history lesson/faq

[Allizia]

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

No he didn't. He was the one who told us to not engage because of the DDoS.

The point is simple here. You guys are failing to assemble fast enough to overtake an encounter. Because you are failing to do so, you are resorting to hiding behind the GMs backs to make it "fair." As a result, those who are able to assemble fast and take things down are being punished.

Your failures are being rewarded. OF course you want rotation or something to allow you to have NO punishment for failure.

Allizia, IF certain measures were put in place like this, would you agree?

1) First raid force (a force that could actually kill it right then and now, say 20 people minimum for a dragon raid) there to an encounter gets right to engage. So, no guild could just put 1 person there and claim the camp. A force must be there and ready to go.

2) If the first raid force fails, then the other force, if there, can engage and has 30 minutes to attack, if not, the other force has a legitimate claim on the encounter.

My guess is that you would not agree because as it stands, Transcendence cannot do this. This is what Wenai should have imposed instead of reinventing the wheel (haha rotation, get it?).

I can tell you right now, if Transcendence were able to do this and legitimately beat us to the raid encounter, it would totally be yours. In fact, we have already done this in regards to Phinny many times.

But instead, it is easier for you guys to champion rotation. It allows you guys to take competition out and failure to be the "pseudoartifact" of success.

I just find it funny how normal "camp rules" are championed but magically it is different with raid encounters. The answer is simple. Do all you can, and agree to anything that will bring the top guild down so you get a piece of the pie. It's kind of like selling your soul to the devil to get what you want.

He didn't have a choice, we probably would have been on rotation a week earlier if this had happened. And yes, after 3 hours on nonstop DDoS he informed me that you guys were moving in if it happened again. Which is why we logged in and pulled Vox before half the raid was even back, before we could get hit by another DDoS.

The rest of this was already done, and failed.

[Dartagnan]

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

He didn't have a choice, we probably would have been on rotation a week earlier if this had happened. And yes, after 3 hours on nonstop DDoS he informed me that you guys were moving in if it happened again. Which is why we logging in and pulled him before half the raid was even back, before we could get hit by another DDoS.

The rest of this was already done, and failed.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post. I can tell you right now that if there were simple rules like this put in, we would be more than willing to work with you guys. You guys just don't want to do it because the other way means your failures are rewarded and it gets the top guild.

IF we promised to follow the rules of first engage such as what I suggested above, would you be willing to do this?

Seriously, this is all Wenai needed to do. First guild (any guild) to assemble people to a raid encounter gets to do it. The guild must meet a certain population limit (such as 20 people) to claim the encounter. If the guild wipes, the other guild gets to have a try (put a time limit on this such as 30 minutes). If more than one guild is present, they will /random.

Thus:

Guild A is the first to get 20 people to the encounter. They have rights to the encounter. Guild A wipes to the encounter. Guild B and Guild C assembled forces and are ready to go (they have at least 20). Guild B and Guild C /random. Guild C wins the roll and goes to the encounter.

There we go. Instead, Wenai must reinvent the cosmos and make a system completely devoid of anything. It's kind of like Sauron getting the ring.

Honestly, I think Transcendence can do well if you guys just reorganize. That's my opinion but there is nothing keeping you guys from following the above example unless you are disorganized. IB could be better equipped than you and you could still get there before us.

Your refusal to follow any system such as this and hide behind failures shows your real intent, which is screw the top guild anyway you can, even if it means hurting yourselves. Because I can guarentee you, this Wenai system will screw us all. Have fun killing a dragon once a month. Yay, go OnceamonthQuest or better yet, PeriodQuest.

[Allizia]

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

Your refusal to follow any system such as this and hide behind failures shows your real intent, which is screw the top guild anyway you can, even if it means hurting yourselves.

It's funny, because this is how you guys got yourself into rotations, when we were using pretty much the exact same rules of engagement that you just listed. I'm not going to be part of another forum "back and forth for 30 pages" thread, especially not on one that is politely telling us to stfu, complete with discreet warnings of doom, so this is my last post here.

[Dartagnan]

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

It's funny, because this is how you guys got yourself into rotations, when we were using pretty much the exact same rules of engagement that you just listed. I'm not going to be part of another forum "back and forth for 30 pages" thread, especially not on one that is politely telling us to stfu, complete with discreet warnings of doom, so this is my last post here.

Thanks again for not answering my questions. I'll try again.

If the GMs were on board with this system and we agreed wholeheartedly to follow this system with you guys, would you follow it instead of rotation? It rewards organization and allows competition to take place.

[Allizia]

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

The rest of this was already done, and failed.

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

It's funny, because this is how you guys got yourself into rotations, when we were using pretty much the exact same rules of engagement that you just listed.

I responded twice that I don't see how this idea is any different from the one we were using to begin with (that we manipulated and IB broke). Unless I am missing something? What does going back to the same rules that started all the issues solve?

I agree that the rotation is not a permanent solution, but until one is found, let me ask you this:

1) Has a GM been forced to intervene on any encounter since rotations were put into place? (MM is excluded, GM's were there for game mechanic issues, not guild drama)

2) Has IB been receiving a fair share of end game content since rotations were put into place?

3) Has Transcendence received a fair share of end game content since rotations were put into place?

4) Has anyone had to camp a raid target for 14 hours?

5) Will any idea used appease everyone?

6) Aside from the forum QQing, are people in both guilds generally getting along better? I think so. Hell, I had long civil conversations with Hasbinbad and Tiki in the last 2 days = progress.

Seriously, things are not that bad on either side. It gives everyone time to find a real and lasting solution.

[Dartagnan]

What I proposed above is not the same rule set we had before. Do I need to say it again? I think I do. I will expand on some ideas since before but it is basically the same:

Nagafen is up. He is big mean and nasty. He needs to die.

Guild A comes into the zone and shouts in their guildchat that Nagafen is up. You see, Guild A knows that they need 20 people to be in the zone and ready to go to claim this encounter. Guild A is successful in getting the required 20 people in the zone and claims the encounter.

During this time, Guild B and Guild C were doing the same, but they just could not muster the people up. They are willing to be team players and understand that Guild A was more efficient. According to established rules, Guild B and Guild C leave the zone to allow Guild A to do the encounter without any trains, possible zone lag, etc. Guild B and C wait in Lavastorm.

Guild A did a good job but they just could not handle the raid encounter and as a result they wipe. Guild B and C rejoice because they now have a chance to take the encounter. Since Guild B and C have the minimum of 20 people, they /random 0 100 to decide which guild will be able to claim Nagafen. Guild C wins the roll and as such, has 30 minutes to get in there and attempt Nagafen.

Guild C kills Nagafen. Guild B resolves to be there faster next time. Guild A resolves to work on their tactics better next time. Guild C rejoices because Nagafen dropped a Cloak of Flames.

This is an example and can be tweaked of course, but you get the idea. THIS IS NOT THE SAME SET OF RULES THAT EXISTED BEFORE. This is a new idea.

I can tell you right now that if something like this was put into play, IB would be more than willing to go along with this because it rewards organization and tactics.

This is a fair solution and would even work with Nizzarr's proposed variance spawn times if that is what we wanted.

I am trying to be a team player here. I realize that IB is not going to fully get what they want. That seldom works with negotiations. This idea allows ANY number of guilds to lay claim to a raid encounter. It does not allow a top guild to bully another guild since it is a test of quick organization, yet at the same time is a test of tactics too.

It is quite possible for Transcendence, or any guild, to lay claim on any raid encounter just as much as IB.

This solves our dilemma and allows the best possible solution in my opinion.

I would be willing to start a new thread where we can talk specifics and draft up a good proposal. Are you willing to do this? Again, I just used numbers to show the flow of how things would go. Concrete details could be discussed in a new thread dedicated to this issue.

[Allizia]

Start a new thread, I'll read anything. You do realize I'm not only looking out for Transcendence though right? Transcendence is a community based guild and IB would be destroyed by an alliance between Divinity and Transcendence, which would more then likely happen regularly if this went into place (How is IB going to compete against 1/3 of the server? Believe it or not, I don't want this. IB has worked hard to get where they are, why should they be pushed out?). How long will that last until the QQing starts again and we are back to square 1? We sat at Naggy and Vox for 14 hours to prove to you that you will have to share, and we will get raid targets.

I just think it's a bad idea from what I have seen so far, and does not fix several of the issues. It also gives motivation for people to 2 box characters to meet attendance requirements (we all know it happens, regardless of the consequences)

[Dartagnan]

I will start a new thread when I get a chance to type it all up. We are looking for competition. If we are getting wailed on by Divinity and Transcendence, then IB better look at ways to strengthen their position.

I would rather loose a good fight through competing than be forced to a rotation without competition.

I'll type this up in a few with examples and we can discuss specifics. Thanks Allizia.

[Matrim]

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

We sat at Naggy and Vox for 14 hours to prove to you that you will have to share, and we will get raid targets.

All your spawn camping proved was that you were able to use your influence with the GMs to step in and implement a non-classic rotation that benefits your guild. You didn't earn that camp by sitting there for 14 hours- your crying to the GM staff is what scored you loot there. Let's not pretend.

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

Transcendence is a community based guild and IB would be destroyed by an alliance between Divinity and Transcendence, which would more then likely happen regularly if this went into place.

I think you're confusing the words 'community based guild' with 'we have low standards for invites'. Personally, if I were in Divinity I'd be offended that you so readily assume they're the type of people willing to zerg to win. If that's what it takes to go FFA, though, I think IB would be up to the challenge.

[Widan]

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

Your refusal to follow any system such as this and hide behind failures shows your real intent, which is screw the top guild anyway you can, even if it means hurting yourselves.

The system you suggested is awful. If a guild has claim to a mob then they should have anywhere from 1-2 hours to kill it, not including trash clearing time. This allows for multiple attempts and wipes, which is especially beneficial for guilds doing an encounter for the first time, so that they have sufficient opportunity to learn the encounter and adjust their strategies accordingly.

Under no circumstances should it be a one and done type deal.