Mark of Tanaka

[Mireille]

Perhaps if the moogle pre requisites were expressed in a more positive way they would be acceptable. Such as, defeating each NM adds a percentage increase to drop rate to weapons or guarantees for each player 1 nut per NM killed in the pre requisite.

They did. Kill the 5 NMs and you have a chance at a drop. If you are just helping your ls you don't have to kill the NMs. I think you may be on the right track with the idea that 1 NM might give you a 1% chance, and all 5 might give you a 5% chance. It then makes sense for each subsequent fight to grow harder in order to get that next 1%.

I am sure the dev's are stumped at the moment. The pre-requisites are no different than say Sky, Sea, ZNMs from 11 for example (farming something before an actual boss fight).

In sky and Sea you usually could find places to fight where agro wasn't an issue, and if you did get agro the link was something that an outside party could kill for you while the alliance was focused on the NM. The problem here is you can be instantly wiped by an EP mob that walks up behind you when the NM is 10%. They could have done it better by moving the Morbol and the Spriggan to a place more like the tree, monkey, or pig. Those were manageable fights, and the walk really is no different than sky events where you sneak through the shrine, or run on the edge of the path and not near the blue platforms. Someone always forgot, but they could run though a nearby door and zone, or you just raise them and move on. If you had to fight Faust in the corridor surrounded by magic agro and got wiped every time the whm cast cure on the tank people would have raised hell about it.

By laying the blame on a replaceable part of the process (A single man) It's far easier to assure consumers and stockholders that you have everything under control.

It's normal for a manager to take the blame for the rank and file employees mistakes. The rank and file can't make decisions on behalf of the company, and work under supervision that is supposed to prevent their mistakes from harming the company. When that fails the failure really does reflect a problem at a higher level, and that's what a board wants to see dealt with. Managers can be let go with a severance, and businesses will sometimes help the manager find a better job elsewhere which keeps it amicable and that benefits the business more than a messy breakup. This is just a talking point, and I'm in no way trying to say that's what SE did here.