FTE shouts

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

For who exactly?

Your issue is with the variance itself not the extended windows. Extended windows make the variance better at what it was designed to do. They're only an "additional" non-classic solution in that whoever created the variance in the first place didn't think of them at the time.

It's fruitless to argue against extended windows with the idea that the previous variance had an upper limit that allowed everyone to just sit on the spawn when you only had a few hours to go. If you consider sitting on the spawn while counting down to a guaranteed pop a viable and proper situation then you're better off arguing against the variance itself and not the recent modification.

Originally Posted by Writ3r

Careful that dude is the one who came up with the terrible extended variance idea that just so happened to "accidentally" get implemented. He may fight tooth and nail to make it appear valid no matter how ridiculous it actually is considering the selfishness he displays within the very way it would have and has since just benefited his guild primarily.

See above. Also, attack the idea not the person, you might get more traction. I know I'm always advocating that TMO steamroll people, but have a little faith that maybe I just think it's a good idea.

[Skope]

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

Your issue is with the variance itself not the extended windows. Extended windows make the variance better at what it was designed to do. They're only an "additional" non-classic solution in that whoever created the variance in the first place didn't think of them at the time.

It's fruitless to argue against extended windows with the idea that the previous variance had an upper limit that allowed everyone to just sit on the spawn when you only had a few hours to go. If you consider sitting on the spawn while counting down to a guaranteed pop a viable and proper situation then you're better off arguing against the variance itself and not the recent modification.



See above. Also, attack the idea not the person, you might get more traction. I know I'm always advocating that TMO steamroll people, but have a little faith that maybe I just think it's a good idea.

Adding more of something that never worked in the hope that it might work doesn't mean that it works.

Additional variance hasn't removed poopsocking or guilds logging out at targets, it's only reduced it and thinned out the top to those who zerg recruit and can spread out the tracking (or "tracking" if you prefer) and can partake in it.

I have zero faith in nilbog and Rogean. They're pushing patches that they don't agree with (more than once? how does this even happen?), repeatedly adding non-classic mechanics that don't work (and haven't for years), and now it's more bandaids.

You guys undoubtedly have the most classic code, but the implementation is completely backasswards and getting more so with each patch.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Adding more of something that never worked in the hope that it might work doesn't mean that it works.

But it's not "more" of the same. It's a fundamental change to something that wasn't accomplishing its stated goal. Drastic alteration isn't the same as shoehorning in thoughtless additions. This is less a band-aid and more an organ transplant.

There's not been a major sock of any target since the windows went in. While you disagree with the methods of the variance, it is undeniable that the new windows have made the variance better at fulfilling at least one of its intended purposes.

Again, your issue is with the variance itself; the addition of extended windows has no functional impact upon your argument. The variance is either a good thing or it is not. If it's going to exist, it stands to reason that it should good at what it is meant to do. I would think that a poorly functioning variance would be more outrageous than a well-tuned one. Do I dislike the fact that the variance was necessary? Sure, but I dislike the consequence of no variance even more. This server will never have the same environment that live did where mobs stay up for days and weeks at a time, and the devs can recreate that no more than they can recapture the magic of playing the game for the first time in 1999.

[Skope]

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

Again, your issue is with the variance itself. Do I dislike the fact that the variance was necessary? Sure, but I dislike the consequence of no variance even more.

Rather than spending time to add simulated repops once a week (or two... or once every hour if you watch to catch up with the last 3+ years), FTE is added so there's less GM intervention. Of course, how it's going to do that without a disengage shout is another matter, but hell? Who cares, right? It's been clearly well thought out.

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

This server will never have the same environment that live did where mobs stay up for days and weeks at a time, and the devs can recreate that no more than they can recapture the magic of playing the game for the first time in 1999.

That's not the goal here and likely never has been. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Rather than spending time to add simulated repops once a week (or two... or once every hour if you watch to catch up with the last 3+ years), FTE is added so there's less GM intervention. Of course, how it's going to do that without a disengage shout is another matter, but hell? Who cares, right? It's been clearly well thought out.

This solution does not preclude any other. No one's denying that other options exist that are far more efficacious in terms of positive contribution, but they're not mutually exclusive. You won't find anyone that thinks repops are a bad idea.

The variance was implemented and later refined. Take issue with the implementation and not the refining process.

[Skope]

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

This solution does not preclude any other. No one's denying that other options exist that are far more efficacious in terms of positive contribution, but they're not mutually exclusive. You won't find anyone that thinks repops are a bad idea.

The variance was implemented and later refined. Take issue with the implementation and not the refining process.

And FTE will be too.

The problem is the process and the persistent fumbling. It's just bandaids upon bandaids, hoping to salvage something until they get it right when in reality it never worked in the first place. This is no different. And rather than address something everyone wants and is truly classic, we'll get yet another bandaid.