|
View Poll Results: Is variance still needed? | |||
Yes, it promotes "competition" | 75 | 29.18% | |
No, its an unneccesary non-classic time sink | 182 | 70.82% | |
Voters: 257. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#921
|
|||
|
Nobody can say for sure what the result will be until it's tried. Afterall, the TMO megaguild was an unintended consequence of 4 day variance. This server is a perpetual work in progress and I don't see what the harm would be to try some of these ideas for a few weeks and then guage the waters then. I doubt there will be any lasting damage to the player base that isn't already going on through attrition right now.
| ||
|
#923
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
| |||
|
#924
|
|||||
|
Quote:
While you get the 18hr windows, you basically only deal with them every other week. Guilds would get bi-weekly repops (something that should be in already) and then the next week they get the variance. 18hrs won't give them rapid fire repops, but does put urgency into targets as well as priority when it comes to decision making for guilds. BDA can take out most (if not all) of VP. Divinity can kill many of the kunark dragons solo, same with taken and some of the other guilds (only difficult one being gore). Smaller guilds can take out some of the same dragons and other targets. I honestly see nearly every raid capable guild joining in and taking a slice of the pie where they can and as previous p99 history tells me, during repops most guilds try to travel the path of least resistance. All this does is eliminate the advantage that huge guilds hold over small guilds. If nothing else, it gets the smaller/normal guilds involved. Who cares if they poop sock a few windows here and there, odds are that they won't have to poop sock long, if even at all. Not all windows ride out to a poopsock.
__________________
Quote:
| ||||
|
#925
|
||||
|
Quote:
Secondly, lets all not forget that we need the GMs to remove this silliness of legal training in VP. It was never tolerated on live and should not be tolerated here. Asher | |||
|
#926
|
|||||
|
Quote:
on your second point, we definitely disagree.
__________________
Quote:
| ||||
|
#927
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#928
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Asterid - 60 Epic Dark Elf High Priest
Boilonjr - 60 Epic Erudite Arch Mage - Boilon's Spell Research Empoirum Eurovision Songcontest - 60 Epic Iksar Grandmaster Valkommen Farval - 57 Epic Human Preserver Eddey Lizzard - 53 Iksar Champion Wiliamm Wallace - 49 Epic Barbarian Rogue Shaman Epic Faction Service <Europa> | |||
|
#929
|
|||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
| ||||
|
#930
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyway, I would just like to say I am not a fan of how the GM staff uses this selective process of reverting features to "classic" while other things like this variance situation are kept in a non-classic state because its their general opinion of what is best for the server. So many features of everquest that were added over the course of several years have been removed simply to make the game less user friendly (target rings, pet window, compass, /tgb, the more advanced item descriptions, ect.) These are UI enhancements that give players no benefit really outside of generalized convenience.Yet they are removed in some sort of bizzaro crusade to get the interface close to classic while numerous mechanics and server settings remain decidedly not classic. Some things you can hide behind the argument that it is unprovable but the variance situation is documented.
__________________
Sominus - 60 Enchanter
Scorchin - 60 Wizard Vhing - 57 Shadowknight | |||
|
|
|