Quote:
Originally Posted by SeruScars
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
FAMILY guilds are going to get way more targets, but RAIDING guilds will too, so still not satisfied.
|
Raiding is not necessarily defined by inherent competition between the members. To try and define the competitive individuals within the system as the "raiders", and everyone else as "family" greatly obfuscates the truth. A heavily competitive system may be yourmemory of your classic experience, but mine... I came from a server with cooperation, and it was a really fun time. You can be both family and raiding, you can be family and hardcore, you can be family and casual. You can be raiding and casual, you can be raiding and hardcore. But raiders and family people do not demand two different things that are mutually exclusive... Casuals and hardcores do. This doesn't give each the room they need to experience their classic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhambuk
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I believe that this is the basis for a very healthy raid community it just needs a little time to grow.
|
Never before have I seen, in any study of international relations, an example of hardcore competition over limited resources existing peacefully, without conflict, with those that desire a more cooperative style of distribution of resources. Perhaps the most analogous example I can bring up is Democracies and Autocracies. Democracies have been noted to have a peaceful quality to them, in that democracies do not tend to go to war with other democracies. In other words, these guilds (states) do not compete in terms of military might with the other guilds (states). This research is heavily spearheaded by a man named Russett. Brilliant man. Anyway, although they are militarily peaceful with one another, and instead bargaining diplomatically, they trade, they do things other than war over limited resources, some counter arguments exist that democracies do not act that peaceful to autocracies. Autocracies, being ideologically opposed (See Haas, 2007), are a threat to the democratic lifestyle, and to the autocracy, democracy is a threat to the autocratic regime's power. Each side cannot mutually coexist without inherent conflict between the two systems. Although democracies may create autocracies for control, it tends to come back and bite them in the ass (just look at much of what the United States did in South America).
The basic point I am making is that hardcores have a specific vision of what the game is about, and it is inherently competition. Casuals have another vision of what the game is about, cooperation and complex interdependence (see Keohane and Nye). These two systems do not mutually coexist peacefully, and so this system is not about to bring about any form of long lasting peace between the guilds, nor any long term reduction in conflict, because it doesn't give each a sphere to be themselves in on any fair basis, other than casuals get to casual for 6 hours a month, and the other 726 are for hardcores. This is not going to reduce conflict.