[QUOTE=Cars;211443]
Quote:
Originally Posted by President
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
(whether you announce a time frame, or do it randomly) it is going to encourage racing to QUOTE]
If you announce the timeframe absolutely nothing will change. The only difference would be IB and DA would get almost double the loot. On simulated server downs maybe 1 seperate guild would get a boss target well IB and DA both split their raid forces to 2 seperate targets and downed both of them. The only time a seperate guild would get a single target would be if IB and DA camped a team each at the same spawn leaving one boss open. But when they repopped without any variance the guilds would be there again, this time not missing a single boss.
Although their should be more god loot in the game by this point and even though in classic they had server downs that refreshed mobs..it just wouldnt fix the issues we have here like everyone seems to think, or rather not to the extent that everyone would hope.
This server has a WAY higher population of level 50 players then live did on classic on ANY server. Its a very simple issue of extremely big fish in an extremely small pond. Which is probably why the GMs look at this entire thread and shrug it off because they know the only answer to this problem is Kunark and thats why they are working so furiously on it.
If you didn't announce the simulated server repop then you would have entire dungeons popping on "the majority" of players well they are grinding or playing casually. The flip side to that is if you make it so that the simulated server down only repops bosses then what your asking for is not at all classic and you lose the basis of your argument to make things more like classic. I am not in a guild that is getting Boss mobs, but we can and have had opportunities to compete. Variance DOES allow it to be competitive but competition is stiff when the server has 4 times as many raid capable people that there were during this era on live (ballpark figure). Personally I would rather that they focused on Kunark rather then a solution to a problem that will most likely be fixing itself in the near future. And if it doesn't fix the problem they can look into a solution when they dont have so much on their plate like they do now.
my two cents anyways. Flame on
|
You are wrong on many points. The only reason I included "announced simulated patch days" was because it has been brought up by other people. Your last paragraph(well really, the whole thing) is so filled with flaws I don't even know where to begin.