![]() |
|
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 |
|
#2
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
| |||
|
#3
|
|||
|
![]() bump
| ||
|
#4
|
|||
|
![]() ^^^
| ||
|
#5
|
|||||
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
Quote:
| ||||
|
#6
|
|||
|
![]() empty promises
| ||
|
#7
|
|||||
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
| ||||
|
#9
|
|||
|
![]() Some have expressed that 1 a week is too many, I would tend to agree with that. I'm sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread but I'm not reading through all 460 comments to find out.
One solution would be if the "simulated crashes" occur too close together, that particular "simulated crash" would be skipped. But the following crash could not be skipped. For example, if the SC (simulated crash) happened Sunday at noon, and the next SC happens Monday at or before noon. Then the SC that was suppose to happen Monday will not actually happen. The time between could be tweaked, but it would add some variance. Like I said I don't know if this was discussed already, if it was my appolagies. | ||
|
#10
|
|||
|
![]() There will be no simulated crashes until 200 people are all piled up on the VS spawn point.
Oh wait.....
__________________
Catterine - 60 Druidess
Kattarina - 60 Shaman Angellus - 60 Cleric Pickahippy - 52 Druid ******************* All priest, all the time. | ||
|
![]() |
|
|