may or may not be compatible with her continuing to function in the role of Player Advocate... That may or may not be compatible with Alurra's personal desire (though she might be too polite to say, either way..!).

 

Now, up steps Cimbad, volunteering for a role that no-one else has volunteered or been nominated for.

 

So howabout:

 

We just let Alurra and Cimbad sort it out between themselves?

 

Alurra can show Cimbad the ropes... Get him up-to-speed on how to function in the role of Player Advocate... She can gradually diminish her input to the role, as Cimbad's input gradually increases. Cimbad can continue doing the things that he thinks Alurra did well and which he sees as purposeful; and he can discuss the introduction of his own ideas for how the Player Advocate might function with Alurra, and consider when and if to bring those ideas on-line, so-to-speak.

 

I do think that we might be getting a bit carried away with the formality of the occasion here.

 

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the Player Community values having someone in the role of Player Advocate; and I'm assuming the Dev Team feels similarly. So rather than junk the whole concept, because we're not certain about a hand-over mechanism that would be beyond reproach, why not just let Alurra and Cimbad work together, and figure it out between themselves?

 

How does that sound?

[Player Advocate Section]

Yes... Had spotted that... And think I should give it more consideration actually.

 

Think I'd always instinctively dismissed it, probably because of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder tangling with the top-V'rix MOBs in Antares.

 

But maybe that will be just the ticket, the more I think about it.

 

Will just have to learn where they hang out in large numbers...

[Player Advocate Section]

Would it be possible to consider just how "incompatible" Alurra's desired position within the Dev Team is with her being Player Advocate?

 

During a recent discussion on "Term Limits" for the Player Advocate, I think it was effectively established that the role of Player Advocate was a functional, rather than a political position.

 

I.e. The Player Advocate does not make or take decisions on behalf of the Player  Community, but merely (!) acts as a conduit between the Players and the Devs (and what a *MARVELLOUS* job Alurra has made of that).

 

The functional requirement is for there to be a communication conduit between the Dev's and the Players. 

 

This requirement helps the Developers, because they do not need to expend valuable time answering any and all inquiries/entreaties from any and all players. With a "Player Advocate", all requests can be collated and channeled through a single individual; which has to be the most efficient and productive method for managing communication between the two groups.

 

Perhaps in the earlier days of the Emulator, there was a strong and valid need to demonstrate that such an Advocate was independent of the Dev Team. This so that the Advocate did not have to endure being accused of obstructiveness, intransigence and/or un-helpfulness, as and when they gave a response that a requesting player didn't much like hearing..!

 

But in the interim, it really does look to me as though Alurra has displayed a remarkably effective ability to smoothly manage the relationship between the Player Community and the Dev Team. And I think it would be a terrible shame if the position of Player Advocate lost her as its incumbent, just because she would like to become more closely involved with the activities of the Dev Team.

 

I think it is important to bear in mind that the Dev Team never has functioned in opposition to the Player Community: it was just suggested or implied that might be the case by some of the more demanding and insistent members of the Player Community. *EVERYTHING* the Dev Team does is in the interests and supportive of the Player Community. If certain players can't, don't or won't understand that... Well actually, even the most diplomatically-able Player Advocate is not going to be able to fully resolve that!

 

If there is a sense among the Dev Team that the functional requirement of the Player Advocate cannot be fulfilled by someone who is opting to become more directly involved with the Dev Team, I do think that might need further consideration. If temporarily suspending or doing away with the Player Advocate position is an option being considered... I cannot see how Alurra keeping the position going, but from the Dev Team side of things, would be any more of a problem.

 

So my vote would be:

 

If Alurra is willing and happy to continue as Player Advocate *AND* pursue her deepening interests with the Dev Team, then not only should she be allowed to: she should be encouraged to do so.

 

I think.

 

:)

[Player Advocate Section]

Killing Sharim was (is...) the most expedient method of raising Collegia faction for Sentinels whilst doing Agrippa.

 

Agrippa can be a bit of a grind, as we all know (though not in an entirely un-enjoyable way). Having to suspend Agrippa progress to grind up 2k Collegia faction with terminal (!) jobs between Agrippa stages just didn't appeal.

 

My big mistake (that I own completely), was unnecessarily tanking my PP & PW faction whilst flying wing on my PS' anti-Sharim sorties. Instead of just one 'toon that I can't get the L135 hull upgrade for, I now have three.

 

As it goes...

 

I don't really have any problem with the number of Jenquai stations I'm locked out of as a result of my Sharim-killing sprees. I knew that would be a consequence of the route I chose, and I figured that it was just one of those choices we make in RPG's to shape our personal story-lines and character development.

 

My only real grumble is the requirement for the Progen to have to dock at a station there is a high likelihood of their not being able to dock at... In order to get the L135 HU.

 

If Warden Oliphant's guy was in a Terran-factioned station... Then no problem. I could continue to wear the earned hatred of Jenquai factions with pride, on my spanking new L135 hull.

 

As it is, I've now got to grind interminable jobs to try and work my way back into the Sharim's good graces... Or tank all that hard-earned (and useful, in terms of Agrippa builds) Collegia Faction, by knocking off an equal number of Collegia, as the only direct way of earning + Sharim faction.

 

Of course, it doesn't help my demeanor that I've been co-leveling another TT & TE at the same time as I've been bringing these 3 Agrippa Progens along. To get the hull upgrades for my Terrans, I only have to sit through a 12-prompt soliloquy from Executive MacKellen, and I'm on my way to 135 robustness! My new Progen contingent must now endure the sniggers coming from my Terrans' cockpits... 

 

I was holding a Wailing & Gnashing of Teeth mass in Arx Spartoi yesterday evening, when the charming Alurra came across me and offered sympathy, comfort and support. She even dropped more than 100 Jenquai suits into my cargo-hold, to try and alleviate my suffering. But sadly, I can't even trade those in for a faction boost, because I can't dock at the station where Master Sevti lives, because of my bad faction.

 

So look... I'm not a whiner or a griper... (Honest!) But would like to make a couple of suggestions:

 

1) Any NPC's required for interaction in order to gain hull upgrades be sited in stations that are likely to remain neutral in the more normal progression through missions and leveling for a given class.

 

2) NPC's that accept trade-ins in return for faction gains be sited in stations that are less likely to be blocked because the character seeking that faction boost... Doesn't have enough faction to dock!

 

Meanwhile... Having gotten all the way to L135 *AND* completed Agrippa without having to go anywhere near a Job Terminal... I'll now set about grinding jobs, just so that I can get my L135 Hull Upgrades.

 

It really is a very good thing that I love this Game so much!!

 

:wub:

[Player Advocate Section]

Addendum..:

 

OMG!  :excl:

 

Having diligently worked my way through Agrippa, acquiring the requisite Collegia Faction by zapping countless numbers of Sharim Archaeologists in Lagarto... I now come to get my L135 Hull Upgrade.

 

Which given my -9,274 Sharim Traders faction on my PS, -8,198 faction on my PP; and -6,888 on my PW... Is going to take some time...

 

Because the L135 Progen Hull Upgrade machine requires that I dock at Sharim Traders' Ishuan Station.  :mad:

 

*REALLY* can't recall discovering this in my pre-Agrippa research...

 

And to restore my Sharim Traders faction, I can (apparently) only kill Collegia, and tank all that faction I spent so long grinding up.

 

Worst thing being that I only trashed my Sharim Traders faction on my PP and PW, because they were flying wing for my PS when he was killing Sharim to earn Collegia faction.

 

Perhaps makes the need for a higher Collegia Faction reward for the Agrippa stages more of a priority...

 

Just sayin'...  :blink:

[Player Advocate Section]

You asked:

The amount of Collegia Faction gained from each successful Agrippa mission for the Progen Sentinel seems to be almost counterproductive. Would it be possible to have this amount looked at and perhaps tweaked as necessary?

 

The Emu Team said:

We concur it is low and does need to be adjusted.  We are currently working on more new content for you so don’t expect it to be done immediately but it will be added to our working list.

 

 

No rush. I just finished Agrippa last night. (Yay!)

 

Do think others who follow will appreciate a slight hike in the Collegia Faction reward though; glad the Team concurs.

 

:)

[Player Advocate Section]

First off, let me congratulate you on your journey through the Agrippa maze! It can be long and arduous and quite confusing, but personally, I feel it is some great content for those of us who really enjoy working on missions and such.

 

Now, to answer your question. As with all of the information brought to me here and in game I will relay it to the Emu Team for you. Agrippa is the realm of Byakhee so I know that the standard wait times and soon(tm) do not always apply in this scenario. I will, however, pass along the information and suggestions from you.

 

 

Thank you for your prompt response Alurra.  :)

 

And thanks for kindly relaying my feedback to the Team (and to the enigmatic Byakhee!). As I mentioned previously: it is an observation/suggestion, rather than a personal requirement, so no rush required or anticipated on consideration and/or implementation!

 

Delighted also to say that I sailed through the creation of the Stage II Blank Forms last night, without requiring GM assistance: so it seems as though that issue is resolved (and the Wiki could do with an update!).

 

Having been somewhat daunted by the various historical threads on Agrippa, I am really pleased that I took the plunge now. It is not quite as confusing as some of those past threads suggest, I guess because many of the issues referenced have been subsequently ironed out.

 

Whilst at the outset I was desperately seeking a Monkey-See-Monkey-Do Walkthrough, I'm quite glad now that I didn't find one, as navigating my own way through Agrippa with the assistance of the Wiki and the Forum Threads has been a solid balance between challenge and enjoyment.

 

I do realise from reading the early threads that Byakhee's Opus had something of a difficult birth. But the initial effort and subsequent polishing has really paid off: it is a magnificent achievement. Please do pass on my congratulations and thanks to all involved, particularly to B.

[Player Advocate Section]

Hi Alurra,

 

I'm nearing the end of Agrippa... {phew!} So I'm not enquiring/asking/suggesting this for my own benefit, but:

 

By and large, I think the Agrippa..."Saga" is an incredible achievement. There are a few purely aesthetic issues with the text on the talk trees, but nothing that a thorough read of the Wiki won't help an aspiring Agrippan navigate.

 

I'm also about to discover if the Stage II Blank Entry Form Stage still requires GM Intervention; but if it does, then I know that a long-term fix for that will be on the "To Do" spike already.

 

So with the preamble out of the way:

 

The *ONLY* element of doing Agrippa that has taken some of the gloss off the whole experience for me, has to do with the increasing Collegia Faction required at successive stages for my Sentinel. I'm fairly certain that I must have set back the cause of Sharim Archaeology decades, with the amount of their archaeologists I've slaughtered in Lagarto!

 

I have read and understood the Story-line justification for a Sabine affiliate needing to gain Collegia Faction in order to progress, so I'm not asking/suggesting that this be eliminated or substantially reduced...

 

I just wondered if it might be worth considering an increase to the amount of Collegia Faction awarded at the end of each Agrippa Mission; by perhaps 10 or 20% (or thereabouts...)?

 

I would have thought that a slight increase in the Collegia Faction awarded would not massively disturb the flow of the Agrippa sequence, nor upset those who have already completed Agrippa. But I would think that it might improve the flow of the Mission Set as it stands today, particularly in light of some of the other rough edges it still has.

 

Just a thought. As I say, I'm almost done, so this isn't a personal request; just making a suggestion for those who may follow.

 

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

 

H.

[Character Name Change..?]

Thanks for the response guys.

 

It's actually a character name that I wanted changed... Account names are all fine. Probably being a bit OCD about the single character name change, so won't spoil my enjoyment in anyway if he has to retain his christened name.

 

:)

[Not To Whine But....]

There is no spawn at VG 6, rather between VG 5 and VG 6. It has a 10k spawn radius with 7 mobs in the spawn, and NO formation. The fashion of the set to this spawn allows the server to randomly pick between the 35 and the 38 mob using the +/- 50% of the timer. You could get all 35's all 38's or a mix of both. If you kill all 7 before the respawn time, this is generally when you will see 4 of the same that appear to be in formation, but they have spawned all at the same time, in the same place, and picked up on your sig - this is where you see that formation like setting because they all see you, and they are all moving at the same speed, and with only 1 mob id for each, they all have the same scan range. 

 For this setting to appear more random, one would have to have 2 or 3 different mob ID's of the same lvl mob with different scan ranges, or reducing the spawn count from 7 to say 2 or 3, and placing 3 spawns overlapping each other, and using 3 different mob ID's.

 Server re-starts will always reset the timers of all regular mob spawns.

Ah yes, between VG5 and 6 would be more accurate.

 

Wasn't actually reporting the Formation Spawning as an issue... Just backing up what Mimir had mentioned.

 

Glad I did mention it though, because I found your response interesting and informative, Evermore. Useful intelligence.  :ph34r:

[Not To Whine But....]

I caught one of those formations last night...

 

At Nav VG6 in Varen's Girdle.

 

Just finished blatting a cl38 Ostarae, when 4 x cl35's spawned in formation a few km's away.

 

Got quite excited because I thought there might be a named mob somewhere in the formation... But no such luck.  :(

[Character Name Change..?]

Would such a thing be possible..?

 

If so, am I asking in the correct place..?

 

:unsure:

[Game Freezing At Gates]

You should give it a whirl, at least to identify if it is the cause of the issue.

 

Everything you describe - including your frustration! - is *EXACTLY* as it was for me.

 

The situation with the Firewall occurred because the firmware upgrade pushed out by the I.S.P. necessarily wiped whatever settings had been set by all their users. They chose to reset the Firewall at the default of "Medium", since that offered the best balance between continuing functionality and not being moaned at for compromising security.

 

Looks like I'd had my (I.S.P.) Firewall settings at "Low" forever... And was able to play EnB without any issues, or get attacked by any Internet ne'er-do-well. The Firmware upgrade set it to "Medium", and that was that... Until TolkenMoon came along.  :)

 

If you change your own I.S.P. Firewall settings to "off" or "low", and establish if that cures the problem, you can always (if it does cure the problem) reset it back to "medium" (or the equivalent on your kit) when you are not playing.

 

I'm working on the principle that you have an easy-to-use (for non-techies) Web interface to manage your I.S.P. hub - it will be where you changed your Wi-Fi password &c. But if it is all a bit incomprehensible, your I.S.P.'s Service Desk should be able to help you out.

 

Good luck and stick with it. The frustrations all seem worth it once you hit the glorious moment of resolution and can start playing again!!

[Game Freezing At Gates]

Coincidentally enough Bonesarr...

 

I had a few gates in Aragoth where things worked fine... But everywhere else would hang almost continually.

 

So you're not in the U.K., and that means you won't be using Virgin Media as your I.S.P.

 

But it *DOES* sound like it's a Firewall issue.

 

One thing you can check is the "Net-7 Proxy" icon that comes up in the taskbar (all the little icons that cluster around the clock in the bottom-right of your Windows desktop) whilst you have the client loaded.

 

Common-or-Garden Variety Gate Hangs will turn that Net-7 Proxy icon to a black-framed square, and when you hover the mouse over it, will show something like "Awaiting Master Hand-Off". These are just the usual gate-hangs that happen very periodically with the Game client, just as they did in Live.

 

But if your problem is Firewall related (and it really sounds like it is), then the Net-7 Proxy icon will show "Stage 1 Completed", when the client hangs.

 

Try (temporarily) disabling your Firewall on your I.S.P.'s hub/router, to see if it makes any difference. If the Game then works, you can try turning the I.S.P. Firewall back on at a lower setting.

 

You should be able to find some non-Geek Friendly instructions on how to do that at your I.S.P.'s support pages.

[Raid Rotation Now Null And Void?]

This raid has been here for years. I think any legitimate claim to the loot needing to still be rare 3+ years on is...long since dead. Feel free to continue feeling bitter, but...at least admit I'm correct.

 

Umm... I'm not so sure you are correct.

 

Declaration first: I do not possess any Raid-loot on any of my 12 toons (I can [multi-box] solo the Mordana groups in KV, but don't really consider that a "Raid"); I have never participated in any Raid in the Emulator.

 

But not because I don't want to raid; and not because I don't want to get my hands on all that lovely Raid/Rare Gear.

 

But because I want to *SAVOUR* this Game.

 

I was thrilled when my brother pointed me at the Emulator, telling me that it was as robust, reliable and accessible as the Live version ever was. It's like being able to Time Travel: to really live the Nostalgia. I played for 2 months solid prior to the September 2012 wipe; and have been playing solidly again since the beginning of this year. And I am in *NO* rush to reach the End Game.

 

And that's what having all the best Raid Loot means: being at the End of the Game. Where do you go once you have everything that is anything?

 

Towards the end of Live (about 3 months before Sunset was announced), I bought (via Ebay Auction) a character called "Weaponfinesse" (JD) from another player, for $2.5k. It was considred to be the most well-equipped character on Andromeda, and I certainly got a lot of attention for being the purchaser... But to be quite frank, there was something rather un-fulfilling about being able to just purchase my way to the top of the Loot Tree.

 

After Sunset was announced, a few people asked me if I regretted buying the character; but to be honest, it was the best thing I could have done, since getting my hands on all that gear had taken all the fun and anticipation out of the Game for me. So I didn't grieve as much as I might have, when the servers were finally shutdown.

 

In Games like these, getting everything there is to be got can really take the enjoyment out of the Game. I periodically start a new character in Skyrim, each time determined not to use the console codes to give myself all the kit I want. And I can usually hold that determination for a while... Whilst I do, I enjoy playing the Game as it was intended to be played. But sooner or later, I succumb to temptation: I "Magic" in some money; then some gear; then eventually bump up all the skills I want... At which point I mothball Skyrim again for another six months.

 

Of *COURSE* there's a part of me that would like to be able to wander up to a "Special" vendor in F7, and "Sort by Awesomeness" all the Uber-Gear I'm going to buy (that others have really worked hard for...). And I know that for at least an hour or so after purchasing all the Top-of-the-Line Gear, I'll really enjoy soloing Fish Bowls and one-shotting gate turrets... But where do I go after that?

 

Only one place I can go: onto these Forums to start haranguing the Dev Team to create more and more challenging MOBs; and more and more Uber-Gear (which at some point shortly after I'll then be complaining is "Too Rare").

 

I will, in time, get around to Raiding (especially if I can figure out which ones can be Sextuple-Boxed..!). I might even have to get around to joining a Guild to participate in those Raids I can't figure out how to multi-box by myself. And at that point, the rare Raid Gear will start trickling in to my inventories, and I'll really value those items I worked to get.

 

But until then... I think the Raid Gear *HAS* to stay rare/difficult-to-obtain. If it wasn't... If every player in this relatively small Community had every bit of kit they ever dreamed of having... All of the effort the Dev Team have put in and continue to put into keeping this Game going, would be for nothing.

 

As with all things in Life: you get back whatever you are willing to give. Players won't attach any value to the best items in the Game, if they are too easy to come by.

[Player Advocate Section]

Aye.

 

Elections and Term Limits seem redundant in this instance; or worse, counter-productive.

 

They mean we could end up getting rid of someone who is doing a great job; and/or *NOT* being able to get rid of someone who is doing a really bad job (or not bothering to do the job at all).

 

Hold Alurra to account every day, not just at Election Time... Soon as she starts failing her responsibilities: she's *FIRED*!! (it's not like Gaming Communities are shy about expressing their dissatisfactions; I'm sure we'll all know about it, if Alurra's performance drops off...)

 

Anyone else who is interested in being a Player Advocate can (I'm sure) contact Alurra and see if there's any sort of Advocate Intern position they could take up, to help Alurra out and learn the ropes. Though that would of course be entirely up to Alurra.

 

Let's get rid of the bathwater here; not the baby.

[Player Advocate Section]

Interesting proposal Holyman, sounds like you're advocating eliminating the election and service terms all together from the advocate and making it more of a "for hire" position.

1) Who should do the hiring/firing for this position?

2) Who decides if they're doing a good/bad job?

3) What's the process for removing an advocate that players aren't happy with?

 

I don't think that presents any problem.

 

If the shareholders in a company wanted to remove a Company Director, they would pass a vote of "No Confidence".

 

Removing term limits or any automatically occurring elections/re-elections wouldn't mean we would be stuck forever with an ineffective Player Advocate. If the Players lost confidence in their Advocate, anyone could (and can right now) propose a vote to remove/replace.

 

I'm quite sure that neither the person serving as Advocate, or the Dev Team, would want to continue with a Player Advocate that didn't have the confidence of a majority of the Playerbase.

 

The danger with Term Limits and/or Elections is that a perfectly competent, effective and - above all - *EXPERIENCED* Player Advocate would be replaced by someone less competent and effective.

 

Bear in mind also that Alurra knows the ropes and has an established and effective working relationship with the Dev Team. Should that be disrupted and discarded, for the sake of some psuedo-democratic legitimacy?

 

I do think it is important to see that the position of Player Advocate is a functional/operational role. The person who fulfils that role is not taking decisions on behalf of the Player Community, just acting as an intermediary.

 

As with all functional/operational roles, it is appropriate to ensure that there is a deputy, substitute or "cover". Alurra may want to take a vacation from time-to-time, or personal circumstances may require her to take a hiatus. Having somebody who can substitute/deputise for her would be entirely appropriate. Such a person would also be the obvious choice to replace the current Player Advocate, as and when the current Advocate chose to retire.

 

Having someone "shadow" Alurra, in order to learn the ropes and to begin the development of their own personal working relationship with the Dev Team, would be an entirely sensible move.

 

Automatically replacing Alurra because... Her time is up... Would be much less sensible.

[Fix The Gate Lockups Please]

Was a firmware upgrade on some Virgin hubs that set the Firewall to "Medium" that caused mine and another player's problems.

 

Resetting the Firewall to "Low" did the trick!

 

https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/11354-game-freezing-at-gates/page-2#entry93660

[Game Freezing At Gates]

Caught your post in the other forum area Bonesarr... And asked if you were based in the U.K. and using Virgin Media...

 

*IF* you are...

 

At some point in the second week of July, Virgin Media pushed out a firmware upgrade to the majority of their routers/hubs.

 

A consequence of this firmware upgrade was that it set the Firewall Policy on the router/"super-hub" to "Medium".

 

And that meant that 99 attempts out of 100 to gate in EnB would cause the Game client to lock-up.

 

Setting the Firewall Policy on the router/hub to "Low" resolves the issue.

 

Of course... If you're not based in the U.K., or not using Virgin Media, the above may be irrelevant. But the symptoms you are describing (locking up almost every time you gate; happening on both computers you use), sound identical to the problems that I and TolkenMoon were having. We're both Virgin Media users in the U.K.; and TolkenMoon (my Hero  :wub: ) discovered the resolution.

[Player Advocate Section]

The EnB community is full of people from around the globe, and each country has it's own style of politics.

 

I'm Canadian, our Governments don't have a fixed time limit before they are booted. It is quite possible to stay in a position for quite some time. 

 

I'm from the U.K.... "Mother of all Parliaments" and all that.

 

Politicians are elected here to make decisions about Policy. It is the delegation of decision making (which way to vote on an issue), by a large constituency of people to a single representative, that requires a democratic election.

 

But for matters of process, the generally smooth and continuous functioning of Government services, we employ Civil Servants on a full-time and permanent basis.

 

Seems to me that the "Player Advocate" is a go-between, an interface between the Player Community and the Development Team. That seems to be a functional role that doesn't allow for a lot of discretion or discrimination.

 

A player logs a question (comment, suggestion &c.)  in the "Dry Erase Board", Alurra ensures that gets passed onto the Dev Team, and the response is fed back to the Player Community.

 

No decision-making authority is being delegated by the Players to the Player Advocate. On the odd occasion when a question of policy or a decision comes up, or when the players' opinions need to be canvassed, Alurra diligently and competently organises a poll and collates the results.

 

"Player Advocate" is a functional/operational role; not a political position.

 

Would strongly suggest that the person most suited to a functional/operational role is the person who can (and has) demonstrate (-d) the most competence and effectiveness in the role.

 

Elections are popularity contests, where an Electorate chooses the candidate they think is most likely to act in their interests, and not act against them.

 

I think it would be a big mistake to not have Alurra - who has proven herself to be competent, efficient and effective - in the role of Player Advocate, because of a sophomoric misunderstanding about the delegation of representative powers.

[Fix The Gate Lockups Please]

You wouldn't happen to be based in the U.K. and use Virgin Media as your I.S.P. would you Bonesarr..?

[Raid Rotation Now Null And Void?]

Found this thread: https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/10477-wasted-raid-triggers-and-the-public/

 

Explains all.

 

Strikes me that primary purpose of the Raid Rotation (Treaty?) Schedule is to maintain civility and mutual respect among the players in this relatively small Community.

 

All other implicit and explicit purposes of the Schedule (e.g. equitable loot distribution, intra-Guild planning and organisation) are secondary to this primary purpose.

 

Laws and treaties get broken occasionally. If the temptation to do what a law or treaty prohibits wasn't there, there would be no need for the law or treaty.

 

When parties to the treaty succumb to temptation, the only appropriate response is for the parties who breached to apologise, Altering, suspending or eliminating an agreement that took effort, compromise and diplomacy to establish, in an attempt to retrospectively excuse a breach of the agreement, is disingenuous and counter-productive.

 

Especially where the primary purpose of the agreement is so obviously beneficial to all parties involved.

 

I'll shut up now.

[Raid Rotation Now Null And Void?]

Raid trigger times are dependant on which raid it is but they are usually anywhere between 24 to 56 hours (someone may correct me on this) . As soon as the raid is over the timer to the raid trigger reappearing is started . 

 

Ah.

 

Can see then how the time at which a Guild chose to exercise its "Right to Raid" would have consequences for the next Guild up.

 

But can also see that with relatively short (in terms of a 7-day cycle) respawn times, the temptation to take down a Raid that is sitting there ripe-for-the-plucking must be overwhelming for some...

 

The Rotation Schedule is weekly, but the respawn times are generally between 1 and 2 (to 2 and a half) days. Is the agreement such that a Guild that holds the Rotation for the week can take down the Raid as many times as it is able, within that week? Provided that the last attempt allows for the Raid to respawn in time for the hand-off to the next Guild?

 

If that is the case, then it really is no business of anyone other than the leaders of the Guild that holds the Rotation for the week, when (and even if) they choose to take the Raid.

 

Seems straightforward enough.

[Raid Rotation Now Null And Void?]

Static is not alone in this. Leave triggers alone that are not yours to take.  If we or VGE want to leave our trigger up all week its ours to do so and your opinion makes NO difference. Static, VGE and yes even BI earned its spot but that does in no way give anyone the right to threaten over spawns. Its never going to be on the table!!!!

 

 

As someone who is only in a Guild of one, and who hasn't participated in any raids... And also as someone who has a more limited understanding of how (and when) these Raid triggers respawn...

 

Is it the case that a Raid (trigger? availability?) respawn is dependent upon the time that it was previously taken down?

 

If so, does this mean that if a Raid is ready to go on a Sunday evening (for example), but is not taken down until say, five or six days later, that will delay the time it respawns for the next Guild in rotation?

 

I always observe the spike in on-line players on Sundays... I assumed that this is when some (or most) of the Raid triggers have respawned and are ready to go: suggesting that some raids are on a 7-day respawn timer..?

 

If this is the case, I can see how this would be problematic for Guilds awaiting their turn in the Rotation, since any delay with the previous Guild taking down the Raid will have a knock-on effect for the next Guild in rotation.

 

However, if (some or most of) the Raids respawn at exactly the same time every week, then it makes no difference when a Guild chooses to take down the Raid: it is their's (by agreement) for the week, to do with as they please. If the Guild whose turn it is takes it down five minutes after it respawns, it wouldn't be available for the rest of the week; so if they choose to leave it until the last minute (in the week), it is (by agreement) no concern of anyone else's that the Raid is sitting there waiting to be taken down.

 

But if the time at which a Guild takes down a Raid has that knock-on effect of delaying the respawn for the next Guild in the Rotation, then this has to be accounted for in the inter-Guild "Treaty".

 

It is fair and appropriate for one Guild to make a decision about timing their Raid to suit the requirements and availability of their own members; but if doing so delays the respawn time (by days... Not just hours and minutes...) for the next Guild in the rotation, then the current Guild's decision about timing has to take into account the requirements and availability of the next (and the next, and the next...) Guild's members too.

 

Or am I missing some vital piece of understanding here..?

[Player Advocate Section]

 

Alurra is by far the best advocate I've seen in the last 3 years. This has lead many to enjoy and not worry about what's going on. 

 

I'd go a little further than that and say that Alurra is by far the best intermediary between a Player-Base and Developer Team I've seen in any Gaming Community.

 

Conscientious, reliable, objective, articulate, concise, graceful, positive... Rare qualities by themselves, but to see them all so consistently displayed by a single individual delivering a challenging responsibility, is practically unique.

 

I'd say that for as long as Alurra wants the job, she should get to keep it: she has more than earned it.

 

Just my observation.

 

:)