![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
Quote:
"You call our situation good!" No, but the situation as it was before variance made it so a guild could have all mobs on lockdown easier. Now we see a guild like TMO dominate, but back in the day there were 3 or 4 guilds all of the same or equal power. Variance made it so the GMs didn't rage quit each month. Rogean made a better answer in the last mega variance thread. I'm too lazy to look for it, but that was the gist of it.
__________________
Muteki - 57 Bard
Alva - 53 Monk Kallon - 58 Shaman | |||
|
|
||||
|
#2
|
|||
|
Not having 15 servers that people can switch to and from isn't classic.
__________________
Jack <Yael Graduates> - Server First Erudite
Bush <Toxic> Jeremy <TMO> - Patron Saint of Blue | ||
|
|
|||
|
#4
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you didn't play when variance wasn't instituted, I understand how you wouldn't realize how it was an improvement on past situations. There is room for improvement, but that is only achieved by instituting more non-classic changes. Which was your opening statement against variance, it being non-classic. Thus, any changes to the raid scene to make it better will be non-classic. So in summation? Variance may be non-classic, but that's because using a classic raid scene wasn't sustainable. They've stated they are working on newer solutions to the raid scene that would alleviate variance. Oh, and I was letting you know why variance was put into place, not defending it you dickweed.
__________________
Muteki - 57 Bard
Alva - 53 Monk Kallon - 58 Shaman | |||
|
|
||||
|
#5
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() | |||
|
|
||||
![]() |
|
|