Quote:
Originally Posted by mitic
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
this "sony could shut down emu" argument is flawed and should be taken out as argument per se in any discussion about any server-issues.
emu was here for years and will stay for the years to come. this is, for now, a fact. we are playing now and not in the future.
|
Fine, then address the fact that people are acting like spoiled 12-year-olds fighting over 10-year-old content.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The crux of the issue is this:
There is not enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it.
Therefore, this implies the fix is either:
a) Generate enough raid content to go around, or
b) Ration the existing raid content in a fair and even manner.
Since what we have is what we got, the only available option in (a) is to increase spawn frequency. Pretty sure that is out the window, but if the server raid-level population grows (which it will grow much faster this time around since everyone knows the game) too quickly, that competition for raid targets could tear the server apart. Maybe in recognition that the raid-level server population will increase at a rate faster than it did ten years ago, the only way to compensate for it is to increase the frequency of raid-level target spawns. Depends on what the administrators are willing to do here to "feed the hungry masses" who are fighting each other over the scraps.
We are more familiar with (b) because that, historically, has been what we have been forced to do. However, the people currently "getting theirs" by whatever nefarious means they use to do so are only hurt by methods of rationing out the raid targets (by use of calendars, rotations, etc.) because after the rationing is put into effect, they get less. They will fight this to the core and will always be in favor of "might makes right" or "first to engage" sorts of policies, relying on their existing tactics to maintain their status quo. I submit to you that this issue occurred on every non-PVP live server, because there was always an uber guild in the beginning that hit the raid level content first, and then subsequently had to learn or be forced to share it with other guilds as they caught up with them.
So what do we know?
"Might makes right/first to engage" rules keep the raid targets in the hands of the few guilds willing to do what it takes to make sure they are the mightiest or the first. This deprives other guilds of raid level content and creates end-game friction like we're seeing here.
"Rationing" rules hinder the guilds who are currently able to monopolize the content, but help the other guilds who have the numbers/ability but can't necessarily "do what it takes" to acquire raid targets under the other ruleset.
If you put this to a vote, the top guilds would vote one way and the up-and-coming guilds vote the other way. Each and every time. And therein lies the problem.