Quote:
Originally Posted by kaev
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Serious miscasting of shit going on in that post. How about the "pixel lust" of small guilds riding the coattails of larger guilds so that they can distribute pixels from easier & more desirable targets amongst a smaller pool than if they were in a guild capable of actually doing all the content?
You want the loots? Man up and form a large enough force to actually kill the tough mobs and (here's the key part [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] then share the "loot pinata" pixels amongst all of the players required to actually earn your place at the table.
The greed and the abuse here are coming 99% from the smaller guilds crying because they want guaranteed pixels at the expense of the players in the larger guilds. |
So this is what the PR machine is going to say?
Let's be 100% clear here. You make the gatekeeper to the juiciest tier the 2nd hardest mob in the game, require 24hr kills of it within 1hr, and in order to get in, you have to kill a FFA version of it - not a class R version.
Really?
No, you created a protected pixel wall designed to keep the small guilds from killing VS (which can be done with 2 groups), Inny (3 groups), etc etc.
This isn't some - "they're abusing the system" proposal (and they weren't, they signed up jointly for mobs they couldn't solo kill, alliances were for an 8hr period overnight), it's 100% about protecting the best pixels in the game from competition and trying to secure them for BDA/Taken/Divinity without having to share.
Don't spew some noble bullshit when it's quite clear that this was some Machivaellian proposal designed to benefit BDA/Taken/Divinity and protect their pixel welfare.