To make this point .... clear the above is just your opinion it is not fact. There are many indicators that suggest that things are NOT as they are said to be.
No Enigma, I've transferred pets between my tamers countless times since the change and not once has it affected them negatively. There are bugs in publishes and situations where fixes are required, but I have seen no evidence of any issue which can be directly attributed to the number of owners a pet had. The way I transfer pets I should have been among the first to observe and report it.
Pets going from Wonderfully happy to Rather Happy in under 5 minutes with multiple successful commands being issues is just one .... fact that demonstrates the stated thing is not ... always true.
No, it demonstrates that we have a bug in the system that has recently caused some loyalty issues, but we're not able to see the code and point to the number of owners section as the cause. I haven't experienced this issue to forward the info to EA, but a possible bug doesn't transform a published change into an opinion.
Pets NOT bonding in 7 days, that MANY EXPERIENCED TAMERS have experienced demonstrates that things are not always true.
Sometimes this can be a bugged pet, or there may be a glitch in the code, but even the most experienced tamer can make a mistake and feed just a bit early. The OP's post suggested that the pet had been fed during the 7 days, which is why I recommended keeping it stabled and trying in a few days then trying an 8 day stabling to rule out a timer reset. Because in my experience with pet bonding that has resolved the few problems I've had with a pet bond.
Rather than pound your opinion of what is fact or not, why don't YOU offer the OP a reason for their experience.
Oh come on Enigma, the only person I see here getting to the point of pounding anything is yourself, and it's completely unnecessary. Perhaps you should write to the devs and suggest that instead of "publish notes" they re-name things "opinions", but until then I'm going to refer to a published change as just that.
Regardless of your opinion, at least I have offered an explanation that can account for the observation the OP has posted.
And I suggested trying to bond with the pet again because I wanted to rule out an accidental timer reset.
The fact that you can NOT accept that things change in the game is hardly a reason to dismiss a possibility.
I dismissed nothing Enigma. Dismissive people don't ask questions if they're sure nothing is wrong with the code. But I don't call "bug" on a pet bond unless I'm sure that issues like player skill or human error aren't the cause instead.
The fact that you can NOT accept that some times unintended code gets implemented or code gets implemented with unintended consequences is hardly a reason to dismiss a possibility.
Find a post of mine where I state that there are no bugs in UO and you can have a cookie
Nobody is crazy enough to say UO is bug free, least of all me. But I don't immediately jump to conclusions that a bug is the cause unless I've ruled out the simpler causes first. That's all.
The fact that you pull some antiquated post up and dogmatically use it to try to beat everyone into submission is hardly a reason anyone should dismiss a possibility.
Actually, it went something like this... I posted something which was contrary to something you posted and you reacted badly. I'm not responsible for wrapping you up in cotton wool while you're here, and I don't have to lie back and take your responses without comment either. If my posts bother you so much, just skip over them.
Now, it's Friday and I don't want to get out the fire hose or padlock. Mkay?
Wenchy
)