AlanEnB

Rotation raid triggers killed

51 posts in this topic

Haven't played in almost exactly 12 months... (Since moving from London out to the country and a *VERY* poor broadband connection...)

 

When I *WAS* playing (rather more actively!), I dipped my toes into the Raid Rotation Discussion as a somewhat objective arbiter... And even proposed a few alternatives to the existing Raid Rotation System.

 

It's a quiet day at the office today, and having exhausted my usual lunchtime websites, I thought I'd check in with Net-7 and see how things were going... And guess what? Discussions on the Raid Rotation still seem to be the order of the day..!

 

I wasn't intending to post... But you know how it goes... Old habits die hard... So here are my thoughts, based on what I've just read in this thread, and in the other current Raid Rotation thread:

 

It is the nature of human beings that once a competitive advantage has been gained, it is *VERY* rare for such an advantage to be voluntarily surrendered.

 

The members of the “Big 3” Guilds gained/earned a big advantage several years ago, with regards access to the top raids in the Game.

 

Whilst we might read the posts of representatives of those “Big 3”, and either silently or vocally criticise their insistence and justifications for maintaining their advantage… Are any of us honestly answering the question: would we behave any differently if *WE* held the advantage?

 

^^That isn’t meant to be a Magic Bullet to silence criticism… It’s just an observation to bear in mind, however we might honestly answer the question, whilst we participate in these discussions.

 

Another observation-based thought:

 

Kyp, the Grand Poobah, has stated in fairly unequivocal terms, his attitude towards the Raid Rotation System. In particular, he has emphasised that no player “owns” any particular raid.

 

Quite rightly – and I suspect, based on painful past experience – Kyp (and the rest of the Dev Team) keeps himself out of Player Politics.

 

Could he use his omnipotence to issue a ruling..? Undoubtedly.

 

Would such a ruling from On High bring a full and final end to players expressing dissatisfaction with access to raids: undoubtedly *NOT*.

 

On the issue of converting the time-spawned raids to triggered raids:

 

I think we all recognise this would be an ideal situation

I think we all understand that there would be… “x” amount of Development activity required to (re-)code, test, implement and balance this…

But do any of us think that if it was a simple and straightforward thing for the (volunteer) Development Team to carry out… They wouldn’t already have done it?

 

So… What popped into my head and compelled me to post, was this:

 

Discussions around the Raid Rotation Agreement tend to be fairly binary. Either the Raid Rotation System remains as it is; or it is scrapped altogether.

 

Actually, that wasn’t what occurred to me just now… That occurred to me a couple of years ago, when I was last contributing to the (on-going) Raid Rotation discussion… And I presented two or three alternatives that sat between the As Is-:-Nothing polarity. But I think I probably overthought those suggestions… And consequently over-designed them… (It happens…)

 

No, what just popped into my head was what I think is a cleaner, simpler alternative, based on what I was reading.

 

Assuming the Raid Rotation hasn’t changed in the year that I’ve been away, then it still consists of a four-weekly rolling schedule, with each of the “Big 3” getting dedicated access to a particular raid, for one week out of four. And the “Public” get the spare week.

 

Given the change (/decline) in Server and Guild populations since that Raid Rotation was originally devised, how about the following:

 

A two-week schedule.

 

Week 1: all time-spawned raids are open to the Public; with “Big 3” Guild members discouraged, but not necessarily forbidden from participation.

 

Week 2: all time-spawned raids are… “Prioritised” for the “Big 3”. And the “Big 3” can formulate a new Raid Rotation agreement amongst themselves, to figure out how they want to share the different raids amongst themselves, during their “On” week.

 

I use the term “Prioritised” advisedly, because as Kyp has emphasised, no player (or Guild) “owns” any Raid. But as with the existing Raid Rotation agreement, any accord will succeed or fail on consensus participation. Respect for the “prioritisation” of “Big 3” Guild Week, will be reciprocated by the “Big 3” respecting the “discouraging” of their participating (or at least, initiating) time-spawned Raids during Public Week.

 

Moving to a two-weekly turnaround in the Rotation means that “Public” players don’t have to wait a whole month, before getting another chance at the specific raid they are interested in.

 

Giving all “Big 3” Guilds dedicated access to all four (is it still four..?) time-spawned Raids, means that they can still operate their Inter-Guild Accords.

 

IIRC, the original purpose for the Raid Rotation Agreement was to resolve disputes *BETWEEN THE “Big 3”*… Not between any or all of the “Big 3”, and the Public.

 

Seems to me that if the “Big 3” as they are today, aggregate the advantages they each retain from “Back in the Day”, the “Public” will no longer feel quite as disadvantaged as they do now… And have done for some time.

 

And equally, the “Big 3” don’t completely lose the advantage that, whilst may not be quite as justifiable based on current Guild activity, reflects the contribution that those “Big 3” Guilds made in earlier days of the Emulator, and the contribution that members of those “Big 3” Guilds continue to make in terms of advice and assistance, to the current Player Base.

 

Maybe the specifics of my suggestion above might require further tweaking and calibration, or complete rejection in place of another alternative.

 

But given that this topic seems to have made no further progress towards a resolution than it had 12 months ago… It does seem to me that an alternative to either keeping things as they are, or abolishing the Rotation Agreement altogether, needs to be found.

 

It’s all about Compromise, isn’t it?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now