H
Harb
Guest
Fair enough. But EA/ Mythic/ dev also have responsibilities to the players that occasionally are actually ignored. An example might be Mythic moving UO's GM support to support the release of Warhammer. On the surface, yes, a resource reallocation. But perceived, and perceived correctly, as both discourteous and disrespectful to the folks who had vested years into a product (UO) for which Mythic also had oversight. In this case specifically, players make decisions on when, and how, to spend their money, money in addition to their monthly "dues." Consistency, and accuracy, is an expectation in such matters between a consumer and a professional corporation. I'll give you an example of a "little thing," that while it meant little to me, may have legitimately been a major irritant to someone else. I looked at a GGS chart on Stratics, and as it appeared to source from the UO playguide, took a look there as well. I was struggling putting taming on a character who basically is an archer, and post 100 the taming skill doesn't like to cooperate. The GGS chart, sourced from the playguide, told me I could dump 500 skill points onto soul stones, and get a GGS taming point every 8 hours. So I bought 5 soul stones and transferred the skills. Low and behold, the chart is wrong; I can gain .1 a day for that character, which was not what I spent $50 to be able to do.
Again, fair but open to interpretation. We want our team to talk to us, it’s a significant part of the overall player experience for many. Dev has considerations other than simply a desire to respond, production schedules, NDAs, legal review, staffing, etc, and yes, features that are envisioned may not make it through the QA process as originally planned. But brother Raph isn't really the best example to use; he went into a period of semi-public "reflection" once EA sent Gordon "Tyrant" Walton over to Austin to tighten a few things up a little, Raph included. So view what he said with a certain grain of salt
