If it were only the GM's drafting, deciding, and implementing these rules that'd be fine, if less than ideal. The issue is that they're seeking the input / suggestions of some, but not all, of the people that are going to be bound by those rules. I would also suggest to you that the guilds not part of this discussion understand more of the mechanics behind the encounters than you are giving credit for. Everquest isn't exactly rocket surgery, the mechanics aren't *that* complicated.
Can't speak for TSS / DB / AEGIS - I feel like TSS was in there recently on a team up. KWSM hasn't done growth in a fairly long time - without being able to schedule in advance we'd probably have a pretty rough go of it, so tunare in the no-rotation era is not usually a high priority. Basically would need to be a weekend afternoon-into-primetime kind of raid, I think, due to how long the clear would likely take.
That said, I think we *could* conceivably get it done, given the right circumstances. And in fairness, I think it was totally appropriate that in AG's proposal, KWSM isn't initially included in the suggested rotation. The rotation part of the proposal included a mechanism for guilds not currently part of the rotation to be added, which I think is about as much as can be asked. On this same point, I appreciate that AG *did* include KWSM in it's proposed ring war rotation, which is also appropriate as we have completed many solo ring wars at this point.
However, even with all of that said - server-enforced fallback rules that are going to be applicable against everyone regardless of any pro-active agreement by those bound should be open to discussion with everyone, and should be seeking input from everyone. Rotation agreements ought to as well, since the server should be seeking to get buy-in, even from guilds not currently owning a slot, to help promote the stability of the agreements so that they last.
| 
10-30-2020, 10:31 AM
Threaded Mode