history lesson/faq

[Dartagnan]

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.

[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.

[Hasbinbad]

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

Everytime we engaged her she proced DDoS on us.

That's sigworthy.
*evades the rest of this conversation*

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dartagnan]

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

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.

I am talking generally. IB would be more than willing to do this for new guilds. I am only providing a framework. Obviously concrete details will need to be done.

I'd hope that you would see my point that this system rewards efforts. A new guild could compete this way. All they would need to do is have some organization. Heck, if it was me I'd give a new guild the chance to do a dragon for the first time without all of us rushing in.

[Xzerion]

As I have told many of you I am trying to stay neutral because of my status. However the perception I have observed and heard about the work it out yourselves attitude is that nothing will ever be decided on because transcendence has what they want so why would they want to change it.

Allizia, someone brought up an idea to you to try and appease both guilds that offered equal opportunity to both. The fact that you chose to ignore it...whether you agree or not reinforced the perception I have seen. As a show of good faith please respond with your thoughts. IB and the GMs both do NOT want a rotation, several IB members have suggested several systems to compromise. Other than hasbin's pvp system I have not seen a comment from anyone representing Transendence that has made an attempt at solving the rotation issue. (I could have missed them).

[Recyclebin]

As someone who is nearing my 30's and been in the emu scene from UO - > EQ.

Mixing devs/GMs and having characters on the same server do not mix, ever.

I am level 23 after weeks and weeks, I wish there were more people but I sometimes log in and can't find a group for the life of me, I play to interact with people, druid is a solo class, that may have been a bad choice in terms of wanting a group, but I love tracking mobs and playing with other people regardless of the pathetic drama that happens on this server daily.

I wish the server was more at the lines of 300-400 active, but it's pretty much tapered off at the 220-250 mark from what I can tell.