Jump to content

Raid Rotation Discussion Time For A Change?

Recommended Posts

This entire discussion is leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Before I continue, I will restate that I am on board with the "leave as it is" crowd for my aforementioned reasons. Of course, if someone comes up with a better plan, then I'm for it.


However, the people who now and in the past demand that people "prove" that they are good enough to take down a raid disgust me. Their attitude is one that smacks of a policy of exclusion. Since when does one have to prove they are good enough to partake in what a game has to offer? Since when does a group or groups decide who is good enough to play a part of the game? This is a free game...a GAME!


Let me put this in another perspective. I was a very good high school baseball player, and earned myself a baseball scholarship to play for Rutgers University, a Division I school. I played for four years (relief pitcher). One can assume that anyone playing a sport at the Division I level for four years is fairly advanced skill-wise in that particular sport. Now suppose that the EnB community had a server party at a nice outdoor facility. We decide to have a softball game. I watch people throwing balls, hitting balls, and finally walk out to the field to play. Before the game starts, I turn to the person playing second base and say "You can't play second base, you're not good enough." Now, unless anyone else posting here has played Division I baseball, I will assume that I am the best ballplayer here, and I will also assume that I know more about the game than anyone else posting here. Does that give me the right to tell someone that they can't play a position in a pick-up game?


GAME is the key word. I was very upset when Epic had to "prove" that they could take down a raid. Why did Epic have to prove anything? Why should the public prove that they can do the same? If a guild or the public fail ten times in a row on a raid, so what? How does it affect anyone else?


Let me guess: Because you can do the raid and get the uber loot. Wow, that's so damn important. After three years of play, I finally got Doberman a FoTM. Three years. Yes, a few people in chat snickered at that, but not having a FoTM never diminished my enjoyment of the game.Why? Because I don't consider the uber loot to be the most important part of my playing; rather, the interaction with my guild mates and others I interact with is the best part of playing.


I am lucky enough to now teach at the institution I once played for. I teach courses in history and criminal justice. I think about the discussions I've had in class on topics such as terrorism, banking and the economy, religion, the death penalty, guns, crime, drugs, world politics...you get the idea. Issues within those topics affect real life. The world will not end if someone doesn't have the most uber item in a free online game played by about 100 people. I sometimes wonder if there are a few people playing this game that don't realize this. If a raid trigger is still up for the third day, I promise you that the sun will still rise, that you will still complain about the price of some commodity, and we will still be stuck with crappy reality television shows. Yes, life will continue.


Peace to all, and don't drink too much of that pirate rum on New Year's Eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!


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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

In the right place for that..!  :wacko:




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

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you add a 5th week?   Split Genril and Scooter? 


Instead of 2 weeks for pub, why not make the 5th week 'Open' but restrict the time for the raid, with 3 raids in the week the 1st could be done say noon-8, the second from 8-4 and the 3rd from 4-noon.  This way we can 'test the waters' on the community doing the raids and be available to almost everyone at one time during the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd that on a busy day such as yesterday the public required assistance from Builders Inc to get the RD Base done.

Or maybe it just looked that way.

It's not odd at all when you see almost 200 people on line yet the most hunted thing is an evil snowman. Put 2+2 and you realize that most people are either getting their skill points or doing the SolSec Bob mission fore the Polar Express. Is it also odd that for hours I had Antares to myself for hours at a time? The broken debuts are making a few people somewhat reluctant to hunt bigger game. There is no reason to take a dig at the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not odd at all when you see almost 200 people on line yet the most hunted thing is an evil snowman. Put 2+2 and you realize that most people are either getting their skill points or doing the SolSec Bob mission fore the Polar Express. Is it also odd that for hours I had Antares to myself for hours at a time? The broken debuts are making a few people somewhat reluctant to hunt bigger game. There is no reason to take a dig at the public.


My post was an observation. It was not a dig at anyone at all.


But if the hat fits.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just gonna step in here and say this: "Not being able to complete a raid should not preclude someone or a group of someone's from being involved. This is a ridiculous behavior if people are being blocked from content as a result."

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Far as I know, nobody is blocked from the raid content. I think the previous poster was reacting to the idea that another week be added to the rotation where it wouldn't appear there is enough players to warrant another week?


Hell, I might be reaching with that conclusion, but that was how I read it. *shrug*


Back to the beginning of this thread, it APPEARS that the ability to make proper times for ALL players across the 'public' field is the root cause of this thread. We all know it's a touchy subject at best because so much blood, sweat and tears went into getting a workable arrangement in the first place.


Fly Safe



  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..?



  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you all want to go with that for a poll, someone send me a PM with the final draft and I will put it up this week for a 7 day vote cycle and post a patch note + a notification to our facebook and twitter accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.




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..!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



If I read and understood your previous post correctly, it surmises like this for your 'poll' ....


1. Forget the rotation agreement, free for all


2. Let the rotation agreement stand the way it is currently, but the public doesn't abide by the 'rules' set by the "Big 3"


3. Let the agreement stand the way it is currently, but the public gets a second week added.


My opinions are listed in order of each point above:


1. Turns it into a free for all, which will NOT have a positive outcome for ANYONE on the server save those few who can get there first.


2. The agreement was entered into and agreed upon by ALL, not just the "Big 3". There were also representatives of the 'Public" at the meeting who agreed to the terms and conditions, so the rules apply to EVERYONE who currently participates. Granted they are not rules set by the Emu Team, however, they are 'Gentlemen's Rules' and should be heeded by all. Your statement about 'new players' just entering didn't agree to these rules, therefore shouldn't have to 'obey' them. All I can say in regards to that is, Social Order. Anarchy has never been an answer used to solve a social problem.


3. The obvious comes to mind here. Your assertions previous that they should be allowed a 2nd week with firm rotation times set in place seems rather counter productive to me.  The rest of the participants in the agreement already set their rules up to ensure the maximum play by the maximum amount of members. Should they all also get a 2nd week so that they can have a 'whenever' and a 'set time' week as well? Why is there a penalization to those who already figured out a routine that works?


So, I suppose what I would suggest, instead of a 3 tiered poll , if a poll is really needed at all is:


1. Leave the rotation as is. Let the public players work out amongst themselves the best set of times to do any raid in any given week for maximum play to all participants.


2. Give the public players a 2nd week.


Now, that being said, I go back to my original statement that the main issue here circles back onto itself that those who constitute the public players really should be enacting their own 'rules of engagement' inside of their rotation week to ensure the maximum raids for the maximum amount of players.


Fly Safe



  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this one time and one time only. At no time was the Public invited to any of the meetings that made decisions on raid rotation. I was told that they did not know who to invite to the meeting; so they gave the public a spot. This is the facts.


Nothing else needs to be said on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this one time and one time only. At no time was the Public invited to any of the meetings that made decisions on raid rotation. I was told that they did not know who to invite to the meeting; so they gave the public a spot. This is the facts.


Nothing else needs to be said on that.

Yes, Syber, you are correct. When the new 'content' for DT was added to the game, that is where the 'public council' was put together. It was there, that agreements and gentlemens rules were stated regarding how things had been working prior to the public players rotating in. The representatives public or non public, had no issues with the way things worked and agreed they were happy with everything that was going on. There was a stipulation, at that time, that if for some reason DT didn't fit into the schedule proper there would be more talks to figure it out.


I should also point out that prior to the public rotating into the gentlemens agreement there was very little to no chatter on any channels, that I ever saw, regarding any of those players who weren't in the "Big 3" about raiding. When the chatter did begin the outcome is the public 'slot'.


Fly Safe



Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Personally I don't care to much about the raids out side of the 2 triggerable raids it just irritates me when people claim ownership when they have none or try to make people play the game their way with absolutely no authority I think it stops a lot of people sticking when they reach this point in the game , Its toxic ."



"I have little to no interest in the raids involved in the rotation, I just think the rotation in its current form is deeply flawed and serves as nothing but a annoyance and a reason to frustrated towards the game at the end and nothing good comes of it, There would no doubt be issues if it was removed no where near as bad as some claim, But there are issues with it anyway, It just feels like a few players trying to force everyone else to do things their own way, I could accept this if it was a unbiased developer in charge of the rotation , But everything about this doesn't sit well with me."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this one time and one time only. At no time was the Public invited to any of the meetings that made decisions on raid rotation. I was told that they did not know who to invite to the meeting; so they gave the public a spot. This is the facts.


Nothing else needs to be said on that.

You are correct Syber. When in previous threads about the rotation and adding the 4th slot we asked for someone to represent the public for some time, none stepped up.

I can dig up the specific posts if you think i'm making things up.

Edited by Efialtis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...