OFFICIAL PROPOSAL from FE/TMO

[Bossman]

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

And the hardcores do not want a system that allocates an equal amount of kills to the groups that are less willing to spend more effort.

The hardcores need to respect that casuals have a reasonable expectation to participate in the end game. The casuals need to respect the dedication and effort of the hardcores.

One week of uncontested raiding is roughly a quarter of spawns in a month. Many are suggesting a 50/50 division (week on week off). This affords casuals the chance to participate, but it does NOTHING to respect the effort and dedication of the hardcore. We have already established that a 100/0 split of hardcore-casual has the opposite problem.

A 75/25 split respects casuals and affords them a meaningful chance to participate in the end game, and it respects the dedication and effort of the hardcore.

75/25 is a joke. 3-6 guilds are left fighting to divy up 25% of the raid spawns?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

On the contrary, the effort and dedication of the hardcore has been respected for over two years now.

A lop sided situation in the past should not be solved with a lopsided solution. It breeds only resentment and contempt. This is a clean slate and we should treat it as such moving forward. Whatever solution is created should be fair on its own merits.

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

75/25 is a joke. 3-6 guilds are left fighting to divy up 25% of the raid spawns?

The numbers can be adjusted if necessary to achieve consensus. The point is that a 50/50 split does not address the root of the hardcore's concerns. VP can be added to the hands off period, or it can remain off and simply be used as a bargaining chip that will affect the exact terms of the % split regarding the hands off period.

[Autotune]

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

A lop sided situation in the past should not be solved with a lopsided solution. It breeds only resentment and contempt. This is a clean slate and we should treat it as such moving forward. Whatever solution is created should be fair on its own merits.



The numbers can be adjusted if necessary to achieve consensus. The point is that a 50/50 split does not address the root of the hardcore's concerns. VP can be added to the hands off period, or it can remain off and simply be used as a bargaining chip that will affect the exact terms of the % split regarding the hands off period.

You guys need to stop trying to split the raid scene in any % for the different "types" of guilds and come up with a system that applies to everyone equally.

[Bossman]

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

A lop sided situation in the past should not be solved with a lopsided solution. It breeds only resentment and contempt. This is a clean slate and we should treat it as such moving forward. Whatever solution is created should be fair on its own merits.



The numbers can be adjusted if necessary to achieve consensus. The point is that a 50/50 split does not address the root of the hardcore's concerns. VP can be added to the hands off period, or it can remain off and simply be used as a bargaining chip that will affect the exact terms of the % split regarding the hands off period.

50/50 is incredibly fair. 50% of the mobs for 90% of the server and 50% for the hardcore 10%. How is that not an equitable solution?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

50/50 is incredibly fair. 50% of the mobs for 90% of the server and 50% for the hardcore 10%. How is that not an equitable solution?

Because it does not respect the increased effort on the part of the more active. Being casual is a default designation, it is naturally larger because it is a default. Additionally, "90% of the server" is the wrong way to look at it. Many of those 90% are not of raiding level, have no desire to participate, and have not put forth any effort to achieve these goals. While the casual percentage that should be considered is certainly large, it is most certainly not "90%."

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

A lop sided situation in the past should not be solved with a lopsided solution. It breeds only resentment and contempt. This is a clean slate and we should treat it as such moving forward. Whatever solution is created should be fair on its own merits.

It should when it attempts to correct the server raid scene. Yes, I know, it's extremely convenient for the hardcores to ignore the fact they have nearly monopolized endgame content for over two years. Someone calculated that to be 400-1000 Trak teeth based on TMO's number of Trak kills. Not to mention all the time TMO got to enjoy and gear up in VP uncontested before FE/IB started to enter and compete.

You already have the advantage, you and I both know you have a LOT more ground to give here than this proposal and still be plenty competitive for Velious.

[Ella`Ella]

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

75/25 is a joke. 3-6 guilds are left fighting to divy up 25% of the raid spawns?

Why is everyone failing to understand that every guild in category B can engage any mob at any time...? Just because TMO, FE, IB are going for priority targets doesn't mean that any other guild can as well. The only ones suffering any restrictions currently are TMO/FE/IB. And, really --- the promotion to Category A aspect really keeps BDA (since they're the heir apparent) from shitting all over the little guilds since they have the infrastructure to be the big bad wolf amongst those in Cat B.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Why is everyone failing to understand that every guild in category B can engage any mob at any time...? Just because TMO, FE, IB are going for priority targets doesn't mean that any other guild can as well.

If that worked, we wouldn't be sitting here trying to hash out an agreement and reach consensus on it prior to Jan 2nd now, would we?

[Ella`Ella]

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

If that worked, we wouldn't be sitting here trying to hash out an agreement and reach consensus on it prior to Jan 2nd now, would we?

Yendor, you don't even try. Just because you don't, doesn;t me it's because you can't or because we're disabling you.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I think it's becoming clear that this proposal, no matter how much some may find it agreeable, is failing.

I think the failure is due to complexity, and I think a self-policing and simpler system stands a greater chance of acceptance.