Quote:
Originally Posted by YendorLootmonkey
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Irrelevant. Again, we all had equal opportunity to research the 11-year-old info, and equal opportunity to plan and execute accordingly on launch night. That is where the equality ended, and the actual 'ability to implement the plan' came into play.
There's nothing about might-makes-right about it. If you want the camp you could go sit there and wait for whoever is there to F up and leave the camp unattended. You choose not to. You could camp out your character at the camp with some friends when you hear the server is going down to attempt to beat others to claiming the camp upon logging in. You choose not to. Hell, you could app to one of the guilds holding down the camp, help them out, and be the recipient of the loot when it drops, and then promptly gate and de-guild. Again, you choose not to.
Instead, in lieu of actually putting in the aforementioned effort to get the things you want, you'd rather just stroll up and decide it's your turn to have it. Now who's seemingly greedy?
It's all dependent on your own perspective I suppose.
|
Just because one can do somethng, doesn't mean one should.
There is indeed an element of might makes right here. When a group of people band together into a force strong enough and sustained enough to effectively deny other individuals or groups the opportunity to access a resource, I'd call it might makes right.
You give several examples of how "denied" individuals might work around the restrictions imposed by the "mighty". These are good ideas, but they don't have bearing on the argument of whether or not the "lock down" behaviors we are discussing are reasonable.