Asking a favor from the two top guilds on the server

[maverixdamighty]

Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If u read the suggestion, its 0 variance with an enforced rotation. No reason to poopsock if killing the target out of turn will just earn u a week in the penalty box/possible disbanding.

no one is going to agree to enforced rotations. gm's are not going to enforce rotations either.

[kenzar]

raid drama = higher turn over rate = unsustainable population.

I can think of 2 large guilds worth of players that would still be playing on this server if it weren't for raid drama being what it is. Burst website traffic is nice, but a lower more constant traffic is better.

[kenzar]

Originally Posted by maverixdamighty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no one is going to agree to enforced rotations. gm's are not going to enforce rotations either.

GM's enforced a variance. The precedence for a rule set revamp is there.

What information are u basing this projected 'no one' off of, I know a few guilds who would love to participate in end game but refuse to participate in the mud slinging required to 'compete' as it is now.

[maverixdamighty]

Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

GM's enforced a variance. The precedence for a rule set revamp is there.

gm's don't enforce a variance they coded it. it requires no additional work for them. enforcing a rotation is additional work they have to do. an enforced rotation will not happen.

[Stormhowl]

Originally Posted by maverixdamighty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

gm's don't enforce a variance they coded it. it requires no additional work for them. enforcing a rotation is additional work they have to do. an enforced rotation will not happen.

The same can be said about many things in real life.

Why is it so hard to believe that some people would police it themselves without GM involvement, especially if its a rival guild, providing them with a chance to "stick it to them"? There are always ways for the playerbase to met out justice without Mommy and Daddy stepping in to take everyone's toys away.

[kenzar]

Originally Posted by maverixdamighty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

gm's don't enforce a variance they coded it. it requires no additional work for them. enforcing a rotation is additional work they have to do. an enforced rotation will not happen.

You must be kidding. Yes the variance is a function that operates on its own. But think of the work the variance has generated through fte disputes/train accusations/DT cycle accusations/accusations of cheating/exploiting. Making a calendar with a list of possible raid targets -> applying a list of guilds willing to participate and moving them around seems like very little work compared to the current rule set. (and guess what? any kid with a minor knowledge of c++ could do it.) The rotation would enforce itself after a point, any guilds breaking the rotation would be reported by other guilds. The enforced rotation would generate no more work than the current rule set, in fact the amount of work required by staff would go down.

[maverixdamighty]

Originally Posted by kenzar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You must be kidding. Yes the variance is a function that operates on its own. But think of the work the variance has generated through fte disputes/train accusations/DT cycle accusations/accusations of cheating/exploiting. Making a calendar with a list of possible raid targets -> applying a list of guilds willing to participate and moving them around seems like very little work compared to the current rule set. The rotation would enforce itself after a point, any guilds breaking the rotation would be reported by other guilds. The enforced rotation would generate no more work than the current rule set, in fact the amount of work required by staff would go down.

there isn't going to be an enforced rotation on this server it's that simple. it's not classic and while I don't speak for FE by any means i'm 100% against this. I have no issue whatsoever not going after every mob every spawn to give others a chance to get raid targets, but expecting an enforced rotation is taking it too far.

[kenzar]

Originally Posted by maverixdamighty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

there isn't going to be an enforced rotation on this server it's that simple. it's not classic and while I don't speak for FE by any means i'm 100% against this. I have no issue whatsoever not going after every mob every spawn to give others a chance to get raid targets, but expecting an enforced rotation is taking it too far.

Maybe you weren't around before the variance, but the same was said then when the suggestion for a variance came up. "There isnt going to be a variance on this server, its that simple. its not classic." Guess what? We are working with a variance now. That's called a precedence.

You're talking with someone who raided with IB for years, 0 variance w/o a rotation didn't work, the variance w/o rotation isnt working, the next logical permutation would a 0 variance with a rotation.

[Stormhowl]

Originally Posted by maverixdamighty [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

there isn't going to be an enforced rotation on this server it's that simple. it's not classic.

Judging by responses in this thread, it's clear that this statement is false.

[maverixdamighty]

Originally Posted by Stormhowl [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Judging by responses in this thread, it's clear that this statement is false.

some servers implemented their own rotations it was not a standardized feature amongst the majority of the server. you can take any of the responses you want in this thread and twist them to your purpose, but on all servers I ever played there were no "enforced rotations" and the notion was generally laughed at.