![]() |
#121
|
|||
|
![]() On any full server respawn, all guilds are limited to two raid mob kills for 12 hours. This limitation does not apply to mobs that are exclusive to a Class.
Anyone who is wrongfully accusing (my opinion) that FE/IB is taking advantage of a loophole needs to get their brain checked or repeat elementary school. It is very clear. Let's read it again. On any full server respawn, all guilds are limited to two raid mob kills for 12 hours. This limitation does not apply to mobs that are exclusive to a Class. Still clear. It tells us exactly who, what, when, how many and for how long. If you don't like the rule, why not bring it to your guild leadership to discuss in the raid discussion forum? It would be far more productive than trying to form a PAC among the community (who largely doesn't care) to garner support for your cause. This thread started as please clarify why something is allowed. It's perfectly clear based on the rules. It took too many posts for this to be said.
__________________
[52 Disciple] Downgrade (Human) <Azure Guard>
[31 Druid] Edarg (Halfling) | ||
Last edited by drktmplr12; 01-23-2014 at 12:15 PM..
Reason: wording
|
|
#122
|
|||
|
![]() The bag limit is the issue here however I feel that with there being only what 3 (?) sim repops so far, it is too small of sample size to determine if anything needs to be overhauled.
Maybe after another week or two of the current ruleset, the bag limit can be looked at if it still feels 'unfair' | ||
|
#123
|
||||
|
![]() I don't get why you guys keep approaching this with the attitude that its a problem that needs solving or some kind of issue for the server to discuss. Nothing IB and FE are doing is outside the rules. The only "problem" here is that you guys are upset about the end result of a situation you had a very large part of creating in the first place.
Quote:
This has nothing to do with fairness and a lot to do with you guys still wanting to control the pixel flow on the server in any way you can. Also if you're so concerned about the rules why is this in server chat instead of the forum they set up specifically for guilds to discuss things like this? You guys could easily have gone in there and tried to get a calm and respectful dialogue going between guilds and the staff, but instead you decided to post it here hoping there would be some kind of community outcry of support and the raising of pitchforks to demand change.
__________________
| |||
|
#124
|
|||
|
![]() I see it being unfair when it plays out like this.
Server repop happens 1. IB/FE team up to go after the two highest priority targets (they fail because TMO is faster) 2. Now they get to split up and take 4 open world targets. 1. Say IB/FE teams up on the two highest priority targets and beats TMO 2. TMO is still limited to only 2 open world targets Just remove the bag limit. Several other guild have proven to be capable of getting targets when they try.
__________________
![]() | ||
|
#125
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
They (IB/FE) get 4 targets. 4/2= 2 per guild yet when you talk about your guild you used words "still limited to only" but it is still the same number that each IB and FE get. They are not getting more targets than you guys because they are separate guilds. They want to stack the deck to beat you guys on the normal/VP spawns because that works in both guilds best interest. I agree though, the bag limit if any is the problem. Figure out how to fix this via the bag limit rules, not break up guild alliances. | |||
|
#126
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
wat Also in your example IB/FE teaming up to try to ensure they get the two high priority targets would mean they share the bag limit on those mobs. Theyd end up trading an additional target each to be part of the kills on the priority mobs. What exactly about that situation is unfair?
__________________
| |||
|
#127
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() | |||
Last edited by Lammy; 01-23-2014 at 12:34 PM..
|
|
#128
|
|||||
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
You clearly hate the rule. We get it.
__________________
[52 Disciple] Downgrade (Human) <Azure Guard>
[31 Druid] Edarg (Halfling) | ||||
|
#129
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
[52 Disciple] Downgrade (Human) <Azure Guard>
[31 Druid] Edarg (Halfling) | |||
|
#130
|
|||
|
![]() Im going to drive to EL and cockpunch you Jeremy. Per Paladins request.
| ||
|
![]() |
|
|